Hearing character's thoughts is bad storytelling!

trenchantbaka said:

You should read the post before replying. I said monologue isn't used to fill up space. If you don't agree with that then explain why. And dialogue is produced from thoughts, yet dialogues cannot fully convey entire thoughts. Monologues make the dialogue more rich and vibrant if not done terribly.

Sad said:

not only is this culturally ignorant - but the lions share of communication is non verbal. if dialogue is the most important component, how was storytelling in the silent film era so coherent?

this is a basic rundown of how we communicate;

stimulus>detection>co-ordination>response

this is basic biology.

before there's any dialogue, your brain needs to process the stimuli to produce a response that is appropriate. but not all forms of communication need a physical response, like dialogue. if a character is at the start of the race - and they see the green go sign, is it appropriate that they yell out "GO!" as a response? if they're approaching an apex, do they need speak what their intentions are for us to know what they're gonna do?

dialogue isn't the most important component of communication, and certainly not storytelling. if someone speaks to us in another language, we'll run through all identifiable words, ethnicity, accent, our environent and try and link them all into a response that is appropriate - in the case of a foreign tourist asking for directions, the ideal response would be to answer them in the way they asked - verbally. if our brain processes this in a way that leads to a negative response attempting this - it will explore other avenues. google translate. attempt at amateur signing. ignorance. asking someone else for help. attempting a middle ground of english or related language. all of this has occured before 'dialogue'

have you considered a situation where a character cannot speak - but has a multitude of thoughts that they can't take action on physically, or that dialogue may actually be too emotionally heavy to bear?

there's lots of reasons why saying goodbye can be so hard for someone, it's not for the lack of words, or situation for 'dialogue' - but because we as humans can create an appropriate reponse that fully encompasses what we think.

have you never said goodbye to someone but thought to yourself 'don't go'? hearing the thoughts of characters can be just as powerful as dialogue, if not more.

quite simply - i think you need to experience a wider variety of media and come back to this thread in a years time.

Safeanew said:


That is very poetic, it does not add anything to the story but it makes it easier for the reader, that is my point. I am fine with using it, but my point is that it does not help in telling the story, it always is a sacrifice of the flow of the story.

CallMeHoot said:


Again, I gotta point out man that this just isn't true. I mean I'm not a great writer or anything, I dabble in the occasional daft short story but maybe I'm missing what you're actually trying to say.

---

Another example :-

"Look, Jim, I didn't mean it. Honest to God, man."
Jim only looked at him, trying to work out if it was true. Could it really have been a mistake? He didn't think so. In fact he thought was being played. Was he really gonna let this cheap suit get one up on him? Like hell he was. Jim allowed himself a small sigh, thinking to himself that he wasn't going to let this go.

---

Ok, bad writing I agree (but I'm not a pro and rapid composition is not exactly my strong point), but at least it serves to illustrate a section of story that is based on one persons non-verbal response to some dialogue. We see here Jim's stream of thoughts. This doesn't detract from the dialogue written, as you seem to suggest, in fact it adds to the scene.

As I say man, maybe I'm missing out on what you're actually trying to convey but without specific examples I can only go off what's here :) And I have to tell you that pure dialogue works in very, very few cases and if there's nothing else but dialogue, you've likely written a bad story/show.

Safeanew said:


You understand what I am saying, I claim that "Jim only looked at him, trying to work out if it was true. Could it really have been a mistake? He didn't think so. In fact he thought was being played. Was he really gonna let this cheap suit get one up on him? Like hell he was. Jim allowed himself a small sigh, thinking to himself that he wasn't going to let this go." detracts from what he is saying. I call it poetry because it avoids the confusion of dialogues.

Safeanew said:


I agree with all this, except that is all dialogue. Hearing stream of thought takes away from all of this.

UncleMion said:
Dialogue can only take you so far, actions speak louder than words after all.

The most important thing in storytelling is taking actions.
Hearing character's dialogue hinder actions by filling up moments of noise.

CallMeHoot said:


That's what you're wrong about, though. It does add to and help to tell the story. Of course it does. It adds clarity and insight. The second sentence shows us without doubt that that character is incredibly angry and that will likely be important to whatever happens to her next.

Both sentences read in same time frame, the second sacrifices nothing in the way of story flow. I mean, how have you even arrived at that conclusion?

I think at this point you're more or less sticking to your guns despite solid examples being provided. Again, this shows naivete, and I mean this in as nice a way possible, but I think being contrarian about it and not accepting that your original idea that "character thoughts and motivations get in the way of story and dialogue" (at least, that's as best as I can figure your position) was flawed kinda prevents further discussion. Especially if you won't provide examples of your own to back up your points.

I mean hey, cognitive dissonance is a thing. No one likes being disproved, and if you have a strong personality the likelihood is that you will actively fight against any intrinsic truth if it doesn't align with your beliefs.

