A couple of stories that I have read start out with the MC talking to the SC (or vice-versa). If an explanation paragraph comes directly after a few lines of dialogue, is it acceptable? Should dialogue be held off until the story develops further?

Example: "Gee, it's a good thing I didn't trip over that eight-legged chicken," Joe said to Sally in a conversational way.

"Boy, I'll say," Sally replied. "You would have been picking drumsticks out of your ears for weeks."

"At least I wouldn't have gone hungry," Joe said.

"That's true," Sally conceded. "But it would be a terrible clean-up. Plus, the feathers itch something fierce."

Joe and Sally lived on a farm filled with chemically-altered animals. Aside from the eight-legged chicken, they also cared for a two-rumped cow, a three-uddered goat, and a rabbit which seemed to have no major function except....

Would that be all right as long as there was an explanation of why the dialogue was important? It seems to me it would add more of a hook if the conversation was personal and interesting to the story. Or should we jump in and startle the reader so they continue reading just to find out what's going on?

The dialog example you present is terrible, because we have no idea how much of the banter is joking and how much is serious. We don't know anything about the characters or their situation. We need the explanation about the chicken earlier, we also need to know Joe and Sally pretty well before we can understand the purpose of their comments.

To find out if your dialog can stand on its own, try really cutting it to just the dialog and seeing how it works. A good example is found at the beginning of Ender's Game. We get nothing but the lines being spoken, we don't know where those lines are spoken or who is speaking (though we can guess both). But the dialog stands on its own, it's actually stronger because we're not distracted by anything else. It illustrates a fundamental tension of the novel as well as setting up the immediate tension of the next scene. It is completely self-explanatory, everything we need to know in order to understand the conversation is communicated within the spoken lines. It's believable, it sounds like a real conversation between real people who have conflicting motives and doubts as well as overriding needs.

Starting the story with "Kevin Smith" philosophical dialog is generally a bad idea.

quote:

---

So dialogue that centers around action would be better; dialogue that has an interesting and relevant point to the story is okay, too. All right, I think I can do that.

---

I don't see where you got this.

Let's go back to what Survivor said...a dialogue opening has to STAND ON ITS OWN. It has nothing to do with whether it's part of action or interesting or any of the rest.

Here's a clue that your dialogue opener did not stand on it's own "Joe said to Sally in a conversational way."

Dialogue that stands on its own should need no tags and it should definitely not need anything to modify the delivery method (conversational way).

I couldn't care less about POV. As far as I can tell, this is omniscient and that's fine. What I do care about is just what Survivor said...I don't know if they're serious or joking and I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Worse, you follow with an info dump to explain to me what I just read.

Dialogue openings can work but they are risky. Ask yourself why you need to open with dialogue. Keep in mind that when dialogue opens a story, we have no context, no character, no place, no time. NOTHING. We have words coming out of someone or something's mouth -- male or female. I suppose you can argue that the first sentence of any story always begins with that void -- but a sentence of narrative can often begin to reveal many of those mysteries better and faster than a line of dialogue can. Narrative doesn't need a context because it IS the context. Dialogue needs a context.

The problem is that the dialogue opening MUST be evocative in some way. You can't just have them speaking. The very words must open a lot of feelings/ideas.

One of my favorite dialogue openings is --
from SS-GB by Len Deighton

"Himmler's got the King locked up in the Tower of London," said Harry Woods. "But now the German Generals say the army should guard him."

The other man busied himself with the papers on his desk and made no comment. He thumped the rubber stamp into the pad and then on to the docket. "Scotland Yard. 11 Nov. 1941." It was incredible that the war had started only two years ago. Now it was over.....

It is just one line of dialogue but it is very attention-getting. It has several very specific details -- Himmler, King, Tower of London -- that bring up quite a few images/ideas. An alternate history. Then the dialogue is followed by a bit of scene setting. Desk. Scotland Yard. 1941.

But it wouldn't work if the dialogue had not been so well-thought out to raise curiosity or some emotion.

Using dialogue does have the general effect of bringing the reader into the story faster.

Here's another published example --
from THE MAMUR ZAPT AND THE GIRL IN THE NILE by Micheal Pearce

"But," said Owen, "where is the body?"

"Ah, yes," said the watchman, rubbing one horny foot up and down his shin.

"Ah, yes," said the coproal, shuffling uneasily.

Owen waited.

"Well, said the corporal at last, looking out over the river to where a low mud shoal raised its back above the water, gray and wrinkled lik a hippotamus, "it WAS there."

Here, the title tells us we are in Egypt and so the river in the setting is the Nile.

quote:

---

"I have to tell you something that I can't possibly tell my countrymen."

---

quote:

---

Starting the story with "Kevin Smith" philosophical dialog is generally a bad idea

---

arriki's examples are pretty good. The first one, invoking the idea of Himmler locking the King up in the Tower of London while the German High Command (see, I do think that the line could have been written a little better) argues that they should have custody, tells us right away almost everything we need to know. The "where is the body?" example does almost as well, with better support from the supporting actions and a fair POV identification. With the line, "it WAS there" we have a mystery and we're ready to investigate.

Dialog openings can work, and many authors (and some readers) prefer them, but they don't work for every story or every MC. My main characters are usually either too guarded or too naive to come right out and say something that expresses the central conflict of the story right in the opening scene. Sometimes the natural opening scene doesn't contain dialog anyway.

For myself, I have always found dialogue to be one of the most useful techniques for characterization AND exposition. I, as a reader, always learn a tremendous amount about a character from his interactions with the other characters, not just what he says, but how he says it and when he says it. And of course, the story reveals itself just as much through the words of your characters as it does through YOUR words...perhaps even more.

You only gave a small portion of the paragraph that follows and it seemed like it was giving some backround in a way that would make the reader wonder why there was an eight-legged chicken and it didn't seem to faze the characters.

This is partly what i was told about starting with dialogue before. i've often tried to start with it but i have a tough time with dialogue and find it easier for me to fill in some background on characters before using a lot of dialogue.

i really liked this topic by the way. Hopefully i can get a few pointers as well. i need it. Thanks for posting :-)