The qualities that most set apart “okay” writers from great writers are subtlety and subtext. This is true in every area of storytelling, from narrative to plotting to character development. But the lack of subtlety and subtext is perhaps nowhere more obvious than in dialogue. I’m talking, of course, about on-the-nose dialogue.
On-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that explicitly states what characters think, feel, or want instead of allowing readers to infer meaning through subtext.
When I pick up a potential read and skim through its opening paragraphs to discover whether or not the book will pique my interest, one of the first things I look at is the dialogue. If it’s on the nose, I’m not likely to continue.
Why?
If authors are giving me on-the-nose dialogue right out of the gate, then I’m not usually going to trust their ability to give me the other subtleties of story and the rich subtext I crave.
In short, this is a big deal. If you’ve got on-the-nose dialogue in your story, you could be endangering your chances of getting read by everyone from agents and editors to readers looking for their next book.
On the flip side, however, we have good news! If you can identify and slay on-the-nose dialogue from the outset—and learn how to replace it with rich undercurrents of subtext–then you’re on your way to becoming a master author.
What Is On-the-Nose Dialogue?
Simply put, on-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that says exactly what it means—nothing more and nothing less.
For Example:
“You’re a terrible boyfriend,” Melissa sniffed.
I shrugged. “I know, and I’m sorry. But just think about the horrible example my father set me. He was gone all the time when I was a kid.”
“That doesn’t matter to me. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m breaking up with you.”
My heart fractured. “I understand where you’re coming from. But I still love you.”
Although this dialogue gets the point across, note how it is two-dimensional, obvious, boring, and unrealistic.
A better alternative might be:
“You’re late,” Melissa sniffed.
I shrugged. “I called.”
“I know.” She slid a box across the floor with her foot. “The rest are by the door.”
My heart fractured. “Melissa…”
In real life, human beings don’t always say exactly what we mean. And, when we do, we rarely say all we mean. We play our cards close to our chests. Sometimes this can be because we don’t completely trust whomever we’re speaking with. Or it could be because we have our own agenda and blunt honesty isn’t the best way to achieve it—or even because we’re lying to ourselves about our own motivations.
However, it can also simply be because our brains are still catching up to our mouths in trying to formulate our thoughts. It’s also true that we tend to show at least slightly different parts of our personalities and personas to different people. The words we would use to explain something to one person are not necessarily the same words we would choose in a different context (for example, someone might use a swear word in front of one person but not another).
We are constantly censoring and editing our thoughts at a subconscious level. What’s left unsaid is often just as important as what’s spoken aloud.
Our brains are complicated places. So are our relationships. Our real-life dialogue reflects that, which means our characters’ dialogue should reflect it as well.
3 Ways to Avoid On-the-Nose Dialogue (With Examples)
Writers often fall into on-the-nose dialogue when they’re trying to make sure readers understand exactly what’s happening. Ironically, the more dialogue explains, the less authentic it tends to feel. So how do you create dialogue that isn’t on the nose? In truth, there are as many ways to avoid on-the-nose dialogue as there are ways to write beautiful dialogue (and that’s a lot).
Let’s focus on three of the most important ways to avoid on-the-nose dialogue in your fiction.
1. Make the Conversation About What Isn’t Said
If the problem with on-the-nose dialogue is that it’s about nothing more than what’s being said on the surface of the conversation, then the obvious first step is to start digging around under that surface. Consider this early exchange between Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his daughter Lucilla in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator:
Marcus: If only you had been born a man. What a Caesar you would have made.
Lucilla: Father.
Marcus: You would have been strong. I wonder, would you have been just?
Lucilla: I would have been what you taught me to be.
Marcus: Oh. How was your journey?
Lucilla: Long–uncomfortable. Why have I come?
Marcus: I need your help… with your brother.
Lucilla: Of course.
Marcus: He loves you, he always has and… he will need you now, more than ever. Enough of politics. Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter and I a good father.
Lucilla: This is a pleasant fiction, isn’t it?
