I was just re-reading my January 2020 copy of the UK print magazine Writers' Forum (totally NOT connected with us in any way!) and came across a quote that resonated with me. It's part of an interview with Katharine Wootton, editor of the short-story spin-off magazine Yours Fiction. Ms Wootton says: 'Sometimes I receive stories that read more like a script. It needs to have your voice as a writer, so don't give all your words to your characters. Keep some for yourself.' I think there is a tendency, these days, to want to tell a story using mostly dialogue. While this can be skillfully done by a handful of authors, in general I'm in agreement with Ms Wootton. I want more than just words the characters speak. I also want to know what else is going on, and what the POV character thinks of the conversation. Any thoughts on how to craft that balance into our writing?
I've always been proud of my dialogue, and it's the one thing I've always been praised for. I write in the first person, which makes it easier to break up dialogue with a number of devices: The character commenting on how he thinks what he is saying is likely to sound: "I made sure I said it with just enough sarcasm for her to know that I wasn't impressed." The same technique can be used in reverse, when another character is talking to my protag: "She spoke to me like an unimpressed headteacher who was getting sick of telling a kid off for the same thing." Use body language - this one is really useful because it gives an idea of how that character is likely to be talking (crossed arms, combative or resentful, stretching arms out across the chair back, relaxed, drumming hands, nervous or impatient. You don't have to limit yourself to arms and hands, a character can turn their head away, cross or uncross their legs, shrug their shoulders. It is also another way of breaking up dialogue and making it clear who is speaking without going down that "he said/she said" path. Or just tell us what a character is doing. What else is happening while this conversation is taking place, where are they? If they're in a coffee shop, they could pause to pour some sugar in their drink, if they're driving they could flip off the driver behind, whatever. I try and keep in touch with the world around my character as they speak. Rather than using setting as a backdrop which dialogue then takes place in front of, I describe settings around the dialogue: Hannah threw the pigeons the last of her sandwich. 'I just don't know what to do, Frank.' 'You know I'm the worst possible guy to ask for this kind of advice, right?' To avoid looking directly at Hannah, I watched a squirrel climb up a pine tree opposite our bench. 'Do you really want my advice on this?' In the corner of my eye, I saw her nod. Sighing, I rubbed my face with hands, hearing my three-day stubble rustle. 'Look, if this means that much to you...' I waited for a jogger to run past, so I could talk to her in privacy. OK, that probably isn't my best, it's just something I smashed out before having my morning shower - but you get the idea.
Yeah, I like that example. The only thing I reckon it could use (and maybe it wouldn't need to, depending on the surrounding part of the story) is maybe more insight into why he's avoiding her eye, etc. What is he afraid will happen if he meets her eye? In other words, a LITTLE more internal thought, as well as the physical things the two characters are doing might flesh the scene out a bit more. But it does work as it is. It's just that if it went on in that vein—I said, then I did, she said, then she did, I did, then I said—I might want more insight. More I thought and I felt. (I don't mean filtering, but to include thoughts and feelings as well?)
To me any piece of dialogue has either the purpose of setting the mood of a scene, describing character or clarifying (I try to avoid the as you know bob bits). I do sometimes the exercise of checking out how good a character is by writing dialogues with another character I feel more familiar with. Those imaginary dialogues rarely make it to the final product. They include their particular reactions to the outside world (the agresive driver, the teenager girl biting her nails...) During a draft revision I'll be getting rid of as many dialogues as possible, as well as checking them for consistency with the character's education, social background, class, personal interests, gender, etc. How they interact with other characters define their relationship, as well as themselves, and obviously what they try to achieve with their words on a particular moment, after a particular set of events, under particular circumstances. Unless the reader has enough information, he or she might not be able to understand a sentence like 'Is that so?'. I try to avoid 'simple', interchangeable sentences, unless my characters are suffering a hangover, or lack sleep, feel in pain,etc. All in all purposeless dialogue belongs to the first drafts, as an exercise (if needed), not to the final product. The good about dialogues is how they speed up the rhythm. I like to think of them as the accelerator.
It really does depend on where the story is at. It is certainly ok to have just dialogue on first draft for example. However, I guess we are talking about the finished article here. Even so, a story of any length should be crafted until it is done. It, therefore, would not matter if it were purely dialogue or mixed with narrative. The question then becomes, what does done mean...
I think your last line is particularly noteworthy. A paragraph with dialogue interspersed with a fair amount of narrative that contains thoughts, feelings, action beats, etc, runs about the same speed as a narrative paragraph. However, dialogue that's minimally attributed (or not attributed at all) and rattles on with several changes of speaker can actually go by too fast. To the extent that certain points can get lost. I think that's my main problem with too much 'scripty' dialogue. I just race through it and come out the other side rather mentally breathless, and not much the wiser, because I haven't been given enough time and space to take it in. And there is often no mental picture either.
