I find it really fun and easy to describe scenarios and people and all the thoughts around the subjects in my novels or stories, what I find more difficult is to actually have a realistic development of action throughout the story. I think maybe that there is too little action in my writing and too much philosophy and double meanings. Is there any genre I could write keeping my way of writing that any of you know of? Do you know any authors who have gotten away with this? If not do you have any suggestions on how to create more action and more dialouge (dialouge is also hard to have enough of at least its hard to keep it realistic like different people with different mindsets will say different things) in my stories?
If it's a character-based story then there doesn't have to be a lot of 'action' per se (if you're talking about action like in an action movie). There should, however, always be conflict. I find the easiest way to increase conflict in my stories is to ask myself 'what is the worst possible thing that could happen now?' and make that happen. It could be something as blatant as a lion jumping out and attacking someone, or as subtle as a character taking something another chatacter said out of context and acting on it. It doesn't matter if not a lot happens, as long as there is conflict in every scene.
Great points, Quorum. I'm in the same boat with you, OP - I'd love for my characters to engage endlessly in internal monologues, because that's the most interesting thing to me (my characters are begging to sit down and have a conversation with me, I think). But, that doesn't move a plot forward and serves really only as a character sketch. I've had to channel that creativity into weaving those character emotions with conflict. It's hard but very satisfying. Consequently, my writing is with peppered with a liberal helping of... internal monologue between all of the actual story elements As for other authors, Frank Herbert's Dune has lots of internal monologues but is also one of the most conflict-filled stories I've read. It's all about balance.
I don't think there necessarily needs to be conflict in every scene, but there should be some purpose to it. If you can look at a particular chunk of writing and see it doesn't push your story forward, in some way, then it often could (should) go.
Action means something is happening. It need not be mortal peril and explosions. It can be answering a significant phone call, or having to postpone a meeting because of car problems. Every scene should either advance a plot or develop a character. Developing a character also involves a plot. Plot and conflict are clolsely associated terms (Please read What is Plot Creation and Development?), hence the recommendation that every scene should contain conflict. A scene that does not advance the story or develop a character should be ruhlessly cut.
