-Mahesvara said: Ya'll should give up. OP is like a flat earther, no matter how many truths/facts you give them to counter their viewpoint, they will always brush it off with their own nonsense logic. Never argue with stubborn stupid people, its a losing battle. Yeah, I'm at that point, man. Guy simply doesn't understand that when you distill a story down to it's basic elements, what makes it good is if it's entertaining or not. The rest is just window dressing. If the story is shit, then it doesn't matter if it's made up of dialogue or not, well written or not. Anyway, I'm done here :) Thanks for the clarion call, man. (And yeah, his opinions are bordering on "flat earther" level as time goes on) |
   |
CallMeHoot said: 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. What if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? EDIT:- Removing inner monologue from Fight Club would destroy the story and the movie on the whole. This is UNDISPUTABLE PROOF. Seriously man, I gotta stop replying to you soon because the more you talk, the more it is becoming obvious that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about or what actually makes a good story and I'm getting a little pissed off banging my head against this brick wall. I mean your rhetoric is bordering on delusion at this point. You're not debating. You're provoking. Whether what you're doing here is intentional or not I don't know, but I'ma stick with the idea that you're very, very young and very, very naive. Oh I feel the same way about you, see how it goes both ways. But argument is important despite feeling like you are arguing against a brick wall. |
-Mahesvara said: Ya'll should give up. OP is like a flat earther, no matter how many truths/facts you give them to counter their viewpoint, they will always brush it off with their own nonsense logic. Never argue with stubborn stupid people, its a losing battle. This is already a fact since his very first thread xD Guy is either a very bored troll or he has some other issues. |
One Piece episode 914 & 915 & 1027 were a mistake and 957 brought the salvation - FMmatron |
Safeanew said: CallMeHoot said: What if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? EDIT:- Removing inner monologue from Fight Club would destroy the story and the movie on the whole. This is UNDISPUTABLE PROOF. Seriously man, I gotta stop replying to you soon because the more you talk, the more it is becoming obvious that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about or what actually makes a good story and I'm getting a little pissed off banging my head against this brick wall. I mean your rhetoric is bordering on delusion at this point. You're not debating. You're provoking. Whether what you're doing here is intentional or not I don't know, but I'ma stick with the idea that you're very, very young and very, very naive. Oh I feel the same way about you, see how it goes both ways. But argument is important despite feeling like you are arguing against a brick wall. I repeat, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? I'm not gonna say more, because you seem easily distracted and if I do you'll just continue to forget about actually answering any question I put to you. |
|
Safeanew said: 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. Thanks for the recommendation! I agree completely with The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.. My claim is inner monologue is a bad if one wants to reach that goal. I dont see how getting to hear the thoughts of a character first hand is a hindrance to this though. What a character feels and thinks and what he does dont always align. Someone wanting to do something would either give him the choice to grow, which we could see via thoughts or make him look like a retard because he fails. There isnt a "goal" when writing about human hearts in conflict. Its a process. There isnt a point where it stops and never changes again. |
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
CallMeHoot said: Safeanew said: Oh I feel the same way about you, see how it goes both ways. But argument is important despite feeling like you are arguing against a brick wall. I repeat, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? I'm not gonna say more, because you seem easily distracted and if I do you'll just continue to forget about actually answering any question I put to you. Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story. I am trying to be as polite as possible, ofcourse if people ask questions I will explain more clearly but it is hard to answer people when they don't say anything new. |
Comander-07 said: Safeanew said: Thanks for the recommendation! I agree completely with The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.. My claim is inner monologue is a bad if one wants to reach that goal. I dont see how getting to hear the thoughts of a character first hand is a hindrance to this though. What a character feels and thinks and what he does dont always align. Someone wanting to do something would either give him the choice to grow, which we could see via thoughts or make him look like a retard because he fails. There isnt a "goal" when writing about human hearts in conflict. Its a process. There isnt a point where it stops and never changes again. It is a hindrance because it avoids the confusion in language that is essential to the human heart. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story. |
