I don't currently listen to the audio, but I might if I could in my podcast app. Is there a feed URL? (I just tried the URL to your substack, but Overcast didn't see any actual podcast feed.)
I actually like when a story starts with dialogue. It gets us quickly connected with the characters. Although a description of what the character is doing works too. What I'm not a fan of is an opening that doesn't provide information in a timely manner. If I'm several paragraphs in and still don't know what's going on, at least at some level, I'm losing interest fast.
I can see the need for interiority, but many authors go way overboard. I'm not saying it has to be all action either, but a story mostly of someone thinking, unless their thoughts are about something really interesting, often feels slow and tedious. Often authors sneak a lot of infodumping in a character ruminating about their life. Like all infodumps, it needs to be quick.
That said, I haven't spent time going through a slushpile, so I'm looking at it through the lens of what does typically get published.
There was supposed to be a way you could listen to it on an app, but maybe you have to have the Substack app? This is part of what's so confusing about the difference between voiceovers and podcasts. Maybe it's just confusing to me because I don't listen to podcasts.
The thing about opening with dialogue isn't something I see too often with writers in general, only philosophers, it seems. It's not that I have something against it in itself, if done right and if it seems like the most appropriate way into the story. The kind I'm talking about amounts to a bad hook where you're just confused about what's going on rather than intrigued. I think many writers get confused about what a hook is and they assume making a reader wonder "what's going on?" is a hook. Philosophers in particular seem to like doing this with dialogue, often without anything breaking it up or offering a glimpse into the scene. At least that's what I've noticed. It'll look like this:
"blah blah blah" [name] said.
"blah blah blah" [name] said.
"blah blah blah"
"blah blah blah"
And it goes on for half a page to a page like that. You'd have to be David Foster Wallace to get away with something like that.
I hear you on inner thoughts. Usually it's a good thing to have a mix of techniques going on to keep things interesting and multidimensional.
I was actually able to figure out the podcast thing by googling around. Subtack could definitely make that easier. And it looks like I have to subscribe to each podcast you have defined. Right now I've only got the the Truth and Generosity one in my app. Now to remember I did that on your next post.
I'm with you on just "what's going on?" being a bad hook. I think it's easy to get confused between the version that does work, which involves sharing enough information for a mystery to be intriguing, and just starting out with little to no info and not knowing what's happening.
I've never read David Foster Wallace. Based on what I've heard about his stuff, he's not for me.
On straight dialogue, I think a lot of people would like to achieve something like Terry Bison's "They're Made Out of Meat", but like second person, it's a technique useful only in a very limited number of scenarios. But I can see writers trying to force it.
Thanks for letting me know what's going on with the podcasts. I had no idea that you had to subscribe to each one individually. If I had known that, I might have divided things up in a simpler way and put all of my audio into a newsletter/section called "podcasts".
Yeah, I don't think you'd like Infinite Jest. DFW is quite the virtuoso, but ultimately there is no ending, which I found deeply unsatisfying even though I knew it was coming from the beginning. I marvel that he was able to pull me in, but I don't know that it would captivate a reader who is not also interested in novel stylistic techniques.
That story is an interesting example of going against the grain in a way that works. Notice the main point of intrigue is "Who is talking?" Readers are forced to imagine what these aliens look like, but it's hard to imagine given what they're saying about meat. And really, any description of what they looked like or their environment would take away from the story.
Good post! Funny synchronicity here. I just finished reading a collection of short SF stories from "the Radium era" (the very late 1800s and very early 1900s). In one of them, a guy dies, goes to heaven, and seeks out Immanuel Kant for a conversation about philosophy. Surprised me a little, but I'm guessing that back then Kant was more in the popular eye.
I've also read a novella centered on Godel's incompleteness theory, so I agree with your notion that philosophy has lots of interesting story points.
"Raining cats and dogs" -- a phrase I've never quite understood. One of my favorite literary examples of having fun with literalisms is Philip K. Dick's short story, "The Eyes Have It". The narrator is astonished to discover, in the pages of an ordinary book, that aliens live among us. He cites such examples as where "...his eyes slowly roved about the room." And later, worse, "...his eyes moved from person to person." Obviously, an alien with detachable eyes!
I suspect many such stories are SF because it's so much easier to set up unusual situations with the latitude of SF.
I'll push back a little on the opening-with-dialog thing, too. A few lines do, for me, kick things off nicely, but there needs to be some descriptive text pretty quickly to avoid the problem you raise. I've often found dialog speeding up the story and (over much) description bringing to dead slow.
