# Style critique



## Snelbrouler (Jul 14, 2018)

During my first work of prose, I've noticed that my story consists mostly of dialogue. Character actions usually occur during dialogue, and descriptive paragraphs, if I do ever use them, are very brief.
I've also noticed that I use words such as "that," "have," and "though" far too many times throughout the story (the word "that" makes up around 1% of my entire word count). The use of contractions are also inconsistent; both the third person narrator and the characters use contractions seemingly at random.
Is this writing style considered "healthy?"


----------



## Phil Istine (Jul 14, 2018)

Snelbrouler said:


> During my first work of prose, I've noticed that my story consists mostly of dialogue. Character actions usually occur during dialogue, and descriptive paragraphs, if I do ever use them, are very brief.
> I've also noticed that I use words such as "that," "have," and "though" far too many times throughout the story (the word "that" makes up around 1% of my entire word count). The use of contractions are also inconsistent; both the third person narrator and the characters use contractions seemingly at random.
> Is this writing style considered "healthy?"



It's hard to say for sure at the moment.
When you reach ten posts (an anti-spam measure) you may post a sample in the (search engine-protected) workshop area if you wish, where people can give their thoughts on it and/or offer critique.
Please feel free to join in discussions and/or offer critique of your own while that post count increases.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

Snelbrouler said:


> During my first work of prose, I've noticed that my story consists mostly of dialogue. Character actions usually occur during dialogue, and descriptive paragraphs, if I do ever use them, are very brief.
> I've also noticed that I use words such as "that," "have," and "though" far too many times throughout the story (the word "that" makes up around 1% of my entire word count). The use of contractions are also inconsistent; both the third person narrator and the characters use contractions seemingly at random.
> Is this writing style considered "healthy?"



For a first draft it sounds just fine!

My writing is very dialog heavy during the initial writing phase. I see the scenes clearly in my mind and add any needed descriptions later, during editing.

The use of contractions is inconsistent? I don't see a problem there either. I sometimes use contractions when speaking, and sometimes don't. When I don't, it's often because I'm emphasizing or making sure my meaning is clear. So if I'm not consistent in real life, why should my writing be consistent?

I wouldn't worry about the extra words even, not until the story is fully written. That, too, can be addressed during editing.


There may be some that will advocate addressing details like extra words during the writing process. If that's how they write best, fine. Sometimes writers forget the goal of the writing journey -- a good book. It doesn't matter if you take the sea road, the mountain road, or the country road. What matters is getting to your destination.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 14, 2018)

This is really two different questions.

Dialogue: You can never really have too much good dialogue. There are many stories written almost entirely in dialogue. There are actually some quite major literary contests run on writing this way such as this one http://www.bartlebysnopes.com/contests.htm If you read some of those pieces you will likely be surprised just how effective it can be. 

While I would never advocate attempting a long story in that style, this is one of those problems that is actually a blessing in disguise. 99% of writers have the opposite problem to what you describe: Their work ends up being an info-dump, top heavy on woolly description and masturbatory backstory, and what dialogue exists ends up being stiff and sub-par. The main thing is to make your characters' words as powerful as possible, especially if it dominates the story, and to write it confidently and without pretentiousness. You need to make sure you incorporate a voice that is consistent and clear while also true to that individual's background and personality. Perhaps due to the domination of television and film, most modern readers are far less easily bored by dialogue than they are descriptions of thoughts and events but delivering sufficient information about mental states, etc without explicitly stating them can be difficult.

I think almost every writer suffers from over-repetition of certain words and there is nothing wrong with it. It's fairly easy to fix later on, especially using a word processor with which you can search and replace offenders. The main thing is not to worry about that until after the first draft is complete. Until then, you are better off just using whatever language comes naturally in the moment to convey the story. Style is an editing issue.


----------



## Underd0g (Jul 14, 2018)

I think half the fun is going back and figuring out how not to use the word "that".
I'm convinced being aware of it makes you a better conversationalist as well.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 14, 2018)

I think it's great how conscious you are of your own writing.

That's really important to self-improvement.

