Long Chains of Dialogue

[EctoJohn]

Sometimes when I'm writing, I find myself at points in there story where two characters enter into a dialogue and it goes on for a long time. There's not much happening from the 3rd person point of view, for the most part it's a situation in the story where you have character A and character B standing around discussing matters of the story.

Now it's not bad when the conversations are short, but when the conversations get long, is this bad writing? It seems unavoidable in my writings that characters in the natural progression of things need to be standing around having discussions.

The layout of the story looks odd because, as much as I can remember the rules of writing from English class way back when in school, each time a different character speaks, you're supposed to begin a new paragraph.

Following this rule, I just feel really weird when two characters are having in depth, private conversations with no action.

Is this normal to happen, just as it happens in the real world, or is this a story element that should be avoided?

I'm writing 3rd person fictional stories here, not plays or scripts where the dialogue shold be heavy.

So I'm basically just curious if what I'm doing is bad writing or is fine as long as it's natural.

Does anyone else ever find themselves in dialogue-heavy story moments?

 

[sr71plt]

A long chain of discussion isn't usually a good sign, no. (Although everything is relative to what's actually there in that specific instance.) Unless there are slugs showing interesting action too. Good stories (although there's a whole type of writing doing otherwise now) are about change. Going from something to something else. If that long string of discussion does that, fine. But in most instances, it's just the author bogging down and going stagnant and irrelevant to the story line.

 

[litfan10]

I find that it is more a matter of pacing and keeping the dialogue realistic.
Dialogue tends to be fast paced so a large section of dialogue might end with a reader flying off the page having no idea what s/he just read. If it sounds right and it is all pertinent information I say go for long dialogue.
When in doubt read the whole passage aloud and hear how it sounds.
But largely, that is my opinion.
Yes, you should always start a new paragraph with speaker changes or it can get really confusing as to who is talking. If you have more than two speakers you should also always have a clear identifier. Several times in my work where I have a bunch of characters talking and things are flying I might skip an identifier here and there to keep things rolling and readers always catch this and go uh-huh.

 

[EctoJohn]

Is it appropriate in a situation where you have a police investigator and a detective crouching over a dead body, discussing the possibilities and pointing out evidence on the body?

That's actually the exact scenario I'm working with now.
It's not erotica (lol, especially not with a dead body there) and it's not even something I'm attempting to publish anyway, sort of just an idea that caught my fancy and I wanted to jot it down.

Anyway, you basically have two people crouching over a body investigating (it hasn't been taken away yet, fresh murder) and they going over what they see and debating, one of them is assuming it was a suicide, and you got the main character sort of debating him and pointing out why he thinks is was a homocide.

It's a lot of "This is pretty clearly...." and "No, it can't be, loook at this..." and "You're right, I didn't notice that... " kind of discussion. Really, there is nobody else there, just them and the body on the scene. There's a couple cops around, but they are mostly doing crowd control as it's outside and there's naturally a bunch of people gathered, and even the ambulance workers have barely shown up. Literally the only thing worth mentioning at the moment is the discussion between the people investigating.

The only short breaks I have in this discussion is to say so and so looked over at the body to see whatever it is was brought up.

I can't really think of any way to do this except just having the two guys talking about what they are looking at.

 

[litfan10]

Is it appropriate in a situation where you have a police investigator and a detective crouching over a dead body, discussing the possibilities and pointing out evidence on the body?

That's actually the exact scenario I'm working with now.
It's not erotica (lol, especially not with a dead body there) and it's not even something I'm attempting to publish anyway, sort of just an idea that caught my fancy and I wanted to jot it down.

Anyway, you basically have two people crouching over a body investigating (it hasn't been taken away yet, fresh murder) and they going over what they see and debating, one of them is assuming it was a suicide, and you got the main character sort of debating him and pointing out why he thinks is was a homocide.

It's a lot of "This is pretty clearly...." and "No, it can't be, loook at this..." and "You're right, I didn't notice that... " kind of discussion. Really, there is nobody else there, just them and the body on the scene. There's a couple cops around, but they are mostly doing crowd control as it's outside and there's naturally a bunch of people gathered, and even the ambulance workers have barely shown up. Literally the only thing worth mentioning at the moment is the discussion between the people investigating.

The only short breaks I have in this discussion is to say so and so looked over at the body to see whatever it is was brought up.

I can't really think of any way to do this except just having the two guys talking about what they are looking at.

You might be surprised at what a reader will fill in when you clue him/her in. What I mean is a long dialogue of just "err, what do you think?" "I don't know what about you." Well, let me think." adds nothing to the story and as Pilot said that would really bog things down and be stagnant. "The two detectives sparred over what they thought happened." gets that same point across with out a lot of meaningless drivel. If however, important clues are going to be given then break it up with the relevant dialogue.

 

[EctoJohn]

That's the idea.

The main character is sitting there tearing down what's set up to look like a suicide. So pretty much he's not saying anything unimportant.

 

[TE999]

That's the idea.

The main character is sitting there tearing down what's set up to look like a suicide. So pretty much he's not saying anything unimportant.

That's integral to the plot. Write it.

 

[litfan10]

That's the idea.

