Showing posts with label negotiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negotiation. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15

In my previous post in this series, "Fleshing out a thin story: thin characterization," I discussed the ways in which manuscripts drafted hastily, such as during NaNoWriMo, can have some areas of underwriting that need to be fleshed out in revision.

Today's post on underwritten conflict is related, because you first need to have developed characters before you can fully suss out the many potential forms of conflict in your story.  Conflict in fiction involves more than just the surface problem that drives the plot. It also involves interpersonal conflict between characters, not only the hero and antagonist, but also the hero and other often well-meaning allies who block him/her in some way. And further, to develop the hero's inner arc, your story must also involve internal conflict between some of the hero's own desires, be they aspriational, like a desire to love and be loved, or protective, such as a desire to never be made to look a fool. (Both are typically tied in some way to the hero's wound.)

I would argue that to have a compelling plot--that is, a surface problem that appropriately fits these characters, that challenges their particular moral and psychological issues--it's helpful to approach conflict from the inside out. That is, you first develop the hero's internal conflict, then from there it will be clearer what kinds of other conflicts s/he'd naturally get into. Who would push her buttons? How would he respond to the antagonist's goading or to sudden perilous circumstances? I cover this idea pretty extensively in that previous post on thin characterization, so I'll merely point you there once again.

Plot conflicts


Once you've got your hero's inner world established, consider how to bring to the fore the inner arc. What kinds of annoying people and circumstances will most challenge the hero's key weakness?

Another key question: how can I make things worse for my hero? Be wary, however, of just throwing random problems at your characters, or your story will become unintentionally comical. (Farce is the resulting genre when every possible thing that could ever go wrong does...and then gets worse and worse and worse, essentially to make the point that life is a big joke. Ha.)

So how can you make things worse in a way that enhances the story?
  • Block the hero's progress toward a goal with small inconveniences that would naturally happen in his/her environment: weather changes, injuries, illness. equipment failure, uncooperative underlings, punishing authority figures, family crises, work deadlines 
  • Add a "ticking clock"--some sort of deadline that adds urgency.
  • Undermine the hero by shaking his/her confidence or applying pressures that will make him/her behave badly--make a mistake, do something mean, defy his/her own inner rules.
  • Create a hardship that forces the hero to learn a new skill or build relationships that will be needed later.
  • Add complications to an existing problem, or raise the stakes of failing to solve it.

Interpersonal conflict


Many underwritten stories limit the interpersonal conflict to an antagonist character or two, while everyone else seems to get along pretty well. This is not only unrealistic, it's also a hugely missed opportunity to portray the rich depths of your characters and their relationships.

Because no matter how loving and dedicated people are to one another, they will come into conflict about little irritating habits, differences in taste or opinion, and personal goals. Two wholly good characters can easily squabble about the best method of doing good and when and for whom. How they squabble reveals a great deal about them.

In addition to allies who scuffle with the hero, consider adding in other characters who act as forces of antagonism in addition to, or even in place of a single arch-villain. I describe eight different kinds of "everyday antagonists" who can join your story, or perhaps be recruited from your existing ranks of characters.

Perhaps you have some interpersonal conflict, but it isn't quite well working yet. Many underwritten stories suffer from "jumping conflict" in which characters are calm or simpatico one moment, then inexplicably shouting at each other the next.

Granted, there are some people with extremely short fuses. They're perpetually angry and fly into a rage with little provocation. But those types are usually pretty easy to spot. They exhibit signs of being short fused in how they carry themselves and their tone of voice. If such a character exists in your fictional world, be sure to make those warning signs clear from the moment you introduce the character. Otherwise, his fits of rage will seem simply melodramatic, and he'll be a caricature rather than a character.

Most characters have longer fuses. They shift from calm to angry in gradual stages--slow burn. Negotiation or conflict avoidance should be more common than out-and-out fights. And when those fights do occur, they need to be appropriately paced. How?


  • Have the characters in conflict chip away at one another.
  • Have one try to back off or refuse to rise to the bait.
  • Repeatedly provoke a character with other, exterior conflicts so that she's ripe to burst with a little more pressure. 
  • Establish a trait such as worry or paranoia, so that his response to this trigger seems reasonable.

Most of all, try to think creatively about complex emotional responses. Straight-up anger is easy to write, and we can get lazy. In most conflicts, several emotions are at war. The mom who has to pick up her drunk teenager from a party can be as much worried and afraid as angry. The bullied nerd desires acceptance as much as revenge.

Explore those layers of emotion, and conflicts will become more interesting and more tense.

In every instance where characters get into conflict, stop and consider the mixed emotions that might reasonably be in play. Remember that not every character is prone to fist-fights or verbal sparring. Some people, when at cross-purposes with others, use soft, more positive tools to achieve their aims--they  might flatter, plead, or joke. This, too, is dramatic. Story-moving.

