Usually a scene break signifies a meaningful passage of time and/or space, or a switch to a different point of view. But I recently started noticing manuscripts that will have a scene break, but the scene continues after the break as if the break didn't occur. A few times to the point the break was in the middle of a conversation. (and I'm not implying it only started being done recently, but only that I recently started noticing it) I asked a colleague about it, and we tried to think of examples of this outside of the unpublished amateur/student manuscripts we'd been reading, to confirm it' wasn't just a 'rookie mistake,' but done in published work as well. He came up with Kurt Vonnegut and I noticed the occurrence in a YA novel I'm reading for a class. We both would advise not to do it, in general, and concluded the motivation for doing this could only be some attempt at 'emphasis.' Is there any reason aside from 'emphasis' that anyone can think of for doing this? In my opinion any 'emphasis' created is mostly a construct of the author, as I've never felt it personally as a reader when I've seen it done this way. In fact, because a scene break signifies to me a change of space, time or pov, it usually bothers me if one of these don't change after a scene break. Maybe this is the reason? Some artificial/awkward attempt at creating confusing or imbalance via the format, instead of the prose (a cheap trick, if you ask me, but people do it all the time in poetry, so shrug). Does or would it bother you if a scene break resulted in the scene not actually breaking? Would you or have you done this in your own writing? Any ideas of the motivation behind using the sort of scene break where the new scene opens literally a beat after the other closed?