So, I've noticed a few script-reviews, mentioning that the 12 or 13-year-old protagonists don't talk like that. That some writers imbue these kids with a way too big vocabulary and popcultural references and so on.

But when I think about it, I think we adults, and I use the term loosely regarding myself, tend to underestimate kids - what they understand and how they speak.

I became aware of this when I started writing a new short about a bunch of 13-year-olds, and I started simplyfying their language to a point where I caught myself thinking, "Am I dumbing these kids down?"

The yardstick for me, when it comes to authenticity in this area is "Stand by Me". That film shows real kids, the way real kids behave when they're 12 or 13, I think.

Remember these lines:

"Teddy: Ha,ha Gordie loses! You lost Gordie! Ol' Gordie just screwed the pooch!
Gordie: Does the word retarded mean anything to you?
Teddy: Gordie, just go get the food, you morphodite.
Gordie: Don't call me any of your mother's pet names.
Teddy: You're a real wet end, Lachance.
Gordie: Shut up.
Vern: I don't shut up, I grow up, and when I look at you, I throw up, Aghhh!
Gordie: And then your mom goes around the corner and she licks it up."

At first they might read as kinda advanced, but when you see the movie it really works and doesn't feel like the writers are making these boys say stuff they normally wouldn't. Unlike Dawson's Creek, but that's another discussion.

I'm 21, and my early teens feel very distant, so could some of the younger writers on here comment on this? Someone closer to 12-13. I doubt there are anyone that young, but maybe some 15-16-year-olds?

I agree, I often run into criticisms like this, but I think people underestimate younger people as well. Stand By Me works, and Welcome to the Dollhouse is another movie that I think works in the same way. I also don't like dumbing down characters to make things more "realistic".  I'm only 20, and when I think back to when I first started high school at 14, or middle school, I didn't speak too much differently than I do now. More mature maybe, (just barely) but in terms of being capable of using "big words", I think 12-15 year old kids talk that way.

I've read some of the stuff I'd written back then, and beyond having a larger vocabulary, my use of the language was essentially the same as it is now...complete with "you know", "cool", and other colloquialisms.

Yea I agree, I'm only 17, but back when I was about fourteen, I remember talking similarly to how I talk now a days.  My vocab has definately grown, but one main thing is that I personally don't know what a morphodite is, so I'll have to look that up.

Really, beside vocabulary, the only discrepency that I can think of between then and now is the maturity at which I speak.  Back then if I said something like "fart" (a vast exageration), people would laugh and I'd be the class clown.  I know that's probably not the most realistic example, but I hope you see my point.

I certainly wouldn't dumb down a young teen's dialogue because, frankly, I know people younger than me that can talk better or at least the same with what I'm capable of.  The one difference is the topic would be vastly different.  The younger person may talk the same, but they talk about far different topics than I do and that I would say is the main thing to look out for when writing dialogue for them.

-Pat

The morphodite thing is a recurring joke, if you remember the film. It's obviously a word Teddy just learned, so he's throwing it around all the time. Which is what 12-year-olds do.

I think it's true that the thing that changes the most is topic when you go from 13 to 16-17.

13-year-olds are, generally speaking, more inexperienced and that will reflect in their dialogue.

It's tough writing dialogue for these ages, because every time I'm tempted to have one utter a sarcastic line, I have to think about how well 13-year-olds do sarcasm. Does their grasp of it go beyond a "oh, VERY funny..." quip?

Of course there's nothing wrong with having one character have a more mature vocabulary or attitude than others his age. I remember we had several in my class in the seventh grade, who spoke much more eloquently than the rest of us. They're not the norm, but I don't think we should be restrained by some monolithic idea of how kids/teens talk.

Experience is probably the biggest difference, if you think about it. If you look around here at some of the younger posters versus us older people, you'll notice our speech is fairly close, but the way we talk and when we choose to is vastly different. I'm 31 and I don't post on everything unless I have something worthwhile (or smart alec) to say. Some others post on every single topic whether they have something to say or not. Granted this doesn't apply to everyone (glancing at Helio), but for the most part look at what people say on here. It's the experience and background knowledge that influences our speech. So it isn't dumbing down speech, but looking at a situation through the eyes of less experience. A 13 year old is not going to have the same snappy comeback a 31 year old would. In fact, a 13 year old might not understand the snappy comeback of a 31 year old (it's happened; I've pissed off a lot of 13 year olds who don't get me). Don't talk dumber. Just write it as if they don't know everything about everything, but that they think they do. Yeah, I know they think like thet; the advantage of 31 is that I was 13 once and I realize how dumb I was, but how smart I thought I was.

You've pissed off a lot of 13-year-olds? ;)

No, you're right. Though I am moving towards one of the characters being mature  in a lot of ways (physichally, vocabulary-wise and general eloquence) but but being immature in its use (i.e. using his abilities to bully those 'beneath' him).

I like the dichotomy of maturity, which is something I'm really interested in right now. Doing a lot of coming of age shorts, if you wanna call it that. How the body matures and how the mind doeasn't follow, or the other way around.

I just wish I had a better recollection of my years as a 13-year-old.

This is kind of a cool question.  I've had some criticism about the kids in some of my stuff, and I have given this question more than a little thought.

And I've come to a conclusion.

This is an overanalyzed problem.

When a kid speaks dialogue, it becomes a kid's dialogue.  That kid's dialogue.

Would a six-year-old use the word "morphodite"?  Most would not.  But the six-year-old in your story might.

And if they do, it tells us something about that character, doesn't it?  

Remember, the character in your story is defined by what they say.  Approaching this from the other way round is limiting.

If your 13-year-old character is a weirdo that quotes Shakespeare sonnets...well, that's just who he is.

You are the one who knows your character, and you should have them say what they need to say.  What that kid would say.

And if a critic tells you "no kid would say that", you can (politely) tell them to stick it.  People who say that usually do not have kids.

I’ve got ‘em.  And they most certainly can (and do) say frickin’ anything.

I agree with Bert that they can say anything.

I think the subject matter and the maturity of what they are saying says more than the language they use about their ages.

I do get people saying sometimes that my kid characters don't sound like the age they are supposed to be.

When my kids were 3 for example they didn't sound like other 3 year olds at all. We didn't talk baby talk to them at all, but like normal people. They used big words and sounded extremely intelligent even though they were  still talking  about Mickey Mouse.

Now they use REALLY big words. I have no idea what they are talking about. At least they don't talk down to me yet....

Quoted from bert Would a six-year-old use the word "morphodite"?  Most would not.  But the six-year-old in your story might.

If you're going to have a kid speaking with a grewat vocabulary, or very poetically, you should explain why (somehow).  Otherwise, it'll come off as phony and even a little cartoony.


Phil

Pia & Bert,

Your posts on this pretty much reflect my view on it as well.

I would agree with Phil, if it was a feature-length script then you would have to explain why someone talked'funny', but in shorts I think such explanations are superfluous, in that we shouldn't dwell on character back-story too much. I also think it's easier to accept quirky, unexplained behviour in a short, than in a feature length.