How to write good dialogue

Is that really "pages of the narrator just talking to themselves" or is it pages and pages of narration? They are not the same thing.

Also, there are different kinds of 1st person novels. You can have a 1st person narrator who is the main character (or one of the main characters) as in Moby Dick or The Stranger or A Farewell To Arms, or you can have a 1st person narrator who is a very minor character in the story, such as in To Kill A Mockingbird or That Night or The Great Gatsby.

As I recall, dialogue was rather sparse in Moby Dick but certainly plentiful in A Farewell to Arms. Also seemed rather a lot of it in Mockingbird. So, I would question how representative the novels are that you are reading.

To answer your broader question, there is no one right answer. It all depends on how you make it work. Michener distinguished between "carry" (narration) and "face" (dialogue and detailed action or descriptions) and aimed to keep a roughly 50/50 balance between the two.

 

From a non-expert who is also writing 1st person narrative:
First person POV can be told in past or present tense. If you are narrating past tense, it doesn't seem like you need a lot of inner dialogue or talking out loud to oneself. You can have some present tense dialogue of course, but I don't know how large sections of dialogue would read without seeing it.

If you are writing present tense I would think you could more easily put a lot of dialogue in the story. It's hard to say without seeing it, but maybe thinking about past and present tense will help.

 

I've often thought that first person novels should carry the disclaimer: This novel was written by a trained professional. Do not try this at home without the proper safety equipment.

Some thoughts:

• First person pronouns do not magically convert telling to showing. Never lose sight of the fact that we are not explaining the story or listing the events. Our goal isn't to inform, it's to entertain. Your reader is looking to become emotionally involved by personally being made to experience the scene in real-time, in that tiny slice or reality the protagonist calls, "now." That is a very different thing from narrating a slide show and telling the reader about the plot progression—and what they might see if only they could see the slides playing in your mind.

• The term first person, third, etc, refers to the personal pronouns used. It's how the writer chooses to present point of view. It's not what point of view is. So when you—dressed in a mask and wig and pretending to the the protagonist talking at some time after the events take place—talk about the events that took place, that's not placing the reader in the character's POV. It's someone who's in a time and place other then where the events take place talking about the story. And that's telling, not showing. Stories can be presented that way, of course. The Last Unicorn is a wonderful example of exposition as a storytelling method. But that style of story has its own unique set of norms and techniques the writer should be aware of.

• for every line in which you, the narrator, are talking about anything other then what's directly related to the action in progress, nothing is happening in the scene and you've become a "talking head." For why that should be avoided, try this: http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/

As for the answer to your question on exposition vs dialog heavy prose, the answer is: it depends. Narrative can be entertaining, as can dialog. What matters is that it draws the reader in. Conversation is good, but unless it's building tension it's boring. Exposition can end up being too much like a report, if we're not careful. It's a matter of the needs of that scene and the skill of the writer. There is no formula. If there were, we would have to sign a contract not to reveal it, in blood, and pay a lot of money to learn it.

My personal suggestion: cheat. I steal all my best ideas. You can do the same. Lots of really successful writers have written on what works for them. Of more importance they wrote about what didn't work. Knowing that can save a lot of time. Your local library's section of fiction writing can be a great resource. Seek the name Jack Bickham and you can't go wrong.

 

I just wanted to say I've found this thread to be very useful to me. I want to say thank you to all the participants.

As I progress I find my scenes tend to be extremely dialogue heavy. I keep my dialogue fast and tense, with plenty of conflict. I include plenty of body language, facial expressions and actions. I'm also careful to break up long conversations with small paragraphs or sentences of description, usually environmental, rather than exposition. But the fact is the majority of scenes in my stories are dialogue scenes.

So far, no one has complained about it. But none of my early readers are skilled writers or editors. I can tell simply by picking up any book in my library that my stories have far more dialogue than most books. I don't want to change formats (switching to screenplays for example) right now but I would like to figure out exactly how "dialogue-heavy" a book can get without becoming boring.

Do you think being dialogue-heavy is something I can get away with as long as I break it up at intervals with good action and keep the dialogue tight and interesting?

 

Have stumbled on this after having recently splurged out a section that had a lot of dialogue.

