hairu said: Safeanew said: No telling character's feelings are not important, if anything feelings are important because they can't be stated. 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? |
Rei366 said: @Giulia14 Thanks. 8pages born out of that?? Safeanew said: Spoken monologue is fine, hearing character's thought are bad. So, they should follow the theatrical convention of monologue, I guess. Safeanew said: The most important thing in storytelling is dialogue What about the "main " narration? o_O No, they should be silent more, I would love a scene where the character just sit a while and thinks for themselves. The main narration is part of what I call dialogue. |
| I claim that a show like Kaguya-sama wa Kokurasetai: Tensai-tachi no Renai Zunousen is making a similar argument as I am. The characters can think all they want, it does not matter for what truly happens in the story. I have only seen a few episodes so I don't know what happens later. |
Maneki-Mew said: I agree to some points. I don't care, if there is one or a few sentences inbetween, but I hate it, when there are whole paragraphs of endless monologues. It either means that the author couldn't describe their characters through their actions or that he thinks that his readers are too dumb to interpret their actions. I love to interpret characters for myself and that is one of my pet peeves, although it doesn't mean that I dislike the work then. I just prefer it otherwise. I agree to this, I don't mind it existing, I just don't see it adding a lot to the story and sometimes even distracting from the story. |
| framing every work that uses a single narrative element as bad storytelling is bad storytelling |
[url=https://myanimelist.net/profile/mifti] [/url] |
| Jesus Christ... Do you still claim it's an "absolute truth" that hearing characters' thoughts is straight-up bad? If so, then you need to stop that nonsense. If you personally don't like hearing characters' thoughts in any context, then fine, whatever, but don't go around saying stuff like "absolute truth", that reeks of authoritative arrogance. Also, a lot of you seem to be misunderstanding "character development". That doesn't *necessarily* mean "changing" or "growing". "Development" may also refer to thoughts, dialogue, backstory, relationships, action, conflict, etc, that give the reader/viewer a clearer understanding of the character as a whole. So yes, I think character development *is* important to the story; you literally can't have a character without that. |
LightBladeNovaApr 28, 2019 6:20 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?" |
| If you don't know a character's thoughts you won't understand their intents behind their actions especially if they mean for it to be hidden. |
| This is just untrue. Imagine an anime like Death Note with no inner thoughts. It'd just lose a lot of what makes it so great. |
Mattinator95 said: Safeanew said: The most important thing in storytelling is dialogue. Hearing character's thoughts hinder dialogue by filling up moments of silence. Edit: I am not against using inner monologue, my claim is that it is seperate from the story. The story is narration, action, background and dialogue. Inner monologue is more like poetry, it is used to convey emotions in an abstract way. Inner monologue distracts from the story because it is unrelated and fills up space that the story could have used. "I want a hamburger, the little girl thought" is an example of inner monologue in written form. This is poetry and unrelated to anything that happens in the story. Edit2: An example in anime is Bloom Into You that uses inner monologue a lot. Saki K uses inner monlouge alot as the character dosnt speak . I think he does it telepathic instead in most cases but not sure I am more fine with a character having the ability to read minds, then at least it is understood more clearly as an ability a character has and also how it works can be debated more easily. |
Maneki-Mew said: Safeanew said: I agree to this, I don't mind it existing, I just don't see it adding a lot to the story and sometimes even distracting from the story. I don't mind things that add nothing to the story per se (I like here and there a filler scene too), because it appears as more lively woth many small details, a few thoughts etc... But the dialogues and how they characters react to things are often, in such novels that focus on monologues too much, too stiff and unnatural to me. The authors focus so much to add depth to their characters and a meaning to their novel that the opposite happens sometimes to me, because they appear as very "artificial" then and their only reason for existince is to provide their thoughts. I had to read lot of pretentious novels unfortunately. xD And I thought some messages were actually lit, but the entertainment value decreases to a flat line haha. My point is very similar to this, a character will act more naturally if we don't get sneak peaks all the time on how they think. It is because how we think don't really control our actions, it is our actions that control how we think. We always act first, then we react to our actions. Thinking first is only in order to avoid acting. |
traed said: If you don't know a character's thoughts you won't understand their intents behind their actions especially if they mean for it to be hidden. Why do I need to understand their intents? I claim I should only judge their actions and words based on my experience of what they are trying to accomplish. |
