# Is dialogue considered amateurish?



## OurJud

Let me try and clarify that thread title.

I am never happier in my work than when writing dialogue, and sometimes wonder if I use it to tell parts of a story where a more competent and confident writer would use narrative and exposition.

Is this considered a tell-tail sign of an amateur writer?


----------



## Skodt

Could just be a style preference. Makes the story move faster, but sometimes takes away the other senses. I am one of those writers who writes description more than dialogue, but I don't see an adverse effect to doing it the opposite. 

What kind of example do you think sounds amateur while using this approach? 

"I like the sun." said Mike. "It is quite beautiful." Said Jane===== This works, but describing the sun works better for me. The sun hung low in the western sky. The rays darted off the light fluffy clouds, and presented an orange glow to the word. In contrast with the green tree's it almost spoke of spring and life. Mike sat staring at it moments before commenting. =====Then I would follow up with dialogue almost as a padding of the feelings type thing.


----------



## Bad Craziness

Used effectively I think dialogue can give the reader a lot of information about both the characters and the world that they're a part of.

My background is primarily in script writing so I tend to be more inclined to use dialogue. However, I think it's about achieving a balance. The choice to use a lot of dialogue, or not, to tell the story seems largely a stylistic one. I think you have to determine what the best way to tell the story is and consider what the reader might be missing out on if you primarily use dialogue. Description and exposition can help to set and control the tone and pace of a piece.

I find this to be a difficult topic to offer advice on because finding that balance is akin to finding your own voice and style as a writer within any given piece of work.

I wouldn't say that dialogue it is in any way amateurish though.


----------



## DondreKhan

I often write about social issues, interaction, or drama, so dialog works well for that.  Heavy use of dialog is sth that kids do though.  As long as people aren't saying things they wouldn't say just to try to explain the story, it should be fine.


----------



## justanothernickname

The question does not exist to me


----------



## OurJud

justanothernickname said:


> The question does not exist to me



That's of no help whatsoever. If all you're doing here is referring to the thread title, then you've missed the point entirely.

I am not simply asking if the use of dialogue is amateurish. Of course its use isn't amateurish, otherwise we wouldn't see it used in published works. What I was trying to say is, is using it to get across story points (plots, backgrounds, etc), instead of using narrative and exposition to do the same thing, considered amateurish?



Inquisitor Ehrenstein said:


> Heavy use of dialog is *sth *that kids do though.



??


----------



## DondreKhan

I've been told that's how a lot of kids write, which makes sense in a way.


----------



## OurJud

I got the gist of the sentence, but was confused by the "sth".


----------



## tepelus

If it is done in a way that reads natural and it's something that the character will say, then there is no problem with it. It's when it reads like an "as you know Bob", when it starts to be amateurish.


----------



## enchantedsecret24

I don't think that it's a bad think. I really think it just depends on your style and preference as a writer. I feel more comfortable writing narrative, I could go on and on and on and on and on with a character just describing things or thinking things to themselves. Then it gets to the dialogue and that's where it gets weird for me. I have a tough time making it sound natural, and when I first started my novel I never realized how hard it would be to do dialogue! I have definitely gotten MUCH better, but I think probably the first 1/3 of my book has NO dialogue because I preferred to not do it at the time until I felt comfortable.

If you're better doing it your way, then I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Everybody is different, and I still use more narrative than dialogue in my stories because that's just what I like to do. I think that's just something you'll either have to work on if you want to get better at it, or accept as your style as a writer.


----------



## popsprocket

I don't think dialogue is inherently amateurish. It can be, but so can incessant exposition.

If you can find a style-consistent balance between the two then you're golden.


----------



## DondreKhan

OurJud said:


> I got the gist of the sentence, but was confused by the "sth".



Something


----------



## Jeko

Of course, if you use anything in writing in an amateurish way, it's amateurish. 

I've read short stories that are entirely dialogue. They are not amateurish.


----------



## Lewdog

There is absolutely nothing amateurish about using dialogue.  In fact I think people that are very good at using dialogue are some of the best writers.  If you can create real life conversations that people can find them selves falling into and relating to in your story, you've done an excellent job.


----------



## Kyle R

OurJud said:


> What I was trying to say is, is using it to get across story points (plots, backgrounds, etc), instead of using narrative and exposition to do the same thing, considered amateurish?



I don't consider it to be so. On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that expository narration often comes across as more amateurish. It's not always the case (some writers excel at exposition), but you'll often see amateurs rely too heavily on exposition to "tell" (that pesky argument again! ) and info-dump on the reader. Conveying information through dialogue is a time-honored screenwriting trick.

Like others mentioned, just be sure to avoid cheesy or transparent dialogue.


----------



## Sintalion

Too much of a good thing can kill ya. 

Use it well, use it how you need to, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Tettsuo

My question is why would you think dialogue is amateurish but exposition isn't?

And what is amateurish anyway?  Either it works or it doesn't.  That's my take on it anyway.

Art cannot be amateurish, it can only work or not work imo.


----------



## Myers

OurJud said:


> Is this considered a tell-tail sign of an amateur writer?



I get it. It can be the tell-tail sign of a new writer who enjoys writing dialog and who's good at it. If it comes easy, then there is sometimes a tendency to fall back on dialog instead developing your narrative. Most of my early stories were heavy on dialog for that reason. I think once you're aware that you might be using dialog as a crutch, you'll start thinking about other ways to reveal things in your narrative, and it will naturally expand. With practice, you'll achieve a balance.


----------



## Sam

KyleColorado said:


> I don't consider it to be so. On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that expository narration often comes across as more amateurish. It's not always the case (some writers excel at exposition), but you'll often see amateurs rely too heavily on exposition to "tell" (that pesky argument again! ) and info-dump on the reader. Conveying information through dialogue is a time-honored screenwriting trick.
> 
> Like others mentioned, just be sure to avoid cheesy or transparent dialogue.



Which would be great if we were screenwriters. 

The problem I've seen most writers have with dialogue is trying to make their characters sound _much _too realistic. Dialogue is a language onto itself and there's a knack in writing it. When done well, it can be the most immersing part of a story. When done badly, it feels contrived and cheesy. The important thing to remember is that dialogue should move the story forward. You can't move something forward if a character is constantly stuttering and pausing. Whatever realism it affords the scene is countervailed by the reader having to re-read the dialogue. Just like exposition, good dialogue flows.


----------



## Tettsuo

Myers said:


> I get it. It can be the tell-tail sign of a new writer who enjoys writing dialog and who's good at it. If it comes easy, then there is sometimes a tendency to fall back on dialog instead developing your narrative. Most of my early stories were heavy on dialog for that reason. I think once you're aware that you might be using dialog as a crutch, you'll start thinking about other ways to reveal things in your narrative, and it will naturally expand. With practice, you'll achieve a balance.


Why do you need to have it balanced?  If it works (people enjoy reading the work) with mostly dialogue, you're doing something right.

I think we, as writers, have WAY too many pseudo rules that aren't actually necessary.  As with all art, it's not a matter of what rules you have to adhere to, but what works with the viewers you're trying to touch.

I've read a bunch of books that followed all of the rules and still sucked.  I also read books that failed to follow the rules, deviating from the mainstream, and rocked.  One of my favorite books, Flowers for Algernon, spent half the book making grammatical errors.  It's considered a masterpiece by many.


----------



## Myers

Tettsuo said:


> Why do you need to have it balanced?



You're taking that too literally. I'm not talking about rules. It's about not relying too heavily on one thing to tell your story when you have a lot of tools at your disposal. There's a difference between a choice and a crutch.

You make a relatively straightforward observation and you get a lecture on rules and art.


----------



## OurJud

Myers said:


> I get it. It can be the tell-tail sign of a new writer who enjoys writing dialog and who's good at it. If it comes easy, then there is sometimes a tendency to fall back on dialog instead developing your narrative. Most of my early stories were heavy on dialog for that reason. I think once you're aware that you might be using dialog as a crutch, you'll start thinking about other ways to reveal things in your narrative, and it will naturally expand. With practice, you'll achieve a balance.



Thanks, Myers.

Without wanting to sound ungrateful to anyone else, you are one of a few on this thread who seems to have fully understood what I was asking.

I suppose my thread title was a little misleading, but I wanted to keep it short as the titles get truncated on the main forum page.


----------



## Ripslaughter

KyleColorado said:


> I don't consider it to be so. On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that expository narration often comes across as more amateurish. It's not always the case (some writers excel at exposition), but you'll often see amateurs rely too heavily on exposition to "tell" (that pesky argument again! ) and info-dump on the reader. Conveying information through dialogue is a time-honored screenwriting trick.
> 
> Like others mentioned, just be sure to avoid cheesy or transparent dialogue.



In writing prose, heavy use of dialogue is, in fact, considered ametuerish for the very reason that it is essentially the _definition_ of "telling". Many people here seems to be acting under the impression that there exists only two kinds of prose: dialogue with quotes, and dialogue without, which--excluding the realm of bad fanfiction--is far from the case.

Of course, if you are a literary genius you can make the entire story 100% dialogue and still have something that will hold up to critique, but even in that case the point of the story would have to be reflected in the exclusivity of its means of conveyance for it to work. 

Any piece of dialogue should meet at least two of the following criteria:

1. It moves the plot forward
2. It provides new insight or depth to the character(s)
3. It touches upon one or more of the story's themes


----------



## OurJud

Ripslaughter said:


> Any piece of dialogue should meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 
> 1. It moves the plot forward
> 2. It provides new insight or depth to the character(s)
> 3. It touches upon one or more of the story's themes



Tell that to Iain Banks. Well, you can't now cos he's dead, but his novels are full of dialogue that's there simply for the sake of it.

But you do answer my question _and_ confirm my suspicions.

However, writing is constantly evolving and I think this rule no longer applies, at least not as strictly as it would have been in years gone by.


