A builder, no. A chef, no. But people who write using purely dialogue do so for a specialist market all of their own - so, using your analogy, why would builder carry a grill when he's been taught to be builder by trade? People have and will continue to be paid for that genre.
Since you want to write something that people read, perhaps you should ask yourself how many people want to read a story that consists almost exclusively of dialogue. And maybe you should think about the function of description, and all the other elements that the reading public like to have in a story...
What specialist market? Besides plays and films, which are not what are being discussed, where has there been a succesful work featuring nothing but dialogue?
I am completely in favor of experimental writing exercises. It you take them seriously, they are a great way to understand both the strengths and weaknesses of certain aspects of writing. Such exercises are valuable for self-discovery. But that is a far cry from recommending that writers turn their nose up at rules and guidelines. The purpose of the exercises is to better understand why a rule or guideline exists. When you are a master writer, maybe you will choose to break away and blaze new trails. By then you will understand the rule you choose to smash well enough to be successful. Or you may fall flat on your face even then. But the fact remains, breaking rules should not be done blindly. The great artists who set new trends have done so after mastering the conventional techniques of their times. Back to the topic, all-dialogue pieces, or pieces that are predominantly dialogue with insufficient supporting structure, are often referred to as "talking heads" pieces. It is not an expression of praise.
I'm not at home now. Give me a day or two and I'll PM you some of the authors I've studied. They're an eye opener. And you're right, it's not on topic. But when someone says that people shouldn't throw narrative away, and the main person who started the thread is saying he find dialogue easier, well, you wouldn't be playing nice if you didn't suggest an alternative system when one is there. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I never said that I write stories that consist almost exclusively of dialogue. I merely said something to the effect that dialogue is what I focus on the most within the writing process. Though, quite frankly, when I read a story, I do tend to find the parts with dialogue to be the most entertaining.
You're right about the reading of scripts (I find it pretty tedious, myself, and mostly because of the stage direction, which feels more like an interruption to the story than part of the story, per se, like in fiction). I've written one short story that was all dialogue, and that was kind of challenging and fun. Haven't tried to publish it yet, but it did receive some comparatively positive feedback in the forum where I had it reviewed (nothing negative about the dialogue being the only driver of the piece). But, if you're just launching your story by focusing on the dialogue, I don't know why that would be a problem for readers, so long as you use the same kind of care and pay the same kind of attention to how to glue it all together.
That's REALLY not writing outside the box. That's mostly called a play. In fact it's like writing in a much much older box.
Of course, that's why Alan Bennett called his series of monologues "Talking Heads" -- written as scripts but wonderfully readable on the page, too. Mind you, he's a "great [artist] who set new trends" having "done so after mastering the conventional techniques of [his] times", so I'm not disagreeing!
re. the OP, That's always been the process I've used to write, and it works wonders for me. I actually started writing dialogue first after reading up on a successful author that showed up at a SBWC (Santa Barbara Writer's Conference) ages ago who used the some process. I'll have to dig up his name. Don't want to point out the wrong guy.
Newb question! I'm having trouble with regards to inner narrative and dialogue. Should they be separated with line breaks, even if the line of narrative relates directly to the dialogue? Here's a random example: Without separation. Lisa hated it when Nathan lectured her about her driving. "Shut up! I'm sick of hearing about what you would do here, and what I should have done there." "It's nothing personal," said Nathan, "I was just-" Lisa interrupted him, "Leave my motor skills alone, or you can save your comments for the bus driver." She had sounded more threatening than she intended, but maybe that was the only way he would listen. "Sorry," he said, looking away. or With separation. Lisa hated it when Nathan lectured her about her driving. "Shut up! I'm sick of hearing about what you would do here, and what I should have done there." "It's nothing personal," said Nathan, "I was just-" Lisa interrupted him, "Leave my motor skills alone, or you can save your comments for the bus driver." She had sounded more threatening than she intended, but maybe that was the only way he would listen. "Sorry," he said, looking away.
You should start a new line anytime there is a new speaker or a major shift in subject matter. (How you define a "major shift" is subjective and entirely up to you.) I think you already know this, but I'm saying it anyway, as a starting point. IMO, your first example works best. You have four "chunks" here. The first has Lisa's thoughts, followed by her speech. The second has Nathan's speech. The third has Lisa's speech, as well as some narration regarding her tone and intent. The fourth has Nathan's speech. As long as you're not mixing Lisa's speech/thoughts/narration with Nathan's speech/thoughts/narration, you're fine. Either is correct, but if you repeatedly use line breaks each time you transfer from speech to thought to narration or vice versa it will not only needlessly drive up your page count, but will also make things harder to follow. Putting a character's thoughts/narration with that character's dialogue can also reduce the need for multiple tags.
Thanks for the help, Antony. I will stick with the first method like you suggested. On a slightly unrelated note: I think I might have goofed; was I supposed to post this in the Word Mechanics section?
okon... i don't know what you mean by 'inner narrative'... what would you consider 'outer' narrative to be? am... i don't see any 'thoughts' in that excerpt... just narrative from what could be either lisa's pov, or a neutral/omniscient observer's... can't tell from such a short example what the pov is meant to be... check out the link cog provided and study published fiction by well-respected authors to see how it's done...
Actually, bookmark Cog's article. I still refer to it alot when writing up dialogue. There's another one on how to write thoughts too that's pretty damn good.
