Aurora
Sage
See, dialogue IS part of the narrative though, just created differently with a more specific purpose. Although this can get out of hand real quick.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Mythic Scribes Writing Jargon?
- Thread starter Devor
- Start date
Yes. Dialogue is part of the narrative. Exposition is part of the narrative. They're both subsets of the narrative.
Yeah, narrative is the entire way the story is told. The way the author has chosen to present the story to the reader. This includes dialogue, plot, sentence structure, the symbols and metaphors used, how the theme is explored, the setting, the characterization.... all that stuff specifically chosen by the narrator to show the story. I'm with Aurora in that typically, when critting, I choose to crit "the narrative", not "the prose".
Prose is the choice of words used to express "the narrative". This can either make or break "the narrative" IMO, and this is where I disagree with Aurora to an extent. Someone could have a fantastic idea for "a narrative", complete with deep themes, vivid settings, and well rounded characters, but if they have amateur prose it will not sparkle the way it could. Bad prose will destract the reader from "the narrative".
Prose is the choice of words used to express "the narrative". This can either make or break "the narrative" IMO, and this is where I disagree with Aurora to an extent. Someone could have a fantastic idea for "a narrative", complete with deep themes, vivid settings, and well rounded characters, but if they have amateur prose it will not sparkle the way it could. Bad prose will destract the reader from "the narrative".
Aurora
Sage
Oh I agree with you here. But my point is that story matters more and it's been the case where simpler writing with stronger storytelling shines more than well constructed prose with poor storytelling. If that makes sense.
Yes. I agree here. It's a bit of a double edged sword. There really has to be a nice balance of both, good narrative (or storytelling) and good prose.
I think this is probably what I was trying to say when I first started rambling about prose. Thanks.
Aurora
Sage
Question for the OP moderator: Will you be setting up a glossary type thread for all this then?
FifthView
Vala
Yeah.....
That little equation, prose + narration = narrative, doesn't have dialogue in it anywhere.
And if we say narration is the non-dialogue part...well. Where does dialogue fit into that equation? Mere prose?
I do think that narration includes dialogue. Sort of. Bob looked at me and said, "You're bonkers." —the narrator is delivering the first half, but he's also delivering the second half. He's narrating what is said; it's all part of the narration.
For me personally, the question is origin. Where does the info being given originate?
In the non-dialogue parts, the info is originating from the narrator.
In the dialogue parts, we are meant to believe that the info originates from a speaker (who may just happen to be the narrator, if he puts his own speech in quotes.)
The info of You're bonkers originates from the person known as Bob. The info, Bob looked at me and said, originates from the narrator.
So maybe the equation would be better written as:
prose + narration[SUB](n+s)[/SUB] = narrative
where
narration[SUB]n[/SUB] = info originating from the narrator
narration[SUB]s[/SUB] = info originating from a speaker
—but really, that gets too complicated, heh, and weird, and I'd rather do away with the equation altogether and simply say narration is the non-dialogue parts of narrative, just to have a word for the non-dialogue parts.
[And the above is shorthand. Do I use "info" or "content" or...? And how to consider info a narrator delivers outside dialogue but putatively originating elsewhere? With "Telling" as in, The Bastic Chronicles mention magic swords, but I don't believe them?]
- Thread starter
- #69
Maybe. Right now I'm trying to figure out whether it would be useful, what it would look like, and how much work would need to go into it. Whether we put something together or not I think the discussion itself is useful.
Aurora
Sage
Ok...this is writing, not math. I hate math, which is why I write books. That's a bit whoa for me. Suppose we'll have to disagree here and it's what makes the world go 'round. Narrative, imo, includes dialogue because it's part of the story. Not sure how splitting hairs helps anyone become a better writer but maybe it's just that I can only go so far in these discussions (my head that is). :confused-sign:
FifthView
Vala
We actually agree. Narrative includes dialogue. But is narrative the same as narration? Really, it's semantics. Probably literally, in this case, heh.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
E=MC2 where E = Overall Story Quality, M = Prose (word choice, style) and C = Story Concept. heh heh.
Aurora
Sage
:eek2: (sorry, but I've discovered the joy of the smilies here)
@Fifthview: Ah, ok then! For a second there you lost me.
FifthView
Vala
A lot of my story concepts are square.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Ill just go with whatever it seems like people are trying to say as best I can understand it.
Dialogue is still part of narration.
Think about it this way. You and I are sitting at the pub having a few brews. I'm telling you (narrating) a story about something that happened to me at work. You are looking at me intently while I tell you my story...
We were at the staff meeting and Steven was talking about how the kids shouldn't be playing on the baseball risers, and then Judy said, "Well do you want to supervise them?" Oh my gosh she's so brave! So Steven just sort of gawked at her because he isn't about to give up his lunch break, and then he said, "we should just have them removed." I mean seriously, how stupid can you get?
