I was just reading Stephen Koch and he is rather strongly of the opinion that dialogue should only be used in the most extreme situations. Marge Piercy and Ira Wood, on the other hand, say, on average, up to half the novel should be dialogue. Barnaby Conrad, too, is rather enamored with the spoken, printed word, but he's more of a genrephile.
Now, I'm perfectly aware that this is all subjective, but if you're penning mainstream/literary fare, and you tend to write dialogue much better than interior monologue, would it be deficient to have an abundance of dialogue over interior monologue?
Now, I'm not talking about rambling, How's-your-day?-type stuff. Actually, I subscribe to the "anti-fiction" clique, who believe mixing in a touch of caprice, of chaos, into your fiction makes for a more believable read. So, at least once a chapter, I do try to inject some spiced-up meanderings. But even when my characters talk about nothing, there's something there, like a Seinfeld episode.
But, mostly, I'm talking about Kevin Smith-style dialogue, or, to bring this closer to home, Nick Hornby-style dialogue. Not "flat-effect, Hemingwayesque" rat-a-tat.
And I know everyone's going to have a different opinion on this, but let's just say, for me, I tend to write very cinematically. Both in the sense that, if I can't see it being made into a movie, I can't write it. But also in the sense that I believe (with due respect to James Joyce and Virginia Wolf) action, gesture and spoken language is far more telling than the stream-of-conscious ambling inside a character's head. It's more forceful, more lucid, more engaging and, let's just say it, more dramatic, and the essence of story is [let's all say it together
] conflict!
Now I know it seems I've all ready made up my mind here, but I'm one of those people who needs a lot of assurance, that there are plenty of successful examples out there, and what they are, before he ventures forth. Some writers are more skittish than others, more faint-hearted. We can't all be lions. Some of us are rabbits. But rabbits can be fascinating too. They're crepuscular, only active during dusk or dawn. Lions are fierce, but rabbits are tragic and rueful. Rabbits make for better camera subjects.
Also, I spoke with a film agent who almost picked up a script of mine once and he said there are plenty of exquisite scripts bobbing around in Hollywood, but the real way for someone who doesn't have powerful friends to break in is to write a novel that could be adapted for film. In that sense, a dialogue-centric, mainstream-lit novel would seem to be more conducive to that end, at least in my blundering opinion
But, as in all things, I'm not for-sure sure.
That's all. Thanks all.
P.S. I'm still writing. Even though I'm unsure of myself, I'm still churning, still hammering away. But, as I fumble blindly through the fog, it would be good to hear a cheering and cheery voice once in a far while
Now, I'm perfectly aware that this is all subjective, but if you're penning mainstream/literary fare, and you tend to write dialogue much better than interior monologue, would it be deficient to have an abundance of dialogue over interior monologue?
Now, I'm not talking about rambling, How's-your-day?-type stuff. Actually, I subscribe to the "anti-fiction" clique, who believe mixing in a touch of caprice, of chaos, into your fiction makes for a more believable read. So, at least once a chapter, I do try to inject some spiced-up meanderings. But even when my characters talk about nothing, there's something there, like a Seinfeld episode.
But, mostly, I'm talking about Kevin Smith-style dialogue, or, to bring this closer to home, Nick Hornby-style dialogue. Not "flat-effect, Hemingwayesque" rat-a-tat.
And I know everyone's going to have a different opinion on this, but let's just say, for me, I tend to write very cinematically. Both in the sense that, if I can't see it being made into a movie, I can't write it. But also in the sense that I believe (with due respect to James Joyce and Virginia Wolf) action, gesture and spoken language is far more telling than the stream-of-conscious ambling inside a character's head. It's more forceful, more lucid, more engaging and, let's just say it, more dramatic, and the essence of story is [let's all say it together
] conflict!Now I know it seems I've all ready made up my mind here, but I'm one of those people who needs a lot of assurance, that there are plenty of successful examples out there, and what they are, before he ventures forth. Some writers are more skittish than others, more faint-hearted. We can't all be lions. Some of us are rabbits. But rabbits can be fascinating too. They're crepuscular, only active during dusk or dawn. Lions are fierce, but rabbits are tragic and rueful. Rabbits make for better camera subjects.
Also, I spoke with a film agent who almost picked up a script of mine once and he said there are plenty of exquisite scripts bobbing around in Hollywood, but the real way for someone who doesn't have powerful friends to break in is to write a novel that could be adapted for film. In that sense, a dialogue-centric, mainstream-lit novel would seem to be more conducive to that end, at least in my blundering opinion
But, as in all things, I'm not for-sure sure.
That's all. Thanks all.
P.S. I'm still writing. Even though I'm unsure of myself, I'm still churning, still hammering away. But, as I fumble blindly through the fog, it would be good to hear a cheering and cheery voice once in a far while