I think I've said all I need to here (I have quoted some of your other posts) so I will finish by saying that I recommend you read a little more, get a bit more experience with fiction and storytelling in general, and then see how you feel about it.

KreatorX said:

What are you trying to say now?

And if it is made easier for the reader to follow a story, why does that become bad story telling ?

As an analogy : Would you use an equation to completely understand a problem/model or do you want an explanation of how we arrived to the equation and then understand what the problem/model is about ?

Safeanew said:


But a story is the opposite of an equation, it should not solve anything for you, it should make you ask questions.

Safeanew said:


If you want examples, I can recommend the anime Caligula. It is excellent at dialogue and that is why it is one of my favorites. What makes it good is that it avoids explaining character's actions and thoughts. It may have stream of thought in it, I don't remember, but it is not in the way of dialogue like many others.

CallMeHoot said:


I know I said I was done, but I had to come in again here. I mean, what you said doesn't make any sense. Jim hasn't said anything, so how can it detract from what he's saying? Jim is responding to the person speaking to him and we, the reader, are being told that without Jim having to say anything.

The confusion of dialogues? I thought you were a proponent of dialogue only scenes? I think you've maybe bitten off a bit more than you can chew here. I'll leave it at that.

As I said previously, do a bit more reading, watch some varied media and give it a bit. See how you feel down the road.

Sad said:

i'm glad you agree - but i don't believe that a stream of thought can 'take away' from expression. if anything, you are 'adding' because thoughts can run parallel or contradict the dialogue that is heard, adding further depth to a character and flavouring the dialogue with meaning that another character may not understand, but we as the audience can pick up on!

have you seen fight club? that's the most modern popular film i can think of right now that uses internal monologue interspersed with dialogue really well.

Safeanew said:
Why do you think I need to read more?
I don't want stories that tell me what to think, I want stories that challenge me to think.

Safeanew said:
Oh I like Fight club, I would love it even more without the internal monologue.
My claim is similar to 'less is more'.
By taking away stream of thought from stories, you can add the deep character to the story.

IpreferEcchi said:

This is why I prefer the Harry Potter movies to the novels. Anything not in the movies is unnecessary.

Talgikiwi said:
This depends entirely on the context. These rash, generalizations do nothing to help us understand what makes a story great.

Safeanew said:
Can you explain The balzacian narrator? I have not criticized narration. My only problem is with stream of thought. If I should not force defintions of storytelling on others, who should? I am just stating what I believe to be true. You just claimed that different genres have different priorities, I answered the thing that had anything to do with what I was saying. The dialogue is the most important because it is what makes a character. Without dialogue in any form the character is lost. Mute characters are interesting because they become inhuman without their speech which is an interesting topic to explore.

YossaRedMage said:
The idea that internal monologue is intrinsically lacking in artistic merit and always reduces the value of a piece of story-telling media merely by it's presence and cannot be used in creative ways to tell a unique story such that the work adds value to very medium in which is resides by expanding the range and freedom of expression of the artists is... How to put this? Retarded.

CallMeHoot said:


OK, that's one example of an anime that you think handles dialogue well, which is fair enough. I haven't seen it but from what I gather it's not great. Obv's I can't say that for a fact until I watch it.

But you still haven't answered my question about how you arrived at the conclusion about those two sentences earlier. You claimed the second sacrifices the flow of story, yet, it clearly does not.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

Talgikiwi said:
This depends entirely on the context. These rash, generalizations do nothing to help us understand what makes a story great.

Safeanew said:


This is a philosophical stance inspired by a philosopher and literary critic named Mikhail Bakhtin that is specialised on novels. He claims that everything is dialogues and that the novels main task is to depict dialogue based on ones own experience with dialogue. He is agaisnt what he calls poetic language that is unambigous language. Language should always be portrayed in an ambigous form.

Safeanew said:


People are very afraid of being general, my claim is interesting because it is general.

CallMeHoot said:


This statement basically sums up my couple of thousand words worth of posts I have posted in this thread.

Cheers for coming and and just "getting it". Appreciate it, broseph.

Now if only the OP would acquiesce to this basic truth, we'd be all done here and hopefully another thread started on the back of an incorrect blanket statement would come to an end.

thizlas said:


1. It is wrong to assume that storytelling is solely the art of building characters. Many great stories feature simple or archetypal characters that have little intrinsic value. The way these characters are used is often more important than who they are. What's more, as I have said already, tapestries, frescoes and paintings can depict stories, and they don't have dialogue.

2. It is wrong to say that characters are solely the product of their dialogues, unless you are making up your own definition of characters too. Nobody needs to hear the way they talk to recognize Achilles or Oedipus, St Georges or St Martin. Their actions, the ways people react to them and the way they are described matter more than their speech.

3. The narrator in Balzac's novels is omniscient, he is the source of most of the information we get about the characters and often digresses to make comments about society. Balzac's novels are full of long descriptions, and their dialogues are of little importance, readers could almost imagine them based on the what the narrator told them about the characters.

