# Is there really such thing as to much dialog?



## Phoenix Raven (Feb 8, 2014)

I know I'm still new to the forum, but I read a few comments that others made on peoples work that have been posted in some threads.
There were a few that had commented on various works about there being to much dialog.

This concerns me because the novel I'm working on has a great amount of dialog in it. I'm new to writing on this great a scale, but did some research on the topic before I started. From what I have read there is no such thing as to much dialog, only unnecessary dialog. Two very different things. As long as you don't have two characters having a meaningless talk about the weather for ten pages it's okay.
If the dialog carries the plot and the story then how can it be to much?

Feel free to weigh in. I thought this would be a good topic for the Writing Discussion thread. Plus I want to know if I'm completely wrong in my hypothesis about dialog.

Again I'm new to the forum, I hope I'm posting this in the correct place, If not please contact me and let me know where the correct place would be. Thank you.


----------



## popsprocket (Feb 8, 2014)

Have a look here: http://www.writingforums.com/threads/144101-Can-you-have-too-much-dialogue?highlight=too+much+dialog

The answer is yes there can be too much dialogue, even if it is contributing to the story somehow. Some things are simply told better through exposition, just as some things are simply told better through dialogue.

One of the real issues with dialogue is that there are limits to what a person would conceivably say out loud. If you lean too heavily on dialogue then the characters may become tools for dumping exposition or simply sound ridiculous.


----------



## bookmasta (Feb 9, 2014)

Like Popsprocket said, too much dialogue can distract from the story and actually turn out to be a negative. The balance can vary from story to story depending on the number of characters, what's going on in the scene, and so forth. Compressing dialogue may help since it is abridged and can sound more realistic. Try to cut anything that might be a throw away line or non essential. Say what needs to be said. Anymore than that, like trying to make the dialogue into an average conversation and it can become mundane. Also, if you read most books, you should be able to open to a random page and reading a line of dialogue, tell who's talking based on the style as it would match to the voice of said character. So try to give each of your characters a 'unique' by giving them each a different style.


----------



## Phoenix Raven (Feb 9, 2014)

Oh yeah, I wouldn't use dialog for nonsense. I can sum that up in 1 line prose like. 
Jack and Jill talked for two hours about the weather and flight speed of an unladen swallow.
I only keep dialog that helps the story, or maybe that adds a little humor.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 9, 2014)

There is. But only if it's not well written or useful.


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 9, 2014)

You must be careful not to use dialogue to convey information to the reader. Dialogue should be used only to further the plot for the characters. Readers are not stupid and will spot any instance where dialogue has been used by the author to communicate directly with them. Dialogue is for the characters to communicate with each other, not for the author to communicate with the reader.


----------



## j.w.olson (Feb 9, 2014)

Few people would say that Shakespeare's plays have too much dialogue, and aside from the occasional monologue, it's all they have.

When I've told people here on the forums that they have too much dialogue, it MIGHT mean that they have boring unnecessary dialogue but it's more likely to mean that they've got great dialogue but forgot to make it clear that the characters live in a physical world which they interact with.

Say they have an awesomely written ten page conversation about clues in a murder, and it's a crucial scene to the story. Sure. But don't let it happen in a void. Is the conversation happening in a seedy bar with the clinking of glasses and people playing pool in the background and the smell of smoke in the air? Then let us know that, AND put beats of minor things happening throughout the conversation so that we have a clear sense of the physical reality that frames the conversation. Or interrupt it with bits of action and physical movement from time to time.

Shakespeare doesn't do that, of course, but he breaks a lot of rules, and I suppose drama is different than prose.


----------



## Phoenix Raven (Feb 9, 2014)

Ahhhh. Yes I do my best to keep the reader informed of the setting in which dialog takes place, I'll even add some actions that are taking place as the characters are talking, Because rarely do people ever talk without fidgeting, moving or drinking something or other. I would write stuff like this.

"I'm disgusted Betty, I can't believe your accusing me of eating the last piece of chocolate pie." Andy said as he wiped his mouth of any incriminating chocolate cream.