This scene from Gladiator demonstrates how subtext in dialogue can reveal conflict, relationships, and character without anyone saying exactly what they mean. (Gladiator (2000), DreamWorks.)
This is the first conversation between these two characters, and it takes place early in the First Act when the story still has much to establish about the characters and where they stand within the Normal World.
From just this tiny conversation, we learn:
- Of the rocky but still affectionate relationship between Lucilla and her father.
- That Marcus’s parenting skills were questionable.
- That Marcus would prefer Lucilla to have been his heir rather than his son Commodus.
- That Commodus will not be a good leader.
- A hint of the obsessively strong relationship between Lucilla and her brother.
None of this is ever stated outright. The characters dance around these truths, because their truths are both personally painful and politically dangerous. Both Lucilla and Marcus understand what’s really being said—as does the audience—but the result is much more realistic and pleasing than if it had all been spelled out. (Reportedly, Ridley Scott disliked the original script because the dialogue was too on-the-nose and ordered it reworked. The result is masterful, not just in this scene but throughout.)
2. Employ Irony
Sometimes story circumstances do demand you spell things out. When this works well, it’s usually because the author has set up a strong contrast between the point-blank dialogue and the preceding subtext-rich scenes. Often, however, you’ll still need to finesse the circumstances of the dialogue to keep it from being too obvious.
A bravura example comes at the end of the World War II miniseries Band of Brothers, with the monologue that sums up the story’s entire theme:
Men, it’s been a long war, it’s been a tough war. You’ve fought bravely, proudly for your country. You’re a special group. You’ve found in one another a bond that exists only in combat, among brothers. You’ve shared foxholes, held each other in dire moments. You’ve seen death and suffered together. I’m proud to have served with each and every one of you. You all deserve long and happy lives in peace.
That’s about as on-the-nose as it gets. But it totally works.
Why?
Because the person delivering the speech is a captured German general who asked to speak to his men one last time. His words are translated, quietly, respectfully, by the American translator.
Irony allows the memorable speech at the end of Band of Brothers to succeed without becoming on-the-nose dialogue, showing how context is just as important as the words themselves. (Band of Brothers (2001), HBO.)
If we put aside the understatement allowed by the translation, we can see it’s the irony of the situation that allows this pointed speech to be so powerful and touching. This is the enemy talking. This is a defeated enemy talking. And yet his words move not just his own imprisoned men, but every one of his victorious captors as well, because the irony of war is that the words are perfectly true of both sides.
3. When in Doubt, Stop Talking
Never miss a good opportunity to shut up.
That’s just as true for our characters as it is for us.
If discretion is the better part of valor, then silence is often the better part of discretion. Some of the most powerful revelations in life are wordless. Sometimes, this is because they’re so obvious they don’t require words. Other times, it’s because they’re too profound to put into words.
In an interview with The Writer (November 2014), Veena Sud, author of the crime drama The Killing, noted:
Most truth exists in the space between words, and most of our lives—if you observe carefully a day in the life of a home you are a visitor in–is lived in silence.
The best dialogue often relies on surrounding silence and subtext to reveal character, emotion, and conflict. (The Killing (2011-14), AMC)
Show, don’t tell is one of the most important aphorisms of the writing life. The basic problem with on-the-nose dialogue is that it tells readers what characters are thinking and how readers should perceive those characters.
Don’t let yourself fall into that trap. Instead, use the awkward silences. Show readers what’s going on inside your characters through their actions, their narration, and the complexities of their non-talking moments (which can then be deliciously misinterpreted by other characters).
Before You Finish Your Dialogue Scene, Ask Yourself:
- Are characters saying exactly what they feel?
- Is there anything they’re hiding or would rather other characters not know?
- Can you think of any action you could write to dramatize the situation rather than reducing it to explanation?
- What are the unspoken tensions that exist beneath the conversation?
- Would a real person actually phrase a conversation in this way?
When you learn how to identify on-the-nose dialogue and break out of the rigid confines of its strict factuality, a whole new world of opportunities opens up for character exchanges. Look beneath the surface of your story to embrace the depths of subtext in your characters’ dialogue. What results is a story that assures readers right from its opening pages that they’re in the hands of an author who understands the nuances of subtlety and subtext.
