Animated Narratives week 11

Week 11: Dialogue

The theme of this week's class is "Dialogue". Dialogue is the most common element in mystery novels, and many clues and information are revealed to the reader through dialogue. The goal of this week's study was to use dialogue between characters to reveal key information in a scene to the reader, so that the reader would not be misinformed when following the main character's case.

Based on the established goal, I conducted some exercises in dialogue descriptions.

"So the one who fell in a pool of blood was a representative of the Sirens. Because there were only two people in the confined room so the human representative was directly found guilty of murder." Jack said rightfully. "But then why did the human representative also fall on the floor? What was the murder weapon? The security level of such talks is very strict as far as I know, and there is no way that a sharp-edged firearm could get through security."

Guderian returned to "the human representative in the interrogation once said he was in the process of negotiation involuntarily fainted. Although he passed a lie detector test, there was no direct evidence of his innocence, and no murder weapon was found at the scene of the crime."

And in conducting the discussion I found that the extensive one-on-one dialogue portrayal can seem uninteresting and too contrived. If improvements are needed in this area, I need more inspiration and guidance.

I recalled the most exciting courtroom showdown in "The Judas Window", but Sir Henry used his logical mind to present a stunning piece of evidence, identify a stunning witness, and steer the case with the least chance of a successful defense to the truth hidden beneath the surface. Through his words, he gradually shook the irony of what the judge had already decided: "I'm just raising possibilities," H.M. responded with a surprisingly tame attitude. He frowned up at us. "Just trying to see if there's anything that might inspire your gray brain cells to act. You've never been able to construct a defense, Ken, you can't get a hint from the evidence and then go straight to the witness. Let's say I think it's most important to find Uncle Spencer, even if I don't put him on the stand, and let's say I think it's very necessary to talk to him? How do I get to him?" ? The essay changes the pace of the conversation through large sections of Sir Henry's analysis of the case and occasional insertions of questions to the witnesses, yet keeps a high density of information revealed to the reader which is something I should learn from.

Through this week's study I learned that: the process of deciphering the reasoning of the case is not as simple as imagined, because it is necessary to reorganize the information such as the motive of the method to the reader, and it is necessary to grasp the rhythm of information output, otherwise it is easy to cause the reader to feel uninteresting or no way to understand the end of the case due to the omission of details. In my future work, I will think carefully about the rhythm of speech between characters.