Writing: how the hell do I not use so much dialogue?

I write off and on, mostly little blurbs that pass for poems, every once and a while I write a short story, and once I wrote an entire novel.

Recently I have been struck with another story of novel length (that is, long as a novel, it isn’t novel that it is as long as it will be :p). However, when I sit down to write it I often find that the story consists, almost entirely, of dialoge. In fact, it is almost as if I am writing a script instead of a novel.

And yet, every time I try to insert details about the scene I picture in my head into the written word the whole thing suddenly feels very, very dry.

Now, understand, I love to read, and the authors I generally read do not rely so heavily on dialogue, so where does this trend come from and how can I remove it? Perhaps this isn’t really the forum for such a question, but I know there are quite a few authors out there and I assume many are fiction writers apart from non-fiction.

Is it dry because I already picture the scene in my head, so all renderings of the scene feel superfluous? Or is it that I really am writing dryly? sigh It is so very hard to critique one’s own work because you know exactly what you are trying to say, and you either succeed to your satisfaction or you don’t; I have a very hard time thinking outside of my own perception of myself.

Does anyone else encounter these problems?

Apart from that, what really sets authors apart? Some books I have read do feel very dry, and scene-setting actually serves to remove mys suspension of disbelief. Koontz is one author that comes to mind… his setting of the scene often seems more like a “Ok, here’s where we are. Now, back to the action!” but I have a hard time actually distinguishing this from, say, the majority of Stephen King’s work where the scene setting just, well, happens anyway (add Barker onto that list, too).

Some writers just prefer dialogue. Samuel R. Delany wrote a story – “Cage of Brass” – almost entirely in dialog, with just a paragraph of description at the beginning and repeated at the end. A lot of Isaac Asimov’s short stories consist of long conversations, and Gregory MacDonald’s “Fletch*” series was also the same way.

If it works for you, use just dialog. You will need description here and there, but if most of your book is dialog, so be it.

As far as being “dry,” that is more a function of how you write the dialog. The characters need to show some personality while talking. Give them little things to do and it will improve, and have them show their emotions and it will work out fine.

And, if all else fails, you can write plays instead of novels. :slight_smile:

*Not to be confused with the Chevy Chase movies, some of the worst and most pointless novel adaptations ever.

Well, this is the right forum, so you can put those fears at ease. :slight_smile:

As for the trouble you have writing the more expository text, well, that’s an issue you have to resolve with your inner voice. Just write your story in a way that feels natural, otherwise you’re going to be stumbling all over yourself all story long.

Really, there’s nothing wrong with a “dry” style as long as you’re consistent. A lot of writers are dry, especially some of the Western European classics (and, so I’ve heard, Robert Jordan) where a single bridge will get 12 pages worth of description. It’s not for everyone - as a reader or a writer - but it’s not as if the writing police are going to drag you out back and have you beaten either.

My approach is to find a writer with a narrative tone that’s similar to mine - Neil Gaiman and Neal Stephenson are the guys I use - then read a bit of their stuff before I start writing. I find that it helps condition my mind to thinking in the right tone and cadence and, incidentally, clears my head of its usual day to day detritus.

Of course, that’s just me. :slight_smile:

This is Cafe Society[sup]tm[/sup], so feel free to post one of your “dry” paragraphs and we’ll let you know how non-bad it is, alright?

Well, for kicks I will put in a bit of what I feel is representative of my mostly-dialogue style. Understand that I don’t name my characters right off the bat, so we have “WW” and “XX” as name-holders right now, which may seem a bit clunky but I find that I know my characters better if I don’t set names until the end. Though I may think I know a character well enough to have a name, as I write I usually find that the character does things I never expected and so, in the end, I take a holistic look at the character and name it from there.

Ok, here goes…

Now, notice that there is absolutely no scene-setting. there is some implied, of course, because they are in different rooms (WW is talking from the kitchen to XX who is in the presumed living room) and so some rudamentary structure is implied, but whenever I attempt to explicitely set the scene I feel it really detracts from the characters.

