Forum Settings
Forums

Hearing character's thoughts is bad storytelling!

This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (11) « First ... « 7 8 [9] 10 11 »
 
Apr 28, 5:43 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
You called them arrogant several times though.

If the thread was on listing positive and negative examples, then sure, "it depends" or "it's good" would do just as well with the only discussion on if X anime did a good job on it. However when discussing overall if it's a good thing like we are here, then it depends(even with examples) wouldn't have a discussion around it as 99% of people agree.
Picking sides is how a discussion is usually started, If someone agrees with you they aren't gonna say anything. Let's take this thread, why are you only addressing me and OP(the people who disagree with you)? Count up the people who addressed others they disagreed with to the people who just quoted someone to say "I agree" and you'll see most addressed OP as a disagreement.

The thread got this angry due to their disagreement and belief that OP is an idiot for thinking said thing. People were mad the second they got into this thread or heard OP's opinion. Would people freak out if it was something casual and neutral thread? No, there just wouldn't e 9 pages. Aka less discussion. This thread has a crazy amount due to people's disagreement with OP. The rest of the threads aren't having as much success due to the neutral discussion.

Edit: lol, I didn't @, hold on:
@LightBladeNova
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 28, 7:12 PM

 
Apr 28, 5:43 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
traed said:

Maybe relate is wrong word. It's to help you empathize with a character and understand a little better what it's like to be them.. You can't get that from dialogue alone.


Why should I empathize with a character and understand how it is to be them?
 
Apr 28, 5:49 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Safeanew said:
LightBladeNova said:


You're still not making up your mind, your previous comment just said "I claim that one can't state the absolute truth"... and I think we're gonna have to disagree on what constitutes "arrogant".

There's already been 8 pages of discussion with you and other people going around in circles, so I don't think I have anything new to add that hasn't already been said multiple times. And you still seem firm on your opinions, so clearly nobody around here has been able to change your mind. So there's not much I can do...

Bottom-line, I can kinda sorta see where you're coming from, I guess (even though I ultimately disagree), I just hope you understand why so many other people disagree with you.


Yeah, I am not stating the absolute truth, I am saying what I claim to be true in all cases.

I claim one should be firm in ones opinions, why should I say something I don't believe in and why should I change my mind and not all the other people that hold firm in their opinion?

Could you explain why you disagree, rather than being off topic?
You just claim I am too authoritative, but what is so bad with stating ones opinions generally when one believes they hold generally?


So... you’re not stating the absolute truth, you’re stating *what you believe* to be the absolute truth? Okay... I just don’t like making overgeneralized, quarrelsome statements cuz I find they’re usually not conducive to open, non-combative discussion, as you can probably tell with all the people being annoyed around here and dismissing you. Sorry if I came across as unpleasant myself.

I’m not saying your mind *should* be changed. I’m just saying that 8 pages of discussion doesn’t seem to have made you reevaluate your opinion, so what am I supposed to say that hasn’t already been said? If you want to know why I disagree, then just look again at all the other comments that disagree with you (and please don’t accuse me of not thinking for myself or something, because I did and came to similar conclusions as they did). But you disagree with all those comments, right (and it’s not like you responded to all of them, either)? So ultimately, we just have to agree to disagree.
"Beyond the veil of cherry blossom petals blown by the wind - almost like their promised reunion -

Feelings pile up with the passage of time: once the torrent of emotions comes rushing down, what is the spectacle that awaits?"
 
Apr 28, 5:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
LightBladeNova said:


So... you’re not stating the absolute truth, you’re stating *what you believe* to be the absolute truth? Okay... I just don’t like making overgeneralized, quarrelsome statements cuz I find they’re usually not conducive to open, non-combative discussion, as you can probably tell with all the people being annoyed around here and dismissing you. Sorry if I came across as unpleasant myself.

I’m not saying your mind *should* be changed. I’m just saying that 8 pages of discussion doesn’t seem to have made you reevaluate your opinion, so what am I supposed to say that hasn’t already been said? If you want to know why I disagree, then just look again at all the other comments that disagree with you (and please don’t accuse me of not thinking for myself or something, because I did and came to similar conclusions as they did). But you disagree with all those comments, right (and it’s not like you responded to all of them, either)? So ultimately, we just have to agree to disagree.


Discussion is when people don't agree with each other, so "open, non-combative discussion" does not exist.
I don't think you are unpleasant, I think you don't like discussion.

If everything you wanted to say has already been said, you can be silent.
I never "agree to disagree", because I want to discuss.
 
Apr 28, 5:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 87
I think that maybe an inner monologue here and there is fine if it's just to help the viewer understand something, but I definitely agree that when characters just start narrating something, it's really distracting.
I want to be able to make my own assumptions about what might happen instead of a character just telling me what to expect, or when the character basically just tells you how you should be feeling

 
Apr 28, 6:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
LightBladeNova said:


So... you’re not stating the absolute truth, you’re stating *what you believe* to be the absolute truth? Okay... I just don’t like making overgeneralized, quarrelsome statements cuz I find they’re usually not conducive to open, non-combative discussion, as you can probably tell with all the people being annoyed around here and dismissing you. Sorry if I came across as unpleasant myself.

I’m not saying your mind *should* be changed. I’m just saying that 8 pages of discussion doesn’t seem to have made you reevaluate your opinion, so what am I supposed to say that hasn’t already been said? If you want to know why I disagree, then just look again at all the other comments that disagree with you (and please don’t accuse me of not thinking for myself or something, because I did and came to similar conclusions as they did). But you disagree with all those comments, right (and it’s not like you responded to all of them, either)? So ultimately, we just have to agree to disagree.


Discussion is when people don't agree with each other, so "open, non-combative discussion" does not exist.
I don't think you are unpleasant, I think you don't like discussion.

If everything you wanted to say has already been said, you can be silent.
I never "agree to disagree", because I want to discuss.
I think what they meant is a more open-minded discussion where people aren't as stubborn or hostile with their beliefs.

 
Apr 28, 6:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Peaceful_Critic said:
Safeanew said:


Discussion is when people don't agree with each other, so "open, non-combative discussion" does not exist.
I don't think you are unpleasant, I think you don't like discussion.

If everything you wanted to say has already been said, you can be silent.
I never "agree to disagree", because I want to discuss.
I think what they meant is a more open-minded discussion where people aren't as stubborn or hostile with their beliefs.


Oh, I call that being more polite.
I am trying to be as polite as possible, but discussions always get heated because they are about things that people don't agree on.
 
Apr 28, 6:08 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
I think what they meant is a more open-minded discussion where people aren't as stubborn or hostile with their beliefs.


Oh, I call that being more polite.
I am trying to be as polite as possible, but discussions always get heated because they are about things that people don't agree on.
Most of my discussions aren't heated though.

 
Apr 28, 6:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Peaceful_Critic said:
Safeanew said:


Oh, I call that being more polite.
I am trying to be as polite as possible, but discussions always get heated because they are about things that people don't agree on.
Most of my discussions aren't heated though.


