I've tried to attribute who is saying and doing what by assigning voice and actions to each character. The MC is aggressive since he's interrogating the others (in one-on-one scenarios, never more than two people interacting per scene). Usually, each line or several lines of dialogue is broken up with one to three sentences of what you call action beats (I had never heard this phrase before, thanks for giving me another useful word!) or describing character reactions. Also, since it's in first-person, attributing is easier using "I" and third-person pronouns. Sometimes I fall into the "I" trap, where "I" pops up everywhere. Been trying to work on that one. In retrospect, I think this is a reason why I decided to go with first-person and a small cast of characters that the protagonist interacts with, to keep it relatively easy to follow who is doing what, being as it's my first novel. If I posted a snippet of dialogue, would that be helpful to see if things are flowing right?
Plus it's in first-person, who that helps clarify things a bit I think. Nonetheless, all of that information is extremely useful, especially in the second and third parts, which have more people interacting. But that does bring up another question. In my novella "Touching the Void", there is a gang of wastlanders who enter the city to close a deal with the manager of a wetware clinic. During some of the action scenes, I intentionally left out attribution so it's not clear who is saying what. I did that for two reasons: 1. To convey the confusion of the scene. And, 2. It wasn't important who said what. Would that make it unappealing to readers if the scope of each such unattributed dialogue event only lasts for a few paragraphs to around a page?
^ for me that would work as long as it's clear where each line of dialogue is coming from. As with what I said earlier, about one asking questions and the other answering, you've got a similar situation here, but a group of people on one side, and I suppose the 'accused' on the other. It can be a chaotic crowd scene, because the point isn't which individual said what (on the side that's a gang), but what the gang said or did as a whole. I'm imagining it as a scene in a movie from the 60's or 70's, when they used a lot of overlapping dialogue. This was done in Alien and Close Encounters among many others. Often the chaos is an important part of the scene and you can't always tell exactly who is saying what, and it isn't important. What's important is how the scene unfolds and what the end result of it is. Just make sure readers can tell when the individual is talking and when the group is. Something like: "String 'im up" "No, I didn't do it!! You don't understand!" "Shut up Git," came a voice from the mob. "Hang him from the nearest tree!" I tried putting those last 2 lines together because they're both coming from the mob, but not sure that works. I probably wouldn't do it that way in a story, unless I could find a way to make it work better, maybe with attribution or action beats in between. I think it works better, now, with a bit of attribution in between. But I think you can see, with one begging and pleading for his life, and the whole mob shouting for his blood almost with one voice, it's always clear which SIDE is speaking.
That's fine, unless you take your eyes off the reading for a moment, and lose track. As has happened to me many times, when I'm reading a lot of unattributed dialogue between two people. You end up having to go back and start over. I remember once it was so bad (in a published novel) that I actually went through and MARKED who was speaking each line. I think the writer had over 20 straight lines of a 'conversation' that were unattributed. I could not keep them straight. Authors often claim that the context should make it clear, and what is being said should make it clear who is saying it. Which might work in some cases. But it is very very easy for the reader to lose track. And as soon as they do, they are yanked out of the story while they try to figure out where they lost the plot. (Literally.) Well-attributed dialogue doesn't call attention to itself. It lets the reader concentrate on what is being said, not trying to figure out (or keep straight) who is saying it. Long stretches of unattributed dialogue is a big factor in why I will put a book down and walk away. It's just too much work. No visuals, no attributions. I can't be bothered.
"Where is it?" "I don't know, honest! Please! Don't hit me again!" Do you really need names to know which one is the investigator, and which one the cowering or tied-up guy being questioned?
Mod hat on here: I don't see any harm in posting a few lines of dialogue as examples, such as Xoic did on post #28 above (post number is next to 'Like, Quote, and Reply' on the bottom right of each post.) However, if it's much more than that, I'm afraid it will need to be a Workshop entry. Which is fine, if you've done the required number of critiques to post there—two separate Workshop thread critiques for each Workshop thread you start yourself. Just let on, in your introduction to the Workshop thread, that you're looking specifically for feedback on the dialogue. That's the kind of thing the Workshop is very good for.
I watched something on dialogue recently that I thought was interesting, and only started to notice after having seen it. What was mentioned was that the vast majority of dialogue is attributed with simple "said xxx." or "asked yyy." and that relying on adding in adverbs slowed things down. I wonder what your thoughts on that are?