A fellow amateur’s opinion - what you wrote was pretty good, actually. It’s good to imply everything, like you did - being explicit is a no-no if you want to avoid dryness, but it has it’s uses - it provides a nice way to express coldness or impersonality in certain situations. I call it the ‘zoom out effect’ - I get the mental image of a camera zooming out from the focus when I read it in effect.

Eh, seems fine to me. If you want to say something about the characters/story/world/etc. by describing their surroundings, then I’m sure you will. If generic surroundings will do, then I see no real reason to go out of your way to describe it.

In Will Shetterly’s first novel, whenever he got stuck he switched between having the hero kill something and have sex. Kept the dialog down and the readers interested.

Well, thanks for the approval. When I read it here on the board it is somehow a little more detached and it does seem a little better than when I’m reading it in my editor, moments after writing it.

Does anyone feel that it is me talking to myself? I know it is hard to analyze two characters from such a short piece, but #2 thing I am always paranoid about in dialogue is talking to myself. My last novel suffered terribly from it :frowning: :stuck_out_tongue:

Also… does the conversation seem… er, well, unnatural? I try to write dialogue like people I know talk (without trying to base characters on real life people), but people I know aren’t like most people, and I am not like most people(yeah, we’re just like everyone else, unique!). I really do discuss black market economics and video games in the same sentence, so it isn’t unrealistic per se, but is it implausible? Did anyone reading that get a feeling like the conversation was forced in some way?

I am usually very happy with what I write (I also had something in teemings a bit ago that I was hoping to get an email on at least!) but I am also excessively paranoid about it. This is one of the few places where I feel I could get some strong criticism (mom doesn’t always count!) that could only help me.

erislover, I wouldn’t fret too much about including too much or too little description relative to dialogue. The physical scene which is implied is sufficient – because the specific details of the house/apartment don’t seem relevant to this scene – and the description of activity gives us a sense of character: one is capable of carrying on a conversation while playing a video game (and I can’t stand it when people do that to me!) and the other is going through the ritual of making tea. So I can understand why adding more description to this passage would feel superfluous, forced, dry: it would only add description for its own sake. You’ve got good instincts.

Because your fiction is set in the contemporary world, you don’t need to include much description of that world; you can depend on the reader’s familiarity with it to flesh out the picture in his/her imagination. Only when your setting might be unfamiliar to most readers, or has a direct bearing on the plot or character development, would a more detailed description be needed.

Writers of fantasy and sci-fi often include more descriptive passages because the setting is largely invented, but even then the descriptions can be limited only to what’s needed to make it believable. Karl Schroeder called this concept the “backless maiden” in his essay on fantasy and sci-fi world-building; unfortunately this essay is no longer available on-line. The reader is given enough to co-opt his/her imagination into making the scene realistic, but is never allowed to notice that the picture offered is, of necessity, incomplete i.e. the maiden does not turn around, the camera never pans outside of the set.

Schroeder applied this concept to sci-fi settings, but the general sense of it applies to any fictional setting which might be unfamiliar to the target audience. So long as the reader can imagine a believable scene in a way which doesn’t directly contradict the author’s intention, then the description is sufficient.

No, I don’t feel that it is you talking to yourself. One character is totally brooding on the subject, and the other doesn’t seem particularly concerned with it. Unless you only half-listen when talking to yourself, then I think you’re doing OK! :wink:

The conversation didn’t feel forced either, but I am assuming that this is an excerpt from a longer passage, so that the discussion flows out of what came before.

If you want an example of a writer talking to himself (IMHO), go see the movie Waking Life.

I had no problem with your setting. I could easily see what was happening in my head. You just had a couple of clunky spots. Your dialogue is well done also. It may not be necessary to describe the color of the cabinets or the texture of the sofa that XX is sitting on. But should it be, I’ve added a couple of suggestions.

My suggestions for your narrative: (feel free to disregard at will)

**

[non-description version]

WW put the daily paper down. “I just don’t get it.” He stood and sauntered over to the refrigerator.

XX didn’t look away from the television screen. “I’m not sure I understand what there is to ‘get.’” He was playing a video game, and the general case of a video game required one’s full visual attention. Generally meaning, of course, “disregarding specifics,” as is the customary use of the word.

[description version]

WW put the daily paper down on the coffee table. “I just don’t get it.” He stood and sauntered over to the refrigerator.

