Hearing character's thoughts is bad storytelling!

ThereArentNames said:


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I've yet to receive a receive a response.

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

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

CallMeHoot said:


I do have empathy for you. In fact, if this were a TV show, my inner thoughts would reveal just how much empathy I actually do have for you. I see you struggling to prove a point that is both contrarian and fundamentally incorrect. And I feel for you, man.

Empathy does not only work through the clash of words. If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss. I have empathy for her. Not a word spoken. Merely two people in the same place at the same time.

Do you honestly believe that people cannot question themselves and have inner dichotomy without speaking it aloud?



Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?



OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims.



I mentioned the novel Dune earlier. Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story. You've not commented on these beyond pure contrary opinion.

I've written examples to show how inner dialogue (and character feeling and emotion besides, which you also claim hinders story) can IMPROVE a story and give clarity.

I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story.



I admire your tenacity, I'll give you that, but your attempts at specificity haven't worked. I think you've confused your own argument a fair bit.

I've seen over the last couple of pages (and in your initial edit) that you've tried to clarify what you mean but maybe make your statements clearer from the outset.

It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man.



They have asked, and what you've provided so far has been circumspect and minimal.

You're essentially taking what is a preference to you, and claiming it is fact. Your opinion also goes against pretty much any literally tenet ever written, which is why people have fairly justified claims against it.

Most people find insight illuminating and entertaining. Watching/reading something where everything is vague and ambiguous and you're constantly questioning things isn't an experience most people seek out a lot of the time.

I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet.



Are you my equal as a human being? Damn right you are. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine and we can both be free to state it however we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone.

Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet.

And no, experience does not automatically equal superiority or correctness, but in this case, to most people reading and the replies and private messages I've received about this thread and my contributions to it, my counterpoints seem more compelling than your argument.



It's a shame you won't answer these. Without the answers I can't gauge our equality of intellect or experience. Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field.

I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like.

P.S Thanks for replying point by point. If you're gonna reply again, please follow that same format :) One sentence replies get us nowhere

Safeanew said:


1)My point about Fight club is a few points made into one.

The first is related to my claim, when we hear Jacks inner thoughts it gives the illusion that we understand him, this is ofcourse subverted by the movie by the ending.

So then that asks the question why do I still think one could do without hearing his thought?

It is because I don't think that is a good ending, it was a good try in showing the contradictions of the mind, but it avoids making him unrelatable for the audience.
I liked that they tackled a very hard topic with Fight Club, but it has too much poetry as I call it.

Because without hearing his thoughts people would more easily just call him a psycho rather than think he was relatable.
That the character is relatable specifically by hearing his thoughts hides in a poetic way the fact that he is seen as a psycho.

Safeanew said:
2) The story is everything except poetry, poetry is 'monologic' as in one type of logic.

To cite Mikhail Bakhtin in his criticism of poetry in Dostoevsky from the english wikipedia article: "Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still in the future and will always be in the future".

This is his idea of 'unfinalizability' that means that a person cannot be objectively understood and we can never hold the whole truth.
One still need 'external finalization' (definition, description, causal or genetic explanation etc) and one can't avoid it.

Monologic use of language on the other hand works similar to "opposites come together, look at one another, are reflected in one another, know and understand one another.", this means that people magically understand what they do not understand, their antagonist or opposite.

Safeanew said:


Yeah the Chimera Ant Arc invasion would be better if it was completely silent.
All those thoughts distract from what is actually happening.

Safeanew said:

"If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss."

She is just so happy finally being free from that person, the flowers are just a gesture to celebrate her happiness.
An example of "feeling for her loss" misses the point.

"Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?"

I only discuss to change my own mind, I have no control over other minds.

"OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims."

I can provide examples and try to make others understand, but to prove my point I would probably have to write a whole book about it.
I am not against writing a book about it, but right now I want to discuss without having to prove things, but try to explain things so that people understand and can ask questions about what they want to know more about.

"Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story"

I have answered this in my other comment, Dune I can't comment on.

"I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story."

This is my main point, "In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling"
The character don't need to be more compelling, the story suffers by it exactly because it makes the character compelling.

"make your statements clearer from the outset."
That is actually impossible, I could have made an example like Peaceful_Critic said, but actually answering questions I don't know I need to answer is impossible.

"It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man."

Yes you have read me correctly, now tell me why that is wrong.
What is important with "knowing a characters feelings" rather than making a judgement yourself about the characters feelings.

"I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet."

Thanks for the recommendation, I think someone else recommended him to me too.

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet."

That is what appeal to authority is, I am arrogant in the way that I don't care about peoples lofty titles.
I care about what people actually says.
I hold respect for those that have shown that they know more than the average person, often by how they speak and their arguments.

"Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field."
People are all equal in intelligence, I have argued for this on another topic I created.(maybe is not related to what you are saying)
I agree People don't have equal knowledge on a topic, but that should not exclude or hinder anyone from stating their opinions and arguing for them.

"I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like."

I don't think that information will help you one bit.
Because it is a fallacy that one can judge someone clearly only based on their profile.

CallMeHoot said:


Our understanding of ourselves is subverted all the time in real life. We often think one thing, only to have it disproven by events, encounters, other people, conversations, etc, etc.

The ending is actually really, really well done, given the central conceit of the story which I think you have missed and that is "we all have a different side to ourselves, and desire escape from the monotony of life's routines".

The entire point is that he isn't a psycho, at least not at the start. He's just a man that knows there's something wrong with his life, and he wants to change it. He just doesn't know how. His decent into almost madness, and the dual personality split, is only possible due to the effective use of inner monologue. By your own words, if that was gone, we'd just see a psycho. A man doing random things, for who knows what reason. The fact that we would be wondering what he was doing for the entire movie doesn't make the story better at all. It just adds obfuscation where it isn't necessary.

