description or dialogue: which is easier? - Writers Forum

Avarice · 08-25-2005, 03:46 AM

I always find dialogue easier to write instead of general description, I feel that I can write people better so I tend to have way too much dialogue and not enough of everything else. Is it some what normal to find one easier and more fun to do than the other? Or should I be as good at both of them? Do you any of you prefer either one or is it all the same?

lisajane · 08-25-2005, 04:51 AM

I've been told I'm better with dialogue than with description. But I think sometimes that is the case and sometimes vice versa - sometimes my dialogue will flow fantastically and the description will be shit. Sometimes my dialogue will be like monotonic robots and the description will be fantastic.

So it depends on the structure of the piece, whether I just happen to have nailed one more than the other at a specific time, blah blah blah. My new short story has the dialogue written into the description - there's no quotation marks. All there is a new line, slightly different way of description, just got to keep track.

mammamaia · 08-25-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Or should I be as good at both of them?

...if you want to write publishable stories and novels, yes... editors aren't going to recommend taking on works that are only half good...

Avarice · 08-25-2005, 10:22 AM

ya i suppose, i was just wondering what other people thought.

leliathomas · 08-25-2005, 11:34 AM

I feel I'm pretty good at both; actually, I feel I'm above good on dialogue. My problem with description, however, is knowing when to start and stop. Sometimes I've got the urge to not put enough, and other times I ramble on like bloody Faulkner (which is not what I want to do...).

This usually gets fixed in the editing, though. I edit, or rather, write revisions, as I am writing a book, and then I'll do a final edit (hell on earth).

Stefanie · 08-28-2005, 05:37 PM

Well, I posted some stories at lit.org and in the comments I got, people told me I write too many dialogues and that description was missing in my stories. So, I guess I'm not good at description.

Isis · 08-28-2005, 05:59 PM

I think I do better with description - it comes much more easily to me than dialogue does. Sometimes my dialogue is what comes to mind first - but then I only have the words, and not really what goes in around it, and it's like pulling teeth to get my characters to have some sort of personality around their words when I'm doing scenes with a lot of dialogue. Usually, I can do one thing one day, and the other the next.

Robgb · 08-29-2005, 10:40 AM

Neither of them is easy. Which is why writers are special....

mammamaia · 08-29-2005, 10:41 AM

"Neither of them is easy. Which is why writers are special...."

...i agree, but would add 'good' between 'why' and 'writers'...

dragonbreath · 08-29-2005, 07:25 PM

i tend to be a little better at description, even though it's difficult make them both flow nicely together. I find dialouge to take away from the drescriptions.

Hodge · 08-29-2005, 09:06 PM

Dialogue comes fairly natural to me. Description does as well, although it's a bit harder because I sometimes go overboard on it.

Nishimura_Alice · 08-29-2005, 09:15 PM

I find dialogue the harder of the two for me to write. Description comes far more natural for me, whereas with dialogue I constantly have to ask myself, Would people really say this? And, more importantly, would my character say this?

I have an awkward way of speaking in real life, sometimes I'm over-conscience of having that leak into my characters' words, making my dialogue far too mechanic at times. Other times I find it more natural to write the dialogue, but I often go back and fuss over it because I always want it both to sound real and suit the characters, something I have trouble balancing.

I've been trying to write more dialogue recently, though. Not be afraid to experiment with it. Practice is always helpful, ne?

Anarkos · 08-30-2005, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mammamaia

Quote:

Or should I be as good at both of them?

...if you want to write publishable stories and novels, yes... editors aren't going to recommend taking on works that are only half good...

Um. He didn't say "good at both", he said "as good at both." I think most writers have strengths and weaknesses within their craft, even amongst those who are published. I certainly know that I am, currently, better at mere narrative or exposition than description than dialogue than, uh, imagery than long-term plotting and/or characterisation. Presumably, most authors, even those who are good across the board, are better at some things than others; some produce especially poignant dialogue, others create incredible images and so on.

So, being better at one not the other is acceptable, but it is, I feel, important to recognise strengths and weaknesses. If you find dialogue hard, focus on writing short stories that are heavy on the dialogue. If you find imagery hard, focus on the description. Writing is a skill, and like any skill, natural aptitude can be enhanced with practice.

When it comes to trying to publish work, though I am no expect, I imagine that it helps to know your strengths and weaknesses. If you are not a humourous writer, don't try to write humourous dialogue and so on. You can't - except in very, very rare circumstances - publish something which lacks both passable dialogue and decription - although, sadly, some novels seem to lack both - but you can publish a book where one is superior to the other. Both must be of publishable standard, but if one is excellant and the other is merely solid, it is better for you to focus your editing on the stuff that is merely solid, but attempt to focus the tale on things which you're better at (although not to the point where it is forced).

Unless you're aiming to publish something, don't write what's easy. If it's easy, and genuinely so, in that not only do you not struggle, but you produce quality stuff...fine. Leave it. Staying in your comfort zone won't make you a better writer. Write what's hard. Practice!

EDIT: I, personally, have an odd problem with dialogue, in that I have done a huge amount of speechwriting, debating, impromptu speaking and so on. When I try to write dialogue, I tend to write, one, using my own voice (not the character's), and, two, using speechmaking techniques. This makes a lot of the dialogue sound forced and unnatural.

Robgb · 08-31-2005, 01:43 PM

Try pretending you're OVERHEARING a conversation instead of actually WRITING a conversation. Or think about getting a tape recorder and say the dialogue out loud, then listen back to it, figure out what sounds stilted and edit it appropriately.

Remember that most people's conversations are very informal. Let that show in your work.

fretfulporpentine · 08-31-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leliathomas

and then I'll do a final edit (hell on earth).

Oh gosh yes, the final edit is awful for me, too.

I'm better at dialogue, I have to say. I usually skimp on the description first time round and have to add more detail later.