That's a good point. I thought that sentences closely relating to the protagonist's feelings could be defined as an 'inner' narrative, but that's not true. Now that I think about it, the type of narrative wasn't pertinent to the original question, anyway. Thank you for enlivening me. You said that you don't know what I mean by 'inner narrative,' so why were you looking for thoughts? It's my fault for wrongly calling it 'inner narrative' in the first place. Well-respected authors? Does that mean I should italicize all of my character thoughts, like Stephen King? Or should I forgo separating my dialogue with paragraph breaks, like Jack Kerouac? What's a well-respected author? When do they get the badge of well-respectedness? (It's a word, trust me) In my opinion, if somebody's fiction is being sold in book stores right now, it's worth a little deconstruction; it doesn't have to be freaking Hemmingway. Sorry, it was just that minor detail that bothered me. Cog's article is very helpful. Thank you for suggesting it. Cog mentioned it first, and it's his article, but I don't want to thank him for some reason...
I agree that your first example is better. One comment not directly related to your question: I think that it's best to cut out narrative that communicates the same information as the dialogue. For example, your first paragraph says that Lisa hates being lectured, and then Lisa says that she hates being lectured. In the second and third paragraph transition, Nathan's sentence is clearly interrupted, and we're told that Lisa interrupts Nathan. I feel that in both cases we're being told essentially the same information twice. In the third paragraph the fact that Lisa may not have intended to be as threatening as she sounded is information that we don't get from the dialogue, so it does belong, IMO. (Although it may be information that the reader doesn't need to know with absolute certainty--sometimes a little ambiguity is good.)
Good points, @ChickenFreak. The interrupted bit is a huge flaw on my part. But it's hard to say about the first line of narrative there. You're right that it is unnecessary, and I agree that things like that should be limited, but I'm not sure that they should all be cut out. To broadly describe my view of it: the purpose of stating someone's feelings in a narrative is to A: fill gaps in motivation, and B: connect the protagonist to the reader, helping them lose themselves in the story. Perhaps I should have used thought instead of narrative if I still want that connection to the reader, without saying the same thing twice. Would the following seem a bit more natural, or should I just do more cutting? Lisa heaved a sigh. I'm doing him a favour, she thought, and all he has to say is that I forgot to shoulder check? "Shut up! I'm sick of hearing about what you would do here, and what I should have done there." "It's nothing personal," said Nathan, "I was just-" "Leave my motor skills alone, or you can save your comments for the bus driver." "Sorry," he said, looking away. Great, now I've hurt his feelings. That's more personal thoughts in one place than I am comfortable using, but I'm giving an example for example's sake. On a side note: if this wasn't an example story, it'd be cool if she actually crashed the car, got two broken legs, and he ended up caring for her. Okay, maybe a little cliche... Edit: I just realized that Mia was addressing Anony when character thoughts were mentioned. Anony, though using Lisa and Nathan as an example, was speaking in more general terms with regards to separation of paragraphs.
That works much better, IMO. Her dialogue doesn't make it clear that she's doing him a favor, so that's new information. And the "shoulder check" adds detail to what she says, instead of just rephrasing it at the same level of detail. You've eliminated the redundancy in the thought. BTW, you don't need the "she thought"--it would be just fine as "...doing him a favor, and all he has to say...". It's clear that it's a thought. Edited to add: Well, technically the "bus" remark does make it clear that she's doing him a favor, but that's a couple of exchanges later. Plus I feel a sort of miniature plot progression in her thinking it in her own voice and then working up the annoyance to say it aloud in very different words, as opposed to the earlier version where the narrator told us how she feels and then she immediately spoke the same thing in similar words. (Editing again because I said the same thing twice. Sheesh.)
I'm writing a short story where the opening scene is an argument between a couple. The woman is complaining that the man doesn't appreciate her any more, that he never says 'thank you' or shows his appreciation in any way. She says he's become complacent after twelve years together and she's had enough, and after alot of posturing and thrashing about she finally walks out on him. My problem is I don't know how to progress with the argument. I'm having trouble with the dialogue. How does the man reply? what does he say to try to appease the woman? how does she react to this? Baring in mind he has to do badly because she leaves at the end of the scene. Can anyone help?
I suppose it depends entirely on how many times they've had this argument. If this is the first time she's told him how she feels then he can be genuinely stunned and not sure how to respond to her. If they've had this argument lots of time and he has a similar feeling that she isn't noticing when he's trying, then he may not want to appease her. Don't forget the simple fact that he's a man and she's angry, at that point in time it doesn't matter what he says / does, it's always going to be wrong!
Also... when the argument erupts has she, in fact, already made up her mind? Is she stating her reasons once more for the record? People often say they've had enough, when what they are trying to do, is cause a strong enough emotional reaction to force change. Was it her intention from the start to walk away? Or was there there an event, that triggered the argument in the first place and brought it all to a head. Or did it come from nowhere? Has he become complacent, or has it got to the point where he just doesn't care? Asking questions like these will help direct your thoughts. I tend to have a good idea of my characters' personalities prior to putting them in situations like these, so I generally don't find myself stuck when it comes to dialogue. It's like with my friends, I know them well enough to anticipate how they will react to situations. Occasionally they surprise, but generally, not. It might help to try and relate each character to someone you know, or other characters you've come across in books, films etc. Then ask yourself how they would react.
This part, right here, is what strikes me. Picture yourself on both sides of this argument. They've been together 12 years, which is a significant amount of time. Obviously there are A LOT of things that have pushed her to leave. His view is likely that everything has been just fine, and his takeaway from this line is something along the lines of "she's leaving me after 12 years together because I don't say 'thank you' enough?" Or, "Here I was, sitting with her at the cafe, everything was fine, she hands me the cream, and all of a sudden she's yelling at me because I didn't thank her." Think about what you would say.