After starting this thread, I went back over my novel with new eyes, wondering how I use dialogue from the perspective of balancing it with narrative. Most of my dialogue contains some narrative as well. I guess that's just the way I write. For example: (Joe is the POV character here... this is the middle of a tense scene)
I'm interested in this thread. I didn't start writing with excessive dialogue, but the last few stories I've written have had, at least in my view, excessive dialogue but it is all integral to the story. I'm trying to deliberately avoid it, but it's hard. When I picture a scene, I picture people talking to one another.
How do you mean by handle the dialogue? In Value Judgement, I was really trying to force myself not to make the whole thing dialogue driven. I found myself adding possibly unnecessary narrative in order to space the dialogue out more, but I still ended up with scenes that were mostly dialogue. I'm doing my best to try and add in body language and intersperse the dialogue with actions, but it doesn't come naturally to me. I think this is partly down to the story ideas I'm having at the moment. Zasshiki-Warashi wasn't dialogue driven, because it wasn't how I conceived the story.
Do you also try to add in feelings and thoughts ...even conclusions that your POV character is reaching, as the conversation progresses? I try to get in three dimensions to my dialogue: audial (the words themselves), visual (the actions) and mental (internal thoughts and feelings.) I believe that gives the reader the broadest experience of what's going on.
Thoughts sometimes, but less so feelings except perhaps in horror. My characters tend to express their feelings through their actions, but they do have a tendency to sigh, raise their eyebrows, roll their eyes or nod excessively.
How would you tend to portray a situation where, say, your character is speaking cheerfully, to cover the fact they've just had their feelings badly hurt by what the other person just said, but they don't want to give the other person the satisfaction of knowing? Or they're getting really annoyed at the other person, but are speaking neutrally—and aren't revealing their annoyance via some physical act ...like frowning or clenching teeth or something physical?
I think less is better when it comes to dialog. What this editor is saying, I think, is give me a story that's more than a conversation. What's going on that your characters could never say, but the magic of a writer can say it all. I get it. I also get that this isn't the easiest thing for a writer to do, as is clear by this editor talking about it as something that's being done way more than it should. Limitting dialog can make the times it is used have a greater impact. If a writer is good with dialog, they should use it in a way it best serves the story. Most stories do not rely on dialog. If a writer is using it too much, it might sort of become the scaffolding of the story. Remove the scaffolding and see if the story still stands. A good writer can do a lot more than produce character soundbites. But I know this can feel like a blind leap for many writers who become too reliant on dialog. This is not to say not to use dialog at all, but when you just use it when you really need it I think a better story can come of it.
I am just beginning to explore the balance of dialogue and narrative, especially in action scenes. Quite apart from the mechanical writing processes and structures that make for good reading, there is the first chapter and concluding chapter, which in my case are not standard issue. I don't think it is so simple as balancing just two elements like narrative and dialogue, certainly with a novel or novella when so many other things are going on. I guess it depends on genre, p.o.v and narrative distance etc. (Well I know what I mean, hope you all do too!) For example, in my chapter 4, I am recognising that the action is action. Showing narrative does slow down the pace but too much dialogue becomes boring so narrative is required to break it up. That is fine but too much telling narrative also pulls the reader out of the action and in my opinion can look very much like author intervention. This are just my thoughts at this stage of my development. I have decided to thin out and cut down narrative and dialogue; to make the story less dynamic and let the storyline, characters and writing breathe. It is amazing what readers pick up on so I am learning to be a little more subtle.
In the first case, I would probably have to include some emotion. In the second though, I would try and convey it by the actual words being spoken and let the reader fill it in. To give an example, in my novel, my MC has an intense rivalry with one of his allies - to the point where he hates the other character (but not the other way around). So in one scene, where they are all gathered together, the MC is standing there, fingers clenched tightly over his sword, described as having a smouldering look in his eyes. By this point in the story, the tension between the two characters is clear, so I don't describe his tone of voice when he finally speaks to his rival. It's not so much that I can't write emotion, but it doesn't come naturally to me, so I have to keep reminding myself to do it. Then again, I think dialogue needs more than just emotion and body language around it - it needs things to happen as well. Scenes were two characters are just standing there talking to each other can become tedious.
Writers have access to a dimension that no other art form has. Writers have the ability to get inside a character's head. Writers aren't limited by just showing what could be observed by any onlooker, or what a movie camera would pick up. Writers can also show what's happening inside the heads of the POV characters ...the stuff nobody else can see, or certainly can't see in any detail. (An onlooker may see 'anger' but they won't necessarily know why the person is angry.) I reckon it's a shame to cut that dimension off, and treat a scene as if it were a movie. That limits a writer, and takes away some of the writer's tools. I try to ask myself when I'm writing ...when this event is happening, what can everybody see and hear? Then ...when this event is happening, what can't everybody see and hear? I try to work both of these perspectives in.
