Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing”: A Dialogue Analysis

If there’s one thing I love as a writer, it’s scintillating dialogue. Perhaps this is because it’s so difficult to come by. With so much emphasis placed on character and story, dialogue is often reduced to nothing more than a tool to communicate information. When constructed correctly however, dialogue not only enhances story, but can carry the full weight of a scene.

When it comes to crisp, crackling dialogue, it’s tough to get much better than Aaron Sorkin. From Colonel Jessup’s memorable monologue from A Few Good Men, to the intellectual back and forth of The Social Network, Sorkin’s dialogue is instantly recognizable.

One could argue that the most prominent jewel in Sorkin’s writing crown is his work on the groundbreaking The West Wing. Sorkin’s high-paced back and forth dialogue captures perfectly the high stakes political maneuvering of the Oval Office.

NBC.com

In the trailer to Aaron Sorkin’s Masterclass on screenwriting, he states that it is a sin to tell the audience something they already know. This statement perfectly sums up one of the many factors that makes West Wing’s dialogue work: we aren’t given useless statements.

One of the easiest traps to fall into when writing dialogue is statement/response conversation. Character A makes a statement prompting Character B to respond. Then Character B makes a statement prompting Character A to respond. This is a very diluted and uninteresting way to construct dialogue, yet many writers fall into the statement/response trap.

One of Sorkin’s many strengths is his skill in avoiding the statement/response formula. Character A makes a statement, and instead of responding as we would expect, Character B changes the subject, interrupts Character A, or ignores the statement altogether. This is a much more interesting and realistic way to construct a conversation and makes for a pleasurable viewing experience for the audience.

Though every episode of The West Wing written by Sorkin contains writing gems, there is a conversation which takes place in the episode “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen” that especially caught my attention. The conversation takes place between two characters, Sam Seaborn and Josh Lyman, two former roommates who haven’t seen each other in a while. In order to help highlight Sorkin’s skill, I have rewritten the scene in a diluted form, including typical statement/response instances that commonly occur in poorly written dialogue. After you have made your way through the scene, take a look at Sorkin’s version. I have highlighted select instances noting his superior dialogue skills, analyzing his back-and-forth sequencing and breaking down the brilliance of his story construction. Enjoy!

BAD VERSION

JOSH: So how do you like working at Gage Witney?

SAM: It’s all right. They’re the second biggest law firm in New York. Responsible for the Shearson deal and Transcom. What are you doing in town?

JOSH: I’m on my way to Nashua.

SAM: What’s in Nashua?

JOSH: There’s a politician there I want to listen to. I’m afraid it will be a waste of time though.

Do you know why I’m here?

SAM: You want me to quit my job and come work for Hoynes campaign.

JOSH: Yeah, that’s right. He’s gonna win.

SAM: Then why does he need me?

JOSH: So he can have a better campaign. Come do some speech writing.

SAM: I can’t though. Lisa and I are getting married in September.

JOSH: Oh. Well, congratulations. I should let you go.

SAM: Yeah, I’ve got to get back to this thing.

JOSH: Good seeing you again.

SAM: You too.

JOSH: Congratulations on the partnership.

SAM: Thanks. Hey Josh, Hoynes. He’s not the real thing is he?

JOSH: No, he is. Trust me.

SAM: What are you doing, Josh? You obviously don’t believe in this guy.

JOSH: I don’t know. What about you? Do you feel good about what you’re doing?

SAM: I’m protecting oil companies from litigation. They’re our client. They don’t lose legal representation just because they have a lot of money.

JOSH: If this guy in Nashua turns out to be solid, should I tell you?

SAM: Sure.

The painful awkwardness of this exchange should be obvious. In addition so some rather clunky exposition, both characters spell out exactly what they are thinking/feeling, something that rarely happens in real life, yet occurs all too frequently in poorly written dialogue. Now read this scene as Sorkin wrote it to see how he avoids these writing blunders and constructs a compelling back and forth between Sam and Josh:

SORKIN’S VERSION

JOSH: I was gonna call before I came, but the strangest thing happened.

SAM:-What?

JOSH:-I forgot the name of your firm.

SAM:-Gage Whitney?

JOSH:-Yeah.

SAM:-You couldn’t remember Gage Whitney.

JOSH:-I know.

SAM:-Second biggest law firm in New York.

JOSH:-I know.

SAM:The Shearson deal, Transcom.

