Forms of Dialogue

[tinkerdan]

This post seems to suffer the same as a previous.

Forms of depiction and description

I Would like to know about your preferred style of depiction or description of different scenes, environments ( media ), relationships ( any kind ), major aspects, and details in general. For different Genres. Styles/manners: Highly detailed ( media/environment ) - separated from narration as a...

www.sffchronicles.com

It looks to me as though some language difference has caused your questions to become longer and more convoluted than necessary.

It appears as though you need to simplify the question; however you might need a translator to convert your unusual 'concise' wording into something simplistic enough for someone like me to understand(meaning: in the words we usually use for what you are trying to achieve--which would take someone who understands where you are coming from).

I'm not sure that my many available definitions of optimal and orthodox will easily lead us to the correct clue to the real question.

 

[Phyrebrat]

He's a noir writer from the 1950s, and so it's quite "tough" and the slag is dated,

Wait, what?

One minute we’re taking about Chandler and we end up with comparisons to Guy Ritchie?

(yes i know this has already been discovered, but it made me laugh in delight - and sorry for not having advice on the actual subject of this thread)

 

[sknox]

To follow on what The Judge said, and to speak more generally, discussion of specific writing problems, with examples, has always been more helpful to me, and more informative, than have any discussions of principles, rules, or other abstractions. Those wind up in the weeds of what this or that party thought another party might have meant when they said X. Discussions along the lines of "here is what I wrote, whaddya think?" are always more productive. This is why writing groups center on samples of writing rather than discussions of philosophy.

 

[silentmetaphor]

I'm still not sure what help you need which we can give you in a discussion of this kind.

Well, you were pretty helpful...

I do think that the problem is you're looking at this as an academic, or perhaps because in your native language there are rules which constrain how things are written; rules that by and large don't exist in English, other than in grammar and the like.

Not really, I would argue that my native language is actually more flexible than English. I was simply preparing myself for the challenge.
This was an attempt to open discussion about forms and styles of dialogue. I wanted to hear some opinions and perspectives of native speakers.

Once again sorry for not being clear, but I actually expected nothing more than your opinions and recommendations ( maybe some kind of description of the unique technique, form ). Also, my English is odd because I'm bilingual ( I speak Russian and Georgian, one is relatively closer to English, while Georgian is nothing like it ). Though my English is fine, the only practice of writing I had was in academic works, articles, technical texts, etc.
I really want to read, but time is not an abandoned fruit in my garden.

Rather than have us all talk at cross purposes, I really do think you need to show us what the problem is, and in perhaps simpler more direct language so there is less room for misunderstanding. As you now have over 30 counted posts, I'd suggest you put up an extract of your work in Critiques -- perhaps just 400 or 500 words to begin with -- and let us work out from that if the issue you're having with your writing is over POV use or the conflict between dialogue and narration/exposition or if it's something else altogether.

Yes, I'm actually working on few projects. Hopefully, I will find time to translate the first one and finish the others. Also, I will need to make isles out of continents, if I want to make them digestible.
Again thank you very much for your replies/comments, critique...

 

[silentmetaphor]

I think if you just start reading published authors you will begin to see the miriade ways of writing well.

Well, that's why I made this post, to learn, where I need to start from. I just want to find the key for treasure, without going too far in the dungeon, which is greedy, but also I expected nothing, few recommendations I could start from.
Now I have a whole list of works I have to check...

 

[silentmetaphor]

Okay, so are you basically asking how you can do multiple POV without making everything confusing and losing your reader? If so, the easiest way that I can think if is to preface each POV change with the name of the character. This would be done at a scene break or at the start of a new chapter and clearly identifies whose POV is now being used and doesn't interfere with the narrative flow because it's making use of existing breaks to create a smooth transition.

Well, technically speaking, prefacing is what I wanted, but in the dynamics of the conversation.
Your suggestion is pretty on point, and probably is my only option to execute the monster I want to face.

As for trying to write the narration in 1st person omniscient and the dialogue in 1st person limited and all from the same character(s) viewpoint and in a way that won't end up being a disaster. To be perfectly blunt, you can't. All you're likely to achieve is a perfect mess that will leave your readers confused and, possibly, even annoyed. The only way that I can think of where you might be be able to make this work is if you are writing in 1st person past tense and, even then, I have a difficult time imagining it as being a smooth and enjoyable read.

I figured that out very quickly, I don't think it's possible to do it in any languages I speak, at least without creating an abomination of a story.
I tried to write the story this way, in Georgian, and it was way too confusing ( it was slightly different because I tried to use fixed sequences for the first person and third-person perspectives in different time periods, as from step to step, plus an omniscient narrator... and it was "still" a CHAOS )

It sounds to me like you may be making things more complicated than you need to. If the way you are trying to write isn't working, then just change it instead of beating your head against a wall trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Yes, it was an unnecessary and probably...most likely annoying set of questions. I could just ask for some recommendations about dialogue-heavy/dialogue-focused works.

 

[Laura R Hepworth]

Well, technically speaking, prefacing is what I wanted, but in the dynamics of the conversation.
Your suggestion is pretty on point, and probably is my only option to execute the monster I want to face.

Have you considered writing it in the epistolary style? That's about the only other way where I can see prefacing being used as part of the story instead of a narrative interruption and allow you to right 1st person for so many different characters clearly.

 

[silentmetaphor]

Have you considered writing it in the epistolary style? That's about the only other way where I can see prefacing being used as part of the story instead of a narrative interruption and allow you to right 1st person for so many different characters clearly.

Well, it's a nice suggestion, but I'm not sure if it would replicate the feeling of "consistency in chaos". I don't want to find THE WAY for just one story, but I want to find the form for that specific story ( even though I can't even decide on a version ). I have a terrible obsession with creating multiple versions of one story and treating them all as one.

 

[silentmetaphor]

This post seems to suffer the same as a previous.

Forms of depiction and description

I Would like to know about your preferred style of depiction or description of different scenes, environments ( media ), relationships ( any kind ), major aspects, and details in general. For different Genres. Styles/manners: Highly detailed ( media/environment ) - separated from narration as a...

www.sffchronicles.com

It looks to me as though some language difference has caused your questions to become longer and more convoluted than necessary.

It appears as though you need to simplify the question; however you might need a translator to convert your unusual 'concise' wording into something simplistic enough for someone like me to understand(meaning: in the words we usually use for what you are trying to achieve--which would take someone who understands where you are coming from).

I'm not sure that my many available definitions of optimal and orthodox will easily lead us to the correct clue to the real question.

It's more like (sometimes) I avoid, and I really try to avoid being too specific or even too explicit. I also had a terrible habit of applying my own "logic" to others and their perception or evaluation. Ignored connotation or terms/framing easily explains my use of vocabulary. I wouldn't say reading context is demanding, but it's definitely misleading and annoying.