Talk, talk and more talk but no scenery!

[Mike Martyn]

I have no problem writing diologue. In fact I'll find I've written two or three pages at furious pace only to find it's all talk ie ; no waving of hands, no one seeking solace in the soft evening light, sinster noises but not from behind the oak wainscoting of the study in the deserted mansion.

I go back and paint in the scenery so to speak but I'm a better talker than a painter. Perhaps not surprising since I'm a lawyer.

Anyone have this problem? If so, how do you get around other than the obvious butt in chair?

[maestrowork]

Zip through it. Add in settings and action in rewrites. Visualize the scene as you would a movie -- you won't see characters just sit there and be talking heads. What do you visualize them doing? Move around? Shrugging? Waving their hands? Frowning? Sipping coffee? You don't want to put action in every line of dialogue, but there are places where you can use action/expression to strengthen a point or tell us how the characters react.

Also, don't forget silence.

[Azure Skye]

Yeah, I do it all the time. In fact, I thought maybe I should start writing plays instead of books.

[Dru]

I tend towards "talking head"-itis as well. I just go back and add in what my mind envisioned but did not make it to the page in the first "core dump". I might have minimal action but very rarely emotive context or descriptive action. Just know that it is something you need to follow-up in your revision process, like removing extraneous adverbs or leading dependant clauses, etc.

Usually the re-writes also make the dialogue much more meaningful, as the subtext of how people interact with their surroundings while having a conversation is a great way to show insight into a character.

[James D. Macdonald]

That's what I call "blue screen writing," where the actors are doing their thing in front of a blue screen and the special-effects guys will add the dinosaurs or the spaceships later.

So -- add the scenery when you know what the dialog is doing.

[KTC]

I do this all the time. I thought I was the only one. I used to think of it as the JD Salinger syndrome...chat chat chat. But I love James' definition. I will use it from now on...blue screen writing! It's perfect. I wish the special-effects guys in my attic were better at their job though!

[CindyBidar]

I thought it was just me...good to know that others share my peculiarities! ;)

[Fillanzea]

I do this.

I think it's a situation where different things will work best for different people. My current strategy is to concentrate very hard on putting myself in the scenery mentally, when I can, and not worry about the lack of scenery too much at the other times; I'll go back and put it in later.

If I zip through it without worrying about it at all, the rewrites are hellish.

The other thing I try to do is figure out something for the characters to DO while they're talking at each other. Doing laundry, cooking, whatever. It helps flesh out the world a little, it forces me to think harder about the scenery, and sometimes it can unexpectedly give me plot ideas.

[Mistook]

Draw a quick sketch of the setting before the conversation starts, give it a paragraph or so.

Establish the various props the characters are using as the dialogue begins, nothing fancy, just a sentence or two.

Now you can float for a while, even drop the dialogue tags and just let the conversation roll.

Sprinkle in descriptions where necessary, to indicate reactions or lack of interest. Natural pauses are where you might want to take a sentence or two to update the setting - something visual or auditory going on - a waitress coming to refill the coffee.

You don't need much, just enough to give the reader a sense of orientation.

[Mark]

I'll join the club, too. My writing is usually dialogue heavy. I like to think the readers have enough imagination to paint the pictures themselves. I mean if two characters are in a bar, all the readers are going to picture a bar they know in their head, right?

I know this depends on what you write, though. A bar may not need too much description, but a whole new world (sci-fi or fantasy) might need a lot of description. So it's different for each writer.

I like to keep the scenery description to a minimum, a few lines at most. But, it also has to do with the fact that I like writing dialogue better. It just comes into my mind a lot easier.

[Julian Black]

I do this all the time. The conversation between two characters is flowing right along, and stopping to put in anything more than the occasional dialogue tags would break the flow of the writing, bringing the conversation to a screeching halt. So I get the dialogue down while the conversation is really cooking, and save description for later. For me, writing dialogue is usually hot and fast, while writing description is cool and slow. I have a lot of days where I can do both, but usually one predominates on any given day.

Uncle Jim's term--"blue screen writing"--describes those hot dialogue days perfectly.