Frequently Asked Questions About On-the-Nose Dialogue
What is on-the-nose dialogue?
On-the-nose dialogue spells out exactly what characters think, feel, or want. It tells readers what to think and leaves them nothing to infer. Instead of inviting readers to read between the lines, it explains everything outright. By contrast, strong dialogue usually creates at least some ironic tension between what’s being explicitly spoken versus the true scope of what is meant.
Is on-the-nose dialogue always bad?
No. Sometimes the most powerful thing a character can do is speak with complete honesty. But these moments are always stronger when they are earned over the course of the story. Direct dialogue can feel like a lightning bolt of clarity when subtext has been appropriately set up previously.
What’s the difference between on-the-nose dialogue and exposition?
Exposition communicates information while on-the-nose dialogue communicates emotions or motivations in a way that feels too explicit. Although exposition should also be handled with care to avoid turning it into an info dump, it is sometimes the best way to quickly communicate plot information. However, character interiority and development usually require more subtlety than simply explaining everything they’re thinking or feeling.
How can I tell if my dialogue needs more subtext?
Examine scenes to determine how often your characters are saying exactly what they mean. Look for opportunities to let actions, silence, or conflicting objectives communicate what isn’t being said.
Note: This article has been revised and expanded from an earlier version.
Want More?
One of the easiest ways to write on-the-nose dialogue is to ask characters to say things out loud that they would never actually admit. In contrast, real people have blind spots, conflicting desires, old wounds, and carefully guarded secrets. The better you understand those hidden layers, the more naturally subtext will emerge in their conversations.
To discover all of your characters’ hidden depths and secrets, you can use my Character Interview Questions Worksheet. With more than 100 questions exploring your characters’ backgrounds, personalities, relationships, fears, motivations, and beliefs, it’s designed to help you discover who they are beneath the surface. This is the same interview I use when developing my own characters.
You don’t have to answer every question. Use the prompts that spark new insights and deepen your understanding of the people driving your story. By the time you’re finished, you’ll know your characters well enough that what they don’t say will often become just as important as what they do.
Download the fillable PDF for use on your computer or as a printout.
Wordplayers, tell me your opinions! What techniques have helped you avoid on-the-nose dialogue and write dialogue with stronger subtext? Tell me in the comments!
Click the “Play” button to Listen to Audio Version (or subscribe to the Helping Writers Become Authors podcast in Apple Podcast or Amazon Music).
___
Love Helping Writers Become Authors? You can now become a patron. (Huge thanks to those of you who are already part of my Patreon family!)
The Secret to Writing Witty Characters (Without Trying So Hard)
The Danger of Overexplaining in Dialogue—and How to Avoid It
Slang in Dialogue: Use It Sparingly
Critique: 10 Ways to Write Excellent Dialogue
About K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland
I must be thick or something. I never get subtext. I understand what you mean about people not saying what or everything they’re thinking, but when I read conversations like the ones you give as examples, I have no clue what they’re really saying and it feels like they’re saying nothing. It’s the same in real life. Subtext is confusing and frustrating to me.
It’s totally on-point that subtext shouldn’t make readers feel like they need a decoder ring. Subtext is born of context, so all of the examples are best understood within the larger context of their stories. I tried to provide explanation, but really there’s no substitute for viewing subtext within the actual story. But creating good subtext is always a balancing act. If readers don’t get it, it isn’t working. As writers, it’s important to listen to feedback on this.
Let me try this. I use body language and the dialogue to infer what the characters mean and are feeling in the moment.
In an earlier chapter, Hannah told Joe, “A girl knows when a guy is checking her out.”
Then in a scene I was just touching up:
—————————————————————————-
I chuckled. “Maybe Dad is right. We gotta get out of this town to make our own future.”
“I think he was talking about just you leaving, while I’m still stuck here in school.”
I rolled my eyes and sighed. “Don’t remind me…”
“Joe, I will remind you that you aren’t going anywhere without me.”
