The action for 30 Poems in 30 Days has clearly moved from the blog to Facebook, so I am posting all 30 prompts here, but encourage people to write there.

Day 1
Write a love poem that is specifically NOT about romantic love. Some subjects you might consider are family members such as parents or kids, pets, sports cars, pizza, friends — whatever moves you.

Day 2
Write a poem that involves a sequence of events or steps such as a process, a recipe, instructions, or anything that could only happen in a certain order.

Day 3
Write a poem about a road trip or another travel experience.

Day 4
Write a poem that includes a door opening or closing.

Day 5
Write a poem about an impossible event.

Day 6
(Submitted by Leigh ) Write a poem a poem about someone or something you hate.

Day 7
(Inspired by Helen Patrice) Write a poem about your relationship with an inanimate object (mountain, kettle, fireplace, jewelry, house, book, etc.)?

Day 8
Write a poem about an ironic situation or moment.

Day 9
Write a poem that includes at least three words that end with gle (giggle, wrangle, single, dangle, tingle, mingle, toggle)

Day 10
Write a poem that includes a delivery or an arrival.

Day 11
Write a poem about your memories of a historic event.

Day 12
Write a poem about doing something for the last time.

Day 13
Write a poem with dialog in it.

Day 14
Write a poem that includes a change in the weather.

Day 15
Write a poem that includes a broken object.
Day 16
Write a poem about playing a game.

Day 17
Write a poem that includes three words with four syllables or more.

Day 18
Write a poem about the city, town, locale that you live in.

Day 19
Write a poem that includes meditation. sleep or deep thought.

Day 20
Write a poem that includes three related objects (e.g. water, steam, ice) or actions (e.g. walking, jogging, running).

Day 21
Write a poem that answers a question.

Day 22
Write a poem about leaving something behind.

Day 23
Write a poem that includes three parts of the body.

Day 24
Write a poem about an urge.

Day 25
Write a poem that includes a literary or pop culture reference.

Day 26
Write a poem that includes an animal.

Day 27
Write a poem that includes food.

Day 28
Write a poem about building something.

Day 29
Write a poem that includes driving.

Day 30
Write a poem that includes the number 30.

How Articulate Are Your Characters?

Most writers are articulate. Because they work with the written word on a daily or near daily basis, and because they have a love of language, most writers express themselves well. Just because a writer is articulate, however, doesn’t mean that a character should be articulate. Adjusting your language to suit a character, especially in dialog, is vital to creating a realistic depiction of that character and vital for differentiating that character from others in the story.

Words Reflect Background

When most people think about writing realistic dialog, they think about things such as regional accents and vocal patterns. Those things are important, but it is just as important to adjust your dialog to the specific background of the characters. For example, people know that there is a Boston accent, but most people don’t realize that the Boston accent varies greatly according to where in the city that person lives and what their economic and educational background is. Not everyone from Boston sounds the same. A well-educated Boston lawyer is not going to sound like a poorly educated bartender at a local dive.

Don’t Distract the Reader

Another mistake people make in tailoring dialog is to go too far into an accent and ignore such things as speech rhythms or word choices. J.K. Rowling, for example, uses very exaggerated accents. In the early books, before the story got particularly dark, the exaggerated accents seemed to work reasonably well considering the stories were fantasy and the intended audience was mostly children. By the final books, however, when the story was very dark and the intended audience was much wider, the exaggerated accents seemed much more unsuitable and distracting.

Unique, Not Extreme

The key with dialog, especially with accents, is to make each person’s style differentiated enough that they sound unique and identifiable, but not so extreme that people are paying more attention to the words being said than they are to the intent of the statement. Try to think of what is distinctive about the way each person speaks, and why their word choices make sense for them.

Some Things to Consider

• Is the character concise or long winded?
• Does the character use words they don’t fully understand?
• Does the character have influence from different regions (such as a person from Texas now living in California or vice-versa)?
• Is the character used to public speaking?
• Does the character have any particular patterns or phrases that stand out?
• Is their something about the character’s role (Boss, employee, teacher, parent) that makes a difference in the way that character speaks in different situations?

Negativising occurs when you focus only on the negative aspects of an experience. This frequently haunts writers who subject themselves to criticism in the forms of writer’s groups, editors, clients and classes. You enter a situation in which you hear both positive feedback and negative feedback, but you only remember or think about the negative feedback.

Poor self talk: The writer’s group said that my characters seemed false and my dialog was stiff. It was just one terrible review after another.