In The Scene Book, Sandra Scofield uses the term "negotiation" to describe how most characters experience conflict. She defines it as "an exchange of character desires and denials and relenting, until some sort of peace is carved out, or else the interaction falls apart."

Negotiation is a way of approaching conflict as power plays, in which each character tries to get what he or she wants.

I find this a helpful concept, because "conflict" is a pretty wholly negative term, whereas negotiations are often a mixed bag, and frankly, mixed bags offer more interest and diversity. Instead of one-note characters in one-note plots, negotiation helps you build character complexity and plots with organic twists and turns.

The power plays of negotiation depend first on the kind of relationship characters have--whether based on hierarchy, intimacy and equality, or a mix--and second, with the way each character tends to relate to and use power. Some will approach wresting power using negative tools like attacking, blame-shifting, lying or threatening. Others will use positive tools like begging, making promises, or truth-telling. (For an deeper look at the tools of negotation, see "The Secret to Complex, Compelling Conflict")

Interior conflict in underwritten stories often goes hand in hand with an overall thinness of the character's inner world and representations of interiority, so I will tackle this issue in a future post.

Which area is trickier for you to write, plot conflicts or interpersonal conflicts?


Thursday, December 15, 2016 Laurel Garver
In my previous post in this series, "Fleshing out a thin story: thin characterization," I discussed the ways in which manuscripts drafted hastily, such as during NaNoWriMo, can have some areas of underwriting that need to be fleshed out in revision.

Today's post on underwritten conflict is related, because you first need to have developed characters before you can fully suss out the many potential forms of conflict in your story.  Conflict in fiction involves more than just the surface problem that drives the plot. It also involves interpersonal conflict between characters, not only the hero and antagonist, but also the hero and other often well-meaning allies who block him/her in some way. And further, to develop the hero's inner arc, your story must also involve internal conflict between some of the hero's own desires, be they aspriational, like a desire to love and be loved, or protective, such as a desire to never be made to look a fool. (Both are typically tied in some way to the hero's wound.)

I would argue that to have a compelling plot--that is, a surface problem that appropriately fits these characters, that challenges their particular moral and psychological issues--it's helpful to approach conflict from the inside out. That is, you first develop the hero's internal conflict, then from there it will be clearer what kinds of other conflicts s/he'd naturally get into. Who would push her buttons? How would he respond to the antagonist's goading or to sudden perilous circumstances? I cover this idea pretty extensively in that previous post on thin characterization, so I'll merely point you there once again.

Plot conflicts


Once you've got your hero's inner world established, consider how to bring to the fore the inner arc. What kinds of annoying people and circumstances will most challenge the hero's key weakness?

Another key question: how can I make things worse for my hero? Be wary, however, of just throwing random problems at your characters, or your story will become unintentionally comical. (Farce is the resulting genre when every possible thing that could ever go wrong does...and then gets worse and worse and worse, essentially to make the point that life is a big joke. Ha.)

So how can you make things worse in a way that enhances the story?
  • Block the hero's progress toward a goal with small inconveniences that would naturally happen in his/her environment: weather changes, injuries, illness. equipment failure, uncooperative underlings, punishing authority figures, family crises, work deadlines 
  • Add a "ticking clock"--some sort of deadline that adds urgency.
  • Undermine the hero by shaking his/her confidence or applying pressures that will make him/her behave badly--make a mistake, do something mean, defy his/her own inner rules.
  • Create a hardship that forces the hero to learn a new skill or build relationships that will be needed later.
  • Add complications to an existing problem, or raise the stakes of failing to solve it.

Interpersonal conflict


Many underwritten stories limit the interpersonal conflict to an antagonist character or two, while everyone else seems to get along pretty well. This is not only unrealistic, it's also a hugely missed opportunity to portray the rich depths of your characters and their relationships.

Because no matter how loving and dedicated people are to one another, they will come into conflict about little irritating habits, differences in taste or opinion, and personal goals. Two wholly good characters can easily squabble about the best method of doing good and when and for whom. How they squabble reveals a great deal about them.

In addition to allies who scuffle with the hero, consider adding in other characters who act as forces of antagonism in addition to, or even in place of a single arch-villain. I describe eight different kinds of "everyday antagonists" who can join your story, or perhaps be recruited from your existing ranks of characters.

Perhaps you have some interpersonal conflict, but it isn't quite well working yet. Many underwritten stories suffer from "jumping conflict" in which characters are calm or simpatico one moment, then inexplicably shouting at each other the next.

Granted, there are some people with extremely short fuses. They're perpetually angry and fly into a rage with little provocation. But those types are usually pretty easy to spot. They exhibit signs of being short fused in how they carry themselves and their tone of voice. If such a character exists in your fictional world, be sure to make those warning signs clear from the moment you introduce the character. Otherwise, his fits of rage will seem simply melodramatic, and he'll be a caricature rather than a character.

Most characters have longer fuses. They shift from calm to angry in gradual stages--slow burn. Negotiation or conflict avoidance should be more common than out-and-out fights. And when those fights do occur, they need to be appropriately paced. How?