----------



## Ripslaughter

OurJud said:


> Tell that to Iain Banks. Well, you can't now cos he's dead, but his novels are full of dialogue that's there simply for the sake of it.
> 
> But you do answer my question _and_ confirm my suspicions.
> 
> However, writing is constantly evolving and I think this rule no longer applies, at least not as strictly as it would have been in years gone by.



Indeed, there are exceptions to every rule. Any bit of writing 'doctrine' can be ignored to great effect, if done right. The point here, as Myers mentioned, is that it needs to be a deliberate choice--made because you believe it is truly necessary or better for the story and your message--and not simply a crutch which you fall back on due to either a lack of awareness or a lack of ability. 

The difference between Ian Banks, or James Joyce, and (to use the example again) your average 12 year old writer of fanfiction, is the permeation of _purpose and intent_ throughout their work. When I read the former, the contrivances of the author remain woven deeply into the fabric of the story, and safely out of cursory sight. When I read the latter it is the reverse: the fabric of the story is buried and obscured by the bludgeoningly blatant contrivances and shortcomings of the author.


----------



## Dictarium

GOOD dialogue is hard to come by. Dialogue written the way people talk with a dialect and language appropriate to and consistent with the character. I think that if you can write dialogue in a way that it can go on and on for a page or two and have a reader be able to follow it easily, that's excellent wordsmanship.


----------



## Lewdog

I'm always in the minority, as I say I prefer dialogue over a constant wall of text.


----------



## Morkonan

OurJud said:


> ...Is this considered a tell-tail sign of an amateur writer?



No, not necessarily. After all, most of what people read is dialogue. Many readers only skim large blocks of text until they come to dialogue... It's only then that they really start reading, line by line. However, the mark of an amateurish (Well, just plain bad.) writer is when dialogue is used to convey information when another method would be much more desirable. Do you really need to include Setting backstory information in dialogue, for instance, instead of sensibly including it somewhere else? Maybe... maybe not. Making the wrong decisions, and doing so often, is "amateurish", I suppose. For instance, most Setting backstory is communicated in exposition, depending on the PoV. But, you could include a small bit of a few tasty morsels in dialogue and actually improve the presentation and increase the interest of the reader.

Do what is most appropriate for the work you are writing without concerning yourself with amateurish mechanics. There is no "Right Way" to write that doesn't focus completely on your job of making the Reader continue reading. When you do something that hinders that task... stop doing it.


----------



## Sam

Dictarium said:


> GOOD dialogue is hard to come by. Dialogue written the way people talk with a dialect and language appropriate to and consistent with the character. I think that if you can write dialogue in a way that it can go on and on for a page or two and have a reader be able to follow it easily, that's excellent wordsmanship.



Good dialogue is not written the way people talk. It may have nuances and words exclusive to certain people, but good dialogue flows. Ordinary conversation does not flow. There's stumbling, mumbling, pauses, interruptions, mishearings, repeating of words, misunderstandings, people talking over each other, futile chit-chat, over-talking, and a dozen other idiosyncrasies of individuals. 

If you open a novel to a page of speech, you'll seldom find any of the markers for ordinary human conversation. What you'll find is something that mimics certain patterns of gender-specific dialogue but avoids most if not all of the doggerel.


----------



## Lewdog

Sam said:


> Good dialogue is not written the way people talk. It may have nuances and words exclusive to certain people, but good dialogue flows. Ordinary conversation does not flow. There's stumbling, mumbling, pauses, interruptions, mishearings, repeating of words, misunderstandings, people talking over each other, futile chit-chat, over-talking, and a dozen other idiosyncrasies of individuals.
> 
> If you open a novel to a page of speech, you'll seldom find any of the markers for ordinary human conversation. What you'll find is something that mimics certain patterns of gender-specific dialogue but avoids most if not all of the doggerel.




So many times I've tried in writing dialogue to bring across those nuances you are talking about, but most of the time people will read it and get confused by the punctuation of it, or that they find it hard to follow because of the fact one person might stammer over another, instead of having a solid train of thought.  I've seen some writers be rather effective of conveying normal conversations, Stephen King being one, but it is not something that is universal.

Now that is one long run-on sentence!


----------



## Dictarium

Ripslaughter said:


> Any piece of dialogue should meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 
> 1. It moves the plot forward
> 2. It provides new insight or depth to the character(s)
> 3. It touches upon one or more of the story's themes


I beg to differ. Not every part of a story has to be insightful or progress the plot, especially dialogue. That just sounds like such a textbook, overly-literary, one-track-minded set of "rules". As if to imply that dialogue that doesn't do one of these things is bad.


----------



## Jon M

Pretty much everything can be included in no. 2 and no. 3, which makes the criteria seem kind of pointless.


----------



## Dictarium

Sam said:


> Good dialogue is not written the way people talk. It may have nuances and words exclusive to certain people, but good dialogue flows. Ordinary conversation does not flow. There's stumbling, mumbling, pauses, interruptions, mishearings, repeating of words, misunderstandings, people talking over each other, futile chit-chat, over-talking, and a dozen other idiosyncrasies of individuals.
> 
> If you open a novel to a page of speech, you'll seldom find any of the markers for ordinary human conversation. What you'll find is something that mimics certain patterns of gender-specific dialogue but avoids most if not all of the doggerel.


I make a fool of myself. I didn't necessarily mean "the way people talk" in that it should include the "um"s, the "uh"s, the stammers, the stutters, the "over-talking", or the other human imperfections that we bring into our own speech, but rather that it should not sound like purple prose. Not everyone should be as witty as the author might be, not everyone gives whole-sentence answers to questions, and people don't always talk in as linear a manner as I find happens in some stories.

And I'm not just talking about gender-specific patterns, but also character specific. Witty people speak wittily. They don't just crack jokes all the time, but they actual speak the way that type of person would speak. Denser people speak with a vocabulary and sentence structure not quite as eloquent as other characters, but at the same time doesn't sound like a two-year-old. Things like that.


----------



## Ripslaughter

Dictarium said:


> I beg to differ. Not every part of a story has to be insightful or progress the plot, especially dialogue. That just sounds like such a textbook, overly-literary, one-track-minded set of "rules". As if to imply that dialogue that doesn't do one of these things is bad.



If part of a story isn't progressing the plot, developing the characters, or tying into the story's overall themes and message, then why include it? I've come across so many stories in my college writing classes that are filled with extraneous exposition, empty dialogue and superfluous scenes that add nothing to the story. Too many writers will, in the process of getting from Interesting Plot Point A to Interesting Plot Point B, chronicle every excrutiating action, thought, or word of every second, of every minute, of every day between each scene that the reader actually benefits from reading. 

I challenge you to find a single sentance of Hemingway's, or Joyce' or any critically acclaimed author that doesn't meet one of those three criteria. Writing is an art, and the aim of any art is mastery. I would think everyone's goal here would be to get to a point where there isn't a single word or mark of punctuation that isn't necessary or fulfing as many different functions for the story as possible.


----------



## OurJud

I think what you're describing here relates largely to classical and very conventional novel writing. But there is an increasingly growing market for _un_conventional, quirky and off-beat novels that not only refuse to adhere to these rules, but actively set out to break them.


----------



## Ripslaughter

I can't think of any successful book I've read, recent or classical, that doesn't at least attempt to make every piece of the story contribute to the story. Indeed, your writing can be as ecclectic and eccentric as possible, and still be devoid--or at least close to it-- of prose without point. Look at Neil Gaiman, for instance.


----------



## Lewdog

Ripslaughter said:


> I can't think of any successful book I've read, recent or classical, that doesn't at least attempt to make every piece of the story contribute to the story. Indeed, your writing can be as ecclectic and eccentric as possible, and still be devoid--or at least close to it-- of prose without point. Look at Neil Gaiman, for instance.



You haven't read many Vonnegut books have you?


----------



## Jeko

> In writing prose, heavy use of dialogue is, in fact, considered ametuerish for the very reason that it is essentially the _definition of "telling". Many people here seems to be acting under the impression that there exists only two kinds of prose: dialogue with quotes, and dialogue without, which--excluding the realm of bad fanfiction--is far from the case.
> 
> Of course, if you are a literary genius you can make the entire story 100% dialogue and still have something that will hold up to critique, but even in that case the point of the story would have to be reflected in the exclusivity of its means of conveyance for it to work.
> _



I once wrote a whole story entirely with dialogue. I must be a genius!



> I can't think of any successful book I've read, recent or classical, that doesn't at least attempt to make every piece of the story contribute to the story. Indeed, your writing can be as ecclectic and eccentric as possible, and still be devoid--or at least close to it-- of prose without point. Look at Neil Gaiman, for instance.



It's a non-statement. Yes, I can take any line from any published novel and say how it contributes to the story. I can also do that with the stories I wrote when I was eight years old. Everything contributes to the story because it's there - everything has an effect.

No part of any prose that has ever existed is without 'point'. What matters is _intention_.


----------



## Lewdog

Bah!  All this back and forth dialogue is overloading the forum with amateurism.


----------



## TheWritingWriter

I think that if you like a bunch of dialogue, good for you! As long as you're properly giving enough description & dialogue. Luckily, you can provide description in many shapes & forms, including conversation between your characters. So there's not much worry for that. Just find a good balance for you & go to town. It's simply style preference, as someone mentioned earlier.


----------



## Justin Rocket

It is a matter of camera placement, if you will.  A block of writing which is a "close up" is all dialogue.  A "pannning shot" is all exposition.  Many story writers who intend their story to be read will, mistakenly, craft their story as if it is to be seen.

I'm a big believer that dialogue is better and more important than exposition.  As a general rule, adjectives and adverbs should be removed from writing (in fact, one of the steps I go through in transforming a rough  draft into a final draft is to remove all adjectives, adverbs, metaphors, and similes and then replace only those which are essential).  Also, nobody cares what your sunset looks like.  They care about how the sunset affects the characters.  Dialogue is the best way to express that imho.  