| Saying that fucking novels don't need monologue just triggered me.. I can understand the advantage of movies without monologues, but literature masterpieces with first person narrative ? |
"The Slave is the have-not, the oppressed one with nothing to spare. But because the Slave is in that despairing situation, having nothing, it can kill the Emperor !" |
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. "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?". 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. |
Jim_Heart said: Saying that fucking novels don't need monologue just triggered me.. I can understand the advantage of movies without monologues, but literature masterpieces with first person narrative ? I am not against first person narrative. |
Peaceful_Critic said: LightBladeNova said: When did they claim it was a truth? Can you quote it or tell me the page?Jesus Christ... Do you still claim it's an "absolute truth" that hearing characters' thoughts is straight-up bad? If so, then you need to stop that nonsense. If you personally don't like hearing characters' thoughts in any context, then fine, whatever, but don't go around saying stuff like "absolute truth", that reeks of authoritative arrogance. Also, a lot of you seem to be misunderstanding "character development". That doesn't *necessarily* mean "changing" or "growing". "Development" may also refer to thoughts, dialogue, backstory, relationships, action, conflict, etc, that give the reader/viewer a clearer understanding of the character as a whole. So yes, I think character development *is* important to the story; you literally can't have a character without that. What you described is general characterization, not development. Here's the definition o development: "the collective observable changes in an individual's defining characteristics over the course of a narrative."-Study.com Here's characterization: "the creation or construction of a fictional character."-google Comment #63 in this thread. Now he says he's "not against" internal narration, but does he still think it's always bad for the story, as an "absolute truth"? He needs to make that clear, there's a difference between being "not against" and "saying it's bad storytelling in any context, as an absolute truth". "Not against" sounds really wishy-washy to me. And fine, sorry, I should rephrase what I said earlier. What I described *can* refer to character development; just do some google searches and you'll see different sources define the phrase as purely "growth"/"changing", or general characterization. But anyway whatever, this is just semantics, and I'm pretty sure you mean development in a change/growth sense, so we can drop that. In any case, you and OP can keep your opinions, but as you can tell, the great majority of people don't agree with you. I don't like making an "appeal to majority" like that, but at the very least, you should acknowledge that inner narration *can* be an effective storytelling technique. Why? Because it's worked for tons of people when done well, even if not for you. You and OP need to acknowledge all those other perspectives as valid. Don't just make sweeping generalizations like it's always bad. I'd also be wary of saying inner narration is bad for "most" cases, because that still sounds like over-generalizing. If you personally believe that, then whatever, but for me, personally, I don't like using that kind of generalizing word choice, because it comes off like it's over-simplifying a broad concept and trapping it in a box. Doesn't tend to make for a good position. |
LightBladeNovaApr 28, 2019 1:39 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?" |
LightBladeNova said: Do you still claim it's an "absolute truth" that hearing characters' thoughts is straight-up bad? If so, then you need to stop that nonsense. If you personally don't like hearing characters' thoughts in any context, then fine, whatever, but don't go around saying stuff like "absolute truth", that reeks of authoritative arrogance. I claim that one can't state the absolute truth. The truth can only be experienced in fragments. Hearing characters' thoughts is bad or neutral for story, if one defines story as dialogue. My claim is that it does not add anything to dialogue, it is seperate from dialogue. It is based on the philosophical claim that our thoughts don't control our actions, it is our actions that control our thought. So hearing their thoughts just makes the characters' actions harder to see for what they are. Saying things like "reeks of authoritative arrogance", sounds a lot more arrogant to me. |
