12-01-2014, 11:25 AM
Not sure where to put this, but fuck it, this'll do. Regarding the convo in the grumblebox, and previous manifold instances where we've brought this up, about the show's recent propensity towards TELLING not SHOWING. (Stuart's little dead-man paean to the wonders of the Lennui, for example)
This is an excerpt from the brilliantly arsy little book by the cranky and erudite Howard Mittelmark and Sandra Newman, on "How Not To Write A Novel". It reminds me terribly of the current TBBT trend...
![[Image: how-not-to-write-a-novel1.jpg]](http://www.badidea.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/how-not-to-write-a-novel1.jpg)
SAID THE FASCINATING MAN. (Where the author tells you what you think of his dialogue)
"It broke in through the window, bringing with it a characteristic fishy odor," said the gifted raconteur. "Soon we were all pressed up against the wall, trying to save ourselves," he added terrifyingly.
"What was it? A burglar with really bad breath?" asked the hilarious boy.
"No," said the stranger with a mesmerizing facility with words. "It was not."
"Was it a fish?" the girl said eloquently.
"No! No fish, this!" the man said poetically.
Do not try to manipulate the reader into finding a character's dialogue fascinating , amazing, frightening, or humorous by announcing it has these qualities. If the dialogue isn't fascinating, claiming that it is will annoy the reader. Even when the quality asserted really exists, pointing it out undermines the effect.
THE CHEERLEADER (Wherein a sidekick exists solely to admire the hero)
"I'll really miss you when I go, Melinda," said Ephemera, the temp. "These seven hours we've spent together have been the most fun I had in a long time. Temping sucks."
"Oh, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Melinda joked.
Ephemera took a second to get it, then erupted in gales of laughter. Her eyes gleamed with mirth and admiration as she said, "Such a pretty girl, and with a sense of humor too!"
"Yeah, but it is too bad you have to go back to the temping twilight zone," Melinda said. "Anyway, no peace for the wicked."
The temp sighed appreciatively. "Wow, that's so true," she said. "I never looked at it in quite that way before."
"And you can often do more in humble surroundings."
"Wow, you're right. I have a feeling this conversation is going to change my view of things forever."
The author here is replacing actual witty or profound remarks from the protagonist with a bit character who is so easily impressed that she appears mildly psychotic. This is a subtle instance of "The Underpants Gnomes": the author knows what kind of person she wants the character to be, but she is not doing the work to get the reader from here to there. Making another character laugh louder does not make the dialogue funnier. Characters like this often have the same relationship to the "Onanism" plot that blow-up dolls have to actual onanism.
The writer here has two options: she can work harder, or she can allow that the character is only as clever or funny as the character actually is.
This is an excerpt from the brilliantly arsy little book by the cranky and erudite Howard Mittelmark and Sandra Newman, on "How Not To Write A Novel". It reminds me terribly of the current TBBT trend...
SAID THE FASCINATING MAN. (Where the author tells you what you think of his dialogue)
"It broke in through the window, bringing with it a characteristic fishy odor," said the gifted raconteur. "Soon we were all pressed up against the wall, trying to save ourselves," he added terrifyingly.
"What was it? A burglar with really bad breath?" asked the hilarious boy.
"No," said the stranger with a mesmerizing facility with words. "It was not."
"Was it a fish?" the girl said eloquently.
"No! No fish, this!" the man said poetically.
Do not try to manipulate the reader into finding a character's dialogue fascinating , amazing, frightening, or humorous by announcing it has these qualities. If the dialogue isn't fascinating, claiming that it is will annoy the reader. Even when the quality asserted really exists, pointing it out undermines the effect.
THE CHEERLEADER (Wherein a sidekick exists solely to admire the hero)
"I'll really miss you when I go, Melinda," said Ephemera, the temp. "These seven hours we've spent together have been the most fun I had in a long time. Temping sucks."
"Oh, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Melinda joked.
Ephemera took a second to get it, then erupted in gales of laughter. Her eyes gleamed with mirth and admiration as she said, "Such a pretty girl, and with a sense of humor too!"
"Yeah, but it is too bad you have to go back to the temping twilight zone," Melinda said. "Anyway, no peace for the wicked."
The temp sighed appreciatively. "Wow, that's so true," she said. "I never looked at it in quite that way before."
"And you can often do more in humble surroundings."
"Wow, you're right. I have a feeling this conversation is going to change my view of things forever."
The author here is replacing actual witty or profound remarks from the protagonist with a bit character who is so easily impressed that she appears mildly psychotic. This is a subtle instance of "The Underpants Gnomes": the author knows what kind of person she wants the character to be, but she is not doing the work to get the reader from here to there. Making another character laugh louder does not make the dialogue funnier. Characters like this often have the same relationship to the "Onanism" plot that blow-up dolls have to actual onanism.
The writer here has two options: she can work harder, or she can allow that the character is only as clever or funny as the character actually is.
"WHERE THE HELL'S MY PARACHUTE?"