Realistic self talk: The writer’s group said they want me to improve my dialog and work on character motivation, but they liked the overall story and they think my descriptions are evocative. If I improve the problem areas I’ll have a good story.

This problem can also occur in a work situation, such as working on a difficult assignment or interacting with a demanding boss or client.

Poor self talk: This assignment has been a non-stop nightmare. Nothing went right from beginning to end.

Realistic self talk: This was a difficult assignment. There were a lot of problems and it wasn’t quite my best work. I did finish on time though. I learned a lot and the client was happy with how it came out.

Some ways to avoid negativising

Make a written assessment of the assignment or event. Take the time to write down the bad and the good. The list doesn’t have to come out even or positive. They key is to recognize the things that were positive no matter the number.

When you feel yourself dwelling on the negative, try to determine if your memories are factual, moderate and helpful rather than distorted, extreme and harmful.

If you find yourself dwelling too much, find a distraction that will allow you to put the unpleasant situation behind you.

Note: The terminology I am using from an excellent textbook called Stress Management for Wellness by Walt Schafer.

People write in many different ways. Some people work slowly, trying to make every detail perfect the first time. Other people write quick, messy first drafts that they then tame and refine as they edit. Most people fall somewhere in between.For my part, I tend to write first drafts quickly. I will go back and edit a bit as I go, but I don’t expect the first draft to be perfect. For example, when I write dialog in a first draft, I tend to write it as a transcript, without any surrounding detail. One person speaks, then the other. I often don’t even include a he said or a she said. I am too caught up in the flow of the conversation. Later, when I edit, I add the surrounding narrative.

So, for my part, the second draft is often about fleshing out the world of the story. I add the details that I left out in the first draft. These details may include

• Physical descriptions
• Cultural / environmental descriptions
• Character / psychological descriptions

In essence, I flesh out the world in which the characters exist. This is, of course, in addition to the general editing duties that come up in a second draft:

• Correcting spelling errors
• Correcting typographical errors
• Correcting grammar errors
• Rewriting sentences for readability
• Eliminating parts of the story that don’t seem to work
• Adding new elements to the story / plot

The key to your second draft is to identify areas for improvement and then make those improvements. You keep editing for as long as it takes to get your story to the point that it says what you want it to say in the way that you want to say it. Once that process is complete, you will be ready to show it to other people and see how they respond to your story.

I love movies, but I’m not a big fan of the Oscars. Their taste in films has always seemed a bit stodgy and mannered for me. I like comedies more than dramas, on most days, and any movie that aspires to be an “epic” tends to bore me, especially by the third hour. These days, even the average movie seems to clock in at about two hours and twenty minutes. That would be fine if every moment of the movie felt important or at least interesting, but for the most part the extra time just feels like filler. Wedding Crashers for example, was a very funny movie, but no comedy should last two hours. Wedding Crashers could have been edited down to an hour and a half without batting an eye.

That is why I was so happy to see Diablo Cody win the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Her movie Juno was pretty close to the perfect modern comedy. The dialog was crisp and funny. The lead character, Juno, had real flaws that were balanced out by genuinely admirable and lovable qualities. Juno was surrounded by people who cared for her, but who had realistic (and funny) views about her. The stakes felt real, but never dire, and the ending didn’t require some major, forced moment of realization. The victories were small but they had consequence.

I think it was a great screenplay. That said, I also give credit to the directing and the acting as well. I’m sure that every moment in the script didn’t make it to the screen. Juno could have been a two hour movie, instead of a brisk 98 minutes. Luckily, the people involved were wise enough to know what to cut and what to keep.

When you begin adding and revising scenes for your novel, the process is a little different than writing a first draft. Your goals are different because at this point, you are filling in missing information and working within the constraints of what already exists. Your characters, tone and plot have already been set, and you are now either expanding on what you have or looking to make serious changes to one or more of those elements.

Here are some tips for writing new and revised scenes for your novel:

• Take the time to read the surrounding text. If you are adding a scene, read the previous and following scenes again so that you can refresh your memory about what happened and get a feel for the writing style you have been using.
• Don’t get too caught up in exposition. When adding scenes that bridge gaps in time or plot, you can often find yourself focusing more on moving the story forward than on writing a good scene. Remember that each scene must stand on its own.
• Keep a backup of each draft. Sometimes when you are revising, you make changes or deletions that you later regret. Its good to have an older version to refer back to.
• Be patient. Creating the perfect new scene in the middle of a novel is no easy task. You won’t always get it right, or even close to right, on the first try. Don’t be afraid to start over if you don’t like the way the scene is going.
• Pay attention to your notes and to your information guide. It can be easy to forget what your goals are when you are in the middle of a revision. Take the time to get yourself back on track.
• Think about the ramifications of your revisions. If your rewrite changes the motivations of a character, for example, make sure that the other scenes in the novel reflect that different motivation.
• Consider revisions that are dedicated to a specific purpose, such as improving dialog, expanding descriptions or strengthening relationships.

