Regarding dialogue...

[SckizoBoy]

I... like so many other people around here in all likelihood... enjoy writing, and I tend to play around with various narrative devices. Here's one that I'm... interested in, if only to imply a certain commonality in the participants.

So, a tad random, but how would you feel, when reading an extending piece of dialogue, that you become unable to distinguish between the speakers (other than by counting back each spoken line)?

For context, the dialogue would be a largely philosophical discourse.

 

[Queen Michael]

I like that kind of thing.

 

[DoPo]

So, a tad random, but how would you feel, when reading an extending piece of dialogue, that you become unable to distinguish between the speakers (other than by counting back each spoken line)?

For context, the dialogue would be a largely philosophical discourse.

How would I feel when I see text that's making me confused? I guess I'll feel the same way that always happens - I'll be confused. I don't really hate this kinds of situations, nor do I find them irritating, but I slightly dislike them.

 

[Asita]

Depends. I could see a pair of characters doing that and not be turned off at all (granted though, that's VERY dependent on their overall characterizations). If it was a part of a larger trend (read: You could replace either speaker with most of the cast and not come across as OOC) I'd say that's a very strong indicator that the author needs to put more thought into his/her characters.

 

[Joccaren]

I dislike it. Its not that hard to add in some actions as well to help indicate who is speaking to who, and reading through such conversations where I have no idea who is talking gets annoying as I have to wait until later in the story to figure out what the hell is going on in this chapter because the author couldn't tell me who's saying what. Sometimes, this is fine, usually if its just exposition. Sometimes it can be an important part of the text, however, where who's saying what has a major impact on my impressions of certain past and present events, and foreshadows future events too, but exactly what is being foreshadowed/explained depends on who's speaking, and it could work either way. Its just annoying in those cases.

 

[StBishop]

I hate it.

I don't like reading things which are difficult to read for no reason.

If you feel like making my experience arbitrarily more difficult I'll choose not to partake of the experience.

 

[Smertnik]

I don't like having to count back spoken lines, so I would feel very annoyed.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

So, a tad random, but how would you feel, when reading an extending piece of dialogue, that you become unable to distinguish between the speakers (other than by counting back each spoken line)?

For context, the dialogue would be a largely philosophical discourse.

In my opinion, nothing makes you look like a lazier, sloppier writer than when you confuse your reader. The reader can be mystified, or curious about what's going on, but the second it seems like you've lost the reins on your own story, it takes them out of the moment.

The second issue is that big, long philosophical debates are, well, boring. Especially if the characters are so similar you can hardly tell who's speaking; it might be interesting if, for example, their debate represented ongoing struggles and themes in the story, like a verbal swordfight. But two dudes discussing at length something they looked up on Wikipedia or learned in an undergrad philosophy course is a yawnfest for most audiences. When people read a story they don't want it to turn into a textbook.

 

[Starnerf]

I think it's generally accepted that the reader should never have to flip a page to identify who is saying which lines in a conversation unless it's supposed to be a secret. So each page should have at least one line identifying the speakers, even something as simple as "Robert said while idly stirring his coffee." You don't have to identify the speaker with each line, but it can get hard to follow if the conversation has no identification, especially across pages.

 

[IrenIvy]

So, a tad random, but how would you feel, when reading an extending piece of dialogue, that you become unable to distinguish between the speakers (other than by counting back each spoken line)?

I'd really, really dislike that situation. Although I see that it might work slightly better in philosophical theme than in usual dialogue, it is still frustrating, because for me the context (i.e. who is speaking and why and what for) is a very important part.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Any text should be easy to read, and anything that could impose on that ease should be avoided at all cost, otherwise some may get exasperated and frustrated, and just stop reading.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

I... like so many other people around here in all likelihood... enjoy writing, and I tend to play around with various narrative devices. Here's one that I'm... interested in, if only to imply a certain commonality in the participants.

So, a tad random, but how would you feel, when reading an extending piece of dialogue, that you become unable to distinguish between the speakers (other than by counting back each spoken line)?

For context, the dialogue would be a largely philosophical discourse.

Have you read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, OP? It has a very similar idea to what you're thinking of: "philosophical discourse where the participants are essentially the same person, with that similarity being used to highlight a deeper meaning." But the reason this isn't an exercise in frustration is because the work is a play - a post-modernist play, but a play nonetheless - and it specifies who is talking with every line.

I am of the school of thought that, no matter how philosophical or meaningful a work is attempting to be, you should always be able to easily picture what is happening (unless, say, there are actions that are meant to be beyond human comprehension). So I wouldn't be a huge fan of having extended dialogue without being able to distinguish between speakers. Unless it's being used very carefully, and fits into the larger theme of the work, it'll just smack of lazy writing and lazy characterization.

And I've got an English degree, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Have you considered pure script format for such a discourse? If not, I generally prefer to include a 'reminder tag' every third or fourth line so people don't lose track. Either just '____ said/replied/answered/shot back', or pointing out the character changing their posture, expression or tone of voice in some meaningful way indicating how they feel about the conversation or the person they're talking to.

