Thread by @gerryconway

On a superhero comics-related note, free of political controversy, I’ve been thinking about the modern trope of first person captions replacing thought balloons and how that may undermine the narrative immediacy of story. Bear with me.

Sometime in the last couple of decades, comic book writers (and editors?j seem to have made a collective aesthetic decision to abandon thought balloons in favor of first person captions. At first glance these seem to be equal in narrative effect...but they aren’t.

A thought balloon takes place *within* the narrative action— because of its visual similarity to a speech balloon, the reader unconsciously associates the thought with the visual action, interpreting thought and action as happening simultaneously.

A first person caption, however, takes place *outside* the narrative action— its visual association is with other time-and-place setting captions, as well as explanatory editorial intrusion captions. The reader experiences such captions as commentary.

Many writers use first person captions for exposition, emotional revelation, and ironic foreshadowing. But inherent in all of these uses is the implication that regardless of verb tense, the first person caption is *outside* the action being portrayed.

Unlike a thought balloon, which represents an internal monologue, the first person caption implies an external monologue— the character is speaking *to* the reader, not to themselves. “My name is Barry Allen” is something you don’t think, it’s something you say.

And that brings us to the narrative problem this new trope creates. Inherent in any first person narrative (“Sunset Boulevard” being the exception that proves the rule) is the implication we’re hearing about events that have *already occurred.*

In most novels or short stories, where the protagonist is typically not expected to be facing death at any moment, first person narration presents no problem for reader emotional investment. But thrillers and suspense novels are a different story.

Obviously there are exceptions, and some writers use first person to great effect (often by qualifying the narration in some way, implying it may not be complete, or that it’s written contemporaneously, a diary, etc.), but the majority of thrillers are third person narratives.

In superhero comics, however, where the conceit is that heroes are embroiled in life-and-death conflict, a narrative device like first person captions which informs the reader subconsciously that the hero has survived to tell their story seems...unwise.

This may be why I personally find many current superhero stories somewhat distant and, frankly, boring. We all know the heroes will survive to fight another day, but first person narration makes that implicit story trope *explicit.* It reduces the stakes by stating the outcome.

I understand the aesthetic appeal of first person captions versus thought balloons. I understand the usefulness of a narrative tool that eases exposition and allows for ironic foreshadowing. But those benefits come at a cost I doubt most writers (and editors) even considered.

First person narration undercuts narrative jeopardy. Maybe writers should consider bringing back the thought balloon. Or find another way to impart exposition and reveal a character’s internal emotional state or inner monologue.

It’s a thought.