Reading a dialogue for the first time after having seen it acted is quite disconcerting. On the one hand, you have the words and stage direction of the playwright; on the other, you have fresh in your mind the actors, their voices, facial expressions, and of course their interpretations of and additions to the script and its directions. It becomes difficult to separate the two. I had this experience recently with a scene from Joyride, a play by Michael Melski.

Melski's writing on paper is quite dry and full of a dialect that until heard seems rather cold, as if the characters don't care for one another. The dialog is full of irony, sarcasm, and is quite crude. For example:" I'll fuckin kill ya and bury ya up here" (pp.5), or, "Sure. Ya got a great viewa the steel plant an the slag heaps. It's real romantic" (pp.6). Not very enticing, to say the least. However, with the right actors you can sense and hear the warmth in the words; and they can build up the relationship that is hidden beneath the text.

Part of this lack of warmth in Melski's writing is perhaps the dialect he writes in. He's chosen to write of Cape Breton, the people of which have a very distinct way of speaking. It seems to be a combination of Gaelic and Mi'Kmaq accents, with a lot of modern slang thrown in. Dropped "g"s and slurred words are common: "I hate cops They kick ya outta the cemetary for disturbin the peace" (pp.6). Taken at face value, this type of writing produces characters who see seem heartless. But when tone and expression are added, it's a whole new ballgame. Statements like "Ya think you're McGruff the fuckin crime dog?" (pp.7) may seem harsh, but in reality they're simply tough words covering up plain old teasing between friends. However, the words and punctuation themselves are toneless.

Jess: So, what are ya doin now?
Rachel: What does it look like I'm doin. I'm sittin. I'm doin squat.

His sentences are very monotonous on paper. But they come alive on stage. Then again, I'm a Cape Bretoner myself, so maybe I'm biased.