Using too much dialogue?
I'm working on a novel of my own and, looking back at the bits of it I have so far brought into light, that almost everything in it is dialogue. Is this a bad thing? How could I fix this if it is?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/45284. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
First Drafts, Writing and Rewriting
This is your first draft, right?
Your process could be that you produce a lot of dialog.
You can fix that when you edit the text.
To quote Hemingway (or Arnold Samuelson?): "The first draft of anything is shit."
Go back (now or once the first draft is done) and look at your scenes. Do you see things (character action, setting, etc) that are not on paper? Then add that.
Imagine what your first-time reader will see in their head (or won't see) when they read your text and edit to make that image what you like it to be.
As long as your final version of the text has a good mix of dialog, internal emotion, description, action, etc, it does not matter what the text looks like right now!
After all, writing is rewriting (also a quote from someone or several someones...)
(Case in point: click the "edited" link in the center of the footer of this answer to see my edits... or click that link on any other edited answer on Writing.SE. I'm pretty sure you'll find that the answers improve with each edit.)
Conflict
So what does that good mix in a scene look like then?
You have several good answers here already (avoid talking-heads, center the scene in a room with things and people, paint a picture, etc), but I'd like to add that dialog, as well as a whole scene should have conflict.
You get conflict by having characters with opposite or incompatible goals.
If you find yourself writing a scene where all the characters have the same goals, consider putting the whole thing in a sequel instead of a scene, if it's important enough to not warrant being cut completely.
Subtext
Dialog is also special in that it can (should!) have subtext.
It can, in contrary to many other parts of a text, have the characters say one thing and mean another.
Good dialog has a surface level containing what is said and done, and a sub-level where something else is going on, something that can change the meaning of the surface level or enhance it.
In order to show the dialog has a double meaning, you need more than just the words. Goals and internal emotion are most often used, but facial expressions, body tension, and action can also show something else is going on.
If one of two passionate-talking lovers is backing away there's something up with the "passion."
Not using subtext in dialog is wasting an opportunity to make the scene do double duty.
Obviously, this means that much dialog along the line...
"Let's go to a movie."
"Yeah! Let's!"
...could easily be placed in a sequel ("They went to see Endgame.") unless the subtext is along the line of...
"Let's go make out in the darkness!"
"I'm famished and would love to be near your juicy, blood-filled neck in a dark room!"
...hinting at conflict due to pretty incompatible goals...
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45290. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It is hard to overdo good dialogue; but not all dialogue is written well.
Too often a great deal of dialogue is a one-sided speech about how the author feels; it sounds preachy and unrealistic, because other than actual speeches by politicians and other leaders (e.g. preachers in church), we encounter few "casual" speeches where one person is allowed to hold forth for several minutes. It doesn't sound natural. And no matter what speech is given, even by a character that IS a leader, it is probably preaching some message the author wants to get out.
Dialogue should be treated as a form of action. The setting should be fully visualized, the characters should be doing something as they talk. "Talking Heads" should be avoided, where the reader quickly gets a sense that the "back and forth" occurs in a vacuum with nothing else going on. Between lines we need visual clues, even minor actions of what characters are doing, the expressions they make, the thoughts they have and emotions they feel which they don't express.
Characters should ask questions to clarify something, they should disagree and refuse to concede their own point, or go off on a tangent because they were reminded of something similar. They should not be passive, if you find yourself tempted to write a character saying "Go on," or "Tell me more," your dialogue sucks. (Some exceptions, a psychiatrist might say that to a patient, or a girlfriend to another girl after some revelatory statement:
Susan said, "Okay. I went out with Josh last night."
Cheryl was dumbfounded. She waited for Susan to say something else, but she didn't. "Go on!"
Susan laughed. "Well ... Not disappointed!"
Avoid talking heads, avoid passive participants, avoid speechifying, avoid predictability, it is boring. Find tangents and disagreements, don't be afraid to write dialogue that ends in a stalemate. Dialogue should have conflict. That is what keeps the reader reading; they want to see how it turns out. The dialogue should matter to what happens next. Even if Josh is declaring his love for Susan, the reader should see Josh is taking a risk and Susan may not reciprocate; they should be waiting to see what Susan says or does, or how she feels, or what Josh is feeling in the interim. (So what happens before the dialogue matters here, too.)
The length doesn't determine whether the dialogue is good writing or bad writing. Good writing is interesting and fun to read, it has unexpected moments (but they make sense). A long dialogue can accomplish that. Bad writing is boring and predictable and doesn't seem to matter to what happens next. A long dialogue can be that instead.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads