All dialog is telling. Making dialog sound realistic and writing it the easy people talk are not always the same thing.
Isn't 12 Angry Men a play? You mention you use dialog for too many things. Just wondering what those things are?
I don't agree with this. I don't really have the gumption to explain right now, too tired, but here's a thread about it elsewhere: Is dialogue showing or telling? @ Sci-Fi/Fantasy Forum Tomorrow maybe I'll go into more detail.
Ok, a smidgeon of gumption found. I'll try this. Basically what I said above: When dialogue is action it's showing. People on the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forum also added a few more things—advancing the story, characterizing, and I don't remember what else. It's funny though, their conversations go a lot like ours (not surprising). Plus someone can give those glimmering, just-right details that make an image so vivid in dialogue. Also, I said I'm currently working on a story that's essentially a long monologue, since it's being told to the reader by the MC/narrator in character voice. I've read several stories like this in preparation, and I've come to realize that monologue of this sort can be telling or showing. And the same is true in dialogue.
I'm nt saying you're wrong. I guess it can get a little confusing. I've always been told dialog is telling. After all you're telling the reader what the character said and there's not really away around that. I don't think it matters how vivid the dialog is. But I'm not going to argue with you. I know the whole show vs. tell is kind of your thing. Regardless, I would say there are probably better alternatives to straight dialog to show something. But there are also time I think when you just might want to ten the reader what the character said.
You could use indirectly reported dialogue: 'In response to his questions the suspect repeatedly verbally abused Officer O'Neil and also incriminated herself in regards to several felonies including arson and murder. At one point she enthusiastically indicated that yes, she had burned the bitch, and in fact that she would do it again.' Playful use of language like this, where you can obliquely understand exactly what she actually said and how, but it's reported in this elaborate formalistic way, makes it fun. It would need to be a very short story though, and the official police lingo would be the main point of it. There are other ways too. Remaining purely in objective POV could work, where it's like everything is seen through a video camera (or a police bodycam maybe?) reporting with no emotion on everything that happens. Just the facts ma'am: 'The officer emerged from the patrol car and drew his service revolver, shouting questions and instructions into the grimy alley mouth. A shadow figure crouched behind a cluster of dented trash cans in the scum at the other end of the alley. Aggressive words were shouted by the officer, and insults and curses hurled at him from the darkness. The shadow figure broke and ran for the fire escape. It leaped and made a desperate grab but fell just short of its goal. The figure scrambled and pulled something that glinted from inside its clothing, pointed it at the officer. Three rapid shots rang out, the officer gasped and sank to his knees, then slumped to the scummy floor of the alley. The forces of darkness won this round, but perhaps it's some slight consolation to know that the shadow figure moved with a limp as it strode forth into the darker shadows of the world at large.' That one also relied on indirectly reported dialogue, where you don't directly quote what was said but just give the gist of it in narration.
I've heard some people say that too, but I think that's a very low resolution idea of what showing and telling means. If you follow it through to the logical conclusion then all writing is also telling, since it's all done in words. But if you look at it that way then you lose all the subtlety and power that you can get from actually understanding the difference between the two. For me there's a lot more utility in believing that there actually is a difference between showing and telling, and that it exists in dialogue too.
From "wired for story" by Lisa Cron 'Myth "Show, Don tell" is literal- Don't tell me John is sad, show him crying. --------- Reality: "Show, Don tell" is figurative- Don't tell my John is sad, show me why he's sad.' I took that as really good advice. Our goal is the emotional engagement of our readers, so the character's emotional reactions, and the reasons for those reactions are the more powerful tool.
You're forgetting about subtext. Showing means you are implying the information rather than stating it. The reader must then infer the meaning, and they become engaged in the story rather than simply being told a story. Subtext is the implied meaning behind the spoken words. The scene between Will and Elizabeth early in Pirates of the Caribbean is an excellent example of subtext.
Take a moment and consider "Twelve Angry men", the original not the remake. or "The Man From Earth". Both of those movies are almost exclusively dialog. They work as well as they do, because of the inflections used in the dialog, and the body language of the cast. I re watch those movies just to study how to do dialog.
I think 12 Angry Men was originally a play. Then you've got other movies made from plays like the ones by Neil Simon. I'm not quite sure how it happened or whose idea is was, but somehow the dialogue in Return of the Living Dead is done like a play. The way everybody talks is stylized and over-the-top. It seems like maybe James Karen was doing it and everybody else took a cue from him, or maybe Dan O'Bannon the director noticed and had everybody else do it too. James Karen does it best though. Dig this scene: It isn't really the lines themselves, it's the way he delivers them and the facial expressions and body language. The guy's a comedic genius.