As for word distribution, I wouldn't worry about that too much to be honest. If you write anything of length, it will always follow a Zipfian distribution anyways. In fact, if you write something that doesn't follow Zipf's law, I would think that it would be very apparent. However, you should look out for sentence structure, if you find that many of your sentences are structured the same way, or start off the same way, that's a problem, as it won't flow naturally to the reader and will feel stiff and wooden. A conscious effort to mix it up is essential, not just in structure alone, but also in word choice and descriptors.

As for dialogue, I don't know... It could just be personal preference, but I wouldn't enjoy reading a story that was mainly dialogue. Not even movies are mainly dialogue, they have scene breaks and quiet moments and interludes. Also, I think if you go *too* dialogue heavy, you run the risk of being too conversational. 

Conversations don't add anything, and as such have no place in dialogue. Every interaction, every bit of dialogue between two characters should impact the plot in some way, should drive the narrative, should have emotional meaning. And if you're writing something that is mostly dialogue, I just think it would be very challenging to do that. That's why stories like "My Dinner with Andre" are so rare. And good stories do this without you even noticing. If you ever read or see something that seems like it had no impact, but yet remained memorable or otherwise noteworthy, watch or read it again, because you will find that it very much changed the story in some way (think the helicopter landing scene in Jurassic Park, or the opening diner scene from Reservoir Dogs).

Finally, for contractions, it was already mentioned by someone else in this thread, but you just need to play that one by ear. You want to be consistent, but consistent doesn't have to mean identical. You want to switch things up, you want your writing to not only be emotionally interesting, but intellectually interesting to read, and there's no hard and fast rule to accomplish that.

But ultimately, your style is your style, and you must find it and cherish it because it will be the only thing in this world that will differentiate yourself from everyone else.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 14, 2018)

To me, if you have a lotta white space in your dialog then it's prolly not good.
By that I mean, is your dialog mostly dialog, or do you balance it by a lot of brush strokes to illustrate the scene/characters.
Dialog is for much more than just talking.


Word non-repetition is a skill you develop with practice.  Write a few hundred thousand words and you'll learn to get a handle on it.

With characters, you can avoid word repetition (like he, him, dave) by creating alternate descriptions of your character when you introduce them.
When I bring in a major character, I find a couple of characteristics that I perpetuate through the story.  That way in deeper paragraphs I don't have to keep referring to the character by *he, him, or their name* (which gets old quick!)
Example:
Mickey
He
Him
redheaded mechanic
big mechanic
square headed mechanic.

All of these terms were set up in the early stages of Mickey's character development.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> Conversations don't add anything, and as such have no place in dialogue.



I disagree with this statement entirely.

I also have the feeling you are using your own definition of conversation. 


> con·ver·sa·tion /känvrsāSH()n/
> noun
> the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.



So person A says something to person B, who replies, is a conversation.

But even in the context of a conversation being lengthy, there's much that can be learned about the characters. Stuff that can't be learned in any other way.

Look at mysteries, my favorite genre. Solving the crime involves lots of conversations, both to gather information and compare that info to other sources.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 14, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I disagree with this statement entirely.
> 
> I also have the feeling you are using your own definition of conversation.
> 
> ...



I'm using conversation in the colloquial sense. (i.e. "Hey, what did you have for breakfast?" "Cereal." "Oh, that's neat, what kind?" "Corn flakes.") 

My point was that if a story is largely composed of dialogue, it would be very difficult to write it in such a way that didn't come across as conversational *at points*. In other words, characters exchanging meaningless or extraneous information. I'm not saying it would be impossible to avoid this pitfall, naturally, I'm just saying it would be difficult to do so. 

So, my advice was that I personally would avoid writing a long story in this fashion.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 14, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> I'm using conversation in the colloquial sense. (i.e. "Hey, what did you have for breakfast?" "Cereal." "Oh, that's neat, what kind?" "Corn flakes.")
> 
> My point was that if a story is largely composed of dialogue, it would be very difficult to write it in such a way that didn't come across as conversational *at points*. In other words, characters exchanging meaningless or extraneous information. I'm not saying it would be impossible to avoid this pitfall, naturally, I'm just saying it would be difficult to do so.
> 
> So, my advice was that I personally would avoid writing a long story in this fashion.





