Does anyone else find reading dialogue to be tiring?

Post Reply New Topic

When there's a lot of dialogue in novels, reading it fatigues me.

I sometimes get confused about who is talking, so I have to do more processing and sometimes re-read to keep track.

Also I feel like my eyes have to jump from line to line on the page because the lines of dialogue are often shorter than the lines of other text (like descriptions). For example, the dialogue might look like this:

She said, "no, I can't."

"Yes you can," he replied.

"No!"

"Ok, nevermind then."

Maybe it's the shifting from viewpoint to viewpoint that is also tiring.

I agree. I really dislike novels that are heavy on dialogue. There's nothing to picture and I can't draw conclusions about character based on their words. I need to know about their actions, or how they're perceived by others. I've started and stopped George Eliot's Adam Bede about four times for this reason. It's one of the only Victorian novels I can't pull my way through.

Yes. But it's not limited to novels and dialogues.

Any prolonged exposure to wall of texts does that to me.

If my eyes starts to flee and skim...
I'd just switch to text to speech and listen.
Too bad I don't have that option if it's handwritten or always this option if it's analog.


If that just doesn't work, I would have to take breaks from word-heavy activities.



My only work around with these kinds of dialogues is... Context. And knowing a character enough.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

Why would it? I read faster and with ease when I read through dialogue than I do with standard narration.

In my opinion, dialogue helps to flesh out characters. Plus, lines can be amusing to read and recall!

Due to attention issues I'm not very good at reading. I can only read a few pages at a time. But I don't have many books.

Nope, as dialogue is an important tool to keep a story going, and reveals much about characters.

No, but I understand what you are saying.

I find long passages of description difficult to read, especially in classic literature. My sister on the other hand loves description.

I know what I do find tiring.

This (read bolded bit):-

“...it is characterized by tiny blisters or vesicles, usually between the digits, and it can be extremely itchy,” says Peter Lio, MD, a dermatologist who is a clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, as well as a board member and scientific advisory committee member for the National Eczema Association (NEA)..."

Aagghh! Why do medical articles yak on about where and why and how a scientist or doctor is studying? Just get to the point already!! !

I put "no" because most of the time, I don't. However, I do struggle with very long stretches of unattributed dialogue*, where you're supposed to keep track of who's saying what just by the alternation, or from other cues in the dialogue if there's more than two characters speaking. Frankly, I think it's just bad style. By all means do a few lines of unattributed dialogue, but more than that is tiring and confusing for no good effect. I can think of few situations where it's the best artistic choice. Plus, authors have been known to get it just plain wrong! A few times I've been confused by such a passage in a printed book and carefully worked it out to find that, no, the same character has to be speaking twice in a row for it to add up. Clearly the editor and the proof-reader couldn't follow it either....

*by which I mean, without all the bits like "he said", "she asked", "replied George," to tell you who's speaking.