|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 7, 2021 12:54:07 GMT
Remember that famous scene in the Star Wars (both of versions) when Han Solo shot first, while it didn't shot first in the remake? G. Lucas in one of interviews said that Greedo fired first. Fans got angry (who didn't?).
Quite similar stories happened to Sherlock Holmes, when A. Conan-Doyle decided to bury his outstanding character, while after, because of many fans pleases, he left him alone well. (Alike things occurred even during pre-classical Ancient Greek epoch.)
From one side a writer has rights over any character he's made, on the other hand, some people do like those personages that they will never let the writer screw the characters up, and will be demanding to continue using of those heroes.
Honestly, I'm stuck. Some are supposed to get real. It's fantastic. And this is not the end: some half-animated movie rise another tickling themes about the characters' personal existence: like the characters were real. For instance, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "The Parallel World" (1992) both present situations where the characters start living their own, person, and independent from their creators life.
So, the question is: how to solve it? Is a fiction character an independent deity /a substance, or a concept/ that might live complely his own life? And finally what does it mean – to be a character?
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Feb 22, 2021 19:13:29 GMT
Remember that famous scene in the Star Wars (both of versions) when Han Solo shot first, while it didn't shot first in the remake? G. Lucas in one of interviews said that Greedo fired first. Fans got angry (who didn't?). Quite similar stories happened to Sherlock Holmes, when A. Conan-Doyle decided to bury his outstanding character, while after, because of many fans pleases, he left him alone well. (Alike things occurred even during pre-classical Ancient Greek epoch.) From one side a writer has rights over any character he's made, on the other hand, some people do like those personages that they will never let the writer screw the characters up, and will be demanding to continue using of those heroes. Honestly, I'm stuck. Some are supposed to get real. It's fantastic. And this is not the end: some half-animated movie rise another tickling themes about the characters' personal existence: like the characters were real. For instance, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "The Parallel World" (1992) both present situations where the characters start living their own, person, and independent from their creators life. So, the question is: how to solve it? Is a fiction character an independent deity /a substance, or a concept/ that might live complely his own life? And finally what does it mean – to be a character? You brought up a very fascinating subject.... To your references to Lukas and Doyle, I like to add another similar case: The author of "The Adventures of Pinocchio", namely Collodi, wrote it weekly for a newspaper. He concluded the story with the death of Pinocchio, which angered many readers. So, he provided different ending: the wooden character deservingly became a real boy. // There is a different category of characters, who are called "stock characters", such as existed in the Italian "Commedia dell'Arte" [Improvisation theater] and the Japanese Kobuki theater: Certain actors keep on impersonating special but fictitious people such as Harlequin (the smart servant of a gentleman who, however, takes the adversities of his own life in stride)….Here we have real persons who, on the stage assume a different identity; they actually speak, compose poems, sing or play musical instruments according to the character they invent. This brings us to a new category: THE PROPHETS, who are generally conceived as mouthpieces of gods. Actually their minds play the role of the gods they either invented or got from their society; they are deep improvising actors. The human mind or psyche generates persons within itself. And sometimes in some people, something happens: a person becomes two or three persons. Shall we call this schizophrenia, a psychic abnormality? |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Feb 23, 2021 15:03:14 GMT
To add, another category: Dreams that is, dream-persons. Some are like the persons we know in "real" life; others are entirely subconscious creations. This is a field Freud explored in the attempt to find the cause(s) of certain dreams, but we are more interested in the process of dreamwork itself since its nature is shared by artistic activities, by the prophetic imagination, and so forth. Any new thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 23, 2021 19:00:14 GMT
Remember that famous scene in the Star Wars (both of versions) when Han Solo shot first, while it didn't shot first in the remake? G. Lucas in one of interviews said that Greedo fired first. Fans got angry (who didn't?). Quite similar stories happened to Sherlock Holmes, when A. Conan-Doyle decided to bury his outstanding character, while after, because of many fans pleases, he left him alone well. (Alike things occurred even during pre-classical Ancient Greek epoch.) From one side a writer has rights over any character he's made, on the other hand, some people do like those personages that they will never let the writer screw the characters up, and will be demanding to continue using of those heroes. Honestly, I'm stuck. Some are supposed to get real. It's fantastic. And this is not the end: some half-animated movie rise another tickling themes about the characters' personal existence: like the characters were real. For instance, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "The Parallel World" (1992) both present situations where the characters start living their own, person, and independent from their creators life. So, the question is: how to solve it? Is a fiction character an independent deity /a substance, or a concept/ that might live complely his own life? And finally what does it mean – to be a character? You brought up a very fascinating subject.... To your references to Lukas and Doyle, I like to add another similar case: The author of "The Adventures of Pinocchio", namely Collodi, wrote it weekly for a newspaper. He concluded the story with the death of Pinocchio, which angered many readers. So, he provided different ending: the wooden character