Regarding dialogue...

[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. ^.^

 

[Alistair Crook]

Iirc, in one Jasper Fforde book, undenoted text in long, shifting conversations was used as a plot point for rooting out people who existed only within the fourth wall, sorta. I believe it's something rotten, could be wrong.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's a turn off for me, if I can't understand what characters are talking it makes me focus less on the story.

Trying to read Requiem For A Dream was a chore because of that.

 

[SckizoBoy]

...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. ^.^

No, no, that's plenty helpful... particularly to someone who has no literary education whatsoever! >_<

It was an idea at first and I started rolling with it. However, thinking further on it, it may be better for it to be an overtly Socratic dialogue instead... (will have to see how well it reads back...)

 

[Queen Michael]

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 read it a year ago, and I really liked it. However, I didn't feel that they're basically the same person -- Rozencrantz was sillier than Guildenstern. (Or maybe it was the other way around. It was a year ago.)

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

No, no, that's plenty helpful... particularly to someone who has no literary education whatsoever! >_<

It was an idea at first and I started rolling with it. However, thinking further on it, it may be better for it to be an overtly Socratic dialogue instead... (will have to see how well it reads back...)

Ooh, that sounds interesting. Best of luck! It sounds like a rather intriguing concept you've got going.

I read it a year ago, and I really liked it. However, I didn't feel that they're basically the same person -- Rozencrantz was sillier than Guildenstern. (Or maybe it was the other way around. It was a year ago.)

Well, they both are and they aren't, in my opinion. I read the play as a metatheatrical commentary... and one thing that got brought up a lot was how Shakespeare wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as essentially the same person (see all the parts where they get each others' names/their own names confused). At times, they seemed like the same person. But at other times, yes, they're different. (Rosencrantz is the sillier one, you're right! ^.^ That's especially pronounced in the film version, if you've seen it.) But that's just my opinion. I wrote an embarrassingly long essay on that play and its metatheatrical commentary, so that's probably tainting my opinion.

...I can't believe I just wrote that sort of thing on a forum. This is why I love the Escapist.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Ooh, that sounds interesting. Best of luck! It sounds like a rather intriguing concept you've got going.

Thanks... though at the moment, I'm getting a little too stuck into several scenes with dramatic oratory... shoulda been a speechwriter for the 18th century! -_-

 

[smearyllama]

Stuff like that was why I couldn't read No Country For Old Men. Cormack McCarthy's writing style was really difficult to read, since he didn't differentiate between characters well, and didn't use quotation marks.
I'm not really a fan of it.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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.

So you're trying to make the subtle point that no matter your views on war, or which side you're on, it always comes down to the same senseless bloodshed?

Hmm, to be honest that's hardly an earth-shattering revelation, and like LiberalSquirrel said, there's probably better ways of getting that point across.
Generally, your writing should be perfectly clear at all times, except when absolutely necessary to convey certain circumstance (e.g. the narrator being unreliable for whatever reason).

Anyway, good luck.