I've had a hard time choosing one method (dialogue or narration) as being the better way to drive plot over the other, so I thought I'd seek out your advice. In your opinion, is one more effective than the other, or do they rely on a balance?
I've always struggled with the same question. In the past, I'd say I had a 60% dialogue to 40% narration ratio. More recently, I feel like it's become more even, or it has swung the other way ( more narration than dialogue.) I think it depends on the type of subject you want to write on. I focus on relationships and how people interact with one another, so the dialogue is something I find essential to drive my plots forward. I tend to use narration as a means to convey the mindstate of a character or actions they've done in the past. But, it also depends on if I'm writing in first or third person. In my first-person stories, I find narration more organic because the character is describing the actions as they happen. Whereas when I write in third-person, it can feel quite cold, almost like I'm a journalist reporting on past events.
Dialogue is the weakest form of communication; Narration is the way to go. In theory, I should be able to delete all the dialogue is a scene and understand what is going on. If I can't, then you are relying way too much on the dialogue.
I'm not sure I could disagree with this statement any more than I do. I think it's quite subjective. It depends on so many things.
Well, I prescribe the Robert Mckee theory of story in which it goes: Subtext -> Narration -> Dialogue ->. If the preceding layer is not well thought out, the proceeding layer suffers.
And as a theory, it makes sense. In practice though - if dialogue is the 'weakest form of communication' I think you're doing it wrong. Dialogue is more than a conversation between two (or more) characters. It is subtext, narration, scene setting, and emotion all in one fell swoop. At least, it certainly should be, and if you're doing it right, it is the strongest form of communication. In my opinion of course.
I have to disagree. You can't take all the different elements of a story and say 'It's all dialogue.' Dialogue is just that, a conversation between two characters, a form of expression a character uses to express emotion and thought to another being.
Did I say that? Well, I guess, maybe I did depending on how you read it, but that's not what I meant. Obviously you still need other elements. My point is that it's not just a character expressing emotion and thoughts to another being. The beats, sarcasm, anger, joy, etc. The way they hold their breath, or think hard before they answer. Dialogue is not just the words they say 'aloud' to another character, it's also the things they don't say, their body language, their tone. I consider all of those things to be a part of dialogue. They happen during it, in the middle of it, and through it.
I consider this Narration because the character does not say, "Hey Bob, my body just got stiffed from you picking up the phone, by the way, Mom died last night." No, you write His/my body got stiff when Bob picked up the phone. (Narration) "Hey Bro, mom died last night." (Dialogue)
I'd never write anything remotely like that, but I take your point. I consider it part of dialogue, because dialogue without action and inflection is dead words that read flat and monotone. I can't separate them, because without all of the factors included dialogue is ... dead. It's what's stiff in that scenario, you know what I mean? Dialogue is the sum of all the moving parts, not just the plug in the wall to make the motor run.
I feel like this discussion is somehow incomplete without a distinction between narration and narrative summary.
Well, by all means, give us some definitions and examples. and right here - ladies and gentlemen- is the main point I am driving at.
Is that what you were driving at? Because I'm saying dialogue is more than just the words said aloud to another character - that you can't separate them. That's not what you're saying I don't think. You're separating it all into separate boxes and see it as me making your point. Okay... say something out loud. If you were to roll your eyes and throw your hands up in exasperation right now - and say "Good god, that's what I'm trying to say!" Do they all go in separate boxes? Box 1 - frustrated hand gesture Box 2 - eye roll Box 3 - Good god, that's what I'm trying to say Box 4 - exclamation point In writing form, I could see how you could maybe put them all in separate boxes, but when you did them, were they separate? Or were they all the same form of expression? That's how I think of dialogue, and I get that maybe you don't. So maybe we are saying the same thing, but the words mean something different to each of us?
Are you saying that you're unfamiliar with the term narrative summary, or...? So you take dialogue, strip it of essential components, point to the resulting damage, and say that this means that dialogue was useless in the first place? Like, you take a house, remove its roof, point to the resulting cold rain-soaked space, and say that houses are useless as shelters?
