The Structure of Dialogue
Mastering dialogue is hard work, but the right scaffolding can help.
Writing naturalistic and compelling dialogue is fiction is both critical and difficult to master. Unfortunately, there aren’t any reference books to tell you exactly what your characters should say or how.
Dialogue takes time to master and even successful bestselling authors don’t always get it right. Any writing coach will tell you that you should not try to create dialogue by replicating real-life conversation. Rather, dialogue is stylized conversation that only sounds natural.
You will also hear that characters should never – or very rarely – say what’s on their mind. Base declarations of need should be saved for highly emotional moments. A character who is trying to earn his father’s respect should not say in dialogue, “Dad, I’m acting this way so I can earn the respect you have withheld my whole life.” If that’s your opening scene, you might as well have your characters leave the haunted house and end your story right there.
While no one can truly teach you to hear or write dazzling dialogue, there are a few tricks that can help you craft dialogue that complements your story, builds emotional tension, and keeps the reader engaged. Here are two that have helped me.
Sentence structure
In Dialogue: The Art of Verbal Action for the Page, Stage, and Screen, Robert McKee shares 300 pages of excellent advice on writing sharp dialogue, including more than a dozen specific examples of film and play scripts utilizing these techniques. One specific piece of advice caught my attention, because it focuses not on juicy word choices – which can’t be taught – but on sentence structure, which can.
In his section on the flaws that can derail your dialogue, McKee discusses mistimed or miscued dialogue exchanges, and shows how sentence structure – the literal order of your words in your sentences, arranged for emphasis – can make the difference between flat or confusing dialogue and dialogue that sings.
You may have read craft advice describing dialogue as a tennis game. One character lobs a piece of conversation at another character, who hits it back, setting up the first character to respond. When dialogue is cracking, the characters may volley long strings of conversation, like two well-matched, highly skilled tennis players. What you don’t often see is what that looks like on the page.
McKee does provide such an example, demonstrating how properly structuring your sentences to place your volleys at the beginning and end of each piece of dialogue can create a compelling action/reaction chain as your characters engage in a verbal back and forth.
McKee quotes a brief passage from John Pielmeier’s play (and later film) Agnes of God. In the story, Sister Agnes, a young nun, has given birth to a child that is found dead next to her bed. Agnes is accused of murdering her baby, but insists she is a virgin. Prior to the birth, Agnes also showed evidence of stigmata, a wound in her hand mimicking the wound of Jesus Christ on the cross. The court appoints a psychiatrist to examine Agnes and determine if she is mentally fit to stand trial. In the following exchange, the doctor discusses Agnes with the convent’s Mother Superior. Note the bolded text.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: Of course not. Look, I know what you’re thinking. She’s an hysteric, pure and simple.
DOCTOR: Not simple, no.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: I saw it. Clean through the palm of her hand, do you think hysteria did that?
DOCTOR: It’s been doing it for centuries. She’s not unique, you know. She’s just another victim.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: Yes, God’s victim. That’s her innocence. She belongs to God.
DOCTOR: And I mean to take her away from Him. That’s what you fear, isn’t it?
MOTHER SUPERIOR: You bet I do.
DOCTOR: Well, I prefer to look upon it as opening her mind.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: To the world?
DOCTOR: To herself. So she can begin to heal.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: But that’s not your job, is it? You’re here to diagnose, not to heal.
DOCTOR: That is a matter of opinion.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: The judge’s… (opinion.)
DOCTOR: Your opinion. I’m here to help her in whatever way I see fit. That’s my duty as a doctor.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: But not as an employee of the court. You’re to make a decision on her sanity as quickly as possible and not interfere with due process of law. Those are the judge’s words, not mine.
DOCTOR: As quickly as I see fit, not as possible. 1 haven’t made that decision yet.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: But the kindest thing you can do for Agnes is to make that decision and let her go.
DOCTOR: Back to court?
MOTHER SUPERIOR: Yes.
DOCTOR: And what then? If I say she’s crazy, she goes to an institution. If I say she’s sane, she goes to prison.
In this exchange, the bolded words trigger the conversational volley between the characters. Each character begins her piece of dialogue responding to what the other character has said and ends by lobbing the argument back into play. By placing the emphasis of each character’s argument at the end of the segment, Pielmeier weights the dialogue to its most important information and sets up the other character’s next line of speech, creating the “tennis game” effect that keeps a scene popping.
To test this method, we can rewrite some of the dialogue to bury the emphasized information within the dialogue string. Notice how this slows down the exchange, muddies the delivery, and decreases clarity.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: I saw it. Clean through the palm of her hand, do you think hysteria did that?
DOCTOR: It’s been doing it for centuries. She’s just another victim. She’s not unique, you know.
MOTHER SUPERIOR: Yes, God’s victim. She belongs to God. That’s her innocence.
DOCTOR: And I mean to take her away from Him. That’s what you fear, isn’t it?
A slight movement of a few sentences completely throws off the pacing. In lines three and four, Mother Superior and the doctor respond to the what the other has said in the previous lines, but not the last thing they said. By burying the key information in the middle of the sentence, the additional text – unique, innocence – is rendered irrelevant and the scene loses its crackle. The dialogue feels clunky and unnatural.
Emotional hierarchy
In his section on dialogue in Anatomy of Story, John Truby says that dialogue ebbs, flows, and escalates in the same way as your overall plot and individual scenes. For example, in dialogue, a main character may state a desire for the scene. A second character speaks against the desire, creating opposition. The first character responds to the attack. The dialogue continues, escalating to confrontation or resolution.
Truby suggests a trick that can help you put this into practice, particularly in highly emotional or turning point scenes. As with any technique, you shouldn’t overdo it. However, this one may help you create key moments that require hot, emotional dialogue.
The hierarchy looks something like this: desire > plan > state of being
- The dialogue begins with the characters discussing a desire. Character A wants to take an action. Character B speaks against it.
- As the conflict grows, Character A proposes a plan. Character B tears it down.
- When the scene reaches its peak emotional moment, attacks become personal, accusatory.
In his book, Truby shares a snippet of dialogue from the film The Verdict. In the scene, an attorney lays out a goal of winning a large settlement in court case. His client attacks the plan, angry that his lawyer turned down an offer that would have resolved the case. The attorney sets out his plan for winning. The client shifts to attacking the attorney on a personal level, accusing him of not caring about the people he’s supposed to be helping.
When working in harmony with your story, the final stage – the accusation or revelation about a character’s true nature – directly connects the dialogue to your character arc and theme. In The Verdict, the client’s accusation is accurate. His attorney is unethical and a drunk. In fact, he took the case expecting an easy settlement and quick commission. However, the case stirred a desire to change and now represents his make or break moment. The client’s accusation strikes at the attorney’s weakness and need, while also heightening the stakes of the outcome of the court case. The attorney must win the case to prove that he cares and is capable of winning.
These scenes don’t have to be lengthy or complicated. The above scene segment escalates through desire > plan > state of being in about 160 words, but that brief exchange sets the stage for what follows – the high stakes arguments in court and the attorney’s redemption.
Neither of these techniques will tell you what to write or how to develop an ear for snappy, idiosyncratic dialogue. But studying and practicing both can help you build scenes with high emotional stakes and dialogue with clarity and tight pacing.
Know anyone who’d like my blog? Please forward today’s post! I’d love to hear from them. Need more content? Join my mailing list!