Safeanew said: CallMeHoot said: I repeat, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? I'm not gonna say more, because you seem easily distracted and if I do you'll just continue to forget about actually answering any question I put to you. Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story. I am trying to be as polite as possible, ofcourse if people ask questions I will explain more clearly but it is hard to answer people when they don't say anything new. You haven't said anything new in four fucking pages, mate. "Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story." - That isn't an answer. It means nothing. I asked you a direct question, and you can't even answer that much. I asked you clearly, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? You believe that the only place for that is in poetry and that a writer who writes prose and includes those things means it will detract from his story? Jesus. H. Christ. Can you fucking hear yourself, mate? You sound like a guy who's never read an actual book in his life. Another poster before this mentioned flat-earthers, man. You ARE one. I'm done. You're a cretin. |
CallMeHootApr 26, 2019 9:31 AM
|
CallMeHoot said: Safeanew said: Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story. I am trying to be as polite as possible, ofcourse if people ask questions I will explain more clearly but it is hard to answer people when they don't say anything new. You haven't said anything new in four fucking pages, mate. "Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story." - That isn't an answer. It means nothing. I asked you a direct question, and you can't even answer that much. I asked you clearly, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? You believe that the only place for that is in poetry and that a writer who writes prose and includes those things means it will detract from his story? Jesus. H. Christ. Can you fucking hear yourself, mate? You sound like a guy who's never read an actual book in his life. Another poster before this mentioned flat-earthers, man. You ARE one. I'm done. You're a cretin. If the creator wants us to understand the creator should avoid stream of thought, because it is the opposite of truly understanding a character. I can't read minds so the only way I can understand someone is to ask them. Stories work the same way. |
Safeanew said: CallMeHoot said: You haven't said anything new in four fucking pages, mate. "Then that person can just write poetry, it will be a detriment to the story." - That isn't an answer. It means nothing. I asked you a direct question, and you can't even answer that much. I asked you clearly, what if they aren't meant to be hard to understand? What if the writer WANTS us to understand the inner motivations and thoughts of a character? You believe that the only place for that is in poetry and that a writer who writes prose and includes those things means it will detract from his story? Jesus. H. Christ. Can you fucking hear yourself, mate? You sound like a guy who's never read an actual book in his life. Another poster before this mentioned flat-earthers, man. You ARE one. I'm done. You're a cretin. If the creator wants us to understand the creator should avoid stream of thought, because it is the opposite of truly understanding a character. I can't read minds so the only way I can understand someone is to ask them. Stories work the same way. No, stories don't work the same way. That's the point. And it's the point you have failed to grasp in four pages of people telling you that. I say this as a medical scientist with a first class degree, an avid reader and an amateur writer. You're talking nonsense. |
|
Tannhauser said: I presume you have never read a novel. From OP's answers i presume he has never read anything on his life. It's a bait post and not even a good one at that... A shit ton of scenes would be literally a chore to watch if you didnt knew what they were thinking. |
| I never lie on the internet. What's the point of it... the chinese noodles ad is an anime and avatar isn't! triggered Check out my taste and my profile. |
Safeanew said: 1. I did not claim that character was the most important to the story. Paintings tells stories because it is part of dialogue. 2. That is part of dialogue, if we don't need to hear what they say, we need to hear what someone else says. 3. I have no problem with narrators, they are part of dialogue so they just prove my point. 4. This is what I disagree with, character's thoughts always simplify if they are not part of some mystical dialogue that disturbs the mind. Inner monologues only redemption is if it confuses the story more than it explains. 1.,2.,3. So once again you have made up a completely different sense for a word than the one that is commonly used. You should have said it since the beginning instead of wasting everyone's time. It's ironic that for someone who thinks dialogue is so important, you are so bad at it. 4. Here are some random examples : contrasts between dialogues and thoughts can make a story more complex ; to hear a character's thinking can give an interesting idea of the workings of the mind ; to hear how a character thinks can convey more meaning about them than dialogue would have ; to know how what different characters think can help understanding or make it harder to understand their relations and conflicts. Additionally, your love of ambiguity isn't shared by that many people. It stems from a very nouvelle critique-ish perspective of text that has little pertinence when applied to the vast majority of stories. Not every work needs to be an "open work" (U. Eco), there is nothing inferior about works that strongly favor a particular interpretation of themselves. In fact, most authors had a pretty clear idea of what meaning they wanted to convey, and even though they produced texts that were so rich we are still studying them, the number of interpretations of them at a given point of time people actually care about is actually rather small. |