One of the key aspects to a novel is how the characters in that novel communicate with each other, especially in terms of dialog. The dialog in a novel reveals the attitudes of the characters toward each other and the topics they discuss. The manner in which characters speak, the language characters use, and the mode in which the characters frame their statements and questions are indicative of both the characters and the story.

Discrimination and division are shared topics among three very different novels, Sherman Alexie’s Indian Killer, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Henry James’ Daisy Miller. These novels differ widely in location, era and style. They also examine very different forms of discrimination.

Alexie’s novel scrutinizes racial division issues between whites and American Indians. Indian Killer was written and takes place in the late twentieth century in the Northwest United States city of Seattle. Alexie wrote the novel in third-person omniscient form and moves between several characters’ perspectives.

Lee’s novel also deals with racial discrimination, but between whites and blacks. Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird in the mid-twentieth century. The novel takes place in small-town depression-era Alabama. She tells the story in first person from the perspective of Jean Louise “Scout” Finch, a young girl who ages from six to nine over the course of the novel.

James’ novel deals with discrimination between social classes rather than racial divisions. Daisy Miller was written and set in the mid-nineteenth century. James tells the story in the third person from the point-of-view of Winterbourne, a wealthy young American who has been living abroad for many years. The novel is set in Switzerland and Italy, but the action takes place primarily among Americans living and traveling abroad.

In each novel, the manner in which the discrimination and divisions occur is different. The communication styles in each novel reflect the differences in the characters and the different approaches to the central themes of racism and division.

Sherman Alexie’s Indian Killer

When Alexie makes public appearances, he is described as “hilarious” and “witty”. He has worked as a stand-up comedian and his personal appearances reflect that. Much of his writing also makes use of humor. Indian Killer, however, is not a humorous novel. It is the story of a city facing increasing racial divisiveness when a serial killer begins kidnapping, murdering, and scalping white victims in a manner that leads the community to believe the killer is an American Indian.

While the novel is not without funny moments, it is a stark and caustic portrayal of the division between two races. One of the reasons this story of discrimination is so dark is because there are very few moments of cooperation or perception. The characters in the novel do not discuss their differences with any civility or understanding. They use inflated hate speech and angry rhetoric. There are no discussions, only arguments.

Alexie uses a pulp-fiction form, the serial killer mystery, to frame the social issues facing American Indians. The city of Seattle is fractured by the actions, real and imagined, of the serial killer. The tension between Indians and whites explodes as both sides attack each other with hate speech and physical attacks of alarming sadism.

The heart of the story is the experience of Marie Polatkin. Unlike the somewhat stock characters that make up much of the mystery element of the novel, Marie is a fully realized and nuanced character. While her views are as scathing as any character in the book, she reinforces her views with her actions. Marie faithfully drives the sandwich van, feeding the homeless. She faces down the three thugs who mean to attack the homeless Indians. She tries to help the schizophrenic John Smith.

Marie, first with university professor Dr. Mather, then with the university president and finally with the police, restates the central argument of the novel. White involvement with American Indians is destroying their culture. To Marie, any interference is damaging, and the thought of whites co-opting her culture is especially galling. Her point of view allows no room for give and take. Compromise is not in her vocabulary. She shares this trait with most characters in the novel.

Much of the dialog in the book takes the form of interrogations, both actual and metaphorical. In this exchange near the end of the novel, the police interrogate Marie.

“Ms. Polatkin, Marie, can you tell us something about John Smith?”

“He wasn’t the Indian Killer.”

“Why do you keep insisting on this? We have the murder weapon, we have Jack Wilson’s sworn testimony. John Smith was the Indian Killer. Case Closed.”

“Jack Wilson is a liar.”

“Have you seen Wilson’s face? He looks like a car wreck. I hardly think he deserves to be called a liar. Have you read his book about all this?”

“No.”

“You should. It’s a very interesting portrait of John Smith. You’d like it. Wilson says that Indian children shouldn’t be adopted by white parents. He says those kids commit suicide way to often. You ask me, John’s suicide was a good thing.”

“Wilson doesn’t know shit about Indians.”

“Have you read Dr. Mather’s book?”