  • Have the characters in conflict chip away at one another.
  • Have one try to back off or refuse to rise to the bait.
  • Repeatedly provoke a character with other, exterior conflicts so that she's ripe to burst with a little more pressure. 
  • Establish a trait such as worry or paranoia, so that his response to this trigger seems reasonable.

Most of all, try to think creatively about complex emotional responses. Straight-up anger is easy to write, and we can get lazy. In most conflicts, several emotions are at war. The mom who has to pick up her drunk teenager from a party can be as much worried and afraid as angry. The bullied nerd desires acceptance as much as revenge.

Explore those layers of emotion, and conflicts will become more interesting and more tense.

In every instance where characters get into conflict, stop and consider the mixed emotions that might reasonably be in play. Remember that not every character is prone to fist-fights or verbal sparring. Some people, when at cross-purposes with others, use soft, more positive tools to achieve their aims--they  might flatter, plead, or joke. This, too, is dramatic. Story-moving.

In The Scene Book, Sandra Scofield uses the term "negotiation" to describe how most characters experience conflict. She defines it as "an exchange of character desires and denials and relenting, until some sort of peace is carved out, or else the interaction falls apart."

Negotiation is a way of approaching conflict as power plays, in which each character tries to get what he or she wants.

I find this a helpful concept, because "conflict" is a pretty wholly negative term, whereas negotiations are often a mixed bag, and frankly, mixed bags offer more interest and diversity. Instead of one-note characters in one-note plots, negotiation helps you build character complexity and plots with organic twists and turns.

The power plays of negotiation depend first on the kind of relationship characters have--whether based on hierarchy, intimacy and equality, or a mix--and second, with the way each character tends to relate to and use power. Some will approach wresting power using negative tools like attacking, blame-shifting, lying or threatening. Others will use positive tools like begging, making promises, or truth-telling. (For an deeper look at the tools of negotation, see "The Secret to Complex, Compelling Conflict")

Interior conflict in underwritten stories often goes hand in hand with an overall thinness of the character's inner world and representations of interiority, so I will tackle this issue in a future post.

Which area is trickier for you to write, plot conflicts or interpersonal conflicts?


Wednesday, September 4

The prevailing wisdom is that conflict is the core of every story, advice that can be a bit perplexing. Not every character is prone to fist-fights or verbal sparring. Some people, when at cross-purposes with others, use soft, more positive tools to achieve their aims--they  might flatter, beg or joke. This, too, is dramatic. Story-moving.

In The Scene Book, Sandra Scofield outlines a new way of thinking about conflict that helpfully addresses this range of real human approaches, from violent to passive.

She uses the term "negotiation" to describe how most characters experience conflict. She defines it as "an exchange of character desires and denials and relenting, until some sort of peace is carved out, or else the interaction falls apart."

Negotiation is a way of approaching conflict as power plays, in which each character tries to get what he or she wants.

I find this a helpful concept, because "conflict" is a pretty wholly negative term, whereas negotiations are often a mixed bag, and frankly, mixed bags offer more interest and diversity. Instead of one-note characters in one-note plots, negotiation helps you build character complexity and plots with organic twists and turns.

The power plays of negotiation depend first on the kind of relationship characters have, and second, with the way each character tends to relate to and use power.

How characters relate

Power in relationships can be about hierarchy. Private to sergeant. Novice to expert. Citizen to leader. Subject to king. Within hierarchical relationships, certain rules govern how the more powerful can exert his power. Power plays in these relationships will often revolve around these rules to uphold what is just and good.

Other relationships are based on equity and intimacy--friends, colleagues, partners, lovers. These, too, will at times become out of balance because of something internal or external to the relationship. A lover grows bored. A friend becomes popular and hip. A colleague cheats. A partner gets lazy. One party will often try to take the upper hand and exert power temporarily in order to restore or create balance and intimacy in the relationship.

Somewhere in between are relationships that are both hierarchical and intimate: parent and child, mentor and protege, teacher and student, older and younger sibling. In these relationships, restoring intimacy will at times trump restoring justice, or vice versa.

Keep this in mind as you build character conflict: is the relationship hierarchical, equitable, or mixed? It will make all the difference in how the characters will wield power.

How one wields power

The tools of exchange in a negotiation will vary among relationships and temperaments. Some exchanges will use mostly negative tools, others mostly positive. The most compelling exchanges will use a mix of both.