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 9, 2014)

Plays are different from novels. Plays rely on dialogue between characters. Novels don't have to.


----------



## Sam (Feb 9, 2014)

Yes. The same way you can have too much prose. One of the first pieces of advice I give to any aspiring author is that they aren't writing a film. A novel is a prose narrative, not a dialogue narrative, but you need both to make it work well. Finding the balance is the key. If you re-read and notice pages and pages of speech marks, you have too much dialogue.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 9, 2014)

It's not worth thinking about, IMO. No reader counts the number of utterances of speech, and there's no measure or line with which to know what to do with what you've got. If your story needs more prose, it needs more prose. If it needs more dialogue, it needs more dialogue. Neither of these are affected by quantitative information.

You can tell an entire story with dialogue, and an entire story without it. I have never, however, seen a whole novel attempt one or the other.


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 9, 2014)

I once read a quote that went: "Dialogue is like a rose bush, it needs pruning but you must be careful not to chop the flowers." 

Something like that anyway. I have found with my work that on edits I can always trim the dialogue.


----------



## qwertyportne (Feb 9, 2014)

My goal is to write stories that are more true for my readers than if the stories had really happended. Dialog, description and narration should work together to empower my reader's willingness to suspend disbelief. Dialog, description and narration are qualitative, not quantitative elements of good storytelling. So I'm reluctant to embrace any "too much" or "too little" advice ~ certainly never in any absolute way. Make it real. Bring your characters to life by letting your readers hear them speak in their voice, not yours. Write descriptions that show and tell, that give your readers sensory presence so they are participants, not spectators. Narrate your story so it moves forward, holds their attention ~ not sideways on long, boring detours around or away from what the story is about.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 10, 2014)

I already agreed with having action, dialogue, and description since I tend to write almost 90% dialogue just to give a rough idea but it is indeed lower. It's something someone commented on and I appreciated that. It's not  that hard to do. Sometimes I try to tie the personal history  of items in my house and that inspires me to write description. For example I can remember where they bought a sofa, a family portrait might give ideas because of the unusual faces and postures of the people in the picture. This helps me more to describe people mainly.

As for background description, I guess I have to rely on what I already know if outside the house.  A place I knew intimately. However maybe there is smarter advice on how to describe better. They say description is character and I agree.


----------



## Nimue (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm going to take a slightly more heretical approach:

It would appear many of the respondents feel that dialog consists of two talking heads, lots of quotation marks, and a bunch of words that read like a script.

I would counter that you can have a novel that is absolutely bursting with dialog, as long as you understand that dialog doesn't exist in a vacuum.  

What's happening around the dialog is at least as important as the dialog itself.  Just as in real life, most people aren't sitting and facing each other while having deep conversations, without anything else occurring.  The dialog can be rich, but it can be made even richer by the action around it.  If the dialog takes place while someone is bathing the dog, or cleaning a gun, or slowly unbuttoning a blouse, or trying to drive home in a frightening storm, the dialog itself will become much more powerful and the action will keep the novel moving forward.  Dialog can make a novel go faster, but it needs to have something giving it a direction.  Dialog can (and usually should) take place along with some action, or you will have a novel that's literally going nowhere, fast.  

Avoid the "Talking Head" Syndrome.  A novel shouldn't read like a newscast.  While the dialog itself is just what's on the surface, it gets its depth when we understand the full context of the world around it.  Read _The Hunger Games_ for an idea of how a novel can be loaded with dialog, all while taking place with considerable action.

That's my two cents.  Hope it helps.

Edited to add:  You can have sections that are just dialog, but these should be kept brief.  At some point, someone is going to need to actually _do_ something.  Of course, whatever that character actually does should contribute to the story.


----------



## garza (Jun 12, 2014)

I write a lot of flash fiction using bare two-person dialogue without speech tags. It's fun to try and create dialogue that allows the reader to 'see' the action and settings with no clues other than the spoken words. I've posted several such flash stories here, with varying degrees of success. A novel in all dialogue would be the ultimate challenge. 