Do people disagree with each other in your discussions?
I mean I know that my threads are more controversial than the average discussion.
One way to avoid heat is to just ask peoples opinions, but that often does not lead to discussion, because they just try to answer ones question, they don't want to discuss it.
The reason people discuss is because they don't agree with each other, most people don't want to discuss, they just want to share their opinions without being questioned.
 
Apr 28, 6:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
Most of my discussions aren't heated though.


Do people disagree with each other in your discussions?
I mean I know that my threads are more controversial than the average discussion.
One way to avoid heat is to just ask peoples opinions, but that often does not lead to discussion, because they just try to answer ones question, they don't want to discuss it.
The reason people discuss is because they don't agree with each other, most people don't want to discuss, they just want to share their opinions without being questioned.
Oh, I don't make threads. I mostly stick to posts, that said, I do disagree with others a lot and make a civil discussion. Did you see anyone really mad at me in this thread?

 
Apr 28, 6:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Peaceful_Critic said:
Oh, I don't make threads. I mostly stick to posts, that said, I do disagree with others a lot and make a civil discussion. Did you see anyone really mad at me in this thread?


In what way am I not making a civil discussion?
Why many are not mad at you, is because they either partly agreed with you or did not see you, there was atleast two people being rude to you.
Most that are mad at me, only read the title and first post and say they don't agree without making a new argument because don't want to read this long thread.
 
Apr 28, 6:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
Oh, I don't make threads. I mostly stick to posts, that said, I do disagree with others a lot and make a civil discussion. Did you see anyone really mad at me in this thread?


In what way am I not making a civil discussion?
Why many are not mad at you, is because they either partly agreed with you or did not see you, there was atleast two people being rude to you.
Most that are mad at me, only read the title and first post and say they don't agree without making a new argument because don't want to read this long thread.
You are civil, I was referring to the people who talked to you. Your opinion is just really out there. Claiming a writing technique as awful for stories no matter what is a really something the majority would disagree strongly with. People did partly agree, and tons also disagreed with me outright. Who were the two people rude to me?

 
Apr 28, 6:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Peaceful_Critic said:
You are civil, I was referring to the people who talked to you. Your opinion is just really out there. Claiming a writing technique as awful for stories no matter what is a really something the majority would disagree strongly with. People did partly agree, and tons also disagreed with me outright. Who were the two people rude to me?


Sad and Satyr_icon was rude to you in their choice of word, in the same way people are rude to me.

If people get angry because I make radical claims, is it wrong to make radical claims?
I want more polite discussions, but that is not something I can do anything about except not making claims that others get angry by.
But that misses the whole point of discussion, to be able to say what one believes and discuss it.
 
Apr 28, 6:52 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 152
Monologues are needed for storytelling. It's just how many monologues is too much.

Bakemonogatari isn't Bakemonogatari without Ararararag's monologues.
They are almost essential on drama driven story, mostly because characters don't speak that often and hid most of their thoughts from everyone. Cutting out those and everyone would be confused as to what is going on.
Of course, you can build a story without any monologues. That is if you can show every character's motivation and what they think without resorting to that (which is almost impossible in a paper medium). But that doesn't mean monologues are bad.

At the same time, a shounen show like the recent Kimetsu no Kaiba doesn't really need many monologues (and they clearly failed that). The reason for that is because it's difficult to know what the characters are trying to do (or what tactics they made in battle) in just a few panels in the manga. Animation can pack a lot more with motion. Animators can just put visual cues instead of having the character monologuing every single thing, which would be tedious and very annoying.
Modified by copyrightRingo, Apr 28, 6:55 PM
「ボクは…確かに現実に絶望している。だけど、自分には絶望していない!! 今がつまらないか…楽しいのか…平凡なのか…決めているのは現実じゃない。決めるのはボクだ!!ボクが望めば不可能はない!!」-桂木桂馬
"True, I've given up on the real world. However, I haven't given up on myself!! The world doesn't get to decide whether my life is boring, fun, or ordinary because that's my decision to make!! As long as I have the will, nothing is impossible!!" -Katsuragi Keima
 
Apr 28, 7:06 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
You are civil, I was referring to the people who talked to you. Your opinion is just really out there. Claiming a writing technique as awful for stories no matter what is a really something the majority would disagree strongly with. People did partly agree, and tons also disagreed with me outright. Who were the two people rude to me?


Sad and Satyr_icon was rude to you in their choice of word, in the same way people are rude to me.

If people get angry because I make radical claims, is it wrong to make radical claims?
I want more polite discussions, but that is not something I can do anything about except not making claims that others get angry by.
But that misses the whole point of discussion, to be able to say what one believes and discuss it.
Sad had a complaint aout my claims more than personally, so I wouldn't consider that rude. Same for Satyr_icon with the only thing that one will consider rude being: "Cringe" to my comments on Shakespeare. Neither was constructive per se, that said, people, called you outright stupid or arrogant. They reprimanded your personal character wherein my comments were the ones attacked.

No, it's not wrong, people just get more angry with that. Try to do something people disagree with, just not to such an extreme as something like a writing technique that's highly regarded and used. People wouldn't get as mad if you hated fma and wanted to discuss that.

 
Apr 28, 7:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
copyrightRingo said:
Monologues are needed for storytelling. It's just how many monologues is too much.

Bakemonogatari isn't Bakemonogatari without Ararararag's monologues.
They are almost essential on drama driven story, mostly because characters don't speak that often and hid most of their thoughts from everyone. Cutting out those and everyone would be confused as to what is going on.
Of course, you can build a story without any monologues. That is if you can show every character's motivation and what they think without resorting to that (which is almost impossible in a paper medium). But that doesn't mean monologues are bad.

At the same time, a shounen show like the recent Kimetsu no Kaiba doesn't really need many monologues (and they clearly failed that). The reason for that is because it's difficult to know what the characters are trying to do (or what tactics they made in battle) in just a few panels in the manga. Animation can pack a lot more with motion. Animators can just put visual cues instead of having the character monologuing every single thing, which would be tedious and very annoying.


That is actually a reason I often don't like drama stories, because they are often in the head of characters too much.
I like drama that are not so poetic as I call them, even if poetic drama can be nice as a poetic experience.
Bakemonogatari I think is more narration style rather than hearing what he thinks, but i don't remember.
 
Apr 28, 7:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Peaceful_Critic said:

No, it's not wrong, people just get more angry with that. Try to do something people disagree with, just not to such an extreme as something like a writing technique that's highly regarded and used. People wouldn't get as mad if you hated fma and wanted to discuss that.


But I want to talk about the things that really challenge me and others, I don't want to talk about something people already agrees on or is not interesting for people.
The criticism of hearing characters' thoughts is an important new opinion I got when I noticed how it served as a barrier of really engaging in stories.
The thoughts function more like poetry does in that it makes things relatable but not understandable.
This is something I say as someone who likes to write poetry.
Poetry works by reflecting the readers language back, so that any person can relate to the poetry.
This is different from the role a story has in that it should show different types of language.
I am not saying hearing characters' thoughts are bad, only that it is bad for the story part.
 
Apr 28, 7:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
copyrightRingo said:
Monologues are needed for storytelling. It's just how many monologues is too much.

