I'd be down for that, if one of the responses didn't say "I don't care".
Well I'm sorry to have to cut out a line again but I'm going to need you to explain why that option changes anything. That's not the player saying "I don't care" or an option for players who do not care about the lore. That's the character saying "I don't care". In the scenario of the OP, it doesn't change a single thing because OP still doesn't have the understanding to know whether his character cares about it or not. Choosing the "I don't care" option is just an as uninformed choice at that point as choosing any of the other options because they're all dependant on the same context -- knowing about Shar -- and that context has not been given to you.
And no, narration is not going to be considered worse than the status quo, and that thread existing (that despite it's name is not about the removal of the narrator but bringing back the ability to silence the narrator's voice) isn't an argument against the lack of set up being provided for this scene. I'm not even sure why you bothered to bring that thread up, do you think everyone on the internet except you is a single person? I'm not against narration -- in fact I consider the feature of a narrator to be one of the main pros of modern games like BG3 and the Pathfinder games over, say, the old BG games specifically because it enables a greater ability to deliver information and contextual clues to the player.
And again, the information existing in some book or other somewhere within the game is not enough setup for this scene. Even a player that reads every books they pick up might overlook those few, and this isn't some random fact about the setting that you don't need to know -- this is central to Shadowheart's plot, this scene is presented as a big act one moment, in fact the scene is, very much in contrast to how easily said book could be overlooked, decidedly hard to miss out on -- there are dozen of paths set up to lead to that reveal. And in order for the player to be able to react to that reveal, they need knowledge of who Shar is. Therefore, it is to me obvious that the establishment of who Shar is should be just as hard to miss out on as that scene itself -- the context of a story should be delivered inside that story's narrative and not be dependant on the player having happened to have opened an ingame book or not (especially a book in a sidequest location!). It's just storytelling 101 to me -- that moment is presented as far too momentous for what we have now to be adequate.
Compare for example with how well the game establishes the Mindflayers and the tadpole as evil. First you have the intro cinematic with the tadpoling and the abducting of people and the obvious evilousity of the design of it all, then you have the ship you start the actual game on and all the obvious evilousities on it establishing the transformations and also the mind control and, then you have all the other characters from party members to NPCs going on about it and being ready to kill you over it, and so on. The game really, really wants to make sure that you understand this. And of course, this is the central plot of the game. It deserves more set up than the central element to a single companion's plot, I'm not saying anything else. But the lack of establishing who Shar is very similar to if we had gotten no establishment as Mindflayers and tadpoles as being bad, and then were expected by the game to somehow already have this information in a later scene. And "but there is a book about that ingame" wouldn't have satisfied me then either because the game has to actively provide you with what it wants you to know. And it absolutely does expect you to already know who Shar is, that's why the "narrative dissonance" that the OP is describing comes to the forefront in that scene.
