 |
| I'd quite like a hat like this. |
I've been watching Netflix's The Haunting of Hill House, which is very loosely inspired by Shirley Jackson's 1959 novel of the same name. Both the TV show and the book are highly acclaimed, and both, I think, have serious problems. In both of them, the dialogue feels wrong.
In the TV show, characters seem to communicate important information in monologues. That is to say, they basically go off on one for several minutes, usually with shouting and/or crying involved, and nobody really responds or tries to interrupt. It's really weird.
"Do I want a cup of tea? Yes, please. My father gave me a cup of tea once, the night that we first saw the statues move. I remember it well: a the storm raged outside and at 8.30pm, I..."
It's not quite that bad, but not far off at times. People just don't talk like that. They might do in stage plays, where internal thoughts have to be explained to the viewer, but I don't think it's really needed in TV drama ( the question "Is this a dagger I see before me?" would probably be answered with a special effect these days).
The novel has its own problems with dialogue. Everyone is very flippant and delivers their lines as witty repartee, no matter what horrific things they've just experienced. It's like one of those black and white films where bitchy starlets crack wise at parties. And if you've just met the living dead, it doesn't sound convincing*.
 |
| "... which was jolly." |
Which gets me (neatly) to the importance of dialogue. Anyone who's not writing in the modern era - or about people in unusual circumstances, such as a haunted house - has to make a decision as to how the dialogue is going to work. Too "normal" and it will jar with the setting. Too strange and it will be hard to follow.
Someone once said to me "You can tell when the Space Marines are talking, because they say 'do not' instead of 'don't'." Personally, I'm not a great fan of "heroic" speech, as it loses a lot of nuance (except when Suruk the Slayer is using it. He's naturally epic).
 |
| "Let none dispute my epicness." |
When I wrote Up To The Throne - and other fantasy - I tried to use normal conversational English, taking out obvious Americanisms and Britishisms. It was surprisingly hard writing a novel about the criminal underworld without using "yeah"! I also took out all words with a real-world significance: the days of the week have different names, although there is still a sabbath, and there are no Christophers - and no sods.
Writing Space Captain Smith, in which a lot of the jokes are in the dialogue, makes me realise how important it is to get the speech just right. As to whether I've got the new book right, well, we shall see...
*On the off-chance it's of interest, I reviewed the novel HERE
I love Suruk's dialogue. The most charismatic character in SCS, and I think largely because of his unique perspective on the oddness of humans and the complete normality of violence and slaughter, largely communicated through the things he takes for granted and is taken by surprise by - or through his manner of speech.
ReplyDeleteThe 'translation' of proper names and metaphor into fantasy setting intrigues me. I gave it a good go building an alternate non-earth arthurianesque culture some years ago and I think Scott Lynch gets the closest in terms of successful conversion. China Mieville goes much deeper, but the result is often something that is hard to read, so I think there's a sweet spot, as you imply, between novelty and familiarity.
Thanks! I find Suruk hugely entertaining and surprisingly easy to write, and at times I have to deliberately ease back from featuring him too much.
DeleteThe translation thing is tricky. I agree that there's a real balancing point. Lynch does do a good job, although I find that the characters do talk a lot like modern Americans. But as you say, that particular point is hard to get, and probably varies between readers.