An accident again changed the current of my ideas. When I was about fifteen years old we had retired to our house near Belrive, when we witnessed a most violent and terrible thunderstorm. It advanced from behind the mountains of Jura, and the thunder burst at once with frightful loudness from various quarters of the heavens. I remained, while the storm lasted, watching its progress with curiosity and delight. As I stood at the door, on a sudden I beheld a stream of fire issue from an old and beautiful oak which stood about twenty yards from our house; and so soon as the dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stump. When we visited it the next morning, we found the tree shattered in a singular manner. It was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood. I never beheld anything so utterly destroyed. What would have to change for there to be dialogue in this passage? Fewer characters would have to appear. The passage would have to be shorter. More characters would have to appear. The passage would have to be scarier.

Respuesta :

Nadra
In order to make this passage into a dialogue, more characters would have to appear (option C). In this way, a conversation could be possible. Instead of being a monologue or a long retelling of facts, it might changed its dynamic as to become a dialogue, because its structure should also change.
The correct option is this: MORE CHARACTERS WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR.
Dialogue refers to a conversation between two or more people. For a dialogue to occur at least two people must be present. The passage given in this question is a narration, which involves only one person, for the passage to be converted to a dialogue style, more people have to be present.