Negative tools

En garde, scoundrel! (Photo: Grafixar from morguefile.com)
accuse
attack
badger
blame-shift
clam up
compare to enemy
complain
defy
exert authority
indebt
intimidate
lie
name-call
outwit
refuse
remind of past failure
shame
taunt
threaten
twist truth


Positive tools

Pretty please?? (photo: morguefile.com)

apologize
beg
call in a favor
compliment
compare to hero
distract
downplay
expose inner self
flatter
joke
reason
reassure
remind of goal or dream
remind of past triumph
request help
share
truth-tell

What are your common approaches to conflict? Which type of relationship in conflict do you most enjoy writing? Least enjoy or struggle with?
Wednesday, September 04, 2013 Laurel Garver
The prevailing wisdom is that conflict is the core of every story, advice that can be a bit perplexing. Not every character is prone to fist-fights or verbal sparring. Some people, when at cross-purposes with others, use soft, more positive tools to achieve their aims--they  might flatter, beg or joke. This, too, is dramatic. Story-moving.

In The Scene Book, Sandra Scofield outlines a new way of thinking about conflict that helpfully addresses this range of real human approaches, from violent to passive.

She uses the term "negotiation" to describe how most characters experience conflict. She defines it as "an exchange of character desires and denials and relenting, until some sort of peace is carved out, or else the interaction falls apart."

Negotiation is a way of approaching conflict as power plays, in which each character tries to get what he or she wants.

I find this a helpful concept, because "conflict" is a pretty wholly negative term, whereas negotiations are often a mixed bag, and frankly, mixed bags offer more interest and diversity. Instead of one-note characters in one-note plots, negotiation helps you build character complexity and plots with organic twists and turns.

The power plays of negotiation depend first on the kind of relationship characters have, and second, with the way each character tends to relate to and use power.

How characters relate

Power in relationships can be about hierarchy. Private to sergeant. Novice to expert. Citizen to leader. Subject to king. Within hierarchical relationships, certain rules govern how the more powerful can exert his power. Power plays in these relationships will often revolve around these rules to uphold what is just and good.

Other relationships are based on equity and intimacy--friends, colleagues, partners, lovers. These, too, will at times become out of balance because of something internal or external to the relationship. A lover grows bored. A friend becomes popular and hip. A colleague cheats. A partner gets lazy. One party will often try to take the upper hand and exert power temporarily in order to restore or create balance and intimacy in the relationship.

Somewhere in between are relationships that are both hierarchical and intimate: parent and child, mentor and protege, teacher and student, older and younger sibling. In these relationships, restoring intimacy will at times trump restoring justice, or vice versa.

Keep this in mind as you build character conflict: is the relationship hierarchical, equitable, or mixed? It will make all the difference in how the characters will wield power.

How one wields power

The tools of exchange in a negotiation will vary among relationships and temperaments. Some exchanges will use mostly negative tools, others mostly positive. The most compelling exchanges will use a mix of both.

Negative tools

En garde, scoundrel! (Photo: Grafixar from morguefile.com)
accuse
attack
badger
blame-shift
clam up
compare to enemy
complain
defy
exert authority
indebt
intimidate
lie
name-call
outwit
refuse
remind of past failure
shame
taunt
threaten
twist truth


Positive tools

Pretty please?? (photo: morguefile.com)

apologize
beg
call in a favor
compliment
compare to hero
distract
downplay
expose inner self
flatter
joke
reason
reassure
remind of goal or dream
remind of past triumph
request help
share
truth-tell

What are your common approaches to conflict? Which type of relationship in conflict do you most enjoy writing? Least enjoy or struggle with?

Saturday, April 17

Welcome to the final day of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers (plus quite a few more) and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you've had a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. Today I reveal the top prize winner!

As in the previous days, I provide a short commentary after the winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work. Today's winner, as you'll see, shows us how negotiation can be complex, yet still FUN. There are some great techniques to see here, and try at home!

Without further ado, my grand prize winner is...

Janet Johnson!

Janet won a fifteen-page critique. You can read Janet's winning novel excerpt from The Other Prince HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

====================

What I noticed immediately is how natural Janet's dialogue sounds. I found I could read this aloud in two distinct voices without any effort, just based on the word choices and cadence. I feel Bob's somewhat whiny petulance, and yet I like this guy from the beginning. He's insightful and witty about his predicament and really humble. Briann exudes a no-nonsense approach to life, and yet she, too, is insightful and a good listener to boot.

Some of the details tell us we're in a fantasy setting, but the lingo here is lighter and more contemporary feeling. It's fantasy that doesn't take itself too seriously, very like Rowling in tone. That's a plus as far as I'm concerned, because I can't read much of the "forsooth, my lord," sort high fantasy nowadays without snickering. But I digress....

Janet's piece is a persuasion you'll see in almost every genre--creation of an alliance. I learned a lot about what goes into trust-building by studying what she does here.

Trust surely comes when one feels understood and heard. Notice how Briann draws Bob out, getting him to talk about his specific fears. I love how she pulls up a bucket and sits. It's a nonverbal cue that says "I'm available, I'm invested, talk to me." She asks questions initially, but doesn't interrogate. As he opens up more, she simply reflects what he's saying to show that she's processing, taking it in.