“Absolutely not.”

“Really? You’re in it, you know? And it’s not too flattering, I must say.”

“So what.”

The dialog comes in short bursts, with no accompanying narration or description. It continues in that manner for the entire chapter. The characters do not speak in paragraphs or even sentences so much as statements. Dialog rarely leads to agreement. The few moments of realization in the novel, such as Jack Wilson’s realization about the adoption of Indian children, come only after violence. In that case, from the brutal attack on Wilson by John Smith, an Indian adopted by whites who leaps to his death after the attack on Wilson.

Truck Schultz, a right-wing talk radio host, illustrates the use of hate speech in the book. Truck fans the flames of division and discrimination. He knowingly declares that an unrelated death at an Indian reservation casino is the work of the serial killer and coins the phrase, “The only good Indian Killer is a dead Indian Killer.”

Alexie’s use of hate speech and interrogation techniques throughout the book heightens the sense that there is no legitimate solution to the racial tensions he describes in the book. The book offers no answers, only division, as reflected in the dialog. In Calvert’s analysis of hate speech he states, “Hateful messages cumulate, creating an ambiance that categorizes and, consequently, causes harm.” In Indian Killer, the accumulated statements and anger end in death and mutilation. There is no real moment of reconciliation at the end. Marie Polotkin’s final statement in Indian Killer echoes the unresolved conflict, “Indians are dancing now, and I don’t think they’re going to stop.”

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird takes a much different approach to racism and division. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the characters demonstrate over and over the value and influence of conversation. While the circumstances in To Kill a Mockingbird are as dire and explosive as those in Indian Killer, and both novels end in violence, the moments of conversation give To Kill a Mockingbird a hopeful quality that is absent from Indian Killer.

Harper Lee creates an atmosphere of learning by creating a lead character out of the adolescent Scout. Scout is a perfect character to filter the story though because she is highly intelligent and well read, yet she is a child who still has volumes to learn about life and the world. Because she is a child, she can be impulsive, stubborn and temperamental while remaining sympathetic and she can view the incidents in the novel from the perspective of someone who is seeing and questioning events for the first time. The novel brings her first snowstorm, first friend, first kiss, and first grade.

To compliment the curiosity of Scout, Lee introduces the reasoned debate of Atticus Finch. Atticus Finch is as wise and decent as Scout is intelligent and curious. Most importantly, he listens when people talk and takes the time to consider what they say. When Atticus responds, he explains why he makes a choice. More importantly, he does not allow other to push him to anger with words. He understands the power of words, but he also understands the limits.

One of the best examples of this is when Scout begins to experiment with swearing. When she starts using swear words, Atticus reacts calmly. He voices his disapproval, but he never overreacts. Atticus knows that children are fascinated by swear words, but he also knows that, bad language “is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they’re not attracting attention with it. Hotheadedness isn’t.” Atticus recognizes the problem is Scout’s temper, not her language.

The key to the scene is Atticus’ conversation with his brother Jack about Scout’s reactions to the taunts of her cousin. The taunts, Atticus knows, are going to get worse. The court has assigned Atticus to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman, and the town is choosing sides against Atticus. Atticus directs his statements at Jack, but they are just as much for the benefit of Scout, who he knows is secretly listening. Atticus lays out the case for his actions, but also includes an indirect plea for Scout’s better behavior.

But do you think I could face my children otherwise? You know what’s going to happen as well as I do, Jack, and I hope and pray I can get Jem and Scout through it without bitterness, and worst of all, without catching Maycomb’s usual disease. Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand. . . I just hope that Jem and Scout come to me for their answers instead of listening to the crowd. I hope they trust me enough.

While the words do not exactly turn Scout into a saint overnight, they give her a reason to try harder. His arguments work because he does not tell her what to do, he explains why he hopes she will do it. One of the classic techniques for non-confrontational persuasion is to use “I” phrases such as “I hope.”

Dr. Eric Berne defines discourse between people as having three modes, child, adult, and parent. To achieve optimum communication, two or more people must speak at the same level, with adult being the most favorable level of communication. Atticus speaks to all people as if they are reasonable adults. By doing this, he subtly encourages others to treat him the same way. He encourages a person to make the proper choices without seeming to dictate the other person’s behavior. This tactic is even more effective in this scene because Scout does not know she is being addressed. She thinks she is overhearing a conversation.