I prefer the use of action beats, myself—because they convey more information about what is going on and are very visual. (They are doing what a movie does ...providing 'actors'—who aren't just reading their lines into a microphone—with facial expressions, body language, reactions to what others are saying, and maybe something to do while the conversation is taking place. They can also create natural pauses between the lines of dialogue, which is more realistic in some instances.) The occasional adverb doesn't hurt if it adds to the meaning of the dialogue exchange. Adverbs are not forbidden words. They do exist. Nor does the occasional substitute for 'said' hurt either—words like declared or observed or muttered, all of which convey the speaker's tone (and thought process) more vividly than 'said.' Declared indicates a confident, forthright tone. Observed conveys a thoughtful, or even an ironic tone—usually a reaction to something the previous speaker has missed. Muttered indicates subdued reluctance or annoyance. These can all be useful in conveying what the actual words can't. "Absolutely," she declared. or "Absolutely," he muttered. Same words, but totally different effect. Some folks think a writer should never use words like asked ...'because it's obvious the person is asking a question.' I reckon these kinds of 'should/should nots' are hairsplitting silliness. If used with care, words like asked, declared, observed, muttered fit just as smoothly into the story as said. Like 'said,' they only become noticeable if they are over-used. Attributive words other than said provide variety to the prose and insight into characters' attitudes. They are all tools in the writer's toolbox. Don't throw tools away. If a writer wants to use said instead of anything else, they can feel free to do so. But I think it's wrong to tell others not to use anything else. Edicts like that stifle word choices, and can deaden a writer's 'voice.' And I have to add ...sometimes 'slowing things down' is exactly what a writer needs to do! The obsessive 'need for speed' in a writing context baffles me. There is a difference between going slowly for a bit, and getting bogged down. Writers need to be aware that an adverb CAN slow things down. But then use that awareness to help pace the story.
Makes sense. I find myself using action beats more than simple attribution. I also looked over my manuscripts and started to notice a pattern for how I structure dialogue events. One character gives one to three lines of dialogue in a single paragraph with action beats or attribution text separating each line. --> Descriptive action beat. --> Character's reaction to first character's dialogue and actions. --> Descriptive action beat. --> Each action beat typically consists of two short paragraphs describing what each character does. I use a lot of "I" and "he/she" and don't use names very often since there are only two characters in each scene, though, reasoning that since it's in first person and there are only two people, it ought to be fairly obvious who is saying and doing what. I wonder now if I make too little use of names.
Thanks. I'm both nervous and anticipating sending my manuscript out to my first beta readers. I've been writing, rewriting, editing, and re-editing this damn thing since early 2017, incorporating everything I've learned along the way. I am certainly desensitized to wonky bits that others would probably be able to spot in a heartbeat.
Yeah, betas are the answer. And distancing yourself, if possible. It's amazing how many wonky bits jump out at you, once you've taken a good long break from it. I know I did a lot of tinkering with my MS just after I finished it. I didn't get down to SERIOUS editing till I'd taken a 6-year break from it. Okay, that's a bit long ...and circumstances kinda dictated the break ...but I found it SO easy to rip through and make changes, once I no longer remembered the creation process. It's easy to kill your darlings after a long break, because they are no longer your darlings. They're just bits of substandard writing, and you're glad to see the back of them.
A book I absolutely love - God Emperor of Dune - is mostly dialogue. OK, that might be an exaggeration, but it has large tracts of nothing else but dialogue, and throughout the whole book, very little action happens.
In works I have read and really enjoyed, dialogue always flowed in and out of actions in and around the story. Information or action would split up the scene or some bits of explanation or character thought thrown in between to kind of pause the situation and show the reader what the main character(s) were thinking in that moment. Rarely have i read works that included long worded dialogue and in some instances it would stretch a few pages but never up to 20 or beyond. Personally i feel like too much dialogue in one scene would become confusing. Its hard to concentrate on what the subject is if its long winded. It reminds me of what I was taught in Airmen Leadership School. In any speech you only ever grab your audiences attention for the first 3 minutes and the last 3 minutes of a presentation. That is usually why in briefings they would include overviews and recaps so that as your mind wanders during the middle of the brief, you would at least catch the main points as you need it. This is not to say you lose all the information provided but anyone who has sat through a lecture could hardly describe all that was said in it. I try to think of writing in a similar way and view my readers losing interest after about 5 minutes of reading if not presented with something fresh or changing in the scene. I my self have read some works that can get quite long winded on the scene description or go way to in-depth on the back story of relatively nameless characters which has lead me to skipping those sections and looking for the "juice" of the story. I would still skim read and try to get the jist but i figure I would either look up the part i was missing if a crucial bit of information was skipped and later revealed or simply push on with the story. It wasn't that the information was particularly dry at all either. Simply put it took too long for the subject to change and the constant re-hashing of stuff that could be better left to my imagination felt off-putting.
I agree with this. I think if your work is very dialogue heavy (meaning unbalanced) then I would consider making it a screenplay.
