I have two telephone conversations in my story. One I've done as two sided and the other as one sided. Both written in 3rd pov. I've found novel tip websites where some suggest using one sided and some two sided. I've also seen it done both ways in published novels, though not in the same story. Which is the preferred style? Which do you think works/reads best? Is it okay to use both styles in the same story? Does it depend on which characters and context? Any thoughts?
Yep... everything is contextual and/or based on literary mechanics. Do you want the reader to hear the other side of the conversation or not? Are you trying to hide something from a character or the reader? Or misdirect? How important is the conversation? Are you revealing or concealing? Will decisions be made by the context of the phone call? What device does the conversation serve? It's all a factor. Or maybe it's just a joke, which is another kind of factor.
I'd go for two-sided unless you're trying to hide something from the reader. If you're not trying to hide something, but you don't think it's worth writing both sides of the conversation, you probably don't need either side of the conversation at all. Just describe what important outcome, if any, there was in the narrative. E.g. I called my cousin to confirm that he was coming on Saturday. He said he was, so I spent the rest of the afternoon cleaning the house. You don't need to actually write that phone conversation out unless it's very important, or they're going to discuss other things that are important to the plot.
Sometimes I overhear someone on the phone and it creates imagination of what was said the other end so it depends on whether the information on both sides is important to the reader. For example someone saying, "yeah, yeah. Oh right. Well there was this one time at college and i still can't sit down properlly"... I still want to know what was actually being said, what was he replying to? Who was he talking to? If the story is already in place that the call is to confirm minor details of a pre-arranged event that is already known to the reader then "ok, so thats 7:30 at Ricciardo's. I know where that is, on the corner opposite blah blah." Using the one side to convey the information from the other.
Well, Bob Newhart started his comedy career with a schtick where he has a telephone prop, and you're only hearing one side of the conversation. So it's an effective device if you want to use it that way. OTOH, maybe you're writing from a first-person standpoint where your MC is not hearing both sides of the conversation, in which case a speaker-phone might come in handy. But otherwise, I'd treat it as just another kind of dialogue, with the usual warnings about making it clear who's speaking and when.
My vote: one-sided. Here's why: Consider it a challenge to write the conversation as one-sided, but with enough keywords to allow the reader to "know" what the other person is saying. Don't hide anything from the reader; give them all the details they need to fill in the missing words. This sparks the imagination and forces you into a creative session you'll be proud of. It may take a few iterations to get right, so expect to revisit it every few months with fresh eyes.
I think it all hinges on whether or not the POV character is participating in the phone conversation or just overhearing one side of it. I don't really think there is an issue here. Assuming this is an old-fashioned phone and not a speakerphone, an observer will only hear one side of the conversation. If the POV character is HAVING the conversation, however, it will be no different from one they'd be having face to face, except that they can't see the other person. (Again, assuming they're not on Skype or something like that.) So write the phone conversation one of two ways: 1) as the POV character simply overhearing a one-sided conversation, or 2) as the POV character carrying on a normal two-way conversation themselves, with a normal exchange of dialogue. What is heard depends entirely on the POV, unless your style is very experimental.
I agree that this is really a perspective issue, pure and simple. If the POV character is on the phone, it should always be two-sided conversations. Leaving out some sensory input, or concealing information that your POV character would know draws a line between the narrative and the reader. It distances us from the character and the story as a whole. As a reader, I want to slip into your character (sounds so gross, sorry) and feel what they are feeling, see what they are seeing. I try my hardest at every possible turn and angle to erase that line that separates reader and character. This way, the story is more immediate and more intimate.
In 3rd, I think you can do either and it make sense. I think it depends on the information (or lack thereof) you're trying to get across. Ask yourself what you want the reader to know from this conversation.
I agree with those that say it depends who your POV character is. What does your POV character hear or not hear? The only way I can see this being a choice is if you're writing omniscient third, which is pretty rare these days. But if you were in omniscient third, it'd feel like a bit of an authorial cheat to me if you included the other side of the conversation once and didn't include it another time. Once we establish the narrative rules for our worlds, I think we should stick with them!
Purely from a reader's point of view: Unless your story loses steam (which it should not) because of the reader hearing the other side too, then I would say, double-sided. As a reader, it sometimes is irritating when the narrator you trusted is toying with you -- whatever be the narrative PoV, but more so in first-person PoV. I mean..., I think : Does the author have to stoop to the level of manipulating the reader to say his story? Bah. Well, that's me. For me, that's a fail. First-person PoV: When the narrating character is on the phone, I cannot hear only one side of the conversation. When some other character is on the phone and the MC is an observer, I most definitely cannot hear what that person on the other end is saying. Third-person limited: When the narrator's character is on the phone, I will hear the other side of the conversation. When some other character is on the phone and the narrator's character is an observer, I most definitely cannot hear what that person on the other end is saying. Third-multiple: I better hear the conversation fully, whatever be the case, unless, the narrator's present character's thoughts are more important and bearing on the plot/story/scene/character. Omniscient: Well, I don't get that PoV in any case. I believe if the narrator is omniscient, the narrator should get down to solving the conflict instead of narrating it.
Well, they probably are. But if they don't let the reader in on what's going on AS they 'solve' it, it's going to be a pretty short story! What an omniscient narrator can do, that other forms of narration can't, is explain the significance of certain happenings, because they 'know all.' An omniscient narrator can write things from several perspectives at once, like :
