[creatorofPreten]

Is there such a thing as too much conversation?


When I write I'm always concerned about having too much talking and not enough action.

What is the general rule here? Or is there one?

[Sparrow]

Is there such a thing as too much conversation?


When I write I'm always concerned about having too much talking and not enough action.

What is the general rule here? Or is there one?



There is no rule.

You should read just about any of Asimov's early work... too much dialogue is never enough.. ;)

[Jon Sprunk]

Nope, there is no rule. Some readers crave dialogue, other want more action, description, etc.... You can't please everyone so don't try. Write the story as you see it (as only you can tell it).

Good luck.

[expatrie]

Long answer:
The rule of thumb is when the reader gets impatient for "something" to happen, it's too much.

It's tough to diagnose in your own work, but if you revise from first to second draft and try to cut 10% of the words in general, usually the dialogue tightens up.

Try to make dialogue sound like conversation, but a twist past tight, it's supposed to sound real without being real. Cut all the speech partitives, the hesitations, the repetitions, the "coffee's too hot," "how are you," and so on, unless it's there for effect. If they're evading the subject, technically it's tense dialogue. If it's there for humor, to cut the tension, something deliberate.

You really need sharp dialogue skills on a play or a screenplay, but you're trying to do a lot more there--dialogue has to carry the whole story, more or less. Fiction writing doesn't need to carry as much weight with dialogue, which can be an overcompensation to watch out for. You can just tell the reader information without dialogue, i.e. exposition.

But you want the dialogue to be a good spot, not more stuff the reader feels they have to slog through.

I've seen a lot of recommendations of Elmore Leonard for dialogue, but I haven't read his work.

[Stephen Palmer]

Well, there is one rule - that there are no rules. :D

[MrBF1V3]

I'm not much for general rules, but I would add: Don't stop the action for your characters to talk.

When I write I find a lot of the progress is in the interaction of the characters, thus, they talk. A lot of my shorter stories are all talk. Now when characters have long involved conversations about the price of tea on the Moon, I may be boring my readers and it's time to move on. Through your characters words and reactions to can add a lot of emotive description to your story, use their conversation.

...although, I think it's over the top when one of my characters says, "Look, a precipice.."

B5

[Hereford Eye]

Am a fan of good dialogue, even when it's inner directed, e.g., Cyranno composing poetry as he dispatches another evil villain. Without the poetry, it's just another knife fight.

[Sparrow]

Am a fan of good dialogue, even when it's inner directed, e.g., Cyranno composing poetry as he dispatches another evil villain. Without the poetry, it's just another knife fight.

Exactly.
As with Asimov he is telling the story through the dialogue; which by the way, is how real life works. When was the last time you walked into a strange tavern and then from out of nowhere a narrator begins discribing the scene for you. In the end it's very tricky and I know many who simply can't stand the way Asimov writes.

[expatrie]

When was the last time you walked into a strange tavern and then from out of nowhere a narrator begins describing the scene for you.

You mean you don't? All the rest of us do. I mean, I get that all the time. Maybe you have a glandular problem. Have you talked to a doctor?

Well, okay, not exactly that. By which I mean I don't walk into strange taverns, so having a narrator describe a strange tavern hasn't happened yet.

Seriously, though, narrators are a fictive device. If you don't like them, you don't have to use them for much, but they're there. Have you ever noticed that a movie almost never takes a point of view? Not counting Blair Witch Project. There's nobody "seeing" the movie, it's just a camera there, floating in space, inexplicably surviving all the gunfire, explosions, yelling, tomato throwing, lame jokes and so on. And yet. Cameras are not "reality" either. Try making a movie without one, though.

Narrators, like dialogue or any other fictive device, have their uses and abuses. And I'd much rather hear a narrator do description or exposition than wade through fifty pages of dialogue covering description "Oh, look, a potted plant. Shall we touch it. Yes, let's. Oooh, it's silky smooth."

Very few books carry across on pure dialogue or stream-of-consciousness or interior monologue alone, and no setting (which is description, which is I suppose arguably evidence for the existence of a narrator, however low-key he is.) Try Vox by Nicholson Baker. No description there. I think Checkpoint (while I found it awful) also has no description/setting.

Not to like, pound anyone over the head.

[Laer Carroll]

Yes, of course. You can have too much dialog, or anything else. And it can be done well or ill.