Another key scene regarding communication comes when the lynch mob shows up at the jail. In this scene, Scout inadvertently breaks up an angry mob by singling one man out and speaking with him. “Don’t you remember me Mr. Cunningham? I’m Jean Louise Finch. You brought us some hickory nuts one time, remember?” Once the mob divides back into individuals, it loses the will behind its anger. Conversation wins out over rhetoric and mob sentiment.

The importance of reasonable arguments, and respect for others is never stronger than when Atticus must cross-examine first Robert Ewell and then Mayella Ewell. Atticus is polite at all times. He never raises his voice and he never makes a snide remark. The effect this has on the two witnesses is overwhelming. They are so used to rough talk and disrespect that they view his adult approach as mockery. “Long’s he keeps on callin’ me ma’am and sayin’ Miss Mayella. I don’t hafta take his sass, I ain’t called upon to take it.”

By maintaining his calm manner and respect, Atticus is able to point out the flaws in the Ewell’s testimony and make it clear who is to blame for the incident. The Ewells, unable to maintain their statements, fall apart. His defense is ultimately doomed due to the prejudices and conventions of the jury and the townspeople, but Atticus gives the best possible defense under the circumstances. The long-term effect of his reasoned defense leads to Robert Ewell’s further disgrace in the town, and to the attack that closes the book.

In Indian Killer, there is no equivalent to Atticus Finch. There is no reasoned voice or noble protagonist. Each character has an agenda and none of them want to engage in conversations rather than arguments. In Indian Killer, words are weapons rather than tools. Their shock value is consistently exploited while their ability to heal and bring people together atrophies.

In many ways, the different communication styles mirror both the times and the locations of the two novels. To Kill a Mockingbird takes place in the bucolic town of Maycomb, Alabama. Maycomb is a town in which people gather on each other’s porches to discuss issues. There is an unhurried atmosphere to the town and it is reflected in the telling of the story. To Kill a Mockingbird spans three years, and it does not begin to address the central conflict of the novel until over a quarter of the book has passed. The period for most of the action in Indian Killer spans about a month. The location is a large, modern city in which most people are strangers and the pace is fast.

The individual style of each book demonstrates, or at least contributes to, the different apparent goals of the two books. Indian Killer wants to shock and confront its readers. If anything, Alexie seems to want the reader to leave with a sense of the outrage that Indians feel. Lee’s goals seem more centered toward education. She wants her readers to think further about the issues, and their feelings about it, but it is not her goal to anger or confront her readers.

Henry James’ Daisy Miller

Henry James’ Daisy Miller takes a different approach toward dialog and communication. The focus of Daisy Miller is on miscommunication and the rules regarding communication and behavior between two opposing moneyed classes that can loosely be defined as old money and new money.

The central character in the novel is Winterbourne, a wealthy young American man who has been living abroad, primarily in Geneva, for several years. Winterbourne is a likable person among his social peers, who are all wealthy old-money expatriates and Europeans. When he meets Daisy Miller, a beautiful American girl, he feels an instant attraction. When he desires to act on that attraction, however, social conventions hold him back. Daisy is new money, and seems oblivious to the social conventions that define the old money class.

For most of the novel, Winterbourne spends his time analyzing and questioning Daisy’s behavior, trying to figure out if she is worthy of his affection. Class and convention envelop his thoughts. He is incapable of judging Daisy’s character, except in relation to the rules of discourse that belong to his class. The situation is further exacerbated when Daisy begins to spend time with Giovanelli, an Italian man who is clearly, to Winterbourne and his community, well below even the class of Daisy. This prompts an argument between Winterbourne and Daisy.

“Don’t do that; when I am angry I’m stiffer than ever. But if you won’t flirt with me, do cease, at least, to flirt with your friend at the piano; they don’t understand that sort of thing here.”

“I thought they understood nothing else!” exclaimed Daisy.

“Not in young unmarried women.”

“It seems to me much more proper in young unmarried women than in old married ones,” Daisy declared.

“Well,” said Winterbourne, “when you deal with natives you must go by the custom of the place. Flirting is a purely American custom; it doesn’t exist here. So when you show yourself in public with Mr. Giovanelli, and without your mother–”

“Gracious! poor Mother!” interposed Daisy.

“Though you may be flirting, Mr. Giovanelli is not; he means something else.”

“He isn’t preaching, at any rate,” said Daisy with vivacity. “And if you want very much to know, we are neither of us flirting; we are too good friends for that: we are very intimate friends.”

“Ah!” rejoined Winterbourne, “if you are in love with each other, it is another affair.”

