Dialogue-driven novels

[Samantha The Escapist]

Hi! I can relate in that whenever I do ANYTHING like that a lot all at once. Sometimes it's too much dialogue, sometimes it's too little. Sometimes I worry the plot has focused too much on a certain aspect of the story etc.

For me though, right now the only thing I'm working on is in first-person, past-tense and for some reason too much or too little dialogue doesn't stand out as much. I guess because it's more of a stream of conciousness and I'm somewhat absolved of taking responsbility for inconsistencies if I just play it off as mood or circumstance.

I know you don't want this answer, but personally I love when novels play with structure. I'm reading one right now (Quintana of Charyn by Melina Marchetta - third in a series) and for the first time we're in the perspective of a certain character and her thoughts only read almost perfectly like iambic pentameter and it's one of the loveliest things I've ever found in a novel.

Another series I read when I was a kid (Girl Talk! lol) had entire chapters of dialogue in the form of a phone call. It's a little silly but I think, conceptually, it's something you could play with as long as you had a reason. Even just having characters who banter a lot.

Edit to add (because my post wasn't already plenty long) I think one of the reasons too much dialogue seems jarring is because its appearance on a page is very different from the long descriptions. But I would guess that, if anything, the reason you don't see a ton of it that often is probably more that it's challenging to write natural dialogue and more challenging still to progress a story that way.

On the topic of internal alarms, writing is such an anxious process for me that my internal alarms are always sounding, now it's just a dull roar in the background of my scattered thoughts.

[Will]

I feel the exact opposite. I don't think what I write has enough dialogue. I tend to focus to much on the world then the characters.

Everyone has their different writing styles. Most of the time those styles fit different genres. For example, you don't see much dialogue in action thriller novels.

[Sarah]

I often look back at my writing and notice, "Hey. This section has only dialogue" or "This story has too much dialogue." It's common issue for me and I'm sure it's a problem for many.

I feel like that if a story has too much dialogue, the writing can be dull and uninteresting. Also, you don't really get to know much about the characters' inner thoughts, you know. I think a good balance of dialogue and description is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong. Some writers and authors can totally pull off a story driven by the dialogue between characters. It's just a matter of style. I prefer stories with a good balance.

[ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, This is my witty title (head mod)]

I personally think I'm terrible at dialogue and often go paragraphs with sole description. I often need to add more dialogue! But some characters talk a lot while some are introspective. Like I said to someone just today, good dialogue is dialogue where you can picture the person speaking it just from their words. If your dialogue is dry explanations of what is going on, I would use more descriptions. But well-written dialogue can be the MOST EFFECTIVE CHARACTERIZATION! I need to use more dialogue.

[Sarah]

Well said, Charlie!

[Kat]

I agree with Charlie.

[ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, This is my witty title (head mod)]

Thanks :)

[Purvika]

I have been reading this thread from quite sometime didn't get chance to post a comment, so here is my POV.

I normally stick to both dialogues and narration. Because I feel dialogues are essence of a story. It does not matter how much I add. Sometimes its just one or two lines sometimes its more but when I re-read it I feel it was what story demanded. I am no expert just write for my hobby. Or it is my passion whatever can be said. Currently I am working on a sci-fi with lots of myth. Its a cross story where aliens and angels exists.

I would like you to give it a look and tell me your POV about it regarding dialogues.

Concept is quite diff... I have taken my GR friend and based on their nature I have plotted the character with powers. If you have time go through it once and tell me should there be more dialogue or less...

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...

[Samantha The Escapist]

Keith wrote: "Okay, sorry to double-post, but just immediately after I wrote my last post, I read a review here on GR, and the reviewer (who is awesome, BTW) mentioned this about the book:

"Also, the writing is..."

This has actually been an ongoing debate for me. To use an example of my own writing (from an excerpt I no longer intend to use haha) to show how I made the transition from this sort of "telling" dialogue to actual dialogue


Tarn spent the afternoon educating us on the shifts and patterns of guards around the city’s perimeter. He taught us about their procedures and how they would most likely react to our plans ...(unecessary plot stuff removed)... Alaric and Geon were just beginnning to argue whether Tarn should bring a horse right to the jail cell for a faster escape or carry her from the city himself to the forest just outside the gate where a horse could be waiting for him.