Bakemonogatari isn't Bakemonogatari without Ararararag's monologues.
They are almost essential on drama driven story, mostly because characters don't speak that often and hid most of their thoughts from everyone. Cutting out those and everyone would be confused as to what is going on.
Of course, you can build a story without any monologues. That is if you can show every character's motivation and what they think without resorting to that (which is almost impossible in a paper medium). But that doesn't mean monologues are bad.

At the same time, a shounen show like the recent Kimetsu no Kaiba doesn't really need many monologues (and they clearly failed that). The reason for that is because it's difficult to know what the characters are trying to do (or what tactics they made in battle) in just a few panels in the manga. Animation can pack a lot more with motion. Animators can just put visual cues instead of having the character monologuing every single thing, which would be tedious and very annoying.
Total Drama actually got past this in a cool way, each character had confessions in where you'll get to know what the characters were up to. Total Drama was this reality parody cartoons, so it really fit well the series. Anyway, you didn't claim it was impossible just hard. My main examples would e western cartoons, as they really just don't use the technique at all(even in dramas). OG Teen Titans didn't have it either, despite being a drama.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 28, 7:52 PM

 
Apr 28, 7:42 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 152
Safeanew said:


That is actually a reason I often don't like drama stories, because they are often in the head of characters too much.
I like drama that are not so poetic as I call them, even if poetic drama can be nice as a poetic experience.
Bakemonogatari I think is more narration style rather than hearing what he thinks, but i don't remember.


Then you are just not their target audience I guess. No biggie though.
What I am trying to say is that monologues aren't the cause of bad storytelling. Authors sometimes put like a bible in their monologue which looks long and boring. Though clever ones can use monologues to make things exciting and funny like Kaguya-sama (combined with visuals and everything else, of course).
Modified by copyrightRingo, Apr 28, 7:54 PM
「ボクは…確かに現実に絶望している。だけど、自分には絶望していない!! 今がつまらないか…楽しいのか…平凡なのか…決めているのは現実じゃない。決めるのはボクだ!!ボクが望めば不可能はない!!」-桂木桂馬
"True, I've given up on the real world. However, I haven't given up on myself!! The world doesn't get to decide whether my life is boring, fun, or ordinary because that's my decision to make!! As long as I have the will, nothing is impossible!!" -Katsuragi Keima
 
Apr 28, 7:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
Safeanew said:
Peaceful_Critic said:

No, it's not wrong, people just get more angry with that. Try to do something people disagree with, just not to such an extreme as something like a writing technique that's highly regarded and used. People wouldn't get as mad if you hated fma and wanted to discuss that.


But I want to talk about the things that really challenge me and others, I don't want to talk about something people already agrees on or is not interesting for people.
The criticism of hearing characters' thoughts is an important new opinion I got when I noticed how it served as a barrier of really engaging in stories.
The thoughts function more like poetry does in that it makes things relatable but not understandable.
This is something I say as someone who likes to write poetry.
Poetry works by reflecting the readers language back, so that any person can relate to the poetry.
This is different from the role a story has in that it should show different types of language.
I am not saying hearing characters' thoughts are bad, only that it is bad for the story part.
It has to e something extreme? idk what to tell you then.

 
Apr 28, 7:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2735
In my honest opinion if it is overused in a visual medium like Anime then I can agree with you, yet with writing I can understand a bit of inner monologue from the main character since unlike with Anime you don't have tone, visuals, sound, or music representing a character's emotions during a no dialogue moment.
Quitting all Gacha if my E Rank Luck doesn't make me get Moriarty Mahiru in Revue, Edgy Homu or Godoka in MagiReco and then doing Russian Roullet to game end myself
 
Apr 28, 7:54 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
copyrightRingo said:
Safeanew said:


That is actually a reason I often don't like drama stories, because they are often in the head of characters too much.
I like drama that are not so poetic as I call them, even if poetic drama can be nice as a poetic experience.
Bakemonogatari I think is more narration style rather than hearing what he thinks, but i don't remember.


Then you are just not their target audience I guess. No biggie though.
What I am trying to say is that monologues aren't the cause of bad storytelling. Authors sometimes put like a bible in their monologue which looks long and boring. Though cleaver ones can use monologues to make things exciting and funny like Kaguya-sama.


I wonder if you will agree but the joke in Kaguya-sama is that the thoughts don't really matter, the end result is the same.
I am not saying that it is bad to hear thoughts, I am saying that the thoughts are side comments, not integral to the story.
It can be integral to a joke on the otherhand.
 
Apr 28, 8:04 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 152
Safeanew said:

It can be integral to a joke on the otherhand.


That's exactly it. It's just build up before the comedy. But hey, that's still monologuing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
「ボクは…確かに現実に絶望している。だけど、自分には絶望していない!! 今がつまらないか…楽しいのか…平凡なのか…決めているのは現実じゃない。決めるのはボクだ!!ボクが望めば不可能はない!!」-桂木桂馬
"True, I've given up on the real world. However, I haven't given up on myself!! The world doesn't get to decide whether my life is boring, fun, or ordinary because that's my decision to make!! As long as I have the will, nothing is impossible!!" -Katsuragi Keima
 
Apr 28, 8:51 PM
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 229
So from what I've gathered from this thread, I think you are mistaking something. You claim that dialogue is bad because "why should I care what the characters are thinking/feeling when I only care about the story?"

From what I gathered, you aren't the type to want to empathize with characters. You don't actually care how the character feels. It's just who you are and isn't your cup of tea. You aren't the first person I know who is like this. Because this isn't your taste, naturally it would make you think it's bad story telling. Well is it? Not necessarily.

For me personally, and for most other people, we like to understand how the characters are feeling. It in fact just adds much more to the story for some people because we find it adds tension when seeing yourself in that characters shoes. For you it doesn't because for you personally you don't really care what the character feels, so therefore for you it doesn't feel like it adds to the story at all.
 
Apr 28, 9:05 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
@Peaceful_Critic, I called his “absolute truth” statement arrogant, which you didn’t say you disagreed with when I first quoted that. OP somewhat clarified by saying he’s not claiming absolute truth, but claiming that his opinion is absolute truth to himself only (correct me if I’m wrong, @Safeanew), which is walking a pretty thin line, but okay... as long as he understands that, in the end, his opinion is subjective, not factual. OP is not storytelling God.

And heh, alright, fine. You got me. I can acknowledge that, even though this thread as a whole has been kinda frustrating, OP definitely has generated a lot of discussion, so I can at least give credit for that. I also acknowledge that OP is free to express his radical opinion, because that’s what he believes and he shouldn’t lie to himself, even though I still fundamentally disagree with that opinion. Though I’m not sure that extreme approach is something to be praised just because the results are productive... even you seem to be questioning that, from your latest comments.

And yes, by “non-combative”, I meant what you said, my bad.

@Safeanew, has your opinion changed *at all* after 9 pages of discussion with all these people? Or do you still think inner narration *never* helps the story? I thought @Peaceful_Critic said before that she acknowledges that inner narration isn't inherently bad, and can be positive and effective when done well in certain scenarios, like with mystery battle-of-wits and comedy. That differs from your position of inner narration *never* being positive/effective. Have the two of you discussed that?

