Make your dialogue sound like your character

If you’ve been watching the new season of Reacher, you may have noticed something interesting about Reacher's dialogue: he treats most conversations like a sparring match.

He's always paying attention to the other person's move, clocking what they've revealed, and looking for an opening. When someone asks him a question, he doesn't automatically answer it. He decides whether he wants to answer it — and, if he does, how much information he's willing to give away.

And if someone asks a sloppy or imprecise question, he'll play along, answering the question they technically asked rather than the question they actually meant.

In other words, Reacher doesn't just have a particular way of speaking. He has a particular way of having a conversation.

And I think there's a useful lesson for writers in that distinction.

You've probably heard this advice about dialogue

One of the things writers are often told to do is make sure their characters sound different from one another. You may have even heard the recommended test for this:

Cover up the character names in your screenplay, and you should still be able to tell which dialogue belongs to which character.

It's age-old advice, but easily misunderstood.

Because when writers hear "differentiate your characters’ dialogue," they often start looking for surface-level ways to make each character sound unique.

Maybe one character uses a lot of slang, while another speaks very formally. One is sarcastic. Another is literal to a fault. Yet another has a particular catchphrase or verbal tic.

Those things can absolutely be useful, but too often they’re treated as embellishments rather than something that grows out of the character. They make the dialogue sound different without making the people themselves feel different.

A unique voice isn't enough

One of the things I've talked about in workshops and past Weekly Memos is that dialogue is action.

Characters aren't just exchanging words — they’re trying to do something. Accomplish something. Their words are actions toward achieving their goals.

And different characters will approach those actions differently.

That's where dialogue can do more than just distinguish one character from another. When a character's conversational behavior grows out of who they are, it isn't just making them sound different. It's showing us something about them.

Reacher's dialogue is like a fingerprint: the way he uses conversation is so specific to him that we'd recognize it anywhere.

He withholds. Probes. Deflects. He gives people less information than they want, and frustrates anyone trying to get information out of him because he takes control of the conversation before they've even realized it. He never lets someone lead him somewhere he doesn't want to go.

And that makes sense when you consider who Reacher is. He's highly trained, observant, and controlled. Experienced at investigation and interrogation. Difficult to manipulate.

So those qualities shape what he does with the conversation. And that's what makes his dialogue feel like characterization rather than a collection of quirks.

Watch what Reacher does with a question

Here’s one example:

Detective: Where do you currently live?

​Reacher: What's the address of this building?

​Detective: Why?

​Reacher: It's where I'm currently living.

​Detective: So you're homeless.

​Reacher: Now I see why you're a detective.

The detective is trying to get information from Reacher. Reacher, meanwhile, is making the detective work for every inch of it.

He answers with a question of his own, gives an accurate but cheeky answer, and then turns the detective's conclusion back on him.

The exchange isn't really about where Reacher lives — it’s about who gets to control the conversation.

Here's another:

Agent: Our techs combed through the data and the only thing that's on there is some student's mediocre sketches. Why?

​Reacher: Maybe he doesn't apply himself.

​Agent: Why do you have his jump drive?

​Reacher: I needed it.

Again, Reacher isn't misunderstanding the questions. He's choosing what kind of answer the other person gets. His answers only sound like offhand jokes or casual comments because they’re meant to, but each one is a tiny display of strategy.

To be clear, the useful thing for writers isn't any one specific trick. It's that this conversational behavior grows directly out of who Reacher is.

And because he doesn't treat everyone the same way, it can also tell us something about the relationship.

Reacher isn't equally evasive with everyone, or equally willing to give everyone information. He doesn't treat every conversation as though it deserves the same level of engagement.

If he's playing with someone's question instead of answering it, that's meaningful. If he's willing to give someone a straight answer, that's meaningful. If he's giving them the absolute minimum, that's meaningful. If he's deliberately needling them, that's meaningful.

The way Reacher talks tells us two things at once: who he is, and what he thinks of the person he's talking to.

What your character does in conversation

Imagine taking Reacher's conversational behavior and giving it to a completely different character. It’s not going to work for everyone, because different characters (should) behave differently.

A character who desperately wants other people to like them would probably give away too much information. A character who is naturally suspicious might constantly question the other person's motives. A character who is terrified of confrontation might become evasive — but only when a conversation gets emotionally threatening.

The point is that different characters will use conversation differently because they have different needs, fears, goals, and ways of seeing the world. And that's the part writers sometimes miss when they're trying to make their dialogue distinctive.

The question isn't only: "What does this character sound like?"

It's also: "What does this character do — how do they behave — when they're talking to someone?”

The specific behavior will depend on the character.

Here's a better version of the "cover the names" test

So, yes — cover up the character names in your screenplay. But if you can tell who's speaking, also ask yourself why.

If the answer is:

"Because Character A uses short sentences, Character B uses a lot of sarcasm, and Character C always makes jokes..."

You may have given your characters recognizable voices. But are those choices telling us something about the people who are speaking?

Because there's a big difference between making characters sound unique, and making them behave differently when they talk.

A character becomes recognizable through repeated, specific choices. And dialogue is one of the best places to demonstrate that because we experience those choices over and over again.

Think about Reacher. We're not just recognizing a particular verbal style. We're recognizing a pattern of behavior. And that's characterization.

When we know a character

Once we've seen a character make enough specific choices, we start to recognize their patterns. We know what feels unmistakably like them. And when they surprise us, that surprise means something because we understand the baseline.

Every time Reacher uses conversation to maintain control, he's reminding us: This is who this guy is.

His dialogue isn't distinctive because the writers decided he needed a few clever verbal quirks to make him memorable. The way he talks is an expression of the way he moves through the world.

And that's true of any compelling character. Their dialogue is more than a handful of surface-level traits — it's an expression of who they are, what they want, what they fear, and how they see the people around them.

Until next time,

Naomi