She waits to press him to action, first by teasing, then by offering a solution. Because she has heard him out and because of the earlier teasing, he doesn't get angry at her suggestion. He instead shifts the conversation's tone to a humor sparring. It's a way of getting back onto familiar territory. Bob's more comfortable with his self-deprecating side than with the guy Briann suggests he might be. That, my friends, is some solid characterization. Go and do likewise!

Briann knows just which buttons to push to get Bob to agree to her plan. It's an interesting mix of attack, shaming, name-calling, plus compliments, reassuring, and even exposing inner self. Janet grabs many tools from the negotiation toolbox and works them to great effect in a very small space. It impressed me greatly.

What totally kicked me in the throat here, though, was Bob's inner thoughts near the end of the scene. He's sensed that not only does he have a plan for dealing with his problem, but that his relationship with Briann has subtly shifted. Or at least he's aware that he wishes it would. He reads back meaning into what just transpired and hopes intensely for just a moment, caught up in the dream of being that guy, the one Briann sees in him. That guy that Briann could love. Then...THUD, he's back to being humble old Bob. Wow. I've just seen the larger story arc play out in his head in just a handful of words. Nice. Very nice.

Technically, I think the piece would be just as effective with fewer dialogue tags. Feel free to weigh in about that in the comments.

What do you appreciate about Janet's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?
Saturday, April 17, 2010 Laurel Garver
Welcome to the final day of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers (plus quite a few more) and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you've had a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. Today I reveal the top prize winner!

As in the previous days, I provide a short commentary after the winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work. Today's winner, as you'll see, shows us how negotiation can be complex, yet still FUN. There are some great techniques to see here, and try at home!

Without further ado, my grand prize winner is...

Janet Johnson!

Janet won a fifteen-page critique. You can read Janet's winning novel excerpt from The Other Prince HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

====================

What I noticed immediately is how natural Janet's dialogue sounds. I found I could read this aloud in two distinct voices without any effort, just based on the word choices and cadence. I feel Bob's somewhat whiny petulance, and yet I like this guy from the beginning. He's insightful and witty about his predicament and really humble. Briann exudes a no-nonsense approach to life, and yet she, too, is insightful and a good listener to boot.

Some of the details tell us we're in a fantasy setting, but the lingo here is lighter and more contemporary feeling. It's fantasy that doesn't take itself too seriously, very like Rowling in tone. That's a plus as far as I'm concerned, because I can't read much of the "forsooth, my lord," sort high fantasy nowadays without snickering. But I digress....

Janet's piece is a persuasion you'll see in almost every genre--creation of an alliance. I learned a lot about what goes into trust-building by studying what she does here.

Trust surely comes when one feels understood and heard. Notice how Briann draws Bob out, getting him to talk about his specific fears. I love how she pulls up a bucket and sits. It's a nonverbal cue that says "I'm available, I'm invested, talk to me." She asks questions initially, but doesn't interrogate. As he opens up more, she simply reflects what he's saying to show that she's processing, taking it in.

She waits to press him to action, first by teasing, then by offering a solution. Because she has heard him out and because of the earlier teasing, he doesn't get angry at her suggestion. He instead shifts the conversation's tone to a humor sparring. It's a way of getting back onto familiar territory. Bob's more comfortable with his self-deprecating side than with the guy Briann suggests he might be. That, my friends, is some solid characterization. Go and do likewise!

Briann knows just which buttons to push to get Bob to agree to her plan. It's an interesting mix of attack, shaming, name-calling, plus compliments, reassuring, and even exposing inner self. Janet grabs many tools from the negotiation toolbox and works them to great effect in a very small space. It impressed me greatly.

What totally kicked me in the throat here, though, was Bob's inner thoughts near the end of the scene. He's sensed that not only does he have a plan for dealing with his problem, but that his relationship with Briann has subtly shifted. Or at least he's aware that he wishes it would. He reads back meaning into what just transpired and hopes intensely for just a moment, caught up in the dream of being that guy, the one Briann sees in him. That guy that Briann could love. Then...THUD, he's back to being humble old Bob. Wow. I've just seen the larger story arc play out in his head in just a handful of words. Nice. Very nice.

Technically, I think the piece would be just as effective with fewer dialogue tags. Feel free to weigh in about that in the comments.

What do you appreciate about Janet's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?

Friday, April 16

Welcome to day three of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers (plus quite a few more!) and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you'll have a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. As your ever-analytical host, I provide a short commentary after each winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my first runner-up winner is...

Victoria Dixon!

Victoria won You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation by Deborah Tannen.

You can read Victoria's winning novel excerpt from Mourn Their Courage HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

===================

Elegant. That word sums up this delicious bit of tense dialogue. What makes it so is Victoria's use of milieu and balance.

By milieu, I mean more than just setting. Victoria draws on the larger cultural mores of her Asian setting--how the characters dress, move, gesture, emote, establish hierarchy and express intimacy is formed by a larger culture. That culture pours meaning into the deepness of a bow. Power plays in this environment happen with the flicker of an eyebrow. Friendship is given or withdrawn in the inches between to two people on a bench. In this rigid social structure, so much deep conflict is expressed in the slightest gesture or inflection or turn of phrase.