And if you want me to contribute a little of my own thoughts, then fine. Earlier, you said "Why should I empathize with a character and understand how it is to be them?" and you make a critique against empathy. In the first few pages, you say that "understanding characters is bad", that you're "not interested in characters' motivations."

For me, however, I enjoy that empathy and understanding because then I feel more emotionally invested in that character, and thus, more interested in reading/watching more of the story. And hearing a characters' thoughts, *when used sparingly and not all the time*, can help achieve that for me, by providing closer, raw *internal* intimacy. For me, that's just part of the story - the experience of the story - not something separate.

There, I said something. I'm 100% sure you disagree with me, but whatever. Is this inherently bad storytelling to you, in your opinion? Sure, I'm not gonna take that away from you. But it's not inherently bad to me and most other people in this thread. Quite the opposite, it can be quite useful when done well. That's about it.

Here's a thought, OP: why don't you go on the /r/writing and /r/books subreddits and talk about your opinion with those people? You'll likely receive more perspectives there, from more well-read veterans, and those subreddits are much more dedicated to writing/storytelling aspects than some random anime discussion forum on MyAnimeList.

So how about you go do that, and then send me a link to your subreddit discussion? I'd be very curious to see what the /r/writing and /r/books people have to say about your opinion.

(Also, if you do that, I'd advise you not to phrase your argument in such a radical-sounding way).
Modified by LightBladeNova, Apr 28, 10:15 PM
"Beyond the veil of cherry blossom petals blown by the wind - almost like their promised reunion -

Feelings pile up with the passage of time: once the torrent of emotions comes rushing down, what is the spectacle that awaits?"
 
Apr 28, 9:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 847
Xenocrisi said:
Safeanew said:


That is why I am against it, understanding characters is bad for storytelling and the dialogue.

Yo what the hell are you even talking about lmao

Alright I'm fucking lost, did OP just say that understanding the characters is bad?

I'm level on mal-badges. View my badges.

 
Apr 28, 9:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
@LightladeNova

Oh, I see, my fault, sorry about that then, I thought you meant them as a person. I mean I couldn't disagree with it, you had a good point. I did mentally disagree. I just had no rebuttal once you showed me a place where the quote was. In the mindset that they were arrogant overall, you had a valid reason based on it.

Well, I love the discussions, not really the hostility. The neutral is straight out dull though. Not to say there aren't any. I think there's more than what people give credit to, just that it's rare to see so many interesting discussions happen. Like OP quotes anyone who disagrees with them so the majority of people get involved in the discussion at some point.

We haven't as most of my arguments are on characters. I haven't really told much of my opinion on the story.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 28, 9:52 PM

 
Apr 28, 9:53 PM
Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 4
I think I get what you mean. Sometimes inner thoughts literally repeat what was shown or they explain very plain and obvious details. I hate that kind of writing because it insults my intelligence, but there are times when an full monologue helps flesh out a character in ways that would be unnatural in a dialogue. I like it best when a character is alone or really deliberating decisions in an action scene. Its especially annoying when characters are having an innocuous conversation and the "touchy feely" one just busts out with emotional fluff that adds no new details.
 
Apr 28, 10:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Peaceful_Critic said:
@LightladeNova

Oh, I see, my fault, sorry about that then, I thought you meant them as a person. I mean I couldn't disagree with it, you had a good point. I did mentally disagree. I just had no rebuttal once you showed me a place where the quote was. In the mindset that they were arrogant overall, you had a valid reason based on it.

Well, I love the discussions, not really the hostility. The neutral is straight out dull though. Not to say there aren't any. I think there's more than what people give credit to, just that it's rare to see so many interesting discussions happen. Like OP quotes anyone who disagrees with them so the majority of people get involved in the discussion at some point.

We haven't as most of my arguments are on characters. I haven't really told much of my opinion on the story.


Yah, no worries, thanks. Well, admittedly, I've seen a few people around here besides you who kinda partially see where OP is coming from, but that's the thing: partially. Even you aren't completely on-board with OP's position that inner narration *never* helps the story, right? He says he's "not against" it, but then he says it's "unrelated to anything that happens in the story." He thinks inner narration doesn't have any potential value. So... he's basically against it.

He also criticized empathy and said stuff like "understanding characters is bad", that he's "not interested in characters' motivations" (this is all stuff from the first page). I imagine you're not totally on-board with that, either.
"Beyond the veil of cherry blossom petals blown by the wind - almost like their promised reunion -

Feelings pile up with the passage of time: once the torrent of emotions comes rushing down, what is the spectacle that awaits?"
 
Apr 28, 10:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
LightBladeNova said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
@LightladeNova

Oh, I see, my fault, sorry about that then, I thought you meant them as a person. I mean I couldn't disagree with it, you had a good point. I did mentally disagree. I just had no rebuttal once you showed me a place where the quote was. In the mindset that they were arrogant overall, you had a valid reason based on it.

Well, I love the discussions, not really the hostility. The neutral is straight out dull though. Not to say there aren't any. I think there's more than what people give credit to, just that it's rare to see so many interesting discussions happen. Like OP quotes anyone who disagrees with them so the majority of people get involved in the discussion at some point.

We haven't as most of my arguments are on characters. I haven't really told much of my opinion on the story.


Yah, no worries, thanks. Well, admittedly, I've seen a few people around here besides you who kinda partially see where OP is coming from, but that's the thing: partially. Even you aren't completely on-board with OP's position that inner narration *never* helps the story, right? He says he's "not against" it, but then he says it's "unrelated to anything that happens in the story." He thinks inner narration doesn't have any potential value. So... he's basically against it.

He also criticized empathy and said stuff like "understanding characters is bad", that he's "not interested in characters' motivations" (this is all stuff from the first page). I imagine you're not totally on-board with that, either.
Well, when they are against it in a written medium like novels, it's hard to 100% agree. It's really is an extreme position. I was gonna say thinking it distracts from the story is different than straight out not liking it, that said, when they are against it so heavily character wise as well I can't really say that.

I think the 1st part needs the rest of the comment: "...for storytelling and the dialogue" I think they might mean in the "make it less obvious" type of way and that they prefer to have the character more interpretive than spelled out(which is something I agree on #292). I'm also not interested in a character's motives unless there's a good reason to know(like when they do something out of character) then I simply don't care(#384).

 
Apr 28, 11:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Peaceful_Critic said:
LightBladeNova said:


Yah, no worries, thanks. Well, admittedly, I've seen a few people around here besides you who kinda partially see where OP is coming from, but that's the thing: partially. Even you aren't completely on-board with OP's position that inner narration *never* helps the story, right? He says he's "not against" it, but then he says it's "unrelated to anything that happens in the story." He thinks inner narration doesn't have any potential value. So... he's basically against it.

He also criticized empathy and said stuff like "understanding characters is bad", that he's "not interested in characters' motivations" (this is all stuff from the first page). I imagine you're not totally on-board with that, either.
Well, when they are against it in a written medium like novels, it's hard to 100% agree. It's really is an extreme position. I was gonna say thinking it distracts from the story is different than straight out not liking it, that said, when they are against it so heavily character wise as well I can't really say that.