deservingly became a real boy. // There is a different category of characters, who are called "stock characters", such as existed in the Italian "Commedia dell'Arte" [Improvisation theater] and the Japanese Kobuki theater: Certain actors keep on impersonating special but fictitious people such as Harlequin (the smart servant of a gentleman who, however, takes the adversities of his own life in stride)….Here we have real persons who, on the stage assume a different identity; they actually speak, compose poems, sing or play musical instruments according to the character they invent. This brings us to a new category: THE PROPHETS, who are generally conceived as mouthpieces of gods. Actually their minds play the role of the gods they either invented or got from their society; they are deep improvising actors. The human mind or psyche generates persons within itself. And sometimes in some people, something happens: a person becomes two or three persons. Shall we call this schizophrenia, a psychic abnormality? Thanks. I do apologize that I don't answer this time. (Just need much more time to think about it all.) Also, I'd like to liquidate my ignorance about as the Japanese Kobuki theater, so the Italian "Commedia dell'Arte". An add of those psychic illness is really sufficient, and that was the first thought it came to my mind. As Plato said that those who had left the cave for pursuing the light were being ostracized because of talking some gibberish (from the point of the cavemen). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 25, 2021 19:57:47 GMT
To add, another category: Dreams that is, dream-persons. Some are like the persons we know in "real" life; others are entirely subconscious creations. This is a field Freud explored in the attempt to find the cause(s) of certain dreams, but we are more interested in the process of dreamwork itself since its nature is shared by artistic activities, by the prophetic imagination, and so forth. Any new thoughts? A one of the Freud's pupil Melanie Klein studied exactly this question. She wrote about children's attitudes or dispositions of such visions – which are quite close to the question I've raised. Honestly, I don't get along with psychoanalysis; I consider it to be just a fake. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2021 18:55:54 GMT
When you are reading a story about King Arthur, there is a realm where King Arthur is being told that people are reading stories about him. It cannot be proven that we are not just a vivid dream King Arthur had one night. The characters in your novel could be more real than you are, especially if they traverse many minds and eons, but you just think you exist only here and now. Yeah, the example of King Arthur is splendid. One some other forums people persuaded me that there were many interesting personages which knew or guessed about the existence of the other people /e.g. of their readers/, or even dared to change their own anime existence transcending to our present reality. I guess one of such example /not the best one/ is in the Mermaid tale. Animals in many children fairy tales are seemed to challenge their existence as human ones. What I do not wish is that the characters of my novels will become more real than me, than myself. Oh, no. Letting a character a major free will may be dangerous... (Oh.. it sounds like I has a schizophrenia, and I'm being surrounded by some alive anime heroes.) you think you wrote the novel? ha! you just "channeled" their narrative from an extra-dimensional plane of existence your life is the novel
in some other persons world...
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 5, 2021 19:11:11 GMT
Yeah, the example of King Arthur is splendid. One some other forums people persuaded me that there were many interesting personages which knew or guessed about the existence of the other people /e.g. of their readers/, or even dared to change their own anime existence transcending to our present reality. I guess one of such example /not the best one/ is in the Mermaid tale. Animals in many children fairy tales are seemed to challenge their existence as human ones. What I do not wish is that the characters of my novels will become more real than me, than myself. Oh, no. Letting a character a major free will may be dangerous... (Oh.. it sounds like I has a schizophrenia, and I'm being surrounded by some alive anime heroes.) you think you wrote the novel? ha! you just "channeled" their narrative from an extra-dimensional plane of existence your life is the novel
in some other persons world...
Hi, Jonathan! Nice to see you again here! Can I join to the forum on your site? If it's "yes", then I'm going to do it a little later, because of my Internet traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2021 19:48:35 GMT
you think you wrote the novel? ha! you just "channeled" their narrative from an extra-dimensional plane of existence your life is the novel
in some other persons world...
Hi, Jonathan! Nice to see you again here! Can I join to the forum on your site? If it's "yes", then I'm going to do it a little later, because of my Internet traffic. of course ... its not busy at all... a couple of topics would be nice especially ask questions on my algorithms ... cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Mar 6, 2021 1:42:42 GMT
A character is a set of traits derived from the social values. Some of the traits are characteristic or defining to all society, and some are idiosyncratic. while the characteristic features are used to create a stereotype character ( a normal character ),the idiosyncratic features are used to distinguish and highlight individual differences among society members .
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 6, 2021 8:42:32 GMT
A character is a set of traits derived from the social values. Some of the traits are characteristic or defining to all society, and some are idiosyncratic. while the characteristic features are used to create a stereotype character ( a normal character ),the idiosyncratic features are used to distinguish and highlight individual differences among society members . So, as far as I thought about your words, I understood them as the product of culture was to define, or to divide, and to separate, to demarkate, and so one members of society from another ones? It's like all what we do or think is about the society, or some of its members, right? |
|
