Dialogue in one-character scenes

By Jenny Hilborne
Author of mysteries & thrillers

I've got a dilemma.

Unless a character is talking to himself, how does an author add (meaningful) dialogue to a one-person scene? What about a one-person chapter (or three)? Should we invite another person into the scene for the purpose of avoiding an all-narrative chapter, or is that a cheap way out? Can a chapter work with no dialogue? I'm still pondering the question...

In my new project, a paranormal thriller set in a gritty area of San Francisco, my main character spends quite a bit of time alone, especially in the first few chapters. Or, at least, that's the way I intended to write it. Several sets of circumstances have thrust him into this situation, and I noticed by the end of the second chapter I had no dialogue. I remember learning at various writers conferences and workshops I've attended that dialogue is important. Without it, the chapter becomes a descriptive passage, which some may find boring. I'm also mindful of the 'show and not tell' rule.

Personally, I love dialogue, it's just that it didn't/doesn't belong in these two chapters: didn't/doesn't - I'm still wavering on the point. Unsure if a lack of dialogue would be an issue for readers, I went back and added some, with my character talking to himself. We all do it, so why not my character? Well, the problem is he's just killed a man, so he needs to stay hidden and quiet; therefore, he would not talk to himself - at least, not aloud.

I considered using internal dialogue, but struggled to carry it through two whole chapters. It's only thought and not real spoken conversation or a real interaction with another character. Stunned by what he's done, my main character's only thought is of escape - getting far away from the scene of the crime. So, I took it out and brought in a second character - someone who may or may not be linked to the killing. Even though I'm only three chapters in, the addition of a new character has changed the entire direction of the story and presented new challenges. This may be a good thing - I'm not yet sure.

The first two chapters include plenty of action and suspense. Why did he do it? Will he be caught? Who did he kill and how will he get away? As I re-read these chapters, I'm back to the question of whether the dialogue fits, or if it is even needed. I'm undecided. I've looked for other unique ways to bring in dialogue, but it's difficult to do without bringing in unnecessary characters.

I added a little bit of backstory and tried to bring in snippets of old conversations there, but it felt forced and didn't work for my first two chapters. The paranormal element to the story is not yet relevant, so I can't use that. My MC does not have a volleyball or any other imaginary friend with whom he can share a conversation. During a hot-foot pursuit, I had my MC bump into a stranger on the street, mostly for the sake of adding dialogue. It worked for this scene, but I'm going to have to find more unique ways to add dialogue in later one-character scenes.

I never realized how tough it is to write chapters with only one character. It's quite a challenge.

Authors: how do you handle one-character scenes/chapters?

Readers: do you need dialogue in every chapter?

With all the crime.....

By Jenny Hilborne, Author of mysteries and thrillers

I've noticed a lot of recent discussion about fictional crime compared to real life crime, with plenty of focus on the negative aspects of fictional crime, especially in the face of the horrific shooting events in the US. The fictional violence and brutality sometimes bothers me, too, if I think about it too much, so I wanted to concentrate for a few minutes on the positive, fun aspects of fictional crime.  

Mystery writers must consider many things in their stories: plot, subplot, motive, setting, logic, alibi, clues, evidence, witnesses, and conclusion, with explanation. It must all make sense. Different types of mysteries include a variation of these elements: a cozy is a more peaceful mystery with lots of clues, less action, and less danger to the main character; a hard-boiled mystery includes a lot of action and rough realism; procedurals draw the reader's attention to the rules of law enforcement; an amateur sleuth stumbles into the mystery by accident and helps the detective solve the crime.

All good mysteries contain secrets, riddles, and clues to solve the puzzle. What makes a mystery or a thriller spectacular, for me anyway, is the element of surprise, the perplexity of the plot, the probing questions that draw me deep into the story, and the fact it is fiction and not real life - a world I can visit, without participating in any of the crimes, except trying to catch the killer. After watching a couple of Agatha Christie episodes last week, I realized I mostly enjoy the red herring. It's a mind game using clues to capture and evade, rather than coincidence. The villain matches wits with the detective, the reader matches wits with the author to crack the case. The reader wants to work out the author's plot and the author tries to prevent it, until he/she is ready for the big reveal. We are testing each other.

Red herrings are the false clues that throw off the investigator, increase the challenge and make the mystery so much fun. Skillful mystery writers like Agathie Christie make the guilty appear innocent, turn the innocent into suspects and do so convincingly, sending us looking the wrong way. It's like finding our way out of a maze and we learn from our mistakes, sharpening our skills each time, both as readers and writers. 

Another spectacular part of the fictional mystery is the shock - finding out the guilty person is the one we trusted, realizing the flaws in our own judgement. This is another opportunity to learn about ourselves and improve our analytical skills.

Fictional mysteries bring readers together to discuss, imagine, compare, and to recommend. I hang out in various online mystery groups to share my thoughts and look for suggested great reads. Fictional mysteries become more and more sophisticated and the challenges get harder. Techno thrillers give us a glimpse into a possible future world and stretch our imaginations.