  Notice the way Sorkin deals with this exposition. Instead of having Sam ramble facts about his law firm, he sets up this humorous interchange based on Josh’s lapse of memory. Note that Sorkin’s choice to establish the conversation this way serves the dual purpose of not only giving the audience some necessary information, but also hints at some personality traits. Josh is revealed to be an intelligent but singularly focused individual, making it conceivable that he would forget the name of Sam’s firm. Sam, conversely, is much more type A and organized, hinted at by his disbelief that Josh would forget the name Gage Whitney.

JOSH:-I really do know Gage Whitney. I’m saying I’m just having a brain problem.

SAM:-What are you doing in town?

JOSH:-I’m on my way to Nashua.

SAM:-What’s in Nashua?

JOSH:-Waste of time. Listen, you know why I’m here?

Josh’s response of “waste of time” succinctly sums up his reservations about the politician in Nashua. He is pessimistic about Nashua, but still can’t resist the urge to see the politician for himself. Instead of having Josh spell out his feelings in detail, Sorkin conveys everything the audience needs to know about Josh’s reservations through this one statement.

SAM:-You want me to quit my job and come work for Hoynes?

JOSH:-He’s gonna win.

A perfect sidestep of the statement/response trap. Since we, the audience, know Josh wants Sam to work for Hoynes, Sorkin doesn’t include a superfluous affirmative response from Josh. Josh simply continues the conversation as if the answer “yes” is already understood.

SAM:-Why does he need me?

JOSH: A better campaign. Come do some speechwriting.

SAM: Lisa and I are getting married in September. Yeah.

JOSH: Okay. Listen, I gotta go. I should let you.

  This response of “okay” is the most brilliant part of this whole exchange. If one character tells another they are getting married, the response of “congratulations” is so typical we consider it a given. Were Josh to respond in this way however, it would completely go against the nature of his character. Josh is a single minded individual. If Sam’s marriage does not fit inside his plan, it is not to be acknowledged, it’s to be dismissed. This is brilliant attention to character. 

SAM:-I gotta get back to this thing.

JOSH: -It’s good seeing you again.

SAM: -It’s good seeing you too. I miss you.

  The “I miss you” here is a nice and unexpected touch. Through the course of the conversation, we can pick up that Sam and Josh are friends, but this vulnerable statement from Sam informs us that not only are they friends, they are close friends.

JOSH:-Congratulations on the partnership.

SAM:-Josh. Hoynes. He’s not the real thing, is he?

JOSH:-The thing you gotta know about—

   Notice once again the side-step of the statement/response trap. Instead of wasting a line where Josh responds with a predictable denial, Josh begins immediately defending Hoynes. Remember Sorkin’s statement about not telling the audience what they already know. We understand enough about Josh to know he would refute a claim that Hoynes is a phony, even if he believed it himself.

SAM:-It’s okay.

JOSH: No, I’m saying.

SAM: Josh. What are you doing?

JOSH: I don’t know. What are you doing?

SAM: -Protecting oil companies from litigation. They’re our client. They don’t lose legal protection because they make a lot of money.

Josh’s disapproval of Sam’s work is not stated, it is inferred. Notice how Sam defends what he’s doing even though Josh never challenges it directly. Sorkin trusts the audience to understand the inference without spelling it out in black and white.    

JOSH: -I can’t believe no one ever wrote a folk song about that. If I see the real thing in Nashua, should I tell you about it?

SAM:-You won’t have to.

JOSH:-Why?

SAM:-You’ve got a pretty bad poker face.

With this closing statement, Sorkin once again affirms Josh and Sam’s friendship. Instead of a diluted, “SAM: Tell me what happens. JOSH: I will.”, Sorkin creates a fun exchange that provides even more depth to the friendship: Sam and Josh know each other well enough to read each other’s expressions. 

I encourage you to watch the full two-part episode “Shadow of Two Gunmen”. Sorkin not only outdoes himself in terms of excellent dialogue, he also skillfully weaves between flashbacks and present day to tell a seamless and compelling story. If you are feeling especially ambitious, watch the first few seasons of The West Wing. Note how Sorkin is able to keep the audience well informed about the circumstances, even when dealing with complex and confusing information. Take a look at your own dialogue and ask yourself: “Is it natural? Is it informative?”

And most importantly, “Is it interesting?”

                Jonathan Vars is a Christian fiction writer from New England, and founder of the writing website voltampsreactive.com. His latest novel “Like Melvin” is currently available on Amazon and Google Books. In addition to writing, Jonathan enjoys running, hiking, and trying not to freeze to death in the winter.