Not only will you end up adding the dinosaurs and explosions and rocketships to that blank blue-screen background, you will also go back in and get rid of all the stray wires and other bits of necessary rigging that don't belong in the picture. Part of creating an illusion is hiding the means you used to create it. In other words, if you're a capable writer your readers won't see how you put the scene together--they will simply enjoy it.

Whatever means you use to get the words on the page are irrelevant, as long as the reader is hooked in by them.

[alaskamatt17]

I've had a good laugh following this thread about "blue screen writing." I, too, have a problem with going heavy on dialogue and light on scenery. The reason for the laugh, however, is that in the case of my most recent novel I actually have been adding dinosaurs and spaceships. It sounds ridiculous, but I think they actually fit together quite well (in the same story, I mean; the dinosaurs aren't on the spaceships).

[zornhau]

One way of making the scenery - the set - vivid, is to make it important.

As I recall, Robin Hobb establish key sets early, in situations which make the description important to the POV character, e.g. when Fitz first sees Chade's workroom and wonder's what's going on.

Whenever Fitz revisits the room, he notes changes in its layout which give him clues about what's going on.

[Jamesaritchie]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.

[arrowqueen]

I think I read somewhere about there being a 'Golden Mean' as far as dialogue was concerned. Unfortunately I can't remember what is was, though one third dialogue to two thirds narrative rings a distant bell.

Not the most helpful of posts. Sorry. I'll go away and be quiet now.

[maestrowork]

I'll join the club, too. My writing is usually dialogue heavy. I like to think the readers have enough imagination to paint the pictures themselves...
I like to keep the scenery description to a minimum, a few lines at most. But, it also has to do with the fact that I like writing dialogue better. It just comes into my mind a lot easier.

But novels are not just about dialogue. You might do better with a screenplay if you enjoy writing dialogue better. It's not to say you can't write novels -- but with a novel, you DO need to paint the picture for the readers because, unlike scripts (which will turn into a movie or TV show), there are no actors to act out the scenes. Frex, if two guys are talking in the bar, they're not just going to sit there and stare at each other and yack yack yack. They'll be sipping a beer, or smoking a cig or glancing at the overhead TV once in a while. With a script, the actors can fill in all those blanks, but in a book, you need to act them out for the readers. Describing these actions would add authenticity to the scene (fortunately, all of that can be added in rewrites -- so you don't have to worry about that too much during first draft).

Like UJ said, do the blue screen version in first draft first, then you can fill in all the CGI stuff in post-production.

I don't think you need a lot of description during a dialogue scene, just enough to paint a good picture. It's also about pace. Zippy dialogue with no description gives us a fast-paced novel. Sometimes you do want to slow it down with narrative. Action can also break the "zip-zip-zip" pace, and you can use action to add "silence" which is important in dialogue. Rarely you see people talk and talk and talk and talk without a break.

Do describe your bar, at least a bit, before the dialogue starts.

[Torin]

You might also try throwing in description via dialogue tags, or brief passages between moments of conversation. I find I bounce back and forth between heavy description and lots of chatting. There has to be a balance there somewhere. :D

[hoyateach]

I've managed to strike a reasonable balance between dialogue and narrative as I write. When I edit, however, I often find that I add narrative to fill in the blanks while paring down the dialogue. The result is usually fairly smooth.

[Anatole Ghio]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.

I kept reading this post thinking, I know I'm not the only one with the reverse problem. Then I found James saying he uses little dialogue and I thought, aha(!), I know there will be others!

I guess they got scared away by the thread title.

I find I can do soooo much without dialogue that often I will just sprinkle it in where it helps to develop character, move the plot, or it is needed to bring the reader in. Otherwise, I find it interferes with my voice, and I feel able to do sooo much more with description than with dialogue.

When I am writing in a more realist mode, I tend to use dialogue more.

- Anatole

[azbikergirl]

I do dialog better, also. When I come across long paragraphs of description as a reader, I tend to skim past it. It's not as interesting to me as the interactions between people. That's what I enjoy most about stories. And that's what I enjoy writing. When I'm evaluating a novel to read, I check to see whether it tends more toward dialog or narrative, and I put the narrative-heavy books back on the shelf. That's just my preference.