As an aside, keeping the reader in the dark is such a staple of SF that, if there's a correlation between those who write philosophical fiction and those who write SF, I can see why "keeping the reader in the dark" might be seen as a hook.
As to podcasts or voiceovers, they're not for me. My hearing issues, mainly, but I can read so much faster than a person can speak, that the content has to be seriously "can't miss this!!" for me to be interested. I've tried various podcasts and didn't care for them.
"I've often found dialog speeding up the story and (over much) description bringing to dead slow."
I think you're talking about the way authors handle pacing, and yeah, long descriptions that aren't well-executed and don't need to be there are a total bore. Of course, dialogue can be a total bore for the same reasons: "Hey, how's it going?" "All right. You?" "I'm good." "Yeah."
What I meant is, dialogue slows time within the story. For instance:
We promised to meet each year. Same date. Same time. For decades our meetings went like clockwork, but five years ago we had a little blip. I still remember that day.
(Time within the story is whizzing past 'decades'. It's going by so fast there's virtually no detail.)
It had taken me over an hour to arrive at the little coffee shop downtown where we said we'd meet, and another half an hour to find parking. Somehow I managed to arrive on time, but she wasn't there, so I waited for her in our corner booth.
(Time within the story is still moving fairly fast, but it's slowing down to a different time scale, an event that happened five years ago. We've covered what would have been a very boring drive downtown in a few lines because no one wants to hear about him opening the car door, what the radio station was playing, or whether he had to refill his gas tank, etc.)
I picked up the menu and held it in front of my face, pretending to read as I watched the door. I didn't want to tell the waitress I was waiting for someone, so I ordered. The food came. I guess I ate it. I don't remember. By the time the waitress brought the check I knew it was pointless to hope any longer, but for some reason I remained in my seat.
(Slower still.)
"More coffee?" The carafe hovered over my mug, its spout slightly tilted. I looked up at the waitress and wondered at her uncomfortable grin. I had not yet registered her question.
"Hey, stranger! Sorry I'm late."
blahblah...
Anyway, you see how time within the story is much slower once the dialogue comes in?
Even if the dialogue is completely outside of a scene (unlike above), maybe scattered in little bits in an expository summary, it takes a precise moment in time and slows down the exposition for a moment to encapsulate something that was happening.
Okay, I see what you mean. It’s like memory or dreams. We can shift scenes and jump around in time and “jump cut” ahead and generally ignore the flow of time. Whereas dialog is necessarily according to a ticking clock, so to speak.
That said your story didn’t get really interesting until the dialog. 😁
In all seriousness, I think a lot depends on reader preference. P.D. James drove me crazy with all her descriptions of architectural details. But I imagine there are those who thrive on it.
Yes, that's it. Dialogue necessarily plays out in real time, and moments in real time are always the most gripping and most important—assuming we're talking about something well-written. But if there's too much dialogue, nothing stands out as important because it's all way too in-your-face. Really, too much of anything gets tiresome. Variety being the spice of life and all.
But I hear you on lengthy descriptions. I think that's where the more literary writers like to show off their chops sometimes, but that can backfire. A while back I read a debut literary novel (written in the 50s) called The Lost Country by J.R. Salamanca. At some point the descriptions went on for many many pages, and I eventually started skipping ahead. Some of his descriptions are breathtakingly accurate, the kind we writers swoon at, so it was a shame. But—balance! Later I began another novel by the same author, one written much later in his career, and I couldn't get into it at all. Not surprising, really. Established authors have a tendency to be self-indulgent in their writing since they know people will buy their books anyway.
Heh, I was just thinking about a story (or worse, an entire novel) that was nothing but dialog. I’ll admit that doesn’t seem anywhere near as workable as a story that’s just description (which some are). I think you’re right, too, about indulgence, but I do suspect some people enjoy that — call it “richness and texture” or whatever.
I was thinking about filming the story you told and what that would do to pacing. The stuff up to the dialog would be a series of shots doing the things you described, and the pacing and feel would be very different indeed from the feel once the dialog began. As you say, in a sense the pacing jumps from dreamlike jump cuts fast time flow to real time and straightforward storytelling (whereas one could be creative in the earlier shots).
So, yes, in a sense dialog slows the story down, I quite agree. In another sense, and this is what I was trying to get at, it’s also when a story switches from somewhat dreamlike to real time. In a sense it becomes more human, or at least more personal.
Reader’s preference, obviously, but between internal monologue, omniscient description, and good old dialog, I’ll take the dialog (with a side of onion rings and an iced tea). 😆
I don't currently listen to the audio, but I might if I could in my podcast app. Is there a feed URL? (I just tried the URL to your substack, but Overcast didn't see any actual podcast feed.)
