Dialogue vs. Description

[thedragoneth]

For some reason it's much easier for me to write dialogue than description. I guess I want to get on with the story--I don't want to sit there and describe everything. I've written several stories on fanfiction.net and nearly every reviewer says "you need more description!" or something to that effect. I myself prefer to read stories with about an even mix. I get bogged down when there's too much description (like Victor Hugo), but when there's not enough I don't feel connected to the story. Which mix do you prefer, and do you have any suggestions for how to write descriptively, make the story come alive, and keep the plot going without sacrificing the setting and characters?

I've just started writing my first Pern fanfic, and it's almost all dialogue! So hopefully I'll get some useful feedback on it when I post it here.

[Grey Bear]

Description can be a killer. Unlike Dialogue, which implies the story is going somewhere at least, Description can make a story seem like a tour guide to your story rather than the story itself. You can prattle on for ages about how beautiful things are or how awful things are, but what does it acheive? Sure, you've created a gorgeous set - but what about the players and their lines?

GB

[AnnMarie]

I like a decent mix. If you have a character saying something, you could always tell the reader what else the character is doing at the time, or what they may be looking at.

[Weyrwoman Kalina]

Too much dialouge makes a story seem more like a play to me. I like to know what's going on as well as making the story seem more real with dialouge.

For example:

1) The mists swirled around them, making everything outside their circle seem like an image in a dream.

"What's happening?" Katie asked, her voice trembling with fear. She was afraid to move.. afraid that if the mist touched her she would disappear.

"I don't know... I... I don't know." Jared pulled her closer as the mists closed in about them. They whirled faster and faster, creating a whirlwind that caught at their hair and clothes and threatened to tear them apart. But as quickly as it had started... when it was inches from consuming them... it disappeared.

"I don't understand... what, what was that?" she asked, her voice still shaky.

2) "What's happening? I... I'm afraid to move," Katie said as she stared at the mists.

"I don't know... I... I don't know. I don't understand how it got here... or what's making it go faster. Just hold on to me, I won't let you go." It started spinning faster and for a few minutes it looked as though it would consume them. "I won't let it take you!" he yelled. But just as quickly as it started, it disappeared.

"I don't understand... what, what was that?" she asked, her voice still shaky.



I don't know... personally I like it more balanced. My second example was weak I'm afraid, but it still seems lacking without a bit more description.

Now TOLKIEN LOVED to describe things... take his Lord of the Rings trilogy for example.

[Anareth]

Yeah, Tolkien went a bit too far in the other direction. He needed to try having more characters, less travelogue.

Both are important. You need to know what's going on, and where you are, but you can get that across with both. It's a question of balance.

[Bane]

I like some description, so I know kinda what I'm reading about. I like to be able to picture the character or the scene to some extent the way the author pictures it, and then let the rest go to imagination. It's probably why I was never able to read Tolkien. Too much description makes me wanna stop reading and get a different book. It's the same with dialogue. At some point, dialogue gets boring. I like a good description of action, rather than the grunts and groans of the characters as they get their booties kicked.

[TamTam]

I have the same predilection, thedragoneth. I think I've mentioned it in another thread. I usually don't worry about it in the first draft, just add it in during edits. If I get too concerned about description, it breaks up my train of thought.

I try to avoid big blocks of description, but there are times when it comes in handy. If you want to show time passing, for instance. One person talks, and there's a long pause before the next person talks. One person is waiting for another person to show up. I'll use a fair amount of description in situations like that. Otherwise, it seems like everything is happening all at once.

[cwolf]

*blinks* another fanfiction.net author. *grin* More power to you on Pern fanfics... I myself find that I'm constantly satisfied how the series has gone. To the point that I can't add anything to it.

For some reason it's much easier for me to write dialogue than description. I guess I want to get on with the story--I don't want to sit there and describe everything. I've written several stories on fanfiction.net and nearly every reviewer says "you need more description!" or something to that effect. I myself prefer to read stories with about an even mix. I get bogged down when there's too much description (like Victor Hugo), but when there's not enough I don't feel connected to the story. Which mix do you prefer, and do you have any suggestions for how to write descriptively, make the story come alive, and keep the plot going without sacrificing the setting and characters?

I've just started writing my first Pern fanfic, and it's almost all dialogue! So hopefully I'll get some useful feedback on it when I post it here.

[Ian]

My stuff tends to be dialogue-heavy too (or at least large chunks of it), but like Tam Tam said, there are times where long descriptive passages work, & times where they don't. Sometimes I think there's too much dialogue in a particular passage, but then again, in many cases, it flows better that way. Basically it's the old rule - if it looks right it probably is right. :)

[anonew]

Yeah, Tolkien went a bit too far in the other direction. He needed to try having more characters, less travelogue.