My love for writing dialogue stems from a lifelong habit of paying close attention to the way people talk. I'm nearsighted and when very small paid much more attention to the way people sounded than to the way they looked. When I lived in Mississippi I could tell you not only what part of the state someone grew up in, but for the southeastern corner I could tell you which county. My son spent the first eight years of his life with his mother in Marion County. He's 48 years old now, and I can yet hear what I call the 'Red Bank Dialect' in his speech, though it's been softened by more than 25 years of marriage to a Cajun girl. Her accent is pure rural Vermillion Parish.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 13, 2014)

Dialogue can be literature in itself. There are many great writers whose genius stemmed from crafting powerful, poetic dialogue. Personally, I know that I'm not very good at dialogue, so I like to keep it to a minimum. If you have a talent for crafting dialogue, by all means, explore it to its fullest potential.


----------



## mannerisms (Jun 13, 2014)

If you are worried about too much dialogue you could always assume a first person narrator who is more distant, yet still involved, from the events taking place - a perfect example of this is the character of Death in Marcus Zusak's "The Book Thief". In this way you can say what the dialogue would reveal, but in a more descriptive and less obvious way. Of course, it is then up to you whether you want this narrator to be objective or subjective.


----------



## Clove (Jun 13, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It's not worth thinking about, IMO. No reader counts the number of utterances of speech, and there's no measure or line with which to know what to do with what you've got. If your story needs more prose, it needs more prose. If it needs more dialogue, it needs more dialogue. Neither of these are affected by quantitative information.
> 
> You can tell an entire story with dialogue, and an entire story without it. I have never, however, seen a whole novel attempt one or the other.



Phillip Roth's _Deception_ is written entirely in dialogue, and it is a very interesting read. Whilst it's not my favourite novel, one has to admire its audacity in a task which Roth accomplishes fairly well.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 13, 2014)

"Don't push the big red button!"

"Huh?"

What kind of story are you exploring? A deeply cynical pastiche based in theology? Does it have a narrator with VD? (Verbal diarrhoea). Is there tons of stuff the reader has to know? Or is it bullets whizzing by and a quick quip to stiffen the upper lip?

As a reader I need to know what the characters are like and dialogue is the shortest route to discovery. It is also useful when I step out to deceive a reader. 

There is the people. There is the story. There is the emotional engagement. There is a tone, a feeling of humour, tension, dread, anger. 

As a writer I don't want to tell a story, I want to paint word pictures, I want to pull a reader into my world. _You will be mine ha ha ha! _

"I said don't push the big red button."

"Oh. Do you mean this one?"

"Uh oh!"


----------



## garza (Jun 13, 2014)

The hope is that everyone will see how Bazz Cargo has defined two characters, set a scene, and let us use our imagination to see the action, all with a few lines of simple, barebones, untagged dialogue.

In trying to write fiction, my first love is dialogue. I ride in the back of the regular bus and listen to the everyday conversations of the people around me, then come home and make notes about what they said and how they said it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 14, 2014)

I write a lot of dialog and thinking. But if it's a part of the story that doesn't interest me, I just describe what happened. (sometime later turning into dialog)

I am more likely to break up my dialog with thoughts than actions. But finding the meaningful action is a lot more fun, maybe because that's not easy for me.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 14, 2014)

Hi G.Man,
I don't usually go off topic, but this sorta keeps with the OP. I have read a load of your stuff and have always been impressed by your skill with dialogue. You bring the story to life by making the characters real.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jun 14, 2014)

You could make the whole novel dialouge if its well written. You can do whatever you want if its well written.


----------



## garza (Jun 14, 2014)

Pidgeon84  - You have quoted the first rule of writing.

Bazz - Thank you for the kind words. Sometimes it doesn't work, but I personally believe the best way to describe a character is by hearing their words and writing down what they say.