thizlasApr 26, 2019 9:42 AM
Safeanew said: This apply to novels too, hearing what the character thinks is bad for the novel. This bit makes me think you don't really read a lot of novels. Especially first-person narratives, in which we are constantly acquainted with the personal thoughts of the narrator. There are even such things as Stream of Consciousness, used by a considerable amount of classics, which mimics the way a narrative would pass in the mind of a narrator, along with their thoughts, that are often communicated to us. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Your whole criticism makes no sense to anyone who actually reads literature. Safeanew said: because it have nothing to do with what is happening in the story. And now that bit made me sure you really don't know what you're talking about. Even Shakespeare used monologues as a way to communicate to the audience the characters inner thoughts, that were directly related to what was happening in the story. There's no difference between that and showing a character's thought since in theatre it's necessary to say things aloud. There's absolutely nothing that makes a character thought especially detrimental to the story like you say. You're going around in circles and saying nothing that really adds to your arguments, other than making clear you don't really understand how fiction works. |
 |
changelog said: I disagree. What about every battle-of-wits and mystery anime? Just imagine a show like Code Geass, Death Note, or Kindaichi Case Files without hearing the character's thoughts. It would be horrible to watch. Code Geass in particular does character's thoughts right. They express them when the audience needs the information but keep them hidden during the most crucial moments to build up suspense. Of course, they used this same technique for the ending of the show. Code Geass had the best end, of anything, ever, anime or not. Change my mind. Btw season 3 why. Safeanew said: By that logic you cant be certain the action you see are actually what the author intended to write because he is illeterate. Or as far as adaptions go they simply are too dumb to read the source properly.Comander-07 said: I dont see how getting to hear the thoughts of a character first hand is a hindrance to this though. What a character feels and thinks and what he does dont always align. Someone wanting to do something would either give him the choice to grow, which we could see via thoughts or make him look like a retard because he fails. There isnt a "goal" when writing about human hearts in conflict. Its a process. There isnt a point where it stops and never changes again. It is a hindrance because it avoids the confusion in language that is essential to the human heart. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story vote4close |
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
CallMeHoot said: Safeanew said: If the creator wants us to understand the creator should avoid stream of thought, because it is the opposite of truly understanding a character. I can't read minds so the only way I can understand someone is to ask them. Stories work the same way. No, stories don't work the same way. That's the point. And it's the point you have failed to grasp in four pages of people telling you that. I say this as a medical scientist with a first class degree, an avid reader and an amateur writer. You're talking nonsense. Why do stories not work the same way? |
Safeanew said: CallMeHoot said: No, stories don't work the same way. That's the point. And it's the point you have failed to grasp in four pages of people telling you that. I say this as a medical scientist with a first class degree, an avid reader and an amateur writer. You're talking nonsense. Why do stories not work the same way? Why should I tell you? You won't listen anyway and to be honest, if you don't understand why stories work differently from how people understand each other in the real world then you actually cannot be helped, even if I gave you a Lit 101 class right here in this thread. You'd still be baiting people and talking bullshit. I'm done with you. EDIT :- removed typo "don't" |
|
changelog said: I disagree. What about every battle-of-wits and mystery anime? Just imagine a show like Code Geass, Death Note, or Kindaichi Case Files without hearing the character's thoughts. It would be horrible to watch. Code Geass in particular does character's thoughts right. They express them when the audience needs the information but keep them hidden during the most crucial moments to build up suspense. Of course, they used this same technique for the ending of the show. I would like if they expressed it in some other way, thoughts are very clumsy in explaining anything storyrelated, that is why it is like poetry, it creates the emotion of feeling like one understands when one don't understand. |
