Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45287
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45287
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 22