The words these two men say to one another seem, on the surface, rather bureaucratic and even dull. But the tension ripples nonetheless. How does Victoria do that? She interprets the data through Xiongli's thoughts. His interpretations guide us so we know what to make of Wu. In the West, we might see a look in the eyes as honest, a confident stride as ease. Not in this culture. These things make Xiongli uneasy. We quickly pick up that Wu's manners mark him as cocky--a force to be reckoned with.

If your writing involves any kind of world-building, whether it's a contemporary non-Western culture, an historic culture or a futuristic non-earth world, you need to establish milieu. Victoria demonstrates an important aspect of how you present the particulars of your milieu: use of a protagonist interpreter guide. Without Xiongli's hints about how to understand every gesture, this piece would have quickly become incoherent.

Victoria also balances three narrative elements very well: dialogue, action and inner thoughts/emotions. The dialogue takes on greater weight because the movement through the scene and Xiongli's reactions work alongside to heighten tension. While no actual fighting takes place, there is a constant threat of violence, from seeing a face "covered with scars," to "guards...within sword range" to a dagger clutched inside a sleeve. The constant reading of nonverbal cues also puts us on edge. We quickly realize this meeting is more than two men talking--these are representatives of two large powers, with the ability to back up any threat made.

I think I was most wowed by the insertion of Wu's fish feeding in this scene. This gesture that seems innocuous is anything but. It's a delay and diversion tactic on one hand, and a show of power on the other. It makes Wu appear calm, unruffled by this government heavy. And yet Xiongli's description of "gasping" fish and "waiting mouths" undergirds the impression that Wu holds power over his guild and can call upon them when necessary.

In the midst of all these small gestures, these men exchange threats and negotiate a way for the empire to capture an enemy that Wu's guild has been traitorously harboring. The give and take is so very diplomatic and coldly calculating, you can picture how the enemy Zhang will be brought to justice--in a swift, stealthy ambush. Chilling and powerful and incredibly page turning!

What do you appreciate about Victoria's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?
Friday, April 16, 2010 Laurel Garver
Welcome to day three of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers (plus quite a few more!) and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you'll have a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. As your ever-analytical host, I provide a short commentary after each winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my first runner-up winner is...

Victoria Dixon!

Victoria won You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation by Deborah Tannen.

You can read Victoria's winning novel excerpt from Mourn Their Courage HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

===================

Elegant. That word sums up this delicious bit of tense dialogue. What makes it so is Victoria's use of milieu and balance.

By milieu, I mean more than just setting. Victoria draws on the larger cultural mores of her Asian setting--how the characters dress, move, gesture, emote, establish hierarchy and express intimacy is formed by a larger culture. That culture pours meaning into the deepness of a bow. Power plays in this environment happen with the flicker of an eyebrow. Friendship is given or withdrawn in the inches between to two people on a bench. In this rigid social structure, so much deep conflict is expressed in the slightest gesture or inflection or turn of phrase.

The words these two men say to one another seem, on the surface, rather bureaucratic and even dull. But the tension ripples nonetheless. How does Victoria do that? She interprets the data through Xiongli's thoughts. His interpretations guide us so we know what to make of Wu. In the West, we might see a look in the eyes as honest, a confident stride as ease. Not in this culture. These things make Xiongli uneasy. We quickly pick up that Wu's manners mark him as cocky--a force to be reckoned with.

If your writing involves any kind of world-building, whether it's a contemporary non-Western culture, an historic culture or a futuristic non-earth world, you need to establish milieu. Victoria demonstrates an important aspect of how you present the particulars of your milieu: use of a protagonist interpreter guide. Without Xiongli's hints about how to understand every gesture, this piece would have quickly become incoherent.

Victoria also balances three narrative elements very well: dialogue, action and inner thoughts/emotions. The dialogue takes on greater weight because the movement through the scene and Xiongli's reactions work alongside to heighten tension. While no actual fighting takes place, there is a constant threat of violence, from seeing a face "covered with scars," to "guards...within sword range" to a dagger clutched inside a sleeve. The constant reading of nonverbal cues also puts us on edge. We quickly realize this meeting is more than two men talking--these are representatives of two large powers, with the ability to back up any threat made.

I think I was most wowed by the insertion of Wu's fish feeding in this scene. This gesture that seems innocuous is anything but. It's a delay and diversion tactic on one hand, and a show of power on the other. It makes Wu appear calm, unruffled by this government heavy. And yet Xiongli's description of "gasping" fish and "waiting mouths" undergirds the impression that Wu holds power over his guild and can call upon them when necessary.

In the midst of all these small gestures, these men exchange threats and negotiate a way for the empire to capture an enemy that Wu's guild has been traitorously harboring. The give and take is so very diplomatic and coldly calculating, you can picture how the enemy Zhang will be brought to justice--in a swift, stealthy ambush. Chilling and powerful and incredibly page turning!