Movies and novels are very different things. You really can't compare the two when discussing the use of dialog in fiction. At least for this discussion I don't think it works.
Movies are dressed up screen plays, which also have a three act structure. Written dialog can reference body language and tone of voice, in some ways better than on screen can. Which leaves us at opinion, and those don't have to agree. My point is, dialog, done well can carry an entire story. That being said, good dialog is not easy, hence the current debate about how much is the correct amount. The answer in my opinion is simply, its' a question of the writers comfort and skill level with dialog. So each person needs to find the amount that works best for their style.
This discussion was about using less dialog in fiction. Obviously, that's not a technique that works with plays.
Implying is showing. You can tell the reader that the character is angry, or show the character slamming his fist on the table, implying that he is angry. You can tell the reader that the character is tall, or imply it by showing the character ducking as he passes through a doorway. Telling means you provide the conclusions for the reader. Showing means you present the reader with the evidence and let them come to their own conclusions as to what it means.
How about showing why the character is angry, without that kind of context, both seem to be telling. Show the character getting fired from the job he loves, or the girl of his dreams breaking up with him for a reason he doesn't understand.
Yes. I agree. Showing is planting implications that from which the reader will draw conclusions, based on a mutual understanding of each the writer's and reader's knowledge of world and tropes. The best part is it doesn't have to happen overtly. We infer subtle things without realizing it, like the connotations of garb or the state of someone's home. The part that confuses people is the word 'show.' It makes them think of it strictly in the most tactile sense: clenched fists, frowns, grins, thumping hearts, shoulders hunched etc... That's just one level of complexity that can get old pretty quick. There are plenty more, and dialogue is a major vessel of showing in a story. It is immensely flexible when it comes to nuance, subtlety, efficiency.
I largely agree with this. In a way showing is like subtext. You show the external reaction and it implies the inner cause of it. You can show the after-effects. If you show a character walking out of the office building with his typewriter and trophies in a cardboard box, the reader knows he got fired. Show the guy's girlfriend sitting on her bed cutting him out of all her pictures, they know she broke up with him or is about to. This is basic textbook showing—things that can be captured on a video camera (including sound). Like the scenes in a movie where there's no talking, where it's done visually and through effective use of sound. Or where the dialogue says one thing while imagery and sound tell a different story (classic subtext). I'm trying to learn the more advanced levels of it, and I can't say much about that yet. It isn't firmly enough embeded in my head yet. But a lot of it seems on the surface like telling. It's just the more powerful telling.
No, forget that. I just remembered the conversation. Some people were saying sometimes telling is showing, but my version is that telling isn't always bad, sometimes it's powerful and effective. It basically means the same thing I think. And that version works for me.
And of course showing can also be done through other senses. A character can feel that something is misplaced in a dark room, or smell something that carries powerful meaning. It's when things are done in scene (in action) rather than in narration or explanation.
I guess I should tip my hand and flash the cards I believe I’m holding. Not always. Not for important narrative events. Is showing a perfectly preserved crime scene the same thing as actually showing the crime being committed? The implication that a crime took place is undeniably present in the crime scene. But the actual act of the crime wasn’t shown to the reader. An implication of an important narrative event, while often a smart storytelling choice, isn’t the same as actually showing the event, and can easily be the wrong choice. It doesn’t remotely produce the same effect.
This doesn't mean you can't show the crime being committed though. That could be either shown or told, depending on how it's done. If it's "He walked in and saw his wife committing adultery with a man he didn't know, so he took the elephant gun down off the mantel and shot them both." that's telling. But if you do it in scene, by showing the actions rather than explaining what he did, it would be showing: As he opened the door sounds of wild lovemaking drifted from the bedroom. Television, or—? No. Her voice. He stood for a moment, set his briefcase on the coffee table, and looked around the living room. His eyes wandered over the heads of trophy animals mounted on the walls, and swiveled suddenly to the elephant gun hung over the mantelpiece. He pulled it down in silence, opened a drawer next to the gun display cabinet, and loaded the big gun rapidly. He hesitated a moment, then dropped another shell in his pocket. Then he stalked down the plushly carpeted hall and kicked open the bedroom door. The lovemaking sounds ceased and they both froze instantly, eyes like saucers staring uncomprehendingly at him. Deer in the headlights. The first shot was into his wife's naked back and knocked her off the bed. That revealed the second target. He reloaded grimly, allowing the stranger to scream and plead before finishing the job. It shows the actual crime being committed (both of them, or all three of them I guess—adultery and two murders), but it only implies everyone's inner motivations by showing their actions.