EmmaSohan - You describe what you do '...if it's a part of the story that doesn't interest me...' and I must ask why you would write something that does not interest you? If you are not interested, you can be assured your reader will not be and will decide to close the book and find something else to read.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 14, 2014)

garza said:


> EmmaSohan - You describe what you do '...if it's a part of the story that doesn't interest me...' and I must ask why you would write something that does not interest you? If you are not interested, you can be assured your reader will not be and will decide to close the book and find something else to read.



Things need to get explained for the plot. For example, "The next day we go to the market and sell our silk. Ancestors, Casor and I know what we are doing. We know to let the women touch the silk. We can judge what price we can charge. And ancestors, Casor is not excited. And neither am I. Casor is more interested in finding merchants in Ssidon who want to buy wagons of silk. The second half of our task here is more interesting."

This is the third time they have gone to the market to sell silk. And yes, I can maybe do the same thing with dialogue. But then we are back to the basic advice not to use dialog just to communicate information.

But you might be right, when I rewrite something in dialogue, I am usually happy I did that.


----------



## garza (Jun 14, 2014)

Where did that advice come from never to use dialogue to convey information? All dialogue conveys information of one kind or another. Matter of fact, I don't know how to write dialogue that does not convey information, and I write a _lot_ of dialogue. 

In the example you give, I can hear three people talking about going to the market and making an everyday event sound interesting and exotic. To tell it in narrative form is boring. You'll need to develop three distinctive voices for the three characters.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 14, 2014)

I believe Emma is referring to exposition disguised as dialogue. I agree. That sort of thing doesn't interest me much either.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 15, 2014)

> exposition disguised as dialogue.


"Have you got the faintest idea of what he is on about?"

"No Sir, but I do have this Kalahari Tribesman who can explain where the toilet is."

"Oh great, another flipping explanation."

My personal preference is to keep blocks of exposition down to the absolute minimum and pass as much information via dialogue as I can. People ask questions, people need to talk about something. And it breaks up blocks of text that get scanned rather than read. Besides if I spread the data out through the relevant chapter I can use it to raise tension, develop character, mislead the reader, surprise the reader and make a funny.

The real question is, does my style of writing hold a reader's attention? The answer will be on a sliding scale rather than a fixed yes or no. Mostly, is what I'd be happy with.


----------



## garza (Jun 15, 2014)

That style would certainly hold my attention better than a block of exposition. In real life we learn most of what we need to know for everyday existence through listening to other people. It's why I ride in the back of the bus where the free-for-all conversations take place. They never pay attention to the gringo sitting there reading a book. They assume he can't understand Creole.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 15, 2014)

Hi garza. I am not sure we disagree on _anything_. I love dialogue and write books with a lot of dialogue. But I don't write all dialogue. Which means, yes, there can be too much dialogue.

While my MC is waiting for her wedding to start, there is 236 words of nondialogue, where she describes what she imagined for a husband. I could have done that as dialogue, by having her talk to a friend. But if the reaction of the friend is uninteresting, if they do not really interact and my MC is just presenting information, I think that's a misuse of dialogue.

I am painfully aware that I could be wrong and that I should probably sit down and write that discussion and maybe I would like it. (Well, in this particular case it wouldn't work. But I have had the experience of being forced to write dialog and finding I liked it a lot better than what I had.)

But that would still leave things like "We traveled for three days before reaching Ssidon," and "I tell the story of my realdream" (when the reader already has been told this story).


----------



## Jeko (Jun 15, 2014)

> Which means, yes, there can be too much dialogue.



Only if the writer uses it ineffectively. Speech is the most mimetic (showy) mode; some things don't work when they're so direct. But a writer can write a whole story without those things; hence, a writer can write a whole story with just dialogue, if he uses dialogue effectively.


----------



## aliveatnight (Jun 15, 2014)

I don't think it's about too much dialogue. This is a situation that should be applied in a quality vs quantity argument. The amount isn't going to matter if the dialogue has no point to it. Just write it out, and edit what is inappropriate. You should stress the value of it, and don't even worry about how much.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 15, 2014)

There is another aspect that ought to be added into the mix, internal monologues. The MC thinking things through. 