Safeanew said: traed said: If you don't know a character's thoughts you won't understand their intents behind their actions especially if they mean for it to be hidden. Why do I need to understand their intents? I claim I should only judge their actions and words based on my experience of what they are trying to accomplish. Not knowing a character's thoughts to understand their intentions isn't going to make any sense to us as a reader/audience, and the story. Resulting that we're not entirely sure whether we should empathise them or forget it and think they are not worthy. I don't know about you but I have to admit you're still off the track to maintain; I've read more than 20 comments in here, and I got so tired of it; it was just abysmal. Unless you reflect and understand it carefully, which it shouldn't take you that long to think about. If that doesn't change, be glad you have your own viewpoint that suits you and not us. I know why you made this forum for what reason you're intending to do, but it's already out of order. Needless to say,this is mainly about anime and you do know that many shows have inner monologue for a valid reason. Without inner monologue, it's difficult for us to understand the character's motivation, especially the way its animated isn't like a real life person moves physically. It really doesn't have to be like that, as long as the animators are doing it to experiment. However, what you just said, "I claim I should only judge their actions and words," I started to think about Hollywood movies because not all have inner monologue so I cannot doubt that everything you said is like your mind is from another world. At this rate, there's no way I'll be able to read all of this preposterous comments I've ever seen, specifically, you, Safeanew. Yes, the question is why bother? Why should I join and toss my response in here? Anyways, it's pretty late for me. Farewell. |
Peaceful_Critic said: LightBladeNova said: Ah, I see it: "Well I see it as an absolute truth that hearing characters thinking is bad for storytelling."Comment #63 in this thread. Now he says he's "not against" internal narration, but does he still think it's always bad for the story, as an "absolute truth"? He needs to make that clear, there's a difference between being "not against" and "saying it's bad storytelling in any context, as an absolute truth". "Not against" sounds really wishy-washy to me. And fine, sorry, I should rephrase what I said earlier. What I described *can* refer to character development; just do some google searches and you'll see different sources define the phrase as purely "growth"/"changing", or general characterization. But anyway whatever, this is just semantics, and I'm pretty sure you and the others mean development in a change/growth sense, so we can drop that. In any case, you and OP can keep your opinions, but as you can tell, the good majority of people don't agree with you. I don't like making an "appeal to majority" like that, but at the very least, you should acknowledge that inner narration *can* be an effective storytelling technique. Why? Because it's worked for tons of people when done well, even if not for you. You and OP need to acknowledge all those other perspectives as valid. Don't just make sweeping generalizations like it's always bad. I'd also be wary of saying inner narration is bad for "most" cases, because that still sounds like over-generalizing. If you personally believe that, then whatever, but for me, personally, I don't like using that kind of generalizing word choice, because it comes off like it's over-simplifying things and trapping them in a box. I had that acknowledged multiple times throughout this thread: "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."- #327 I didn't state anywhere that it couldn't. In my first post on this thread(#233), I said it wasn't awful inherently and stated that tactics anime needed it. Upon other's arguments, I added mystery and comedy to that as well. I don't need to say the obvious. If I'm respectfully addressing the arguments, I already made the point that your perspective is valid. Well, this is a general discussion, so I am going to make general statements. I think the "it depends" is a no duh statement that doesn't make for an interesting discussion. The most part came as a result of personal experience as between the two I see internal monologues done more poorly than right(not to say all inner monologues were done wrong). Alright, fair enough, I guess. The OP is the one sounding too hardheaded about this, then. "It depends" may be obvious, but I don't think it's worse than making overgeneralized statements, because the latter sounds more narrow-minded. Safeanew said: LightBladeNova said: Do you still claim it's an "absolute truth" that hearing characters' thoughts is straight-up bad? If so, then you need to stop that nonsense. If you personally don't like hearing characters' thoughts in any context, then fine, whatever, but don't go around saying stuff like "absolute truth", that reeks of authoritative arrogance. I claim that one can't state the absolute truth. The truth can only be experienced in fragments. Hearing characters' thoughts is bad or neutral for story, if one defines story as dialogue. My claim is that it does not add anything to dialogue, it is seperate from dialogue. It is based on the philosophical claim that our thoughts don't control our actions, it is our actions that control our thought. So hearing their thoughts just makes the characters' actions harder to see for what they are. Saying things like "reeks of authoritative arrogance", sounds a lot more arrogant to me. What? *You're* the one who said in comment #63 that "Well I see it as an absolute truth that hearing characters thinking is bad for storytelling", how is that not arrogant? Do you take back what you said back there? Make up your mind... At least @Peaceful_Critic presents himself and his arguments better than you're doing (edit: sorry, herself and her arguments, judging from her profile). I don't think drawing from some lofty, unsourced philosophy and trying to manipulate it to suit your needs with character writing is helping your case. I don't even agree with the philosophy in the first place; I think it goes both ways: thoughts affect our actions, and actions affect our thoughts. |
