Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48106
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48106
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Okay, first your example: In the middle of an **argument** it doesn't make sense for one person to stop and explain a lot of stuff, and for the other person to **stop and listen**. That is why your "succinctly, she told him why" doesn't work, the emotions of an argument are not conducive to _patience,_ or monologues of any length. Stopping to listen to the other person talk is a submissive act, and in an argument that means you've lost, regardless of the topic.

The more realistic response would be to just state "I'm sick of journalism, and I don't want to be your swooning admirer, either." Followed by ignoring (_why is she sick of journalism?_) and denial of the claim that he wants a swooning admirer, or counter-attack, or a claim she doesn't understand what is really going on, or retreat from the accusation, or accusation of a lie, etc. Battle!

Then later, when they are reconciled:

> "Are you really sick of journalism? Did you mean that?"
> 
> "Yeah, really," she said, and recounted her conversation with Bethany.

If it is NOT an argument, and the atmosphere is conducive to a lengthy explanation by one person and acceptance of the role of friendly listener (or at least tolerant listener) by the other, then you can summarize, because it fits, and the reader is already aware of the early conversation.

It doesn't have to be "succinct."

That said, you should still _review_ the conversation. If the original conversation was with Bethany, and the recounting is with Charles, then it is possible Bethany and Charles would think differently about our hero's claims, and what began the same would have turned out to be a _different_ conversation. So there may be points along the way when Charles interrupts to ask for questions or clarifications, because he's not Bethany, and doesn't know what she knows or agree with everything she does.

You can address some of these issues in the "recounting".

> ... and recounted her conversation with Bethany. When she got to the point about David, Charles interrupted her.
> 
> "What, David said that? I don't believe it."
> 
> "Try talking to him wearing a dress, Charles, with no men around."
> 
> "So he really said that?"
> 
> "I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I'm trying to explain something to you."
> 
> Charles compressed his lips. "Okay. Good to know. So you were trying to get his approval ..."
> 
> "Right," she said, and continued the story.

An interjection or two while one character recounts a story will (to me) make the conversation more realistic, few of us hear a long story from a friend without saying a single word. It proves Charles is engaged and listening, and can contribute to the change in HIS emotional state to however this conversation about "being sick of journalism" is supposed to change his attitude or future decisions and actions; in the bit I provided, his attitude towards David will likely change, this may even lead to a confrontation.

These interjections also give the illusion of time passing, which is missing from "recounted her conversation with Bethany." That took some time, obviously, and if we are working, walking, eating, cooking or doing anything else of limited duration, it will feel strange for the reader if that 15 minutes just vanishes. The waitress can bring food, or refill drinks. If they are walking they can wait for a light to change. If they are driving they can make a necessary turn. Or, the listener can ask a question, be prompted to remember something and mention it, take something the wrong way, etc.

Original score: 3