Dialogue or not?

[bumblegrum]

Just a quick query that I find interesting. I use a lot of dialogue in my stories as I think it allows for a more intimate and emotionally focused story. But I notice that many authors use hardly any dialogue and just concentrate almost on stating facts; giving details of the action with little, if any, emotional input.

Any thoughts about this? Do you use a lot of dialogue or concentrate on just stating the facts?

 

[Handley_Page]

Just a quick query that I find interesting. I use a lot of dialogue in my stories as I think it allows for a more intimate and emotionally focused story. But I notice that many authors use hardly any dialogue and just concentrate almost on stating facts; giving details of the action with little, if any, emotional input.

Any thoughts about this? Do you use a lot of dialogue or concentrate on just stating the facts?

I think it depends upon the story.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Almost all of mine have lots of dialog. People talk, not just think. A narrative is fine, but the spoken word is very powerful.

Yet, I do find that...lately I have written several stories with more narrative than dialog.

 

[Swilly]

I generally like to add dialogue to a story when I can. I think it's easier to read dialogue then long blocks of uninterrupted text. It also tends to draw the reader into the story. Two characters describing a place, person or action through dialogue can make the reader feel as if they are sitting there participating in the discussion rather than being told something.

That being said, there are times when a paragraph will work better that dialogue.

 

[Over_Red]

It really depends. I trend toward having my characters speak as much as possible, rather than use narrative summary, because I think dialogue is the most powerful tool for advancing character. It's when they talk that they become real people in the head of the reader.

There are places where summation is very useful, though - for example, when one character is informing another of something the reader already knows, having a whole detailed conversation about it can be redundant.

 

[lovecraft68]

I live and die with my dialogue. I prefer to let my characters tell what they are thinking or feeling rather than "me" doing it.

Having said that I don't think there is a right or wrong here just a question of preference.

 

[CyranoJ]

I was going to reply and say of course you need dialogue, and it's true that typically I wouldn't want to do without it, because if you want characters it's pretty hard to develop them without dialogue.

But then it occurs to me it would actually be really interesting to write a story featuring a protagonist who's entirely mute, and has to communicate by... well, by other means. Hmmm.

 

[lovecraft68]

I was going to reply and say of course you need dialogue, and it's true that typically I wouldn't want to do without it, because if you want characters it's pretty hard to develop them without dialogue.

But then it occurs to me it would actually be really interesting to write a story featuring a protagonist who's entirely mute, and has to communicate by... well, by other means. Hmmm.

If incest doesn't bother you read paco fears "words on skin"

 

[bumblegrum]

Hey, thanks, guys. Yeah, I guess it does depend on the context, and sometimes straight narrative is useful. But I'm with Lovecraft - I, too, live and die by my dialogue. Just in passing, I've read quite a few of Lovecraft's stories, and I can tell you they all contain highly effective dialogue. Well worth a read.

 

[CyranoJ]

If incest doesn't bother you read paco fears "words on skin"

I'll have a look, thanks.

 

[slyc_willie]

I have a hard time reading a story if there's no dialogue in it, whether it's spoken dialogue or just a character's thoughts. If it's just block after block of text, no matter how well it's written, I usually won't get through the first page. There are exceptions, but when it comes to stories on this site, there have been very few.

Of course, when there is dialogue in a story, it needs to be well-written and able to convey the voice of the character. If everyone at the trailer park speaks like they were raised in Buckingham Palace (or vice-versa), that's as bad to me as having no dialogue at all.

 

[sr71plt]

Just a quick query that I find interesting. I use a lot of dialogue in my stories as I think it allows for a more intimate and emotionally focused story. But I notice that many authors use hardly any dialogue and just concentrate almost on stating facts; giving details of the action with little, if any, emotional input.

Any thoughts about this? Do you use a lot of dialogue or concentrate on just stating the facts?