Only in fiction we would separate the dialogue from the body text to add more white space and make it easier for the reader to identify who is "speaking", even though it is all just the narrator speaking.
In which case you would nod and sip your beer and we would laugh about how dumb Steven is and how kids aren't allowed to do anything anymore.
But the point is, the dialogue between Steven and Judy is part of the story. It is still being told by the narrator (me) in this situation. Steven and Judy are not there, in on our conversation, filling in the blanks. The same is true in fiction. All parts, even the dialogue, is being told to you through the "narrative" voice. It is the narrator revealing what is happening.
So therefore dialogue is still part of narration.
Think about it this way. You and I are sitting at the pub having a few brews. I'm telling you (narrating) a story about something that happened to me at work. You are looking at me intently while I tell you my story...
We were at the staff meeting and Steven was talking about how the kids shouldn't be playing on the baseball risers, and then Judy said, "Well do you want to supervise them?" Oh my gosh she's so brave! So Steven just sort of gawked at her because he isn't about to give up his lunch break, and then he said, "we should just have them removed." I mean seriously, how stupid can you get?
Only in fiction we would separate the dialogue from the body text to add more white space and make it easier for the reader to identify who is "speaking", even though it is all just the narrator speaking.
In which case you would nod and sip your beer and we would laugh about how dumb Steven is and how kids aren't allowed to do anything anymore.
But the point is, the dialogue between Steven and Judy is part of the story. It is still being told by the narrator (me) in this situation. Steven and Judy are not there, in on our conversation, filling in the blanks. The same is true in fiction. All parts, even the dialogue, is being told to you through the "narrative" voice. It is the narrator revealing what is happening.
So therefore dialogue is still part of narration.
Last edited:
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Actually, narrative is often considered the part of fiction that is not dialogue, it simply depends on the context of the conversation. If you say narrative, you can easily mean everything, but if you discuss, say, balancing narrative and dialogue, then contextually we know the text is being broken into two pieces. This is just a case where a word can mean more than one thing to screw with our heads. Welcome to the English language, heh heh.
People can use words incorrectly, however. Narrative seems on its face to be inclusive of dialogue.
FifthView
Vala
Even non-POV characters can tell a story, offer a narrative.
Bob cleared his throat, then spoke. "I went down to the docks as you told me to do and waited until [snipping the next paragraph or three]....and that's how I ended up killing the king, sir."
Here you have two narrators.
But take that out of dialogue and relate more or less the same info only through the narrator, and it's qualitatively different:
Bob told me he went down to the docks as I'd ordered, and [snipping]....and that's how he ended up killing the king.
I think that putting things in quotes, making something direct speech, changes it. Is the speech still part of the whole narrative? Yes, I think so. Maybe?
But which narration?
The author's narration is the whole shebang?
The narrator's narration is only the tale he's telling, not the character's tales?
The character's narration is only the dialogue he speaks?*
Heh.
The problem is that the narrator is relating the character's tales in his narration of the story--like a parrot would. The character's speech is an objective thing in this case, like the thunder booming through the night. Or simply the prose of that speech, not the tale-telling (narration) of it.
But maybe this says something about the author's "narrative." Is the author merely delivering the prose? Heh, maybe. Maybe the narration only happens via a narrator and characters. I think some take the view that there's always a narrator, no matter how much he may appear to be identical to the author.
*One might ask whether the speech, "Aarhg!" tells a tale, and I'd say that it probably does, just with brevity and little clarity.
Bob cleared his throat, then spoke. "I went down to the docks as you told me to do and waited until [snipping the next paragraph or three]....and that's how I ended up killing the king, sir."
Here you have two narrators.
But take that out of dialogue and relate more or less the same info only through the narrator, and it's qualitatively different:
Bob told me he went down to the docks as I'd ordered, and [snipping]....and that's how he ended up killing the king.
I think that putting things in quotes, making something direct speech, changes it. Is the speech still part of the whole narrative? Yes, I think so. Maybe?
But which narration?
The author's narration is the whole shebang?
The narrator's narration is only the tale he's telling, not the character's tales?
The character's narration is only the dialogue he speaks?*
Heh.
The problem is that the narrator is relating the character's tales in his narration of the story--like a parrot would. The character's speech is an objective thing in this case, like the thunder booming through the night. Or simply the prose of that speech, not the tale-telling (narration) of it.
But maybe this says something about the author's "narrative." Is the author merely delivering the prose? Heh, maybe. Maybe the narration only happens via a narrator and characters. I think some take the view that there's always a narrator, no matter how much he may appear to be identical to the author.
*One might ask whether the speech, "Aarhg!" tells a tale, and I'd say that it probably does, just with brevity and little clarity.
Last edited:
Similar threads