So to recap:
Dialogue.
Monologue. 
Narration.
Exposition.

Have I missed any?


----------



## garza (Jun 15, 2014)

One other characteristic I've discovered about my writing. I never go inside a characters' heads but only report what they say and do to show what they may be thinking. This was a discovery made recently in looking over some of my stories. So no monologues from any of my characters. I am the impartial, objective, observer, watching and listening, writing down what my characters do and say. We say in Belize that fish get caught by the mouth. So, too, do my characters.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Jun 15, 2014)

I've read quite a few stories. some have a lot of dialog, others don't rely on it so much. 

In some cases they are one and the same, like in first person writing.

Dialog:

"And then when the doors opened, we saw jack!"

1st person:

And then when the doors opened, they saw jack!

Even when we go third person there is very little difference:

When the doors opened, they all saw jack!


I'm going to say that it depends on how a writer presents the dialog. I typically write from third person and I like to explain information about an object or place if a character is alone. It just feels like a cliche anime when they just start talking to themselves. If there are 2 characters however, then one can be ignorant of the place/object and the other one can explain it to them with flavor. With dialog I don't think it's a question of too much or too little, but right and wrong.


----------



## voltigeur (Jun 15, 2014)

Ok I’ll play agitator here.  As I read this thread and looked at the examples provided my thought is an “info dump is an info dump”. One of the examples provided is a monolog which is nothing more than an info dump in quotations! How is that any different than a point in the story where the author needs to give the reader a paragraph or 2 of background so they understand the story, (info dump)? 

I have always thought that dialog meant an _exchange_ of ideas or points of view. 

The old TV show I think it was Marcus Welby MD, used to do this crap. Ranting on about how I should feel about an issue, or what I’m not smart enough to understand about an issue….(click!) {TV speak for; close the book and put it in the ½ Price Books box to be sold.}

At least a needed info dump is honest, and ok if it is not too long. Have a character preach at me? I’m done. 

Anyway my NSHO and food for thought. :wink:


----------



## garza (Jun 15, 2014)

That's not dialogue. Good dialogue moves the story along and defines characters. The goal of good dialogue is to catch and hold the reader's attention and show, not tell, what is happening.

What is NSHO?


----------



## voltigeur (Jun 15, 2014)

NSHO = Not So Humble Opinion. 

For me personally I have 3 goals, 1) Make the dialog sound natural. Make the reader feel as if he is "sitting at the table." with the characters. 
2) Provide information. If it is an opinion make it only the opinion of the character. 
3) Show the reader things about the character, how he or she moves, how they express thier personality.


----------



## garza (Jun 16, 2014)

Good. 

A way to learn how to achieve that, I believe, is to try writing stories that are pure dialogue. Create two similar, but not identical, characters, and by their speech alone allow the reader to know them and be able to tell them apart. Here's a little piece of a story told altogether in dialogue:

_Mike and Bernie

'The whole scene was, like, totally rad', said Mike.

'Stop doing that', said Bernie.

'Stop doing what?' 

'Trying to talk like a teenager. Half the time your expressions are past their ''best if used by'' date and the rest of the time your usage is wrong.'

'When we was kids you was the one used more slang than anybody.'

'It was the correct language for the time and place. Speaking of correct language, yours is not.'

'Not what?'

'Not correct, that's what.'

'So? You gonna flunk me, teach?'

'Act your age, Mike.'

'I'm not so old.'

'You're a year older than me. Your Social Security card was signed by Franklin Roosevelt.'_

By the end of the story the reader knows the background of both characters, knows the setting, and hopefully has been able to see two old guys sitting on a park bench and can easily tell which is which. If that can be achieved in a flash piece written in pure dialogue, then dialogue written for a story told in conventional form should keep and hold the reader's interest and move the plot along by showing, not telling, what is happening.