However, I'm not saying that you should ever use a "as you know, Bob, ...", there's nothing worse than amateurish dialogue.  

I recommend a writing exercise where you have two  people discuss something 
1.) never use any "stammered", "stuttered", etc. (not even "said")
2.) never have them state how they are feeling
3.) never state how old they are compared to one another, how they look, etc.
4.) never state their relationship (friends, an old married couple, male siblings, female siblings, etc.)
5.) never state where they are from or where the discussion is taking place

Let all of that come out in the word  choices, dialogue structure, etc.  Let the dialogue go on for ten pages or so and make sure the reader is never confused as to which dialogue belongs to which speaker (without stating either speaker's name).

Readers are turned off from giant walls of text.  Your pages should have plenty of jagged white space.


----------



## Gavrushka

I can see there are around as many opinions on dialogue as there are posts, and perhaps that is precisely how it should be. I am sure, at times, dialogue and narration are interchangeable, but I find dialogue far more engaging and personal (obviously!!!)

H P Lovecraft rarely used dialogue as I understand, and that was because he struggled with it.

I think it is easy to over-analyse which is best to use in any given situation, but when it doubt, why not try both and see which works best? - If both seem to have equal merit, then perhaps it doesn't really matter so much after all.


----------



## Caragula

Dialogue can do a tremendous amount of work efficiently, if done well, in terms of revealing character, place, history, and do exposition in a way that is more immersive, indeed, it can achieve more than one of these things simultaneously, hence its value.  Dialogue is essential to prose if it involves people in any way shape or form.


----------



## OurJud

Justin Rocket said:


> I recommend a writing exercise where you have two  people discuss something
> 1.) never use any "stammered", "stuttered", etc. (not even "said")
> 2.) never have them state how they are feeling
> 3.) never state how old they are compared to one another, how they look, etc.
> 4.) never state their relationship (friends, an old married couple, male siblings, female siblings, etc.)
> 5.) never state where they are from or where the discussion is taking place
> 
> Let all of that come out in the word  choices, dialogue structure, etc.  Let the dialogue go on for ten pages or so and make sure the reader is never confused as to which dialogue belongs to which speaker (without stating either speaker's name).



I'm not sure I follow this advice, Justin. Are you saying that all five points here should only ever be expressed through dialogue, and never through exposition? Because if that _is _what you're saying, I've made a complete hash of all I've currently written in my WiP.


----------



## Terry D

OurJud said:


> I'm not sure I follow this advice, Justin. Are you saying that all five points here should only ever be expressed through dialogue, and never through exposition? Because if that _is _what you're saying, I've made a complete hash of all I've currently written in my WiP.



I think Justin is just recommending this as an exercise to develop dialogue writing skills, not as a way to handle dialogue in an actual WIP.


----------



## OurJud

Terry D said:


> I think Justin is just recommending this as an exercise to develop dialogue writing skills, not as a way to handle dialogue in an actual WIP.



Mmm, but even then I'm not sure I agree. Surely it would be clumsy and amateurish to have your characters, for instance, state where they are from and where the discussion is taking place via the use of dialogue? That would be something you would tell the reader with exposition and scene description, isn't it?


----------



## Ripslaughter

OurJud said:


> Mmm, but even then I'm not sure I agree. Surely it would be clumsy and amateurish to have your characters, for instance, state where they are from and where the discussion is taking place via the use of dialogue? That would be something you would tell the reader with exposition and scene description, isn't it?



The trick is to let the reader know all those things, without ever resorting to "Hi, Bob, I'm from Kentucky." Even with non-dialogue exposition, the 'rules' he listed are good ideas to follow. In either case, all information imparted to the reader should come as natural and organic as possible. Subtlety is the greatest contrivance in a writer's repertoire.


----------



## OurJud

Ripslaughter said:


> The trick is to let the reader know all those things, without ever resorting to "Hi, Bob, I'm from Kentucky." Even with non-dialogue exposition, the 'rules' he listed are good ideas to follow. In either case, all information imparted to the reader should come as natural and organic as possible. Subtlety is the greatest contrivance in a writer's repertoire.



I agree, but this is what's confusing me. In his post, he makes it sound as though all those elements he listed should be told through dialogue. Almost as though he is saying, "Hi, Bob, I'm from Kentucky." is the way it _SHOULD_ be done.


----------



## Justin Rocket

delete


----------



## Justin Rocket

Why is it important to know the guy is from Kentucky?  Remember Checkhov's gun?  If it is important to know he's from Kentucky, then there will be an organic place to let that information be known through dialogue.


----------



## Ripslaughter

Even following every rule of his exercise, you can reveal or allude to all this information without the characters ever directly "telling" any of it. 

A crude example,

"Woah! Easy there, miss--I got you. Don't worry. That was close though, trying to find out what it's like to benchpress with your face, huh? You do know personal trainers are part of the membership here?"

Anyway, you get the picture. From this you can tell (or so I hope) they are at some kind of gym or training facility, though I never said anything like, "Welcome to Bob's Gym, misses exercising lady who is named Mary, my name is Personal Trainer Tom."


----------



## OurJud

I give up! We all seem to be at complete cross purposes here. I've tried three times now to explain why I'm struggling to decipher Justin's post, but I'm obviously speaking a different language.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Obviously I'm not saying you should write "Hi, Bob, I'm from Kentucky."  I am saying not to add details that don't drive the plot forward (Chekhov's gun).  I am saying that if it  does drive the plot forward, there will be an organic way to introduce the detail in dialogue.  I am advising a writing exercise to help you develop techniques to introduce these facts without being blatant about it (see Ripslaughter's example).


----------



## Myers

OurJud said:


> I give up! We all seem to be at complete cross  purposes here. I've tried three times now to explain why I'm struggling  to decipher Justin's post, but I'm obviously speaking a different  language.



Don't worry about it. I read a bit of your dialog. Grant it, it was a small scene, but it worked. There's no reason to get hung up on any of this. You're well read; so no doubt you've been exposed to a lot of good dialog. Just do what comes naturally and you'll be fine.


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> Readers are turned off from giant walls of text.  Your pages should have plenty of jagged white space.


I read a James Frey novel once. Well, that should be amended: I tried to read the entirety of a James Frey novel. _Bright Shiny Morning_. There was plenty of dialogue, plenty of jagged white space. So much and so poorly written, in fact, it struck me as a colossal waste that the book had been printed on _real_ paper. I was in mourning. 

I cannot emphasize how much I disagree with your comment. Epic, in terms of sheer inaccuracy.


----------



## Morkonan

In my opinion, there's no "Bullet List" of necessary qualities that a piece of dialogue must have nor is there a particular mechanic to dialogue that makes it the exclusive custodian of any piece of information the writer needs to communicate to a reader. That being said, however, there are plenty of bad choices for dialogue. For instance, if we're talking about Introspection, that's not something usually conveyed to the Reader in spoken dialogue. But, it is almost always conveyed in an internal dialogue, instead. In other words, the character we're observing having an introspective moment doesn't blurt out 

"Well, Bob, I'm thinking that I really don't like you, that woman over there is very attractive, I shouldn't have double-parked and this latte' I just got is the worst tasting liquid I've ever consumed, except for that one time I drank the dregs from a bar mat in a college bar." declared Ryan.

Uh... Not good. The reader is likely going to have a WTF moment. The reader might even shout their own thoughts out loud - "That's privileged information, necessarily communicated only to me, via either an omniscient narrator or first-person introspection using internal dialogue!" The reader would usually be right to be a bit peeved. Readers, after all, have certain mechanical expectations, usually. They know how a story is told and, usually, are expecting that certain elements will follow certain normal forms. It's this sort of expectation that makes Reading a story "effortless." Ever have trouble reading a story? Ever tell someone that a particular book is a "hard read?" There ya go. When unconventional mechanics are used, it can hinder the reader. Sometimes it's worth it. Often, it's not.

If there's any "Rule" that must be used, it must be that dialogue further the Reader's enjoyment of the story. It doesn't have to have any other point other than that. Obeying that Rule, we must also pay particular attention to when it is broken! If the Dialogue doesn't contribute to the Reader's enjoyment of the story, it should be struck or re-written. Contributing to the Reader's enjoyment would, of course, include necessary tidbits like introducing Setting pieces, backstory, character building, etc... These are necessary for full enjoyment. But, a good joke that is context sensitive and further illuminates or accentuates a purposeful part of the story would also be welcome in dialogue. (Well, a good joke is always good, just so long as it's not particularly distracting and has at least some contextual reference relating to the story.)


----------



## Justin Rocket

So, the dialogue, by your own words, was poorly  written.  Can you imagine if it had been exposition just as poorly written?

At no point did I imply that putting bad dialogue in a story makes the story better.


----------



## Myers

I read _The Incredible Lightness of Being _a while back; it has very little dialog and it's an amazing book. And as if "readers" are all just one big homogenous group.


----------



## Justin Rocket

@Morkonan

what does it matter to the story if the latte is the worse ever?
Seems to me that many posters are asking about how to insert information in the story which has no relevance to the story (and, therefore, shouldn't be in the story anyway).


----------



## Justin Rocket

@Myers, nobody here said that a story must be told in dialogue.  

Many people posted that they preferred exposition.  Then, I posted that I preferred dialogue, but that, depending on "camera placement", exposition can be useful.  Now, I feel that many posters got confused into thinking that I said a story must never use exposition.


----------



## Morkonan

Jon M said:


> I read a James Frey novel once. Well, that should be amended: I tried to read the entirety of a James Frey novel. _Bright Shiny Morning_. There was plenty of dialogue, plenty of jagged white space. So much and so poorly written, in fact, it struck me as a colossal waste that the book had been printed on _real_ paper. I was in mourning.
> 
> I cannot emphasize how much I disagree with your comment. Epic, in terms of sheer inaccuracy.