“I know. I know. But…”
“But what?”
“Um…Tommy.”
“What does Tommy have to do with anything?”
“Didn’t you notice he couldn’t keep his eyes off of you the whole time we were there?”
I glanced over when she didn’t say anything right away. Then she let loose. “Joe, don’t be ridiculous. Tommy knows you’re my boyfriend and will be for a long time.”
“So, he’s never…”
“Never!” She shook her head then stared back at me. “Relax.”
I pulled into her driveway. She gazed into my eyes, briefly kissed me on the lips and got out of the car.
“See you tomorrow,” I muttered to the closed door.
—————————————————————————-
The next day, in explaining why Joe was apologizing, Hannah tells her mother, “He thought I was ready to go elope with Lynn’s brother Tommy.”
What Joe means is: I don’t trust Tommy’s intentions. But Hannah hears: I don’t trust you around Tommy.
Her position is: Yes, I’ve noticed. Yes, I know what he wants. It doesn’t matter because I’m with you. Joe’s position is: If you know what he wants, why aren’t you more concerned about it?
So, of course she’s ticked off. She just reassured him of her devotion and he brings up Tommy anyway. From her perspective: What more do you want from me?
Where the on-the-nose version would be, “I’m angry because I feel that your jealousy means you don’t trust me even though I’ve just reassured you that I’m committed to our relationship.”
Here’s an example.
In an earlier chapter, Hannah told Joe, “A girl knows when a guy is checking her out.”
Then in a scene I was just touching up:
—————————————————————————-
I chuckled. “Maybe Dad is right. We gotta get out of this town to make our own future.”
“I think he was talking about just you leaving, while I’m still stuck here in school.”
I rolled my eyes and sighed. “Don’t remind me…”
“Joe, I will remind you that you aren’t going anywhere without me.”
“I know. I know. But…”
“But what?”
“Um…Tommy.”
“What does Tommy have to do with anything?”
“Didn’t you notice how he couldn’t keep his eyes off of you the whole time we were there?”
I glanced over when she didn’t say anything right away. Then she let loose. “Joe, don’t be ridiculous. Tommy knows you’re my boyfriend and will be for a long time.”
“So, he’s never…”
“Never!” She shook her head then stared back at me. “Relax.”
I pulled into her driveway. She gazed into my eyes, briefly kissed me on the lips and got out of the car.
“See you tomorrow,” I muttered to the closed door.
—————————————————————————-
The next day, in explaining why Joe was apologizing, Hannah tells her mother, “He thought I was ready to go elope with Lynn’s brother Tommy.”
What Joe means is: I don’t trust Tommy’s intentions. But Hannah hears: I don’t trust you around Tommy.
Her position is: Yes, I’ve noticed. Yes, I know what he wants. It doesn’t matter because I’m with you. Joe’s position is: If you know what he wants, why aren’t you more concerned about it?
So, of course she’s ticked off. She just reassured him of her devotion and he brings up Tommy anyway. From her perspective: What more do you want from me? Joe was too lost in his discomfort to even notice her comment.
Where the on-the-nose version would be, “I’m angry because I feel that your jealousy means you don’t trust me even though I’ve just reassured you that I’m committed to our relationship.”
But instead, I show the reactions which infer the emotions.
I love this article because its the perfect follow up to your Worldshift Panel! One thing that I do wonder is: can you achieve this within the first five pages or so when you are needing to set the stage for crucible setup without feeling like those pages are just confusing? I wasn’t sure if you would agree that it could be harder in the very first few chapters to achieve this than compared to the 25% or 50% when the reader has more information to work off of. Always glad to read new articles!
Yes, I didn’t even plan that on purpose! :p The issue you’re raising is exactly one of the reasons that beginnings can be so difficult. Beginnings are often *full* of subtext, since readers have so much to learn about the characters and other story elements. We don’t want to info-dump too much in the beginning, so it’s an artful dance of sowing just enough details for readers to understand the rest of the subtext, without overwhelming or boring them.
