subway

I’m having some trouble working within the commonly accepted modern fiction format where dialogue is the primary means of communicating information. Writing a murder / mystery from the killer’s point of view, there isn’t a whole helluva lot of opportunity for dialogue and I’m expecting most of the story to be told in narrative form.

As a first time novelist, I’m looking for existing books that use mostly narrative (in place of dialogue) to tell the story, but almost every example that people have suggested (or that I have come upon myself) are from the 1930s, or earlier! Can anyone suggest a few modern (1960s to present) mystery novels written in the first person, which do not use dialogue as the primary method of telling the story?

Thanks!

__________________
a neocon's worst nightmare;
a radical, leftist marksman

subway
killer_.243@hotmail.com

aspiring

If you are writing in the first person there should be no problem since you can use inner dialogue.

You must be careful not to fall into the trap of narrating everything that happens in a 'tell' way - the rule 'show, not tell' applies to all kinds of writing but particularly fiction. I also don't see why your novel contains few opportunities for dialogue - does the killer never interact with any people? Overhearing conversations? If your book is mostly narrative with very little interaction in runs the risk of being quite boring...

cbrmale

I'll second that, dialogue lifts a story, and it breaks the page up as well. Instead of daunting blocks of solid text, you get short paragraphs of conversation.

I have written lengthy sequences of third-person prose with little narrative (in one case a prisoner of war escaping and keeping his head down for two very long chapters). I relied on good description to carry it forward, as well as the prisoner being challenged twice to keep the action going. But I wouldn't do it for an entire novel, it would be boring.

subway

I appreciate the responses, but this only reinforces my point. I'm not saying NO dialogue, but when the story is told from the killer's viewpoint, you can't expect him to discuss his reasons, methods and planning with others! We're talking about a single individual who has made a very personal decision and is planning, preparing and carrying out an act that no person would ever discuss with anyone, unless they desired a long prison stay.

I can realistically expect something on the order of ten percent dialogue, but to add more than that I would would need to send him out looking for people to talk with. As a commonly understood example: let's consider the Unabomber. If he hadn't existed and you were creating him as the killer in your book, how could you include more than small bits of dialogue? The man lived alone in a cabin without a phone! (and visited the local town on alternate months for supplies!) When he was preparing for his carefully planned murders, the "action" all took place in his head. Should dialogue be added just to make it a "light read"?

My main goal with this thread was to seek out suggestions for other recent books that follow the "lone gun-man" type of killer and are written with minimal dialogue. Or are you telling me that this type of "inside someone's head" type of book just doesn't get published?

thanks

[I'm not trying to be argumentative: I would love to have someone show me a solution that would work well for the story while keeping my publisher and potential readers happy. But I just keep churning out 10 page chapters with zero dialogue. And every time I try to sneak some in, I end up with conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with the story. Because the story takes place inside the head of "an angry young man" who just happens to be highly skilled at creating detailed, complex plans.]

__________________
a neocon's worst nightmare;
a radical, leftist marksman

subway
killer_.243@hotmail.com

aspiring

But in a way you are showing dialogue because we get to see inside the killer's head. So the reader will know his reasons whereas the other characters in the book won't.

I have to say though that if your book is only 10% dialogue, I would be unlikely to read it. I also think it would be unlikely to get published, but to be honest it totally depends on your skill as a writer. If your writing is gripping, then you may be able to carry it off. There are always exceptions.

Have you thought of adding a subplot about a different character (the victim?) to balance it out? You could quite easily tell it in first person for the killer and third person for the victim. Just a suggestion.

Talia_Brie

The reason why most modern books are written with excessive levels of dialogue is that it improves the pace, and essentially makes the book look easier to read.

At the end of the day most publishers are now looking to market books that look a lot like Dan Brown's books, i.e. lots of action, and lots of white space on the page.

Read some Emberto Eco if you want to see really good narrative fiction. The Name of the Rose is a perfect example for you, as is Foucalt's Pendulum because they are both written in 1st person. The Name of the Rose is also a murder mystery.

__________________

dark+stormynight

I understand the current trend toward constant dialogue, but I'd really like to hear how one of you would tackle a "Unabomber" type of character. Locked alone in his cabin devising brilliant plots with zero interaction with any other humans. Adding dialogue 'just to add dialogue' can't be the correct answer, is it? He struggles with the decision of whether or not he will fight back against what he views as an evil scourge on society, then he decides to act and finally he develops remarkably well conceived plans of attack. All while locked away in his wilderness cabin. How woud YOU write that story? I've looked at it several different ways and none include making up dialogue that never occured. But how would you do it?

(I'm not writing a unabomber story, but the killer is almost that much of a loner; as are most criminals not behind bars. You talk, you go to jail...)

Jolly McJollyson

Not to nitpick, but the "Modern" era has come and gone. You're looking for the post-modern narrative, or, less specifically, the contemporary.

__________________
I'm not a writer.

Critique my writing.

Or my lyrics.

aspiring

I wouldn't write the book because it doesn't sound to me as though there is enough plot to satisfy a novel. Short story, yes. Novel, no.

However, the only way I would consider even attempting it would be to include flashbacks to the bomber's life. No bomber is born fully-formed - there will have been incidents along the way to make him who he is. The story is not the section in the isolated cabin - it's the path he took to get to the cabin.

The flashbacks would of course involve interaction with other people and participation in events. And dialogue.

Mike C

So true, and interesting to me as, a few days ago, I heard a radio interview with the Unabomber's brother. The Unabomber actually did live in an isolated cabin, but the back-story and how he came to be there was fascinating. It made him into a real person rather than just a bomber.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

dark+stormynight

I wouldn't write the book because it doesn't sound to me as though there is enough plot to satisfy a novel. Short story, yes. Novel, no.

The most fascinating home grown criminal / terrorist of the past 100 years lives alone in a cabin while plotting, preparing and executing almost ten devastating attacks on a variety of targets. I'm sorry but that's enough for a huge, fat 800 pager, in my opinion. (not that I have anything planned on that scale...) And while his back-story might be worthy of its own book, so to is the planning and execution of nearly ten people. I guess it comes down to what you find interesting: his frustrations in his earlier academic life, or the incredible planning and logistics necessary to carry out the attacks. Looking specifically at the Unabomber example (instead of the actual book I am working on) I'm now thinking that I would write it in diary form, with absolutely zero dialogue, but that's just me. The inner workings of a crazed/brilliant mind and the amazing devices that he creates; saving the humiliating events in his early life for the Lifetime mini-series.

Dachux

When someone is alone, do they have conversation? Writers do, the muse usually starts the discussion. A unabomber is crazier than most writers.

He's talking to himself alright, and to his explosives, and to his cabin, and to his timers, and to the guy that only he can see who tells him how smart he is--yeah, he's talking to somebody.

__________________
---The greatest test of leadership is knowing when to follow. ---Nobody plans to fail, but many have failed to plan. ---It's what you do when you think you're alone that defines you. ---You can't start where you were, only where you are ---Never quit.
For I am always,
Dachux

Talia_Brie

I disagree that the modern era is over, as do a lot of people, and while there is some post-modern fiction out there (Thomas Pynchon for example) most fiction is Modernist (i.e. traditional linear narrative). Although contemporary is probably a pretty good term.

__________________

Mike C

Oh, such meaningless drivel. Did you post that because you thought it was clever, or so that others might consider you to be so?

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press