I'd have to somewhat agree with his comment in that readers, generally, find large walls of texts fairly imposing things. Ever hear of a "Quick Read?" It's usually not filled with large portions of text, which are usually expositions. Instead, pacing is carefully controlled using action and dialogue. Action and Dialogue generally include paragraph breaks at appropriate moments, of course, usually with a smattering of internal dialogue thrown in, to help frame the experience from the character's point of view. Digesting all that, what one gets is "Large expository blocks of text are generally off-putting." 

They can, however, accentuate certain sorts of works. For instance, Lovecraft was known for large pieces of exposition in his horror works. But, what they ended up doing was adding a sort of ponderous, foreboding quality to his stories. Describing a "cave" in such a way and the character's observations of it could, in effect, encase the Reader within a "cave of text." Those huge blocks a very specific impression in the mind of the Reader.

Of course, "content is king" in any part of a story being told, no matter the mechanics. Bad dialogue won't save anything just as exposition won't communicate anything to the Reader, in and of itself.


----------



## Morkonan

Justin Rocket said:


> @Morkonan
> 
> what does it matter to the story if the latte is the worse ever?
> Seems to me that many posters are asking about how to insert information in the story which has no relevance to the story (and, therefore, shouldn't be in the story anyway).



Well, in that particular sentence, it's character building work as well as cementing the comment I wrote into a scene, contextualizing it. By mentioning the latte in that stand-alone example quote, I effectively communicated to you that the speaker was drinking a latte' at that very moment and I did not have to use "Stage Direction" in order to do so. Nifty, huh? 

(Weird dbl update bug, fix't)


----------



## Justin Rocket

Morkonan said:


> Well, in that particular sentence, it's character building work as well as cementing the comment I wrote into a scene, contextualizing it. By mentioning the latte in that stand-alone example quote, I effectively communicated to you that the speaker was drinking a latte' at that very moment and I did not have to use "Stage Direction" in order to do so. Nifty, huh?
> 
> (Weird dbl update bug, fix't)




Why is it important to the story?   How does the overall story arc change if he drinks a mocha or nothing at all?


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> At no point did I imply that putting bad dialogue in a story makes the story better.


No, you did worse than imply. You gave some bad and highly arbitrary writing advice and confused some people. I've read some of OurJud's work. It's fine. Better than fine. 

Frey's book certainly didn't engage this reader, but I guess the larger point is: good writing will create its own audience, and there is little point in all of these dumb rules, in making ourselves slaves to profluence and The Almighty Plot. As usual, the urgency, vividness of the writing is all that matters.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Jon M said:


> No, you did worse than imply. You gave some bad and highly arbitrary writing advice and confused some people. I've read some of OurJud's work. It's fine. Better than fine.
> 
> Frey's book certainly didn't engage this reader, but I guess the larger point is: good writing will create its own audience, and there is little point in all of these dumb rules, in making ourselves slaves to profluence and The Almighty Plot. As usual, the urgency, vividness of the writing is all that matters.



My comments weren't specifically about OurJud's writing.  I haven't read his writing.  My comments were about the value of dialogue. Writing is a craft.  Like any other craft, such as carpentry, the craftsman must master the rules.  Wood grain, wood variety, different tools, etc. must be mastered in carpentry.  After the rules are mastered, then they can be surpassed.  Exercises (and, remember, I offered an exercise) are meant to be done in specific ways so as to develop skill (the same way that there is a specific form to perform a bicep curl in order to develop strength).  Once the skill is mastered, go ahead and surpass it.

Don't like it?  Fine.  But, your dislike of it doesn't change the fact that its true.


----------



## Dictarium

Justin Rocket said:


> Why is it important to the story?   How does the overall story arc change if he drinks a mocha or nothing at all?


If you put nothing but the bare minimum in your story and try to craft it in a way that every character, every syllable, every word and phrase is absolutely important, crucial, necessary to the story, plot, theme then you're either going to get incredibly frustrated penning the mess and give up or end up with an incredibly bare, boring piece.


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> My comments weren't specifically about OurJud's writing.  I haven't read his writing.  My comments were about the value of dialogue. Writing is a craft.  Like any other craft, such as carpentry, the craftsman must master the rules.  Wood grain, wood variety, different tools, etc. must be mastered in carpentry.  After the rules are mastered, then they can be surpassed.  Exercises (and, remember, I offered an exercise) are meant to be done in specific ways so as to develop skill (the same way that there is a specific form to perform a bicep curl in order to develop strength).  Once the skill is mastered, go ahead and surpass it.
> 
> Don't like it?  Fine.  But, your dislike of it doesn't change the fact that its true.


Your rules are bogus, is what I'm saying. It all strikes me as knee-jerk, too eager. Worse, you haven't even read the work of the guy you're lecturing!


----------



## Justin Rocket

Jon M said:


> Your rules are bogus, is what I'm saying. It all strikes me as knee-jerk, too eager.



I'm happy to have a rational discussion about the value of the exercise I presented.  But, responding to comments calling my exercise "bogus", "knee-jerk", and "too eager" (I don't even know what these last two descriptors are supposed to convey) without providing a justification for those comments is rude and not worth my time.



Jon M said:


> Worse, you haven't even read the work of the guy you're lecturing!



Given that I just finished telling you that I wasn't discussing OurJut's writing, your comment here is irrational.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Dictarium said:


> If you put nothing but the bare minimum in your story and try to craft it in a way that every character, every syllable, every word and phrase is absolutely important, crucial, necessary to the story, plot, theme then you're either going to get incredibly frustrated penning the mess and give up or end up with an incredibly bare, boring piece.



I'm working on a novel now that does that (every set piece is essential).  The story is not an incredibly bare, boring piece, nor is it frustrating to write the story (it is, however, a lot of work).  I think part of the trick is to realize that somethings can be used to foreshadow other things.  The way that your coffee drinker responds to the latte can reveal aspects of his character that can be built on later, for example.  Some things can be symbollic (for example, I described shadows stretching across a bedroom at night as resembling talons scraping across the wall - this foreshadowed a monster attack a few pages later).


----------



## Morkonan

Justin Rocket said:


> Why is it important to the story?   How does the overall story arc change if he drinks a mocha or nothing at all?



There *is *no story.

But, in the interest of answering your question:

I added it to the example in order to give some context for the example sentence to more fully "flesh it out" so the imagery would be richer and the context of the sentence more immediate. He's not daydreaming in just any spot in this example. He's with someone (Bob) and doing something (drinking a latte') and, in order to make the example even more appealing and interesting, I threw in a comedic reference that had the added benefit of providing some backstory (College bar). In other words, I covered a lot of bases with that one example, but none of those bases focus on the question at hand. After all, I was demonstrating an inappropriate use of spoken dialogue. Inappropriate in that in most works, Introspection and Internal Dialogue are handled silently, through the use of an omniscient narrator or first-person narrator.

What is being communicated in that example has nothing do with the purpose served by providing that example. The purpose was to introduce a typically inappropriate use of spoken dialogue.


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> @Myers, nobody here said that a story must be told in dialogue.
> 
> Many people posted that they preferred exposition.  Then, I posted that I preferred dialogue, but that, depending on "camera placement", exposition can be useful.  Now, I feel that many posters got confused into thinking that I said a story must never use exposition.



Come on. You said:



> Readers are turned off from giant walls of text.  Your pages should have plenty of jagged white space.



That's a rather definitive statement doesn't have anything to do with personal preference. 

I wouldn't have noticed if this hadn't come up, but I just looked through the collection of short stories I'm reading, _Bluebeard's Egg_, by Margaret Atwood. There are often 2 or 3 pages in a row with little to no dialog. I'm betting if I pulled more books of the shelf, I could find the same thing.

There is just too much great writing out there that demonstrates there is no basis for what you said; certainly not as something that applies across the board. So yes, I have to agree; it's just plain bad advice.


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm happy to have a rational discussion about the value of the exercise I presented.  But, responding to comments calling my exercise "bogus", "knee-jerk", and "too eager" (I don't even know what these last two descriptors are supposed to convey) without providing a justification for those comments is rude and not worth my time.


The exercise is fine. Don't have any issue with the restrictions because that's what exercises are: a series of wacky restrictions. It's the rest of your initial comment that misses the mark. There doesn't seem much to discuss. Like so many other 'experts' on the web, you seem to have a thing against adjectives, adverbs, and anything not 'essential' to the plot. I agree--stories should not be full of pointless details. It all should be 'essential'. But that is such a broad guideline. What truly is essential? Depends on the story, the _specific_ story. So many of the details in any given story can fall under the umbrella of 'character development'.


----------



## Ripslaughter

As for adjectives and adverbs, 90% of the time they are merely bland and unengaging ways of describing something that would be better shown through action. For instance,

Bob was angry.

Vs.

Bobs jaw strained against his teeth as he clenched back a seering retort.

Sometimes adjectives/adverbs are necessary, and sometimes they can add character to an already suitably demonstrative sentence. Most of the time, however, they are merely indicative of laziness or a lack of creativity.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Myers said:


> _Readers are turned off from giant walls of text. Your pages should have plenty of jagged white space._.


 
To me, that statement's message is that your pages should have plenty of jagged white space.  It is NOT saying that exposition should never be used.


----------



## Jon M

Ripslaughter said:


> Bob was angry.
> 
> Vs.
> 
> Bobs jaw strained against his teeth as he clenched back a seering retort.