XX shifted on the ratty blue couch but didn’t look away from the television screen. “I’m not sure I understand what there is to ‘get.’” He was playing a video game, and the general case of a video game required one’s full visual attention. Generally meaning, of course, “disregarding specifics,” as is the customary use of the word.
**

[non-description version]

“Well, I am not sure how we feel that a ‘War on Terrorism’ is somehow not an ideological war.” WW rifled through the foodstuffs inside the fridge. “Christ, are we out of beer? I swear to god that beer is a clear case of market failure, but toward the side of the purchaser, not the seller. Fucking shit should cost hundreds of dollars a bottle the way I demand it.” He shook his head. “Want some tea?”

[description version]

“Well, I am not sure how we feel that a ‘War on Terrorism’ is somehow not an ideological war.” WW rifled through the foodstuffs inside the fridge and tossed a moldy hunk of cheese in the paper trash bag below the sink. “Christ, are we out of beer? I swear to god that beer is a clear case of market failure, but toward the side of the purchaser, not the seller. Fucking shit should cost hundreds of dollars a bottle the way I demand it.” He shook his head. “Want some tea?”
Notice that I didn’t add a lot of description either? I’m sure you could add more, but I’m with your philosophy of less description, more action/dialogue. Really, I think that if you keep your characters doing something while they talk, the description will be implied. Anyway, good luck. What you wrote was very interesting.

Mmm, moldy cheese and ratty couch. :stuck_out_tongue: Amazing that such little things can really set the tone and describe even the characters.

But, alas, my WW character is a bit of a pedant and so that won’t go over well. :slight_smile:

Ack! Tense change noted. I am really bad about that.

But yeah, mentioning sci-fi/fantasy settings is something I hadn’t really thought about. Because it isn’t a reasonable facsimile of our world more setting would be necessary. Thanks, all. Back to typing!

Pry the quotation mark off your keyboard. Now you CAN’T write dialogue. Ha.
I had this problem with short stories. I found it almost impossible to begin a story except halfway through a conversation.

“What?” muttered Dr N’Go, “Take two bottles into the shower?”

and so forth. I just practised a few radically different styles till I got used to them. I really like starting my stories out of nowhere, though. Stuff the plot, start at the most evocatively drizzly sci-fi beach scene you can imagine.

A common misperception about screenplay writing, but that is neither here nor there.

I am reminded of the bit from the movie Amadeaus where the King (or whatever he was) proclaimed that there were “too many notes” and Amadeaus of course objected that there was just exactly the right number of notes. Dialogue is fine, as long as it isn’t purely exposition. And of course it should move the story along (not every line, but the conversation).

The current draft of my novel consists entirely of dialogue. Well, that deserves some qualification: it consists entirely of e-mails and chat transcripts between two persons. But that’s it. Not one scrap of narration (unless you count the last two lines of each chat transcript, which give the time they logged off :)).

In all my prose writing in the past I’ve been told that dialogue was a particular strength of mine, so I decided to go with that strength. It was surprisingly frustrating, and several of the people who’ve read the novel so far have found it a little off-putting to have so little narrative info to go on. A common complaint has been “I don’t know what these characters look like.” Frankly, my reply to that is, “So what?” but I haven’t completely given up on the idea of interfiling some more traditionally-told chapters with those already in place. But, I think the valuable lesson for the OP might be to put your work in the hands of someone who can give you a more objective opinion of it.

Another help might be to look seriously at the writing you admire and see how those writers handle the balance.

I think, because your setting is pretty much any place, today, you don’t have too much dialogue. You’ve given you characters something to do while having this conversation so it flows quite well. I often suffer the same fear when writing dialogue – I think all my characters sound like me. Perhaps this is just insecurity, because I think your two characters in the example below are very clearly delinated as two different people. And, of course, not knowing you, I have no idea if they both sound just like you.

Having said that, here’s a couple thoughts I had while reading your sample:

I’m not sure what this sentence means, what it refers to or why its in there. I think it’s useless as it doesn’t do anything to move the story along.

This person does NOT sound like a tea drinker to me. If he’s out of beer, I’d say he’d go for iced tea or soda. Or liquor. But tea? Seems out of character to me.