What do you appreciate about Victoria's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?

Thursday, April 15

Welcome to day two of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you'll have a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. As your ever-analytical host, I provide a short commentary after each winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my second runner-up winner is...

Tricia O'Brien!

Tricia won an eight-page critique. You can read Tricia's winning story excerpt from
"Princess Charming" HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

=========================

Tricia's use of detail and description is important for cluing you in that this isn't a contemporary setting, but a fairy-tale-esque one. But she doesn't belabor the point. There are just enough "telling details" for the reader to sense the wealth, pomp and especially the MCs discomfort. The contrast of Charming's colloquial inner voice with the formality of the situation shows us she's being forced into a defensive position.

Looking for a way to make your antagonist more formidable? Have him force a meeting somewhere he is comfortable and in control and your protagonist is disadvantaged and out of her comfort zone.

The way father and daughter attempt to chip away at one another is clever indeed. King Ormond presses again and again by calling upon lofty themes of destiny and duty and calling. Charming refuses to play the game on his terms. She acts at her "maximum capacity" (as James Frey calls it in How to Write a D**n Good Novel) and uses every skill in her arsenal to defend herself. Charming's feistiness is what makes this piece sing. Nothing irritates me more as a reader than the helpless wimp who capitulates without putting up any resistance. Even Jesus wrestled with God in Gethsemane about facing the cross. Give your characters a spine, please!

Charming openly defies the king, first by questioning the validity of his interpretation. Seeing that her mother is sympathetic (and a potential ally), she highlights the personal risk she'd face on this quest. In doing so, she's shifted the ground under the king. He can stick with his line of argument, but he risks losing the queen's goodwill.

When you find your characters' arguments becoming a little too predictable or boring, consider following Tricia's lead. Add a third party witness who isn't actively taking sides and see how it can add complexity and alter the techniques your characters use to try to get their way.

The more the king tries to boss and bully, notice how Charming emphasizes her own unfitness. Her hope is to gain advantage in her cause by showing herself weak. This kind of move might seem counter-intuitive, but it's effecting and real. It tells you a lot about what kind of girl she is--quick-witted and self-deprecating and likely to approach problems creatively.

Once her father stops bullying and instead appeals to her uniqueness, he reclaims the superior position of sympathy. She must take on the quest because no one else can--and people are counting on her. To continue to defy at this point will no longer earn Charming any sympathy from the queen or the courtiers. Her options for escape are cut off. She capitulates.

What do you appreciate about Tricia's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?
Thursday, April 15, 2010 Laurel Garver
Welcome to day two of my Eleventy-one awards program, celebrating my 111 followers and their wonderful writing. Day by day, you'll have a chance to see different approaches to persuasive dialogue in action. As your ever-analytical host, I provide a short commentary after each winning entry that includes take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my second runner-up winner is...

Tricia O'Brien!

Tricia won an eight-page critique. You can read Tricia's winning story excerpt from
"Princess Charming" HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

=========================

Tricia's use of detail and description is important for cluing you in that this isn't a contemporary setting, but a fairy-tale-esque one. But she doesn't belabor the point. There are just enough "telling details" for the reader to sense the wealth, pomp and especially the MCs discomfort. The contrast of Charming's colloquial inner voice with the formality of the situation shows us she's being forced into a defensive position.

Looking for a way to make your antagonist more formidable? Have him force a meeting somewhere he is comfortable and in control and your protagonist is disadvantaged and out of her comfort zone.

The way father and daughter attempt to chip away at one another is clever indeed. King Ormond presses again and again by calling upon lofty themes of destiny and duty and calling. Charming refuses to play the game on his terms. She acts at her "maximum capacity" (as James Frey calls it in How to Write a D**n Good Novel) and uses every skill in her arsenal to defend herself. Charming's feistiness is what makes this piece sing. Nothing irritates me more as a reader than the helpless wimp who capitulates without putting up any resistance. Even Jesus wrestled with God in Gethsemane about facing the cross. Give your characters a spine, please!

Charming openly defies the king, first by questioning the validity of his interpretation. Seeing that her mother is sympathetic (and a potential ally), she highlights the personal risk she'd face on this quest. In doing so, she's shifted the ground under the king. He can stick with his line of argument, but he risks losing the queen's goodwill.

When you find your characters' arguments becoming a little too predictable or boring, consider following Tricia's lead. Add a third party witness who isn't actively taking sides and see how it can add complexity and alter the techniques your characters use to try to get their way.

The more the king tries to boss and bully, notice how Charming emphasizes her own unfitness. Her hope is to gain advantage in her cause by showing herself weak. This kind of move might seem counter-intuitive, but it's effecting and real. It tells you a lot about what kind of girl she is--quick-witted and self-deprecating and likely to approach problems creatively.