Dunno. I'm probably not alone in thinking the first example is preferable. The problem with all of this advice, generally, is that its purveyors think it's revelatory and insightful and interesting and it's not. Worse, some writers get so tangled up in this nonsense that it interferes with their creativity, the stories they would tell if their minds weren't so clouded with this junk advice.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Jon M said:


> The exercise is fine. Don't have any issue with the restrictions because that's what exercises are: a series of wacky restrictions. It's the rest of your initial comment that misses the mark. There doesn't seem much to discuss. Like so many other 'experts' on the web, you seem to have a thing against adjectives, adverbs, and anything not 'essential' to the plot. I agree--stories should not be full of pointless details. It all should be 'essential'. But that is such a broad guideline. What truly is essential? Depends on the story, the _specific_ story. So many of the details in any given story can fall under the umbrella of 'character development'.



Wow, so your problem with my comments is that I didn't provide more detail as to what is essential, but you also acknowledge that providing more detail as to what is essential is impossible?


----------



## Justin Rocket

Jon M said:


> Dunno. I'm probably not alone in thinking the first example is preferable. The problem with all of this advice, generally, is that its purveyors think it's revelatory and insightful and interesting and it's not. Worse, some writers get so tangled up in this nonsense that it interferes with their creativity, the stories they would tell if their minds weren't so clouded with this junk advice.



Where are you published?  I mean, given a choice between following your advice (there is no rules) and following the advice of big published authors (such as King, Card, Le Guin, etc.) that the rules need to be mastered before breaking them, I think I should know what your actual publishing experience is.


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> Where are you published?  I mean, given a choice between following your advice (there is no rules) and following the advice of big published authors (such as King, Card, Le Guin, etc.) that the rules need to be mastered before breaking them, I think I should know what your actual publishing experience is.


There are rules when it comes to grammar, of course, but where fiction is concerned things aren't so black and white. What one should and shouldn't do become more like _suggestions_. Some of those suggestions or guidelines are very good. For example, I think it is generally a good idea to look for a stronger verb, rather than modify a weak one with an adverb. But that is not true in all instances. Some advice is incredibly arbitrary, like your comment about white space. Personally, I also think the oft-parroted "Show, don't Tell" belongs in that category. Narrative summary, aka _telling_, gets a bad rap because so many tend to hold it up as an inferior version of _showing_. 

My publishing experience? Who cares. Seriously. I've had enough of a taste to know that it's generally a rat race, that there comes a point in a writer's development when the rejections have less to do with competency and more to do with timing, editor bias/preference, and many other variables.


----------



## OurJud

Dictarium said:


> If you put nothing but the bare minimum in your story and try to craft it in a way that every character, every syllable, every word and phrase is absolutely important, crucial, necessary to the story, plot, theme then you're either going to get incredibly frustrated penning the mess and give up or end up with an incredibly bare, boring piece.



I like this a lot, but I admit it's largely because it makes me feel better about my writing. My novel is going to have many (seemingly) pointless scenes, but that's because my story doesn't have a plot as such. These scenes _ARE_ the story, and without them I wouldn't have one. Hopefully none of the scenes will be boring as I aim to have at least some kind of conflict/problem/incident occur during each, but they are, essentially, there for the sake of it.

Jon, thank you for your complementary references to my writing. They're very encouraging and much appreciated.

Justin, I need to make it clear I understand the original post of yours that started all this wasn't aimed directly at me or my writing. I don't necessarily argree or disagree with that post, because even now I'm still not sure what you were trying to say.


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> To me, that statement's message is that your pages should have plenty of jagged white space.  It is NOT saying that exposition should never be used.



Plenty of jagged white space, meaning heavy on the dialog, which doesn't leave much room exposition. I never said or implied that you meant exposition should never be used. That would be absurd. 

What's weird to me is that you would even try to suggest that there is some recipe that readers prefer. There are countless examples of great writing that show it's all over the map, and that virtually any ratio of dialog to exposition can work.

You said what you said. Anything more and I'll just be repeating myself.


----------



## Justin Rocket

I'm having a lot of trouble with what this forum has become.
When people start arguing that their publishing experience doesn't matter and that there are no rules, its an argument that there's no craft in writing and that getting  published or big is just dumb luck.
That's not an argument I can support.  This isn't NaNoWriMo.  This is careers we're talking about here.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Myers said:


> What's weird to me is that you would even try to suggest that there is some recipe that readers prefer. There are countless examples of great writing that show it's all over the map, and that virtually any ratio of dialog to exposition can work.



I'm confident that, if you go to your public library and pick up random novels and flip through them, you'll see a lot of jagged white space.  I'm going to the library tomorrow.  I'll check.


----------



## Ripslaughter

Jon M said:


> Dunno. I'm probably not alone in thinking the first example is preferable. The problem with all of this advice, generally, is that its purveyors think it's revelatory and insightful and interesting and it's not. Worse, some writers get so tangled up in this nonsense that it interferes with their creativity, the stories they would tell if their minds weren't so clouded with this junk advice.


  So you don't like the second example because it's not revelatory or insightful, but you have no problem with the first...  Saying someone is angry fails to paint any picture whatsoever in the reader's mind. It's an empty description. "Angry" can mean almost anything--but to a reader, it means nothing.


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm confident that, if you go to your public library and pick up random novels and flip through them, you'll see a lot of jagged white space.  I'm going to the library tomorrow.  I'll check.



OK. But stay out of the children’s section. Pictures don’t count.


----------



## Leyline

_They're Made Out Of Meat_ by Terry Bisson


----------



## Jon M

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm having a lot of trouble with what this forum has become.
> When people start arguing that their publishing experience doesn't matter and that there are no rules, its an argument that there's no craft in writing and that getting  published or big is just dumb luck.


Publishing experience doesn't matter when I assess someone's work or their advice. Primarily, I suppose, because there literally is a market for anything, and some are lame enough to have no filter for quality. Just as an example, I once visited a writer's workshop in my area and encountered many people who had been 'published'. They were so up their own noses about their status as a published writer it was rather nauseating to the rest of us. Come to find out later these many people had been published by the same vanity press. 

Of course writing is a craft. I have always believed so, and is the reason I continue to work very hard on whatever story I'm writing at the time. I've read several books on the craft, some very good ones, and have had a lot of time to digest the material--the guidelines, as it were. I suppose that is the key difference here. You're talking about all the rules with the kind of zealous enthusiasm typical of someone who is fairly new, just having learned them. That may or may not be the case, but certainly that's how it seems. I'm kind of bored with people telling everybody what to do, and try to avoid that whenever possible. Ultimately it's pointless, anyway--writers will find what works for them, and ignore everything else. 



Ripslaughter said:


> So you don't like the second example because it's not revelatory or insightful, but you have no problem with the first...  Saying someone is angry fails to paint any picture whatsoever in the reader's mind. It's an empty description. "Angry" can mean almost anything--but to a reader, it means nothing.


I don't like the second example because it's overwritten nonsense. The heavy reliance on common physical gestures to indicate anger (the straining, clenching teeth, etc.) is cliche. Too much of that technique and suddenly you've got a manuscript full of guys grunting their anger as if they're constipated, of people fidgeting with their nails in nervousness, etc. Sometimes it's just better to get to the point, to say _Bob is angry_, in order to move onto more interesting parts of the story. I understand _anger_ is an abstract noun, that there are as many unique manifestations of anger as there are people, but sometimes it is not necessary to include some bloated description. I also disagree with your assertion that anger "means nothing" to the reader. Most people know what that means, are able (to an extent) to superimpose their own experiences and supply their own meaning. Obviously this is not an adequate solution all of the time.

When I mentioned revelatory and insightful things, I was referring more  to the people who dish out writing advice. They parrot these rules as if  they were largely unknown by the writing community, like they're some  kind of revelation, and oh so terribly interesting. It's amusing because  all over the web, on forums similar to this one, the exact same  conversations are happening and have been for years.


----------



## Leyline

> I also disagree with your assertion that anger "means nothing" to the  reader. Most people know what that means, are able (to an extent) to  superimpose their own experiences and supply their own meaning.  Obviously this is not an adequate solution all of the time.



Of course! Anger is one of the universal pieces of common ground every reader can understand. All of the basic emotions are.


----------



## Sintalion

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm having a lot of trouble with what this forum has become.
> When people start arguing that their publishing experience doesn't matter and that there are no rules, its an argument that there's no craft in writing and that getting  published or big is just dumb luck.
> That's not an argument I can support.  This isn't NaNoWriMo.  This is careers we're talking about here.



Sometimes it *is *dumb luck that gets you published and launches your career while other deserving people get stuck in the slush. 

You can craft a beautiful novel, but maybe the subject matter isn't trending, or it's sensitive topic at the time of review. Maybe the agent/editor/submissions manager is having a bad day or a underling is sick of sixteen year old princesses. Maybe the big publisher just took on a book similar to yours and doesn't want them to compete (this happens a more than you think). Maybe this is your third novel, but you write a bad description in your query letter. Maybe the editor read a sentence wrong and got turned off. Maybe your manuscript was about to get heaved when a publisher's daughter reads the first chapter and demands more.  

Stories are individual. What works for one will not necessarily work for another. Once the novel is out of your hands, sometimes it really does just come down to dumb luck. Sometimes it doesn't. A lot of people have gotten rejected from the publishing houses while being praised for their crafting skills!

You can have a beautiful novel and get it published- and have marginal sales. You can hone your craft, but there's no guarantee you'll have a career in writing, be published, or be big. Publishing/writing experience (however much) does not necessarily qualify you. There's no formula for being the next big thing or writing a great book (otherwise publishers wouldn't need us). You can self-publish and be famous, or write a book that breaks some of the writing rules and beat out someone who's followed everything. That's part of the beauty and inspiration for many an aspiring writer. The only thing you can do is write the best novel you can. Many factors go into success, but they start with you (the crafter). 

Steering back on subject, I prefer all things in moderation, so that's the way I write. Sometimes I have longer stretches, sometimes I have shorter ones. I like to see variety between dialogue/exposition in the same way I like to see variety in sentence structure.  