The main character is sitting there tearing down what's set up to look like a suicide. So pretty much he's not saying anything unimportant.

I would pan between what he says and the physical evidence he is pointing out to break it up. If it is too stagnant if it is a crime scene then there is plenty of activity going on around use some of that as breaks when you feel you need it.
Another thing you could do to break it up is as he tells about something flash to it actually happening or how it might have happened as a break.
Think about how when Sherlock Holmes explains the solution to Dr. Watson, while there is some dialogue you are never swimming in it.
I hope this helps; good luck

 

[Boxlicker101]

Double Post

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sometimes you can break it up a bit by including some narrative in with the dialogue. For example:

"Have you ever seen anyuthing like that?" John was pointing at the knife protruding from the victim's back. "How can you tell me this was suicide."

"He was double jointed."

"Even so, why would he choose such an awkward way to do himself in?" John was puzzled at his partner's seeming obtuseness. He could not imagine a person killing himself by stabbing in the first place, let alone in such a strange way.

 

[EctoJohn]

Well I do have a number of those small interjections as I'm looking over it now. At one point I do make an offhanded mention of the ambulance arriving and the little bit of movement they make, standing up, looking at this and that as they talk. I'm just worried it might be too much back and forth, y'know?

 

[litfan10]

Well I do have a number of those small interjections as I'm looking over it now. At one point I do make an offhanded mention of the ambulance arriving and the little bit of movement they make, standing up, looking at this and that as they talk. I'm just worried it might be too much back and forth, y'know?

Maybe try having some one else read it and watch the reader for visuals, confusion, annoyance etc as well as to ask for opinion and see what happens. It there is too much back and forth you should see some sense of annoyance.

Another thing I do when I have a section that I am not happy with is I will read it aloud as that changes the whole perception of it, or at least print it out and read a hard copy as again we read differently between paper and screen.

 

[sr71plt]

Is it appropriate in a situation where you have a police investigator and a detective crouching over a dead body, discussing the possibilities and pointing out evidence on the body?

Sure, as long as the information is moving (or giving red herrings) to the plot. That's movement and change (change in the bulk of what is known).

A lot of women's fiction now, though, has people sitting and rambling about nothing in particular--and they call it character development. Which it can be--but at the point it can be called rambling, it no longer is needed for anything but bulk wordage requirements.

 

[EctoJohn]

Well I definatly wouldn't call it rambling.

I'm heavily influenced for this story by the likes of Columbo or the anime Detective Conan, that sort of drawing room type murder mystery.

But if you ever watch Columbo, typically when he's talking with the murderer (who is typically unknown to Columbo's character), he does a lot of casual back and forth conversation that's seemingly pointless, but actually serves to extract information.

Many of these scenes have Columbo and the murderer doing very little besides standing or sitting around talking, and yet they are still effective. For all it matters, he could be sitting there with a murderer drinking coffee, he's still keeping the story going.

Detective Conan does this as well during murder investigations, maybe to less of an extent, but usually you'll have the Inspector and Kogoro (under the influence of Conan's findings) discussing what may have gone on, pausing here and there whenever Conan stumbles across something else that adds to things.

Maybe that sort of dialogue driven story only works in tv/movies/plays where, once you set the scene, there's little to do besides walk around the set and talk to your castmate's characters.

 

[litfan10]

Well I definatly wouldn't call it rambling.

I'm heavily influenced for this story by the likes of Columbo or the anime Detective Conan, that sort of drawing room type murder mystery.

But if you ever watch Columbo, typically when he's talking with the murderer (who is typically unknown to Columbo's character), he does a lot of casual back and forth conversation that's seemingly pointless, but actually serves to extract information.

Many of these scenes have Columbo and the murderer doing very little besides standing or sitting around talking, and yet they are still effective. For all it matters, he could be sitting there with a murderer drinking coffee, he's still keeping the story going.

Detective Conan does this as well during murder investigations, maybe to less of an extent, but usually you'll have the Inspector and Kogoro (under the influence of Conan's findings) discussing what may have gone on, pausing here and there whenever Conan stumbles across something else that adds to things.

Maybe that sort of dialogue driven story only works in tv/movies/plays where, once you set the scene, there's little to do besides walk around the set and talk to your castmate's characters.

Careful. Comparing to live dialogue isn't totally safe. Actors have voice modulation, rate of delivery, facial/physical responses that can make otherwise flat dialogue lively.

 

[Carnevil9]

You can always step out of the "chain of dialogue" and describe the scene physically. Have a character get up, stretch, walk around the room, check his pocket watch (or smartphone, depending on the century), etc. Or toss in a flashback to a similar case that has been dogging him since his rookie year on the force, yadda yadda yadda. You just gotta be creative to make the flow seem natural.

Good luck!.......Carney

 

[jiskitten]

Converting dialogue to narrative

If you feel as though what you have is too lengthy, try changing some of it into narrative. This also helps to speed the progress. Not everything needs to be "said", you merely need to discern what dialogue is vital and boil the balance down into narrative. This works quite effectively if, as you say, there's not a whole lot else going.

Just a thought.

The best of luck to you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Some of Chester Himes' books are entirely dialogue. Take at look at THE REAL COOL KILLERS.