Shades of Grey (Second Edition), plus: Dialogue – Form vs. Function

Shades of Grey: Second Edition

Many of you will already know the plans I've had to thoroughly revise my story, and in doing so try again to get it into EqD. After all, so any have already said that the worst thing about it is the lack of people who have read it, so it can't be too arrogant to think it deserves such publicity, can it?

Well, actually, yes. Not that I am strictly saying it doesn't, mind, but my education in writing hasn't stopped for more than a few patches of days since the start of the year. With that heady increase in knowledge has come the understanding of just how many things are wrong with it, and that it is the story that has people enthralled, simply because it has a depth that few MLP fictions tend to reach. That's my talent it seems, and it doesn't feel arrogant to say so in the light of how far behind my ability to convert that story into prose falls. Fortunately, the latter is relatively easy to learn, and I have been doing so over the course of the last few months.

What I have really found is that, easy as it can be to learn, working out what is wrong in the first place is the key to even knowing what it is that I need to learn. As such, I am grateful in the extreme to those who have offered sufficient feedback to point me in the right directions to continue my self-education. Though I have waded through six or seven books on grammar and punctuation—and learned more than I imagined was there to be known—there has been one book that has unquestionably installed a turbo-charger in my fiction-writing brain and filled it with fuel. Self-Editing for Fiction Writers is an extraordinary book that is an absolute must for anyone who is not already versed in the trials and tribulations of turning a story into a published work. I mean that without hyperbole; it was literally explaining things that I'd done, choices that I'd consciously made, as if reading my foetid little mind and then telling me exactly why it was the wrong thing to do. Renni Brown and Dave King are literally (ba-dum, tish!) geniuses in editing and storytelling.

So, while work is about to begin on what I anticipate—possibly foolishly—as being the final rendition of Shades of Grey, there was one subject that came up that somehow didn't quite fit, and I had to sleep on it to work out where the problem actually was.

Dialogue Mechanics: Form vs. Function

All suggestions across various books and web-documents suggest that minimalism is the default for dialogue. Keep the beats (physical cues) to a minimum, and avoid attribution as often as physically possible. The idea is to keep the amount of text that isn't actual dialogue to an absolute minimum, but that isn't what we see in MLP stories which made me think about why.

Sure, I could assume that it's just a reflection of the average ability of the fandom's authors, but I find that answer unsatisfying. Closer, I think, is an opinion offered in the book that the TV/film generation have come to expect lots of physical cues and exaggerated actions, yet I think the reality goes a step further than that: or colourful, wide-eyed ponies were designed to be physically expressive.

In context then, is it right to stay above-average on the descriptive front when writing for MLP? Or does good fiction practice simply hold true regardless of subject? Is it a matter of making assumptions about the prospective audience?

Of course, there is no true answer; therefore, discuss!

-Scott 'Inquisitor' Mence

P.S. For those with an interest in such things, here's an example of the story's continued revision as my knowledge grows:
Version 1
Version 1.1
Version 2 (still in progress)

Comments

[Mystic]

I have never really agreed with using physical cues in a strictly minimalist way. Of course, ultimately the question comes down to one of moderation, but cues, when used correctly (and prevented from straying into the tell-y lands), are often very effective. Often what best expresses what a character is thinking is not what they say, but what they don't say.

Of course, there is always a proper time and a place to use them/not use them, and therein lies the fun; we need to find both the time and the place, and both of those factors change wildly depending on context. (If you want to see fantastic examples of simple character actions being used to exquisitely and efficiently set/imply dialogue tone/character emotion, see any of the A Song of Fire and Ice books.)

Dialogue attributions and 'saidisms', however, are a completely different kettle of fish. They should be avoided as much as humanly possible. Why? Because they almost always stray into the 'show don't tell' minefield. Adjectives are funny that way.