"snappy" dialogue...

[TinaMigarlo]

Its one of those recurring phrases to come across.
LIke the (in)famous "punchy" writing. Snappy dialogue, punchy first chapter.
these things take on a life of their own and they sound really really cool to use the phrases.
"I think you need a punchier first chapter; its not punchy enough"
"you need snappier dialogue"

punchy makes sense, but i do stand by my assessment that some people use it because it just sounds so cool to say it.

now for snappy dialogue.
I looked it up. because when all else fails, why not type a few words into Google and let the magic happen.
"punchy" I agree with when i do this.
"snappy", I'm not a hundred over a hundred here.

The more I read, the more I decided it was nothing more and certainly nothing less that... "sit-com snark"
there's always this one character. They kind of steal the show. They walk through the scene, and always get a good, no, a *great* line.
Mother is spending the last five minutes trying to explain the usefulness of learning how to cook food.
Everything from saving money, to eating healthier, to providing well for the future husband and kids, to coordinating the family to have time together and have a better deeper relationship. You know, a great mom not a good one. Kind of the premise of the show.

the daughter would always be arguing back about this and that, as she heard from her friends or other people with contrary advice, how this old fashion nonsense doesn't work in today's word or is even harmful.

IN walks *snark* lady. uninvited, no knocking. waltzes over to steal something out of her neighbor's fridge.
She pauses long enough to eavesdrop and deliver her well crafted line:

"kid? if god intended women to cook, why did he invent take out and dating. i ain't paid for a meal since I was 15. Because I don't waste my time cooking or learning to cook? I got the time to run a million dollar business. Use your head, girl."

cue the laugh track, the audience claps and cheers, the daughter smiles, the mother shows off her drama school expressiveness. Snark Lady walks out as quick as she walked in.
And THAT? is... "snappy" dialogue.

I mean it has its place, but its not the be all and end all of dialogue writing. (sounds *really* cool to say it, though) and its held up as some kind of gold standard. Some writers and readers, might like a pensive, thoughtful, philosophical MC. With something to say that was deeper than a cool line of quick wit in a sit com.

one writer online agreed with me. Most just follow the herd and give "ted talks" on how to be "snappier".

anyone?
@AliceMoonvale
a sad face is fine.
i really didn't expect all thumbs up, and probably lucky to have gotten the one I did.
online, using it as a guide:
maybe one or two writer-articles were in my favor, the herd is giving ted talks on how to be snappier.

I was curious to see if anyone else wonders about this like I do.

I'm on both sides, by the way.
I like a pensive philosophical character.
but there's nothing like a cool scene, and that great one liner.
I read some stuff though, and it just seems like a lot of the dialogue is crafted to let the MC fire off these "snaps".
its as if the other characters are just there to provide a mechanism to let all the well crafted zingers come out.

 

[BearlyAlive]

People want "Marvel dialogue", which is just sitcom writing, really. Boom, Bang, Punchline! Kapow!!! *Cue the laughter*

I personally kinda hate it outside of friendly banter or trashtalk

 

[Beeteetee]

It's difficult to make sure every word to be important to the story/character establishment. Snappy to me is short, important and mostly for show than tell of what's going on, happened or foreshadowing.

 

[KennyCelican]

"you need snappier dialogue"

its as if the other characters are just there to provide a mechanism to let all the well crafted zingers come out.

I think you nail it right here, and it makes all the difference between what works and what doesn't.

Do the lines flow? Do they fit the character? Is everyone else in the scene acting in character, or are they volleying the idiot ball around to set up the one liner?

A lot of people blame Whedon for this, but frankly I think he gets a bad rap, because for every snarky line that failed, he wrote a dozen that worked, that didn't ruin the scene or require everyone else in the scene to be out of character. Yeah, if that kind of thing isn't to your taste, Whedon isn't gonna be enjoyable, but he's not bad at it. The iconic Whedon lines aren't out-of-character, they're distillation of character.