As far as setting description, I'm sparse, but I try to have my characters interact with the setting, if they can, so as to make it more an active part of the scene. Rather than describing a static room with nicknacks on the mantel, I make my MC fondle the nicknacks, and have the host follow him around and pluck them out of his hands.

One of the greatest benefits I've found so far with MRUs (Oh no! not that again!) is that they remind me to do this all the time, even with scenery the characters can't interact with directly (the sky, etc).

[Dancre]

I also had the same problem. So i started studying others' works that used alot of what i call gestures, scenery, the "Blue-screen" stuff etc. the best example i came across was "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter". This book helped me tremendously.

[reph]

Opening disclaimer: I am not a novelist.

Observation: In off-the-page reality, some of the significant or dramatic events in people's lives are made of spoken words, and some are made of physical events. Then there are the interior ones: thoughts, realizations, hopes, fears, and all like that. Conversations don't occur at regular intervals; they don't last for a fixed number of exchanges.

Inference from observation: To tell a complex story realistically, if it involves two or more characters and at least one of them talks, you'd have dialogue-y passages sometimes and description sometimes.

Closing disclaimer: The inference above is open to question. It hasn't been tested against real stories. I just now made it up.

[JanaLanier]

My writing is dialog heavy as well; I envision the scene and write down what those people are saying. But I need to be more careful to fill in some of the scene settings, so that the reader can have a backdrop to the action.

But -- as a reader, when I come to long descriptive paragraphs, I usually skim them. But I never skim dialog. As someone else said, you need a balance.

[Ella]

Oooh, blue screen.
I was reconciling myself to the same problem, but looking at it like theatre. The actors work out the general blocking, then rehearse many times, focusing on the nitty-gritty.

[Mistook]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.


James, you've said you almost always write in first person. I'm just wondering if that makes it more natural to stick with narrative?

[Alphabeter]

What about invisible actors?

I know the entire setting. I have the props. I erected the buildings. I rose the sun. I bloomed the flowers.
I have a whole script ready with a plot for them to follow should they get a little ad-libby.

Maybe I should put out a casting call and see who shows up.

Godzilla, Jim Lovell and Mae West could do something better with the material than Gerald Ford, Ramona Quimby and Oprah did.

[Mistook]

What about invisible actors?

I know the entire setting. I have the props. I erected the buildings. I rose the sun. I bloomed the flowers.
I have a whole script ready with a plot for them to follow should they get a little ad-libby.

Maybe I should put out a casting call and see who shows up.

Godzilla, Jim Lovell and Mae West could do something better with the material than Gerald Ford, Ramona Quimby and Oprah did.


See, that's the way God did it, and then he threw-in Adam and Eve and you know what a train wreck that turned out to be :)

[brinkett]

I do dialog better, also. When I come across long paragraphs of description as a reader, I tend to skim past it. It's not as interesting to me as the interactions between people. That's what I enjoy most about stories. And that's what I enjoy writing. When I'm evaluating a novel to read, I check to see whether it tends more toward dialog or narrative, and I put the narrative-heavy books back on the shelf. That's just my preference.

I could have written this paragraph. Books I'm evaluating for purchase have to pass the dialogue test. I don't start by reading page 1 (in fact, I may never read page 1 in the bookstore). What I do is flip through the book to get an idea of the amount of narrative vs. dialogue. Books with more than 2-3 pages of narrative in a row go back on the shelf. Books with noticeably more narrative than dialogue go back on the shelf. Books with lots of dialogue will get a closer look. I also tend to skim past the narrative that's there. I find if you read the first line of each paragraph, you can follow along because the rest usually contains detail that isn't required to understand the story.

As far as setting description, I'm sparse, but I try to have my characters interact with the setting, if they can, so as to make it more an active part of the scene. Rather than describing a static room with nicknacks on the mantel, I make my MC fondle the nicknacks, and have the host follow him around and pluck them out of his hands.

Same here.

[JuliePgh]

I do dialog better, also. When I come across long paragraphs of description as a reader, I tend to skim past it. It's not as interesting to me as the interactions between people. That's what I enjoy most about stories. And that's what I enjoy writing. When I'm evaluating a novel to read, I check to see whether it tends more toward dialog or narrative, and I put the narrative-heavy books back on the shelf. That's just my preference.

