Diagnosing Realism

Every story is created in a manner that the author is comfortable with presenting to their audience. It is wholly their creation and their perspective on a world of their own devising.

Their own creations may represent their unique perspective but every narrative that has ever been presented to the world has been subject to both editors and publishing guidelines. A filter is applied to their work so that it can be presented to their audience.

One short-hand method for authors to add tone or apply a 'gritty-realism' to their work is to utilize elements of everyday life from gut-wrenching violence to sex scenes so detailed an artist could count the freckles to extensive use swearing that could put a sailor to shame. These elements bring the audience into a 'real world' and pull them in with their spell.

Or do they?

In many instances authors may use these elements as a means to apply realism to the world but are they really necessary? The power of writing is that it lets the audience take control with their imagination. The audience is what truly brings the piece to life. If too many of these elements are laced within the narrative what does it accomplish? Interestingly enough, not what one would think.

As these elements of 'gritty realism' are laced throughout the piece it may assist in world building but as the levels of these elements increase the author is actually decreasing their potential audience. In most instances of 'harsh language' it is actually superfluous. Much like adding extensive dialect to a piece, adding language is the same as repeating a detail. Not only can the audience already understand the details they may actually grow tired of it. This is why editors and publishers may filter these elements. They want a piece to reach as wide an audience as possible.

Adding 'gritty realism' to a piece can work really well but the levels of these elements will actually dictate the potential audience. Is it really wise to keep reducing the size of that audience?

Diagnosing Dialect

In crafting a narrative it is imperative to draw the audience into a world that is both believable and relatable for those observing the narrative unfold.

The primary means of creating believable worlds are the details that are infused into the world. Details that range from the style of vehicles to the very culture that the protagonist experiences. Every detail has it's place in creating the world. The more details that are explored the more believable the world becomes while setting the tone of the piece.

An often used technique to infuse detail is to add dialect into both dialog and perception of the individuals in the narrative.

The use of regional specific phrases or words in a narrative can add a sense of realism to characters. It can add depth and even set the tone. Used properly, it is an ideal means to reiterate the setting without actually stating the details time and again. Adding an Irish accent, British slang or even a southern drawl can add that touch more to the world. No longer are characters disconnected, one piece of dialog can evoke a sense of culture and a place within that world.

That is, if the dialect is applied to the narrative properly.

More often than not, the use of dialect in both dialog and perceptions is misused. Dialect becomes both a distraction and detracts from the narrative, jolting the audience free of the creator's spell.

Once the culture and setting have been established it is desirable to sweep the audience away into a wave of ever increasing developments. Adding dialect to every other line or even in some instances, to every line of dialog is no different than infusing every line with repeated setting or cultural details.

Reliance on the use of a dialect for perception and dialog usually results in poor character development. Interjecting a thick accent of an over sampled region or culture often conveys 'stereotype' to the audience. As that interpretation is absorbed by the audience it becomes drastically difficult to convey any further character development for that character.

A common practice for adding dialect is to add improper grammar and misspelled words to emphasize a dialect. This creates a secondary problem. Not only does your audience rapidly grow tired of reading this approach but most will outright reject reading this style.

"...There's ain't nuthin I's can do 'bout that, she's busted mistah"  The grungy mechanic smiled at me through his crooked yellow teeth.
"Ser I dun think ya understan meh, I's needs to get ta the mill, liken ta hors ago..."


In this style it doesn't seem too bad but when you read page after page of this, an audience is more than likely to drop the narrative and find something more enveloping. Not only will this likely melt your processor and make finding real spelling errors neigh impossible but it's not very engrossing because the audience needs to constantly assess what they are viewing and translate it into what they understand.

"...There ain't nothing I can do about that, she's busted mister." The grungy mechanic smiled at me through his crooked yellow teeth. His accent was so thick it took me a moment to understand.
"Sir, I don't think you understand me. I need to get to the mill like two hours ago." I pleaded.
  
In this variation the dialect is clear but also audience friendly. If the setting and dialect is established early in the piece then there is no need to reiterate the dialect except in the more 'drawn' situations.

Whether it's a regional piece using accents or even a historical period piece so long as the dialect is established with the world early in the piece there is no cause to constantly re-state the detail.

Do you use dialect in your piece? How do you implement it?