On the 3rd draft of my current WIP - a linked collection. Each chapter is a unique story except for what/who is linked of course, but the overarching plot is slowly revealed mostly through dialogue. I know this seems pretty normal, but does dialogue have different rules in a collection as opposed to a full length? I don't reveal all of the main plot this way, but as the drafts have evolved I realized I've created a lot of conversation scenes that drop breadcrumbs up to the finale - which itself is a huge conversation among the two MCs, who have been on different but converging paths throughout the chapters. This was intentional, but I'm wondering if there's too much talk. Being my 3rd book, you'd think I'd know by now Maybe I'm overthinking, maybe not. It's a generally linear collection, but the two main characters are never in the same scene until the last chapter, but each reveals his "mission" in places in the preceding chapters. Is that a good, bad, or indifferent thing? Does sprinkling plot in dialogue equate to too much "telling"? Or am I just going bonkers, asking a stupid question (which kind of feels that way now that I've typed it out) and should finish the damned manuscript already?
Hello there! I find your question actually very interesting, since I have been thinking about doing the same with a series of short stories. Now, it's a bit difficult to tell if there is "too much tell" without reading the actual written dialogue or each story, but here's my take, if it helps: Could each individual story be told without those dialogues? If no, then the dialogue is probably fine. If yes, well, it depends. Do these dialogues take the reader away from the individual story where they are taking place? Do they feel like a parenthesis? If no, then, they are likely fine. If yes, then they are most likely not. It's not a perfect method, and as I told you, there are many things that can be evaluated, depending on how these dialogues are written, but the above is a guide for me. Kind regards!
That's a good way to frame it with the questions. Here's how I can answer them: 1. Yes. Each story is unique, although one is a sequel to the chapter before it...but if someone doesn't read the chapter before it, they won't miss anything major. 3. The dialogues in each story are important and relevant for THAT story. There's some foreshadowing and hints at a bigger thing coming, but nothing that takes away from the individual/smaller plot in each unique chapter. So looking at it that way, I'm probably fine. Maybe I just had to say (type) my concern out loud
I read a lot of short stories and short story collections. Just actually picked up four new collections at the bookstore the other day. So, I would have to say that's not how things are being handled in the stuff I'm reading. I'd say the trend is getting sparser with dialog. That's just my take on the current publications and issues I've been reading. Now, here's the thing. I would never tell you to do things differently if you've found the right way to write these stories. It's a little experimental, but maybe it truly is great. You could even really lean into it. And it could be wonderful. At the same time, I think it's good for writers to question themselves and their WIPs. It can both make us back something or make us change something. I guess when thinking about you work try to put the story before the style when self evaluating. That might help you figure out if the structure you've taken on for the story is or isn't the best way to have written that story. Think about thing, sure, but you could have don't go into this with a mission to destroy. I mean, you wrote a whole collection in this format. That's got to mean for some reason. Good luck with this. And I wish you clarity during your revision process which I know isn't always easy.
It's execution. You'll know for sure how well it's done when people either finish or don't finish reading the book. Crime and Punishment, if I recall, seemed to reveal a vast amount of the plot through dialogue. It wasn't my kind of book, but it's regarded as one of the best pieces of literature ever written, so make of that what you will. Being interesting is all that matters. Conflict between speakers creates interest, but so do genuinely compelling lines and stakes. Missing a few elements can leave a conversation as blatant 'as you know' exposition, which is a dry pill to swallow when it's not crushed into some drama spaghetti.
As Im revising each chapter (individual story), there is enough exposition and action in each for the right balance, I feel. There is plenty at stake in each story, and it ties into literally the whole world being at stake by the end. I've just been second guessing a little over the way the main, overarching plot (which is far from a good ending), is being revealed. The MC explaining himself at times to different folks has a purpose - for HIM. Basically everything the MC does and says is in a self-serving manner, which comes full circle at the end. He has an agenda. This is sprinkled in through each chapter - he is one of the main links in the linked collection. From a high level it all ties in nicely and makes sense. I just might be too close to it that is causing me a little pause. Idk. The real big test will be when the editor gets it. She might say "wow, this is strung together really well!" or "Holy crap, what is this mess?"
An idea that might help make things more interesting. How reliable is the MC in revealing plot issues? With a self serving MC, how would that slant some of what he reveals? How would the discover of this complicate things for the MC? Some ideas to consider.
This is a good point. If the story is mostly revealed through dialog what one character tells another is probably selective and skewed to their agenda. Why are they telling this other charter about whatever it is? How truthful and forthcoming are they? Why is this conversation taking place? All of this can both reveal character and advance the plot. @Damage718 -- you've taken an interesting approach. I hope it works out for you.
With 2 MCs, and their interaction the climax of the story. I have to ask, how much has the second MC, heard of what the first MC has said? How does this complicate their interaction? Dies MC#2 have proof of a previous falsrhood by MC#1? How does MC#1 deal with the comfortation? Does he get defensive? Etc I think you have an interesting premise for this story, based on what i have see of the summary. I wish you luck with the project.
What the MC reveals definitely is skewed to his agenda. Everything he does is for his own gain. He has a reason for doing what he's doing and sometimes he reveals it in cocky "you're too late" ways, and in others its to "teach you a lesson" if that makes sense. Each chapter has its own subplot but there are bits strewn in each, either connections in the narrative to previous chapters, or through dialogue, that speak to - and lead up to - the bigger story.
Thank you! As for your question, the second MC knows of the main MC...they know each other but haven't interacted in, well, millennia. Their confrontation at the end is not surprising to either, they both expected it to happen. MC2 knows all the falsehoods and actions MC1 has done, but he isn't aware of his one final act until it's too late.