I concur with this. When I write, however (I "blue screen write"), I often find the fun begins when I go back to add in the scenery and actions. IMO, cutting back or removing dialogue can strengthen the interaction between characters. The unspoken word often speaks volumes.

[Lenora Rose]

I also tend to skim past the narrative that's there. I find if you read the first line of each paragraph, you can follow along because the rest usually contains detail that isn't required to understand the story.


Note to self; When editing the novel, check to see if it makes sense if I read only the first line of each paragraph. If so, fix the paragraph. It might mess Brinkett up, but it will make a better story.


Personally, I do like it when an author writes so well I read more slowly and go through each paragraph in detail in case I missed something. What I would do with a book where I could read the first line of each paragraph and not get lost is trade it in and never buy anything by that author again.

[WerenCole]

Perhaps I am different. . . people tell me I'm a little odd, the word lunatic seems to come up quite often. . . but. . . anyway. . . I think I may write in a touch different manner from this blue screen writing theory. My mode of operation is more of a sculptor, the Granite Block Theory. What I tend to do (and this is probably my OCD kicking in) is write, write, write everything in the scene, from the color of the walls to exactly what I think my characters should be saying and doing. . . it is like I am just channeling their world onto my screen. In the end I am left with a long block of writing, my piece of granite. At this point I wittle away the block, mold here, nip there, throw away entire paragraphs (always into a folder so they can be used in part of whole if needed later). This is how I get my desired effect and in terms of dialogue and character actions and avoid the whole tedious He said then She said then He said again process.

A disclaimer though. This is just my theory and how I like to do things. Not just in writing, but in all life. There are times though when it is better and more efficient to fly through things, then fill in the gaps later. . . I said I was channeling my characters world before, and sometimes in this link between your mind and their world the words just do not come fast enough, therefore I would adhere to a more blue screen type of approach (unlike my more thoughtful style where I would probably BE the blue screen)

oh whatever

-W

[Ella]

Werencole,
You're not alone. Many writers, many different styles.

While I understand perfectly that books need to be readable, and have a rythym that carries the reader, the fact that books are dismissed because they don't have a lot of dialogue is disturbing. Once again, we're seeing the dumbing down to cater to the masses.
Long chunky paragraphs are a different matter. They're physically harder to read. Narrative doesn't need to be hard to read.

[brinkett]

Note to self; When editing the novel, check to see if it makes sense if I read only the first line of each paragraph. If so, fix the paragraph. It might mess Brinkett up, but it will make a better story.

LOL. What I meant is that often a paragraph contains something like, "He entered the forest. It had trees with green leaves. Animals scurried about blah, blah, blah." It's usually enough to know that he entered the forest, but not always.


Personally, I do like it when an author writes so well I read more slowly and go through each paragraph in detail in case I missed something. What I would do with a book where I could read the first line of each paragraph and not get lost is trade it in and never buy anything by that author again.

Different strokes for different folks. I won't read a book where I have to read a lot of narrative to get essential details.

[brinkett]

the fact that books are dismissed because they don't have a lot of dialogue is disturbing. Once again, we're seeing the dumbing down to cater to the masses.

Preferring books with more dialogue than narrative doesn't mean I'm a dumb reader or that books are being dumbed down for me. It's just a preference. Readers do have them. People dismiss books based solely on genre. They don't even open the book--if it's not in a genre they like, they won't buy it. Could be the most intelligent and well written book in the world, but if it ain't (insert genre here), too bad. Everyone has criteria that they use to dismiss books, whether they realize it or not. I've yet to meet someone who picks up every single book in a bookstore when shopping and then chooses the one they like the most. No, they go to their favorite areas and narrow it down from there, meaning they've dismissed everything else out of hand.

And keep in mind that the "masses" are your potential readers.

[Ella]

Brinkett, you're absolutely right - each reader has their own preferences. I meant no personal offense - just poking sticks at the larger picture - authors (songwriters, scriptwriters, artists) being told their stuff is too rich, too intellectual. Told to make it easier and more commerical. It's frustrating for a lot of people.
S'all.