| @changelog In fact I have not, I will check it out. So the planned season was changed into a movie? I was wondering what that was about when I suddenly saw something about a movie. Are the 3 recap movies before that required? I dont really want to mix my memory of CG with some inferior recap version. I guess it takes a few month before I will get a chance to watch the new movie anyway. I am a fan of the theory, so Im not too mad about a scenario. I just dont want a potential third season effectively rendering what happened in CG a waste. Like, what would be the point of season 1 and 2 if nothing changes? Unless they go the trigger route and alienz invade. |
Comander-07Apr 26, 2019 9:54 AM
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
thizlas said: Safeanew said: 1. I did not claim that character was the most important to the story. Paintings tells stories because it is part of dialogue. 2. That is part of dialogue, if we don't need to hear what they say, we need to hear what someone else says. 3. I have no problem with narrators, they are part of dialogue so they just prove my point. 4. This is what I disagree with, character's thoughts always simplify if they are not part of some mystical dialogue that disturbs the mind. Inner monologues only redemption is if it confuses the story more than it explains. 1.,2.,3. So once again you have made up a completely different sense for a word than the one that is commonly used. You should have said it since the beginning instead of wasting everyone's time. It's ironic that for someone who thinks dialogue is so important, you are so bad at it. 4. Here are some random examples : contrasts between dialogues and thoughts can make a story more complex ; to hear a character's thinking can give an interesting idea of the workings of the mind ; to hear how a character thinks can convey more meaning about them than dialogue would have ; to know how what different characters think can help understanding or make it harder to understand their relations and conflicts. Additionally, your love of ambiguity isn't shared by that many people. It stems from a very nouvelle critique-ish perspective of text that has little pertinence when applied to the vast majority of stories. Not every work needs to be an "open work" (U. Eco), there is nothing inferior about works that strongly favor a particular interpretation of themselves. In fact, most authors had a pretty clear idea of what meaning they wanted to convey, and even though they produced texts that were so rich we are still studying them, the number of interpretations of them at a given point of time people actually care about is actually rather small. 1.,2.,3. I can't read minds, so I can't explain what I don't know needs explaining. 4. Stream of conciousness is only fine if it is understood as the character has written it or said it, if we just hear it randomly it, it is like the audience has the ability to read minds and it sabotage the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story. My love for ambuiguity is my love for language itself, language is always without exception filled with ambiguity. |
Comander-07 said: changelog said: I disagree. What about every battle-of-wits and mystery anime? Just imagine a show like Code Geass, Death Note, or Kindaichi Case Files without hearing the character's thoughts. It would be horrible to watch. Code Geass in particular does character's thoughts right. They express them when the audience needs the information but keep them hidden during the most crucial moments to build up suspense. Of course, they used this same technique for the ending of the show. Code Geass had the best end, of anything, ever, anime or not. Change my mind. Btw season 3 why. Safeanew said: By that logic you cant be certain the action you see are actually what the author intended to write because he is illeterate. Or as far as adaptions go they simply are too dumb to read the source properly.It is a hindrance because it avoids the confusion in language that is essential to the human heart. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story vote4close Yeah I don't know what the author wanted to write, I can only see what is written. |
Safeanew said: I both agree and disagree with your statement. Narration can be a very lazy way of storytelling, but only second to dialogue. Not that these are necessarily lazy, but anime is a visual medium where a very important rule is show not tell. It doesn't matter if they are telling in monologue/narration or dialogue.The most important thing in storytelling is dialogue. Hearing character's thoughts hinder dialogue by filling up moments of silence. The Fate/Grand Order special/movie in which about 50 out of the 74 minutes play time people standing in empty rooms talking. It's relentlessly boring. |
  |
CallMeHoot said: Why should I tell you? You won't listen anyway and to be honest, if you don't understand why stories work differently from how people understand each other in the real world then you actually cannot be helped, even if I gave you a Lit 101 class right here in this thread. You'd still be baiting people and talking bullshit. I'm done with you. EDIT :- removed typo "don't" Don't be rude, I am not baiting people, ofcourse I would listen. I read every comment and answer them to see what more they have to say. |
