As I've mentioned in the past, my stories tend to be pretty heavy in dialogue. To me, there's nothing more frustrating than encountering a giant, unbroken, rectangular block of text on a page. I don't care how vivid the description is--if nothing's happening, I'm not interested.
However--I feel the same way about long expository sections. It's the same feeling I get when someone describes a movie to me in excessive detail. Why isn't that the same as seeing it myself? Because we don't see a movie to learn about a specific plot. We go to see that plot unfolded before us through the actors' portrayal.
In that case, what do I like? For me, that's character. A story is only as interesting as the people who are participating in it. If you don't believe me, consider this.
Did you hear that Ellen just started going out with Jim? What do you think Larry will do when he finds out?
Ah, gossip. There's nothing more interesting... if you know the people being gossiped about. Otherwise, you might as well listening to static and watching a television test pattern. It would take an unusual event to get you to start listening to gossip about people you don't know, and even more to keep you listening.
But really, that's what storytelling is. It's gossip about people you don't know. Over the course of the story, you may come to know them, which is called becoming invested in the characters. If you don't get to know them like that, one of the biggest motivations to keep reading is gone.
Now, the point of all of this was dialogue, as opposed to description and exposition. The function of dialogue is character interaction, which is the heart of what drives plot forward. Just try to find a story with only two characters in which those characters don't interact. (Yes, they can interact without speaking. I'm saying that dialogue is a kind of interaction, not the only kind.)
But dialogue has other effects too. When a person speaks, he's not just getting across his message--he's also revealing things about himself. Through dialogue, you can move the plot forward in a way that doesn't rely on huge paragraphs of exposition, and you can shine a light on character in a way that engages the reader.
Dialogue has one other side effect that's all thanks to the way English grammar works. The typical rule is one speaker per paragraph. So when there's dialogue, those huge blocks of text get broken up into smaller pieces, and the eye can fly down the page. You want to write a page turner? Then stop spending six pages describing the sunset. If it's important, get a couple of characters talking about the sunset. Then we learn about those characters based on the way they describe the sunset, their reaction to it and each other.
Showing posts with label exposition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exposition. Show all posts
25 February 2009
13 September 2008
Scriptwriting versus Prose
Confession: We never escape from our old selves, but we can stand on top of those selves to reach higher things.
Reading:
As you can see, I did some Ferian today. Not a lot, and not as much as I should have, but some. And that's something. Progress is progress, and I refuse to sneeze at it, because it's more than I've done lately.
Still, inspiration struck this evening in an unexpected way. I wrote a comedy sketch for the podcast Chicken Fried Radio, which I will hopefully get the chance to perform and record at some point in the near future.
At one point, I considered trying to get into comedy writing for television. Working for the Daily Show or Colbert Report, for instance. However, my total net experience was a friend's roast back in college, which is hardly a basis to judge a future career. (It was fun though.)
Doing that short script today got me thinking, though, about the differences between writing a script versus writing a novel. In a script, you're writing for a performance. In an audio-only environment, you can control the dialogue and environmental audio, and nothing else. In a screenplay, there's the whole world of scenery that you can hint at, but the real work in developing the visuals is left to others.
There are certain elements to consider in a script, such as timing, that do not apply to prose. That's not to say that prose does not have an inherent rhythm. I think what I'm getting at is that a script is meant to be performed and interpreted by a given set of performers.
Prose, on the other hand, is performed anew each time it is read, and it is done differently by everyone who reads it! That sounds so much more difficult to accomplish.
Luckily, the prose writer has a tool that the scriptwriter lacks, and that is exposition. The way that a character's actions and setting and appearance and all those little things are described influences the way the reader interprets a scene. For example.
Compare that to this: same dialogue, different exposition.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that exposition in a piece of dialogue is what gives the reader the clues he needs to be able to perform that dialogue in his head. Clever exposition does it without the reader even realizing it, but too much exposition threatens to bury the dialogue, which is the true action of any scene with speech.
Publication Status:
Reading:
- "L. DeBard and Aliette: A Love Story," by Lauren Groff
- The House of Mirth, by Edith Wharton
- "Ferian Fetlock Hitches a Ride" - 1,820 words (Estimated completion 18%)
- "Ferian Fetlock Catches a Cold" - Outline 100%
- "The Revenant"
- "Cora and the Sea" - Third draft 50%
As you can see, I did some Ferian today. Not a lot, and not as much as I should have, but some. And that's something. Progress is progress, and I refuse to sneeze at it, because it's more than I've done lately.
Still, inspiration struck this evening in an unexpected way. I wrote a comedy sketch for the podcast Chicken Fried Radio, which I will hopefully get the chance to perform and record at some point in the near future.
At one point, I considered trying to get into comedy writing for television. Working for the Daily Show or Colbert Report, for instance. However, my total net experience was a friend's roast back in college, which is hardly a basis to judge a future career. (It was fun though.)
Doing that short script today got me thinking, though, about the differences between writing a script versus writing a novel. In a script, you're writing for a performance. In an audio-only environment, you can control the dialogue and environmental audio, and nothing else. In a screenplay, there's the whole world of scenery that you can hint at, but the real work in developing the visuals is left to others.
There are certain elements to consider in a script, such as timing, that do not apply to prose. That's not to say that prose does not have an inherent rhythm. I think what I'm getting at is that a script is meant to be performed and interpreted by a given set of performers.
Prose, on the other hand, is performed anew each time it is read, and it is done differently by everyone who reads it! That sounds so much more difficult to accomplish.
Luckily, the prose writer has a tool that the scriptwriter lacks, and that is exposition. The way that a character's actions and setting and appearance and all those little things are described influences the way the reader interprets a scene. For example.
"It just wasn't the same without George there." Evelyn could barely keep from twirling on the spot. The energy surged up and down her body, made her worn-out sneakers feel new again. The sunlight sparkled on the waves like it was sharing a joke with her and her alone
"I've never seen you like this!" Hank chuckled and shook his head. "So what are you going to do now?"
"What else can I do?" she giggled, skipping along the boardwalk. "Now I have to go."
Compare that to this: same dialogue, different exposition.
"It just wasn't the same without George there." Evelyn sank a fraction of an inch deeper into the stiff backed chair. It wasn't welcoming. None of the furniture here was. But wasn't that the way with funeral homes? A fashionable, well-appointed place, like a living room. Just the opposite, really. There was no comfort to be found here.Finally, compare that to the same dialogue in a script.
"I've never seen you like this!" Hank leaned over and took her hand. She did not grip back, and after a few moments, he let her hand slide from his, back to the green brocaded chair arm. His voice dropped to a whisper. "So what are you going to do now?"
"What else can I do?" The words sounded small in her ears, hardly as if they were coming from her own lips. "Now I have to go."
Evelyn: It just wasn't the same without George there.Sure, there could be stage direction, and surely there would be a description of the scenery earlier in the script. But the performance would be done by actors, not by the exposition.
Hank: I've never seen you like this! So what are you going to do now.
Evelyn: What else can I do? Now I have to go.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that exposition in a piece of dialogue is what gives the reader the clues he needs to be able to perform that dialogue in his head. Clever exposition does it without the reader even realizing it, but too much exposition threatens to bury the dialogue, which is the true action of any scene with speech.
Publication Status:
- Submitted: 5
- Accepted: 1.25?
- Rejected: 2
- Pending: 1.75?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)