Loquacity or Reticence: A Dialogue Discussion

[I'm Murrin]

Shamelessly distracting myself from NaNoWriMo (I'm having terrible trouble regaining interest in my story; I also suspect that attempting to continue from the point I am at right now will cause me to completely ruin the idea, which requires serious thought before I can move it onward - but that's all beside the point) I began writing something new today. While I was thinking through aspects of this new story, I got to thinking about the use of dialogue. The way I'm currently perceiving this new piece doesn't seem to invlove any dialogue: I just can't dialogue fitting in with the main thrust of the piece, and I feel that as long as it remains a short story (or, at a push, a novella), I could pull it off with my characters remaining entirely silent.

This came shortly after other thoughts on the subject; my NaNoWriMo piece, for instance, needs dialogue, and while at times I've found it fairly easy to produce, at other times it's been horribly difficult (note for example the chapter I wrote where almost all of the dialogue was horribly executed expositionary speech, even though I tried to avoid it).

It seems obvious that the length, type, and of course the style of your story determine how you use dialogue in fiction, but that isn't the full story; it's not so simple. Author preference is that biggest factor, and ability varies by large degrees. An author who is good at interpersonal exchanges between characters may favour the use of that content over the areas they are weak in; one with skill in eloquent locution might prefer to have their characters engage in sophisticated discussion involving the story's themes. Each has their own unique way of having their characters interact with the other personalities in their story.

So, I'm now wondering - how do the other writers here use dialogue in their writing? Are you flexible, adapting your style and usage to what is needed in the story, or do you have preferred styles and modes? Do your characters have conversations lasting whole chapters, or is a brief exchange enough? Do you write stories with no dialogue at all? Would a story composed entirely of dialogue ever work?
I feel there's a lot of interesting material on this subject, so please feel free to add your own thoughts on this integral (perhaps?) component of writing.

[Avatar]

I hate writing dialogue, but thankfully, since I pretty much exclusively write poetry, it's not an issue for me.

I'm very interested to see what others here have to say on this though, because I think that having it come off "naturally" is the most important, (and difficult) thing. As long as it "sounds natural" I don't think it matters how long it is, etc.

--A

[CovenantJr]

I struggle with dialogue and use it infrequently. In fact, one of my short pieces (the one Avatar liked, with the bloke killing the ship's captain) was, among other things, an exercise in dialogue-free prose. I described the content of verbal exchanges, but not the actual words.

[wayfriend]

IMO, dialog should be used to further the story. It's easy to fall into using it for other things: setting tone; establishing 'realism'; pointless dramatic effect; etc. I think that for this reason it is seldom 'realistic', and often cannot be. (For example, in real life, you almost never see two people conversing in such a way that each side consistently resists interrupting the other, like you see in a book. In a book, you never have conversations debase into silly off-topic digressions, like you do in RL.)

[I'm Murrin]

Of course. To try to precisely replicate real everday conversation, the dialogue would full of ums and ahs, repetitions and idiosyncrasies, and so incohesive, as to render it almost unreadable.

[CovenantJr]

I didn't have time to go into detail earlier, but I'll try to finish it off now.

I find natural dialogue very difficult, partly because of the problem Wayfriend and Murrin have described, and partly because it tends to hit one of two extremes: improbably plot advancement, or inanity. When I do incorporate dialogue, it's usually for the purpose of revealing something to one of the characters, though I must (at least, I must now - one of the lessons I learned from a Donaldson Q&A) have a reason for the speaker to reveal that information to that person. The opposite extreme is an attempt to avoid blatant exposition, but that just ends up being dialogue for its own sake, and that sits uneasily with me.

[lucimay]

Murrin writes,

So, I'm now wondering - how do the other writers here use dialogue in their writing? Are you flexible, adapting your style and usage to what is needed in the story, or do you have preferred styles and modes? Do your characters have conversations lasting whole chapters, or is a brief exchange enough? Do you write stories with no dialogue at all? Would a story composed entirely of dialogue ever work?

without having read the other contributions here, i think it's absolutely possible to write an entire story in dialogue. King's Dolores Claiborne is a monologue (broken with the scenes from past it's true) but a monologue nonetheless. but you've gotta be a helluvan entertaining writer to sustain a more or less booklength conversation.

having said that, i've never tried it. i don't really use dialogue, it either happens or it doesn't and sometimes it's long conversations and sometimes it's two or three lines, just a line sometimes...i dunno how, just occurs. i haven't ever planned one, you know, okay now so and so's gonna have to tell what's his face this and such, blah, blah, blah..like that. don't think i could.
that is to say, i don't intentionally generate what a character will say...i sort of just take dictation from them. weird, huh.
writing is a mystery to me.

[Avatar]

Funny, I was thinking of Dolores Claiborne when I read Cj's first post. I've laways been interested in the way that it was written, because essentially, you have to infer the content of other characters comments, (in the "real-time" scenes anyway).

So it's not quite a monologue either. There is dialogue, it's just very different. (I wonder if it was an experiment by King?) Of course, he doesn't sustain it for the whole book...all flashbacks have normal dialogue.

I can't say that I ever even noticed that the short piece Cj mentions was free of dialogue. What I liked about it was the way the killing happened. (Had to read back to see if I'd missed it. )

--A

[CovenantJr]

Bah, you and that death!

I'm pleased you didn't notice the absence of dialogue. That indicates to me that it worked perfectly well without it.

having said that, i've never tried it. i don't really use dialogue, it either happens or it doesn't and sometimes it's long conversations and sometimes it's two or three lines, just a line sometimes...i dunno how, just occurs. i haven't ever planned one, you know, okay now so and so's gonna have to tell what's his face this and such, blah, blah, blah..like that. don't think i could.
that is to say, i don't intentionally generate what a character will say...i sort of just take dictation from them. weird, huh.
writing is a mystery to me.

I have to agree. When dialogue does occur, it's the same as everything else - it just happens. But it's much less smooth and less inclined to work than the dialogue-free bits. I find it baffling when people sit and plan these things.

[Avatar]

I'm pleased you didn't notice the absence of dialogue. That indicates to me that it worked perfectly well without it.

It did indeed. Never would have occurred to me to describe it as the "piece without dialogue."

--A

[Ariadoss]

I love writing dialogue. If something my character says is grammatically incorrect I claim that it was intentional because that particular character is a nincompoop. Seriously though, I like witty dialogue or dialogue that ties into the narrative well. I try to write real dialogue to depict the level of intelligence, humor, or seriousness of a character. For example in a short story I wrote I had the last line of dialogue tie in directly to the title of the piece entitled the Price of Honor. "The price of honor may be great but your death will be my recompense."

[High Lord Tolkien]

I would just like to take the time to mention that I'm so stupid that based on it's title I don't even understand what this thread is about.
That's it.
Carry on.

[I'm Murrin]

I admit it: I went to Thesaurus.com before posting this topic.

[Avatar]

Surely you didn't need to though? I might have gone for "Verbosity or Terseness" myself.

--A

[lucimay]

I would just like to take the time to mention that I'm so stupid that based on it's title I don't even understand what this thread is about.
That's it.
Carry on.


that guy cracks me up!


oo! Av! i love terse. great word. terse and surly.

[I'm Murrin]

Surely you didn't need to though? I might have gone for "Verbosity or Terseness" myself.

--A

Bad habit: If I come up with a difficult word to use, I immediately doubt my usage of it, and have to look it up.

[Avatar]

Should have faith in yourself man. Anyway, who's to say you can't use a word any way you choose?

--A

[I'm Murrin]

Oxford, apparently.

[Avatar]

Well, I did mean "within reason" but even so...

--A