One of the most common mistakes in writing dialogue is excessive everydayness and the lack of a narrative purpose. Many dialogues in works sound dull, uninteresting, or like “small talk about things no one really cares about, including the weather.” This includes the use of filler words (“um,” “you know,” “I mean”) and repetition in features of real-life speech that are often inappropriate in fiction unless serving a specific purpose.
Dialogue that does not advance the plot, reveal characters, create tension, or convey important information (without turning into an info dump) becomes “background noise.” Examples include overly straightforward questions and answers without subtext or conflict. For instance:

“I heard it’s going to rain tomorrow,” said Cheryl.
“You know, I heard that too,” said Frank.
“Hmm, do you think we should take an umbrella?” said Cheryl.

Such exchanges illustrate “boring conversation” that adds nothing to the story or character understanding. Similarly,

“Did you get the aspirin, honey? I really need it.”
“Yes, I got the aspirin.”
“And burger buns. I hope you got them.”
“Yes, I got the burger buns.”

These show a lack of depth or conflict.

Consequences

When dialogue sounds too mundane or boring, the reader quickly loses interest. The conversation becomes a burden rather than immersive, which may lead the reader to skip entire paragraphs in search of real action or plot development. The absence of conflict or stakes makes it meaningless, and the reader has no idea what the character is trying to achieve or what’s at stake. This creates a feeling of stasis and lack of progress in the narrative.

The problem of “everydayness” in dialogue is only a symptom, not the root cause. Real life is indeed full of everyday conversations, but the issue isn’t that dialogue resembles real life; it’s that it fails to serve a narrative function. Real conversations have social purposes (connection, information) that are not always dramatic. Fictional dialogue, on the other hand, must be a concentrated version of reality, removing the unnecessary and amplifying the meaningful. The writer must act as an editor of reality, selecting only those elements of everyday speech that serve to reveal character, advance the plot, or create atmosphere. The task is not to make dialogue “unrealistic” but to make it “realistically significant.”

How to Avoid It (Templates/Approaches)

Purpose & Obstacle Template

Before writing each dialogue scene or even a single line, clearly define its purpose. This template involves answering two key questions:

1. What is the character’s goal in this conversation? What do they want to achieve? This could be obtaining information, persuading someone, hiding the truth, expressing feelings, or changing someone’s mind.
   
   
2. What obstacle stands in their way? This could be external (another character, circumstances) or internal (fears, biases, ignorance).
   
   
   

Every line should be either an attempt to overcome this obstacle or a reaction to it. This automatically adds tension and purpose to the conversation.

Example:

Instead of the dull exchange:

“Did you get the aspirin, honey? I really need it.”
“Yes, I got the aspirin.”

Add purpose and obstacle:

“Did you get the aspirin, honey? I really need it, my head’s splitting. If I don’t take it right now, I won’t be able to focus on the report.”
“I did, but you know how much I hate pharmacies. It was hell the line stretched to the door, and the pharmacist looked at me like I owed him money. But I knew it mattered to you.”

Analysis: The revised dialogue not only gives information about the aspirin but also reveals one character’s physical state (pain, urgency), the other’s attitude toward the situation (dislike of pharmacies, inconvenience), as well as care and the act of overcoming a personal obstacle for the other person. This makes the exchange far deeper and more informative about the characters.

The Problem

One of the most critical mistakes that lowers the quality of fiction is having all characters speak in the same “author’s voice.” This shows up in the use of similar turns of phrase, vocabulary, and syntax, making the dialogue monotonous and implausible. When every character has the same speech patterns and vocabulary without any real change in tone or delivery, it is not engaging. This makes characters indistinguishable, reduces their individuality and depth, and prevents the reader from recognizing one character from another purely by their speech. The dialogue feels artificial, because in real life, people have unique speech habits that reflect their background, education, personality, and social status.

