aurorawatcherak "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
My writing style changes with the character and so often changes not just from one genre to another, but even within a book, especially if I’m writing from the first-person perspective. This is less so in third-person. The narrative style often stays the same, though in Daermad Cycle where I’m switching between cultures, I do make some changes to reflect the differences. The narrative in the Celdryan sections has a decided Gaelic lilt while the narrative in the Kin sections sounds like an American voice. I do this to provide some distance between the two very different peoples. It turns out to be pretty hard to write that way, so it takes me a lot longer between books than Transformation Project or What If Wasn’t, but I’m glad I made that choice because it does add depth to the books they otherwise might not have.
Obviously, when I’m writing in first-person perspective, the narrative is driven by the character’s voice, so the style changes depending on the character.
And that makes sense, right? No two people think alike and when you’re writing stories from within the head of a character, the character ought to sound like themselves and not any other character in the book.
Do you embrace dialog or narrate your way around it? Why?
Rules: 1. Link your blog to this hop. 2. Notify your following that you are participating in this blog hop. 3. Promise to visit/leave a comment on all participants’ blogs. 4. Tweet/or share each person’s blog post. Use #OpenBook when tweeting. 5. Put a banner on your blog that you are participating.
<!– start InLinkz code –> <div class=”inlinkz-widget” data-uuid=”62e0f276fc464053a41637c0e5b08913″ style=”width:100%;margin:30px 0;background-color:#eceff1;border-radius:7px;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:’Helvetica Neue’,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif”> <div style=”padding:8px;”><p style=”margin-bottom:15px;”>You are invited to the <strong>Inlinkz</strong> link party!</p> <a href=”https://fresh.inlinkz.com/p/62e0f276fc464053a41637c0e5b08913” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow” style=”padding:5px 20px;background:#209cee;text-decoration:none;color:#efefef;border-radius:4px;”>Click here to enter</a></div></div> <span style=”display: none;”>http://a%20href=</span> <!– end InLinkz code –>
I love dialogue and often my first draft of a scene will be nothing more than dialogue. I’ve said before that my writing process is essentially my characters telling me their stories, but often their way of telling a story is to have me listen in on dialogue.
Due Out October 20
After I’ve written that very initial draft, I go back in and add narrative to make the scene more approachable. Those conversations in my head almost never have the room they’re in, the clothes they’re wearing, the image of sunlight slanting through a window. It’s just words.
Most of human interaction involves talking with one another, so it makes sense that fictional characters would interact via dialogue. I’ve read some books that were almost entirely narrative and that can get tiresome to slog through after a while. I definitely embrace dialogue.
However
You can do too much of a good thing.
When I first started submitting my work to beta critique, someone commented “You really like dialogue!”
That’s all he said. There was no negative connotations to it, but his comment bothered me. I thought about it. I reread the section he was commenting on and I realized that too much of a good thing can bore the reader. Even with the bits of narrative interwoven in the conversations, it was just this wall of talking and I had to ask myself if it was really necessary.
I came to the conclusion that it isn’t always useful to embrace dialogue. Now, I sometimes rewrite dialogue into narrative to break up the scene and give readers relief from so much talking. Think about when you fly over the Midwest and watch the landscape unroll beneath you. Is it the miles upon miles of alternating corn fields that get your attention or the occasional field that does something different? I know I wonder about the different field so much more than the ubiquitous corn fields.
Variety is the spice of life and writing and if I’m reading through the third draft and I’m getting tired of Ben and Peter still trying to work out the repair of their friendship by talking about what Ben can’t forgive and Peter can’t take back, well, then I might just entertain the reading audience with Peter’s thoughts on the conversation rather than a repeat of a similar conversation. I don’t want them rolling their eyes and skipping the conversation where Ben thaws and Peter assures him he won’t regret the decision — although this being Peter, there’s no guarantee he’ll be able to keep his promise of good future behavior — he has a history, after all. Still, Peter means well and despite his character deficiencies, he can have some pretty funny thoughts about his conversations with Ben.
Mix It Up
I think good writing has a mix of styles in it and too much of any one style can get boring. That doesn’t mean you need to abandon one type of writing in favor of another. It’s means writing shouldn’t be a monoculture where books are almost entirely narrative or almost entirely dialogue. I prefer dialogue over narrative, but I dial it back for variety’s sake and I think that’s a good decision.
When all is said and done, I want to write approachable books that keep readers turning the page.
aurorawatcherak 