I actually like when a story starts with dialogue. It gets us quickly connected with the characters. Although a description of what the character is doing works too. What I'm not a fan of is an opening that doesn't provide information in a timely manner. If I'm several paragraphs in and still don't know what's going on, at least at some level, I'm losing interest fast.
I can see the need for interiority, but many authors go way overboard. I'm not saying it has to be all action either, but a story mostly of someone thinking, unless their thoughts are about something really interesting, often feels slow and tedious. Often authors sneak a lot of infodumping in a character ruminating about their life. Like all infodumps, it needs to be quick.
That said, I haven't spent time going through a slushpile, so I'm looking at it through the lens of what does typically get published.
There was supposed to be a way you could listen to it on an app, but maybe you have to have the Substack app? This is part of what's so confusing about the difference between voiceovers and podcasts. Maybe it's just confusing to me because I don't listen to podcasts.
The thing about opening with dialogue isn't something I see too often with writers in general, only philosophers, it seems. It's not that I have something against it in itself, if done right and if it seems like the most appropriate way into the story. The kind I'm talking about amounts to a bad hook where you're just confused about what's going on rather than intrigued. I think many writers get confused about what a hook is and they assume making a reader wonder "what's going on?" is a hook. Philosophers in particular seem to like doing this with dialogue, often without anything breaking it up or offering a glimpse into the scene. At least that's what I've noticed. It'll look like this:
"blah blah blah" [name] said.
"blah blah blah" [name] said.
"blah blah blah"
"blah blah blah"
And it goes on for half a page to a page like that. You'd have to be David Foster Wallace to get away with something like that.
I hear you on inner thoughts. Usually it's a good thing to have a mix of techniques going on to keep things interesting and multidimensional.
I was actually able to figure out the podcast thing by googling around. Subtack could definitely make that easier. And it looks like I have to subscribe to each podcast you have defined. Right now I've only got the the Truth and Generosity one in my app. Now to remember I did that on your next post.
I'm with you on just "what's going on?" being a bad hook. I think it's easy to get confused between the version that does work, which involves sharing enough information for a mystery to be intriguing, and just starting out with little to no info and not knowing what's happening.
I've never read David Foster Wallace. Based on what I've heard about his stuff, he's not for me.
On straight dialogue, I think a lot of people would like to achieve something like Terry Bison's "They're Made Out of Meat", but like second person, it's a technique useful only in a very limited number of scenarios. But I can see writers trying to force it.
Thanks for letting me know what's going on with the podcasts. I had no idea that you had to subscribe to each one individually. If I had known that, I might have divided things up in a simpler way and put all of my audio into a newsletter/section called "podcasts".
Yeah, I don't think you'd like Infinite Jest. DFW is quite the virtuoso, but ultimately there is no ending, which I found deeply unsatisfying even though I knew it was coming from the beginning. I marvel that he was able to pull me in, but I don't know that it would captivate a reader who is not also interested in novel stylistic techniques.
That story is an interesting example of going against the grain in a way that works. Notice the main point of intrigue is "Who is talking?" Readers are forced to imagine what these aliens look like, but it's hard to imagine given what they're saying about meat. And really, any description of what they looked like or their environment would take away from the story.
Thanks so much, Tina, for that great advice about writing philosophical fiction!
Thanks for reading!
Popular philosophy books thus far have not been good stories and have not been good philosophy. Tread carefully.
Good post! Funny synchronicity here. I just finished reading a collection of short SF stories from "the Radium era" (the very late 1800s and very early 1900s). In one of them, a guy dies, goes to heaven, and seeks out Immanuel Kant for a conversation about philosophy. Surprised me a little, but I'm guessing that back then Kant was more in the popular eye.
I've also read a novella centered on Godel's incompleteness theory, so I agree with your notion that philosophy has lots of interesting story points.
"Raining cats and dogs" -- a phrase I've never quite understood. One of my favorite literary examples of having fun with literalisms is Philip K. Dick's short story, "The Eyes Have It". The narrator is astonished to discover, in the pages of an ordinary book, that aliens live among us. He cites such examples as where "...his eyes slowly roved about the room." And later, worse, "...his eyes moved from person to person." Obviously, an alien with detachable eyes!
Delightful read, freely available at Gutenberg:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31516/31516-h/31516-h.htm
I suspect many such stories are SF because it's so much easier to set up unusual situations with the latitude of SF.
I'll push back a little on the opening-with-dialog thing, too. A few lines do, for me, kick things off nicely, but there needs to be some descriptive text pretty quickly to avoid the problem you raise. I've often found dialog speeding up the story and (over much) description bringing to dead slow.
