Too much dialogue?

That's the nature of investigations - lots of dialog that must be corroborated or refuted. One way to ratchet up the pacing and the tension is to put a potential witness/interviewee in some jeopardy that must be resolved before your MC can can proceed - make the MC (and partner) the solution to the imminent problem, thus putting the witness in their debt. You can write in as much action as you feel the scene needs.

We had a related thread about this recently, but I forget what it was titled and can't find it. Also, I'm a lazy looker.

Among suggestions in that thread: Explosions. Ninjas.

Things happen during interviews or between interviews. Like a ninja attack. Sometimes an interview can happen off screen. How long are the interview scenes versus the information your protagonists get out of them? There should be a balance. And explosions. Or gunshots. I'm not too picky. Earthquake?

Make sure the dialogue isn't simply infodump, but contains conflict, whereby the protagonist needs to work for the answers. That's action, even though it's also mainly dialogue.

In other words, you could have a scene where the sleuth asks a suspect three questions, and the suspect answers easily, giving the sleuth the information he needs. That's boring. OTOH, you could have a scene where the sleuth asks a suspect three questions, and the suspect is resisting answering (even if just verbally), so the sleuth has to either get physical or just get wily in his/her questioning. That's conflict, and it's active, not boring, even when it's all dialogue.

My suspicion is that the problem isn't with the percentage of dialogue but with the lack of conflict. There's got to be struggle, even if it's just verbal, and then you don't (necessarily) need physical action (depending on the subgenre).

But look to whether there's conflict in the dialogue. Suspicion of lies. People who can't remember. People who don't make any sense. People who contradict someone else. People who are too eager to help, and are therefore untrustworthy. That sort of thing.

Namatu said:

We had a related thread about this recently, but I forget what it was titled and can't find it. Also, I'm a lazy looker.

Among suggestions in that thread: Explosions. Ninjas.

Things happen during interviews or between interviews. Like a ninja attack. Sometimes an interview can happen off screen. How long are the interview scenes versus the information your protagonists get out of them? There should be a balance. And explosions. Or gunshots. I'm not too picky. Earthquake?

Click to expand...

I think it was this one?

Yes! Ninjas!

I just beta read a short story for someone that had too much dialogue. In this particular case, there was a lot of talking without anything else...no context, no action, just two people talking as though they were disembodied.

I think, in general, dialogue is action in some ways. If the exchange is snappy and interesting then you don't necessarily need ninjas (not that I ever object to ninjas, mind you). But, I do think, for a long chunk of dialogue, you also need something else happening. So, talking in a whispered tone while also trying to crack the safe together. Or rappelling down the side of the building while arguing about whether Frank the UPS delivery guy is cute or not.

I do also think it depends on what kind of book you're writing. A mystery can be very dialogue heavy as the mystery is unraveled. If the mystery is interesting enough, then the reader will want to follow the steps of the investigation as the clues are revealed. But, if you're writing a thriller, then yeah, toss a few bombs and duel-wielding clown ninjas in there.

The more reluctant the holder of information is to reveal that information the better.

GinJones is exactly right by saying you need conflict. Of course, ninjas and explosions help, but really they're just exaggerated conflict.

Hi Nik,

I was at a writing class last night, and some of the time was spent on a similar issue.

The teacher's view was that character's need to change during the story. The conflicts and challenges they meet/overcome must change them as people in some way. She sees this as necessary for the plot. I have to say, it makes a lot of sense to me. if your character is interviewing one bad guy after another and all the scenes feel the same, this suggests that your character has not changed which sounds to me like there is not enough conflict. Your character has to be personally challenged by what happens in the story - it's not enough that he's investigating really dramatic/bad things. Without challenges for him personally there is no narrative tension, which is I think what you are recognising when you say something isn't right.

It's ok that he's a tough guy - great in fact! But even tough guys can be challenged! The teacher of my class last night (she's mainstream published 2 books reasonably successfully) said that this was a very helpful comment she got from the editor of her first book. She said that she argued with it at first, in that she thought her character was already in dire straits. But when she thought about it she realised that the conflict in her story was really personally impacting her MC, so she made the changes and in her view it made all the difference.

I hope that makes sense and is of some help!

Maggie.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1599637065/?tag=absowrit-20 (assuming you're buying from amazon.com at the moment... I'm on the fence...)

Revision and Self-Editing for Publication by James Scott Bell.

If you want to figure out whether your dialogue is worth leaving in or not, this is what I recommend.

I can't recommend this book and "Story Engineering" enough. Here are just the bullet points from the chapter on dialogue. Some of it is good enough to use as tips even without much explanation. The book is so worth it though.

It can be part of great dialogue if:
1. It is essential to the story.
2. It come from one character to another character.
3. It has conflict or Tension (explained in this section and later)
4. It sounds just right for the piece.
5. It sounds just right for each character.
6. It isn't real life speech (aside from a few introductory lines maybe)
7. It is compressed.
8. It is rich with subtext (explained in detail in the section)

Again, some of those help as standalone tips, others you could read the book for.

