We have already considered dialogue from a contextual perspective; specifically:

• the characteristics of theatrical dialogue that distinguish it from dialogue in other media (topic sheet: Theatrical Dialogue)
• the role of dialogue in heightening conflicts and marking out steps in character journeys (topic sheet: Scenes)

Now let us take a closer look at the inner workings of dialogue — the way in which it flows from line to line — in order to see if there are any useful lessons to be learned.

Dialogue Structure

The purpose of dialogue (in everyday life, rather than necessarily in the theatre) is to communicate. Through dialogue, we usually aim to:

1. impart information
2. change others' points of view
3. reach agreement, or at least agree to differ.

The sequence is important. We cannot hope to change someone's point of view unless we first provide them with the requisite information to underpin the change. We cannot hope to reach agreement (where there was none before) unless new information has come to light in the course of the dialogue and/or there has been some shift in the parties' respective points of view.

This basic structure is as important in theatrical dialogue as elsewhere. The characters will not be credible unless their discourse follows the normal pattern. No less importantly, the audience cannot be expected to understand dialogue that defies this simple logic.

Focusing Conflict

Theatres would soon have to close if all dialogue conformed to the precepts outlined above. It is the very instability of the characters' situations that holds the interest of the audience. When the issues are resolved, the play is over. Accordingly, whilst agreement-based dialogue may be useful at various points in the character journey, it is not sustainable in a dramatic context. The point is perhaps best illustrated by news programming, where interviewees with irreconcilable points of view are routinely brought into conflict with one another. This is not only more informative but also more engaging than consensus-based dialogue.

For the most part, playwrights, like news broadcasters, seek to subvert the normal process of dialogue in order to bring the conflicts between the characters into focus. Potential subversions may be identified at every stage of the dialogue structure outlined above. For example:

1. Characters seek to prejudice the outcome of the dialogue by withholding information or imparting misleading information.
2. Characters use a wide range of techniques to resist others' efforts to persuade: not listening, refuting or diminishing key facts, deliberately misunderstanding, changing the subject, etc.
3. The outcome of the dialogue is not agreement but heightened conflict or new areas of conflict between the characters.

Writers have much to gain from experimenting with subversive techniques such as these.

Dialogue Logic

In theatre, as in everyday life, the flow of sentences and the interplay between characters must be perfectly natural. Unconvincing or ineffective dialogue often results from shortcomings in plotting (for example if the dialogue is not charged with a sufficient sense of purpose), but it may also be the result of logical weakness in the interplay between characters. In other words, if B's response to A's speech does not ring true, the audience begins to doubt the realism of the characters and the carefully crafted illusion of theatrical reality may be quickly shattered.

From this perspective, it is worth reviewing the fundamental mechanics of dialogue.

When someone speaks to us, we immediately trigger reactions both emotional and logical.

Typical emotional responses include:

• making judgments about the person based on his/her appearance, body language, tone of voice, etc
• feeling a physical response to what was said (embarrassment, revulsion, etc).

Our logical responses tend to take the form of:

• questions (Who is this person? Why is s/he talking to me in such an aggressive way?),
• defences (That's interesting, but I'd better pretend I knew already),
• digressions (What was that he said about cars? Yikes, my free parking time expired ten minutes ago!).

Both channels of communication (emotional and logical) remain active throughout the dialogue, but with changing emphasis:

• At the emotional level, we become more relaxed as we feel more comfortable with someone, while our emotional state becomes heightened in the presence of inherent danger: for example if we are being deliberately awkward or deceitful, or if the other person behaves unexpectedly.
• In terms of logical reactions, our thinking becomes increasingly specific as the dialogue furnishes us with fresh information and channels us into particular areas of thinking. In other words, whereas the opening lines of a dialogue allow for countless logical possibilities, the range of possibilities narrows as the dialogue proceeds towards its goal.

It might be argued that this form of analysis is unnecessary, insofar as we routinely process such information in a split second at the level of the subconscious every time someone speaks to us. It is certainly true that many writers can "do" dialogue easily by simply causing one character to speak and then putting themselves emotionally and logically into the shoes of the other.

However writers who are less experienced or less confident with writing dialogue may do well to subject some of their writing to more rigorous analysis. For example, if the writer is wondering how character B should respond to character A's latest speech, the exercise of analysing character B's likely emotional and logical responses at that moment may be a fruitful one. Such responses are inevitably subjective, or course, but their very subjectivity may inspire new ideas that move the dialogue, and the play, in unexpected directions.