I think the 1st part needs the rest of the comment: "...for storytelling and the dialogue" I think they might mean in the "make it less obvious" type of way and that they prefer to have the character more interpretive than spelled out(which is something I agree on #292). I'm also not interested in a character's motives unless there's a good reason to know(like when they do something out of character) then I simply don't care(#384).


I see. Regarding your point about making characterization "less obvious" by removing internal narration to allow for more reader/viewer interpretation, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're saying that you want to be able to put in more interpretive brain work to figure out what the character is thinking/feeling, right? In that case, I think you articulated that argument better than OP did (though, just saying, the rest of the comment "...for storytelling and the dialogue" doesn't help that specific argument). So, I'm hoping OP means that he *does* want to understand characters, but without internal narration telling him what the character is thinking/feeling.

However, I still can't fully agree with that. There's a potential *trade-off* with that approach. By removing internal narration entirely, the story may gain this puzzling sense of ambiguity that provides a mental challenge, but at the same time, there's also the potential drawback of emotionally distancing the character from the reader/viewer. So in the end, this depends on what you value more in storytelling. I myself enjoy that sense of empathy and intimate understanding that comes with experiencing a character's internal mind, and I feel more invested in the character as well as the overall story like that. So I tend to place greater value on that over having a puzzle to solve.

Also, it's not like I'm saying I want to see into *every* character's mind in a story. Usually just the protagonist is enough, or if someone can skillfully handle multiple protagonists (not too many, though, I'm not usually a fan of too many protagonists). The rest of the characters can be left alone, without seeing into their minds, because we still need that sense of mystery/suspense/unknown. But for the protagonist, I'm following the person throughout the whole story, so I'd like to hear his/her thoughts and feelings and have that kind of raw, internal intimacy.

...Writing that down feels kinda inappropriate, lol...

Anyway, hope you see where I'm coming from.
Modified by LightBladeNova, Apr 28, 11:57 PM
"Beyond the veil of cherry blossom petals blown by the wind - almost like their promised reunion -

Feelings pile up with the passage of time: once the torrent of emotions comes rushing down, what is the spectacle that awaits?"
 
Apr 28, 11:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
LightBladeNova said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
Well, when they are against it in a written medium like novels, it's hard to 100% agree. It's really is an extreme position. I was gonna say thinking it distracts from the story is different than straight out not liking it, that said, when they are against it so heavily character wise as well I can't really say that.

I think the 1st part needs the rest of the comment: "...for storytelling and the dialogue" I think they might mean in the "make it less obvious" type of way and that they prefer to have the character more interpretive than spelled out(which is something I agree on #292). I'm also not interested in a character's motives unless there's a good reason to know(like when they do something out of character) then I simply don't care(#384).


I see. Regarding your point about making characterization "less obvious" by removing internal narration to allow for more reader/viewer interpretation, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're saying that you want to be able to put in more interpretive brain work to figure out what the character is thinking/feeling, right? In that case, I think you articulated that argument better than OP did (though, just saying, the rest of the comment "...for storytelling and the dialogue" doesn't help that specific argument). So, I'm hoping OP means that he *does* want to understand characters, but without internal narration telling him what the character is thinking/feeling.

However, I still can't fully agree with that. There's a potential *trade-off* with that approach. By removing internal narration entirely, the story may gain this puzzling sense of ambiguity that provides a mental challenge, but at the same time, there's also the potential drawback of emotionally distancing the character from the reader/viewer. So in the end, this depends on what you value more in storytelling. I myself enjoy that sense of empathy and intimate understanding that comes with experiencing a character's internal mind, and I feel more invested in the character as well as the overall story like that. So I tend to place greater value on that over having a puzzle to solve.

Also, it's not like I'm saying I want to see into *every* character's mind in a story. Usually just the protagonist is enough, or if someone can skillfully handle multiple protagonists (not too many, though, I'm not usually a fan of too many protagonists). The rest of the characters can be left alone, without seeing into their minds, because we still need that sense of mystery/suspense/unknown. But for the protagonist, I'm following the person throughout the whole story, so I'd like to hear his/her thoughts and feelings and have that kind of raw, internal intimacy.

...Writing that down sounds kinda inappropriate, lol...

Anyway, hope you see where I'm coming from.
It's not so much that I want abstraction, I just think most of it is unneeded. If I'm getting to know a character I'd rather do so in other methods. Like actions, presentation, or dialogues seem like the more interesting ways to convey a character. It's not so much wanting a mental challenge as it is not wanting my handheld. I probably should've made that clear, my comment was vague. This is gonna e my second time copying and pasting this comment:

"Most characters I like are already unfiltered as that's why they are interesting. Characters that are only interesting due to inner thoughts are limited on what way they can show their personalities(something I value). Yuno is boring to watch due to her monologue mainly as the only insight into her character and it doesn't really let you know anything you didn't already. Of course, some shows do use inner monologue correctly(as in not telling you what you already figured out or something that could' been shown/said), in most cases, though, I think the majority of characters would improve without them. Actions generally are more dynamic in what ways a character can show a trait. Dialogue allows other characters to react and show their personalities as well(with the character themselves having just as various ways to do the same as they would've inside their head). Dialogue also allows you to see how a character interacts with other characters. Inner Monologue is the least interesting and dynamic way a character can show their personalities. "

Here's another copy and paste, to show you an example o what I mean:
"The opening of K-On shows you what Yui is like, she's a klutz as she slipped on her floor. She gets easily distracted and likes cute things which is why she pets a cat on her way to school. She's a generally nice person as she helped an old lady cross the road on her way to school. She relies on Ui as she didn't wake up y her alarm, ut her sister. This whole one minute scene shows you Yui's character in an interesting way as you aren't told through the monologue Ui that she is this way."

Yes, I see where you are coming from, there is more of a distance with this approach. I don't really disagree with that as the technique is more personal.

 
Apr 29, 12:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Peaceful_Critic said:
LightBladeNova said:


I see. Regarding your point about making characterization "less obvious" by removing internal narration to allow for more reader/viewer interpretation, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're saying that you want to be able to put in more interpretive brain work to figure out what the character is thinking/feeling, right? In that case, I think you articulated that argument better than OP did (though, just saying, the rest of the comment "...for storytelling and the dialogue" doesn't help that specific argument). So, I'm hoping OP means that he *does* want to understand characters, but without internal narration telling him what the character is thinking/feeling.

However, I still can't fully agree with that. There's a potential *trade-off* with that approach. By removing internal narration entirely, the story may gain this puzzling sense of ambiguity that provides a mental challenge, but at the same time, there's also the potential drawback of emotionally distancing the character from the reader/viewer. So in the end, this depends on what you value more in storytelling. I myself enjoy that sense of empathy and intimate understanding that comes with experiencing a character's internal mind, and I feel more invested in the character as well as the overall story like that. So I tend to place greater value on that over having a puzzle to solve.

Also, it's not like I'm saying I want to see into *every* character's mind in a story. Usually just the protagonist is enough, or if someone can skillfully handle multiple protagonists (not too many, though, I'm not usually a fan of too many protagonists). The rest of the characters can be left alone, without seeing into their minds, because we still need that sense of mystery/suspense/unknown. But for the protagonist, I'm following the person throughout the whole story, so I'd like to hear his/her thoughts and feelings and have that kind of raw, internal intimacy.