Anyroad, that's my theory of how to learn to write good dialogue.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 16, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> Ok I’ll play agitator here.  As I read this thread and looked at the examples provided my thought is an “info dump is an info dump”. One of the examples provided is a monolog which is nothing more than an info dump in quotations! How is that any different than a point in the story where the author needs to give the reader a paragraph or 2 of background so they understand the story, (info dump)?
> 
> I have always thought that dialog meant an _exchange_ of ideas or points of view.



It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. In my book, _Chase_, I utilize a conversation between three FBI agents to give the reader the background of the serial killer they are chasing. It is neither an info-dump, nor a monologue, and it doesn't take place in a vacuum (as the discussion progresses the POV character is also observing the goings-on at the current crime scene. In this way, the story is moving forward, the reader is getting backstory they need, and I have the opportunity to develop a newly introduced character. No preaching required.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 16, 2014)

Really, the only thing that bothers me are "As you know, Bob's..."

Example:

"As you know, Bob, last year you and I were both _blah, blah, blah.._."

That's all I mean when I refer to exposition disguised as dialogue.


----------



## Clove (Jun 16, 2014)

Here's the beginning of _Deception_, by Roth, which I mentioned earlier was written purely in dialogue. To my knowledge I have no idea what other novels do this so explicitly and in my mind with success. There are monologues however in the novel but that I think is unavoidable. 

'I'll write them down. You begin.'
'What's it called?'
'I don't know. What do we call it?'
'The Dreaming-About-Running-Away-Together-Questionnaire.'
'The Lovers-Dreaming-About-Running-Away-Together-Questionnaire.'
'The Middle-Aged-Lovers-Dreaming-About-Running-Away-Together-Questionnaire.'
'You're not middle-aged.'
'I certainly am.'
'You seem young to me.'
'Yes? Well, that shall certainly have to come up in the questionnaire. Everything to be answered by both applicants.'
'Begin.'
'What's the first thing that would get on your nerves about me?'
'When you are at your worst, what is your worst?'
'Are you really this lively? Do our energy levels correspond?'
'Are you a well-balanced and charming extrovert, or are you a neurotic recluse?'
'How long before you'd be attracted to another woman?'
'Or man.'
'You must never get older. Do you think the same about me? Do you think about this at all?'
'How many men or women do you have to have at one time?'
'How many children do you want to interfere with your life?'
'How orderly are you?'
'Are you entirely heterosexual?'
'Do you have any specific idea of what interests me about you? Be precise.'
'Do you tell lies? Have you lied to me already? Do you think lying is only normal, or are you against it?'

[and it goes on like this until the end of the section]

So, although this is dialogue, it's a very certain type as well which is as interesting, especially at the beginning, as it is alienating. And to me, I think that's what the key to dialogue is: not simply an imitation of the way people speak - because, let's face it, nobody writes as people truly speak because on the whole people speak hideously - but a stylised imitation, like a stretched mirror.


----------



## InspektorF (Jun 16, 2014)

Nimue said:


> I'm going to take a slightly more heretical approach:
> 
> It would appear many of the respondents feel that dialog consists of two talking heads, lots of quotation marks, and a bunch of words that read like a script.
> 
> ...



I agree. I think where some new writers go wrong is just having nothing but dialog in their story.  As you have pointed out, the characters need to actually do something eventually.


----------



## garza (Jun 16, 2014)

What Nimue says is true for finished product, but for me the best way to practise creating effective dialogue is with the two-person, 'talking heads' if you will, pure dialogue flash story of 500 to a thousand words. If characters can be clearly defined and understood through only the words they speak, then adding narrative provides a framework for the dialogue. 

I use two-person conversations for these exercises because three or more people almost always need speech tags and I want to be able to identify who is speaking without tags. In the example above I use speech tags on the first two lines, then rely, hopefully, on the two characters' words alone for identification. Many of my flash exercises use no tags, relying on the words spoken by the characters to show who they are, where they are, and what they are doing. A major achievement is keeping the dialogue sounding natural while describing setting and action. It can be done, but it's tricky and requires that one practise a great deal.


----------