[Mistook]

I agree that dialogue is easier to read, because it's broken-up. The page breathes. There's air flowing through the text. Narrative doesn't have to be an impenetrable wall of text.

If it sticks to the point, flows logically, reads cleverly, and is broken into digestible paragraphs, narrative can be as appealing as dialogue if not more. I don't think it's too much of a tragedy that readers have lost patience with page-long paragraphs of exposition that prattle on for two and a half pages without coming up for air.

People really are busier than they used to be, and novels really do compete with television, film, comic-books, and chat-rooms. You don't have to sacrifice depth or high-concepts to write something commercially viable, you just have to couch it differently.

[Anatole Ghio]

As far as I can remember, Ray Bradbury was no slave to dialogue. He used it well and his always rings true, yet he is as fine a lyricist in his descriptive passages as any of the great poets. I would never skim through any description by him because his writing style is so "seductive".

Any writer who has a unique voice that I admire, I will read their descriptive passages simply for the voice... provided the pace fits well and the description still moves the story forward.

- Anatole

[Maryn]

Not a great deal I can add, but I've found that if my manuscript's narrative paragraphs are no more than six lines long, they're much less likely to be skipped. Generally, it's the big undigestible chunks of prose readers skim or skip outright, don't you think?

I know that when my own reader's eye finds a big ol' paragraph of description, it glazes over.

Maryn

[Jamesaritchie]

As far as I can remember, Ray Bradbury was no slave to dialogue. He used it well and his always rings true, yet he is as fine a lyricist in his descriptive passages as any of the great poets. I would never skim through any description by him because his writing style is so "seductive".

Any writer who has a unique voice that I admire, I will read their descriptive passages simply for the voice... provided the pace fits well and the description still moves the story forward.

- Anatole


I agree. Bradbury can go pages and pages and pages with no dialogue, but the prose is so incredible it doesn't matter.

Personally, I think readers who skip narrative because it's too long are cheating themselves out of the best part of the novel. Good dialogue is a wonderful thing, but if I want talking heads I'll go watch TV.

[azbikergirl]

I agree that dialogue is easier to read, because it's broken-up. The page breathes. There's air flowing through the text. Narrative doesn't have to be an impenetrable wall of text. Some of us skimmers don't mind narrative itself. Heck, my own novel has plenty of it. When the narrative is describing human actions or interactions, or when it's subjective narration where someone's working something out as if in thought, I read every word. I'll happily read long descriptions of characters in narrative. Multiple long paragraphs about the sunrise or the jungle or the room -- I don't care. Multiple long paragraphs about how a guy walked and why -- I care lots. For me, it's about the people in the story.

[brinkett]

Yeah, I wasn't including internal thoughts when I talked about skimming narrative. I consider that internal dialogue. Narrative that moves the story along is also okay. What I usually skip/skim are long descriptive passages because my imagination can fill in the blanks. I don't need the author to do it for me, and even when they do, I go ahead and imagine it however I want to anyway. That includes character descriptions.

[Thekherham]

I've been told that I have a natural ear for dialogue, so I kind of tend to exploit that. I'm not too good at descriptions, so describing settings or persons is usually kept to a minimum. When I do describe a person, it might be just a brief 'He ran his fingers through his black hair.' or 'He stretched his six-foot-tweo frame to its full height,' or something like that.

Didn't somebody write a novel a long time ago that was all dialogue? Can't remember who it was right now.

[Anatole Ghio]

Didn't somebody write a novel a long time ago that was all dialogue? Can't remember who it was right now.

William Gaddis wrote most of his work principally in all dialogue.

Also, Philip Roth once wrote a novel called Deception that was the converations between two lovers from start to finish of a relationship... that was all dialogue as well.

[brokenfingers]

I can't remember where, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that publishing houses frown upon large paragraphs now. If you look at recently published books, the short paragraph is quickly becoming the norm.

I don't know if it's a reflection of the times or just the natural evolution of writing style.

Shorter paragraphs do help the flow of the narrative, though - don't you think?