LightBladeNovaApr 28, 2019 3:12 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?" |
| I don't know if its "bad storytelling" but I do subscribe to "show, don't tell" so I do feel it can sometimes be lazy to just tell us what the characters are thinking or feeling through spoken thoughts. It eliminates a lot of nuance and independence from the character when you know for a fact what they are thinking or feeling at any given moment. There are fewer perspectives to yield from a character's sigh when its followed by an internal monologue of why they are exasperated. Sometimes. Anime usually does this because its often adapted from manga which is a very limited visual medium for character expression. American comics do this a lot too but it usually gets left out in adaptations, whether animated or live action. Japan will just go full goofy and have the characters think in worded thoughts even in live action movies. |
 |
LightBladeNova said: What? *You're* the one who said in comment #63 that "Well I see it as an absolute truth that hearing characters thinking is bad for storytelling", how is that not arrogant? Make up your mind... At least @Peaceful_Critic presents himself and his arguments better than you're doing (edit: sorry, herself and her arguments, judging from her profile). I don't think drawing from some lofty, unsourced philosophy and trying to manipulate it to suit your needs with character writing is helping your case. I don't even agree with the philosophy in the first place; I think it goes both ways: thoughts affect our actions, and actions affect our thoughts. That is not arrogant, I am stating why I see it as an absolute truth. I am saying that hearing characters' thoughts are always bad or sometimes neutral for the story. What I mean by you being arrogant is that you don't even want to argue my claim. Saying things like "lofty, unsourced philosophy", misses the point that I am stating my claims and what I believe in, if you need more information you can just ask for it. My claim is that it does not go both ways, the thoughts we hear in our head are only reactions, they don't control anything, they are the effect of the things we do, say and experience. "trying to manipulate it to suit your needs", I am really not manipulating anything. I am trying to say things in a way that explain things enough for the other to make a relevant response to the topic. You seem to evaluate a good argument based on how much you agree with that argument, not on form. |
SafeanewApr 28, 2019 4:12 PM
DeadeyeReViVal said: Safeanew said: Why do I need to understand their intents? I claim I should only judge their actions and words based on my experience of what they are trying to accomplish. Not knowing a character's thoughts to understand their intentions isn't going to make any sense to us as a reader/audience, and the story. Resulting that we're not entirely sure whether we should empathise them or forget it and think they are not worthy. I don't know about you but I have to admit you're still off the track to maintain; I've read more than 20 comments in here, and I got so tired of it; it was just abysmal. Unless you reflect and understand it carefully, which it shouldn't take you that long to think about. If that doesn't change, be glad you have your own viewpoint that suits you and not us. I know why you made this forum for what reason you're intending to do, but it's already out of order. Needless to say,this is mainly about anime and you do know that many shows have inner monologue for a valid reason. Without inner monologue, it's difficult for us to understand the character's motivation, especially the way its animated isn't like a real life person moves physically. It really doesn't have to be like that, as long as the animators are doing it to experiment. However, what you just said, "I claim I should only judge their actions and words," I started to think about Hollywood movies because not all have inner monologue so I cannot doubt that everything you said is like your mind is from another world. At this rate, there's no way I'll be able to read all of this preposterous comments I've ever seen, specifically, you, Safeanew. Yes, the question is why bother? Why should I join and toss my response in here? Anyways, it's pretty late for me. Farewell. It sounds like your trying to read my mind, maybe that is a bad influence from watching too many inner monologues? I want more characters that are hard to understand, in the same way you can't understand me. Because I want dialogue and conflict in stories, as in actually seeing and hearing different perspectives than my own. That is also why I criticize the word empathy, because people only have empathy for themselves and their mirror image. The only way to empathize with others is by discussion and conflict, because that is the only way to hear things that don't agree with oneself. |