As an aside, keeping the reader in the dark is such a staple of SF that, if there's a correlation between those who write philosophical fiction and those who write SF, I can see why "keeping the reader in the dark" might be seen as a hook.
As to podcasts or voiceovers, they're not for me. My hearing issues, mainly, but I can read so much faster than a person can speak, that the content has to be seriously "can't miss this!!" for me to be interested. I've tried various podcasts and didn't care for them.
"The Eyes Have It" is a great example!
"I've often found dialog speeding up the story and (over much) description bringing to dead slow."
I think you're talking about the way authors handle pacing, and yeah, long descriptions that aren't well-executed and don't need to be there are a total bore. Of course, dialogue can be a total bore for the same reasons: "Hey, how's it going?" "All right. You?" "I'm good." "Yeah."
What I meant is, dialogue slows time within the story. For instance:
We promised to meet each year. Same date. Same time. For decades our meetings went like clockwork, but five years ago we had a little blip. I still remember that day.
(Time within the story is whizzing past 'decades'. It's going by so fast there's virtually no detail.)
It had taken me over an hour to arrive at the little coffee shop downtown where we said we'd meet, and another half an hour to find parking. Somehow I managed to arrive on time, but she wasn't there, so I waited for her in our corner booth.
(Time within the story is still moving fairly fast, but it's slowing down to a different time scale, an event that happened five years ago. We've covered what would have been a very boring drive downtown in a few lines because no one wants to hear about him opening the car door, what the radio station was playing, or whether he had to refill his gas tank, etc.)
I picked up the menu and held it in front of my face, pretending to read as I watched the door. I didn't want to tell the waitress I was waiting for someone, so I ordered. The food came. I guess I ate it. I don't remember. By the time the waitress brought the check I knew it was pointless to hope any longer, but for some reason I remained in my seat.
(Slower still.)
"More coffee?" The carafe hovered over my mug, its spout slightly tilted. I looked up at the waitress and wondered at her uncomfortable grin. I had not yet registered her question.
"Hey, stranger! Sorry I'm late."
blahblah...
Anyway, you see how time within the story is much slower once the dialogue comes in?
Even if the dialogue is completely outside of a scene (unlike above), maybe scattered in little bits in an expository summary, it takes a precise moment in time and slows down the exposition for a moment to encapsulate something that was happening.
Okay, I see what you mean. It’s like memory or dreams. We can shift scenes and jump around in time and “jump cut” ahead and generally ignore the flow of time. Whereas dialog is necessarily according to a ticking clock, so to speak.
That said your story didn’t get really interesting until the dialog. 😁
In all seriousness, I think a lot depends on reader preference. P.D. James drove me crazy with all her descriptions of architectural details. But I imagine there are those who thrive on it.
Yes, that's it. Dialogue necessarily plays out in real time, and moments in real time are always the most gripping and most important—assuming we're talking about something well-written. But if there's too much dialogue, nothing stands out as important because it's all way too in-your-face. Really, too much of anything gets tiresome. Variety being the spice of life and all.
But I hear you on lengthy descriptions. I think that's where the more literary writers like to show off their chops sometimes, but that can backfire. A while back I read a debut literary novel (written in the 50s) called The Lost Country by J.R. Salamanca. At some point the descriptions went on for many many pages, and I eventually started skipping ahead. Some of his descriptions are breathtakingly accurate, the kind we writers swoon at, so it was a shame. But—balance! Later I began another novel by the same author, one written much later in his career, and I couldn't get into it at all. Not surprising, really. Established authors have a tendency to be self-indulgent in their writing since they know people will buy their books anyway.
Heh, I was just thinking about a story (or worse, an entire novel) that was nothing but dialog. I’ll admit that doesn’t seem anywhere near as workable as a story that’s just description (which some are). I think you’re right, too, about indulgence, but I do suspect some people enjoy that — call it “richness and texture” or whatever.
I was thinking about filming the story you told and what that would do to pacing. The stuff up to the dialog would be a series of shots doing the things you described, and the pacing and feel would be very different indeed from the feel once the dialog began. As you say, in a sense the pacing jumps from dreamlike jump cuts fast time flow to real time and straightforward storytelling (whereas one could be creative in the earlier shots).
So, yes, in a sense dialog slows the story down, I quite agree. In another sense, and this is what I was trying to get at, it’s also when a story switches from somewhat dreamlike to real time. In a sense it becomes more human, or at least more personal.
Reader’s preference, obviously, but between internal monologue, omniscient description, and good old dialog, I’ll take the dialog (with a side of onion rings and an iced tea). 😆