Yep, writers do it differently. They also do it differently between one of their own stories and the next. I don't see that there's a right and wrong way of doing this.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

My stories have evolved from no dialogue at all to upwards of 50% dialogue. One story starts out with almost a page and a half of mostly uninterrupted dialogue. So, yeah, I find dialogue necessary.

I also find that when I'm reading--whether it's fiction or non-fiction-I will often skim the narration and give only the dialogue my full attention. This is probably a result of my day job, where a premium is placed on useful quotes.

 

[glynndah]

One of my very first stories here features a woman who says nothing at all but still manages to convey her wishes quite readily.

That being said, I love writing dialogue.

 

[sr71plt]

Depends on what you want your reader to take away from the story, the atmosphere you are trying create. Writers like Poe used very little dialogue. Dialogue tends to break up the tension and drain the poetry out of pose if that's what an author is going for. But there are advantages to dialogue as well.

I just wish writers would stop looking for that "one magic bullet" how to in achieving "success" (and, on Lit., high ratings and great comments) in every aspect of writing. That writing techniques are radically different but still work as desired is why people bother to read more than a single story in their lifetime.

 

[Hypoxia]

My oldest story here (by writing, not by posting) has no dialog. I learned after that. A 1st or 3rd person narrator can only carry so much of a story. I'd rather the data dump emerges from a character's mouth, not from the narrator's forehead. One of these days I'll try writing a dialog-only piece. That experiment will likely be more for my own benefit than for the readers' entertainment.

 

[shutterpsb]

I agree with what several good authors have already said, dialogue allows character development and back story to come out in a natural way as opposed to an info dump. Dialogue figures prominently in most of my stories. I use interior monologue for the same reasons.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a hard time reading a story if there's no dialogue in it, whether it's spoken dialogue or just a character's thoughts. If it's just block after block of text, no matter how well it's written, I usually won't get through the first page. There are exceptions, but when it comes to stories on this site, there have been very few.

Of course, when there is dialogue in a story, it needs to be well-written and able to convey the voice of the character. If everyone at the trailer park speaks like they were raised in Buckingham Palace (or vice-versa), that's as bad to me as having no dialogue at all.

That explains why ROBINSON CRUSOE was such a colossal failure.

 

[Carnevil9]

The old adage is, show, don't tell. Dialog is showing; narration is telling.

 

[Hypoxia]

The old adage is, show, don't tell. Dialog is showing; narration is telling.

Well, dialogue can be telling, too, especially when I have some nerd briefing an exec on pertinent events, stuff like that. More than once have I written some dense, impenetrable data dump that I've 'rescued' by breaking into smaller chunks and spacing-out with null comments ("Yeah? What then?") from a prop player. Yes, cardboard-cutout characters have their uses, relieving some of the burden from the shoulders of the poor, overworked narrator. Think of it as info-blabbing.

 

[slyc_willie]

That explains why ROBINSON CRUSOE was such a colossal failure.

Different time, different expectations from readers, and different context, Jimbo.

 

[sr71plt]

Narration can--and often does--consist of showing rather than telling. What is written can (and is richer, if it does) lead the reader to make conclusions on his/her own without directly stating what that conclusion should be.

Guys, you just can't reduce writing to "easy buttons" to success (whatever that is in the world of writing).

 

[slyc_willie]

Narration can--and often does--consist of showing rather than telling. What is written can (and is richer, if it does) lead the reader to make conclusions on his/her own without directly stating what that conclusion should be.

Guys, you just can't reduce writing to "easy buttons" to success (whatever that is in the world of writing).

Which takes us back to "write the way you want to write." Everyone who's posted here has only posted their singular opinion, after all.

 

[sr71plt]

Which takes us back to "write the way you want to write." Everyone who's posted here has only posted their singular opinion, after all.

But some have posted them as universal truths--and no doubt believe they are because they've gotten their guidance on writing in scattered and incomplete chunks (just like they're giving/getting it here).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ANIMAL FARM was another no dialogue disaster.