A few weeks back, I read Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None for a book club I attend via Skype. One thing that really stood out to me in our discussion was the odd nature of Christie’s dialogue cues. Another group member pointed out how over and over, whenever a character spoke, it was introduced by a clear identification of the person about to speak, and a clear description of how they were about to speak, followed by a colon:
I hardly noticed it at all while I was reading (I read the entire book in a single day so I could attend book club without spoiling the ending for myself), but once my friend pointed it out, it was glaringly obvious how heavily Christie used this technique. A technique that would never make it past an agent, much less an editor, nowadays. It goes against every piece of advice on writing dialogue I’ve ever heard. I’ve been taught over and over that adverbs should be shunned, that speakers seldom need to be identified, that you should never describe how a person says something if you can convey the intonation by the words themselves. This was the exact opposite of that.
And I didn’t even notice. On reflection, I even think it was a wonderful choice for this novel in particular, and now I’m rethinking the wisdom of modern minimalism in dialogue.
First, with so many characters in such a short novel (it’s a hefty number of pages, but the short paragraphs make it an airy piece) with so many moving parts, it’s really helpful to have clear markers of who is speaking and how they’re speaking. When so much is cryptic and hidden, there’s no need to add extra confusion through the style of writing also. I’m sure I would not have been able to read it so quickly if I had to – as I often do when I read too fast – go back and check who said what in a passage with multiple speakers. Not even once did I have a moment of “Oh wait, who went first?” as I usually do when I get caught up and start racing through the text.
Second, it’s an incredibly theatrical way of presenting the action. Another book club member brought up how this style makes it easy to “do the voices” as you read. You know whose voice it is, and what tenor it will take before you start to see the words. In a way, it lets the reader sit back and watch – and enjoy the show. And if you’ve read And Then There Were None, you’ll know just how well that fits the story.
Sometimes I forget that modern writing conventions are just that – conventions. Not laws, not hard and fast perfect duties to which I must, at all times, mold myself, but guidelines that will probably help get better control over my writing, but which still ought to be taken up purposively, and not merely followed to the letter for the sake of nothing. I’m still going to read about the art of writing and work on my craft according to these guidelines, but I won’t forget Agatha Christie and all of her adverbs.
Joelle said triumphantly:
“The End!”
16 thoughts on “Dialogue in the Style of Agatha Christie”
Steve Morris
Yes, I read a lot of people saying, ‘Do it like this! Don’t use adverbs!’ etc, as if these were self-evident truths rather than conventions. Mostly people are simply repeating what they have been told themselves. Of course, when conventions exist, it’s best to be aware of them and break them out of choice, rather than ignorance. I’m particularly fond of split infinitives and oxymorons.
Agatha Christie developed her own style, and it served her well. Her books are still readable 50 years on. I wonder if that will be the case with most of the people telling you what the rules of writing are?
Michelle Joelle
I too love split infinitives! You can build stronger emphasis that way, I think. I also think that blind, strict, and unwavering obedience to the “rules” demonstrates a general misunderstanding of where the “rules” come from and what purpose they serve.
whitefrozen
One would be hard pressed to find a single Great author whose work would pass the bar set by normal literary rules and conventions and agents.
Sable Aradia
Well said!
Michelle Joelle
I always wonder how much of the modern books I read are built in the author’s vision, and how much has been edited away to fit convention.
whitefrozen
It will depend on whicj authors/books, I guess, but the majority of modern authors are either very cookie-cutter or way too .outlandish – one can bend and break rules but there still is an element of ‘tact’, for lack of a better term. Faulkner, Hemingay, McCarthy, Dostoevski, etc, all broke and bent the rules but didnt just write outlandish stuff just to be different, unique, one of a kind.
rung2diotimasladder
I tend to be a minimalist because I think you can usually get all that information in there without such devices, but I can’t stand having to scan over and over to figure out who’s speaking. I think Cormac McCarthy pulled it off in “All the Pretty Horses”—I never felt left in the dark. Here there weren’t that many characters and the voices were distinct enough. It’s a hard thing to master. I think if you have a lot of characters with similar voices, sometimes it’s best to just say who’s talking!
As far as the adverbs, I would find the first line in your photo excerpt distracting. The rest adds a little something to what’s written, but the first just repeats what the exclamation points do.
That said, a lot of our modern conventions are just conventions…as whitefrozen said, so many great authors would not get published today. How sad! No Tolstoy!
Michelle Joelle
Yeah, I think that avoiding distraction is the key – make sure there’s enough information that you can follow along without thinking about it, but also don’t put in so much that you call attention away from the message you’re trying to convey.
robstroud
“I’m rethinking the wisdom of modern minimalism in dialogue…”
Modern minimalism, in general. The prejudice that we are better writers today that all of the primitives of the past, is (in my mind) an example of human vanity.
Michelle Joelle
I completely agree!
Hanna
Amen and amen!
SelfAwarePatterns
“I’m rethinking the wisdom of modern minimalism in dialogue”
I never noticed it until I took a shot at writing myself, but the writers I find easiest to follow scrupulously identify who is talking. John Scalzi, whose writing I find effortless to read (something of a rarity among sci-fi authors), never leaves any doubt as to who said what. He doesn’t do it before the dialog, which I think I would enjoy, but he never has a dialog paragraph without an “, X said.” in it.
Michelle Joelle
I’ll have to look him up – I’ve never read anything by Scalzi, but I love anything that could ever be described as effortless. 🙂
SelfAwarePatterns
Scalzi’s book tend to be humorous, but not in a slap stick fashion. (Well, not always.) His most famous work, ‘Old Man’s War’ reads like Heinlein, but Scalzi most definitely isn’t Heinlein (philosophically, in a good way) as comes out in the sequels.
James Pailly
Most of the “rules” I hear are, I think, well intentioned, but they’re also oversimplified. For example, we’re told to avoid adverbs in favor of stronger, more interesting verbs (“he sprinted” rather than “he ran quickly”). But that doesn’t mean adverbs are bad in all cases. Sometimes, an adverb is a stronger, more interesting choice than a clunky prepositional phrase. Sometimes an adverb adds a bit of necessary color. Sometimes that stronger, more interesting verb you’re supposed to find just doesn’t exist in the English lexicon.
Michelle Joelle
Agreed! Hear hear!