She had allowed him up to this point to talk so frankly that he had no expectation of shocking her by this ejaculation; but she immediately got up, blushing visibly, and leaving him to exclaim mentally that little American flirts were the queerest creatures in the world. “Mr. Giovanelli, at least,” she said, giving her interlocutor a single glance, “never says such very disagreeable things to me.”

This exchange illuminates the lack of a common discourse community between Winterbourne and Daisy. Winterbourne is defining Daisy by a set of rules that Daisy does not follow. He is, in fact, in violation of those same rules for his community. By those rules, Daisy should not openly flirt with any man, yet Winterbourne is content to see that rule violated as long as the violation is in his favor. He is also willing to confront her with blunt accusations, another action that does not fit with the rules of his community.

Much of the dialog in the book is concerned with the rules of relationships between men and women. Every move Daisy makes seems to violate a rule. Mrs. Miller states, “That girl must not do this sort of thing. She must not walk here with you two men. Fifty people have noticed her.” Winterbourne’s Aunt says, “They treat the courier like a familiar friend–like a gentleman. I shouldn’t wonder if he dines with them.”

Daisy may be oblivious to the rules of the community in which she finds herself, but she knows the difference between insult and affection. Winterbourne’s comments do hurt her. Over the course of the novel, his behavior towards her is far worse than the rules of convention that she breaks. This delineates one of the key points of discrimination and division, that the group in the greater position is always willing to treat the lower group more discourteously than they would treat one of their own. Winterbourne reinforces that theme when he at one point concludes that Daisy was “a clever little reprobate” and “a young lady whom a gentleman need no longer be at pains to respect.”

The rhetoric in Daisy Miller never rises to the level of hate speech that Indian Killer steeps itself in, but the discrimination is just as insidious. Reprobate is certainly a hateful word. When Winterbourne resorts to that language, if only in his own head, he is rationalizing his exclusion of Daisy. Calvert states, “Uses of the most vile speech . . . are attempts to construct and maintain a reality of domination of one group over another, a reality of unequal treatment.”

Without such obvious markers as race to hang division on, the social classes in Daisy Miller resort to a complex series of rules of behavior by which they can separate themselves. Intermixing among classes is discouraged. Just as Winterbourne’s aunt found Daisy’s friendship with her courier scandalous, once Winterbourne’s friends disapproved of Daisy’s behavior they cut her from the group. They were unwilling to associate with someone of another perceived class. To do otherwise would risk their own status in the group. Daisy was their equal in wealth, if not their better, and she was generally the most attractive woman in any room she entered, yet to that class she was unworthy because she did not follow, or even understand, their conventions.

Communication and Division

The communication in each of these books hinges on different aspects of discourse. Indian Killer is preoccupied with hate speech and strong rhetoric. To Kill a Mockingbird explores the value of conversation and logic when confronting discrimination. Daisy Miller focuses on rules of proper behavior, and how they are used for exclusion. When two groups do not share a discourse, they must remain separate. Daisy can never perceive of what the other class wants because it is beyond her experience. Even when she hears what they say, she cannot comprehend the meanings of their statements because she does not share their specific terminology.

To achieve their individual goals, each book approaches its dialog differently. In Indian Killer, dialog often comes in bursts of arguments without narration. The exchanges are fast and angry. Sentences are often short. Each character states their position without giving any latitude that the other speaker may have a valid opinion. This reflects the theme of the novel, that the cultural differences and divisiveness between these two groups cannot be easily fixed.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a less caustic novel. Education is one of its central themes, from Scout’s experiences in school to the conversational teaching of Atticus and others. The conversations in the book take place at a more relaxed pace that suits the small town atmosphere. Narration surrounds the dialog so that statements do not fly by without reflection. The characters, especially Scout, take the time to think about the other person’s point-of-view in a conversation. They possess empathy. As with Indian Killer, the novel ends after a brutal attack and a resulting death, but because of the prevalence of intelligent conversation and discussion there is a feeling that connections may someday overcome divisions.

Daisy Miller is preoccupied with the rules people develop in order to both include and exclude. As with the first two novels, Daisy Miller ends with death, although it is from disease rather than direct attack. While the outcomes in the book are not as stark as Indian Killer, they are not as hopeful as To Kill a Mockingbird. After Daisy’s death, Winterbourne comes to understand he was mistaken in his assumptions, but much like the rules that govern his world, he is unchanged by this realization.