While reading The Maltese Falcon for the first time, something closer to what you've described struck me. I keep asking myself 'how does this guy get away with this?' what keeps me reading something I could have written myself?' After finishing the book, my lesson was learned. Haven't tried to write any Hammett pastiche, I won't until I can take it beyond what he did. I'm sure it'll take me decades. I came to admire Hammett (among other things) because he dared to innovate, in spite of his weapons of choice, making me cringe as a writer and reader of less dry prose. As a reader he made me felt like being catapulted at certain sections, but I trusted him, and he was there to pick me up. As the trip resumed, I was exhilarated. And, believe it or not, Hammett had time for some serious, honest feelings too. His balance between dialogue and action was brilliant, something to learn from. That is not what the rush & push club does. They force you to run a marathon, then expect you to solve the Rubik blindfolded. They also might have the nerve to call the Rubik the Zemeckis cube. To add color and atmosphere, they inflict upon you a boring dialogue where two MCs sit at a coffee shop, with many 'yeah' and 'dunno', 'dark, depressing winter rain outside' thrown for some poetic value. I've got this theory, such writers have seen more films that read books. They picked up the wrong medium. There is a difference between the attempt at some stylistic innovation and sloppy, bad writing. Even in film you need to balance dialogues with narrative. I do this as well, taking into consideration what they need to see and hear, and what they have already heard and seen. The last point is fundamental. I'm obsessed with narrative speed, and try to it keep in mind at all times, I see writing as not just cerebral, but as an organic, physical medium. Can't explain this very well though.
Pacing, for me anyway, is one of the trickiest things to achieve. I still only do it by trial and error. And dialogue is certainly a factor. How fast should a scene progress? I just have to lay it out and play with it, and fit it in to what went before and what comes afterwards.
Hello friend. I agree that balance is the key. The usual way I do is to write according to what I have or mix both. What I mean and grabbing my original story here, the MC is explaining an artefact in a museum while stuff is happening around him. The visitors are taking, notes, students are looking at the sculptors, etc. I can describe their emotions, smells, texture, which helps to visualisation. I believe that people forget that action during dialogue is also essential at least to make the story as, live and to make the readers engaged in the story. Without these details is very hard at, least for me to get into the world of the story.
I don't happen to share that view. More importantly I don't experience that as a reader. Hemingway's Hills Like White Elephants is one of my favorite short stories and it's the antithesis of what Katherine Wootton is suggesting. It's a story told entirely through dialogue and what can be observed. And it's brilliant and effective precisely because of this, not despite of this. If memory serves Ted Chiang has at least story or two where he lets his dialogue and observable details carry his storytelling. And I love that Sapkowski chose to do something similar in The Last Wish. By rarely giving the reader access to his main character's inner thoughts and feelings it helped keep him somewhat of a mystery throughout the book. And for some stories that's the right choice.
Yeah. I did say that a handful of skilled authors can certainly pull this off—but the dialogue has to be VERY sharp. Having read far too many lesser offerings from characters who are just talking heads wittering on, I think I agree with that editor, in general. I get the feeling she has also been swamped with stories where dialogue seems to be the only thing moving the story along. By the way, I'm not a fan of Hemingway. I just find his writing too ...clinical? His characters aren't people I can empathise with very much either. A lot of Hemingway reads more like a disinterested news story to me, rather than an immersive experience I'm sharing. However, I can't deny his talent, and he did deal with the human condition in a unique way. It's just that his way doesn't move me. I 'had' to read quite a lot of Hemingway at school and university. I didn't hate reading him, but I used to hate having to write essays about his writing Basically, I couldn't really think of much to say about what I'd read. Just yeah, it went past, this happened, that happened, now it's done. Which wasn't a popular stance, given the instructors were huge Hemingway fans. So I had to fake interest in it, admire and wallow a bit. But I was always relieved to move on to something else. Mind you, maybe I should re-read a few of them, now that I'm a lot older and know more about writing. I might be persuaded to change my mind. I might go download a few. This virus is likely to keep me pinned in for a while, so might as well put the time to good use.
This might be another point we disagree on. I'm not convinced writing skill is the key variable in what we're discussing. I suspect it's more to do with story type, and possibly story length.
Hills like White Elephants is not told entirely in dialog. And the whole point of dialog in that story is the subtext (what's not being said). I don't think this example proves much of a point other than you probably took an intro to creative writing course.
It needn't be "told entirely in dialogue" for this discussion. It merely needs to read "more like a script," which it does. And speaking of points, I fail to see how your second sentence (assuming it's even correct) doesn't strengthen my view/position rather than undermine it.
