Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Dialogue Heavy Novel Writing

This is topic Dialogue Heavy Novel Writing in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002298

Posted by artistic_alexis (Member # 2748) on :

When I read the great classics, and try and find my own way as an author, I have the fear that my personal style may not be the norm for most published books. Because of this, I sometime wonder if I may have trouble getting published in the future. The way I write is very dialogue heavy, or personal character thoughts to explain a scene.

If they are walking on a warm beach I tend to write things like this:

John felt the warm ocean water splash against his calf’s as they walked together on the wet sand, bringing a smile to his face. "It's been so long since I've seen water this clear." He held Jane's hand closer, his eyes squinting slightly from the brightness that the cloudless sky shot down.

I sometimes feel that this isn't the traditional writing style where one will go on page long explanations of how the water looks and seems from a third person perspective. To get to the question, is my personal style too risky when looking to be published? Meaning, should I stop and explain the beach for a page, or just write the way that comes naturally to me, which is mostly via dialogue. On almost every page I write, I notice that it's over 50% dialogue or character thoughts, and am worried that this won't be well received by the public. What are all of your views on this type of writing compared to the more traditional 3rd person style?

Thanks Again,
Alexis

Posted by benskia (Member # 2422) on :

From what I understand, stopping to desscribe things is bad, describing them through action is good.

So, you probably are doing great already.

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

Please, artistic one, on behalf of this reader and many many others: DON'T change your style to tell us more about the color of the sky and the temperature of the water and how the gulls' feathers look. We don't care. We do, however, care how John feels about it or reacts to it. You're doing exactly what I like to see!

Posted by MCameron (Member # 2391) on :

You should really take a look at some modern writing. You'll find that the way you prefer to write is generally the prefered method (unless your name is Robert Jordan). Definitely keep doing what you're doing, and I suggest taking a look at OSC's writing class. He has a section on the importance of dialogue.

--Mel

Posted by MCameron (Member # 2391) on :

Additionally, your description sounds very similar to the way OSC writes. He would be a good place to start reading.

--Mel

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

I can't tell you about publication, but I can tell you about my reading experience -- I skip those paragraphs about the waves. I just don't even read them. Unless there is something in those waves that is essential to the story, such as a message in a bottle or a dead body, forget it.

The only good description is relevant description, and the best authors, in an attempt to be poetic because their english teachers told them to, fail to understand this point. RELEVANT DESCRIPTION!!!!!

That is to say, if it never has to come up, you don't even have to describe your main character's appearance. My WIP's main character has brown hair and green eyes and has been described by many as a "beautiful child." but that's all you get. You fill in the rest and I'll thank you very much not to have to tell you about the shape of her nose or the curve of her waist.

In fact, the biggest reason I even mention her eye color is that someone else (in his POV) notices them and remarks upon them...it is meant to represent a window into her soul more than a description of her eyes. That's just a side note.

So, what is relevant description?

Obviously, it's the stuff we need to know to understand the story. When describing a crime scene, you may have to go into quite a bit of detail, in fact, both to point out the clues and to draw people away from those clues. Anything and everything might be important.

Also, there is a point of setting the scene. This doesn't have to be long. In fact, short but poingnant descriptions can go a long way and our imagination can fill in the rest. It's a fall day? Mention that the leaves are changing color. You don't have to talk about each one, nor do you have to talk about the animals in the forest or the underbrush. We can imagine that. They're in the forest and the leaves are changing color. There. Well, find a better way to say it but you can still say it in a sentence or two at most. Scene set. Now, what's the main character doing?

Relevant description can also be a setup for later in the story. If you want your reader to pay attention to it early on, though, you can't weight them down with hundreds of other paragraphs of description. If all of a sudden a good author who only uses relevant detail feels the need to describe a house in perfect detail, I'm going to remember that for later.

Posted by Miriel (Member # 2719) on :

Some of the classics are full of description because the authors were being paid by the word. Charles Dickon's Great Expectations, for example, was published a chapter at a time as a serial in a newspaper. Padding his prose meant padding his paycheck. This is largely why I loathe most of the classics -- they dawdle and ramble and I don't see what the big fuss is. That's a broad statement, there are some classics I like, but authors who fill up pages with description loose me in two chapters. Unless it's a dozen chapters in and it's Tolkien describing the exotic and mysterious forest of Lothorien, I won't read a full page of description about the scenery. That's usually about as exciting as watching grass grow.

Posted by artistic_alexis (Member # 2748) on :

Thank You For Your Replies,

It's kind of funny, but OSC is my favorite author, and I think it's probably because I relate to his style. I know that I hate reading page long descriptions of the trees, since I, like most, have seen a tree in every way before. I just get worried that I'm the only one out there who dislike over lyrical stories, but I'm happy to find this untrue. I guess it's nice to hear that others are into the same style as me, and will be excited to read everyone ELSES stories too.

Posted by dee_boncci (Member # 2733) on :

With very few exceptions (JRRT comes to mind) I strongly prefer minimal to modest description. The reason is simple, I'd rather let my minds eye paint the picture than have one foisted upon me.

There are exceptions. If there is an unusual aspect to something common that has a relavance to the story then more description is in order. Also, if the scene is something very few readers have familiarity with a little extra help might be in order.

Also you can sneak in additional description with your action as the scene goes on. Their feet can sink in the fine sand, they can walk carefully to avoid the trash washed up in the surf, they can climb over rock outcroppings, stop and pick up shells, wave to the woman on the deck of her beach house, gag on the stink of a rotting fish, step in rhythm with the calypso band, which is along the lines of the style example you gave.

In the end stick with feels most genuine to you.

Posted by Shendülféa (Member # 2408) on :

I am one of the few here who probably prefers description over dialogue (as I have mentioned a few times before). However, if it's just mere description and nothing else, then that does get a little boring to read. I think that description's fine as long as the author shows how the characters react to it. Do they feel awe or disgust? You know, that sort of thing. And as someone else mentioned, I think it should somehow be relevant to the story (sometimes

). I like to be completely immersed in the world that I'm reading about and for me this is only acheived through description, not dialogue. I'm in the minority on this, though, so don't pay attention to me.

I just thought I might talk about this from a different perspective.

Posted by autumnmuse (Member # 2136) on :

I actually am so spare with description sometimes that I encounter white room syndrome, which is just as bad. I am trying to work on that, but I am paranoid of writing stuff that people will just skim (I am one of those people when I read novels).

I want people to hang on my every word, gosh darn-it!

Posted by dpatridge (Member # 2208) on :

Description is important. Dialogue is also important. And lyrical prose is not necessarily a bad thing.

Description for descriptions sake, which has no mood-setting or plot-driving purpose is bad, whether it is written lyrically or rambling.

Personally, I don't care for classics. And as for your own writing example -- I don't see anything wrong with it as far as descriptiveness is concerned.

Posted by kwsni (Member # 970) on :

I do as little describing as possible. I hate reading a detailed desription, it leaves nothing to the imagination.

Also, I'm much more interested in what the character is thinking aobut other people around him, than the color of the flowers across the room.

Ni!