No, I don't blame Whedon for this. I blame Friends and Seinfeld. The only way most of their 'iconic' moments work is for someone to be a self-defeating, characterless dumbass. Not even an endearing, lovable dumbass like Kronk, or an amusing dumbass like Drax, either. Just a foil for the 'witty' character so they can make 'smart' observations and snarky comments.

Honestly for my money a lot of the Whedon hate and the 'cruel snark' love come from the same underlying fallacy - that tragedy is always better than comedy, that happy endings and, in fact, happiness are 'stupid' or 'bad writing'.

So... I kind of agree that aiming for 'snappy' is often just bad writing and idolized cruelty, so that the writer-stand-in character can seem 'witty'. When snappy patter is used properly, it can be very enjoyable; Spiderman and Deadpool both come to mind, although they both work for similar reasons. In both cases, their opponents are grim, humorless sorts who take themselves ever so seriously, who wield gravitas as a weapon, and in both cases they respond to that with different varieties of self-effacing humor (Spiderman's 'just a kid, I don't know any better, but that looks really dumb' or Deadpool's 'I'm just a killer for hire, not any kind of moral authority, but that was an utter dick move').

But I do disagree with the idea that 'funny' or 'snarky' is inherently bad as well, and I think a big part of the hate for it comes from folks who can't seem to accept that there can be genuine, unfeigned joy in life, and art should reflect that at times, without being all glurge about it.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

I think you nail it right here, and it makes all the difference between what works and what doesn't.

Do the lines flow? Do they fit the character? Is everyone else in the scene acting in character, or are they volleying the idiot ball around to set up the one liner?

A lot of people blame Whedon for this, but frankly I think he gets a bad rap, because for every snarky line that failed, he wrote a dozen that worked, that didn't ruin the scene or require everyone else in the scene to be out of character. Yeah, if that kind of thing isn't to your taste, Whedon isn't gonna be enjoyable, but he's not bad at it. The iconic Whedon lines aren't out-of-character, they're distillation of character.

No, I don't blame Whedon for this. I blame Friends and Seinfeld. The only way most of their 'iconic' moments work is for someone to be a self-defeating, characterless dumbass. Not even an endearing, lovable dumbass like Kronk, or an amusing dumbass like Drax, either. Just a foil for the 'witty' character so they can make 'smart' observations and snarky comments.

Honestly for my money a lot of the Whedon hate and the 'cruel snark' love come from the same underlying fallacy - that tragedy is always better than comedy, that happy endings and, in fact, happiness are 'stupid' or 'bad writing'.

So... I kind of agree that aiming for 'snappy' is often just bad writing and idolized cruelty, so that the writer-stand-in character can seem 'witty'. When snappy patter is used properly, it can be very enjoyable; Spiderman and Deadpool both come to mind, although they both work for similar reasons. In both cases, their opponents are grim, humorless sorts who take themselves ever so seriously, who wield gravitas as a weapon, and in both cases they respond to that with different varieties of self-effacing humor (Spiderman's 'just a kid, I don't know any better, but that looks really dumb' or Deadpool's 'I'm just a killer for hire, not any kind of moral authority, but that was an utter dick move').

But I do disagree with the idea that 'funny' or 'snarky' is inherently bad as well, and I think a big part of the hate for it comes from folks who can't seem to accept that there can be genuine, unfeigned joy in life, and art should reflect that at times, without being all glurge about it.

I can remember liking seinfeld and friends. A half hour of lighthearted fun. But something like "House, MD"... now *there's* something I don't want to miss. He's got one liners and snark, but he's a complex character. Why does whedon tickle my memory... is that the guy that wrote and directed X files, maybe? I loved that, too. I remember thinking we didn't have time and money for X files, because we had to make room for a bunck of (fake!) reality shows, dozens of them. Maybe all entertainment eventually cancels things out until you hit the lowest common denominator. My biggest fear is its happening to BOOKS now.

grew up getting to watch shows my dad watched when he was young, and developed a taste for retro. I read the paperbacks my father and grandfather had in boxes in their basements. Most of them, you just change the cars and the prices, update a few things for the calendar and there you go. Timeless.