Toward the anger discussion, I agree that sometimes it just needs to be said. It's a judgment call, really.


----------



## Ripslaughter

Obviously, if you are not trying to create any particularly vivid or engaging image or feeling in the reader's mind, it is fine to default to "bob was angry". I, however, could hardly be bothered to slog through a story where the tendency leaned toward such empty, image-void drivel. I could read an entire page of sentences like that and come away with no clear picture of the scene, its inhabitants, or any of their actions, senses, or emotions--just a bunch of vague, take-my-word-for-it descriptors which lack visceral impact and imaginative precision. 

Anyway, I can see that no one here is going to come to any sort of agreement on the matter. But as far as the suggestions that we shouldn't be advising people on widely accepted methods of improving their writing, because everyone will just "find what works for them" or because "publishing is just luck", or "there are no rules!", if all that is the case then why are any of you even here, on a writing forum, where the whole point is to offer critique and advice. Do you guys simply go around congratulating each other on the "unique styles" you've "developed" while turning on anyone who suggests that your 20 pages of unecessary dialogue and blurred, boring adjectives might benefit from some reworking? I'm really at a loss here.


----------



## Myers

^ Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here mainly for critique. Generic advice with no context; not so much. If I wanted that, I could find it presented by people who have put a lot more time and thought into it. Simply put, it can be had and had better elsewhere.


----------



## ppsage

> if all that is the case then why are any of you even here, on a writing forum, where the whole point is to offer critique and advice. Do you guys simply go around congratulating each other on the "unique styles" you've "developed" while turning on anyone who suggests that your 20 pages of unecessary dialogue and blurred, boring adjectives might benefit from some reworking? I'm really at a loss here.


The way to clear this up quickly is to start participating over in the creative forums.


----------



## CodenameX

So... this got heated quickly. 

There is a bit of an issue with me offering my thoughts on this topic. As I am an amateur. So, take from this what you will.

I often feel relief when I finally see dialogue after being bombarded with massive paragraph after paragraph with nothing but detailed descriptions of places or people. It always lets me feel like I know the characters a little better. You get to see how they talk and what they think/say. It really lets me feel like I'm part of the story when I can picture how people say things.

With that being said, that is just what I prefer. Dialogue is just a different story telling technique. Including or excluding it shouldn't make your story any more or less professional. It sounds somewhat elitist/snobbish to think less of an author if they include dialogue. 

P.S. I love _They're Made out of Meat_. Fantastic example!


----------



## Sintalion

> Obviously, if you are not trying to create any particularly vivid or  engaging image or feeling in the reader's mind, it is fine to default to  "bob was angry". I, however, could hardly be bothered to slog through a  story where the tendency leaned toward such empty, image-void drivel. I  could read an entire page of sentences like that and come away with no  clear picture of the scene, its inhabitants, or any of their actions,  senses, or emotions--just a bunch of vague, take-my-word-for-it  descriptors which lack visceral impact and imaginative precision.


I  don't know that anyone on here is implying that you should you only use  "bob was angry" in a story. Should you use it in some places? Yes.  Are  there places where the MC is better off kicking a stool? Definitely. 

I really dislike absolute examples, and I don't think the people here write in absolutes, either. In my current manuscript, I have written at least a half dozen sentences where I used two adjectives in per sentence (bad example: he pulled on the red blazer and then reclined on the cedar bench)! It's one of my favorite rules, and I've broken it a few times in my own writing! Eek!  



> Anyway, I can see that no one here is going to come to any sort of  agreement on the matter. But as far as the suggestions that we shouldn't  be advising people on widely accepted methods of improving their  writing, because everyone will just "find what works for them" or  because "publishing is just luck", or "there are no rules!", if all that  is the case then why are any of you even here, on a writing forum,  where the whole point is to offer critique and advice. Do you guys  simply go around congratulating each other on the "unique styles" you've  "developed" while turning on anyone who suggests that your 20 pages of unnecessary dialogue and blurred, boring adjectives might benefit from  some reworking? I'm really at a loss here.



The point isn't to come to an agreement and never will be. I don't believe that's even the goal to most writers on the site. Occasionally there is such a thing as a general consensus, but even then not everyone agrees. If you've come to try and make everyone side with you or against someone else, then you're going to be disappointed in almost every discussion on this board. 

I tell people all the time that it helps to learn the rules before you break them, but what sites like this offer is often just as valuable as what you'll find in guidebooks and famous author's blogs. It offers different opinions and perspectives, and allows participants to explore all sides, not just the most common ones that we see touted. History is so often written by the winners, after all. 

I'd happily argue that point is to offer critique, advice, and _perspective_. Some of the writers on this site stink and want to learn.  Some are head and shoulders above the rest and are looking for little insights after they've done everything they could. It's like that on every writing site. We come to learn from each other and those of us who are open-minded to suggestions, input, and change, tend to reap the rewards. Go read our forums. Does it look like we're all lauding each other over fantabulous performances? Some people are nicer than others (I tend to be the meanie-pants downer who picks at more than I should), but we're all here to learn and grow. Those of us who offer critiques, know that each person needs something a little different, and our comments are tailored to their needs, whether it be basic rules or out-side-the-box thinking.


----------



## Justin Rocket

The whole point of being an artist (which writing most certainly is as well as being a craft) is NOT to hide in your room and masturbate to the words you strung together.

The whole point of being an artist is to communicate your message (a rather complex message else you wouldn't need art to do it) to the largest number of people in a way they'll understand.

And there are techniques and rules which have proven most able to do that.  These techniques and rules need to be mastered and really well understood before you break them.
Can people play the lottery and string together random words in the hope that someone will eventually notice them while all the time complaining about how publishing is just dumb luck?
Sure.  Do you know what we call such people?  Homeless.  Babblers.

On an earlier point, I went to the library today.  I went back through the New York Times bestsellers list for fiction and put together a list of the books which have been on the list for more than ten weeks recently.
That list is 
Inferno by Dan Brown
A Dance with Dragons by George RR Martin
Gone Girl by Gilliam Flynn
The Twelve Tribes of Hattie by Ayanna Matthis
The Forgotten by David Balducci
The Round House by Lousie Erdrich
Cross Roads by Wm Paul Young
The Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling
The Time Keepers by Mitch Album
Winter of the World by Ken Follett
Calico Joe by John Grisham
The Innocent by David Balducci
Kill Shot by Vince Flynn
11/22/63 by Stephen King
The Paris Wife by Paula McClair
Death Comes to Pemberley by PD James
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest by Stieg Larsson
The Instigators by John Grisham
The Best of Me by Nicholas Sparks

I then went to the shelves and, of the books which were available, I flipped through them to see if they had a lot of jagged white space.  I found

Kill Shot was mostly jagged white space
11/22/63 was fairly balanced with a slight edge towards exposition
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest was mostly exposition
The Litigators was mostly jagged white space
The Best of Me was mostly jagged white space
Calico Joe was mostly jagged white space
The Innocent was mostly jagged white space


----------



## Lewdog

I'm amazed this thread still lives!  I can honestly say, I think those that think dialogue is amateurish, are probably those that can't write a believable conversation.


----------



## Justin Rocket

As with everything in every career, there is an aspect of dumb luck.  My former career (before I became disabled) was computer security.  There's dumb luck in computer security.  That is NOT however an excuse to just say that professional performance doesn't matter and that we should just ignore all the rules.  Luck favors the well prepared.

If a subject matter isn't trending, then the author messed up.  He should have analyzed where the market is heading when he started the book.  Prognostication is tricky business and he could well misread the market, but that's still an example of the author messing up (albeit understandably).


----------



## Jeko

> I then went to the shelves and, of the books which were available, I flipped through them to see if they had a lot of jagged white space. I found
> 
> Kill Shot was mostly jagged white space
> 11/22/63 was fairly balanced with a slight edge towards exposition
> The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest was mostly exposition
> The Litigators was mostly jagged white space
> The Best of Me was mostly jagged white space
> Calico Joe was mostly jagged white space
> The Innocent was mostly jagged white space



If you're judging a book by the space between words and not the words themselves, then I'm not sure what I can recommend. I don't think there's a craft that involves focusing on the existence of nothing.

What I mean is, the presence of 'jagged white space' means nothing except for the presence of short paragraphs and/or dialogue, and that's a result, not an intention. A writer who uses a lot of dialogue does because their characters talk a lot. A writer who uses larger chunks of dialogue-less prose does because their characters aren't talking as much. Maybe there's more physically 'going-on' or more internal dialogue. But these Authors don't start writing their books by thinking 'I want this to look like a whole sea of words on the page'. They write it and it ends up looking like however it ends up looking like. If people talk, they talk.

The reason a lot of dialogue can be amateurish, I feel, is because a lot of amateurs see it as too much of a device and forget that it's actually people talking.


----------



## Lewdog

Justin Rocket said:


> As with everything in every career, there is an aspect of dumb luck.  My former career (before I became disabled) was computer security.  There's dumb luck in computer security.  That is NOT however an excuse to just say that professional performance doesn't matter and that we should just ignore all the rules.  Luck favors the well prepared.
> 
> If a subject matter isn't trending, then the author messed up.  He should have analyzed where the market is heading when he started the book.  Prognostication is tricky business and he could well misread the market, but that's still an example of the author messing up (albeit understandably).




A pet peeve of mine, is to never trust a computer security expert.  Why?  Because most of the time, those same security experts are the ones that helped write the security software that is being hacked, and they were the ones who put the holes in the programming in the first place.  It's good business for them, not so good business for the schlep that can't afford their services or the barrage of updates that the program will need each year.  It goes along the same lines as finding a cure for cancer.  There is no money in cures.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Lewdog said:


> A pet peeve of mine, is to never trust a computer security expert.  Why?  Because most of the time, those same security experts are the ones that helped write the security software that is being hacked, and they were the ones who put the holes in the programming in the first place.  It's good business for them, not so good business for the schlep that can't afford their services or the barrage of updates that the program will need each year.  It goes along the same lines as finding a cure for cancer.  There is no money in cures.