| This is dumb. dialogue and thoughts do different things for a story and it makes zero sense for everything the author wants the viewer to know to be -shown- or through dialogue. Like any other writing tool it can be overdone or used poorly though.I mean... Even first person naration is a thing... |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Extect said: This is dumb. dialogue and thoughts do different things for a story and it makes zero sense for everything the author wants the viewer to know to be -shown- or through dialogue. Like any other writing tool it can be overdone or used poorly though.I mean... Even first person naration is a thing... I have said already I am for first person narration. |
Safeanew said: Extect said: This is dumb. dialogue and thoughts do different things for a story and it makes zero sense for everything the author wants the viewer to know to be -shown- or through dialogue. Like any other writing tool it can be overdone or used poorly though.I mean... Even first person naration is a thing... I have said already I am for first person narration. oh... I read the OP a while ago (I don't think there was edits at the time) and not much else in the thread but kind of just decided to make a post now :D I was mostly coming with experiance with books/manga, so in movie shows outside of a couple first person naration things I can't really think of many examples of internal thoughts... since its not as common in film/anime. Bad example from what I'm currently watching. Eureka seven which has a subpar usage of him thinking about things in like a letter to his sister (doesn't really add anything). From memory, I think that A silent Voice had good usage of it though. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Whgedia said: Death Note, proves you wrong. For example think of the tennis match, that without the L and Light Thoughts is just a tennis match bad animated, that serves nothing to the story, and ofc theres a lot of examples in death note alone. That is not true, based on the context that tennis match would still mean a lot more than just a tennis match even if we did not hear their thoughts. I claim that Death Note could be made without hearing their thoughts. Tactical anime like Death Note and Code Geass use hearing their thoughts as a tool to make their strategies relatable. A tactical anime could be made without hearing their strategies and just seeing their execution and trying to understand what they are doing for oneself. This can be supplemented with an explanation after to have a puzzle first, solution later format. That is ofcourse harder to do well so I don't mind using it as a technique to have more tactical anime than othervise would be made. |
Safeanew said: traed said: If you don't know a character's thoughts you won't understand their intents behind their actions especially if they mean for it to be hidden. Why do I need to understand their intents? I claim I should only judge their actions and words based on my experience of what they are trying to accomplish. So you can more easily relate to them or hate them because there is few who would interpret it different. Otherwise you're only assuming all is what it seems and everything has only one interpretation. That isn't the case in media or in real life. |
| Like with anything artistic there is no clear cut bad or good, there are instances where this is used poorly and instances where this is used well: it all depends on how the artist utilizes their tools to create their art and how the end results resonate with a person |
   Why don’t we become monsters and really mess up this awful world? Just destroy until there’s no more evil, no more sadness, no more anything… Wouldn’t that be great? |
Extect said: oh... I read the OP a while ago (I don't think there was edits at the time) and not much else in the thread but kind of just decided to make a post now :D I was mostly coming with experiance with books/manga, so in movie shows outside of a couple first person naration things I can't really think of many examples of internal thoughts... since its not as common in film/anime. Bad example from what I'm currently watching. Eureka seven which has a subpar usage of him thinking about things in like a letter to his sister (doesn't really add anything). From memory, I think that A silent Voice had good usage of it though. Yeah I added that edit after you told me, because someone else had the same interpretation. Yeah, I am not against using it, but hearing characters' thoughts often are used when the characters could be silent and by being it, would be saying a lot more. I think people underestimate context and silence a lot. |
traed said: Safeanew said: Why do I need to understand their intents? I claim I should only judge their actions and words based on my experience of what they are trying to accomplish. So you can more easily relate to them or hate them because there is few who would interpret it different. Otherwise you're only assuming all is what it seems and everything has only one interpretation. That isn't the case in media or in real life. I am assuming the opposite, that the interpretation I make is based on my experience, so ofcourse there are other interpretations. That they are easily relatable or easily hated hinder the ability to make an interpretation, because one get the interpretation served. |
Ubermensch_ said: Gives the character more depth imo Like you would need inner monologue if a character is going through an internal battle with himself There are a lot of other ways to show an internal battle with oneself. Like the character becoming agressive or sits down and look like they struggle. |