| Thinking about how Shaft handled Monogatari I cant even disagree with everything. Safeanew said: Comander-07 said: Code Geass had the best end, of anything, ever, anime or not. Change my mind. Btw season 3 why. By that logic you cant be certain the action you see are actually what the author intended to write because he is illeterate. Or as far as adaptions go they simply are too dumb to read the source properly. Looking like a retard is what I claim is a sign of good story vote4close Yeah I don't know what the author wanted to write, I can only see what is written. What you said inner thoughts are flawed because language. What the author wrote is also flawed because language. Actions are flawed because thoughts. |
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
Safeanew said: CallMeHoot said: Why should I tell you? You won't listen anyway and to be honest, if you don't understand why stories work differently from how people understand each other in the real world then you actually cannot be helped, even if I gave you a Lit 101 class right here in this thread. You'd still be baiting people and talking bullshit. I'm done with you. EDIT :- removed typo "don't" Don't be rude, I am not baiting people, ofcourse I would listen. I read every comment and answer them to see what more they have to say. As I said before, if you don't understand the basic difference between how people engage in real life and how a person's relationships, character, feelings, etc, can be conveyed in a story, either written or visual, then I can't help you. If you wanna learn something, go to school. And yes, you are baiting. |
|
| In a visual media like anime is, depending only in "dialogues" to build the story (to tell the story) is a really vague way to do it. People pretty often underestimate (this happens more often in cinema) the power of visuals to get the series going. I'm talking about letting the camera speak for itself, but this is more difficult to do with animation series than with movies. And with what you said, I don't really see the problem in intern monologue. It fits for a really strong character development. |
Satyr_icon said: Safeanew said: This apply to novels too, hearing what the character thinks is bad for the novel. This bit makes me think you don't really read a lot of novels. Especially first-person narratives, in which we are constantly acquainted with the personal thoughts of the narrator. There are even such things as Stream of Consciousness, used by a considerable amount of classics, which mimics the way a narrative would pass in the mind of a narrator, along with their thoughts, that are often communicated to us. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Your whole criticism makes no sense to anyone who actually reads literature. Safeanew said: because it have nothing to do with what is happening in the story. And now that bit made me sure you really don't know what you're talking about. Even Shakespeare used monologues as a way to communicate to the audience the characters inner thoughts, that were directly related to what was happening in the story. There's no difference between that and showing a character's thought since in theatre it's necessary to say things aloud. There's absolutely nothing that makes a character thought especially detrimental to the story like you say. You're going around in circles and saying nothing that really adds to your arguments, other than making clear you don't really understand how fiction works. If stream of concious is used to depict the inside of the mind, then it is bad storytelling, because there is no inside of the mind. Spoken monologue is fine because it does not create the imaginary space of inside the mind. I want story not ego fulfillment. |
Safeanew said: If stream of concious is used to depict the inside of the mind, then it is bad storytelling, because there is no inside of the mind. Spoken monologue is fine because it does not create the imaginary space of inside the mind. I want story not ego fulfillment. Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense. I really suggest you try reading a book sometime. It'll be good for you. |
|
Safeanew said: If stream of concious is used to depict the inside of the mind, then it is bad storytelling, because there is no inside of the mind. Spoken monologue is fine because it does not create the imaginary space of inside the mind. I want story not ego fulfillment. You heard it here first people, we don't have thoughts. There is no inside of the mind. Lol. Jesus, man. That's right, we all just speak without actually formulating the thoughts required to do so because hey, the mind doesn't exist. 100%. Best statement ever. Nominate for Nobel Prize for Original Thinking...but damn, that wouldn't work because...there is no mind. Omg. A paradox. This is how far this thread has come. And he said he wasn't baiting. I guess not. He's just a fucking muppet. In fact, if Johnny Good Story came walking 'round the corner and introduced himself with a hug and a handshake, he wouldn't know what the fuck to do. Because he doesn't know Good Story. Not from Adam. |
|