Consequences

When characters’ voices are not distinct, they are not memorable and fail to evoke an emotional response. The reader cannot “hear” them as unique individuals, making immersion in the story world much harder. This is not merely a monotony problem but a deep character development issue. Voice reflects a character’s inner world, history, education, social status, and emotional state. If voices are indistinguishable, then characters lack sufficient depth or individuality. Distinct voices also help avoid the “author’s voice” creeping into all characters’ speech.

The Problem

Using dialogue for direct “dumping” of information is a common mistake that undermines the natural flow of conversation and the reader’s immersion.
“You know, Bob…” – This issue occurs when characters exchange information they already know solely to inform the reader about backstory or important plot details. For example: “Hey, this car is just like the one your dad gave you when you turned sixteen,” said Jenny. This is unrealistic, because in real life people don’t discuss things both of them already know. A similar example: “Claire, do you remember how we escaped from the ward?” Characters don’t need reminders about shared events unless it serves another purpose beyond informing the reader.

Excessive exposition means using dialogue to deliver too much backstory, which results in the author “telling” the story rather than showing it. For example: “Beth is my best friend from childhood. She’s tall and slim with chestnut hair and never hesitates to use her attractiveness to get what she wants.” Such description should be integrated into the narrative through action, narration, or inner thoughts, not recited by a character in conversation.

Monologues, a speech from one character that goes on for a page or more, are often too dense for the reader to stay engaged. They slow the pacing and disrupt the rhythm of interaction. For example, a long speech about why a character “isn’t thrilled about the trip” because an ex will be there, and how she “will always be alone,” drags the scene and lacks dynamism.

Consequences

Dialogue that serves as an infodump becomes unrealistic and artificial because it does not reflect the natural dynamics of human communication. It slows the pacing, as the information is delivered in a static way, and it frustrates the reader, who feels they are being lectured rather than immersed in the story’s world.

The infodump problem in dialogue often signals the author’s lack of confidence in their ability to integrate information organically. It suggests that the author fears the reader won’t understand the context or backstory. Instead of trusting the reader and using subtler methods, the author resorts to direct telling. This highlights the need for authors to develop skills in indirect information delivery using subtext, actions, conflicts, and reactions so that details emerge naturally rather than being “stuffed” into a character’s mouth.

Monologues, though also a form of exposition, disrupt the flow of dialogue and immersion. They are not just an issue of information delivery but also of rhythm and interaction. Dialogue, by nature, implies exchange, not one-sided transmission. Even if a monologue contains important information, it should be broken up to preserve dynamics through character actions, inner thoughts, listener reactions, or interruptions, turning a static speech into a dynamic scene.

The Problem

The “talking heads” mistake occurs when characters simply speak without interacting with their surroundings, showing physical actions, facial expressions, gestures, or inner thoughts. In real life, people rarely stand completely still while talking. They fidget, fold their arms, touch their chin, or brush hair away from their face. If dialogue is not accompanied by nonverbal cues, the reader cannot fully grasp the characters’ emotional states or true intentions.

Example:

“Nice to see you,” said Alex.
“You too,” said Gina.
“You look good,” said Alex.
“And you,” said Gina.

In this example, there are no actions to indicate the characters’ real feelings. Are they happy to see each other? Awkward? Tense? Without accompanying actions, the reader is left guessing.

Consequences

Dialogue without supporting actions or nonverbal cues feels static, flat, and unconvincing. The reader does not experience the full range of emotions and intentions. The scene turns into a set of “talking heads” – as if the characters exist only as sound waves, not as complete beings in a space. This results in a lost opportunity to enhance subtext and add depth to the interaction.

The “talking heads” problem reveals a lack of understanding that dialogue is part of a larger scene. It suggests the author views dialogue as a separate element rather than an integrated part of a scene in which characters exist and act in a physical space. To avoid this, an author should always envision the scene as a whole: where the characters are, what they’re doing, and how their bodies respond to words.

