Some thoughts on 'How to Write' Books

I'm rereading How to Write Dazzling Dialogue: The Fastest Way to Improve Any Manuscript by James Scott Bell.

The book is good. One of the things I find funny is it says to avoid exposition. The examples and comparisons are great. However, there's exposition to explain the scenes in the examples.

I can understand the need to provide it as story dialogue has context. The claim is good dialogue shows emotion and doesn't require exposition. I was wondering, “why not just present the dialogue? Let people infer emotion and context.” After more thinking, I realized the same dialogue could occur in multiple scenarios.

For a made up example:

Jimmy, a con man, is trying to convince his target Tony there's nothing wrong with the sauna. Tony also happens to be a mob boss.

“It's just not working between us Jimmy.”
“What do you mean?”
“There's no steam between us.”
“I can fix it, please give me a chance.”
“You've got five minutes.”

which could also be:

Jimmy, seeing his wife leaving for the last time, is trying to persuade her to stay.

“It's just not working between us Jimmy.”
“What do you mean?”
“There's no steam between us.”
“I can fix it, please give me a chance.”
“You've got five minutes.”

It's the same dialogue, but the exposition changes how you'd read it. One's life threatening, with the other heartbreaking.

The books pretty good so far. It highlights the difference between painting a picture with words vs letting your words paint a picture.