That would be like saying that narrative in film is meant to be objective. And if anything, films like Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd., and Fight Club demonstrate that this cannot be the case—nor should we wish it to be so.

I really love how many thought balloons there are in the “Brand New Day” Spider-Man comics. A thought is for the character himself, and in this case, thoughts are really the only way we ever get to know Spider-Man. What he says out loud never matches up to his inner self — it’s all brag and bluster and quip. In his thoughts, though, we see his vulnerabilities.

The writing is fine, you just don’t like it.

As far as the first-person captions, I’ve personally been fine with such a narrative conceit because I like the idea of the protagonist or whoever speaking directly to me. I like the idea that Philip Marlowe or Jessica Jones are taking the time to regale me with some past experience. It removes me from the immediacy of the action unfolding before me but envelops me deeper into the person of the character. I think it could be a good trade-off. Granted it work better with some stories than others…

Oh, please. That’s some of the worst writing ever.

I’m a big fan of the thought balloon (when used properly) so I love to see it making a comeback.

Grant also traces the growth of that device so hateful to me: the narrative caption. Grant seems to accept the conceit of the narrative caption, though he does note its limitations (”Thought balloons, whatever their flaws, engender a sense of immediacy. Narrative captions generate a sense of past action, of a story being told after the fact rather than occurring before our eyes.”). For my taste, I could never get past the conceit of first-person narrative– to whom, exactly, the fuck, are you speaking? I’m not advocating the abandonment of first-person narrative in fiction– you can pry my Raymond Chandler from my clammy, grasping hands. But with Chandler you get the sense of the memoir, with only the strength of the prose bringing immediacy to the action, avoiding the “sense of past action, of a story being told after the fact “.
Narrative captioning in practice abuses much as Grant describes some bad thought-ballooning: “…the character is not addressing himself, but is using his thoughts to directly address the reader - whose existence he does not acknowledge. Cannot, in fact; any character in work of fiction who acknowledges the audience also automatically acknowledges his own existence only as a construct, a player in a work of fiction with no reality outside that work. ” I’ve never been comfortable with this conceit, and have never understood how others so readily embrace it.
Thought balloons are an excellent way to seemlessly incorporate a character’s internal thoughts into the story without compromising another aspect of the narrative. And they allow for third-person captioning to add an additional level to the dialogue, either as omniscient info-dumper or personality-infused editorial aside.

oo! oo! and– do inexperienced comics readers really “get” narrative captioning? Thought balloons are still regularly used in print and television advertising, and understood by the general populace (I’ll warrant).

Grant says: “The proper use of the thought balloon is to reveal a character’s internal life, as opposed to the possibly quite different face they present to their world, and to other characters. Any use is possible, and only one use – the old use - is flagrantly undesirable.”

He seems to be supporting well-used thought balloons.

Book authors tend to use it.

Equating comic story telling with cinema is probably the strong motivator to seeing these balloons as uncool, but film shooting and mise en scene offer greater potential to story telling than comics, so let’s get real here and stop thinking that comics are European movies on paper.