Nonverbal signals often convey more information and subtext than words alone. When characters speak, they shouldn’t do so without movement. It’s important to “show how they say it” through action because much of human communication is nonverbal. Ignoring this makes dialogue flat. Effective dialogue is a symbiosis of words and actions. Actions can confirm, contradict, or amplify what is said, adding layers of meaning and subtext that make the interaction more realistic and engaging.

How to Avoid It (Dialogue with Movement Template)

Integrate physical actions, reactions, interaction with the environment, and purposeful attribution to bring dialogue to life. Characters should interact with objects in the setting, and readers should know where they are and what they are doing.

• Physical actions: Show what the character is doing while speaking (pacing, gesturing, sipping coffee, looking out the window).
  
  
• Reactions: Show how others respond to the speaker’s words (nodding, frowning, averting eyes, interrupting).
  
  
• Interaction with environment: Let the setting influence the dialogue or vice versa (a character speaks while watching rain outside, highlighting their melancholy mood).
  
  
• Attribution: Instead of just “said,” use action-oriented or emotion-indicating verbs sparingly (murmured, exclaimed, whispered).
  
  
  

The Problem

The quality of dialogue suffers when characters’ speech becomes repetitive or artificial. This shows up in several ways:

• Excessive repetition: Frequently repeated words or phrases can tire the reader if they are not used deliberately as a stylistic device. While repetition can sometimes create emphasis or rhythm, it should be intentional. Otherwise, even repeated names can become distracting.
  
  
• Attached verbs and nouns: Using compound predicates or verb–object phrases that could be replaced by a single, stronger verb. For example, “make a statement” → “state,” “take a decision” → “decide.” Such constructions make speech clunkier and less dynamic.
  
  
• Bureaucratic language, clichés, filler: Using overly formal or overused expressions in fiction (“due to the fact that,” “it has become widespread,” “inform you that”) makes dialogue watery and less authentic.
  
  
• Overly formal speech: Avoiding contractions and using overly refined or elevated vocabulary can make speech sound unnatural. For example: “Yes, I want a cookie with milk. I would also like a sandwich.” In the mouth of a child, this sounds odd and can even be remarked upon by another character.
  
  
• Overly long sentences: Dialogue consisting of long, complex sentences that don’t match the natural rhythm of spoken language. This can result in unrealistic monologues that lack natural breaks.
  
  
  

Consequences

Repetitive or artificial speech makes dialogue unrealistic, tires the reader, and lowers the overall quality of the text. It strips characters of authenticity, as their speech doesn’t match natural patterns. The text becomes less readable and less dynamic.

These flaws often come from insufficient editing or not “hearing” the dialogue. Repetition can result from haste or limited vocabulary, while bureaucratic expressions often seep in from formal writing styles. This underscores the importance of editing especially reading dialogue aloud to catch awkward phrases, repetitions, and unnatural turns of speech.

Overuse of “creative” dialogue tags often attempts to compensate for weak dialogue. While “said” is the least obtrusive and often the best choice, some authors overuse tags like “muttered angrily” or “shouted in despair” instead of letting the words, subtext, and actions carry the emotion. Strong dialogue doesn’t need excessive tagging.

How to Avoid It (Repetition Editing Template)

• Search: Use your text editor’s search function to highlight repeated words and find problem areas.
  
  
• 20-line rule: Aim to have at least 20 lines between repeated words, unless repetition is intentional.
  
  
• Synonyms and rephrasing: Replace repeated words with synonyms or rephrase sentences.
  
  
• Deletion: If a word or phrase adds nothing new, cut it.
  
  
  

Conclusion – Dialogue as Art and Craft

The craft of writing dialogue is a challenging but attainable skill that combines technique and inspiration. Effective dialogue is purposeful, reveals character, advances the plot, and builds tension. Each character should have a unique, recognizable voice that reflects their individuality. Information should emerge organically through conflict and subtext, not via direct infodumps that alienate the reader. Dialogue should be integrated with actions, emotions, and environment, avoiding static “talking heads.” Finally, speech should be natural free from excessive repetition, bureaucracy, and artificiality that make it unconvincing.