It is interspersed with some introspections by one character triggered by comments from the other character.
Some physical actions and movements along with a few scenic descriptions help (I hope) to place the moment in time and place.

 

I think I improved as a writer once I found my "dialogue niche," which is a term I just made up.

"Short, meaningful dialogue" is one of my writing mantras.

I've been working on a novel for a few years now, and it's sort of stream of consciousness style. So at times, I'd say there's barely any dialogue. It's all in the character's head. What he sees, what he thinks, what he feels.

But then, I'll throw in a giant paragraph of dialogue. I also have a lot of back and forth conversations. The style I like for my current project, when it comes to these back and forth conversations, is to simply avoid dialogue tags until I find a place to build some tension (as per Cog pointed out). After back and forth dialogue for a while, I'll throw in some description, or a character's physical reaction, before continuing and/or ending the conversation.

It's obviously hard to comment on dialogue. It's just hard to comment on every aspect of writing. If your writing works, it works. That goes for dialogue, too. I will say that you shouldn't feel discouraged about your dialogue, or whether or not you're using too much or too little. However much you use, use it well. That's what's most important.

Good luck.

 

Is there anything particularly unlikable about not having much dialog in a short story, even if the narrative pushes the story through at a fairly fast pace?

I'm trying to discover my style while attempting to actually finish something of decent size. I'm writing a Futurama Fan-Fiction which I would like to use as a stepping stone into an independent story in the future. (Maybe I'll be finished in the year 3000...) The thing is, I'm dealing with a character that can only communicate sparingly on Earth, and I don't want to force dialog.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

I guess it could be okay, as long as you use some other way to show the character's personality, and maybe communicate in another form?

 

I feel it really depends on the context of the scene. There is no right or wrong way, and as long as it feels right in the context.

 

If dialogue isn't needed, don't try to crowbar it in. You might have a single character with no one to speak to, and if you choose not to cranium crawl, you won't be writing out literal thoughts either.

There's no requirement for dialogue. Without it, you are short one tool used by writers to shape character, but it isn't the only such tool.

 

if well-written, short stories can succeed with little dialog a lot more easily than could a novel...

 

It's been done, of course, but there are some potential pitfalls.

Remember that our job is to entertain not inform, and the reader doesn't come to us to learn the various events of the plot, they come for the emotional experience the story gives them. Leaving out character interaction in favor of listing the events may speed the story but it may also read like a chronicle of events—the history of a fictional character. Informative but not entertaining.

The reader may appreciate what they learn, but in general, they want us to screw with their emotions. Look at a ghost story. You don't compliment the writer by saying that you loved the plot. You do by telling that writer that you were afraid to turn out the lights for a week. Your reader is most happy when you make them say, "Oh shit...now what do we do?"

The best way to accomplish that is to place the reader in the character's footsteps and make them view what the protagonist is focused on, in any given moment, exactly as that character does, complete with their biases and preconceptions. Make the reader know the scene and the resources as the protagonist does and they will make the decisions the protagonist does and feel as if they're on the scene.

 

Thank you all for your thoughts. I have some things to think about now. I don't want to force the dialog but I do want the story to be enjoyable and entertaining. I suppose dialog is just one of many tools in writing. Hopefully I can find a balance, even if that balance means just a little dialog where most appropriate.

 

I prefer more narrative than dialogue, provided that the writing quality itself is enjoyable. Check out VS Naipaul if you want an example of how a narrative-heavy story should be told. The man has written books of massive length, no plot, and sparse dialogue; but his writing is seriously awe-inspiring.

 

Nothing wrong with it. May even be a bonus.

If you watch some films, you'd be surprised just how little dialog there is.

 

No problem with it. Lots of screenplays are dialogue heavy.

It all comes down to the story. If the story's interesting and flows, it's fine.

Just write it all out as action. Or minimal dialogue.

 

That's called monologue.

As a general rule... ALL screenplays are dialogue heavy. It's the nature of the beast.

That depends almost solely on how skilled you are at delivering that dialogue. The key factor in any passage of manuscript, whether fiction, non-fiction, screenplay, whatever, is to keep it flowing toward the resolution and keep the reader involved.

