According to the sociologist Goffman any conversation has an inherent chance of failure, or may lack effective communication. The words, therefore, must be chosen carefully.
But we only have words.
First, on many occasions the words may be replaced by other signs (wink, five fingers raised, V for victory ...) as effective.
Secondly, in addition to the words and symbols used, numerous other elements (facial expressions, interjections, quotes, smiles, nods and denials) are the backbone of the box. We are so accustomed to use them (we primates are visual animals especially) to use continuously in SMS and e-mail to those pale imitations that are emoticons.
NB these essential elements of communication are an important part of so-called engraved narrative of the dialogue (but to be '! - Agata accompanied the invitation with a tongue.)
But what is the role of narrative dialogue?
aside for now what I will call the "dialogue of service," the only useful to outline actions and behaviors ("Pass me the hammer ',' Toh), the dialogue is a highly refined form of the narrative, in which two or most people use " an appropriate form to express different feelings and discuss opposing ideas." (Aa vv Dictionary of rhetoric and style, UTET)
Oversimplified, we stick with the first part of the definition, leaving the second in a more philosophical. Ma questo non è del tutto vero: pensiamo alla scena clou di un romanzo nel quale sia trattato un tema come la segregazione razziale. Il dialogo/confronto di idee, organizzate in ideologie, può costituire l’acme della vicenda e contemporaneamente svelare tantissimo dei vari personaggi; un dialogo del genere costituisce un elemento imprescindibile sia della descrizione sia dell’intreccio.
Ovviamente una simile scelta narrativa rischia di essere volta a convincere senza suscitare la reale partecipazione del lettore.
Trascuriamo il polpettone eroico/politico, almeno nella sua variante più ideologica e fermiamoci alla prima parte della definizione, quella sottolineata.
Il pregio delle definizioni very successful is to be vague in the right measure. Unquestionably, in a novel (and in most of the stories) the 'mixed feelings' are the basis for an effective and engaging narrative. This kind of comparison is called dialectic, at least for those who have put Marx (Hegel and his dad) in the attic ... I am here still attached. However
: conflicting views from which descend conducted divergent are the basis of everything. Try to write a novel in which everyone thinks the same way and make the same choices!
Perhaps it would be an interesting attempt by the experimental point of view, or perhaps it could stand up in a dystopian novel ... But in this case, the narrative should presupporre un qualche forma di dissidenza/ resistenza/zona oscura… Altrimenti perché scrivere una storia? Una distopia a cui nessuno, nemmeno un solo personaggio, vuole opporsi non è raccontabile.
A questo punto mi sembra sufficientemente assodato che:
1 – Un dialogo efficace si avvale di segnali anche non strettamente verbali che, non facendo teatro, devono essere resi (o sottintesi, o evocati, o suggeriti) nel corso del testo.
2 – Un dialogo efficace è fatto di forme sottostanti (ringrazio ancora Goffman), ovvero di parole non dette («Che ore sono?» – «[Sono] Le undici» e di interiezioni («Che ore sono?» – "Gee! [I] The eleven! ")
3 - An effective dialogue is based on actual or apparent differences of perception. The dialogue is an attempt to reach a common position, or alternatively, to establish an insane differences.
pause for a moment on the step 2.
Pirandello is one of the Italian authors who have made a more prudent and designed to evoke plenty of interjections, as far as possible, the language spoken. Warning: summon, not repeating. Enrico Testa (The simple style, Einaudi 1996) quotes from The Late Mattia Pascal
"Here, here! Look! Look! See! Sa. You know? Go 'way! Really. So. Go good! I do not know ... A bit '...' And
Pirandello had to be clear about the boundaries between gender and narrative theater ...
Reading Pirandello poses a big - very big - problem. What should be "natural" dialogue? That is, as you can make to perfection early dialogue between the caretaker and Mrs. Luis on the fourth floor which leads to walk the dog?
Certainly the words are not enough. You probably need to use only certain elements, ignoring the underlying shapes in the text ("[But since] you are beautiful? - Asked Luis to the dog ...", make facial expressions through the etched and administer I look forward with determination interjections. You probably need to be a great writer ...
Perec in an attempt to exhaust a Parisian site has consciously eliminated the filter of the narrator (proposing it to a different level, but that's another story ...) to illustrate and describe everything he saw. And Nicholson Baker, mentioned by Max in his hand, had more or less the same thing, describing everything, absolutely everything that passes by the head of a character who is not doing anything memorable.
For me these are two great, fascinating (and tenaciously pursued) flasks narrative.
change the subject (apparently).
the silence.
