Possibly unpopular opinion here, but I cannot stand the use of “realistic” casual dialogue. Ums and uhs and wells and yeahs and… random bouts of trailing off in the middle of sentences.
You don’t want to write realistic dialogue. You want to write dialogue equivalent to your brain’s understanding of realistic dialogue.
The broken, casual phrasing might be natural, word for word. It might even sound natural to the person who’s writing it. But it doesn’t align with the way we comprehend speech. It doesn’t account for the work our subconscious does in order to dissect and analyze speech patterns, to take in a stream of disjointed words and create a concrete meaning.
In real life, we have the privilege of being entirely engulfed in the conversation, of experiencing every visual and vocal cue, and quite often of knowing the particular tendencies of the person we’re speaking with. The reader never has this. They are constantly limited to only what is stated on the page, brought to them at exactly the speed they read it.
In real life, we also have the redundancy of being a part of boring, anti-climatic conversations. Real conversations generally go nowhere. They’re fun for the people in them, but useless to everyone else. This isn’t what you want in you writing. You want dialogue that says something, with every sentence, every phrase, every line.
Casual speech and inter-dialogue pacing (aka, the ‘…’ syndrome) has it’s place, but it’s place it not to show normalcy, but to emphasis difference.
‘Um, well… yeah’ is a stagnate, worthless line when used many times in the same story, but when used only a few times, in a book where the rest of the dialogue says what it means, it becomes an obvious sign of embarrassment and hesitation, fear, or a specific character’s stammering.
So write the sort of solid, easily comprehended dialogue that allows your readers to subconsciously apply pacing, without visual cues like ‘…’ or the unless addition of yeah and well, or any other removable words or phrases.
Don’t write the exact words said. Write the meaning behind them.
if youre gonna call someone a terf you should know damn well what it means.
a terf is a trans exclusionary radical feminist. and if you still dont get the severity thats because you arent looking at the endgame. “what do terfs want to accomplish”
terfs want to get rid of trans women. its that simple. and they do it by directly affecting their livelihood.
terfs dont see trans women as women. they will misgender trans women. they will deny trans women from live saving treatments and resources. they will, and have done many times in the past, call trans women rapists, predators, and any other lie to keep them from freely existing. they will do whatever it takes to invalidate their existance. this endgoal is to make sure trans women dont come out. to keep them and the world from acknowledging they are women
the other way terfs directly impact trans womens lives and safety is by outing them, harassing them, getting them fired, getting them kicked out or denied housing. they directly affect trans womens freedom to exist
and if you want to compare terfs to anything that arent terfs. dont. if you call something “terf rhetoric” and its not about eliminating trans women. stop
we (those not affected by transmisogyny) need to do better. dont diminish what terfs actually are. dont diminish what they actually mean.
Sometimes it’s hard to explain to people how I simultaneously love girls so freaking much but also have internalized lesbophobia that makes it harder for me to view myself in a loving and committed relationships with a woman because of society’s fetishization of lesbians and wlw to the point where being with a girl just feels like I’m part of some kink to get straight men off