Exercise #6 - The Dialogue

[jackrabbit]

The rules for this one, while simple, probably were not very clear, and it led to a delay in the process.

Rules:
Write a dialogue between no more than two characters per scene.
Must be at least 2 pages long

Mine turned out longer than I’d expected, and I had to do some hefty edits from my original idea for the story. Mine isn’t strictly dialogue, but I limited it to two people talking. I had to go back and make some edits again to meet that rule.

Ned’s story should also be posted soon. Hope you enjoy it!

The Exit Row (http://write.jckrbbt.com/docs/the_exit_row.pdf)

[Tick]

Are you guys coming up with the challenges or whatever you're calling them (assignments? not sure) yourselves, or is this from some sort of guide? Also, will try to read later today.

[jackrabbit]

We sort of just brainstorm the exercises until one of us comes up with something both of us agree to. So far it hasn't been too difficult. When you know you're only stuck to a few pages, it's pretty easy to write about anything.

Oddly, we're both doing these to help us write longer stories, and I don't think either of us have made much progress on those since we began the exercises.

[Creole Ned]

Yeah, originally I wanted to use the exercises to goose a short story I started way back in September 2007. It's still unfinished. :P But the exercises have been useful and interesting for me, both by keeping me in the writing groove and challenging me to write with specific conditions and deadlines. The feedback is crucial, too, especially when jackrabbit has keyed in on the same problems I have found in my writing. It's a nice way to validate your ability to self-critique.

The exercises I've proposed have been ones I've thought up or read about in magazines, books or on a website (there's a few sites with generators for story titles and situations that can yield results that range from usable to so very very awful (http://write.jckrbbt.com/?p=62)), so the inspiration has been from all over.

My writing schedule for this year is much more ambitious than last year. I'll see if I can keep to it.

[Creole Ned]

And here's my dialogue, At the Door (http://creolened.com/fiction/at_the_door.pdf). jackrabbit's initial reaction:

Jesus fuck, man.
I can't even read stuff like that.
Jesus.
it may as well have been pedophelia.
I don't even know if I can review that story,
I'm all about not-happy-endings, but that...
It's no Empire Strikes Back.

EDIT: Here's a second version (http://creolened.com/fiction/at_the_door_alt.pdf) of my story with an alternate ending (the last two paragraphs are changed). This is the "happy" version. See which you prefer!

[Creole Ned]

Like a kid with a stick poking a hornet's nest, I can't leave it alone.

Here's version #3 (http://creolened.com/fiction/at_the_door_3.pdf) of my exercise. In this version Tom explicitly explains the clicks that Janice hears is him unloading the gun and you see the bullets on the dresser. There is no "click" at the end and Tom is smiling when he pulls the trigger. The idea is to suggest that he is not really going through with the act at the end but is just being a big ol' jerkface.

My self-review would be that I consider my piece decent but as a dialogue it's a bit of a failure. It's more of a monologue by Tom with Janice serving as the means for him to talk about himself. The book Tom references is an actual RCMP manual I saw at a friend's years ago and it was indeed filled with many gruesome black & white photos of suicides. You'd be amazed at the methods some people use to kill themselves. We ain't talking going gently into that good night here.

With exercises like these, I often dash off a few sentences to see if something clicks. I had initially interpreted the exercise literally, writing *only* dialogue. Here's what I first came up with:

“This isn’t going to work.”
“Have some faith.”
“The last time I had faith the apartment caught on fire.”
“That wasn’t my fault. No one could have predicted the stove would explode.”

Didn't have a clue where to take this, so I moved on to:

“Hello? Are you there?”
“I’m here.”
“Can I come in?”
“I want to be alone right now.”
“You sure? I brought pie.”

I couldn't think of how to follow up on the pie but I did eventually return to this idea for the final version of the exercise.

My last major attempt was longer and again was all dialogue:

“I don’t expect you to co-operate but we have to go through this. Do you understand? Don’t nod, speak to me.”
“Yes.”
“All right. On Wednesday the 12th at 7:30 p.m., where were you?”
“I was at home.”
“Your apartment, #255-1305 Welch Street?”
“Yes.”
“And you have witnesses that can verify this?”
“I told you, yes.”
“One of these witnesses is your roommate, Samuel Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs claims you were not home at the given time.”
“Sam gets a lot of things mixed up.”
“Why is that?”
“He’s not very smart.”
“He says he was watching a movie and you had left because it was a ‘chick flick’.”
“Yeah, it was Hitch. I like Will Smith but only when he’s kicking someone’s ass, not that Dr. Phil shit.”
“So you did, in fact, leave because of the movie?”
“I didn’t say that. I stayed in my room.”
“What were you doing?”
“I was jerking off.”
“It will be easier if you answer the questions honestly.”
“I am.”
“I see. So you spent several hours masturbating, then? That is an impressive show of stamina.”
“Yeah, I can go all night, it’s pretty amazing.”
“I’m not sure why you think this is funny.”
“It’s funny because you are wasting your time with all your questions when the guy you want is dead.”
“Dead?”
“Yeah.”
“Could you elaborate on that?”
“Maybe if I had some fancy lawyer here.”
“You already waived your right to an attorney.”
“Maybe I changed my mind.”
“You want an attorney?”
“Nah, I’m just messing with ya. But yeah, the guy you want is dead.”
“Can you explain how?”
“You just keep asking your questions. Maybe that’ll work better for you.”
This one got hung up when I couldn't decide what the actual crime was. Having the alleged perp ID a dead guy as the real culprit also presented a complication I wasn't sure how to resolve, but I've always wanted to write an interrogation scene, so there it is.

