How do you feel about long dialogues in a book?

Do you mean quantity of dialogue scenes or length of dialogue?

I feel that relying too heavily on one particular device (dialogue/monologue/narration), limits the writer's ability to effectively tell a story. There are only so many things dialogue or monologue or narration can reveal to the reader. You need a combination of each tool to effectively construct a complete scene and divulge all of the necessary detail to the reader. To show a scene strictly through dialogue tells me the writer is either still learning their craft or they're trying to carve their own writing style.

How do I feel about long dialogues? I hated Gandalf's 4 page diatribes that divulged all of the backstory and motivations to Frodo. As I said, you need a healthy combination of techniques. It's a very contrived read when the character's dialogue is a mechanical check list of backstory and world history. It's unrealistic.

On the other hand, sometimes the most effective way to show a scene is through dialogue. It can demonstrate an emotion well, it can speed the pace, it can build suspense or character development, etc. Assuming it's given in moderation.

It's all about getting the balance right. The authors that use a lot of dialogue are the clever ones that know exactly what the character has to say to keep it interesting, instead of the reader thinking 'will this ever end?' With the more boring books dialogue can be as simple as 'How are you?' 'Okay' 'That's good' and it just drags, and the book gets very boring very quickly if the dialogue carries on like that.

Sometimes monologues can really work, although if I'm honest the most recent book I've read that pulled off a good monologue was a late nineteenth/early twentieth century book. As for rants, they only tend to work if the character that's having a rant is completely nuts, in which case it either adds a comedic element (I can remember one book where a character was ranting about a spoon, I can't remember what book but I shall try to find out the title), and if a character is a complete psycho then it can add a creepy element to the book.

So basically it depends on how good the author is as to whether I prefer lots of it or not :)

I agree with what the other person said. I think you need a balance of thoughts and descriptions and the like, but it's nice when a character says something more. Make sure to mix it up with some quick, witty dialogue of one-liners at some point.

I have an attention problem with really long paragraphs, so sometimes I scan a little bit faster over them, so I don't think they should make up the whole book and they shouldn't have tons of important stuff. Hope that helps! Write the way you like to, by the way. That is what will come most naturally.

It depends on the skill of the author and whether the dialogue moves the book along in some relevant way. Does it tell us about aspects of a character or a character's motivation? Does it set us up for information that will become relevant in the coming pages of the book? There are certain standards for writing, for keeping the attention of the reader. Those rules are meant to be broken but should be considered. One author I know of uses no punctuation nor does he use capitol letters - very annoying in my opinion and practically unreadable.

Short answer - if the author is skilled, maintains the readers interest and moves the story along - long dialog is fine, If not, it is the sign of an author who does not know what he is doing.

I prefer to be in the character's brain most of the time so I can compare his motivations with his speech and actions... and see how he views other people and situations he find himself in.

If the dialogue doesn't help me come to some conclusion about the person or the event, I could it useless. Likewise, if the author goes around and around with the characters same thought... and I learn nothing new about his disposition, it is useless.

A lot of dialogue may be good or bad.

As long as the book is engaging, I hardly notice those things. It's one thing when stories have lots of dialogue, it's another when they have lots of *good* and interesting dialogue. If I had to answer your original question I'd probably say that I prefer less dialogue, only because I feel that with less dialogue the 'show, don't tell' approach can be better executed, but lots of dialogue doesn't have to be a bad thing unless you make it one.

If the dialogue is meaningful and actually adds important information to the story and/or gets to know the characters better, I'm fine with as much dialogue as the author felt was needed.

It's a balance between two (or more) characters talking to one another and the progression of the story. Everything should add something to the story. It would be pointless saying: "The sky looks nice." If you're writing about the neutrons in the brain. Your speech should progress your story.

One time I examine a e book the place the only factor that replaced into written have been little word discussions. like the characters would write "lol whats for lunch? OH BOLOGNA" on a bite of paper and thats all you will pay attention. each and every so frequently the main character would write a letter to his love yet he does not deliver it. So truly it replaced into precisely comparable to yours. It replaced into truly stressful to examine, yet I did get exhilaration from the substitute for as quickly as. i'm on no account going to examine yet another e book written that way, nonetheless.