Dialog alone

[DreamCloud]

"I love your breathing, the way your breasts rise and fall so softly."

"Stop, you're giving me goosebumps."

"But it makes them more beautiful, and you're so ticklish."

"Don't tease me."

"It's so wonderful how I can change your body with just my finger. Look how I can make your nipples stand tall just by circling them. I'm an artist."

"You're a tease."

"I'm in love, and not just with your breasts."

"So there's other parts of me that excite you."

"So many parts and I have barely begun to explore them all."

"I can make things grow as well."

"Are you trying to distract an artist at work."

"My, my, are all artists so reactive. Losing your concentration are you?"

"You're asking for it."

"Yes, I am."



It is exhausting to read, but it could be done. Not sure if it would be worthy of more than a few 100 words. Of course, an orgy would be an impossible task.

 

[SecondCircle]

I've seen it done in fiction, never in erotica. Usually involves one character telling another character a story, or one interrogating the other. In this sense it's kind of the "found footage" version of the written story. The interrogation method was pretty cool, because you have nothing else to go off of except dialogue. You kind of "become" the investigator in a way, gauging the validity of the story on the character's words alone.

I think it could be done and done really well, but I'd not want to read a whole lot of stories this way. After a while it could feel confined to just that device and get old.

 

[ambiguousbob]

Thank you all

I appreciate the generous volume of reply to my question. I did not expect nearly so much, so I held off on replying lest I short-circuit something else that was good.

I learned a few things. George V. Higgins. Walla. The stroke faction. Engrish Ikea furniture directions. Plus, links to several good stories and even some enjoyable snippets written here on the fly.

All in all, sounds like I'd be tackling a steep uphill climb if I submit anything I write, here. I suspected the irritation factor would be large, if not overwhelming, and that's been confirmed. And this might be the most welcoming site around.

It's unfortunate, but lately all I write for my own pleasure seems to be dialog heavy, as a means to get the story across obliquely and to allow the characters to hold occasional secrets which must be inferred or at least are not revealed until the end. I think it started out as an interesting technical challenge, as one of the responders here also viewed it, and it just grew for me from there. I do tend to gravitate toward shorter works anyway (no multi-chapter novels from me), and a humorous take more than stroke is often my aim, which again touches on various comments presented here. Found footage is an apt analogy indeed.

I would need to already have enough credibility with an audience to make reading such stories worth the exhausting effort invested. And I don't claim to be a talented or polished writer.

Eh bien.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

If you think about it, the dialog route is like writing LIT threads.

 

[sr71plt]

What I have seen in dialogue-heavy stories here on Lit. is two characters sitting around at a kitchen bar talking about all sorts of things that don't progress the plot or even reveal anything about the characters. I think it can be done otherwise, but you to do so you have to evaluate each line of dialogue in terms of why it needs to be in the story. The trend here is to pad in search of higher ratings, because high volume is rewarding here.

 

[LairOfTheCougar]

Its an interesting technique and certainly worth a try. Funny enough I have a partially written story based on this, told strictly through dialog.
The idea is that there is a disconnection between how the characters appear to think of themselves and their real situation. As the conversation continues, the realities begin to show through. That's the idea at least.

As for sex scenes, I think the best way would be to imply things happening rather than try to describe them. Have the characters voice their reactions to what is happening without describing it. Hopefully what the reader imagines will always be more erotic than anything that could be described.

 

[RejectReality]

Do note that I was only talking about the naughty bits of a story, when it comes to dialogue. You specified dialogue-only, and that's what I was commenting on. There's a difference between dialogue-only and dialogue-heavy. The latter provides you far more latitude when it comes to writing sex scenes in the story.

It is an erotica site, and detailed sex is generally expected. Dialogue-only is going to be a tough sell in that department. The degree of expectation varies by category. Romance readers are more interested in the relationship than the sex for the most part, so you would have an easier time there.

Group sex, anal, incest, etc., not so much.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I cant recall the book title, but Higgins wrote a graphic sex scene with the couple talking and the male thinking to himself about what the woman was doing. She was an exhibitionist who got herself aroused standing at the window naked so drivers saw her. The apartment overlooked a freeway off ramp, and the window was large.

Higgins said he learned dialog writing from John O'Hara. Except O'Hara's sex scenes are brief and powerful. Like....