I don't know who told you that they were a computer security expert while selling you security services for a product they created, but it sounds to me like they violated every code of ethics for security that I know of.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> If you're judging a book by the space between words and not the words themselves, then I'm not sure what I can recommend. I don't think there's a craft that involves focusing on the existence of nothing.
> 
> What I mean is, the presence of 'jagged white space' means nothing except for the presence of short paragraphs and/or dialogue, and that's a result, not an intention. A writer who uses a lot of dialogue does because their characters talk a lot. A writer who uses larger chunks of dialogue-less prose does because their characters aren't talking as much. Maybe there's more physically 'going-on' or more internal dialogue. But these Authors don't start writing their books by thinking 'I want this to look like a whole sea of words on the page'. They write it and it ends up looking like however it ends up looking like. If people talk, they talk.
> 
> The reason a lot of dialogue can be amateurish, I feel, is because a lot of amateurs see it as too much of a device and forget that it's actually people talking.



The author chooses to use characters who talk a lot.  He does so because dialogue is a very good tool (compared to exposition) to tell most of a story.


----------



## CodenameX

Cadence said:


> If you're judging a book by the space between words and not the words themselves, then I'm not sure what I can recommend. I don't think there's a craft that involves focusing on the existence of nothing.


Zen?



> What I mean is, the presence of 'jagged white space' means nothing except for the presence of short paragraphs and/or dialogue, and that's a result, not an intention. A writer who uses a lot of dialogue does because their characters talk a lot. A writer who uses larger chunks of dialogue-less prose does because their characters aren't talking as much. Maybe there's more physically 'going-on' or more internal dialogue. But these Authors don't start writing their books by thinking 'I want this to look like a whole sea of words on the page'. They write it and it ends up looking like however it ends up looking like. If people talk, they talk.
> 
> The reason a lot of dialogue can be amateurish, I feel, is because a lot of amateurs see it as too much of a device and forget that it's actually people talking.



So, essentially, what you're saying is when an amateur uses it as a crutch for their writing? As in, they haven't quite developed their voice or tone completely? Or, do you mean something else. If I was right, then how do you know when they are relying on dialogue too much? I ask because it seems like you have fleshed out your thoughts pretty thoroughly.


----------



## Lewdog

Cadence said:


> If you're judging a book by the space between words and not the words themselves, then I'm not sure what I can recommend. I don't think there's a craft that involves focusing on the existence of nothing.
> 
> What I mean is, the presence of 'jagged white space' means nothing except for the presence of short paragraphs and/or dialogue, and that's a result, not an intention. A writer who uses a lot of dialogue does because their characters talk a lot. A writer who uses larger chunks of dialogue-less prose does because their characters aren't talking as much. Maybe there's more physically 'going-on' or more internal dialogue. But these Authors don't start writing their books by thinking 'I want this to look like a whole sea of words on the page'. They write it and it ends up looking like however it ends up looking like. If people talk, they talk.
> 
> The reason a lot of dialogue can be amateurish, I feel, is because a lot of amateurs see it as too much of a device and forget that it's actually people talking.




If I cooked something for you to eat, and it looked like a baby had eaten strained carrots and puked it up on the plate, would you even try it?  Point being, if I open a book and all I see is a huge wall of text with little to no paragraph breaks or dialogue, I'm not going to read it.  When I read something for enjoyment, I don't want to strain my eyes and make a chore out of it.  The two ideas are not so far apart.  In fact, I would think the idea of a book looking visually appealing is even more so important because you read with your eyes, you can try food with your eyes shut.



Justin Rocket said:


> I don't know who told you that they were a computer security expert while selling you security services for a product they created, but it sounds to me like they violated every code of ethics for security that I know of.



It was nothing personally against you, but there is a reason that the FBI is always trying to flip computer hackers to work for them instead of putting them in jail.


----------



## OurJud

Lewdog said:


> I can honestly say, I think those that think dialogue is amateurish, are probably those that can't write a believable conversation.



What you seem to have done here is read the title of the thread and made up your own mind regarding what I was asking.

Yes, that was partly my fault. I should have worded the title better, but if you'd read my original post you'd have seen this isn't what I was asking/suggesting.


----------



## Lewdog

OurJud said:


> What you seem to have done here is read the title of the thread and made up your own mind regarding what I was asking.
> 
> Yes, that was partly my fault. I should have worded the title better, but if you'd read my original post you'd have seen this isn't what I was asking/suggesting.



No I understand what tracks you are putting down, but I'm responding to more than just your original post.  What you have seemed to do, is forget my earlier posts in this thread, and jumped to conclusions on who I was responding to now.  :lol:

Dialogue is not a crutch, it's a tool.  A crutch is even a tool as long as someone has a broken leg and they need help to stand.  When a crutch becomes something negative, is when a person no longer needs it, but keeps using it anyways.


----------



## OurJud

Lewdog said:


> What you have seemed to do, is forget my earlier posts in this thread, and jumped to conclusions on who I was responding to now.  :lol:



Well given the way so many in this thread have decided to start arguing amongst themselves, I think I can be forgiven


----------



## Justin Rocket

Lewdog said:


> It was nothing personally against you, but there is a reason that the FBI is always trying to flip computer hackers to work for them instead of putting them in jail.



I always worked as a white hat.  So, I can't speak to that.  I do know that in the jobs I've held no one with a criminal record would have been hired.


----------



## Jeko

> The author chooses to use characters who talk a lot. He does so because dialogue is a very good tool (compared to exposition) to tell most of a story.



I am not familiar with who 'the author' is. It can't be any of the famous writers who do the exact opposite of what you've said.



> So, essentially, what you're saying is when an amateur uses it as a crutch for their writing?



No; that's nothing like what I said.

It's not about the writer - it's about the characters. If the characters talk, they talk. Treat them like real people and they'll end up more like real people. Of course, filter this thorough the knowledge of the craft, but don't let that dictate the story for you - craft is a matter of how it should be made, not what it should be in the first place.



> Point being, if I open a book and all I see is a huge wall of text with little to no paragraph breaks or dialogue, I'm not going to read it. When I read something for enjoyment, I don't want to strain my eyes and make a chore out of it. The two ideas are not so far apart. In fact, I would think the idea of a book looking visually appealing is even more so important because you read with your eyes, you can try food with your eyes shut.



Stephen King gives us huge walls of text. As do hundreds of other writers, past and present. It's fine to have a personal preference for the 'look' of a story, but there's no way you can use that preference as advice for budding authors.


----------



## Lewdog

Cadence said:


> I am not familiar with who 'the author' is. It can't be any of the famous writers who do the exact opposite of what you've said.
> 
> 
> 
> No; that's nothing like what I said.
> 
> It's not about the writer - it's about the characters. If the characters talk, they talk. Treat them like real people and they'll end up more like real people. Of course, filter this thorough the knowledge of the craft, but don't let that dictate the story for you - craft is a matter of how it should be made, not what it should be in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King gives us huge walls of text. As do hundreds of other writers, past and present. It's fine to have a personal preference for the 'look' of a story, but there's no way you can use that preference as advice for budding authors.



I've read quite a few Stephen King books, and I don't recall them being full of walls of text.

Why can't I give it as advice to budding authors?  People teach different methods of doing stuff all the time.  What makes your method any better than mine?  Last time I checked neither of us have any books on the top 100 list.  Even if one of us did, that doesn't mean our opinion is worth anymore than the other person's.  Do you think in order for someone to be a great teacher or coach, they must be able, or have been able to do what they are teaching someone else to do?  Barry Bonds hit 72 home runs, yet his hitting coach in San Francisco never had nor ever will hit that many in a season.  I'm not seeing the logic here.


----------



## Jeko

> What makes your method any better than mine?



It's not a method; it's, IMO, thinking about it the wrong way round. It's what will cause more unrealistic dialogue rather than avoid it.

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but you echoed in your post a mindset that I refuse:

I am writing dialogue --> therefore --> my characters are talking.

As opposed to:

My characters are talking --> therefore --> I am writing dialogue.

I will leave it at that. If you understand what I mean - you don't have to agree with it - then you'll understand why I can't agree with trimming your story to adhere to visual standards.


----------



## Lewdog

Cadence said:


> It's not a method; it's, IMO, thinking about it the wrong way round. It's what will cause more unrealistic dialogue rather than avoid it.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's your intention, but you echoed in your post a mindset that I refuse:
> 
> I am writing dialogue --> therefore --> my characters are talking.
> 
> As opposed to:
> 
> My characters are talking --> therefore --> I am writing dialogue.
> 
> I will leave it at that. If you understand what I mean - you don't have to agree with it - then you'll understand why I can't agree with trimming your story to adhere to visual standards.




Anything you write is going to work best when it comes natural.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> I am not familiar with who 'the author' is. It can't be any of the famous writers who do the exact opposite of what you've said.



Who are you talking about?  Most big selling authors don't do what you espouse.  Remember, I checked already.



Cadence said:


> I'm not sure if it's your intention, but you echoed in your post a mindset that I refuse:
> 
> I am writing dialogue --> therefore --> my characters are talking.
> 
> As opposed to:
> 
> My characters are talking --> therefore --> I am writing dialogue.



Characters don't exist in some magical dimension.  They are fabrications of our minds - artifacts of neurons firing in sequence.
We choose who are characters will be for a story, then, over the course of a story, we continue shaping them.


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> Who are you talking about?  Most big  selling authors don't do what you espouse.  Remember, I checked  already.