Peaceful_Critic said: @LightBladeNova Don't use me to insult another, please(I hate that). "..."It depends" may be obvious, but I don't think it's worse than making overgeneralized statements, because the latter sounds more narrow-minded." Think of it this way, if everyone in this thread made that answer there wouldn't e any discussion. The answer is so agreeable that it's boring. Yes, good writers write good, and awful writers write badly, so what, you didn't add anything. I honestly, would rather have the whole thread against me and sound narrow-minded. Alright, sorry about that then. I wasn't really "insulting" him, though. "It depends", by itself, wouldn't create discussion, sure. But neither do overgeneralized statements, by themselves. What creates the discussion is listing examples and providing reasoning. And "it depends" is more open and conducive towards both positive and negative, while "it's mostly or always bad" kinda limits and skews itself to people taking opposite sides and quarreling. That's why "it depends" is better than "it's mostly or always bad", if we're assuming that examples/reasoning are provided. If not, then both statements aren't worth much, yes. So rather than saying "Hearing characters' thoughts is bad storytelling!" like the OP did, we could've done "What are some examples/arguments for when inner narration may be good or bad?" And that would highlight the "it depends" approach and still offer good discussion, with less likelihood of discussion going around in circles and people getting annoyed and frustrated like what's happening in this thread... Safeanew said: LightBladeNova said: What? *You're* the one who said in comment #63 that "Well I see it as an absolute truth that hearing characters thinking is bad for storytelling", how is that not arrogant? Make up your mind... At least @Peaceful_Critic presents himself and his arguments better than you're doing (edit: sorry, herself and her arguments, judging from her profile). I don't think drawing from some lofty, unsourced philosophy and trying to manipulate it to suit your needs with character writing is helping your case. I don't even agree with the philosophy in the first place; I think it goes both ways: thoughts affect our actions, and actions affect our thoughts. That is not arrogant, I am stating why I see it as an absolute truth. I am saying that hearing characters' thoughts are always bad or sometimes neutral for the story. What I mean by you being arrogant is that you don't even want to argue my claim. Saying things like "lofty, unsourced philosophy", misses the point that I am stating my claims and what I believe in, if you need more information you can just ask for it. My claim is that it does not go both ways, the thoughts we hear in our head are only reactions, they don't control anything, they are the effect of the things we do, say and experience. "trying to manipulate it to suit your needs", I am really not manipulating anything. I am trying to say things in a way that explain things enough for the other to make a relevant response to the topic. You seem to evaluate a good argument based on how much you agree with that argument, not on form. 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. |
LightBladeNovaApr 28, 2019 5:06 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?" |
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? |
Maneki-Mew said: traed said: If you don't know a character's thoughts you won't understand their intents behind their actions especially if they mean for it to be hidden. But you can interpret this in real life too, I mean getting behind why people do things without reading their minds and them telling you their reasonings (and especially not in every detail). Not fully. You can be close but words and actions and body language don't express everything. Safeanew said: traed said: So you can more easily relate to them or hate them because there is few who would interpret it different. Otherwise you're only assuming all is what it seems and everything has only one interpretation. That isn't the case in media or in real life. I am assuming the opposite, that the interpretation I make is based on my experience, so ofcourse there are other interpretations. That they are easily relatable or easily hated hinder the ability to make an interpretation, because one get the interpretation served. 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. |
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? |
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?" |
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. |
More topics from this board
» If you give an anime a 10 do you genuinely think It Is a masterpiece?Alpha_1_Zero - Apr 9 |
46 |
by TRC_Randy
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» angry sub only usersYorda_trico - 3 hours ago |
32 |
by duchessliz87
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Anime show good at portraying female drama/toxicity?passtur - Today |
33 |
by LoveLikeBlood
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» List of characters you want to shootdumbandinsane - Today |
22 |
by BetaMaleUltra
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Overall, do you rate anime generously or harshly? Why? ( 1 2 3 )Rinrinka - Apr 8 |
108 |
by Lhundrup
»»
39 minutes ago |