How Aaron Sorkin Writes Dialogue: The Actual Technique

#writing #screenwriting #filmmaking #creativity

Writers trying to imitate Sorkin usually copy the surface: overlapping speech, walking
conversations, long articulate speeches. The result reads as pastiche, because the rhythm is a
consequence rather than a technique.

What he has described consistently across interviews and his own teaching is something more
transferable.

Intention and obstacle

He has repeatedly credited his approach to a principle drawn from theatre: a scene requires a
character with an intention and an obstacle in the way. Not a topic. Not information the audience
needs. Somebody wants something and something is stopping them.

Once that structure is in place, dialogue writes itself as a series of attempts. The character
tries one approach, meets resistance, tries another. That is why the exchanges feel like combat
even when the characters are allies. They are always trying to get something.

This is the whole engine, and it works identically in quiet, sparse writing.

Argument as structure

His scenes are frequently built as arguments where both sides are genuinely defensible. That
is why they can sustain length. A scene where one person is right and the other is wrong ends as
soon as the audience works out which is which.

The transferable practice: write your opposing position at full strength.
Most writers weaken the argument they disagree with, which collapses the scene. The discipline is
making the side you oppose as persuasive as you can.

Rhythm is rewriting, not inspiration

He has spoken about reading dialogue aloud obsessively and treating it as closer to music than
to speech. The distinctive rhythm comes from a large number of passes, not from a first draft
arriving that way.

Which means the accessible part of his method is not the talent. It is the willingness to read
a scene aloud twenty times and keep cutting.

Where it does not transfer

Worth being clear about the limits. Sorkin writes characters who are unusually articulate,
which suits institutions full of people paid to argue: newsrooms, courtrooms, campaigns, boardrooms.

Applied to characters who would not speak that way, the technique produces something false.
Plenty of great screenwriting works in the opposite direction, where characters cannot say what
they mean and the drama sits in the gap. Both are valid, and the choice depends on what your
story is about.