And that, my friend, is the key, isn't it? Yes. If you can keep your story interesting, regardless if it is through dialogue/monologue, exposition/narrative, or whatever, the key is to keep the reader engaged. And, whatever the 'tools' you might use to accomplish that are up to you. If writing were nailed down to one "right" way to write, we'd all be writing essentially the same book. It's the vision and imagination of each individual author that keeps writing, and therefore reading, interesting.

 

A lot of this has to do with building your vocabulary. In the beginning for me, dialogue was the easiest part to write. I realized after a while that dialogue is supposed to be harder because you're struggling to give each character their own voice. Non-verbal description of events can become easier with time, practice and building of vocabulary. Once you know how to put pertinent details down and describe them well, you'll find your voice and it will flow more naturally.

 

With short stories, I feel there should be less dialogue than narration. Short stories don't seem to focus on characters that much (or at least the ones I like to read) but on the actions of characters and how they are influenced by what's around them. This is subjective so no, I don't see anything wrong with it. I will, however, echo that it does depend on the context.

 

Watch movies.

It's a little more nuanced than that, but that's the meat of it. Watch movies.

Hold on fellow keyboard warriors! I am not talking about just about any movie. There are sure as hell some atrocious movies out there with horrendous, ear-splitting dialogue. I am talking about quality movies and quality TV-shows. Now what makes a good movie is going to be different for everyone, and I don't want to go into that discussion. However, I think we can all generally agree on whether a movie has a decently written script or not. If it has, then that's the sort of movie that might be able to help you get better at your dialogue.

It struck when whilst I was watching the great American indie Mud (2012). Most of the time I watch English spoken movies without subtitles, but because of the heavy Arkansas accents I did put English subs on. And that really is the key to this little trick. By hearing and reading the dialogue, you can really easily pick up on it. I even learned a few new words this way, one of which I had been trying to hunt down for quite a while but didn't know how to write (the word was 'nous' if you're curious).

Anyway. I really think it can be helpful to watch a good movie with subtitles/captions on. Think about it, 80% or so of an average movie script is dialogue. It's a script writer's job to produce quality dialogue. It has to be so good that actors, when preparing for the role, can know instantly how they're going to act that piece of dialogue.

Still don't believe me? Here is a random bit of dialogue I took from that movie Mud. Now if this ain't good dialogue, I don't know what is.

---

"It's a hell of a thing."

"What's that?"

"Boat in a tree. It's a hell of a thing."

"Talking about our boat?"

"Talking about my boat."

"But we found it!"

"Yea, you found it with me living in it. Possesion is nine-tenths of the law."

 

That's moderately acceptable dialogue. Compare this clip starting at about the 2:40 mark.

 

Bear in my mind film dialogue and written dialogue can have differences, because they have been tailored for the medium. For example actors can use tone of voice to convey emotions, but in prose it's often considered better to use more emotional words in the dialogue than to simply write "said Jane angrily".

 

that's a great scene, david!... one of the best in the film... and it demonstrates how little dialog is needed to set the tone of the scene and the characters and emotions of the characters... also, how film differs from written fiction, the latter needing much more than just great dialog to put a scene across...

 

I've been watching Kojak - dated dialogue, yes - but damn cool!

 

Hi all,

Whenever I've written a story, be that a short story or a novel, I've always found myself to be heavily grounded in dialogue. I love dialogue. Most writing articles focus on writing good dialogue because people already write good narrative, but for me it's the other way around. I know this because even lecturers, publishers, and fellow Creative Writing students have stated this about my writing. Nobody has said my narrative is bad, per se, but I sure don't use as much as other authors.

What I'm wondering is this: is having a lot of dialogue okay in a story? I haven't had much experience with film scripts (wrote my first 'proper' one yesterday, in university), but I would like to give them a shot. The thing is, I have no idea how to go about it - I'm still not sure exactly how to write a script for television, film, or radio (in UK format, if there's a difference), and would I still need an agent, or is it different for that corner of the media? Is submitting to television, film, and radio the same as submitting to publishers?

Bottom line is this: are there any authors which use a lot of dialogue in their books, and do readers accept it? And even if they do, should I also have a decent shot at writing scripts, in case that would be more suited for my work? I find that dialogue truly moves a story along.

Thanks.