 

[KennyCelican]

I can remember liking seinfeld and friends. A half hour of lighthearted fun. But something like "House, MD"... now *there's* something I don't want to miss. He's got one liners and snark, but he's a complex character. Why does whedon tickle my memory... is that the guy that wrote and directed X files, maybe? I loved that, too. I remember thinking we didn't have time and money for X files, because we had to make room for a bunck of (fake!) reality shows, dozens of them. Maybe all entertainment eventually cancels things out until you hit the lowest common denominator. My biggest fear is its happening to BOOKS now.

grew up getting to watch shows my dad watched when he was young, and developed a taste for retro. I read the paperbacks my father and grandfather had in boxes in their basements. Most of them, you just change the cars and the prices, update a few things for the calendar and there you go. Timeless.

Yeah, I liked clips from Seinfeld and Friends, sometimes. But the bulk of the shows? Yeah, no.

House was fantastic, as were most of the seasons of Blackadder.

Whedon's first big hit was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He did a few other TV shows, like Firefly, Dollhouse, and my favorite, Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog. He was also the overall architect for phases one through four of the MCU, setting up and following through with the Thanos / Infinity War saga. By the middle of that he'd been ousted, and the thoughtless deviance from canon (not to mention the decaying meta-storytelling) shows that.

He writes snappy patter, but he writes characters and settings where the snappy patter make sense, and keeps the characters consistent. Jayne Cobb's one liners are a great example of a character who isn't smart, isn't witty, but still gets some 'OMG, did he SAY that' lines, often responded to by other characters with that kind of attitude. For instance, when Mal's talking to the employees at a bordello about how his crew are decent people, Jayne stomps in and says 'where's the whores at', to which Mal mutters, 'okay, that one's kinda horrific'.

I feel you on the book thing, though. A lot of publishers are aiming at the YA market, and dumbing everything down because of that.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

I feel you on the book thing, though. A lot of publishers are aiming at the YA market, and dumbing everything down because of that.

there's no specific reason YA can't be done a little highbrow, with more intelligent books next to more juvenile ones. There's always been YA,there always will. Its in the execution, I feel. I just wonder why everyone isn't overdosed on vampire romance and magic schools by now. They have to get their gullet full sooner or later. Some lucky author will then be lifted up as "the new thing".
Buffy was okay. But somehow, some way "Angel" a spin off from it, became a guilty pleasure of mine. The MC graduated into "Bones" series.

 

[KennyCelican]

there's no specific reason YA can't be done a little highbrow, with more intelligent books next to more juvenile ones. There's always been YA,there always will. Its in the execution, I feel. I just wonder why everyone isn't overdosed on vampire romance and magic schools by now. They have to get their gullet full sooner or later. Some lucky author will then be lifted up as "the new thing".
Buffy was okay. But somehow, some way "Angel" a spin off from it, became a guilty pleasure of mine. The MC graduated into "Bones" series.

You and I and every author out there knows that the YA market has readers that can handle more complex storylines and prose.

The bean counters at the publishers can't handle it, so they assume the YA readers can't. Also, they're not looking for 'the next big thing'. They're looking to recreate the last big thing, putting up a forest of lightning rods where lightning has already struck.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I think Amy Paladino may have set the gold standard for snappy dialogue in The Gilmore Girls. I only put it on because it ran before Smallville. I was hooked by (how hot the two female leads were and )how the banter between them felt so natural and yet rapid fire (David Mamet is the only other person I've seen routinely pull the pacing off, but he usually does it with vulgarities - another thing that impressed me about Paladino, is that she was sometimes very suggestive but never, at least in the episodes I saw, truly vulgar).
Stephen Brust comes close when he PARODIES Dumas in The Phoenix Guard (if those lines AREN'T read rapid-fire, they are tedious; rapid fire they are hysterically funny).
The "trick" is to set a rhythm that feels natural, and insert clever comments, snide asides, whatever where they feel like they would fit in a real conversation. Doing this short term, for a scene, is actually not too hard. Keeping up with it? Takes a skill I have yet to master and IME very few manage to.