[Mistook]

I can't remember where, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that publishing houses frown upon large paragraphs now. If you look at recently published books, the short paragraph is quickly becoming the norm.

I don't know if it's a reflection of the times or just the natural evolution of writing style.

Shorter paragraphs do help the flow of the narrative, though - don't you think?


I think it's evolution of a kind. I think it's been happening in all the arts over the last century. Once upon a time, the only way to paint was realism, and then the camera was invented. Impressionism, cubism, abstract expressionism were finally free to be explored.

Classical music used to be the only game in town. The phonograph and electric amplifier changed that. Now we have blues, jazz, rock, techno, and hip-hop.

Time was, you weren't a poet until you wrote a trillion-stanza epic poem. Now poets are so sparing and minimal they've barely anything left to say.

I really think comic-books and screen-plays have changed the way we perceive novels. We're used to time-limits on our stories now, frames, short scenes, break-neck pacing, snappy dialogue.

[brokenfingers]

I definitely believe that movies have had an influence on writing styles.

Writers have to evolve with the book buying public, I suppose....

[Mistook]

I definitely believe that movies have had an influence on writing styles.

Writers have to evolve with the book buying public, I suppose....

I agree with the sentiment, but then again, I'm really talking more about genre fiction. Literary is literary. It proceeds on it's own course, but I think this whole "novel writing" section of the site is very slanted toward Genre.

I get flack every time I bring this next point up, and I should throw in the caveat that I actually love writing genre fiction, now that I'm getting the hang of it...

but

Comic books were born from pulp-fiction novels, and so was modern genre fiction. I don't mean any disrespect, in fact I highly respect the comic-book format, as does most of the world by now, but with Genre, you're in the same game.

Literary fiction is a different bird, but I think both Literary and Genre have been very strongly influenced by the modern short-story over the past 50 years. Short story writing is very spare and wastes nothing. These same rules have come to appy to all modern novels, and there's probably a market pressure at work - with regard to paper costs.

The more you can say in the less words the better.

I think the paragraphs are shorter because they say as much as the old-style paragraphs in drastically fewer words.

[Alphabeter]

What about invisible actors?

I know the entire setting. I have the props. I erected the buildings. I rose the sun. I bloomed the flowers.
I have a whole script ready with a plot for them to follow should they get a little ad-libby.

Maybe I should put out a casting call and see who shows up.

Godzilla, Jim Lovell and Mae West could do something better with the material than Gerald Ford, Ramona Quimby and Oprah did.

See, that's the way God did it, and then he threw-in Adam and Eve and you know what a train wreck that turned out to be :)

I set up the idea and threw someone and her support people into it.

:pimp: What do you think?
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134516&postcount=252

[detante]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.

My initial drafts are always short on talk. I usually narrate the dialogue, then flesh it out in the re-write.

[glutton]

I'm in this boat too. I tend to skim descriptive narrative in books I read, and mainly pay attention to dialogue. Writing my own book series, I tend to only describe scenery my viewpoint character would pay attention to or find interesting- ie. exotic city yes, familiar bar no. In dialogue scenes, I do use description, but it's generally limited to the occassional "he frowned", "she glared at him with narrowed eyes", "he fingered the hilt of his sword", "she touched the hole in her gut and winced" type of stuff- ie. simple actions that take up less space than an average line of dialogue.

The only things I really describe in detail are the more distinctive of my characters and creatures. For example, the medium-build scholar with brown hair and a wide mouth might just have one line mentioning his hair is brown and a line of dialogue starting with "his wide mouth broke into a smile", but on the other hand, a major villain might be "a tall, powerfully built man dressed in armor to match his silky black mane. Beneath his high forehead rested sunken blue eyes as harsh and sharp as a glacier, and a cruel smile cracked open across his angular face."

But there are parts of the story which are very narrative-heavy, and that is the battle scenes. Other than that, I get bored easily writing narrative, just like I do reading it (except again for fight scenes).

And I do also think of characters' thoughts as internal dialogue more than narrative.

[Sage]

I'm not so bad as to have pages of only dialogue, but I have little confidence in my ability to describe scenery or actions, which means I tend to stick to what I feel is safe. I have a lot of little things during the dialogue that the characters are doing (expressions, gesturing, etc.) but it feels a bit repetitive, especially with a character who only communicates with expressions & actions.

