though a reference to the law reappears later, ‘she a lawyer too’. This
reminds us of the probate case, and holds out a tentative, but not fully
realised possibility of cohesion. The piece has a number of grammatical
peculiarities too, which often makes it very difficult to tell whether the
speakers are referring to themselves, each other, or other people. For
example, although the ‘she’ in ‘she broke her neck’ appears to be a third
party, speaker 2 seems to respond as if the remark concerns him/herself.
The passage also lurches precipitously between registers: alternating
between the poetic and the clichéd, the visionary and the banal.
In fact, this dialogue is not trying to reflect normal conversation, reveal
character, or further plot. Rather it seems to include thought processes
which are not usually revealed in conversation, and allows the irrelevant,
the independent and the redundant to enter the exchange. In other words,
it keeps elements which are edited out in other plays. Such dialogue might
seem to highlight miscommunication, our inability to make our inten-
tions and feelings transparent to others. But I would suggest that it may
actually demonstrate the opposite: the possibility of freer forms of com-
munication normally suppressed in social interactions. For it brings to the
surface unconscious thoughts, insecurities and non-sequitors which are
usually tightly controlled and partially hidden in daily conversation, but
nevertheless have a strong bearing on it.
In order to try this, you might want to use the Wilson piece as a model,
and/ or rewrite your realist dialogue in a way which subverts transparent
revelation of character and situation.
Dialogue may also be non-realist in other ways. For example, in the
novel Time’s Arrow or The Nature of the Offence , by British novelist Martin
Amis, the order of events is reversed and so is the dialogue. Example 6.3 is
an extract from a doctor–patient dialogue which the narrator calls ‘talk-
down’ (Tod, the doctor, is revealed later in the book to be a Nazi war
criminal):
Example 6.3: Dialogue written backwards
Tod: ‘It might start a panic.’
Patient: ‘Shout fire. ’
Tod:‘What would you do if you were in a theatre and you saw flames
and smoke?’
Patient: ‘Sir?’
Tod pauses. ‘That’s an abnormal response. The normal response
would be: ‘‘Nobody’s perfect, so don’t criticize others.’’ ’
‘They’ll break the glass,’ says the patient, frowning.
‘What is meant by the saying: ‘‘People in glass houses shouldn’t
throw stones’’?’116 The Writing Experiment