4. Stream of thought doesn't necessarily simplify the story or the characters, it can easily create more questions than it gives answers. It is simply a different way of asking them.

Comander-07 said:
lmao why would a story we experience from the perspective of a certain character not include that characters monologue? And where is the difference between a character moving its lips while he is alone or simply thinking?

CallMeHoot said:

---

Yossa didn't know how to come at this. I mean he did, but did he really wanna steam in with the hard and fast facts, given the OP's abject refusal to consider the examples stated by others?

"Fuck it," he thought, "I'm going HAM. I mean technically it is retarded, and I know that's a harsh word to use, but it needs to be said by someone at some point and that person's gonna be me.".

---

Just another (badly written) example for the OP why inner monologue is not intrinsically bad. Also well said, Yossa lad/lass. If you happen to be female, sorry for canonising you as male in my poor attempt above.

YossaRedMage said:


Sometimes you want to sit down for 20 mins and write out a compelling argument. And sometimes a spade is just a spade and needs to be called as such.

CallMeHoot said:


Now I'm beginning to understand. You took a literary class and were introduced to this guy and are taking it as complete gospel.

Dude, let me tell you, the Elements of Style by Strunk and White is THE bible for writing quality, engaging fiction. They state, categorically, that ambiguity is bad and clarity of thought and word is essential to create an engaging narrative, of which dialogue may or may not be a part. I mean even the suggestion that language and dialogue should all be ambiguous is pretentious beyond belief, as is the suggestion that "everything is dialogue".

This Bakhtin fella sounds like a guy with a big chip on his shoulder. No offense to the guy, but judging fiction on the stance of some philosophiser and critic is an incredibly bad move, and will hinder both your enjoyment and your breadth of fiction you're willing to read.

Taking one guys opinion as gospel truth is just...man. All I can say is that you have been misled and you should do some broader reading around the topic if you're interested in composition and writing in general.

EDIT: - And again, you didn't answer my direct question because you're forming your opinions based upon what you've learned about this Bahtkin guy and likely don't actually understand what does and does not influence the flow of a story.

Talgikiwi said:


I don't know anyone that is afraid of being general, they just prefer not to. It doesn't make your claim interesting either. It makes your claim sound ignorant. You mean to tell me that every single anime that used internal dialogue is bad storytelling? If that's the case, then I guess you don't have many anime that you would consider good storytelling. And to generalize even further (as you've done), that would mean that you probably don't enjoy anime. See how that works? My initial ideal led me to a place that didn't make any sense. Why would you be on this website if you didn't like anime? Why would you be posting here if you didn't like anime? Other factors like those come in to play and I believe you need to understand that in order to have a rational opinion.

Safeanew said:


This mostly what affected my experience of the story, all stories could remove stream of thought and become better by it.

Safeanew said:


People are very afraid of being general, my claim is interesting because it is general.

CallMeHoot said:


But, you aren't justifying or proving anything? You're providing ZERO examples beyond ONE anime that you enjoyed that had no inner monologue. You're just repeating that single, incorrect (as proven) blanket statement...that all stories could remove stream of thought and become better by it. As I said before, you would CRIPPLE Fight Club by removing the inner monologue.

Dude, you're beaten. Just accept it. What you said is just wrong, man. No sane or rational person alive, beyond someone who is a massive pretentious douchbag, would agree with you.

It is a massive weakness of character to continue to argue for something that has been soundly (and widely) disproven.

jal90 said:

But it's not. Generalizations are not interesting, in general.

Safeanew said:


That is just wrong, no one has proven the opposite either, that it explains things is not enough of a proof that it is good for the story.
My argument is that it is bad for the story is that it explains things that should not be explained.
One should not explain characters because they are meant to be hard to understand.

Daphi said:
i have to disagree
yakusoku no neverland is a perfect example why the anime should have implemented the inner monologues, that was the reason its inferior to the manga


//depends on the anime though probably

Safeanew said:


That is an interesting claim. Be free to relate it to the topic.

Comander-07 said:
Skimming through some comments here I just want to drop what G RR Martin said about writing in general, which is a quote of William Faulkner:

The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.

Stories arent representations of events happening, but of characters experiencing and influencing events. To understand a characters viewpoint, its motivation and its entire being hearing the thoughts and inner monologues of a character is indispensable.

A story isnt about what happened where and when, its not even about who did something and why.
Its all about how the character changes along the way. How the character reflects on actions and events.


If you were to tell a story simply about what happens, you could include everything characters did with no surprises, both sides of a conflict. Yet normally we focus on one.


Many people said SAO Alicization was the best part of SAO and pretty great, yet the anime was very disappointing exactly because we did not get to hear any thoughts.

Safeanew said:


What is the difference between you posting that comment and not posting that comment?