Why "dialogues?"

Many reasons for using the dialogue form, not necessarily in order of importance:
  • it’s a personal reaction to a professional life spent writing prose arguments in traditional forms and formats; 
  • it rewards brevity, repetition, restatement, refraction, and reflection in thought and speech;
  • it’s a long form suited to short attention spans (you can come and go and still pick up the narrative thread);
  • it forces a writer to think as a speaker and values dictation over typing, at least in the first draft;
  • it’s the vestige of an initial impulse to mimic, parallel, and/or replicate the central Socratic dialogues of Plato; 
  • it expresses the fragmentation of opinion-based knowledge and captures the fragmentary nature of fundamental truth; 
  • it’s a paradoxical platform for examining the archaic roots of contemporary ideas, especially in an age that values “the new” and “the now;” 
  • it personifies the “performative” aspects of language, the “privileging” nature of reason, and the “foregrounding” bias of narrative;
  • it’s portrays the principles of sophisticated culture: words are tools, truth is relative, change is inevitable, images are real, information is power; 
  • it distills and displays the poetry and drama of ideas;
  • it's designed for characterization and impersonation; 
  • it's the literary equivalent of the musical fugue;
  • it’s always unfinished but not incomplete.