...Writing that down sounds kinda inappropriate, lol...

Anyway, hope you see where I'm coming from.
It's not so much that I want abstraction, I just think most of it is unneeded. If I'm getting to know a character I'd rather do so in other methods. Like actions, presentation, or dialogues seem like the more interesting ways to convey a character. It's not so much wanting a mental challenge as it is not wanting my handheld. I probably should've made that clear, my comment was vague. This is gonna e my second time copying and pasting this comment:

"Most characters I like are already unfiltered as that's why they are interesting. Characters that are only interesting due to inner thoughts are limited on what way they can show their personalities(something I value). Yuno is boring to watch due to her monologue mainly as the only insight into her character and it doesn't really let you know anything you didn't already. Of course, some shows do use inner monologue correctly(as in not telling you what you already figured out or something that could' been shown/said), in most cases, though, I think the majority of characters would improve without them. Actions generally are more dynamic in what ways a character can show a trait. Dialogue allows other characters to react and show their personalities as well(with the character themselves having just as various ways to do the same as they would've inside their head). Dialogue also allows you to see how a character interacts with other characters. Inner Monologue is the least interesting and dynamic way a character can show their personalities. "

Here's another copy and paste, to show you an example o what I mean:
"The opening of K-On shows you what Yui is like, she's a klutz as she slipped on her floor. She gets easily distracted and likes cute things which is why she pets a cat on her way to school. She's a generally nice person as she helped an old lady cross the road on her way to school. She relies on Ui as she didn't wake up y her alarm, ut her sister. This whole one minute scene shows you Yui's character in an interesting way as you aren't told through the monologue Ui that she is this way."

Yes, I see where you are coming from, there is more of a distance with this approach. I don't really disagree with that as the technique is more personal.


Thanks for understanding, and for making your point clearer. I just feel like people, you know, have very complex inner worlds, so I feel like storytelling should be able to explore that. Of course, inner narration can't be the only thing, and it shouldn't say stuff that you already know, but it's still an important part of any person. Not necessarily less interesting, just... a different dimension.

The main advantage of inner narration is emotional/personal intimacy with the character - closing the distance - as you seem to acknowledge, yes. So, ideally, the story should be able to balance inner narration with dialogue/actions/etc, to create a complete person of both internal and external dimension, without repeating too much information in the process. I know that's pretty tough, though.

Anyway, I think you and I have reached a decent understanding haha, we can at least see where the other is coming from. And I think that's good enough here.
Modified by LightBladeNova, Apr 29, 12:33 AM
"Beyond the veil of cherry blossom petals blown by the wind - almost like their promised reunion -

Feelings pile up with the passage of time: once the torrent of emotions comes rushing down, what is the spectacle that awaits?"
 
Apr 29, 12:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3786
That's probably a very very specific preference... Can't say I agree. I think inner-thoughts can be an important part. I definitely prefer different and more varied methods of conveying a point over an entire show, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they relied a little heavily on it.

That said, there has been instances where it gets so pervasive or sometimes I can hear multiple character's inner-thoughts that my immersion in the show was broken. Off the top of my head, I recall Kakegurui having this issue.
I swear I'm not a lolicon.

If your favourite character is Tsutsukakushi Tsukiko, you are my soul mate.

Opinions are all relevant. I express mine freely and believe everyone should too. Unless you say "<Insert anime here> is the best! Everything else sucks", then GTFO.
My MAL Interview
 
Apr 29, 12:51 AM
Offline
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 1877
I've always liked stream of consciousness though, hearing character's own thoughts makes us understand the character better than just hearing them speak about things to other characters. I often find myself more attached to a character if they are truly honest and their honesty can be found in their inner thoughts only. Soliloquy is a good method of narration, just because you don't like, it doesn't make it bad storytelling.
 
Apr 29, 1:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 281
Safeanew said:
hairu said:

Stating a character's feelings is also part of good storytelling, not everyone can just understand how a character feels in most cases explanations are very interesting as well.


Can you provide an example of interesting explanation by inner monologue and why it is interesting?

Kyon from the disappearance of haruhi suzmiya is a perfect example of this. His thoughts are something that if said out loud wouldn't fit and the use of inner monologue fits perfectly. It brings so much emotion and understand his feelings is more easier. I really don't understand how you think stating a characters thoughts are bad storytelling, if speech was the only form of writing in the entire story wouldn't be plain and boring? Also you give no examples so it's hard to see your point of view.. You obviously don't understand the art on inner monologues.
su#4790
 
Apr 29, 1:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:
traed said:

Maybe relate is wrong word. It's to help you empathize with a character and understand a little better what it's like to be them.. You can't get that from dialogue alone.


Why should I empathize with a character and understand how it is to be them?


The real question is, why shouldn't you? You should, by the way. Because this is a fundamental aspect of story. Unless you're a sociopath. Or just not an actual human being. Or there is something wrong with the part of you that lets you feel empathy. Otherwise, every character becomes a cardboard cutout that's just carrying out actions for no reason.

I swear, man. It's questions like this that people have a problem with because they are so basic and shouldn't even need to be asked. In that respect they tread the line very close to "baiting". It's also questions like this that make me believe you're very young and very naive and likely just starting out in some form of higher education.

Safeanew said:
One way to avoid heat is to just ask peoples opinions, but that often does not lead to discussion, because they just try to answer ones question, they don't want to discuss it.
The reason people discuss is because they don't agree with each other, most people don't want to discuss, they just want to share their opinions without being questioned.


You claim to want to illicit polite discussion but you don't know how to debate. Bandying opinions and questions back and forth ultimately leads nowhere. Without specific evidence and examples what you've got is a "pub conversation", not a discussion or a debate, and without evidence and examples the discussion is ultimately doomed to go nowhere. Also, you engage with an undeserved air of superciliousness about you that people find unpleasant. Here's how a debate works :-

  • You make a statement. People respond. You question their responses. They reply with evidence (as I have done many, many times in this thread). You evaluate the evidence (which you have failed to do many, many times in this thread). You put the evidence against your claim and either refute it, by providing evidence of your own, or accept that the evidence is valid and potentially change your viewpoint (or at least, disseminate the evidence).


What you're doing is the following :-

  • Make a statement. People respond. Question their response. They reply with evidence. You ignore the evidence and repeat your initial claim without providing any evidence of your own to back it up. They ask for some evidence to prove what you're saying. You change the core of the question and move to another, distinctly different point.

This point is the most important of all though :- The fundamental basis of any discussion is the willingness to change your opinion and your viewpoint in light of new information/evidence. If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless).

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've engaged in many debates in my life, with learned people no less. I've studied a lot. I've obtained a first class degree. I've honed my language ability to a fairly fine edge, at least for a guy who grew up working class in a mining village.

That being said, let me ask you a couple direct questions, if you don't mind answering, and maybe I can understand your position a little more :-

Are you a native English speaker? I've got the idea in my head that you aren't but I could be wrong.