I completed my exam and said," What else can I do for you Mrs. Smith?"

"Lock the door and don't get me in the family way. Doctor."

 

[Hypoxia]

Group sex, anal, incest, etc., not so much.

I may be provoked to write a dialogue-only incest vignette.

"Wake up, son."

"Uhhhnnn..."

"Come on, wake up."

""Uhh... sure, Mom... hey, what's this! I'm tied up! And I'm naked! And you're naked too!"

"That's right, baby. You see this feather?"

""Uhh, yeah..."

"Well, how do you like it when I tickle your willie... like THIS!"

"Hey, quit that! Oooh, noooo... "

Et fucking cetera. I don't know if I could make that a multi-LIT-page piece. A challenge, for sure.

 

[49greg]

I like a good mix. I hate reading a story that is totally explanation with no dialog, they seem to me to be flat and emotionless and without a feel for the characters. Dialog helps the characters come alive.

I've never read a long piece with nothing but dialog, It would be tough and would take a lot of planning to get it right.

 

[SlightlyGone]

I tried it. It worked, kind of. Was it as hot as a narrative? No way, but it was a bit of good fun.

https://www.literotica.com/s/tech-support-5

Was Sanjeev a cousin to Charlie Brown's teacher?

 

[Weird Harold]

It's unfortunate, but lately all I write for my own pleasure seems to be dialog heavy, as a means to get the story across obliquely and to allow the characters to hold occasional secrets which must be inferred or at least are not revealed until the end.

There is a huge difference between "dialog only" and "dialog heavy." "Dialog only" is a stunt or experiment, "dialog heavy" is a matter of style.

SR's point about evaluating each bit of dialog for how it advances the story is good -- it also applies to every other bit of a story.

Like so many other questions, yours boils down to "do what the story requires". Some stories work best with a lot of dialog, others with very little dialog and there is no set formula for deciding the right amount.

 

[SlightlyGone]

SR's point about evaluating each bit of dialog for how it advances the story is good -- it also applies to every other bit of a story.

If you're writing a true crime novel, I can see that, but if you're writing fantasy, comedy, or something surreal or want to be entertaining, you don't need to apply that rule with a heavy hand. The only people who really notice that are critics (that's their job to follow a guideline of what makes things great and worthwhile) and someone who just doesn't like your story. Even Stephen King has more people that will never read him by choice (maybe because they don't like to read) or don't like him (combined) than actual fans.

If you consider what you're writing to be serious writing, SR's point is one to follow, but these kind of rules are mainly guidelines so you can stay on track as much as possible without your story becoming a chaotic mess. If you want to veer off course slightly before getting back on track, go ahead.

 

[sr71plt]

If you're writing a true crime novel, I can see that, but if you're writing fantasy, comedy, or something surreal or want to be entertaining, you don't need to apply that rule with a heavy hand.

I don't see why these should be exempt from not including irrelevant kitchen sink material just to pad out wordage. In fantasy or the surreal, for instance, yes there has to be more written to creating the world than writing about a middle class neighborhood--but that's writing to the needs of the story. I haven't the foggiest notion why there should be irrelevant material in a comedy.

 

[Weird Harold]

... or want to be entertaining, you don't need to apply that rule with a heavy hand.

If you want to be entertaining, you want to avoid boring your readers with things that don't entertain them. IOW, the more entertaining you want to be, the more you need a "heavy hand" for the stuff that doesn't advance your story or character development.

 

[SamScribble]

I achieved my early writing success (financially) writing radio drama. Radio drama is just dialogue and sound effects (SFX). In the radio drama trade it is often known as ‘theatre of the mind’. You put on a play – and the venue for the play is inside the listener’s mind.

Moving theatre of the mind to on-page dialogue has a few challenges.

An exchange of letters (‘84 Charring Cross Road’, etc) is not just dialogue. It includes asides, thoughts, and a whole lot more. If you try to sneak these things into your ‘dialogue’, your reader will probably not let you get away with it. ‘Real’ dialogue is what Harold Pinter, Tom Stoppard, Tennessee Williams, write/wrote.

Monologues can sometimes work. Check out Alan Bennet’s ‘Talking Heads’. But a monologue is just a narration in the voice of one character. It can tell a story; it can be effective; but it’s not a dialogue.

