Writing 101: The Logistics of Large Casts/Conversations in Prose · 5:07am Feb 28th, 2018
In the past, I’ve advocated learning from cinema, trying to use and translate the same techniques into prose. I use terms like “blocking” and “off-screen” to refer to things in prose.
Today, however, I’d like to discuss one of the major differences between visual media and prose. It also happens to be one of prose fiction's greatest weaknesses: scenes and stories with a large number of characters.
Prose is different from visual mediums, because there are no ancillary details. Everything in prose must be there on purpose, and it must have attention called to it. There are way to offhandedly mention things in prose, of course. But the very act of putting something into prose requires space and words devoted to it. Even a single sentence takes the reader’s time and attention.
This is most noticeable when it comes to a large number of cast members. In a film or TV series, having a huge crowd of characters all talking at once, talking over each other, cutting each other off...it isn’t much worse than a regular conversation, because the audience has the visual reference of the characters to show who is speaking and when.
In prose, we don’t have that luxury. If multiple characters talk over each other, or a conversation has too many participants, it becomes hard to read and follow.
There are no simple solutions to this problem. The easiest solution is to simply cap the number of characters that appear at any one time. This can be seen in several of my stories: they are framed as a series of 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 conversations.
This isn’t always an option, however, because FiM has six protagonists. Even in original fiction, the construction of the plot often calls for larger numbers of characters.
My approach to this has always been to sub-divide characters into groups of three. This can be seen across all my stories, but the one where it is most obvious is in TUSH. The story retells the first two episodes of FiM, and there is a huge amount of interaction among the main six.
In chapter two, if we visualize the conversation as a rotating group of three characters, there are clear points where different characters come into and out of focus. The chapter begins by giving each of the characters a line, followed by a dialogue tag. It then rotates who the conversation is focusing on: at first it is Rarity + Rainbow + Twilight. Then Rainbow rotates out for Pinkie Pie. Then vice-versa. Then Pinkie rotates back in, before finally Applejack replaces her. Then Rarity and Rainbow Dash switch places. I know this is confusing to read, so I made a (bland) image that illustrates the flow of this conversation.
Already, you may notice an issue here. One character (Fluttershy) still isn’t participating in the conversation. Each of these transitions also requires a dialogue tag to clue the readers into the change. The characters who are not participating in the conversation sort of fade into the background, and so the reader may forget they are there. Subdividing the conversation may make it easier to follow, but it can strain willing suspension and draw attention to the problem (rather than fixing it).
I didn’t enjoy writing TUSH, and this problem was one reason why. Sometimes, however, the ambiguity in writing a scene with many characters can work to one’s advantage. In The Hobbit, there is a scene where Bilbo is captured by three trolls. Tolkien doesn’t mark the trolls’ dialogue, both to emphasize their dim similarity, but also to mask when a fourth character shows up and tricks them by imitating their dialogue.
What other approaches have you seen—or used—to address this issue? Is this limitation of prose really that big of a deal? As always, comments, criticism, and counter-arguments are welcome!
Well, if you're Cormac McCarthy, you make a one-on-one conversation about as hard to follow as one involving more than two parties. The man declared war on quotation marks and dialogue indicators decades ago and has yet to surrender.
It certainly isn't easy, especially since you can't take the lazy route with dialogue attribution with three or more participants. I usually try to visualize the conversation, let it play out out loud, and capture it as best I can in a dialogue skeleton, using script-style markers ("AJ:", "FS:", etc.) to indicate who says what. Then I flesh out the skeleton with more detailed descriptive prose, and I get a
shambling monstrosity that will be set upon by torch-wielding villagerscomplex conversation!I try to limit my conversation participants, but I also cheat. In my MLP 40k story, several characters have formatting they speak in. The characters most likely to interject have weird ways of talking, usually.
”The Twins interrupt like this.”
”Inferno interjects like this.”
“Most ponies that speak in regular text are polite enough to die before interrupting.