I'm gonna have to agree with Jack on this one (no it is not snowing in Yuma.)
Dialog is the most valuable real estate in a book.
Dialog is where your characters do their magic.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 14, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I'm gonna have to agree with Jack on this one (no it is not snowing in Yuma.)
> Dialog is the most valuable real estate in a book.
> Dialog is where your characters do their magic.



I love dialogue lol. Whether I think it's the most valuable real estate in a book or not, I'm not so sure. I just think a long story that is *mostly *
dialogue would be cumbersome and inherently prone to pitfalls.

That was the point I was making. Apologies if I didn't word it appropriately.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I'm gonna have to agree with Jack on this one (no it is not snowing in Yuma.)
> Dialog is the most valuable real estate in a book.
> Dialog is where your characters do their magic.



(Then Mars must suddenly be habitable.)


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> I love dialogue lol. Whether I think it's the most valuable real estate in a book or not, I'm not so sure. I just think a long story that is *mostly *
> dialogue would be cumbersome and inherently prone to pitfalls.
> 
> That was the point I was making. Apologies if I didn't word it appropriately.



I think the problem is you're making an assumption that may be inaccurate.  

Using the mystery genre again, most of the book is dialog, but it's not one looong dialog. It's a series of smaller conversations. But if one looks at the book overall, most of it is dialog.

See the difference? Or am I muddying the waters further?

Adding : There is action taking place between conversations, and even passage of time as well. I hope this makes my meaning cleare. I still feel I'm not explaining this well.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 14, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think the problem is you're making an assumption that may be inaccurate.
> 
> Using the mystery genre again, most of the book is dialog, but it's not one looong dialog. It's a series of smaller conversations. But if one looks at the book overall, most of it is dialog.
> 
> ...



I based my original answer off of the OP's question:



Snelbrouler said:


> During my first work of prose, I've noticed that my story consists mostly of dialogue. Character actions usually occur during dialogue, and descriptive paragraphs, if I do ever use them, are very brief.



I'm not sure what you specifically were referring to, but I was referring specifically the OP's question as it was asked.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> I based my original answer off of the OP's question:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you specifically were referring to, but I was referring specifically the OP's question as it was asked.



But that doesn't mean to me that there's one large conversation. That's my point.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 14, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> But that doesn't mean to me that there's one large conversation. That's my point.




I never thought there was.


----------



## Snelbrouler (Jul 14, 2018)

Some excerpts showing what I mean:

The sound was then disrupted by a series of splashing noises coming in from the distance. “Cori!” she heard her mother yelling, “Cori! Where are you?!”
Cori turned around, and saw her mother running along the seashore towards her. “Over here, Mama!” she yelled back.
“Cori!” her mother repeated. She had dropped her basket, and was holding her dress up as to not get it wet. “Cori!”
“Sorry mama,” cried Cori. She was shaking, both because she was suddenly made aware of how cold she felt, and that she was frightened by her mother’s yelling. Though her mother rarely raised her voice, the few times she did yell were unsettling.
They made their way towards each other, and collided with a warm embrace. “Why did you run away?” her mother said, “I heard the splashing noises, and I thought you had gone too far and drowned. I was so worried for you!”
“I’m sorry mama,” said Cori. Her face was against her mother’s chest, where she could hear her mother’s rapid heartbeat. “I saw something strange in the water, so I wanted to see where it went.”
“Oh, Cori.” Her mother hugged her tighter, “I know you’re a curious girl,” she said, “but like I told you before, sometimes it’s best if we don’t know the answer to every question, alright? So we don’t wander off into danger.”
She felt Cori’s head nod, “Yes, Mama.”
“Good,” said her mother, who began rocking Cori side to side in her arms. “From today onward, will you run away from home like that again? Especially at night?”
“No, Mama. Never again.”