What’s this about squares? I’m not sure what this is doing in there either.

I realize this is a sample. Does the reader know, from somewhere else in the piece, what the character wants? Are you beginning to build suspense with this comment? What “random pieces” is the character referring to?

Now here, I think there’s a bit too much detail. It’s good, because you show the character to be a creature of habit and ritual, who might just be a tad anal retentive. But this goes on and on a bit much for me.

Overall, I think this is a pretty good work in progress. Let us know when its finished so we can really tear it apart… I mean, so we can offer more critique! :wink:

LOL, the blurb I gave is the very, very beginning of the story. Whatever isn’t picked up on the dialogue is not able to be grasped from anything earlier.

As far as the “generally” quote goes, understand that this is actually going to be some sort of philosophical dissertation in four sections: Semantics, Morals, something about groups, and finally politics (haven’t quite outlined anything further than the first two sections yet and the general premise of the story:)). As such, much of this first section—between thoughts, dialogue, subtle (hopefully!) dissertation, and journal entries—is going to focus on quirks in communication, and attempting to struggle through the thing we call language.

It will by no means be complete, but it should be the running theme for the section. I chose semantics first largely because I feel they should be first, and also because it serves as a nice map for introducing and defining the characters.

Of course generally means “disregarding specifics.” Generally, anyway :wink:

Well, I tossed myself in there. All I really drink are brewed beverages, be that coffee, beer, or tea :slight_smile: Oh, and Dr Pepper, which is—I believe—brewed from the loins of Gods and Goddesses. Somewhere. But, the character isn’t really based off me so I can see that iced tea might actually be more appropriate.

Just part of the game he is playing. In this case, Tetris, but the distinction isn’t that important (I didn’t think).

Ross, you will be punished for that. :slight_smile:

Knead, unfortunately there is no writing that I really admire except, possibly, for pure dissertation. Some people can write about facts and figures in the most eloquent way… as far as fiction goes, I have never really stopped to notice anything peculiar or particular about the authors I read. They function well enough, and get the story across, and I don’t think I’ve ever really sat down to think about it. Fear of losing the mystery? I don’t know… I am avoiding programming games for a similar motivation. I am afraid that once i see the indian in the picture I won’t be able to unsee him, you know?

Tretiak, “And of course it should move the story along (not every line, but the conversation).” Yeah, but that seems to me to be a much finer line than it sounds like. Many of my short stories suffer from a very rushed feeling.

I have the exact opposite problem as ur Eris (except I’m not a professional writer.) I find that whenever I write something it might have 2 - 3 lines of dialouge per page, if that. The reason I’ve found is that I tend to write about things on a grander scale than just a few people (think the non-Joad chapters of The Grapes of Wrath.) I don’t know enough about your book to know if you can make this work for you, but I tend to over focus on actions more than dialouge. So maybe a bit more description in terms of who’s doing what is what’s in order.

But, IANAProWriter.

First and foremost, erislover, let me say that I have nothing but respect for the mystery of any craft. I would not love music, baseball, or sleight of hand nearly so much as I do if I did not recognize that each has a special mystery to it that I will never comprehend.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t enjoy any of them at all if the people who practice these mysterious arts had held their mystery in such reverence that they could not master their endeavors.

I guess what I’m saying is, the mystery of any art is something you have to be willing to pull back the curtain on if you’re interested in producing that art. A musician who has too much reverence for the mystery of a well-executed arpeggio, a ball player who has too much reverence for the mystery of the hit-and-run, and a prestidigitator who has too much reverence for the mystery of the cup and balls … these are people who better be blessed with heaven-sent skills, instincts, and abilities, for they are never going to succeed at their crafts through the sweat of their own brows.

I’m not saying that a writer shouldn’t be able to revel in the magic of writing. I’m just saying that while he’s writing, he should always know which keys are under his fingers, which bases have men on them, and which hand the ball is in. But what do I know? Ask me again when I’m published. :smiley:

<nitpick> Dr. Pepper is brewed between the loins of Goddesses</nitpick>
:smiley:
So, eris, I liked it. Are you published? Where can I read more?