Both are important. You need to know what's going on, and where you are, but you can get that across with both. It's a question of balance.
Older works tend to be heavier on the description - I was once told this was because people travelled less, and therefore had less conception of what a mountain or a desert might actually look like. Therefore, they needed more descriptive content in order to know what was going on. Also, if you read Mary Shelley or Bram Stoker, you'll note that there are huge swathes of text where the characters don't do much except travel, and the author describes their journey. This, apparently, is because back in the old days when consumption was fashionable and shirts were frilly, people weren't able to travel easily, and therefore liked to be told all about it.

Anyway - these days. I'm a dialogue junky - I can usually not resist the temptation to chuck in some banter. There's only so much you can do with dialogue, though - at some point you're going to have to resort to description and narrative in order to move things along and keep the reader au fait with what the hell is going on.

G

[Brenda]

If there's something urgent happening, it would be wierd to be getting details on what color the carpeting is - unless it reminds someone of something important to the plot... when things are moving fast, dialogue keeps it moving.

[Vyon]

Dialogue helps pick up the story when you get stuck too. I find it helps me get into the characters' heads, and then I can picture the terrain from their point of view. I'd see all the trees and wildflowers etc, but they don't make a very exciting story. Both action and description can be spliced into the dialogue instead of the eternal "he said, she said."

I think television has a lot to do with why there's less description in modern writing. Many of those places we've seen. Last night I watched a programme about one of our local singers doing an 'Intrepid journey' into the deserts of Morocco. That journey's so intrepid I wouldn't be allowed to do it even if I had the money, my health's not good enough.

Also, the pace of life is much quicker and we have less time to read long, flowery passages. Now we'd be more likely to say: "Get on with it!" and put the book down. That's one reason why I've never been able to get into Steven King.

[Aranel]

The best way I've found around that in my experience, is find ways to make the description interesting to you. Play with words, use hidden meanings, hide subtle clues. Find a love of language within your own work. Then it'll come, trust me.

[Brenda]

Or if you're writing from one person's point of view, you can write things that they notice.

[Kater]

This is something that I've been struggling with of late in my story (Posted as Untitled Story in the FF site here). I tend to lean towards dialogue myself but I also realize that it is a written story and not TV and the audience needs to be able to see what my world looks like. Let me ask this question as I am in a section of the story where it's more diologue than discription and I am about to have one character leave earth to go to another planet...

How do people feel about using dialogue to discribe things? One person in a new place on a phone with another person describing the new location? Or maybe have character 1 write a letter to character 2 if voice communication isn't an option? Opinions and ideas pretty please!! :D

[Anareth]

I think that's a device that I would use very, very sparingly. Especially the 'one character describing to another on the phone.' It could get old really quick.

[Brenda]

I agree. As an omniscient narrator you can describe a scene in full detail better than a character writing or reading a letter, unless they are a very dedicated correspondent. However if you want to read a good example of letter descriptions, read Sorcery and Cecelia by Patricia Wrede and Caroline Stevermer.

[Vyon]

My stories also tend to be dialogue-heavy because I read them aloud when I'm proofreading. If you can't say it, they probably won't read it style. I also read it aloud if I'm stuck and want to pick up the theme again. Or I draw a map or sketch.

[Aranel]

How do people feel about using dialogue to discribe things? One person in a new place on a phone with another person describing the new location? Or maybe have character 1 write a letter to character 2 if voice communication isn't an option? Opinions and ideas pretty please!! :D

That sort of thing REALLY bothers me. It's like when people call someone on television and say the name of the place they're calling. "Hello, McDonald's?" Um, yeah, they know who they are. It makes it seem like a radio broadcast. I almost go into a giggle fit every time I listen to the radioplay of Lord of the Rings. Legolas: "Lo! What is that strange, grey-green rock-like shape, half hidden there in the undulating, emerald green grass?" Seriously, who talks like that? Do YOU constantly describe things as you talk? That's worse than pulling out the mirror trick to describe your main character.

[Just Bob]

That sort of thing REALLY bothers me. It's like when people call someone on television and say the name of the place they're calling. "Hello, McDonald's?" Um, yeah, they know who they are.
Actually, I do that all the time in reality. I want to know I've dialled the right number before I get down to business.

Try to remember the reason for description: to convey to the reader what is going on, and where the characters are. If there isn't enough description, your readers won't know things they should no.
If you're really stuck, get someone to read your work while standing in front of you, so you can correct any mysteries. When they say "Is this the next day or a week later?" or "Which room are they in now?", you go to your computer and fill in the gap.