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.