In my experience, if you intend to publish here on Lit, don’t experiment. Don’t try to write ‘literature’. Just tell a story. If you want me to read it, please try to craft it as well as you can: spelling (either British or American), grammar, and all that other stuff, matters to me (although maybe not to the vast majority of Lit readers).

Good luck.

 

[SlightlyGone]

I've read many authors who put elaborate descriptions of food in their books, isn't needed, but I enjoy reading it.

I remember reading the Black Company books where a pair of wizards would have these little magic wars against each other, wouldn't add to plot or story, but they were funny/comical interludes.

Recently I watched The Martian, and Matt Damon's character types back to this guy after an idea was presented to him about a possible rescue and he replies, "Are you fucking kidding me?" and the guy asked the person there with him, 'Do you think he meant it like this or like that" saying the line in two different ways. Didn't add to plot or development, but it was enjoyable to watch.

Not going completely off course, lets not exaggerate what I say, but adding a few little touches to characters can be entertaining for the reader. Maybe a quirk a character has, like telling odd stories that are there for the reader's amusement before continuing on.

Then there is the the scene in Ghost Busters where Peter Venkman calls the guy from the city dickless in answering a completely different question, not needed, but it was funny, read that in a book and it's funny as well, but not needed.

I'm not talking about writing entire chapters that add nothing, I'm talking a few lines of dialogue, a quick interaction, an off the wall comment ... that's why I say the more serious a work, the less I imagine to see things like that.

All the readers in the world, you'd be arrogant to think that one way is the right way for all of them.

 

[sr71plt]

I've read many authors who put elaborate descriptions of food in their books, isn't needed, but I enjoy reading it.

You realize that short stories and books aren't the same animal, I hope. This is why I question why the Web site doesn't have wordage limits on its contests (like every other contest I've ever known about). Short stories and books aren't the same thing. They shouldn't be compared as being the same thing.

 

[SlightlyGone]

You realize that short stories and books aren't the same animal, I hope. This is why I question why the Web site doesn't have wordage limits on its contests (like every other contest I've ever known about). Short stories and books aren't the same thing. They shouldn't be compared as being the same thing.

Short story or full length novel, I don't believe in a singular method for their success, other than finding an audience who likes your style.

 

[sr71plt]

Short story or full length novel, I don't believe in a singular method for their success, other than finding an audience who likes your style.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe in a singular method for their success."

It's no secret that what goes into a novel is different from what goes into a short story, not to mention what should come out of each.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe in a singular method for their success."

It's no secret that what goes into a novel is different from what goes into a short story, not to mention what should come out of each.

singular method: a blueprint. One particular format. Short stories you have less time to get the point across, but that doesn't mean you have to robotic. (Not calling you robotic, I'd have to read your work to get an impression).

 

[sr71plt]

singular method: a blueprint. One particular format. Short stories you have less time to get the point across, but that doesn't mean you have to robotic. (Not calling you robotic, I'd have to read your work to get an impression).

Sorry, still don't understand what you meant. But it doesn't matter.

You actually should have more points to get across in a novel than in a short story. A short story should be more targeted in the themes and points it covers. It also doesn't need to cover all of the elements: plot, characterization, setting, etc. I know it becomes a surprise to story commenters here about the lack of character development in a short story, but a short story doesn't require character development. It can be stressing another element altogether. There should be a very limited number of threads in a short story.

So, what's relevant to this discussion is that you can throw discussions of cooking in books as some sort of sub thread, but if you put them in a short story they should serve a very limited number of threads--usually one. A novel is a different animal from a short story.

(I don't really care if you read my stories or not and there was no reason to think you were calling me anything. We're talking about dialogue technique. I have no idea how "robotic" comes into any of this.)

 

[SlightlyGone]

(I don't really care if you read my stories or not and there was no reason to think you were calling me anything. We're talking about dialogue technique. I have no idea how "robotic" comes into any of this.)

Touchy for no reason. You have a good night.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, I think you were sliding it over into personal attack. You have a good night too.

 

[SecondCircle]

singular method: a blueprint. One particular format. Short stories you have less time to get the point across, but that doesn't mean you have to robotic. (Not calling you robotic, I'd have to read your work to get an impression).

I would agree. There's not just one singular way to do anything really.