I look at writing more like an onion, truly. You have Dialogue, which is the outermost layer, then Narration which the next layer in, then subtext which is the next layer. I should be able to peel off the layer, and still have a good onion, not a full onion, but a good onion. I'm sure we've all read books where the MC is just by myself for a chapter, and there is no dialogue, but the story moves forwards and all us reader's are happy, right? Also, let's take graphic novels. The pictures are the narration, and we have dialogue. If I strip all the dialogue out of a graphic novel, I'll still be able to look at the pictures and get a clear idea of what the story is about. I might not get every little nuance, but you could read a wordless graphic-novel and pretty much get the jist of the story; with that in mind, I should be able to strip all the dialogue out of a short story/novel and pretty much get the jist of what is going on as well. - Expect, these essential components are part of the 'narration,' which again supports my original claim. Okay, going with this analogy, I view dialogue not as the roof of a house, but as the paint and wallpaper of the house. I don't need to paint the walls of my house to make it an effective house; it might be ugly, but it still functions as a house. By that same token, you can't paint a house without walls to paint. Those walls are the narration.
I know I have. I've even read books that rely heavily on narration to move along a plot and to create the world. This is a very good point. Some graphic novels even have large sections where there's no dialogue and yet they're great reads and a person can pick up what the story's about. Overall, I'll choose narration over dialogue when it comes to a book because narration is necessary to illustrate what's happening in a story. I think there should be a balance, or the writer should try for a happy balance, but I won't cry if I don't get any dialogue in a story.
But even in this example, without the dialogue, the narration is meaningless. We'd have no idea why "his body got stiff". Most of our characters talk to each other. If we don't use dialogue, we're "telling" rather than "showing" what's said, and while I'm not a fan of the show-don't-tell rule in it's crudest sense, I certainly think we should "show" what people are saying. I think stories benefit from both strong narration and strong dialogue. Trying to rank which of the two is more important seems like a meaningless task. Is the liver more important to making a healthy human or are the lungs? Well, they're both pretty damned important, so why bother trying to rank them?
You have a mental model, but I see no validity in it. Characters do things. Talking is doing a thing. Why are other actions meaningful, while talking is meaningless? What if a character wrote a note to another character? What if a character gestured? Is that also meaningless? Is your objection to inter-character communication? Of all character actions, why is drawing air into the lungs and expelling it to make controlled sounds the action that should not be regarded as significant?
Because it is built on Subtext and narration. Let's take another example. What has more meaning behind? Narration: Bob got on his knees, presented a ring, and slipped it on Wendy's finger. or Dialogue: "I love you." Obviously, Bob getting on his knees. Action/narration will ALWAYS carry more weight than dialogue. Changes in subtext will always carry more weight than action/narration. What defense do I have against this? You simply attack my methods and views of writing without presenting any of yours. Are you saying Dialogue is the most important element in a story? Are you saying that Dialogue should be equal to Narrative? Obviously, you don't have my view that Dialogue is a device/ornament built on top of Narration. What about my statement do you find so hard to believe? That I could write a story without any Dialogue in it? Or I should be able to X out all the dialogue and still be able to grasp what is going on in the story?
Which has more meaning behind it: John sat very still. He said some words. Then he got up and left. or... "I'm truly sorry," John said. Point not being that narrative is unimportant. Point being that if you write examples that are deliberately stupid on one side of the equation, then obviously that side of the argument is going to seem weaker. It's a rhetorical cheat. There are lots of books and authors that put a hell of a lot of meaning and depth into their dialogue. There are lots of books and authors that put a hell of a lot of meaning and depth into their narrative. One-line examples deliberately written to make one side seem weak don't prove anything.
You're begging the question--you're defending your model by referencing your model. No, that's not at all obvious. Yes, we can't tell from the second one that it's a marriage proposal, but that's because you didn't put that information into the dialogue. Let's add possible things for Bob to say: Bob said, "Will you do me the honor of becoming my wife?" Bob said, "Wanna get hitched?" Bob said, "I saw the pregnancy test, so I thought I should do this proper." Bob said, "OK, hon, I'm doing the kneeling thing. We good now?" Are you saying that the choice between those is totally meaningless? That they communicate nothing? Again, you cite your model as evidence for your model. The second one. You can have stories with no dialogue. That doesn't mean that dialogue is optional in all stories. Let's add some of that totally useless dialogue to your example: --- Bob got on his knees, presented a ring, and slipped it on Wendy's finger, as the other diners applauded. He kept his voice low as he said, "Mom's watching. Pretend to say yes, and I'll write the check later." Wendy nodded enthusiastically, wiped her eyes, and leaned in for a hug. She whispered, "She's the woman in blue, isn't she? Double the amount or I'll tell her exactly what's going on." ---
