The trouble with "broken"

June here on the Prosers is all about broken characters. When we discussed the themes for this year I expressed some concern for the term "broken" with regard to it being used about people. Someone, I can't remember who at this point, rather brilliantly told me that I should write about my concerns as my post.

Here's the thing: the term "broken" often gets applied to people who are somehow out of the norm. In all cases I have tremendous issues with other people using the term to describe anyone. If someone wants to deem themselves "broken", have at it.

Various dictionaries have the following definitions for the term "broken":

Forcibly separated into two or more pieces. Having been violated. Being in a state of disarray. Subdued totally. Humbled. Weakened and infirm, not functioning.

The definition is a huge part of what I dislike about using the term to describe humans, be they fictional or not. The term, as applied to people, usually just means "not normal" or someone who's been hurt or even victimized. I'm not exactly a fan of "normal" to begin with, mostly because while human beings are herd animals who strive not to be too different, we are also normative in our quest for uniqueness. And "normal" is also and has always been an excuse to bully.

The second problem with broken is that the general feeling seems to be that once something is broken, it's broken forever. And while that may be true of pottery, humans have an incredible capacity for healing. Labeling someone as broken also labels them beyond repair. It is a way for an outsider labeling someone as a victim instead of a survivor.

For those who feel or have felt broken during their lives, I would like to introduce the Japanese term "kintsukuroi". It is the art of repairing broken pottery with gold, silver or platinum. It also means that breakage and repair are not things to be hidden but mark a piece of the thing's history.

And often, if you're very lucky, the thing that was broken and repaired is all the more beautiful for having been broken and repaired.

Dialog Checklist

Dialog is one of the best ways to bring your characters to life. A sharp line of dialog can tell you more about a character than an entire paragraph of description. I've compiled a list of some of the good and bad ways to approach dialog. There are exceptions to everything, of course, but I find that these are pretty good rules of thumb.

GOOD:

• Dialog Steeped in the Character's Voice - An expert is going to use the vernacular of their field. A street urchin is not going to use erudite vocabulary.

• Altering Characters' Speech Depending on Who's in the Room – Most characters will speak differently to their boss than they would with their buddies at the bar. If they're irreverent with both you need to consider what the consequences of that are.

• Brevity.

• Wit - But make sure it's truly witty and suited to the character. If your beta readers don't chuckle, or worse, if they groan when they get to that bit– it's not witty.

• Differing Character Voices – The words should let you know who's speaking before you get to the dialog tag.

• Dialog Tags – As many as necessary, as few as you can get away with.

• Interspersing Actions Within a Conversation – Use to show character mood or attitude and for pacing. You can also use this to reduce the need for dialog tags.

BAD:

• "As you know, Bob…" – This is a bad way to get an explanation into your story. Never have one character explain something to someone that should already know the information. Use a foil or put it in your exposition.

• "Said Bookisms" – I'm not as against these as some people, but use sparingly. 'He whispered', or 'she yelled' can be effective and unobtrusive alternates to 'said' and 'asked'. But don't have your characters spouting, snarling, screaming, moaning, and ejaculating all over the place.

• Boring Introductions – When someone is introduced to a group don't bother with, "Hi, nice to meet you." Put it in the exposition. Susie was introduced to everyone in the board room. However, if there's something important about the way two characters meet, by all means show the introduction. A good case for this would be instant attraction or animosity. Leading off with a charming smile or a killer grip to show dominance can be very telling about the characters.

• Using a Class Lecture to Present World Building – A sentence, or two, maybe, if it makes sense for the character to be in that class and if something else is going on in the scene. But don't use a history class as an excuse to info dump your extensive world building onto the reader.

• Inappropriate Colloquialisms – Make sure your turns of phrase are appropriate to the time and place of your story. A medieval peasant would not use the phrase, 'totally awesome' or 'crackalackin', and really, neither would a human five hundred years from now on another planet.

Did I miss something? Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.