“She pointed to the seven stacks of paper.
—Do you buy that stuff by the pound?
—You jest, Miss Ross. But my father ran a feed store in Arkansas. I spent my summers selling all manner of things by the pound, not to mention by the bushel and the peck.
—That must have made you quite hardy.
—It made me very good at estimating weights.
—Really, she said with a playful squint. Then how heavy am I?
—That’s not the sort of question a gentleman should answer.
—I’m not the type to take offense.
He tilted his head.
—One hundred and ten pounds . . . ?
—Not bad! You’re only off by two.
—Was I heavy or light?
—Now, that’s going a step too far.” (Amor Towles, Table for Two)
Writing Exercise: Weight in Words—Mastering Subtext, Banter, and Character Chemistry
Techniques to Practice
1. Subtext through Dialogue
The conversation conceals emotional intent beneath playful language. Characters flirt, test boundaries, and reveal their values without direct exposition.
2. Rhythmic Banter and Verbal Play
The clipped exchanges echo real speech but carry heightened elegance. The give-and-take creates momentum, personality, and connection.
3. Revealing Character through Misdirection
The speakers avoid answering directly, yet their deflections reveal who they are. Charm, confidence, restraint, and curiosity surface through what’s withheld.
Writing Prompt (500 words)
Write a scene between two characters—a seasoned antique appraiser and a skeptical heir—meeting for the first time in a dusty old mansion to evaluate the contents of a locked trunk rumored to contain either priceless heirlooms or complete junk. The trunk remains closed throughout the scene.
The heir wants answers. The appraiser has seen everything and claims not to be easily impressed.
In the course of their conversation, neither character directly states their intentions or emotions. Instead, they engage in layered, suggestive dialogue that dances around the real question: What are they really after?
Use subtext and misdirection. Let their spoken words reveal deeper truths: fear of loss, hunger for legacy, disdain for pretense, attraction, loneliness. Create tension through what’s unsaid. The trunk is metaphor and mystery.
Evaluation Criteria
Strong Response
• Dialogue reveals character through rhythm, word choice, and tone without needing exposition
• Subtext is vivid and consistent—what the characters don’t say is louder than what they do
• Banter feels alive, distinct, and charged with purpose or flirtation
• Emotional stakes are present but never stated outright
• The trunk becomes symbolic, carrying weight beyond the literal
Weak Response
• Dialogue is flat, over-explains, or lacks distinction between voices
• Characters speak too directly or transparently about motives or emotions
• Banter lacks rhythm or feels like filler
• The scene is plot-driven without emotional or psychological layers
• The trunk serves only as a prop, not a charged object
Follow-Up Questions for Workshop/Revision
• What does each line of dialogue want? Does it push the character’s agenda forward?
• Where is the heat in the conversation? Does it simmer or flare?
• Which moments of silence or deflection reveal the most?
• Are both characters equally complex, or is one a foil?
• What’s the metaphorical function of the trunk, and does the scene earn it?
Recommended Reading
“A Private Experience” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Focus on how subtext in quiet, charged interactions reveals character, cultural divide, and emotional risk. Pay attention to how every object and gesture carries symbolic freight without being declared.
Examples
Weak Example:
“Do you think the trunk has valuables?”
“Maybe. I’ve seen better.”
“Just open it. I want to know.”
“There’s no rush.”
(Too literal, no emotional layering, flat tension)
Strong Example:
“You’d think a man would label something before locking it in a steel box.”
“Where’s the romance in that?”
“Romance is expensive.”
“So is cynicism. Shall we wager?”
(On the surface: banter. Beneath: power struggle, attraction, a shared thrill of risk)
Complete this in one two-hour session: 90 minutes writing, 30 minutes reviewing with the follow-up questions.
Leave a comment