How to create a scene for a dialogue?

Question

Everybody knows how an important part of writing is the ability to compose proper dialogue. I've even heard that publishers tend to jump to the first conversation in a received draft and see if it works. This makes sense to me as nothing sets a reader further from the story than unnatural dialogue.

There are plenty of videos, articles and even questions on this site covering the topic. They usually focus on making characters' speeches organic. People often wonder about hero's lines presenting their personality or how to make them unique.

One would also easily find texts regarding the flow of dialogue. About the hidden conflicts and pushing the action forward. How they impact the plot.

In other words there is a lot of coverage of actual words being said in dialogue.

I have concern about another part of the matter: the background. The didascalies. The description of the second plan.

It comes from self-analysis of my own writing. I've noticed that in my stories conversations tend to have a repetitive setting. They usually happen at a coffee shop or in a park. Characters sit, eat or walk. It all comes from my own experiences as I tend to chat in such circumstances.

While writing I always try to expand the actual meaning of a dialogue with descriptions. A person being nervous will spill some wine. Characters having some mystery would hide their hands. A guilty individual can point a finger at himself.

I'm starting to feel though like I wander around a very small room, if it makes any sense. Following the aforementioned settings, it seems like all of my dialogue is the compilation of finite and quite small pack of activities. It's like I have a bunch of metaphors, all surrounding benches and tables, and I use them over and over again.

At this point I want to break out of this limited room. I would like my dialogue to vary as far as my imagination can reach. I want to use symbolism that is unique to the scene. I want each of my dialogues to be a fresh story.

I hope that makes sense to you. Thank you for reaching the end of my question and if any advice or thought comes to your mind, please share it.

Answer 1

I've been told by professional critics my dialogue is excellent.

Within a single story, I try to never have a conversation in the same place twice. Sometimes this is truly unavoidable; but usually it is not.

I am extremely conscious of "talking heads" syndrome; in which the conversation becomes a half page or a page of just quoted text, to the point the reader's imagination turns off and it is just like a talk show on TV, two disembodied heads talking at each other. This is boring.

I just hate having my characters sit and talk at each other. As much as possible, I have them talk while doing something else. It doesn't have to be important, but their hands are not idle. They could be washing dishes, playing cards, throwing darts, walking with the scenery changing, watching a movie, working, eating together, walking through a trade show or museum, whatever. But it is not static, change of some sort is going on, even if it is unimportant change.

For me, that is all the metaphor I need; change. Conversation exists to change something. Sure, if somebody is nervous, they may spill their wine or fumble their coffee cup, but I don't find that necessary.

"Talking Heads" is a sign of an under-imagined scene. The conversation takes place in a setting, and to break up dialogue I intersperse the lines with descriptions of the setting as it changes.

The job of the writer is to assist the imagination of the reader, to make sure the reader is seeing, at least approximately, the movie reel playing in the writer's head. The reader needs this assist relatively constantly, a description lasts only ten seconds or so. 40 to 60 words. The length of this paragraph.

That is how often you need to prompt imagery, hit the refresh button on the imagination. You want visual imagery throughout the read, no exceptions.

I try to never have a conversation in the same place twice for my own convenience: It is easier to imagine a new place than to try and come up with new stuff to describe in Charlene's office, once I have already described Charlene's office for a previous conversation!

If the plot makes a place the only sensible place to hold a second conversation, I may resort to something else going on IN that place.

From an insider point of view this may seem like an obvious literary device, that my conversations are never in the same place twice, when in real life we may hold three conversations a day in the kitchen alone. But none of my outspoken readers, ready and willing and encouraged to criticize anything that seems weird, have ever even mentioned this as a thing. I think it flies under the radar, and it gives you the freedom to thoroughly embed your characters in a visualized setting, with action, doing something, without boring the reader with describing the same place a second time, or a third time.

I would also follow the "Hollywood" maxim for dialogue as exposition: The more expository, explanatory, or background-y the dialogue is, the more noisy and exciting the background is. Tell it at a circus, a raucous Pride Parade, during a heated political protest. Have it shouted on a roller coaster. It gets told while our characters are being shot at and fleeing. While they are dangerously free-climbing a cliff. (And now that I've told you, you may notice it in movies. Sorry.)

Answer 2

Motives!

You are choosing natural places to talk. In order to move to more unusual ones, you need to give character motives to talk elsewhere -- or possibly create characters who would have motives to talk elsewhere. Two hikers talking on a mountain trail. The client and the employee while one is doing the other one's nails. Two people in a courtroom waiting to fight their traffic tickets.

One advantage this gives is that it offers chances at raising stakes by the place. If two employees are arguing down the stairs and out of the building to the carpark, they have a limited time to work with.

One disadvantage is that you can forget it and have the characters talk as if in a coffee shop over a table, which not only throws away the setting but makes it look stupid. If they are hiking, bridges, trees, muddy spots, songbirds flying by, on the path may all feature.

Answer 3

Conversations in repetitive settings isn't necessarily a problem. Although it is a television programme, think of 'Friends'.

Conversations about repetitive topics can be.

Maybe think about what you want a piece of dialogue to show a reader and then think where it might take place. Do you want to show Denise as a bully at work? Is the purpose to show Bill is paranoid? Why does Janet hate Jill? Can Sarah convince herself to dump Bronwyn?

Can I suggest you avoid words like 'didascalies' in questions?

Consider what your story needs instead of what you usually do. Stories are not real life: they aren't documentaries. They are constructed. Could your characters meet in a lift that breaks down, a bus queue or a doctor's surgery? If so, the dynamics are changed.

Can they message each other instead of speaking?