Excellent article. Writing subtext an enjoyable challenge.
So glad you found it useful!
I am subscribed to your podcast but don’t have a new episode in my player and couldn’t get it to play here on your site. Is there a tech issue with the episode?
Hey! This is an updated version of an older post. I haven’t updated the podcast, so you can either listen to the older version in the player at the bottom of the post or by searching the title in your podcast player of choice.
Thank you!
When I was coaching writing (after retiring from a 45 year long stage, TV and Film career) one of the first things I did was encourage fledgling writers to study or actually perform as an actor if they wanted to learn how to write believable dialogue. As a writer now, with over 55 novels under my belt, I find dialogue to be the easiest part of the process for me. Just saying.
I always find dialogue to one of the most fun parts to write. For all that we talk about “show, don’t tell” in writing, dialogue is really the purest form of “showing,” since it is the only aspect of story that is directly communicated to readers without (necessarily) any explanatory intervention from the writer.
I define what will happen in a scene, then visualize what I feel is the most realistic way the characters will play it out. Joe goes with Hannah to have a lunch with some of her friends. Leaving, she’s upbeat but he’s uncomfortable with the whole mess. She sees that on his face while he drives, so she asks. He talks about how he felt judged, and when the convo swings around to his father’s pushing him to get a job. Hannah says, “I will remind you that you aren’t going anywhere without me.” She’s expressed her devotion, but Joe isn’t done. It’s like he never heard her and plows into point #2, about how Tommy kept looking at her. Joe doesn’t trust Tommy. Hannah feels like Joe doesn’t trust her. She never denies knowing Tommy was looking, but says Joe is ridiculous. She’s miffed when she arrives home and walks away. So much unsaid. Body language, interrupted sentences, characters with different interpretations of what happened.
Actually, having characters talk over or around each other can be a great way to avoid on-the-noise dialogue. It can be a bit tricky, since the conversation still needs to stay on point enough to orient readers, but when both characters are essentially having two difference conversations, it can potentially add to the deeper subtext available for the scene.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I tried, waited several hours and they didn’t go through. So I tried again, then tried a shorter one in case it was too long. Took almost 24 hours. Maybe you have to approve, but in the past there’d be a message saying “Awaiting moderation.” None now.
“Is on-the-nose dialogue always bad?”
In addition to the reasons given why it isn’t always bad, an author can fill a character’s mouth with on the nose dialogue if that character is someone with a consistent pattern of taking things at face value. Contrasting that character with other characters who speak in subtext might make for depth in your story or serve as a hinge for a plot point.
For example, I remember reading a story synopsis where two teens befriend a lonely old man because they wished to con him out of his resources. I don’t remember the name of the story nor what ultimately happened.
We’ve all met simple or innocent people (usually children) who don’t get it when someone else is leaving things unsaid. Or what about a voter who takes a politician at face value because emotions overthrow thought (not to be inflammatory, lol. Anybody up for a good political drama?).
Thanks for the explanation of another characterization device in our arsenal!
Great example!
I love writing subtext, foreshadowing and subtlety but I find when I do, I just get readers saying ‘the author did not clearly explain XYZ’. ‘I didn’t understand the conversation between characters A and B.’ Many readers seem to want things spelled out very clearly instead of having to do a bit of thinking about what they are reading and I’ve read that the *average* age of adult readers worldwide is 9 years old. So how do we write subtext instead of on-the nose dialogue? It seems like a reader/writer disconnect where readers want everything spelled out, but writers want to play with words and dialogue and subtext, because it’s more enjoyable and subtle.
It’s definitely a balancing act. You want subtext to create questions but not confusion. Readers don’t necessarily need to understand everything that’s happening beneath a conversation, but they should understand enough of the surface context to recognize that *something* is happening underneath it. Basically: they need to know enough to be able to form a question. You want them asking, “What’s the backstory secret?” rather than just “Huh?” If multiple readers are consistently confused by the same scene, that’s usually a useful signal that the subtext may need a few more clues.
Thanks for your reply! Looking for a common cause of confusion from readers is a good idea 🙂