My lukewarm take on talking heads

For me, this falls into advice that should be known but not always followed. But for those that aren't aware, it's a critique on fiction that dialogue isn't grounded in it's environment. They just talk. This is nuanced, obviously, because every piece of "general writing advice" is.

I've posted this before, and I got downvoted. And after careful consideration I realized why: it's because I didn't put enough ego into it, some real spirit, real confidence. So take this advice with 0 salt, and treat it as gospel. As a multiple time (future) published author, and numerous inmydreams bestseller awards, I gladly embark this advice to you.

I like rapid-fire dialogue. I like slow dialogue. I hate when I have to stop midway for the author to add an action beat, talking about how hot the coffee is when they drank it. I even hate, when there's reactive detail. That's right. I said it. Sorry, hate is a strong word, it really depends on how it's done. But, writers take this advice too seriously sometimes. I mean, have you heard of Shakespeare?

"Oh booo," you say, "that's a different medium. People expect that kind of—[more noises]"

Obviously, it's a different medium. Obviously people expect more details out of a book. But if you told me Cyrano De Bergerac was a book, and screenwriting never existed, I'd be... oh that's weird, but okay. It's still good writing. It's good dialogue. It accomplishes everything it needs to in the dialogue alone.

Wait, so does white room syndrome exist? Yes, yes it does. But you can set up the environment chapters before. The apartment they return to? You described it in perfect detail in chapter 1! Just add a refreshing paragraph or two and off you go. What about the other person's house, they've never been there! Look future-author, I'm just saying there's nuance here. Just please, don't add in "grounding action beats" willy nilly during a dialogue.

Nonetheless, what I see more often, is that writers depend on action beats/reactions instead of writing good dialogue.

Another thing to consider, rhythm. This is less important for a lot of writers. But it's important to me. I like hearing the voices in my head. I like hearing the words as they appear before my eyes. Even writing this post, it needs to sound right in my head. I'm not saying people should speak in perfect iambic rhythm in harmonic sonnets when they meet. But you don't need to describe shaking hands or sipping coffee because you forgot to add in grounding details. Dialogue tags are utility, and they mark who's talking. They're invisible to the reader—unless you add too many. I like to add them every three lines, but if your dialogue is distinct to the speaker, sometimes you can do with less, and even then, clarity trumps style in writing. Adding anything more than dialogue tags adds a rest, and I mean that rhythmically.

"I found out you were cheating on me last night." Her fingers rapped on the kitchen counter.

Is better than:

Her fingers rapped on the kitchen counter. "I found out you were cheating on me last night."

or:

"I found out you were cheating on me last night." She waited by the kitchen counter. Her hands curled over each other, a wound up ball of anger, and the heat within flickered as white across her skin.

You might've said, "I don't see anything wrong here!"

And you'd might be right! But you can do the same with only dialogue, with rhythm, and keep it realistic.

"I found out you were cheating on me last night," she said.
"Um—"
"Guess who told me."

I told you! Guess what, That piece of dialogue can take place anywhere! Suckit. Is it compelling? I think so. I'm also the best writer in the universe, nay—any given reality—even the fake one you're writing, and everyone who disagrees is objectively wrong.

But if you must add setting and whatnot, you can do that with dialogue. You can add personality, ironic drama, and a setting!

"I found out you were cheating on me last night," she said.
"... I really like what you did with the cabinets, hun."
"Guess who told me."

So what am I saying? I'm saying don't discard your dialogue as talking heads. Also, don't throw that advice around—they're just talking heads. Duh. Heads talk. But why do you have a problem with it? Is there really a problem in this instance? Or are you trying to scrounge up nuanced writing advice to throw at the author? Maybe your dialogue is bad, just polish it up a little and put some oomph behind those words. You've got this!

Now I must retreat and complete my minimum 10,000 words a day, and someday soon, I will pass along the power of (my) voice, and why it is the most important thing in your writing.