How old are you? Age bracket? 15-18? 18-25? 25-30? 30+?

What is your level of formal education? High school? College? University? Post-grad?

(And please, if you're going to reply to this post, don't cherry pick and be lazy. Reply to it POINT BY POINT. Show me you're willing to engage on my level.)
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 29, 1:48 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 1:27 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 281
Peaceful_Critic said:
hairu said:

Stating a character's feelings is also part of good storytelling, not everyone can just understand how a character feels in most cases explanations are very interesting as well.
I'm kind of iffy on responding to this. In a visual medium, the facial expressions, if done decently should let the audience know how the character feels along with the context of the scene. It's true, not everyone would know. That said, it isn't the creator's job to make it as transparent as possible to those who didn't pay much attention. In what way are the explanations interesting?

Not all facial expressions can show a characters feelings on an entire opinion.
su#4790
 
Apr 29, 1:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
copyrightRingo said:
Safeanew said:

It can be integral to a joke on the otherhand.


That's exactly it. It's just build up before the comedy. But hey, that's still monologuing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I claim jokes are not an integral part to the story, you can have stories without them just fine, but I want jokes in stories, but that does not change my point that hearing characters' thoughts can distract from the story or at best be neutral.
 
Apr 29, 1:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 176
Safeanew said:
ThereArentNames said:
@safeanew

You do realize that there is a dissonance between how we interpret things in real life and how we interpret literature, right? You could notice subtleties in a person's demeanor that you just simply cannot in any work of fiction. People are different than the imaginations of authors. So making the claim that it is bad because it isn't how it is in real life is simply dumb.

Now explain to me why hearing a character's thoughts is at detriment to the story. I want clear cut evidence. Zero circumstantial BS.



I define story as dialogue, dialogue is hindered by hearing a character's thoughts because hearing a character's thoughts is used to avoid dialogue.


See, here's the thing. Stories are not defined as dialogue. No matter what you try to think of them as. There are numerous stories that take place without a singular word being said. Discrediting them based on a shower thought is highly disingenuous and extremely narcissistic.

Hearing the thoughts of a character does not hinder dialogue. The story is independent of your input. Therefore you hearing the thoughts of the character doesn't take away from dialogue. The characters interact as they would with or without our knowledge of said thoughts.

safeanew said:


"I will save this world, he thought and slayed the monster." instead of
"he slayed the monster" is a distraction from his action of slaying the monster.
"he slayed the monster" on the other hand invites the question of "why did he do it?".

The evidence you provide here is circumstantial, I asked you to provide me definitive evidence. that being said, I completely disagree. The inclusion of thought doesn't distract anyone, absolutely anyone, from the fact that said person slayed the monster. Even more so, begging unnecessary questions is in fact quite boring and detrimental. Regardless, you give us a lack of context.

safeanew said:

Letting characters speak and act for themselves makes them real in the sense that we can't read their mind and therefor adds to the story a sense of that we are actually watching people and not some abstraction.
I am not against hearing character's thoughts, they are just not part of what actually happens in the story.

But we are watching some abstraction. We always are not watching real people. Since we aren't in their world, they can never interact with us; and nor can we, them. We will never be able to ask of them to enunciate their thoughts or emotions. Which is why we can hear said thoughts and emotions. I am completely in awe that you can suspend your disbelief for completely absurd ideas but disregard the very notion of story telling.

I know you wont directly respond to anything I say. I know you will continue to argue in circles. I'm going to lay this out before going to the next part just so that you know exactly what to respond to.
The primary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: why?
your response: because dialogue is the story
My response: how is it the story? In what way is it the story?

The definition of a story: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment".

The secondary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
My response: Real life and fiction are not the same. We learn things in real life about the people we interact with which we simply can't in fiction.

I've yet to receive a receive a response.

The tertiary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
your justification: it's not realistic.
My response: Why is that a bad thing? It's beyond easy to suspend your disbelief in unrealistic scenarios. In fact, the very nature of fiction is that it is unrealistic.

The Quaternary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: Where is your evidence? Non circumstantial evidence, I mean.
 
Apr 29, 1:40 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
Meau94 said:
So from what I've gathered from this thread, I think you are mistaking something. You claim that dialogue is bad because "why should I care what the characters are thinking/feeling when I only care about the story?"

From what I gathered, you aren't the type to want to empathize with characters. You don't actually care how the character feels. It's just who you are and isn't your cup of tea. You aren't the first person I know who is like this. Because this isn't your taste, naturally it would make you think it's bad story telling. Well is it? Not necessarily.

For me personally, and for most other people, we like to understand how the characters are feeling. It in fact just adds much more to the story for some people because we find it adds tension when seeing yourself in that characters shoes. For you it doesn't because for you personally you don't really care what the character feels, so therefore for you it doesn't feel like it adds to the story at all.


My argument is that, hearing the characters' thoughts hinder you in placing yourself in their shoes.
I care about the characters having a chance to talk for themselves rather than having them being explained away by reasons that don't really matter for what is actually happening in the story.
Can you argue for how it adds to the story, as in what way does it affect in the story?
Or is it only for the audience to feel better?
 
Apr 29, 1:47 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 866
I think what OP is trying to say here is that it's better to just show rather than tell stuffs that happen on screen.
 
Apr 29, 1:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
BurningSpirit said:
That's probably a very very specific preference... Can't say I agree. I think inner-thoughts can be an important part. I definitely prefer different and more varied methods of conveying a point over an entire show, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they relied a little heavily on it.

That said, there has been instances where it gets so pervasive or sometimes I can hear multiple character's inner-thoughts that my immersion in the show was broken. Off the top of my head, I recall Kakegurui having this issue.


I am not talking about preference, I am talking about what it means to tell a story.
Inner-thoughts add nothing to the story, it helps the audience feel better or be less confused by the story.
Just because one are less confused by the story, does not mean one understand the story more.
I am claiming that it can hinder in understanding the story.
 
Apr 29, 1:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
ThereArentNames said:
Safeanew said:


I define story as dialogue, dialogue is hindered by hearing a character's thoughts because hearing a character's thoughts is used to avoid dialogue.


See, here's the thing. Stories are not defined as dialogue. No matter what you try to think of them as. There are numerous stories that take place without a singular word being said. Discrediting them based on a shower thought is highly disingenuous and extremely narcissistic.

Hearing the thoughts of a character does not hinder dialogue. The story is independent of your input. Therefore you hearing the thoughts of the character doesn't take away from dialogue. The characters interact as they would with or without our knowledge of said thoughts.

safeanew said:


"I will save this world, he thought and slayed the monster." instead of
"he slayed the monster" is a distraction from his action of slaying the monster.
"he slayed the monster" on the other hand invites the question of "why did he do it?".

The evidence you provide here is circumstantial, I asked you to provide me definitive evidence. that being said, I completely disagree. The inclusion of thought doesn't distract anyone, absolutely anyone, from the fact that said person slayed the monster. Even more so, begging unnecessary questions is in fact quite boring and detrimental. Regardless, you give us a lack of context.

safeanew said:

Letting characters speak and act for themselves makes them real in the sense that we can't read their mind and therefor adds to the story a sense of that we are actually watching people and not some abstraction.
I am not against hearing character's thoughts, they are just not part of what actually happens in the story.