Some of these are useless without the explanation, so I'll only say the ones that might help.

12 tools for great dialogue.

1. Orchestrate Exchanges
3. Drop words.
4. Cast your characters
5. Act it out.(you should read it aloud probably anyways)
6. Curve the language.(I love this one, explained better in the book)
7. Place exposition within *confrontation*

"Keep in mind that if your dialogue characters are "on the same page" mentally and emotionally, your dialogue won't be compelling."

8. Employ the sidestep (another favorite)
This is where you do stuff that simply doesn't follow the previous line of dialogue. Ask a question, say something random but in character, interruptions, dropping bombs in the conversation.
10. Say it with silence.
12. Minimize.

That's just he surface of it really, but I hope it helps. That quote sums it up nicely too. My friendly test subjects say even if they're confused, lost or just don't care about the story I wrote, the dialogue keeps them going because it always keeps them guessing and adds to the experience just by being thoughtfully arranged(Ok I embellished that thought a little, but that's the gist of it lol).

I know applying editing techniques as you go is sketchy business, but if you can get these ingrained as an intuitive part of your practice it's just awesome. Many of them are mostly just polishing techniques, but they can really add to your scenes if you're doing it from the ground up (planning on people "not being on the same page" throughout the exchange for example)

Nikweikel said:

Right now my male lead and his sidekick are working their way through a trail of suspects. Trouble is, they are supposed to be seriously badazz guys, but they seem to be doing nothing but talking. Granted there is the occasional badazzery during this talking (threats, jokes, dining or drinking, pushing people against walls, etc), but still. I feel like more is going on in the past than in the present.

They talk to suspect one, who leads them to suspect two who leads them to suspect three, who lead the male to a party where he meets suspect four...Maybe I'm just being too hard on myself but it's getting a little monotonous.

I want to insert a little action here and there, but when I do, I feel like it getting sidetracked. Like the action doesn't really move the story forward. Even when it does move the story forward.

Of course, I have the female protagonist's half to break it up, ("Little Women...With Corpses.") Still, they are dealing with two seemingly unrelated mysteries, so I worry that if I toggle too much between the two, the reader will get disoriented.

Does anyone else struggle with this? Am I overthinking it? If not, how do you spice things up when dealing with multiple interrogations.

Click to expand...

make something blow up. *shrugs*
I have the same problem with my mystery. Talking.

How about knowing when to put something as internal dialogue rather than external?

Anyone who thinks there's something wrong with having a lot of dialogue in a mystery hasn't read Elmore Leonard. It's all about the right kind of white space on the page.

I think it's just part of the genre. like, if we watch tv shows about Detectives, like law and order or Murder, She Wrote we see just lots of talking and a bit of action and then the reveal.

I think Leverage is pretty creative with their dialogue.

Thrillerlover said:

How about knowing when to put something as internal dialogue rather than external?

Click to expand...

This is one of those things you just have to try, and you'll find what works and what doesn't. There's no hard and fast rule - this is about style and gut feel.

Same as a chef knowing which types of flavours and textures work together, or a songwriter knowing which chord works best.

I agree with Fizzgig. If it's a mystery (whodunit) then the snoops generally do plod along at a slower (not necessarily SLOW, just slower) pace as they have to follow up on various leads, interview various witnesses, associates, family, friends, etc, sometimes formally, sometimes informally. If it's a thriller, the snoops generally are constantly on the run either trying to avoid danger or stop further danger from happening.

As to the dialogue, again if it's a mystery, it's expected that there's going to be a lot of info-gathering. I personally don't mind a lot of info-gathering when I read a detective novel provided the dialogue exchanges are interesting or entertaining and keep me turning pages. It could be funny or provocative, turn the case on its ear, provide contradictory info, etc. The way interviewees respond can also make it more interesting. They could be overly talkative, maybe super-excited to help cops when really they have nothing relevant, or they don't want to reveal something either to protect someone or protect him/herself (from retribution or incrimination). So body language is key. Also, red herrings come out of a lot of interviews, but tread lightly with those because they quickly become annoying.

If you think there are too many interviews, split your partners up. Have one follow a lead while the other leaves to conduct an interview. When the first one finishes up his lead, the second returns and gives him the bullet points of the interview that we the reader never had to see. Or he even states that the witness had nothing useful ("but I left you a copy of the interview on your desk"). If it's a time-sensitive issue or if the police dept in question has limited number of detectives, a lot of times the uniformed cops will begin initial interviews (definitely interview police in the town/city you're writing about to see how they handle it as protocol differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

Most of all, ask yourself honestly how good your dialogue-writing skills are in general. If you can really make those lines sizzle, you'll keep readers turning pages despite a lot of interviews and conversations. If they're dull, too on-the-nose, or just too straightforward (the facts, ma'am, just the facts) then you may want to consider cutting them back or read up on how to improve your own dialogue skill set.

Several of my favorite writers do dialogue so well, so convincingly and entertainingly that I don't mind at all the numerous conversations they write. Then again, they are masters at it.