Gonna try not to rant, because this actually doesn’t annoy me. It’s just one of those weird things I’ve noticed.
Why is it that most writers, particularly those working with a visual medium (haha, gotta love how that excludes novels), don’t take into account how long it takes to speak?
I sort of get it with comics, especially old ones from the Gold and Silver Ages. They were not exactly Proust, nor were they expected to be. The medium also invites some peculiar mechanics that became and have remained common to the point of perceived necessity.
They also do not utilise audio. Anything that does exposes the ridiculousness of this writing hiccough rather easily.
For example, take a suspense film that has made a blatant issue of time. Say, there are five minutes before the bomb goes off. Ever time that? When I was a kid, I did it once or twice. I can’t recall the film or even the situation, but I do remember an instance wherein the characters had five minutes and took fifteen to solve the conflict. In realtime, obviously.
I get that fiction time is different from realtime. Still. It’s silly.
Especially when it’s a problem due to talking. Just comparing the fixed runtime of an audiobook to the varying times it takes any given individual to read that same book in print. (Or on a Kindle, I don’t discriminate.)
Just odd. Talking can be incredibly time-consuming. Just another reason to read one’s dialogue out loud, I suppose.