We’re all writers of our own stories.  What we say is often not as important as what we do.  Just like real people, your fictional characters have thoughts and reactions to stimuli.  Events mold them just like they do you.  When you talk with another person what they say and do affect what you say and do and vise versa.  Today, I’ll cover two aspects of conflict, the physical and the verbal.  Both aspects play an important role in fiction, be it science, fantasy, crime, romance etc.

When you are in conflict with another person you wouldn’t just say that you’re angry, you would act that out.  In fact, just saying your angry is never enough is it?  You don’t just say your angry.  You may explain what it was that just pissed you off, maybe you throw or hit something, maybe point aggressively or stab your palm with your index finger when making each point and that usually gets the message across immediately. So, why would your characters be any different?  The action of stabbing your palm with your finger, and raising your voice at the same time is the physical aspect.  Take the following two passages as an example:

Edward had tried to be patient with the man, but his insistence that something be done ‘right now’ was starting to grate on his nerves until he couldn’t take it anymore.  He interrupted the man.  “You pathetic little excuse for a man!  You come in here with your holier than thou bullshit and expect to be taken any other way but as the complete asshole you are.  Get the fuck out of my shop before I call the cops!”

Edward had tried to be patient with the man, but his insistence that something be done ‘right now’ was starting to grate on his nerves until he couldn’t take it anymore.  That was when his hand slapped down on the table, making a resounding smack that stopped the man in mid sentence.  “You pathetic little excuse for a man!”  His next line was delivered with a sneer and an accusing finger.  “You come in here with your holier than thou attitude and expect me cowtow?  Get the fuck out of my shop before I call the cops!”  His other hand was already going for the telephone handset.

We have two examples above.  One is okay, but the other is much better.  In the first example, we have an okay statement but little description of the actions that would accompany it.  Although, the narrative somewhat supported the statement the actions of the character were completely absent.  I notice this type of failure often in all forms of fiction.   

In the second example, the visual we perceive in our minds pulls us further into the story.  Now we can see and hear how upset Edward is with the man.  We have actions that support his statement.  This is how it works in reality and this is how it should work in your fiction.

In the first example we have a bit of profanity.  Edward swears three times in that short statement.  Doing this relies too much on the profane and distracts from the story, the statement and the dialogue.  It ruins the flow.  Yes, people swear in real life and sometime even more often than in the example, but relying too much on such elements shows immaturity in the character and the writer.  

The rewrite has only one swear word.  It’s usage is only once and at the end of the statement.  This way you still retain the attention of the reader, still effectively have Edward express himself and provide an impact at the end.  Of course you could simply use other words that are borderline profane; like bloody, hell, heck etc. and that would be the writer’s choice.  Bear in mind, that even borderline profanity can still take away from the flow of the statement even though they aren’t outright swear words.

Arguments will happen on occasion in real life and they will not often be an organized exchange of ideas.  Those involved have vested interests at stake, from personal philosophies to money, power, prestige etc.  Writing an immersive argument can be a tough concept to get one’s head around.  One only needs to keep in mind that an argument is never tidy or pretty.  It’s a mishmash of contrary ideas, opinions and observations.  One hardly ever gets to say everything they want to, even if it is a calm exchange.  Let’s use another example:

Klara tried to calmly rebut Albert’s statement.  “I don’t know about that, Al.  We have several instances in the last week where the police have beaten down a suspect before realizing they got the wrong person.”

“Oh, here we go with that old trope.”  Albert raised his voice in ridicule.  “I’m getting real sick of you liberal sheeple constantly blowing things out of proportion.  The cops have a tough job.”  He waved a hand to the side, as if brushing away her argument.  “So what if sometimes someone gets abused a little more now and then?  They’re cops, man. They put their lives on the line every day.  Just don’t resist, and you’ll be fine!”  

The above example is short and tidy.  It gets the information to the reader in an efficient manner.  Except that it is not realistic.  It is not realistic because it is short, tidy and efficient.  When writing an argument between characters I would advise an effective use of interruptions.  Because that is exactly how we humans argue in real life.  Let’s read an enhanced version of the above exchange, only we’ll add in that interruption factor.  

Klara tried to calmly rebut Albert’s statement.  “I don’t know about that, Al.  We have several instances in the last week where the police have beaten down a susp-”  She stopped in mid gesture, having been interrupted by Albert for the third time during that meeting, with her mouth still held at the ‘p’.  Her arms dropped to her sides, as she mentally rolled her eyes.

“Oh, here we go with that old trope.”  Albert raised his voice in ridicule.  “I’m getting real sick of you liberal sheeple constantly blowing things out of proportion.  The cops have a tough job.”  He waved a hand to the side, as if brushing away her argument.  “So what if sometimes someone gets abused a little more now and then?  They’re cops, man. They put their lives on the line every day.  Just don’t resist, and you’ll be fine!”

The young reporter patiently waited for Albert to finish.  She wasn’t going to lower herself to the same level by interrupting him back.  She simply picked up exactly where she was interrupted.  “-ect before realizing they got the wrong person.”

“What the hell are you talking about?  You’re not even making sense!”

“That’s because you weren’t listening.”  Was Klara’s calm reply.

“Oh, I was listening, you just weren’t saying anything I haven’t heard before a million times!”

In the enhanced version, we see an interruption of Klara’s statement.  Yes, we could have made her interrupt Albert in turn, or even raise her voice to talk over that interruption.  This would depend on how you wanted to present Klara.  In this version I wanted to depict her as a calm reasonable person facing a less than reasonable person.  This could very well have played out where Klara was just as emotionally invested as Albert appeared to be.  The result would have been much more messy, much more heated and perhaps much more interesting to the reader.

Moving on we instead have Klara pick up exactly where she was interrupted.  This is a character trait I decided to throw in that doesn’t necessarily add to the plot, but does show her to be an interesting person instead of just another party in the argument.  It also shows that she is quite used to being interrupted.  It bothers her to the point that she used this technique to gain a sort of moral superiority over Albert.  And perhaps there is some hope that he would realize that he did interrupt her and adjust his behaviour.  Again, that would depend on what led up to the argument, what their relationship was, and what the goal of the argument was in the grand scheme of the larger story.

Albert, was clearly not listening, as is often the case in such a scenario.  After people watching for decades I have learned that it is quite common for one or all parties to no listen and just watch for an opportunity to interject with their own opinion.  I show this as the case with Albert when he asks what she was talking about after she pauses in her statement until the interruption is over.  To Albert it is a half sentence and really doesn’t make sense because he really wasn’t listening.

When we have Klara reply, calling him on the fact that he wasn’t listening, we now reinforce the fact that Albert wasn’t listening.  We also show that Albert is actually a bit of a dick.  The example finishes when we slam home the fact, by having him retort with the conviction that he felt he knew what she was saying anyway, so he didn’t need to allow her the respect of finishing her sentence.

Peace, and good writing!