In Daisy Miller, the dialog reflects both argument and negotiation. Because the rules these people live by are unwritten and selectively enforced, much of the dialog concerns a negotiation of these rules. The dialog replicates the differences between the classes. Daisy constantly uses terms that are misinterpreted by others. For example, Daisy uses the word “intimate” to describe her friendship with Giovanelli. She is apparently unaware that in Winterbourne’s circle this implies a sexual or at least romantic relationship. At another point, she says she has had, “a great deal of gentlemen’s society.” Winterbourne again interprets this in a sexual manner that is apparently unintended. These subtle mistakes in speech confound Winterbourne and characterize the gulf that exists between the two classes.

Dialog is an essential tool for a novel. The method by which characters communicate helps define both the action and the themes of the novel. A single character’s communication style reflects on the personality and intention of that character, but the overall dialog in a book defines themes and illuminates conflicts. Each of these novels approaches dialog in a different manner, and in each case the novel benefits from those choices.

Additional Resources

• Sherman Alexie’s Indian Killer
• Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird
• Henry James’ Daisy Miller

When writing fiction, one of the greatest challenges is to come up with compelling characters that both interest the reader and fit the story. On the surface, fitting the story might seem like the lesser of the two considerations, but it really isn’t. Beyond being interesting, the character must also be the type of person who will respond to your plot. Whatever the action of your story is, it needs to matter to your characters. The reader (and you) must care about what is happening to a character and take interest in what the character will do, or will fail to do.

Most people’s inspiration for a character begins with some spark. The spark may come from anywhere. It could be a voice, a physical feature, a profession, a line of dialog, or a plot you want your character involved in. Whatever the spark is, you need to need to explore it. You should expand upon that voice, that physical feature, that dialog, that profession or that plot. Whatever the first spark of life is, expand upon it until it fully takes shape.

After you have moved beyond the original spark, you need to create a profile of your character. You should start out very simply. Is the character male or female? How old is the character? How does the character look? What kind of clothes does the character wear? Is the character generally happy, sad, angry, lonely or indifferent? These are all very basic questions, but it is surprising how often they are ignored.

Next, explore the character’s background. Is the character working, getting an education or doing something else that occupies their time? Where does the character live? What is the character’s family like? What kind of friends does the character have? What kind of things does the character own? That last question can be surprisingly informative. You can approach it from several angles. What is in the character’s home? What is in the character’s office at work? What is in the character’s pockets or purse? How many keys does that character have and to what?

Once you have put the larger pieces of the character’s personality and life together, it is a good time to pick a name. You should now know who they are and what they are like. Knowing your character increases your ability to give them a name that fits them. Names should match the character, but without being clich’. A boxer named “Punch” is a little silly, for example. Of course, a nickname may spring up that mirrors the character’s personality, but their given name should only suit the character, not stereotype them. Whole volumes can be written on naming characters alone, but suffice to say that buying a book of baby names and going through it until you find one that feels good will work.

You can try all sorts of additional ways to delve deeper into your character. Interviewing the character is a good exercise. Ask the character questions as if you are a reporter for Rolling Stone, People, the local newspaper or a magazine appropriate to your character’s background. Let the character speak. If you have already developed other characters for your story, ask them about your character. What do the other characters think about this person? Do they see the character differently than the character sees himself or herself?

Another way to explore your characters is to visualize them in their everyday world. What route do they take to work? What stations do they pick out on the radio? How do they act at a party? How do they respond to their boss or to their parents? What are their most common facial expressions? What are their hobbies? What household chores do they perform or ignore? What are their finances like? Picture the character five or ten years before the story takes place and five or ten years in the future. Where have they come from and how will the circumstances of your story change them?

Once you have explored your character in detail, you need to finish by creating a short, clear portrait of that character. What makes the character interesting, compelling and different? Try to come up with both a single sentence character description and a single paragraph character description. Each of these descriptions should vividly portray what kind of person this is. You won’t necessarily use these descriptions in your story, but it is important to have a clear portrait of your character that can guide you as you write and the story progresses.

After you have created your character, it is important to remember that they must be treated as individuals with their own needs and agendas. Allow your characters to have secrets, quirks and contradictions. Most people have a thousand little contradictions, even if their basic nature remains steadfast. Do not, however, make a character violate their basic nature just to suit the plot. If this character’s actions would change your plot too much, you need to either re-examine the plot, or create a more suitable character.

The most important advice I can give you is to respect your characters. Treat them as important people, whether you like the individual character’s personality or not. Remember that the character’s feelings and actions must reflect who they are and that the progression of the story must be important to them. What happens to them must matter. If you don’t find your character compelling and worthy of exploration, how can you expect a reader to?

