A few days ago, I quoted tips from Les Edgerton's book here. He graciously wrote back on my comments. Since I only highlighted sections of his book, I probably didn't make it as clear as I could have, but he helped by putting this:
I'd like to correct a misconception that seems to have arisen, if I may. I'm not advocating that stories don't begin with dialog. What I weigh in against is beginning with a line or more of dialog where the speaker and/or the addressee isn't identified, or the context of the dialog doesn't make it clear who's speaking and to whom. That's where the problem is--not that it begins with dialog per se. Beginning with dialog in that manner means the reader has to read further to figure out all that, and then backtrack in her mind to make sense of the dialog she's just read, and that means the fictive dream has been interrupted, a definite no-no. For instance, if a story begins with a snatch of dialog like this: "She may turn left at the next light." then we know nothing about the speaker, who that person's speaking to, or what her sentence is about. That's what I mean by not beginning with dialog. However, if that same sentence is written this way: The perp was getting away. We'd almost lost her. "She may turn right at the next light, Barry," I said. "Be prepared." Then that works. (Admittedly, neither of those represent great beginnings, but I'm writing this on the fly. I just wanted to show the distinction. I'm not against opening with dialog in the least, nor are editors/agents et al--it's opening with dialog that doesn't let the reader know the circumstances and who the speaker is. There are also instances where even though we don't know the speakers, we can get from the context of the dialog what's going on. As in: "I wouldn't mind going to bed with her, Ralph, but then I'd have to touch her." Something like that doesn't necessarily need dialog tags or setup, etc. Make sense? I just want to make sure that folks don't misunderstand and think that I or any agent/editor is against opening with dialog--that's not the case at all. It's dialog which requires the reader to have to backtrack in their mind a bit further on in the read that's a no-no. Hope that helps clarify this! Blue skies--Les Edgerton
I have appreciated your blog! I also wanted to express to you how much I have enjoyed your comments on my blog! You have made my day seem brighter and my future has hope! I hope you have a terrific new year....best wishes, E-
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Elizabeth! Now if you could just teach me how to take those great photos.
ReplyDeleteGreat clarification. I love, love, love that he's chiming in on the conversation about his book--that's so cool!
ReplyDeletewww.sarahnoelsmusings.blogspot.com
So many great points. I haven't started with dialog with any of my books because I thought it was a big no-no... then again A Great and Terrible Beauty does and it's one of my faves. Thanks for sharing this, and also for checking out my almost kiss today :)
ReplyDeleteHow awesome to have this open dialogue with him. And thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteCatherine, you and your readers are so gracious! It's a pleasure to be "in this room." One thing I'd like to say, is that most of us became writers because we're readers and that means we're actually fairly practiced writers already, even if some of us haven't been published yet. What that means--if you have been a lifetime reader--is that your writing instincts are probably well-honed and reliable. I always tell my students that when push comes to shove, trust your instincts--they're probably more reliable than advice others give you,whether in books or wherever. Also, keep in mind that whenever you encounter a "rule" or piece of advice (from me in my books, anyway), I always try to give it with the qualifier that the advice is for the person yet to be published and is intended to help avoid as many of those dreaded red flags that can lead to a rejection. A writer with a following in place--a brand name--can break many rules and still get published, and that sometimes leads newer writers to emulate that and say, "Well, Stephen King does that in ___, so why can't I?" The reason is, King has a huge audience in place and he could send in his grocery list and probably get it published. We can't. Make sense? (Although King wouldn't break rules on purpose--he follows most of the conventions of writing, which is one reason he keeps getting published.) Also, no book has yet been published that is perfect, and that means that, yes, in Novel XXX, there are mistakes or places where the rules are broken. But, something else was so good or powerful that it overrode the errors or places where bad writing occurred. For instance, the voice may be so compelling that a number of errors were overlooked because of the strength of that voice. Or, the plot was so engaging that character depiction was flawed, etc. Any number of things like that. My aim has always been to help writers deliver the best mss possible, and avoid reasons for an agent/editor to reject it. Sorry this is so long! But, you guys really rock and I'm delighted to share a bit with such a knowledgeable and intelligent group. One last thing about "rules." Until "Harry Potter" was published, the "wisdom" in publishing was fiercely against books with a teenaged male protagonist of longer than say 80-120 pages. Not to mention that teen male protagonists was the single-hardest-to-get-published books out there. Didn't everyone know boys never read? I guess it's a good thing that J.K. Rowling didn't listen to the "rules..." Y'all be good now and keep writing!
ReplyDeleteHello Cathrine. I realy enjoy your blogs and would like to take this oppertunity to wish you and your family a BLESSED 2010. This particular post has been most enlightening, especialy for someone like myself who has never even dreamed of writing a book. I would also like to extend my thanks to Les Edgerton for his input, thank you may God bless you and your family in 2010.
ReplyDeleteMr. Egderton, thanks again for being generous with your wisdom. I love getting tips.
ReplyDeleteGeoff, thank you and the same to yours.