To finish, here are a couple of my favorite mystery reads from 2012:

Chalk Valley by D.L. Johnstone: Excellent suspense told from several viewpoints.
The Dark Monk by Oliver Potzsch: Well plotted with a maze of riddles and clues
Bleed For Me by Michael Robotham: harrowing story of corruption, perversion, abuse of power, and murder.

Isn't it supposed to get easier?

By Jenny Hilborne, author of mysteries and thrillers

I've heard a familiar grumble from lots of multiple book authors who find each book they write is more difficult than the last. I'm no different. Each new book is harder and takes me longer to write. I've asked myself why. Is the difficulty a sign of improvement, or an indication I'm somehow lost in the process, buried under all the new information I pick up? Am I trying too hard?

I'm currently working on my fourth novel, Stone Cold, and I'm finding it is my most difficult book yet. I said the same thing when I wrote book #3, Hide and Seek. I thought the writing process would be easier with each book -  I've picked up more and more tips, learned many of the "rules" along the way, and attended numerous workshops and writing conferences.

I first attended the Southern California Writers Conference in 2008, with a completed manuscript for my first book, Madness and Murder. I paid for a one-on-one critique with a publisher, who later became my publisher, but not until they'd rejected me, given me advice on how to fix my mistakes, and presented me with a rare second shot at submission. You see, I thought I knew enough to write a good book at that early stage, and I didn't. I've attended SCWC several times since, and always learned more and come away with great advice. Even after all this, I still find every book harder to write than the last.

Drew Kaufman and I briefly discussed this in a recent Facebook exchange. With all the feedback we've received, with what we now know and have learned along the way, why does each book become harder to write? Do we present our protagonists with more complicated challenges? Weave in more subplots? Do all authors feel this way? Are we improving or getting lost?

The more prolific an author is, the more readers expect from said author. Is this right? Fair? Well, I expect a lot from the well-known authors whose books I choose to read, yet I find I'm currently enjoying the books from lesser known authors much more. I've stopped reading Harlan Coben altogether. His later works don't impress me as much as the earlier stuff. I wonder if he got bored, or stopped trying as hard to please his audience, having "made it." In the works of some prolific authors, it's often easy to note similarities between books, a pattern if you like, or the authors voice. In some cases, this makes the outcomes of the stories predictable.

It's a challenge I struggle with myself. Only on my 4th novel, and I already find I have to work hard to avoid repetition, to stay creative and bring in new and unique threats, problems, and plot lines. After the release of my 2nd book, No Alibi, a returning reader remarked how my first 2 books were so dissimilar, they could have been written by different authors. Rightly or not, I took it as a compliment. I noticed from watching the X Factor how judges want new singers to be instantly recognizable to an audience by their style, their voice. This raised a question in my mind: do all authors have a "style"? Should they? Does it work the same way for emerging authors as for singers?

Back to difficulty: The hardest part of my first book was how to finish, writing a satisfactory ending. In subsequent books, this has become the easier bit. Now, I get lost in the middle. I know more about my writing and understand myself better as an author than I did several years ago, have learned more about character development, energy, pacing, consistency, small detail, yet it feels more than ever like work. Hard work.

Authors: Why are subsequent books more challenging to write? Is it because we continually raise the standards for ourselves as authors and strive to make each book better?

Readers: Do you like the authors you read to have a recognizable "style"?

Time For A Quick Thrill?

By Jenny Hilborne

I don’t what you were expecting, but I’m talking about short stories. How popular are they? 

Until recently, I’d never been much of a fan, the main reason being there’s not enough story to become vested in the characters. The few I’d tried to read were poorly developed and left me cold. I imagined it must be harder to write a short than to write a novel; for me it would be like attempting a sprint when I’m a long distance runner. I write full-length novels, where I have pages and pages to develop my plots and characters.

Recently, a story idea popped into my head, a simple concept I didn’t think I could develop into a full novel, but certainly one I couldn't let go, and thought I turn into a short story. Except, I can’t write short stories, or so I thought. Questions immediately arose: how short should it be? What formula, if any, do I have to follow? Do the same rules apply to a short as in a novel? I tasked myself to write the thing, and worry about the “rules” later, if at all. To help the creative process, I poured myself a large glass of wine – it served a secondary purpose in that I could drown my sorrow if I sucked.

Well, color me converted. I loved writing the short, False Pretense, I enjoyed the challenge in attempting a new style, and found it an incredibly liberating exercise, free from the restrictions of writing a full-length novel. For starters, it took me five hours to complete instead of a year. I drank to that (knew the wine would come in handy). I had one simple story line and no complex sub-plots to weave in; few characters; a much shorter timeframe for the course of the events, and discovered I had the makings of a character I could later use in a novel.

I learned a few things. Shorts are a break from routine and a good exercise, a challenge for a writer to try something new, especially new writers daunted by writing a full-length novel and unsure if they have enough material. A short is a quick and inexpensive way to wet a reader’s appetite for a new author.

I’m sure I broke some rules when I wrote my short, but I don’t think it matters. I have a new respect for shorts, and will seek them out to read. Perfect for a busy schedule.

What’s your take on shorts?