Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/12940
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm sure you don't remember me. Asked quiet a few questions a year ago. Never came back for round 2. Was working on your advices. Writing.

I'm nearing the climax of my novel. There's a scene. Sort of a revelation where a character and the MC talk and the backstory is given to the reader about how the MC had assumed things wrong. Now, the scene is set in a chamber where the two guys are chained to the walls. There are just chunks of dialogues. No movement, no body language, just a scene filled with dialogues.

Usually, in a scene where I want to dump critical information, or when the MC is backed into the corner, I go about it like this-

- Character says his dialogue
- Short shock. 
- MC begins analysing in his head.
- MC says his dialogue.
- Character says his dialogue (I'm writing in first person).

And this goes about in a loop until I reach where I want to reach.

Now, in this particular scene, I don't want to show the short shock or the analyzing or the non verbal reaction of the MC at all. Not even minimum. I want it 0. I have this weird inclination to make the _conversation_ give the shock to the MC and the readers without me explicitly showing it or even mentioning a much needed monologue. I want to give them just chunks of dialogues. Nothing else.

(This scene marks the end of the second act with the goals changed and the stakes increased. So, I think the conversation will be compelling enough and the readers will just focus on the dialogues and not the environment or any actions. But again, that's what I think).

Now, the question is, will it weird things out? Should I do it? That is, should I just make a scene of pure chunks of dialogues if they're compelling enough? What do you think? Please, help me out here.

Original score: 1