“But of course everyone will notice him dragging the beast through the city!” Geon was waving his hands in agitation. “They’ll know he’s up to something before he even tries to sneak her out.”

--- Cue quite a long conversation that reveals a great deal about the characters in the scene, and concludes with a protracted version of the plan they intend to carry out, without having to show people slowly coming up with ideas.

(in case anyone has a mind to criticize the content they should know that this utterly graceless rescue plan actually utilizes an extremely effective diversion)

[Maya]

I agree with Charlie. That, said each writer must play to their strengths. Personally, I love dialogue, but it should reveal characterization and move the story along, otherwise it can become self indulgent.

The same can be said of every other approach to story, narrative, descriptive, world-building, etc. Writer's should rely most heavily on whichever aspect of storytelling we do best, as long as it serves the story; remembering there are as many kinds of readers as there are writers. Some readers are world building fans or fans of pov storytelling or dialogue or whatever. Hee, clearly I feel strongly about this ;p

[Samantha The Escapist]

Willow wrote: "I agree with Charlie. That, said each writer must play to their strengths. Personally, I love dialogue, but it should reveal characterization and move the story along, otherwise it can become self..."

I actually agree 100 percent. I can read a novel that's heralded as the best novel of the year and hate it because the author isn't my cup of tea, that doesn't mean I think it's bad though.

Likewise I can read a book I know isn't the best but it appeals to me because it focuses on what I like.

A good example is Eragon, I know it's pretty bad for a number of reasons, but Paolini was passionate about his derivative purple tome and I just soaked it up.

Write what you're good at, write what you know, and write what you love. Someone out there will enjoy it for that.

[Michael]

I will say that I actually never have had this issue. I think it goes back to your original explanation that sometimes it is a good thing and some times it is a bad thing. See, this is why I find myself less and less able to understand some of the writers of today. Mainly because so many want to break down and be technical about how to tell the story while still writing the story. Regardless of what the grammar police will tell you or what the content critics will say good writing must first and foremost be good storytelling. Therefore, it is always going to be up to the story and the environment in the story to dictate how it should be told. I tend to think of it as this, you as the author should not be judging whether or not there is too much dialogue. Instead, the characters should be telling you when they want to stop talking. Then, when the book gets into an editors hands is when you should go back and decide whether the characters were right or wrong.

[Michael]

I get what you are saying about them not being redundant and repeating themselves, however, you have to think of them not as characters but as people. People often repeat and are redundant and say the same thing over again in order to express themselves. I think that in trying to make it perfect the first or even third time through on your own, it limits one's ability to take effective criticism and/or to truly hear the people in your story.

My disconnect with most writers of today is that it seems as if far too many are overwhelmingly concerned with the mechanics of their writing as opposed to the story. I cannot tell you how many people or writers I've ran into that say well I want to sit down and write a story... but I don't know what to write about. But they know how to craft a story as far as grammarly and knowing what should go where. You're not really a writer, you're an editor (a job which is also highly needed). A writer, regardless of whether fiction or non-fiction, must always first start with a story and should tell the story first and foremost before worrying or even being conscious of anything else.

[Michael]

Okay. Now your process I agree with, Keith. When I first read your original post I (having experienced this with many other writers) thought that you were talking about this during the writing process and not the editing process. I count the processes as two different things because of the fact that one should have different mindset when editing in that it should be less personal than the actual storytelling process. But I think we must also be aware that the reader's mind is also different. I think that in managing those three paradigms it makes for better writing and reading because it forces one to switch their view.

What I find from many authors today, however, is that they try juggling all three paradigms at once. They start thinking about word count or page count or any paragraphs or chapters they have in their book before they finish writing something. Back when I had my first novel published (before the company folded; another story) it was suggested to me that one should only do grammatical and structural edits on their book the first time through and then send it off to an editor. Why? Because writers will always think that they can perfect the story themselves and then when it gets into an editors hands and they tear it up not just in copy but in content as well, many get discouraged. I would instead keep all of those suggestions I made to myself about the story on a separate page instead of completely cutting them out, because even though I may feel that "well, this is too much dialogue" an editor or even a reader may think completely differently.

[Selena]

Most of my writing was dialogue for a long time. It's only been the last few years that I've been able to write exposition is the word I think I'm looking for. I did bring this up when I went to a workshop and was told "that's fine if that's the way the story flows" which was a relief. But I'm trying to branch out. It's slow going.