But we are watching some abstraction. We always are not watching real people. Since we aren't in their world, they can never interact with us; and nor can we, them. We will never be able to ask of them to enunciate their thoughts or emotions. Which is why we can hear said thoughts and emotions. I am completely in awe that you can suspend your disbelief for completely absurd ideas but disregard the very notion of story telling.

I know you wont directly respond to anything I say. I know you will continue to argue in circles. I'm going to lay this out before going to the next part just so that you know exactly what to respond to.
The primary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: why?
your response: because dialogue is the story
My response: how is it the story? In what way is it the story?

The definition of a story: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment".

The secondary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
My response: Real life and fiction are not the same. We learn things in real life about the people we interact with which we simply can't in fiction.

I've yet to receive a receive a response.

The tertiary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
your justification: it's not realistic.
My response: Why is that a bad thing? It's beyond easy to suspend your disbelief in unrealistic scenarios. In fact, the very nature of fiction is that it is unrealistic.

The Quaternary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: Where is your evidence? Non circumstantial evidence, I mean.


Mate, read my threads in the post as well as post #437 which I just made. I've been asking the guy for evidenced examples to back up his claims for 9 pages. Ain't gonna happen at this stage I think.

He doesn't actually understand what makes a good story (I think he's not read a single novel, tbh).

His arguments are also confused and mixed up with themselves just as you've pointed out in your post here.

If he could SHOW us, or PROVE by example, a situation where inner monologue is detrimental to a story it would be different. Instead, we, the opposition in the thread, have proven how it can enhance and even MAKE a story.

Fight Club.

Remove the inner monologue. Ruin the movie and the story.

He has yet to address or offer his thoughts on this claim beyond "i think removing inner monologue from fight club would make it a better movie".

Like, no reason why. Just that he thinks it would. Nevermind that the window into Jacks life and inner dichotomy IS his thoughts as Jack. Without that, we'd never see the fundamental difference between him and Tyler Durden. And on top of that everything would just view or read as a random guy doing random things with zero context.

I mean, it's almost a hopeless Idea to argue in this thread at this point.

If he replies to my post and it's longer than 1 sentence, I might stay. Otherwise, I think I'm done and will likely report the OP for baiting because 9 pages of "Well, I think no inner monologue is better!" and nothing else is just too much.
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 1:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:
BurningSpirit said:
That's probably a very very specific preference... Can't say I agree. I think inner-thoughts can be an important part. I definitely prefer different and more varied methods of conveying a point over an entire show, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they relied a little heavily on it.

That said, there has been instances where it gets so pervasive or sometimes I can hear multiple character's inner-thoughts that my immersion in the show was broken. Off the top of my head, I recall Kakegurui having this issue.


I am not talking about preference, I am talking about what it means to tell a story.
Inner-thoughts add nothing to the story, it helps the audience feel better or be less confused by the story.
Just because one are less confused by the story, does not mean one understand the story more.
I am claiming that it can hinder in understanding the story.


REPLY TO MY OTHER POST FIRST, PLEASE - IT'S POST #437

1) Show me, by example, how the inner thoughts of Jack in Fight Club hinder the story and decrease our understanding of the character.

2) In order for me increase my own understanding of your viewpoint here, clearly define what "story" is, what it means to you and the key elements of it.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 29, 2:04 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 2:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 588
hairu said:
Safeanew said:


Can you provide an example of interesting explanation by inner monologue and why it is interesting?

Kyon from the disappearance of haruhi suzmiya is a perfect example of this. His thoughts are something that if said out loud wouldn't fit and the use of inner monologue fits perfectly. It brings so much emotion and understand his feelings is more easier. I really don't understand how you think stating a characters thoughts are bad storytelling, if speech was the only form of writing in the entire story wouldn't be plain and boring? Also you give no examples so it's hard to see your point of view.. You obviously don't understand the art on inner monologues.


An example is Bloom Into You, that have a lot happen in the head of the main character, while things don't happen outside the head of the main character.
It is like the show is a poem, but I want to hear and see the story.

I understand the art of inner monologue, I write poems and like them.
But that is a seperate thing from story.

Kyon's inner monologue is funny, but it is not a part of the story.
 
Apr 29, 2:04 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1212
Have you read classic literatures like Huckleberry Finn ?
 
Apr 29, 2:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3786
Safeanew said:
I am not talking about preference, I am talking about what it means to tell a story.
How a story chooses to convey information is a writing choice. You thinking the tool to convey information (in this case character inner thoughts) is always bad is a preference.


Safeanew said:
Inner-thoughts add nothing to the story, it helps the audience feel better or be less confused by the story.
Just because one are less confused by the story, does not mean one understand the story more.
I am claiming that it can hinder in understanding the story.
Methods are just methods. Some are poorer than others. Cutting to a screen with text for exposition is probably the worst way to convey information, but done maybe once at the start of the series interlaced quickly with engaging photos can work.

It can hinder, yes. The question here is at what point of frequency does it hinder? If you're answer is always, then fine. But I disagree.
Modified by BurningSpirit, Apr 29, 4:09 AM
I swear I'm not a lolicon.

If your favourite character is Tsutsukakushi Tsukiko, you are my soul mate.

Opinions are all relevant. I express mine freely and believe everyone should too. Unless you say "<Insert anime here> is the best! Everything else sucks", then GTFO.
My MAL Interview
 
Apr 29, 2:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1143
hairu said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
I'm kind of iffy on responding to this. In a visual medium, the facial expressions, if done decently should let the audience know how the character feels along with the context of the scene. It's true, not everyone would know. That said, it isn't the creator's job to make it as transparent as possible to those who didn't pay much attention. In what way are the explanations interesting?

Not all facial expressions can show a characters feelings on an entire opinion.
No, there would need to e more than just facial expressions, but with context, you will know their opinion.

 
Apr 29, 2:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 281
Safeanew said:
hairu said:

Kyon from the disappearance of haruhi suzmiya is a perfect example of this. His thoughts are something that if said out loud wouldn't fit and the use of inner monologue fits perfectly. It brings so much emotion and understand his feelings is more easier. I really don't understand how you think stating a characters thoughts are bad storytelling, if speech was the only form of writing in the entire story wouldn't be plain and boring? Also you give no examples so it's hard to see your point of view.. You obviously don't understand the art on inner monologues.


An example is Bloom Into You, that have a lot happen in the head of the main character, while things don't happen outside the head of the main character.
It is like the show is a poem, but I want to hear and see the story.

I understand the art of inner monologue, I write poems and like them.
But that is a seperate thing from story.

Kyon's inner monologue is funny, but it is not a part of the story.

Of course Kyon's inner monologues are part of the story, the story as a whole isn't just about what's going on in the main story there are side aspects like characterisation that affect a story. I haven't completed bloom into you, in bloom into you's case I think they were very overused but for other anime inner monologues are intriguing and have meaning to them. Inner monologue is not bad storytelling, bad storytelling is not getting the authors point across to the viewers.
su#4790
 
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Top
Pages (11) « First ... « 7 8 [9] 10 11 »