Here's something I've noticed in dialogue writing, particularly TV-scriptwriting, which helps in creating scenes with a sense of pace and a defined beginning and end. It may be obvious to some, and no doubt goes under other names. I call it 'not giving a straight answer'.

Let's look at the following scene:

Karen: So, how are you feeling?
Darren: Okay. My hangover's going.
Karen. That's good. Did you get my memo?
Darren: Yeah - I have it here. Our ad campaign features twenty-four live minks? Is that a typo?
Karen: Er yeah.
Darren: What should it be?
Karen: Monks.
Darren: Monks eh? I liked the typo better.

This scene kind of reads okay, but it's just a bit flat on the page. Not really much in the way of zing. If you read it again, you'll see that every other line is a question and the following line is the answer to that question. It's probably quite a realistic reflection of how people speak, but it doesn't make for a dynamic scene. It also doesn't really tell us anything about the relationship between the characters.

Let's rewrite that scene, and keep some of those questions in. But this time, every time one character asks a question, the other won't answer it. We'll see what happens:

Karen: So, how are you feeling? Is your hangover gone?
Darren: Twenty-four live minks? What the hell does that director think he's doing? Tell me, how exactly does twenty-four minks define the brand image of this company?
Karen: Its a typo. You didn't see my note?
Darren: Oh man, it's too early for scares like that. So how many minks? A couple, maybe? Three?
Karen: It's 'monks'.

DARREN'S jaw drops. No words come out.

Karen: And incidentally, the plural of 'mink' is 'mink'. So, your hangover's gone?
Darren: Do we have any asprin?

I prefer this draft. It puts over the same plot information as before (whatever plot this might fit into!) but we have an altogether zingier exchange, which stems from neither character giving a straight answer to the question they're being asked. Either they will answer a question with another question, or they will act as though they are ignoring the other speaker.

I said at the start that this technique helps give you a beginning and an end. In our example (and it's a common one) we create a good opener through the very fact that Darren doesn't answer Karen, and instead starts on a semi-surreal rant. We then have an opportunity to flip that around for our ending - by having Darren answer the question he was asked in the beginning. This brings things full circle, which signals the end of the scene. We come away with the plot information we needed, and also a little something of the dynamic between our characters.

If you watch series 1-4 of "The West Wing" (when Aaron Sorkin was still writing for it) then you'll see much better examples of what I'm talking about.

Happy writing,
tamper