In my short story, the very beginning is almost all dialog. I know, I know, many of you are fainting dead away, but just hear me out. See, I am a big suspense person, and, well, the only way that I could figure out to add suspense to the very beginning was to NOT describe the people speaking. I've added to their dialog, and to their thoughts, so it somewhat describes their surroundings and what they are doing, but mainly, it's dialog. Is this ok? (The dialog ends fairly quickly, but to some pure talk and thought is a big turn-off)
Thanks!
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Since we're a rather "visual" culture, most readers like to "see" the story as they read it (that's one reason you hear talk of "show, don't tell" and so on).
If all you have is dialog, then all the reader is getting is what has been called "talking heads." (If they can visualize anything at all.)
What you may want to do to help the reader visualize more than that is include action tags along with the dialog. Action tags show the reader what the characters are doing as they talk to each other, and they can help the reader keep track of which character is saying what.
Suspense that is created by leaving out things the reader needs to know in order to "see" the story is artificial suspense and makes the author look coy and untrustworthy.
You want the reader to trust you as an author, so they'll keep reading and care about the story you are telling and the characters you are showing them.
A rule of thumb: if it would be obvious to viewers watching a movie of the story, don't keep it from the readers.
Posted by Tangent (Member # 1191) on :
Actually, I did just about the opposite for one story I wrote, and a couple here have actually read, and that's the "Fleet Intelligence Personal Logs", a log-format story which has minimal dialog, and those are more just recordings of other people's dialog.
I think perhaps the lack of dialog was what kept me from feeling it was a real story. The only other fictional log story I know of was "Flowers for Algernon" and even that had dialog. But somehow the story has achieved cult status among people on the Relic Fiction boards, on something I considered a writing exercise at most.
So... is the opposite to the situation above true? Can a story survive without no dialog at all?
Posted by JK (Member # 654) on :
Hey, Flowers for Algernon was a classic *grin* A suggestion, Soule: why not describe where the characters are? You've said that you can't describe the characters that are speaking, but can you describe their actions (as Kathleen suggested) and the enviroment in which they are talking? This is more an aside, but I'll say it anyway. Kathleen, you could hide the identity of two speakers: shadows, big collars, big hats...*grin* Anyway, it's just a suggestion. JK
Posted by Soule (Member # 1250) on :
Thanks - I think I've found a good way to do it.
Posted by Von Ether (Member # 1231) on :
Try reading Bob Shaw's "Light of Other Days," you can see where he could have started it with dialog, but set up the conversation with a page that established why the conversation was going to happen and why the location of the talk was just as important.
[This message has been edited by Von Ether (edited September 23, 2001).]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1263) on :
First, I think that the show-don't-tell idea has been blown up far beyond its original meaning. It was never meant to encourage writers to launch into great big visual descriptions that break up the dialog and the action. Rather, it means that ... well, for example. Let's say that your hero is a kleptomaniac. You could simply write, "Bob was a kleptomaniac." Or you could show Bob stealing things compulsively again and again. Similarly, if your hero is a committed family man, saying "Bob was a committed family man," is far less effective than showing Bob taking time off work or missing a promotion to be with his family.
So I don't think that the lack of visual description of your characters is necessarily a great loss. Involving the reader in what is going on is far more important than painting a picture.
However, suspense is NOT created by leaving out critical information. You create real suspense by telling the reader MORE than the characters know.
For example, how suspenseful is it to watch a movie in which the heroine comes home, goes through her normal evening routine with NO HINT that anything is wrong ... and is suddenly killed? The killing might be a shock, but the suspense would be virtually nil. But what if she comes home, and the audience keeps seeing evidence that SHE IS NOT ALONE ... but she misses it. The audience is going crazy because they know someone might kill her and she isn't doing anything to save herself. Then when the killing actually occurs (or even doesn't occur), it will be far more effective.
So not telling us who your characters are isn't really going to create much suspense. On the positive side, it could streamline your scene and make it seem edgy. On the negative side, it might make your scene confusing. You'll have to be the judge of that. But regardless, it won't be any more suspenseful.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Hello, Geoffrey! Welcome to the open discussion on writing topics.
Thanks for the insight on suspense. I thought of it last night when my daughter told me about watching a Bill Murray video at a friend's house. (Can't recall the name of the movie, but I'm sure others can.)
Bill Murray plays a character who thinks he's acting in a movie, when he's really gotten himself involved in a dangerous situation. The humor comes from the fact that the viewers know what's really going on and the character he plays doesn't--it sounded like a particularly edgy kind of suspenseful humor to me, and an interesting way to use suspense in a story.
Posted by chad_parish (Member # 1155) on :
The Man Who Knew too Little. A brilliant movie -- Murry is stuck in spy-vs-spy type intrigue, but he thinks it's just a reality TV show.
I laughed my ass off when I saw it.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Yes, that's the title. Thanks, Chad.
I guess I'll have to watch it sometime.
Anyway, do you see what I mean by the use of suspense (as Geoffrey explained it in his post) to heighten the humor in the movie?
Posted by Mary-Michael (Member # 1270) on :
While I do understand why one would not want to use pure dialogue for an entire story (usually - there may be exceptions), I don't think that necessarily means it's not effective in small doses. Just a small random smattering of dialogue, with no more explanation, can be quite effective in delivering information or setting up a scene. To use Card as an example, one of my own personal favorite things from his books is how, in the Ender's Game series, he began every chapter with either an excerpt from writings, or dialogue. The speakers are not given, nor are the circumstances, merely the words spoken. Personally, I always found it fascinating. As Geoffrey Card said, it is a very streamlined way to give the reader information that supplements (even if it's not vitally important to) the story, and as long as enough hints are provided that the reader can figure out who's talking (or figure out that it doesn't matter, if it's just random people) than the "mystery" aspect isn't annoying.
'Course, I could just be playing devil's advocate... I have a stubborn streak that doesn't like the concept that any literary device is inherently bad!
Posted by Soule (Member # 1250) on :
Thanks, Mary - I remember that. While I think I've found a way to cure my problems, I always did find that neat, the way OSC did that!