Your point about dialogue hit close to home for me as I have a personal aversion to naturalistic dialogue both in literature and film (Richard Linklater is torture for me). I'd love if, in future posts, you would go beyond the (necessary) negative first step of embracing falseness (which still reads as rejecting what mainstream advocates) to explore concrete possibilities on how to do so. In the dialogue case, for example, my choice tends to be for elevation: every single line must have a meaning and a purpose, unlike real life dialogue. I feel this approach, however, tends to clash with your perspective for being too functionalist?
Your point about dialogue hit close to home for me as I have a personal aversion to naturalistic dialogue both in literature and film (Richard Linklater is torture for me). I'd love if, in future posts, you would go beyond the (necessary) negative first step of embracing falseness (which still reads as rejecting what mainstream advocates) to explore concrete possibilities on how to do so. In the dialogue case, for example, my choice tends to be for elevation: every single line must have a meaning and a purpose, unlike real life dialogue. I feel this approach, however, tends to clash with your perspective for being too functionalist?