posted
Hi there! I've reached a point in my story where I am tying everything together. After some 15 pages, I've noticed that it's all dialog with no real action. I have a bit of action in there, but it isn't like the reader is going to be much surprised by what happens given all the pages of dialog that precede it explaining how all this weird stuff has been happening.
Anyway, has this happened to anyone else out there? Can you offer any general advice as to how to tie up loose ends without so much dialog? Should I just go into omniscient narrator mode and do a core dump instead? Is it better to just leave some things unexplained for another few pages -- add another chapter where someone at the end goes "hey, by the way, I understand how you were able to floog the graminator, but that still doesn't explain why the darn thing imploded." And then we get to explain that last little bit that was a holdover.
Arrrgh.
Any good examples of how to do this?
I'm kind of at the "Childhood's End" end of the story -- a jillion loose ends have to be brought together with more or less of a bang and then fade to black.
posted
Tom Clancy is a good model to follow if you're talking about expositional forms. Much of his work is science fictional in the best tradition, particularly Cardinal in the Kremlin.
Long exposition handled through dialogue is a bit of a letdown in terms of the handling of critical story tensions. I wouldn't go to 15 pages of dialogue ever, unless the dialogue itself were the action, like a fight between lovers or a reconciliation or something. You should be able to compress the theoretical underpinnings of any important science fictional concept with a single phrase, like strategic deterence through Mutually Assured Destruction. This is a term that any modern american would understand automatically, and with only minor amplification would be clear to a forward looking strategist of the 18th century or any time prior to the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Jargon which the reader would need to be educated to understand, like deoxyribonucleic acid, is different. You need to say that DNA is the carrier of inherited traits before Lamark or Mendal would know what you were talking about. So if you've invented some novel terminology, like Rho-Theta configured Turner-Wu topogragraphy, then it needs to be explained in a simple English phrase. I'm guessing that you can probably make an educated guess at what my bit of jargon means, though, if you try.
Anyways, while you should understand everything about the technology or phenomenon that you posit in your story, your reader doesn't really have to know any more about it than you know about most modern technologies outside of your field of expertise. Most of us can give a pretty good run down of everything that we understand about, say, the fundamental structure of the sun, in just a paragraph or so. Of course we could look up more, but most of us just carry around a bit about the corona and the photosphere and how magnetic fields act to create both solar flares and sun spots and then we're pretty much emptied out.
What I'm saying is, the reader only needs to know the story. If your test audience is clearly puzzled about justifications for certain things happening, like wondering why you couldn't just optically infuse the torine assembly and revert the graminator flow, which would have saved the darn thing from imploding, then you haven't explained enough.
I'm going to reveal myself as a total Voyager geek by using this next example, but the following dialogue was in an episode.
Tom: Captain, that ship seems to be using a coaxial warp feild. Starfleet has theorized about such...
Okay, so I sort of drifted off to sleep for that part of the dialogue. It was contrived, it was phoney. It didn't work as exposition because I felt like they were explaining it specifically for the benefit of the stupid viewer. And the thing is, it wasn't more than a couple of lines. I would have had it handled differently.
Tom: That ship has an unusual warp signiture.
Harry: Captain, it appears to be using two warp drives aligned in separate subspace domains, sensors can't quite resolve the geometry.
Tom: I've heard of that, it's called a coaxial warp drive.
Harry: It's developing a unstable power fluctuation, it looks like an imminent breach.
Janeway: Tom, what would happen if that ship's drive fails?
Tom: Um, Starfleet's never actually built one, but theoretically, if it breaches, it'll take this entire region of space with it.
I don't want to sound really arrogant, but I think that works a lot better than what aired. Why? Because neither Tom nor Harry are lecturing. Tom happens to know some theory about something called a coaxial warp drive, but he doesn't step forward and engage in an unrealistic exposition. In other words, it's not the length of the expository dialogue that is the problem, but the fact that you have characters stepping out of character or doing something boring.
Is fifteen pages too much dialogue? Not if something interesting is happening besides the exposition. For instance, let's say that your characters are trying to figure out what's wrong with the graminator. They run over it's diagnostics, go up and down the list of possible causes of the symptomatic problems. They don't explain how it works, but they do mention a lot of the ways that it might go wrong, and what would happen in each case. They know that the thurber field hasn't failed because the darn thing hasn't imploded. Ditto for an overload in the MTD array. If the torine assembly were fused the thing would have just shut down, ect. But if nothing is happening aside from the dialogue, then you should put the exposition in some kind of appendix or something, like a diagram of the darn thing for folks that really want to look it up.