Cori sat in her seat, and was surprised to find that it was warm to the touch. The wizard moved his fingers across his device, and a disc came floating by, carrying two glasses of water and many green pastries. “Want something to eat?” he asked.
“No thank you,” she replied, though she reached out for the glass of water. It felt relieving to have warm water touch her chapped lips, and wash over her throat, which grew sore from breathing in the dry, icy air. The wizard shrugged, and gulped down the other glass of water. When he was finished, he took a handful of pastries, and scarfed them down voraciously. Cori’s stomach lurched.
“You came looking for answers,” the wizard said with his mouth full, spewing crumbs from his lips, “so ask away.”
Cori wasted no time in asking, “Who are you, and how long have you been here?”
“Oh, let’s not ask those now! Let me warm up first, ask me something easier!”
“But you said you have all the answers to my questions.”
“Well that doesn’t mean you should start with the hard ones! My head’s not quite ready yet. Ask again!”
Cori looked around her, and asked “What are all those glowing things?”
“Ah! A good first question. And I’ll answer it with my own: have you seen lightning before?”

Again, this is my first work of prose, so advice would be highly appreciated.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jul 14, 2018)

I like these excerpts. I think the balance between dialogue and narration is well done. I do think the first excerpt uses too many dialogue tags, but that's about it.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jul 14, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> This is really two different questions.
> 
> Dialogue: You can never really have too much good dialogue. There are many stories written almost entirely in dialogue. There are actually some quite major literary contests run on writing this way such as this one http://www.bartlebysnopes.com/contests.htm If you read some of those pieces you will likely be surprised just how effective it can be.
> 
> ...



Is dialogue necessarily the best method to write a scene for some? Seems like I did some dialogue freewriting and came up with an idea.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 14, 2018)

Snelbrouler said:


> Some excerpts showing what I mean:
> 
> The sound was then disrupted by a series of splashing noises coming in from the distance. “Cori!” she heard her mother yelling, “Cori! Where are you?!”
> Cori turned around, and saw her mother running along the seashore towards her. “Over here, Mama!” she yelled back.
> ...



I don't think these are too dialog heavy. Aa far as that goes, they seem fine.

The first excerpt is a bit confusing. If Cori can see her mother, why couldn't her mother see her? It just didn't quite make sense for the mother to ask, "Where are you?" It seems more likely she would call, "There you are!"

Also, I found it jarring when you shift suddenly from Cori's perspective to her mother's here : 
She felt Cori’s head nod, “Yes, Mama.”
And since the words are from a different character, I would put them into their own paragraph : 
She felt Cori’s head nod. 
“Yes, Mama.”

Alternatively, you could keep it in Cori's perspective : 
She struggled to nod her head, “Yes, Mama.”
Or : 
She couldn't nod. "Yes, Mama," she said instead.
Or something similar. You get the idea, I'm sure. 

Otherwise I don't see any problems.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 14, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> As for dialogue, I don't know... It could just be personal preference, but I wouldn't enjoy reading a story that was mainly dialogue. Not even movies are mainly dialogue, they have scene breaks and quiet moments and interludes. Also, I think if you go *too* dialogue heavy, you run the risk of being too conversational.
> 
> Conversations don't add anything, and as such have no place in dialogue. Every interaction, every bit of dialogue between two characters should impact the plot in some way, should drive the narrative, should have emotional meaning. And if you're writing something that is mostly dialogue, I just think it would be very challenging to do that. That's why stories like "My Dinner with Andre" are so rare. And good stories do this without you even noticing. If you ever read or see something that seems like it had no impact, but yet remained memorable or otherwise noteworthy, watch or read it again, because you will find that it very much changed the story in some way (think the helicopter landing scene in Jurassic Park, or the opening diner scene from Reservoir Dogs).



With the greatest respect, this is just bad advice.

If you do not enjoy reading stories dominated by dialogue that is your prerogative, however I would challenge you to find a single piece of writing - published or not - that contains large sections of well-written and natural-sounding dialogue that is not also a decent, engaging read. Often this is regardless of how average the actual plot might be. 

Of course it is a matter of quality. The right style is always whatever is appropriate for a scene, you are correct on that. Needless to say most readers (if not all) are far less likely to get bored reading well-crafted, old-fashioned conversation than they are reading a lump of text just saying what is happening. Most writers do have this backwards and tend to believe plot is the main thing and tend to fall in love with their delicately crafted descriptions of the weather or whatever. However if you go to your local bookstore most popular fiction that is selling well is very dialogue heavy with many chapters being nothing but conversation with perhaps a few actions woven in. 