Once her father stops bullying and instead appeals to her uniqueness, he reclaims the superior position of sympathy. She must take on the quest because no one else can--and people are counting on her. To continue to defy at this point will no longer earn Charming any sympathy from the queen or the courtiers. Her options for escape are cut off. She capitulates.

What do you appreciate about Tricia's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?

Wednesday, April 14

The happy day has arrived to begin announcing the winners of my Eleventy-one Celebration Writing Contest, in honor of making 111 blogging friends.

Contest entrants submitted a short piece, 700 words or less, that was dialogue-driven and displayed and instance of characters negotiating or persuading. I've selected four winners out of the thirteen entries: a grand prize and three runners up. Winners were selected based on how well they followed the prompt. Here are the questions I asked when evaluating each piece:

~Does each character have a clear point of view and emotional pulse?

~How skillfully does the persuader work his or her tools of persuasion?

~Does the persuaded character convincingly defend his or her ground before capitulating?

~Is the story coherent and smooth?

~Is the dialogue paced well for the situation?

~Does each character have a distinct voice?

As I post each winning entry over the next four days, I plan to include a short commentary afterward with some analysis and take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my third runner-up winner is...

Jenna Wallace!

Jenna won The Scene Book: A Primer for the Fiction Writer by Sandra Scofield.

You can read Jenna's winning novel excerpt from The Shadow Scribe HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

========================

I really like the economy of this interaction between MC Lara and Isobel. We pick up pretty quickly that they're in a restaurant without getting bogged down in excessive description. Just a few well-placed cues like pointing with food and the waitress interrupting. The setting is somewhat incidental, but not irrelevant--being in a public place puts certain constraints on how heated a conversation can become.

Jenna uses almost no dialogue tags, the "she said, I said" sort of thing. Instead, she makes each character's voice unique enough you can quickly distinguish each speaker. Isobel's speech is more formal and nuanced, while Lara's is colloquial and straight forward. A few actions sprinkled in keep us anchored.

This act of persuasion is very light-touch. Isobel builds her case in little increments, always starting from points of agreement with Lara, then pressing against Lara's areas of resistance with questions. This is an excellent way to shape a negotiation.

When Lara presses back, note how Isobel tries to appear nonchalant, as if she's willing to back down, when in fact she's just dodging a blow. Lara's internal thoughts show where and how the persuasion is working. Nice, huh?

I think Jenna's most compelling technique here is drawing in an off-stage character and building an alliance against him. She's subtly moved the line of conflict. Not longer is it Isobel vs. Lara, but Isobel and Lara vs. David.

What do you appreciate about Jenna's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Laurel Garver
The happy day has arrived to begin announcing the winners of my Eleventy-one Celebration Writing Contest, in honor of making 111 blogging friends.

Contest entrants submitted a short piece, 700 words or less, that was dialogue-driven and displayed and instance of characters negotiating or persuading. I've selected four winners out of the thirteen entries: a grand prize and three runners up. Winners were selected based on how well they followed the prompt. Here are the questions I asked when evaluating each piece:

~Does each character have a clear point of view and emotional pulse?

~How skillfully does the persuader work his or her tools of persuasion?

~Does the persuaded character convincingly defend his or her ground before capitulating?

~Is the story coherent and smooth?

~Is the dialogue paced well for the situation?

~Does each character have a distinct voice?

As I post each winning entry over the next four days, I plan to include a short commentary afterward with some analysis and take-home tips to try in your own work.

Without further ado, my third runner-up winner is...

Jenna Wallace!

Jenna won The Scene Book: A Primer for the Fiction Writer by Sandra Scofield.

You can read Jenna's winning novel excerpt from The Shadow Scribe HERE.

(My publishing copyright arrangement with winners was a one-time short term use. All rights reverted to the respective authors after one week.)

========================

I really like the economy of this interaction between MC Lara and Isobel. We pick up pretty quickly that they're in a restaurant without getting bogged down in excessive description. Just a few well-placed cues like pointing with food and the waitress interrupting. The setting is somewhat incidental, but not irrelevant--being in a public place puts certain constraints on how heated a conversation can become.

Jenna uses almost no dialogue tags, the "she said, I said" sort of thing. Instead, she makes each character's voice unique enough you can quickly distinguish each speaker. Isobel's speech is more formal and nuanced, while Lara's is colloquial and straight forward. A few actions sprinkled in keep us anchored.

This act of persuasion is very light-touch. Isobel builds her case in little increments, always starting from points of agreement with Lara, then pressing against Lara's areas of resistance with questions. This is an excellent way to shape a negotiation.

When Lara presses back, note how Isobel tries to appear nonchalant, as if she's willing to back down, when in fact she's just dodging a blow. Lara's internal thoughts show where and how the persuasion is working. Nice, huh?

I think Jenna's most compelling technique here is drawing in an off-stage character and building an alliance against him. She's subtly moved the line of conflict. Not longer is it Isobel vs. Lara, but Isobel and Lara vs. David.

What do you appreciate about Jenna's winning entry? Which of her techniques do you want to try in your own work?