Heldengeist said: Safeanew said: I both agree and disagree with your statement. Narration can be a very lazy way of storytelling, but only second to dialogue. Not that these are necessarily lazy, but anime is a visual medium where a very important rule is show not tell. It doesn't matter if they are telling in monologue/narration or dialogue.The most important thing in storytelling is dialogue. Hearing character's thoughts hinder dialogue by filling up moments of silence. The Fate/Grand Order special/movie in which about 50 out of the 74 minutes play time people standing in empty rooms talking. It's relentlessly boring. My opening statement is a bit ambigous, I am only talking about stream of concious. Narration is fine. Now I want to see Fate/Grand Order movie, I like when people only talk. |
| I understand that you want anime to be more concerned about visual storytelling but there are things that is very difficult to convey properly by visuals alone, hence we need inner monologues. It's not always a lazy attempt at making the point understood, it's oftentimes used to enhance storytelling by letting us see the train of thought of the character we follow and being exposed to their perspective makes them more human to us which eventually gives the character in question a sense of familiarity that makes us feel endearment to them. It's a very essential part as far as I'm concerned. |
Auron_Apr 26, 2019 10:20 AM
 |
Comander-07 said: Thinking about how Shaft handled Monogatari I cant even disagree with everything. What you said inner thoughts are flawed because language. What the author wrote is also flawed because language. Actions are flawed because thoughts. No inner thoughts are flawed because they are presented as unambiguous. |
Safeanew said: Comander-07 said: Thinking about how Shaft handled Monogatari I cant even disagree with everything. What you said inner thoughts are flawed because language. What the author wrote is also flawed because language. Actions are flawed because thoughts. No inner thoughts are flawed because they are presented as unambiguous. No they aren't always presented as unambiguous. A person's inner thoughts can be conflicted and decidedly ambiguous. This is basic, common sense for anyone who has ever actually had a decision to make in their lives. Like I said. Stop baiting now, or I'm gonna report you. |
|
yeti123full said: In a visual media like anime is, depending only in "dialogues" to build the story (to tell the story) is a really vague way to do it. People pretty often underestimate (this happens more often in cinema) the power of visuals to get the series going. I'm talking about letting the camera speak for itself, but this is more difficult to do with animation series than with movies. And with what you said, I don't really see the problem in intern monologue. It fits for a really strong character development. If the only thing one want to portray is a mirror to the audience then internal monologue is fine. But if one wants to tell a story one should avoid it as much as possible. |
Orhunaa said: I understand that you want anime to be more concerned about visual storytelling but there are things that is very difficult to convey properly by visuals alone, hence we need inner monologues. It's not always a lazy attempt at making the point understood, it's oftentimes used to enhance storytelling by letting us see the train of thought of the character we follow and being exposed to their perspective makes them more human to us which eventually gives the character in question a sense of familiarity that makes us feel endearment to them. It's a very essential part as far as I'm concerned. That is why it is bad, if the only thing you get from the story is the emotion of understanding, then it does not tell you much. I mean everything except inner monologue, every story could take away the inner monologue and tell a richer story by doing it. |
CallMeHoot said: No they aren't always presented as unambiguous. A person's inner thoughts can be conflicted and decidedly ambiguous. This is basic, common sense for anyone who has ever actually had a decision to make in their lives. Like I said. Stop baiting now, or I'm gonna report you. If it is clear that it is ambiguous then it is better, but it still uses a story technique that clearly are meant to be unambiguously their thoughts and not a simplification as it truly is. |
| @CallMeHoot there is a point when arguing which might be perceived as mobbing someone with a mental handycap so Im gonna bail Safeanew said: Inner thoughts are always ambigious. Comander-07 said: Thinking about how Shaft handled Monogatari I cant even disagree with everything. What you said inner thoughts are flawed because language. What the author wrote is also flawed because language. Actions are flawed because thoughts. No inner thoughts are flawed because they are presented as unambiguous. |
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
Digital_Shiroi said: I would rather hear a character's thought, than having them speak their thoughts out loud even when they're alone. This. It's really irritating when characters always talk to themselves as opposed to just thinking about it. |