You cannot apply random philosophical principles to fiction and declare them as absolutes. Which brings me to your next point...dear God...where do I begin. Who has been teaching you, man?



Firstly, you've read monologic wrong there. He isn't referring to one type of logic, he's referring to language that makes use of monologue, hence "monologic". You've got to understand that first and see your error here. One type of logic? That makes no sense.

You've mentioned this chap before, Mikhail Bahktin. And as such, I've done some research. Your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. We aren't talking about conclusivity. We're taking about effective use of monologue and how story is more than just spoken dialogue.

Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing.

Safeanew said:


I can't comment on the yakusoku no neverland but I will look it up.
Why does the inner monologues need to be included?

Safeanew said:

I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.

Safeanew said:

"Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing."

It supports everything, you have not shown that you understand my point.

ascq said:


they generally cut a lot of the dialogue, 10-11 panels of full dialogue between the characters and inner monologue have been cut and replaced with a scene where the characters just stare one at each other and they are like "Yeah we know what to do!", in the manga that scene just had more effect, and it's just an example.

I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.

ArrRti said:
Aaand it inflated to 10 pages, but now I do know that this one is clearly a joke thread.



Good laughs in here.
Plus it's always fun to see how the length of the replies in here get longer and longer. Just to make a point. Whichever point that is.

Safeanew said:


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.

Safeanew said:


Yeah the Chimera Ant Arc invasion would be better if it was completely silent.
All those thoughts distract from what is actually happening.

HungryForQuality said:


Yeah I had to do a double take on that one. That was way out of left field.

Peaceful_Critic said:
You wouldn't need both though, that'll just be repetitive. In that case, it would be about which one you'll prefer.

Peaceful_Critic said:
@CallMeHoot

I'm pissed, you are unable to argue with OP without insulting them. Do me a favor and don't debate anyone, until like OP, you can keep it civil.

"This lack of basic understanding you show throughout this thread reveals you to be far, far less clever than you think you are. "

"Your lack of life experience is obvious at this point."

"I hope the person you end up marrying shares your viewpoint otherwise you're in for a rude awakening. "

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. "

"You've been proven wrong time and again, whether you realise it not. I'm not going to beat a dead horse."

Ego much? You know if you already thought you were better and right, maybe you shouldn't have said anything. As you said, no reason to debate someone who already has their mindset. You seem like you only started this debate to assert your dominance and to make fun of OP, which is unsurprisingly what you did throughout. Assuming that wasn't the intent, you were unable to keep it civil and lost your temper quite easily. In that case, again, you shouldn't have said anything. Try not debating anyone until you are mature.

Peaceful_Critic said:
If what I say means less than nothing to you then don't reply.

You've been dealing with them quite poorly and lost your temper a number of times. I don't agree with the 7 people who praised you for the patience you seem not to have. They aren't, changing someone's mind is a hard thing to do.

Peaceful_Critic said:

An argument then? What do you want me to call it? Age doesn't correlate to maturity. I wasn't offering advice, I just called you immature.

Peaceful_Critic said:
It's not, that was meant as an insult phrased as advice passive aggressively.

Peaceful_Critic said:
Correlation means something depends on another. When you said it correlated that was what you were supposed to mean. Even if there are outliers(which makes the correlation weaker).

safeanew said:
I define the dialogue as the story because the goal of storytelling is to depict how people speak.
If the author only depict how they speak, I call it poetry.

safeanew said:
I have no evidence, the thing you call "Non circumstantial evidence" is general case examples to try to show what I mean.
I am making claims that I want to discuss, I don't need to prove them because that is what the discussion is for, to decide if what I am saying is true for myself or if others can convince me otherwise.

safeanew said:

It is bad to make characters that one can read their mind, because it neutralizes the characters potential to be a character, rather than being an exposition and poetic peice for the audience.
I want unrealistic characters in the other sense, unbelievable characters that do things that are either impossible to do in reality or is seen as unrelatable in reality.

safeanew said:

I claim the opposite, that we learn things in fiction that we can't learn in real life.
I want fiction that dares to show how people talk in real life.

ThereArentNames said:
@callmehoot
What can you honestly do. There are numerous unreasonable people out there. This person is just one of them.

Peaceful_Critic said:
I assumed you meant the most used definition. Was I supposed to know what definition you were using through mind reading? I was talking about statics the entire time. You said it was directly correlated something I see mainly is discussions in statics which is why I assumed you meant that definition as well.

"You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

It's like you didn't read what I said at all.

Peaceful_Critic said:
You said I was wrong due to your assumption I was discussing it in terms of your definition. If you were smarter, you would've stated what definition you meant from the beginning as the context could've suggested anything. SadMadoka probably would've caught us on that, it excessive, most people don't do it, but in this case, it would've been useful. It's alright. It's a waste of time. I'll leave it here.

Peaceful_Critic said:
That wasn't meant as an insult, more so to say you made the same mistake. As I admitted most people do the same thing. How many times do you stop and consider the definition the other person used?

That's the only definition I hear people use, I assumed based on experience. The only time I hear the word correlate, especially direct correlation is when people talk about statics within a school environment.

HungryForQuality said:
A shame that OP is facing so much vitriol despite being civil throughout and staying on topic.

If your differences are irreconcilable, then stop responding to OP. If they aren't, then debate civilly.

No point in coming on a thread to insult OP and assert your dominance. People on this forum don't need to hear that, I'm sure the people you interact with in real life know how smart you are.