Dialogue isn't primarily for exposition; it's for character and conflict.

Too many writers treat dialogue as a convenient vehicle for plot dumps, and I find it actively undermines effective storytelling. The primary function of dialogue is to reveal character, establish relationships, and drive conflict, not to spoon-feed the audience information they could glean visually or through subtext.

Think about the best conversations you've heard on screen: they're rarely about direct plot points. Instead, they're loaded with subtext, personal stakes, and clashing perspectives that tell us who these people are and what they want, often in opposition to each other. When characters explicitly state backstory or 'explain' the current situation, it feels unnatural and lazy. We're robbing the audience of the satisfaction of discovery and forcing them to sit through what amounts to a verbal report.

Some might argue that certain genres, like sci-fi or fantasy, necessitate more direct exposition through dialogue to establish complex worlds. While some setup is unavoidable, even in these cases, the exposition should be woven into character-driven moments or presented as a natural part of a character's expertise or worldview, not as a lecture. The moment characters start acting as mouthpieces for the plot, the illusion of reality shatters. Shouldn't we strive for dialogue that feels lived-in and authentic, rather than merely functional?