Dialog (also spelled dialogue) is one of the most difficult aspects of writing to master. There are many pitfalls you must try to avoid, such as:

Stilted Language

Dialog that does not sound like natural speech.

Filler

Dialog that does not further the scene and does not deepen your understanding of the characters.

Exposition

Dialog that has the character explain the plot or repeat information for the benefit of the audience.

Naming

Having one character use another character’s name to establish identity. People almost never say other people’s names back to them, and if they do it is a character trait typical of a used car salesman.

Overuse of Modifiers

Too many dialog modifiers such as shouted, exclaimed, cried, whispered, stammered, opined, insinuated, hedged and a million others. Modifiers such as this can sometimes be useful, but are often annoying and used as a crutch for poorly designed dialogue.

Here are a few exercises to help you master dialog as a tool for writing:

Write down the things you say over the course of the day. Examine your own speech patterns. You don’t have to get every word, but you may find that you say less than you think and that your statements are surprisingly short. You might also find that you rarely speak in complete sentences.

Find a crowded place such as a restaurant, a bar, or a shopping mall and write down snippets of the conversations you hear. Avoid trying to record whole conversations, just follow along for a brief exchange and then listen for your next target. If you are worried about looking suspicious, you might want to purchase a Palm Pilot, Handspring Visor or other hand-held PDA device. These handy spy tools make it look like you are conducting business or playing with your favorite electronic toy rather than eavesdropping.

Test responses to the same question. Think of a question that will require at least a little thought, and ask it of several different people. Compare their responses. Remember that you are focused on their words. Write them down as soon as you can.

Record several different TV shows. Some choices include: sitcom, news, drama, talk show, infomercial, sporting event, etc.). Write down a transcript using just the dialog and people’s names. If you don’t know the names, just use a description such as announcer or redheaded woman. You can also transcribe two shows of the same genre, using one show you like and one you dislike. Compare dialog between the fiction and non-fiction programming you recorded. Look for such things as greetings, descriptions of physical actions, complete sentences, slang, verbal ticks (Such as like, you know, uhhhh, well, etc.). Compare how these dialog crutches change according to the show format and quality.

Rewrite one or more of the shows in exercise 4 as prose, trying to recreate the show as accurately as possible. Note how easy or difficult it is to work in the entire dialog from the show. Does it seem to flow naturally and read well or does it get in your way. Rewrite again eliminating any dialog you feel is unnecessary. Try not to change any dialog though until your final draft. Work with what you have. Remember that you don’t necessarily have to rewrite the whole show. Do enough to be sure you have the feeling for it.

Rewrite one of the the transcripts from exercise 4 using as much of the dialog as possible, but changing the scene in as many ways as possible. Change the setting, change the people’s intent, and change the tone. See how easy or difficult it is to give the same words a different intent. Again, do enough to be sure you have the feeling for it.

Write the dialog for a scene without using any modifiers. Just write down a conversation as it goes along naturally. After you have completed the dialog, add narrative description, but not dialog tags such as said, shouted or ordered. Instead, try to work the dialog into the action as a logical progression of the statements. Finally, add any dialog tags that are absolutely necessary, and keep them simple such as said, told, or asked. Again, only put them in if you can find not other options. Compare this to the previous dialog you have written and see what you like or dislike about the changes.

Write a scene in which one person tells another person a story. Make sure that you write it as a dialog and not just a first person narrative, but clearly have one person telling the story and the other person listening and asking questions or making comments. The purpose of this scene will be both to have the story stand alone as a subject, and to have the characters’ reactions to the story be the focal point of the scene.

Write a scene in which one person is listening to two other people have an argument or discussion. For example, a child listening to her parents argue about money. Have the third character narrate the argument and explain what is going on, but have the other two provide the entire dialog. It is not necessary to have the narrator understand the argument completely. Miscommunication is a major aspect of dialog.

Write a conversation between two liars. Give everything they say a double or triple meaning. Never state or indicate through outside description that these two people are lying. Let the reader figure it out strictly from the dialog. Try not to be obvious, such as having one person accuse the other of lying. That is too easy.

Write a conversation in which no character speaks more than three words per line of dialog. Again, avoid crutches such as explaining everything they say through narration. Use your narration to enhance the scene, not explain the dialog.

Write a narrative or scripted scene in which several characters are taking an active role in the conversation. This can be a difficult aspect of dialog to master, because with each additional character, the reader or audience must be able to keep track of the motivations and interests of the individuals involved. This can be especially difficult in prose, where the time between one character speaking and the next can be interrupted by action or description. See how many characters your can sustain within the scene and still have it make sense and be engaging.