Safeanew said: Orhunaa said: I understand that you want anime to be more concerned about visual storytelling but there are things that is very difficult to convey properly by visuals alone, hence we need inner monologues. It's not always a lazy attempt at making the point understood, it's oftentimes used to enhance storytelling by letting us see the train of thought of the character we follow and being exposed to their perspective makes them more human to us which eventually gives the character in question a sense of familiarity that makes us feel endearment to them. It's a very essential part as far as I'm concerned. That is why it is bad, if the only thing you get from the story is the emotion of understanding, then it does not tell you much. I mean everything except inner monologue, every story could take away the inner monologue and tell a richer story by doing it. As I have already told you, many times, as have many other people, removing the inner monologue from something like Fight Club would destroy the movie and render the story far, far less entertaining. This is one example. There are many others. Stop lying to yourself. Google "cognitive dissonance". And for the love of God, just give it a rest, mate. No one is buying what you're selling. Last chance. Either develop your discussion (if you can even call it that) and stop repeating the same thing, over and over again (which is baiting, btw) or I gotta mass report ya. |
|
Safeanew said: Orhunaa said: I understand that you want anime to be more concerned about visual storytelling but there are things that is very difficult to convey properly by visuals alone, hence we need inner monologues. It's not always a lazy attempt at making the point understood, it's oftentimes used to enhance storytelling by letting us see the train of thought of the character we follow and being exposed to their perspective makes them more human to us which eventually gives the character in question a sense of familiarity that makes us feel endearment to them. It's a very essential part as far as I'm concerned. That is why it is bad, if the only thing you get from the story is the emotion of understanding, then it does not tell you much. I mean everything except inner monologue, every story could take away the inner monologue and tell a richer story by doing it. But the exploration of a character and their inner world is integral to the narrative! In fact so many literary works (maybe with the exception of highly action-oriented ones that are all about style over substance) would lose a great deal of characterisation if you take away the ability of the reader/viewer to see the track of thought of the character. Honestly I don't think that's even debatable |
|
Comander-07 said: @CallMeHoot there is a point when arguing which might be perceived as mobbing someone with a mental handycap so Im gonna bail Inner thoughts are always ambigious. In what way specifically? Because I agree that they are ambiguous in the sense that they are language, but they use a place that does not exist the inside of the mind. What this does is create the illusion of understanding, when what one hears is just lies to explain the behavior of the characters. |
Safeanew said: 1.,2.,3. I can't read minds, so I can't explain what I don't know needs explaining. 4. Stream of conciousness is only fine if it is understood as the character has written it or said it, if we just hear it randomly it, it is like the audience has the ability to read minds and it sabotage the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story. My love for ambuiguity is my love for language itself, language is always without exception filled with ambiguity. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Surely experience has shown you that when you create a thread, a lot of people completely misunderstand what you are saying because of how vague it is. If it hasn't, then it doesn't mean you can't read minds, it means you lack elementary analysis skills. "If we just hear it randomly it, it is like the audience has the ability to read minds and it sabotages the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story" -> It's called a convention, just like many other things in art, and most people aren't bothered by it in the least. " it sabotages the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story" -> Not necessarily, it completely depends on the text. It can just work as a complement to dialogue. And even when it does, it's just different, it's not necessarily a problem. Why couldn't dialogue take the backseat sometimes ? "My love for ambiguity is my love for language itself, language is always without exception filled with ambiguity." -> Most people don't care about ambiguity, or even about language, as much as you do, and many care about it in a different way, so your whole criticism of internal monologue is only based on your personal taste. |
Orhunaa said: Safeanew said: That is why it is bad, if the only thing you get from the story is the emotion of understanding, then it does not tell you much. I mean everything except inner monologue, every story could take away the inner monologue and tell a richer story by doing it. But the exploration of a character and their inner world is integral to the narrative! In fact so many literary works (maybe with the exception of highly action-oriented ones that are all about style over substance) would lose a great deal of characterisation if you take away the ability of the reader/viewer to see the track of thought of the character. Honestly I don't think that's even debatable I am claiming that is debatable, inner monologue is the main offender of style over substance. Substance is dialogue, style is characterisation through inner monologue. |
