“Let me get this straight. What you’re saying is that a man should be able to do what he wants as long as he’s discreet about it.”
“Not exactly. But in Europe that sort of thing happens all the time.”
“Oh! You’re going to give me the Europe argument! It’s okay if a husband cheats on his wife because François Mitterrand did!”
“Honey . . .”
“If you call me honey again, I’m going to pop you in the nose.”
“You call me honey.”
“Okay. But there’s a time and a place for saying honey. And this isn’t it.”
We were silent for a moment.” (Amor Towles, Table for Two)
Writing Exercise: The Rhythm of Realism—Subtext, Power Dynamics, and Cadence in Dialogue
Techniques Illustrated by the Quotation:
1. Subtext and Implied Tension – The exchange reveals more than what is explicitly said. The characters’ relationship dynamics, personal values, and emotional stakes emerge through what they say and what they avoid saying.
2. Power Shifts in Dialogue – The conversation is a verbal tug-of-war, shifting as one character pushes and the other deflects, then counters. The use of “honey” as both an affectionate and combative term reflects this.
3. Rhythmic Cadence in Dialogue – Short, sharp responses create urgency and naturalism. The balance of clipped phrases, interruptions, and a strategic pause (“We were silent for a moment”) mimics real speech while controlling pacing.
Writing Prompt (500 words):
Write a scene in which two characters argue about a fundamental difference in worldview—one that reveals something deeper about their relationship. The disagreement should start over something seemingly minor (a restaurant choice, a parking spot, a film review) but should gradually unearth an underlying conflict.
Use:
• Subtext to hint at hidden emotions or past grievances without stating them outright.
• Shifts in power, with each character gaining and losing control at different moments.
• Varied sentence rhythm to create tension, using clipped retorts, longer justifications, and well-placed pauses.
What Makes a Strong Response:
• Subtext is layered but clear. The argument isn’t just about what’s being said; the real issue simmers beneath the surface.
• The power dynamics shift naturally. Neither character dominates the entire exchange; the reader senses the give-and-take.
• Dialogue reads as authentic yet crafted. It sounds real but isn’t bogged down with filler. The rhythm keeps the scene engaging.
• The emotional turn lands. The scene should end with a shift—resolution, escalation, or uneasy silence—leaving the reader with a sense of deeper meaning.
What Makes a Weak Response:
• Over-explanation. Characters state their emotions explicitly instead of letting them emerge through dialogue.
• Monotony in rhythm. Every line is the same length, or characters speak in full, unbroken sentences.
• Static power dynamics. One character stays dominant the entire time, flattening the tension.
• No emotional turn. The conversation meanders without reaching a point of transformation, escalation, or realization.
Follow-Up Questions for Workshopping/Revision:
• Where is the tension strongest in the dialogue? Where does it lag?
• How do the pauses and rhythm shape the emotional impact of the scene?
• If you removed one or two lines of dialogue, would the subtext still be clear?
• How does the argument change the characters’ relationship by the end of the scene?
Recommended Reading:
• “The Fat Girl” by Andre Dubus (for subtext and emotional weight in dialogue)
• “Say Yes” by Tobias Wolff (for argument escalation and emotional turns)
• An excerpt from Richard Russo’s Empire Falls (for conversational rhythm and layered conflict in dialogue)
Leave a comment