When I wrote At the Door, it was after jackrabbit had better explained the exercise to me, so the main rule I followed was to not telegraph the character's emotions through description but to let the dialogue carry the emotion instead.

I'll put down my thoughts on jackrabbit's piece in a follow-up post.

[jackrabbit]

I actually like the feel, flow, and dialogue of the interrogation. I much prefer the happy, flowery tone of it to At The Door.

About At The Door, I like that the characters never actually see each other, and so you can't rely on conveying the mannerisms and expressions of at least one of them. I also think, as usual, your dialogue is more realistic than anything I'm capable of, and it still makes me ant to kill you. Particularly since I feel my own exercise on the problem is wooden and perhaps overly clever (though I probably would say those kinds of things. I'm legally 437% more clever than the average person. Which makes up for being only 15% as intelligent).

As my initial response indicates, there's certain things I simply don't care to indulge in books, film, or otherwise. Some other examples are drug use, adultery, and anything with Ben Stiller. Your topic, oddly enough, is one I don't like to read about in anything more than a clinical manner.

Aside from that, I think it's a solid piece and typical quality compared to your other exercises. By that I mean that it's very good and I like it from a mechanical standpoint.

I'm still hoping to hear back from anyone else whom I sent the exercise to, and I'd love to get their comments on this or any other exercise. Also, if any other Martians would like to try any of these, you're encouraged to join us.

[Creole Ned]

The Exit Row:

First, the title is indeed clever, so jackrabbit starts the story with cleverness maxed out. Where do you go from there? To 30,000 feet, baby.

As I read the story I felt the dialogue from Tanner felt a bit fake. This was ironic because as it turns out, it *is* fake. It still didn't quite jibe with me even after the reveal at the end, although I still found it amusing. The character of Gregg comes off better here, with her perfunctory but friendly manner nicely conveyed. I suspect someone working in textiles really would get those kinds of questions.

The parts I liked best were the descriptions concerning the flight, the duffel bags falling out of overhead storage like corpses, the way the plane lurches, the growing tension among the passengers.

Overall, I thought this was an average piece for the bunny, falling below the pitch-perfect parody of ROTH and the deliciously smart Muriel Goes to Dartmouth.

[Creole Ned]

Are you guys coming up with the challenges or whatever you're calling them (assignments? not sure) yourselves, or is this from some sort of guide? Also, will try to read later today.
Emphasis added.

Calling out Tick, applying public pressure, preparing pitchfork and/or torches.

[Tick]

Sorry, got busy later that day and forgot about reading these.

Three word reviews:

JR's is good.

Jesus Christ, Ned.

Getting a bit more serious.

JR's had good pacing, and the reveal was pretty well done. The female character seems pretty well realized considering the brevity of the story, and the conversation seems pretty natural.

Ned's is very well done. The ending is handled well, the obstacle of the door puts the entire focus on the dialog in a way that otherwise might feel odd, like the details of the people had been ignored.

i'm a pretty terrible critic, tho, so that's about all I can add. you are both monumentally better writers than I can claim to be, for what that's worth.

[Creole Ned]

Out of curiosity, which of my million versions of At the Door did you read? The original?

And all feedback is appreciated. :)

[Tick]

I read the original, yes.

[jackrabbit]

Max&Sophie (http://write.jckrbbt.com/docs/max_sophie.pdf) by Pete

Pete:
The script-like presentation is interesting and faster/less tedious that a "he said", "she asked" formula, but kind of paints you into a corner when a third character arrives and you can't narrate it in that format. No one's been judged too harshly on breaking rules here, though.

Sophie seems kind of talky, insecure, and annoying at first. It's not till halfway that you see it's an intentional defense mechanism. I liked that you let it develop rather than state it out front.

A lot of the dialogue is clever; some might say too clever. I remember Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was judged on how clever and unnatural the banter was, and I know I have friends that really have conversations like this. It doesn't bother me, but it might bother some.

I really enjoy the developments of the characters and the pace and progression of the conversation. The pauses and redirects are very indicative or organic speech.

Nicely done!