Is this good dialogue?

>You might have autism if you wrote that.
one of the most popular fantasy writers might have autism. It's from Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn

novelforfree.com/mistborn-the-final-empire_chapter_page-6_2749_1793.html

Your dialogue should be written well enough to convey the intended emotion without having to add 'he said angrily.' Less is often more.

terrible

>show not tell
'glancing coldy' does exactly that though

>one of the most popular fantasy writers might have autism
Least surprising fact I've read today

I'm not certain it does, I think with 'show, don't tell' you have to write down objective physical observations which leave no ambiguity (raised eyebrows, open mouth, stumbling back, etc) and allow the reader to figure everything out by themselves.

'glancing coldy' feels like another way of saying 'glancing angrily' or 'glancing with disdain', you're pretty much directly telling the reader how your character feels

The only people afraid of adverbs are those who read Stephen King's On Writing and thought it was a Bible.

I lost track of who was speaking

Attached: 1648436313361.jpg (619x453, 47.19K)

This is genuinely the shittiest, most garbage take i have and will ever see on lit. The quality of this board and it's posters just fucking plummeted with the submission of this post. Kindly kill yourself

Attached: 9003.jpg (1656x1676, 212.78K)

No it's not. I've never had a conversation like this in my life. So much modern trash has unnecessary dialogue, tv really lowered the bar. You're reusing "suppose", I think across two different characters, but it's not in a good way where the second character is using it in the same way the first character was. If you're writing is actually good, you shouldn't need to point out who's talking where (which, for the other user, is why script writing is avoided, because it's cumbersome). It should be obvious who's talking based on context and the character's personality.

Additionally, there's a lot of unnecessary filler that feels like it's only there to fill out a quota and not actually develop any character. I'm basically looking at a dialogue between the same person, just that one person knows a little bit more than the other.

>glancing coldly
Dont give advice

why were you being mean to OP
you knew people were going to call you out on this

i prefer the left

emotions are supposed to come from the dialogue
"glancing coldly" is not movement
noone said not to include narration, that's just a shit way of doing it

Can u give an example of better narration with the dialogue provided then, I'd like to see how you would write it differently

Sanderson really lives rent free in you niggas's heads don't he

no, as neither can you, because we're not great writers, we're both just anons on a cambodian basket weaving forum, arguing about how to write because we like to argue on the internet.

11/10 bait

I hope this is bait

Define good
If you mean interesting then no this is some boring ass dialogue
I'm sure it serves some minor plot relevance but even then it seems unnecessarily long-winded

>"He'd better be," Cold stare fixated on Kelsier. "He'll be the one paying us, after all."
I can't say my example is perfect, but it's better than pointing out yet again that it's Dockson talking, when anyone paying attention can easily decipher it.

You would need context of the character, location, and situation in order to truly answer that question. I could say "He'd better be," shoving his gold plated glock inscribed 'pimpkilla' into the pouch of his Yeezy hoodie, "He'll be the one paying us, after all." And you have a generic action of a generic "gangsta", but in general it accomplishes a simple task with action: hiding his pistol on his body is a threatening action, implying that if he doesn't get the money he will have his Glock on him ready for action. I'm not saying this is a good solution, but action informing character is what you want, not narrative description.

Kelsier thought for a moment. “Is Clubs still running that shop of his? He’s one of the best Smokers in the city.”

“Isn’t he hard to work with?”

“He’s not so bad, once you get used to him. Besides, I think he might be… amenable to this particular job.”

Dockson shrugged. “I’ll invite him. I think one of his relatives is a Tineye. Do you want me to invite him too?”

“Sounds good,” Kelsier said.

“All right. That leaves Yeden.”

“He’ll be there.”

“He’d better be,” Dockson said. “He’ll be the one paying us, after all.”

a decent writer will remember to throw in a reminder every half a page or so.

checked.
the left one is good and true. the right is damned boring.

Sandersonsisters...it's over...

Attached: 1d996512d2919b369188390d9144675a.jpg (540x305, 16.64K)

I was going to rewrite it as well but mine was pretty much the same as this.

I don't like it but I'm sure there are people that do. Or maybe you can have this sort of excessive usage of "x said" as part of the narration of a character within the text. You fucks are all tied down by rules, wallowing in your extremes likeIt doesn't fucking matter. The context and whatever it is you're writing determines how it is written and what sort of prose is called for. Fuck the rules. I make my own.

If you can cut a third of the prose and not lose anything then you should. That's my rule and I stick by it.
Prose doesn't have to advance the plot. It can add flavor or characterization or even exist for its own sake if it's poetic enough. But it has to do something.

Oh, I completey agree but you could just say "If you can cut a third and not lose anything then you should." instead. Point being, use whatever tool you have available. If your thought calls for drawn-out descriptions, the kind some of this board might foolishly call "purple", then just go wild. If the context calls for short, precise and perhaps even 'dull' descriptions, well, just write away.
OP's text I dislike but why trash it all together? A simpleton of a character can narrate their experience listening to this conversation. You can make anything work if you just sit down for long enough and use your brain.

too much suppose

A simpleton's thoughts should still be interesting to read. The speech itself can use trimming, and I don't think "X said" is part of the simpleton thought process, or any other—does your internal narration have dialogue tags?
Trimming this down doesn't make it worse for any purpose (aside from lame gotchas like "pumping up the word count", "saving time on editing", "demonstrating bloated prose", etc).

Some of the other sections suggest that Sanderson is not incapable of writing flowing dialogue, so it seems this is just a particularly poorly edited snippet.

>not incapable
why not just say "capable"

>glancing coldly

Attached: 1437757737511.jpg (192x185, 6.6K)

It was the liquid nitrogen of looks.

Ellipses make me want to rip my eyes out

Why is this post being torn apart
>glancing coldly
Thi seems fine

Dockson's gaze swept across Kelsier, ushering in a localized fimbulwinter. Sweat froze, extremities broke off, and women rushed their children inside.

If it is used sparingly, incredibly sparingly, borderline never, not at all, it is fine. If every exchange is peppered with these descriptors then the writing becomes weak and tedious. The texture and context of the dialogue should carry the meaning on its own. It's a completely unnecessary descriptor that 99/100 times could and should be conveyed contextually.

Felt like it

shame you didn't feel like not posting at all

Thanks

Fuck off, ESL

I mean, I feel something more could be said than "Sounds good," in response to whatever a tineye is. But yeah, this is fine.

illiterate retard

My usage is not uncommon in English, so I contend that it is you who is the illiterate retard.

Attached: 1630992641897.png (500x500, 237.72K)

Honestly, not bad. I found it believable.

Commit suicide retard

Left is better, has a storybook quality, like the opening of a tall tale or yarn. Right is writers workshop gruel.

Your example is fucking shit. It's not even grammatically correct.