I will admit that this method may come a bit too close to doing this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SaidBookism
But I don't believe I've ever used 'ejaculated'.

 

[Lionsfan]

I kinda like it. The dialogue for Fletch is almost entirely just lines being spoken back and forth to each other. Makes me pay attention more, and I feel like I learn about the characters faster. Plus not having to read "said" like 5000 times is a plus

 

[Fappy]

I wouldn't do it unless you were trying to establish something like mental degradation (the speakers getting high) or something. You know, the confused format complimenting the situation the characters are in.

 

[Mikeyfell]

usually long segments of dialog have a "Character 1 said" "Character 2 said" thing going on.

If that wasn't the case though. I can keep track of who's talking. If the book is well written you should be able to tell the characters apart regardless of how confusingly structured it is.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'd find that confusing and more than a tad irritating.

 

[RubyT]

If you're a good enough writer, the reader should be able to keep track of who says what as long as it's just two people talking. You should make them hear the voices in their head, back and forth.

If you're a terrific writer, you can add character to the words spoken, so the readers will know who says what just by reading it.

 

[SckizoBoy]

If you're a good enough writer, the reader should be able to keep track of who says what as long as it's just two people talking. You should make them hear the voices in their head, back and forth.

See, it's a bit like that, insomuch that the characters are sufficiently different from each other in how they speak that the opening few interchanges of dialogue make it blindly obvious who's talking, but as the conversation goes on, the two of them slowly get more and more similar...

I'm still thinking on it, but the problem I have is that I'm not sure the subject material (philosophy of war) is particularly suitable for this type of narrative device. *shrug*

The second issue is that big, long philosophical debates are, well, boring. Especially if the characters are so similar you can hardly tell who's speaking; it might be interesting if, for example, their debate represented ongoing struggles and themes in the story, like a verbal swordfight. But two dudes discussing at length something they looked up on Wikipedia or learned in an undergrad philosophy course is a yawnfest for most audiences. When people read a story they don't want it to turn into a textbook.

Well, yeah, the topic of discussion is relevant to the story (see subject above), as it details first the ideal of what war should be like, with differing opinions, but then the two characters converging in line of thought as the scale moves down as they discuss the struggles (i.e. the practical reality of conflict) of fighting and then the individual's own challenges.

Have you read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, OP? It has a very similar idea to what you're thinking of: "philosophical discourse where the participants are essentially the same person, with that similarity being used to highlight a deeper meaning." But the reason this isn't an exercise in frustration is because the work is a play - a post-modernist play, but a play nonetheless - and it specifies who is talking with every line.

I am of the school of thought that, no matter how philosophical or meaningful a work is attempting to be, you should always be able to easily picture what is happening (unless, say, there are actions that are meant to be beyond human comprehension). So I wouldn't be a huge fan of having extended dialogue without being able to distinguish between speakers. Unless it's being used very carefully, and fits into the larger theme of the work, it'll just smack of lazy writing and lazy characterization.

To the first, no I have not... though it is sort of similar, as the two central characters can be construed to be two parts of a single entity, separated (ostensibly) by social class, and they come to represent different thematic 'aspects'. To the second, the conversation is supposed to serve both as an illustration of doctrinal evolution and as a bit of an indictment on the setting of the story, through the characters' descent into a state where they are effectively identical despite their previously narrated differences.

Oh hell, I'm starting to confuse myself here...(!) I'm only an amateur historian damnit... -_-

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

To the first, no I have not... though it is sort of similar, as the two central characters can be construed to be two parts of a single entity, separated (ostensibly) by social class, and they come to represent different thematic 'aspects'. To the second, the conversation is supposed to serve both as an illustration of doctrinal evolution and as a bit of an indictment on the setting of the story, through the characters' descent into a state where they are effectively identical despite their previously narrated differences.

Oh hell, I'm starting to confuse myself here...(!) I'm only an amateur historian damnit... -_-

Well, for what you're describing, I reiterate my recommendation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. It might serve as a bit of inspiration.

But I think I get what you're saying. With that being said, I would actually advise against doing dialogue as you described. Having "who's speaking what" be indistinguishable would actually diminish your point, at least in my (never-humble) opinion. It would bring some confusion into the reader's psyche - and you really only want to confuse readers when you're also trying to make a commentary with that confusion. What might serve your purpose better is to highlight the characters' similarities by having mirrored sentence structures, similar dialogue patterns, and mirrored dialogue tags (e.g., "That was a big balloon," Alice said calmly. "Quite a big balloon," Bob agreed, placid. She swayed to one side. He shifted his weight. "The sky is very blue," he said. "There aren't any clouds," she murmured.) ...A totally inane and poorly written example, but you get my idea, I hope. Have them mirror each other, and have the narration surrounding them be similar in wording, length, and tone. That might be a slightly better "meta" way to reflect your theme.

...Just a suggestion from a person on an online video game forum, though, so feel free to use or discard my advice as you see fit. ^.^