Why is this? Because readers like to be a fly on the wall, a voyeur. They like the directness of dialogue with the way it can show the character(s) mentality and motivations without telling you explicitly what to think about them. They like authenticity and grittiness and getting to know the people in your novel the way they would in real life - through listening to what they say and how they say it. The best way to make a character seem real is usually to have them "talk real".

 Stating "Not even movies are mainly dialogue, they have scene breaks and quiet moments and interludes" is an obviously flawed comparison. Movies are visual, books are not. You cannot base how you write on how films are produced anymore than you can learn better painting techniques from listening to hip-hop. How are you going to write a quiet moment, other than to write "there was a quiet moment"? You cannot, at least not in a way that comes close to emulating a movie with its visual cues and body language and whatever else. In order to write well you must develop the techniques which are available in the medium of words. 

The purpose of good dialogue is to provide a kind of social canvas on which you can then subtly show the things that would perhaps be easier in films, etc. It's probably more difficult than in a movie (though a movie-maker would likely disagree) but it's not that hard to do it. A radio play is virtually all dialogue and those remain popular.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 15, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> With the greatest respect, this is just bad advice.
> 
> If you do not enjoy reading stories dominated by dialogue that is your prerogative, however I would challenge you to find a single piece of writing - published or not - that contains large sections of well-written and natural-sounding dialogue that is not also a decent, engaging read. Often this is regardless of how average the actual plot might be.



You missed my point. My point was this:

A story which is mainly dialogue (which the OP said it was and which I took to mean was roughly 80-90% dialogue) is prone to being too conversational.
I think there are better ways to convey information than relying heavily on dialogue. 

I did not say that a story which is mainly dialogue would not be good. I said to write a story as such and have it be just as good as something more balanced would be, in my opinion, very difficult to do and if it were me I would try to avoid it.

Also I think the comparison to movies is fair. Good movies have good writing, bad movies have bad writing, I see no difference there. My point in bringing it up was to illustrate that as a writer, the bits in a movie that have no dialogue, would still need to be written. And to think of that as you try to create a visual image of the story in your reader's mind.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 15, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> You missed my point. My point was this:
> 
> A story which is mainly dialogue (which the OP said it was and which I took to mean was roughly 80-90% dialogue) is prone to being too conversational.
> I think there are better ways to convey information than relying heavily on dialogue.
> ...





Ahhhh, I think I see what you are saying.
You are saying that dialog should not have a lotta white space in it. Just pure dialog is bad, it needs to be balanced by other factors.
If that is what you were getting at then I agree; dialog should be more than talking, dialog should paint the world and the characters in it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 15, 2018)

Snelbrouler said:


> Some excerpts showing what I mean:
> 
> The sound was then disrupted by a series of splashing noises coming in from the distance. “Cori!” she heard her mother yelling, “Cori! Where are you?!”
> Cori turned around, and saw her mother running along the seashore towards her. “Over here, Mama!” she yelled back.
> ...




And this is a great example of dialog that DOES NOT contain a lotta white space.  There is dialog, as well as a lot of brush strokes that paint the characters as well as the scene.
When I read this, not only do I hear them talking, but I see the characters interacting, and the scene around them.
I was able to fully envision the word from those few paragraphs you wrote.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 15, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Ahhhh, I think I see what you are saying.
> You are saying that dialog should not have a lotta white space in it. Just pure dialog is bad, it needs to be balanced by other factors.
> If that is what you were getting at then I agree; dialog should be more than talking, dialog should paint the world and the characters in it.



lol yup pretty much.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 16, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> You missed my point. My point was this:
> 
> A story which is mainly dialogue (which the OP said it was and which I took to mean was roughly 80-90% dialogue) is prone to being too conversational.
> I think there are better ways to convey information than relying heavily on dialogue.
> ...



A major problem here for me is the use of 'conversational' as being a negative - "it's too conversational" - or the idea that dialogue need be constrained to matters affecting plot. 

For one thing, writing truly meaningless or ineffectual dialogue is not actually that easy for a competent writer. At least not if you have characters whose personalities you have a decent understanding of,  possessing clear motivations and some source of conflict bubbling beneath the surface. Try selecting any two major characters from your favorite novel (or film, or anything really) whom you know well and then write a short scene of dialogue between them about something that has nothing to do with the plot in which they are featured. Chances are when reading back you will see many aspects of their personality coming through in that dialogue, perhaps some small details or preferences either suggested implied. 