A dialogue is made more or less long silences, punctuated by words.
The music is made of silence and then waited. In the dialogues there are expectations. Not only: some gestures denoting anxious moods in relation to "what answer" and "What I respond." These moods are often described directly: "He was nervous while awaiting the response of XY," or hesitation: "..." (such as with the trains of dots much like a Baricco and imitators).
course the authors are not all equal: Cormac McCarthy addresses the expectations and silences in descriptions of nature, making it a mirror anxiety, confusion, suffering of the character.
short, a dialogue can (should) be enhanced by a number of descriptive elements, graphics and so on. Silence, expectations, inconsistency and slowness of understanding, misunderstandings are crucial. Then add it as a
4 - Effective dialogue is also made up of 'empty' silence, delay and hesitation.
silence and sound, needless to say, they form a musical structure.
What is the musicality of your (our) dialogue?
The narrative is not merely a life lived, but a simulacrum, and mimesis one copy is square, watercolor, sketch, graffiti and not instantaneous. Must have a form (hidden but noticeable) is scanned, a musical audible. Try listening to a dialogue in a language you do not understand ... Let the sounds and breaks through: After a bit 'you get the feeling of structures that are repeated, silences and pauses highly structured, process regular and "narrative." And think of as imitators and comedians pretending to speak different languages.
This trend must be reproduced in the narrative and dialogue.
But we must not settle for a repeat basic rhythm and predictable.
Here's an example (B = bar; I Recorded = P = thought)
B1 - I can not remember to buy the paper towel
B2 - not even me. I remember many things but the paper towel ... - I1 Lubna ran his fingers through his green hair and sighed. P1 is not the only thing I can not remember.
B3 - also towels, too. - I2 added, Tammy.
B4 - I do not need it, you know, are un'androide. - I3 It reminded Lubna P2 N remember ever on a cock quest'idiota.
Schematically: BBIPBIBIP
We can go on for half a page. Then just half a page of D (description) and the homework is done. But it is ugly.
What's wrong?
Apparently nothing. There is all that is needed and reasonable. To me, however, and many readers, the reason does not like. Because often borders on predictability. Other than that, musically, the song sucks. Sounds obvious routine. No music
After ten pages the reader already knows where they'll end the commas, the incisors, the faces and thoughts. By dint of BIP, DIB and PIP it goes nowhere. There are no schemini in good fiction.
homework: we reread our dialogues and try to rewrite them where there is an overabundance of BEEP-BEEP.
And we add a point to our list:
5 - Effective dialogue requires a perceptible rhythm to the reader (especially if read aloud).
say a stir in all ingredients and contemplate our dialogue of words, hesitations, interjections, nonverbal cues, silences, rhythms and characters, albeit subtly, do not share the same views on the world ...
Lubna and Tammy is an excellent example of this subtle discrepancy one of them is un'androide as perceive the world, such as arrays of thought will be?
Try to enrich dialogue and characters with more elements (thoughts, descriptions, allusions and contradictions), re-read it aloud and listen
What do you think?
Not bad. It is a dialogue from writers. Maybe not great writers, but discrete journeyman that are read with pleasure.
But it's over.
Everything is multiplied by the number of characters included in the box. Everyone has their own way of speaking, to stop and stop, to hesitate, to induce or dampen the aggression of the interlocutors. Each has characteristic gestures, tics, personal interjections (Giudabacco! will be effective only if ... Porca scoop! Should ...). Avoid the obvious (the extent ... Absolutely! I have a problem ...), but now, unfortunately, many people speak very well. On the written page, it only works as a parody, but I fear that even the most famous comedians sgalfi they have already consumed all.
Combine characters and characteristics and be mild: evoked, in short, with a few personality traits: key words and gestures, the right ones, it is here that the dialogue really grabs life by the tail.
Mathematically speaking, per definire il numero P di possibilità di dialogo nell’ambito di un romanzo dovremmo ricorrere al calcolo fattoriale, giungendo presto a numeri stratosferici:
P = n1 x n2 x n3 x n4 x n5 x Z x Y
Dove i numeri da 1 a 5 = ingredienti del dialogo, n = numero di possibilità in rapporto a ciascuno dei punti, Z = numero di personaggi e Y = numero delle loro presenza nel corso del romanzo.
Un PC proverebbe tutte le combinazioni…
Ma noi siamo infinitamente meglio di un PC, noi siamo umani e soprattutto siamo lettori. E sappiamo (o possiamo imparare a farlo) riconoscere le combinazioni efficaci dalle semplici possibilità matematiche.
Seguite la forza !
0 comments:
Post a Comment