Obviously dialogue is among the most interesting parts of a novel, creating immediacy, and verisimilitude, aiding character development, and providing a means to convey information vital to the plot in a dramatic (as opposed to expository) fashion. But often it's appropriate to summarize a conversation in an expository manner. It seems to me this is largely a function of pacing, and determined by instinct. But does anyone have a rule of thumb? For example, if one of the participants in the conversation is not someone the author plans or needs to introduce as a character, and the conversation is fairly brief, though necessary to move the story along, it seems to me summary may be appropriate.
Rule of thumb for summarizing conversation vs. laying out dialogue?
- Thread starter Homer
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
For me, dialogue serves two purposes: characterization (relationship) and advancement of the plot. So, anything that doesn't do either should be summarized in narrative. Likewise, if you find yourself summarizing scenes that could use characterization and may be very well "shown" (back to show vs. tell) other than told, use dialogue. For me, there are really no "rules" per se. It's part of the art of writing -- when to do what. And there certainly is no length limit. Dialogue can be one line or twenty pages -- if done well, they serve great purposes.
Last edited:
Another time to consider summary is when a dialogue would be redundant. For example, a minor character needs to know something the reader has already learned from dialogue and/or events that have taken place earlier in the story. But, to my way of thinking, there are no hard and fast rules in this regard.
Mari
Mari
What Ray said. 
Do what feels right for the scene. If you need to convey that Inspector Monk spoke with a neighbor about what she witnessed last night, think about what needs to be conveyed. Does Miss Muffett's tearful, hand-wringing interview tell the Inspector that the victim was well respected and loved, or that perhaps she has something to hide?
Or do you just want to say that she was questioned and leave it at that?
The former is "dialogue." The latter is "summary."
Do what feels right for the scene. If you need to convey that Inspector Monk spoke with a neighbor about what she witnessed last night, think about what needs to be conveyed. Does Miss Muffett's tearful, hand-wringing interview tell the Inspector that the victim was well respected and loved, or that perhaps she has something to hide?
Or do you just want to say that she was questioned and leave it at that?
The former is "dialogue." The latter is "summary."
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
novelator said:
Good one. Instead of repeating everything in dialogue, do a summary: "Mary told Joseph the whole amazing story." Or something like that.
There are many "best practices" when dialogue is concerned. For example, avoid chitchats: "Hi, how are you?/Great, and you?/I am fine. Did you eat yet?/No, you?/It's such a beautiful day today/etc." Get to the point. You can do characterization without chitchats. This is not a rule, but a good thing to consider.
Anything to avoid in dialogue is info dumps, and saying things the characters already know -- the "Bob, as you know..." dialogue. If you find yourself doing that with dialogue, it's probably better to use summary: "Bob reminisced with Jake about the fishing trip they took last March. Jake caught a big trout that day, and then..."
Dialogue is useful to move the plot along. It is also useful to SHOW that the character is lying. If the audience already knows something, and the character is shown lying through his teeth, it can be very powerful. In this case, dialogue is BOTH an excellent choice to show character and plot.
- Status