Safeanew said: Orhunaa said: But the exploration of a character and their inner world is integral to the narrative! In fact so many literary works (maybe with the exception of highly action-oriented ones that are all about style over substance) would lose a great deal of characterisation if you take away the ability of the reader/viewer to see the track of thought of the character. Honestly I don't think that's even debatable I am claiming that is debatable, inner monologue is the main offender of style over substance. Substance is dialogue, style is characterisation through inner monologue. Which is a very unfounded claim. I don't think I'm getting anything out of this conversation. Goodbye. |
|
Safeanew said: What a character thinks is as far away from lies as possible, unless he lies about himself. Comander-07 said: @CallMeHoot there is a point when arguing which might be perceived as mobbing someone with a mental handycap so Im gonna bail Inner thoughts are always ambigious. In what way specifically? Because I agree that they are ambiguous in the sense that they are language, but they use a place that does not exist the inside of the mind. What this does is create the illusion of understanding, when what one hears is just lies to explain the behavior of the characters. So you say the inside of the mind does not exist? .. Do you even think? HOW. I think (hehe) Im onto something here. |
| "This emotion is mine alone. It is for Madoka alone." - Homura or how I would descripe Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. |
thizlas said: Safeanew said: 1.,2.,3. I can't read minds, so I can't explain what I don't know needs explaining. 4. Stream of conciousness is only fine if it is understood as the character has written it or said it, if we just hear it randomly it, it is like the audience has the ability to read minds and it sabotage the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story. My love for ambuiguity is my love for language itself, language is always without exception filled with ambiguity. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Surely experience has shown you that when you create a thread, a lot of people completely misunderstand what you are saying because of how vague it is. If it hasn't, then it doesn't mean you can't read minds, it means you lack elementary analysis skills. "If we just hear it randomly it, it is like the audience has the ability to read minds and it sabotages the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story" -> It's called a convention, just like many other things in art, and most people aren't bothered by it in the least. " it sabotages the dialogue characters are having, because they get the backseat position instead of getting into the story" -> Not necessarily, it completely depends on the text. It can just work as a complement to dialogue. And even when it does, it's just different, it's not necessarily a problem. Why couldn't dialogue take the backseat sometimes ? "My love for ambiguity is my love for language itself, language is always without exception filled with ambiguity." -> Most people don't care about ambiguity, or even about language, as much as you do, and many care about it in a different way, so your whole criticism of internal monologue is only based on your personal taste. Dialogue can't take the backseat because that would be the same as story taking the backseat. Why my threads are misunderstood is because they often are not misunderstood, people just disagree with me on a fundamental level, I can't make someone agree with me by explaining it better, but ofcourse I always try to improve my ability to argue for my claims. My claim says nothing about what people likes, people like inner monologues because it is easy to understand. It still can be bad for storytelling even if most people enjoy it. |
Comander-07 said: Safeanew said: What a character thinks is as far away from lies as possible, unless he lies about himself. In what way specifically? Because I agree that they are ambiguous in the sense that they are language, but they use a place that does not exist the inside of the mind. What this does is create the illusion of understanding, when what one hears is just lies to explain the behavior of the characters. So you say the inside of the mind does not exist? .. Do you even think? HOW. I think (hehe) Im onto something here. Yes we think, but there is no inside of the mind, the mind is not a seperate place but part of language itself. Our thoughts are just lies to make our actions meaningful to ourselves. |
| I don't know. I think complete silence in certain scenes would make said scenes kind of boring. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » From what side of the neck do you enjoy being bitten by your vampire master?Catalano - Yesterday |
17 |
by kagamiiin
»»
42 seconds ago |
|
» I made a fake anime seasonal chart using AI. Which of these sounds interesting to you? ( 1 2 )FFandMMfan - Apr 13 |
96 |
by Lucifrost
»»
52 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be in favor of tipping Crunchyroll for every anime you complete on their platform?Dije - Apr 16 |
43 |
by kagamiiin
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Upcoming Dubbed Anime ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kenny_Stryker - Dec 17, 2017 |
9043 |
by appledude1221
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you think girl on girl (yuri / GL / shoujo ai) is hot? ( 1 2 )Bakchos - Aug 15, 2019 |
60 |
by Zarutaku
»»
9 minutes ago |