(BTW, the reason I found this site was while looking for advice regarding what I wondered might be too much dialogue & not enough description.)

[LightShadow]

Dialogue is a powerful tool, to be used sparingly, effectively, and at the right moment. Dialogue is inherently dramatic, and you must temper your verbal exchanges with pauses, breaks and action, to give the reader time to absorb it. Sometimes you need to stretch a scene for pages at a time with only a few lines of dialogue. On the flipside, those who tend to interrupt dialogue with excessive descriptions or actions must learn to let it flow and let the scenes happen. One function of dialogue is to allow a break in the monotony of description; dialogue continually interrupted will not allow this break. Also, don't try to make the dialogue seem realistic by adding things that don't further the story.

[PastMidnight]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.

Nope, I'm in the same boat! I have no problem with narrative and description, and these are often the parts that have to be trimmed down a little in rewrites. My dialogue almost always has to be fleshed out more. I feel like I'm going on and on with dialogue, but when I reread the conversation, I realize just how short it is.

[PastMidnight]

I tend to skim descriptive narrative in books I read, and mainly pay attention to dialogue.

I think it's intersting that so many people have said something similar, that they tend to skim descriptions. I do the opposite. I love reading the descriptions of where the characters are at, what it feels like, smells like, what they're eating and wearing, etc. If I do any skimming, it's the dialogue that I skim. I fly through long passages of dialogue so that I can get to the narrative again. Am I the only one who reads like this?

[Cheryll]

Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.

**raises hand**

I usually have to go back and add more dialogue.

Cheryll

[L.Jones]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
Am I the only one with the reverse problem? The narrative flows right along, and so does the descripion, and it's the dialogue that's sparse.




Me too. In fact, while I do dialogue just fine (come from a theatre background and talk way too much) I can lose myself in narrative. Meaning at the very core of my being I am a storyTELLER. I want to share every nuance right down to the smell of woodsmoke and the snap of a twig underfoot.

To help with this I try to write scenes in dialogue blocks when I can and then go back and add the rest later. It sets boundaries.


I hate boundaries.

Luanne Jones (Heathen Girls - MIRA, and assorted other titles and pen names)

[Bufty]

Skim dialogue? Guess it depends on what you are reading. In most novels isn't it the dialogue that breathes life into the characters and story and drives it along?

I think it's intersting that so many people have said something similar, that they tend to skim descriptions. I do the opposite. I love reading the descriptions of where the characters are at, what it feels like, smells like, what they're eating and wearing, etc. If I do any skimming, it's the dialogue that I skim. I fly through long passages of dialogue so that I can get to the narrative again. Am I the only one who reads like this?

[Danger Jane]

I don't have too much trouble with either but sometimes I get lost in narrative between characters speaking...sometimes I have to edit for clarity between the two. I think it might have to do with my writing style, particularly where it's first person.

[jules]

Literary fiction is a different bird, but I think both Literary and Genre have been very strongly influenced by the modern short-story over the past 50 years. Short story writing is very spare and wastes nothing. These same rules have come to appy to all modern novels, and there's probably a market pressure at work - with regard to paper costs.

I think there's a lot more to it than that. I think the general public do prefer shorter writing styles, and probably always have done. As I understand it, in the past short-form fiction has generally been more popular than long. Short stories sold better than novels, while novels were regarded as more "serious". The best way of selling a novel if you really wanted to reach the buying public was via serialisation. These days, short stories really don't sell that well, and few would even consider trying to sell a serialised novel. Why has there been this shift? Could it be that people have always naturally prefered longer works, but would rather avoid unnecessary verbosity of the kind that was once associated with novels, but is not any more?

[PastMidnight]

Skim dialogue? Guess it depends on what you are reading. In most novels isn't it the dialogue that breathes life into the characters and story and drives it along?

Well, I always figure out what's going on, so I must not be missing much! I don't skim all dialogue, just long conversations. I always find that I get a much better sense of the characters through their actions and reactions than through their dialogue. When I think of memorable characters, they stick around in my mind because of what they do, not what they say.