This sort of thing is usually what makes an average novel good or a good novel great. A two thousand word dialogue between, I don't know, a husband and wife who  concerning how to make a cup of tea correctly may seem facile or trivial, yet often this is where the reader really gets hooked. Of course dull or over engineered dialogue is not acceptable, but it is also relatively rare, unless the writer is incompetent or the characters are poorly crafted. In any event implied information is usually better from a dramatic standpoint whilst what seems to be a trivial conversation on the surface can be a great thickener.

 I stand by my assertion that screenwriting is not especially relevant to novel writing. As someone who has dabbled it is not the same skill, or even particularly close. I think authors tend to obsess over movies because many movies are adapted from books and there is a point of self-interest in catering to them, however a movie is an adaption and adaption by definition requires significant changes to be made. Effects which are easy to accomplish in screenwriting tend to be difficult in prose fiction and vice versa. For example if I wanted to convey a sense of heartbreak in a movie all I would likely need to write is something like *PULL BACK TO REVEAL Gwen stood at bedroom window gazing out as soft piano music fades in a shadow from the sinking sun begins to cover her tear-stained face* and have the director find the actor and music and setting to make it work. In prose, I have to create the emotional response from scratch.


----------



## storiesandpages (Jul 17, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> A major problem here for me is the use of 'conversational' as being a negative - "it's too conversational" - or the idea that dialogue need be constrained to matters affecting plot.



In your own example given, you described dialogue that would be relevant to the story.
Readers expect not to be taken through trivial, pointless dialogue and I don't think it's the job of any writer to take them on that journey.

Is it possible to write loads and loads of dialogue and have every bit of it meaningful and relevant? 
Sure, why not.

Is it likely?
That's another question altogether. 
People don't stumble their way into greatness, often they don't purposefully run into greatness either.
Why complicate matters by further imposing such voluntary roadblocks?


----------



## VermilionBedsheets (Jul 17, 2018)

I've always found that contractions sound more natural when spoken, so it'd really depend. Since you're saying that most of your story is dialogue I'd say it's fine, but consistency is important. Giving a character a distinct manner of speaking is important, and having a character's use of contractions vary hurts that a little.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 18, 2018)

storiesandpages said:


> In your own example given, you described dialogue that would be relevant to the story.
> Readers expect not to be taken through trivial, pointless dialogue and I don't think it's the job of any writer to take them on that journey.



You are  absolutely correct, however my original point if you'll recall is not a disagreement with your advice in principal but in practice. I think it is actually quite hard for an inspired writer who knows to write ANY dialogue period that is not relevant to the story in some way.

 As an example of that i posed a challenge to select any two fictional characters you like and to write a scene entirely in dialogue of them discussing something mundane, something of no apparent relevance to any story whatsoever. It is my suggestion, and perhaps it is optimistic, that you or any other talented writer would be naturally predisposed to making it relevant, to making it in some way strong.

I want to reiterate that 'story' does include character and development of character -- or at least it should -- and the job of the writer is one of alchemy: Turning common material into gold. Good writers, and I assume everybody to be a good writer until proven otherwise, are able to do that with just about anything, injecting tension and relevancy into discussions that would not otherwise be. Focusing dialogue solely on the propulsion of plot makes a good deal of sense but often it isn't really what touches readers about reading. 

I think we may well be in vigorous agreement and simply have semantic differences.


----------



## Newman (Jul 19, 2018)

Snelbrouler said:


> During my first work of prose, I've noticed that my story consists mostly of dialogue. Character actions usually occur during dialogue, and descriptive paragraphs, if I do ever use them, are very brief.
> I've also noticed that I use words such as "that," "have," and "though" far too many times throughout the story (the word "that" makes up around 1% of my entire word count). The use of contractions are also inconsistent; both the third person narrator and the characters use contractions seemingly at random.
> Is this writing style considered "healthy?"



Nothing wrong with it. That's Aaron Sorkin's style.


----------

