Yup, there's definitely a balance to be struck. Every time I think about this balance, I keep going back to rule #1 of TV/Film: "Show, don't tell." If there's a good way to tell story by showing what's happening / what has happened, do that. If that's not possible, use dialogue. And if you ever find yourself writing the line: "What are we doing here again?" please, just give me a call. I'll talk you down and give you some alternative ways to convey necessary information.
Oh, and watch Severance! They do a great job of not overwhelming the viewer with tedious exposition that isn't additive to the story. The best-written shows are not afraid to let the viewer piece things together themselves. If your characters / situations / goals are compelling enough, you outgrow the need to explain every little thing about the world you've built.
Sorkin's style is instead of "kill your darlings" he kills everything BUT his darlings, then comes up with a few more darlings to fill in the gaps where that other stuff was and then they shoot it
As one who has described my own story dialogue (full length novels) as "Sorkinesque," I have an obvious leaning. However, I think the most perfect stories are those where the writers have managed to find a healthy mix of both dialogue and action.
I admit I find action scenes much harder to write. Most, in my stories, are kept short and simple. I try not to extend beyond my skill level. My most complex–an FBI trap set in FDR Park, Philadelphia–I detailed the choreography meticulously, based upon the surroundings. It'd certainly have been easier to write as stage notes than in novel form. So, I understand your view. I deliberately finished the chapter on a humorous line, in case I'd left readers minds spinning.
I had to laugh when you mentioned "walking" not being action, because in my second (and more complex) book I just began using that device to keep certain two-character conversations from feeling like talking heads. It offers just enough distraction to allow shiny dialogue to actually shine.
Nevertheless, you certainly make logical points. I just don't think it has to be either/or.
I write indie comics and I've wrestled with this myself quite a bit. If it's two guys arguing in a bar, unless they're going to come to some kind of high-flying action fighting, a comic isn't the right home for it. Less is more.
That same scene might work as a stageplay though. One setting, mostly dialogue.
If it's all from one character's point of view, along with some internal narration, a short story could be in order.
You can adapt from one medium to another, sure, but you should always consider one's strengths over the other.
Love this, thanks for sharing! And so true! I would def not imply people should pick one medium over another and and not budge from it for any particular work. Experiment! Explore! Try crazy new mediums if they make sense for what you’re making!
Yup, there's definitely a balance to be struck. Every time I think about this balance, I keep going back to rule #1 of TV/Film: "Show, don't tell." If there's a good way to tell story by showing what's happening / what has happened, do that. If that's not possible, use dialogue. And if you ever find yourself writing the line: "What are we doing here again?" please, just give me a call. I'll talk you down and give you some alternative ways to convey necessary information.
Oh, and watch Severance! They do a great job of not overwhelming the viewer with tedious exposition that isn't additive to the story. The best-written shows are not afraid to let the viewer piece things together themselves. If your characters / situations / goals are compelling enough, you outgrow the need to explain every little thing about the world you've built.
Sorkin's style is instead of "kill your darlings" he kills everything BUT his darlings, then comes up with a few more darlings to fill in the gaps where that other stuff was and then they shoot it
🤣
As one who has described my own story dialogue (full length novels) as "Sorkinesque," I have an obvious leaning. However, I think the most perfect stories are those where the writers have managed to find a healthy mix of both dialogue and action.
I admit I find action scenes much harder to write. Most, in my stories, are kept short and simple. I try not to extend beyond my skill level. My most complex–an FBI trap set in FDR Park, Philadelphia–I detailed the choreography meticulously, based upon the surroundings. It'd certainly have been easier to write as stage notes than in novel form. So, I understand your view. I deliberately finished the chapter on a humorous line, in case I'd left readers minds spinning.
I had to laugh when you mentioned "walking" not being action, because in my second (and more complex) book I just began using that device to keep certain two-character conversations from feeling like talking heads. It offers just enough distraction to allow shiny dialogue to actually shine.
Nevertheless, you certainly make logical points. I just don't think it has to be either/or.
I feel seen! "You ask if I have God Complex? I am God!" Sorkin is just sooo good:)
Comic books! You forgot comics. 😅
I write indie comics and I've wrestled with this myself quite a bit. If it's two guys arguing in a bar, unless they're going to come to some kind of high-flying action fighting, a comic isn't the right home for it. Less is more.
That same scene might work as a stageplay though. One setting, mostly dialogue.
If it's all from one character's point of view, along with some internal narration, a short story could be in order.
You can adapt from one medium to another, sure, but you should always consider one's strengths over the other.
Great post!
Love this, thanks for sharing! And so true! I would def not imply people should pick one medium over another and and not budge from it for any particular work. Experiment! Explore! Try crazy new mediums if they make sense for what you’re making!