What I'm saying is, everything in your story should directly advance our understanding of the characters. Knowing what they're thinking about is important, while knowing abstract 'facts' about the world is considerably less so, at least to the reader. To the writer, knowing the constraints of what can and cannot happen is necessary to maintain balanced action within the story.
Think of it this way. When was the last time you read a modern novel that went into a detailed exposition of how an internal combustion engine works? Or a telephone? Or whatever else we all take for granted. The sun, perhaps. Daylight often plays an important role in stories, but you rarely see an exposition of how it works.
Treat your postulated technology in the same way. Think of it from your characters' point of view. If your characters seem comfortable with accepting it, then your audiance is likely to as well.
posted
Yes, that's the key. Dialogue should involve us in the characters and their story. Exposition should be put in only as the characters have reasons to think or speak it.
I like the way dialogue can build tension, as characters realize critical facts that affect them. That's the central thing, revealing character.
posted
Hey guys! I think you've pointed to something I needed. Asimov, of course, could go on and on without physical action and keep most of us glued to the page(s). Revealing something of the characters is what I think I'm lacking. I also have a roomful of people and only one or two actually talking. I think I should add some more interaction. Gotta keep it lively, even if everyone is standing around in a makeshift courtroom.
posted
I think you are correct whichever flavor of "affect" you use. Affect is to have an effect. Also, there's the psychological term "affect" (as in affective disorder) which is kind of like a qualitative description of how "engaged" someone is with their surroundings. Many disorders are characterized, for instance by "bland affect." There's no good way of quantifying that, but we all kind of know what is meant by it.
Anyway, I think what you said made sense on more than one level, and it helped me rethink the chapter I'm working on, so I'm grateful. -- Bob
posted
If dialoge is not working or dragging, the first question I ask myself is: "Is it necessary to the story?"
If the answer is yes, I ask myself: "Can I keep it as dialoge and re-write it to make it more stimulating?" If the answer is yes I do just that.
If the answer is no, I ask: "Can I project the same concepts and ideas through action or description in an effective manner, that will remain true to the story?" If yes I try.
If the answer is no, I ask: "Can I intersperse the dialogue with descriptions or action that will be true to the story?" If yes I try just that.
If no, I ask myself: "Are you writing the right story?"
posted
First, I have to say that my favorite form of the word "affect" is in Victorian novels, when describing someone as either "affected" or "unaffected"-- that is, a fake, or a genuine, person. (I like to think of myself as "unaffected", but sometimes it's expedient to 'put on airs' and be someone else ). As far as dialogue vs. exposition, I try to reveal even technical information on a "need-to-know" basis. The main character in my current work has a super-cool suit that lets her crawl on walls and ceilings. It also does other things, but they won't be revealed until it's necessary for the story. I also try to not have it be the characters that give out this sort of information, unless they are describing something new to another character. For example, my character may describe to a prospective client all of the features of her equipment in an effort to explain how she would get a job done. (Right now, though, her boss doesn't even know everything it can do, and she likes it that way!). I know that, in Bob's story, he's at a point where much must be revealed-- (I am finally almost done with reading the first 16 chapters, and can see how important this new installment is)-- however, I agree with what the other members of our group have said about this paticular scene and think there needs to be some action.
"Here we come, walkin' down the street, get the funniest looks from ... everyone we meet!"
Richard, if you would like to read the story, please reply via e-mail (use the e-mail button here, or just send it to:
bscopatz@kua.net
I could use more reviewers, for sure. Just be aware, this is a first draft and there will be significant changes in the rewrite. But, if you'd like to help spot logical flaws, etc., I'll be more than happy to have your input and suggestions.
I'm actually coming to the conclusion that the dialog needs to be there as I can't really figure out another good way to explain everything that needs explaining at this point in the story. The one I was most concerned with is Chapter 20 (penultimate chapter) and it really is dialog dense. I've added activity, but the dialog is still the primary expository mechanism. I think it'll have to remain that way.
As for the "need to know" I certainly agree. If the explanation isn't critical to the story right then, I often forget what the explanation was when the thing is needed several chapters later. And that is just the sort of stuff I would prefer to learn through action versus dialog. "Well you see, my suit makes me able to shrink to the size of a pea, and therefore, I will enter the target's apartment through a package of frozen vegetables." :> ) I'd rather see the character try to break out of the impossible to open paper wrapper on the food item and almost freeze to death and/or asphyxiate before finally escaping from the Hotpoint.
Hmm... I think I just got an idea for the next corpse...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
). 