If when completed I saw that my novel had more  exposition than dialog, and I was actually concerned about what’s on the  current best seller list, I wouldn’t be a bit worried. Because some of  my favorite writers, John Irving, Margaret Atwood, Ian McEwan, who have  been on the best seller list multiple times, often write several pages  of narrative in a row with little to no dialog. 

For me that’s enough  evidence that there’s no good reason to do anything other than balance  the narrative and dialog in a way that best services the story, and that  I shouldn’t be concerned about having "plenty of jagged white space” as a  requirement for good writing or storytelling. And it looks like Stieg  Larsson didn't get the "jagged space" memo and it didn't prevent three  of his books from becoming best sellers.

Dialog and exposition  each serve a purpose. One is not better or more effective than the other, not in the hands of a talented, versatile writer anyway. And how much  might be needed of each depends entirely on the story and the author's  style. 

And I don't know for sure, but I also imagine my favorite authors  don't try to engineer success by adhering to pseudo-rules, or trying to emulate what's on the best  seller list, or writing to what they think is the most palatable to the  majority of readers. I know I'm not interested in doing that. But if  that's how you want to approach it, be my guest. And good luck.


----------



## Jeko

> Characters don't exist in some magical dimension. They are fabrications of our minds - artifacts of neurons firing in sequence.



I don't treat them as such. Yes, they _are _that, but if I want them to be like real people I will treat them like real people. The more I do, the more humble and honest I become as the author, and the better they actually become.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> I don't treat them as such. Yes, they _are _that, but if I want them to be like real people I will treat them like real people. The more I do, the more humble and honest I become as the author, and the better they actually become.



I'm a big believer in the trope that plot is the footprints left by characters.  So, since I usually know what my plot is going to be, roughly, before I start, I "interview" characters ahead of time to see if they are running in the right direction and if they will be able to run long enough.  Since the way we learn about characters is their dialogue, I select active (i.e. talkative) characters.  Readers aren't interested in wall flowers until the wall flowers make an effort to change.


----------



## Myers

Of course, you can also learn about characters from their behavior/actions, through back-story, inner thoughts etc. You’ve got a lot of tools at your disposal—not just dialog.

So a character who’s a loner or ant-social or in situations where’s he’s not always talking can’t be interesting?  And what about the part of the story before a character undergoes any kind of change? The character is uninteresting by default?


----------



## Sintalion

I always thought that Boo Radley was a fascinating character, despite having about five words of dialogue himself and being a recluse.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Myers said:


> Of course, you can also learn about characters from their behavior/actions, through back-story, inner thoughts etc. You’ve got a lot of tools at your disposal—not just dialog.



Personally, I believe that such characters are largely set pieces, not characters.  They are no different than the weather.



Myers said:


> what about the part of the story before a character undergoes any kind of change? The character is uninteresting by default?


It isn't the change, but the attempt to change that matters.  And, yes, a passive character who doesn't attempt to change isn't interesting.  OTOH, a character who doesn't change, but makes every effort to (such as in Death of a Salesman) can be very interesting.  Paradoxically, making a choice to not change is, itself, a form of change.  The character moves from "not making a choice to not change" to "making a choice to not change".


----------



## Jeko

> Since the way we learn about characters is their dialogue



So how do we learn about a mute character?


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> Personally, I believe that such characters are largely set pieces, not characters.  They are no different than the weather.



So if you reveal anything about a character other than through dialog, then somehow they're just set pieces? And I'm talking about _in addition_ to dialog, of course. 

So what you're saying is, what a character does, thinks, or what he's done in the past; everything you might reveal with narrative doesn't shape or say anything about the character. It's all about dialog. OK, then.




Justin Rocket said:


> It isn't the change, but the attempt to change that matters.  And, yes, a passive character who doesn't attempt to change isn't interesting.  OTOH, a character who doesn't change, but makes every effort to (such as in Death of a Salesman) can be very interesting.  Paradoxically, making a choice to not change is, itself, a form of change.  The character moves from "not making a choice to not change" to "making a choice to not change".



The problem is, you can be well into a story before a character changes, or tries to change or decides not to change. If he's uninteresting up to that point, you're in big trouble.


----------



## Myers

Cadence said:


> So how do we learn about a mute character?



Like Mr. Singer, a central character in  Carson McCullers' amazing novel, _The Heart is a Lonely Hunter._ He's a fully realized, unique, and sympathetic character. The heart of the novel, really. And he doesn't say a word.


----------



## Justin Rocket

The problem is that a character must interact with other characters.  They must be influenced by, and influence, other characters.  A mute character has dialogue, though that dialogue is in hand gestures.  A character whose only means of letting us know him is by what he thinks cannot interact with other characters (unless those other characters are psychic, in which case you've got dialogue).



> The problem is, you can be well into a story before a character changes, or tries to change or decides not to change. If he's uninteresting up to that point, you're in big trouble.




If you're well into a story before the character decides to change [or not], then you're in big trouble.  You've got a whole lot of nothing dramatic going on.


----------



## Myers

I have to say you have some interesting ideas about character development through dialog. Like how that's the always the best way to do it. Can’t say that I’ve ever actually seen that put into practice in anything I’ve ever read though. In the books I read, characters do things, they act and react, they have thoughts, and they have a history etc. You don't just learn about them by what they say. Kind of like real life. Maybe I need to broaden my reading horizons.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Myers said:


> I have to say you have some interesting ideas about character development through dialog. Like how that's the only way to do it. Can’t say that I’ve ever actually seen that put into practice in anything I’ve ever read though. Maybe I need to broaden my horizons.




The core idea is that character development occurs through relationships (how characters impact one another).  Dialogue is how relationships are portrayed in stories.


----------



## Myers

Justin Rocket said:


> The core idea is that character development occurs through relationships (how characters impact one another).  Dialogue is how relationships are portrayed in stories.



That's only one way character development occurs and that should go without  saying, it's so fundamental. 

The point is, there are other important and  useful ways to show character development and relationships for that  matter. Not sure what kind of books you read, but it's really hard to  read anything half-decently written and not see that, and it  would be hard to tell any kind of story and not use those tools; you'd  have to go out of your way not use them. My guess is, if you're a competent writer, you do develop characters in ways other than through dialog; and you just don't realize it.

P.S. Actually, all this should go without saying. Not sure why I'm spending my time trying to explain it.


----------



## Bad Craziness

Amateur or not, the dialogue going on between Justin Rocket and Myers is certainly entertaining!


----------



## Justin Rocket

Myers said:


> That's only one way character development occurs and that should go without  saying, it's so fundamental.
> 
> The point is, there are other important and  useful ways to show character development and relationships for that  matter. Not sure what kind of books you read, but it's really hard to  read anything half-decently written and not see that, and it  would be hard to tell any kind of story and not use those tools; you'd  have to go out of your way not use them. My guess is, if you're a competent writer, you do develop characters in ways other than through dialog; and you just don't realize it.
> 
> P.S. Actually, all this should go without saying. Not sure why I'm spending my time trying to explain it.



Write a story without dialogue.  Show me.


----------



## Myers

I’m stunned.  I have no idea how to respond to that. Now I’m going to have to rethink all of this.


----------



## popsprocket

Justin Rocket said:


> Write a story without dialogue.  Show me.



http://www.writingforums.com/fiction/135244-gods-mayhem-720-words.html

Too easy. Next?


Look. The point is that writing isn't a right/wrong dichotomy. Dialogue and exposition have as much place as one another. Arguing about it is completely pointless and beside the original question.


----------



## Justin Rocket

popsprocket said:


> http://www.writingforums.com/fiction/135244-gods-mayhem-720-words.html
> 
> Too easy. Next?
> 
> 
> Look. The point is that writing isn't a right/wrong dichotomy. Dialogue and exposition have as much place as one another. Arguing about it is completely pointless and beside the original question.




I don't think this is a story.  After all, it has no arc.


----------



## Myers

popsprocket said:


> Look. The point is that writing isn't a  right/wrong dichotomy. Dialogue and exposition have as much place as one  another. Arguing about it is completely pointless and beside the  original question.



I disagree with 1/3 of that. Sometimes people are just plain wrong. Not much point arguing about it though, I suppose.


----------



## Terry D

I'll reinforce what Pop said. This is crossing into debate territory and the forums do not allow debate.


----------



## Orchidia

I'm not sure if this point has already been made (I would gladly read through the thread, but the forum is so slow right now so I'm not going to). :livid:

To me, it doesn't really matter if an author chooses to use narration, exposition or dialogue to reveal character traits, as long as they use a mixture of the three. I think it's safe to say that all authors use different proportions of the three in their writing, but I think they all have an important part in developing a character so for example I wouldn't be too interested in reading a story with no dialog, but again, this is my personal preference. I guess the thing that bothers me the most is when I can tell that an author is just making the characters do/say something in order to try to get across some information. As long as it feels natural, I'm happy.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Orchidia said:


> I guess the thing that bothers me the most is when I can tell that an author is just making the characters do/say something in order to try to get across some information.



Yeah, I hate that!  The only place I think it works is when the story is an homage/spoof of Golden Age serials.


----------



## Jeko

> I guess the thing that bothers me the most is when I can tell that an author is just making the characters do/say something in order to try to get across some information.



I too hate that. Similarly, when an author writes a section in a certain way (using certain narrative modes) merely for convention and it shows, that kills my connection to the narrator. I always ask 'why' when I come across something that strikes me, and if the only reason 'why' it was written that way is because the author wanted their work to look like everyone else's, then I'm more likely to carry out the ceremonial removing of the bookmark.

I was reading The Great Gatsby the other day. The initial, present-tense depiction of the party is a fantastic example of how to immerse the reader without any direct speech. At the same time the following conversations that explore the mysteries of Gatsby and his extravagance are exceptionally well-crafted, perfectly natural and enthralling to dwell on.


----------

