But, I disagree with the idea that an author cares about characters because they believe they're real, and doesn't care about them because they don't.
I believe that characters belong to everyone because they're real - because they're not just an extension of the author - not because I don't. Interesting characters take on a life of their own, and I don't think the author should get to limit that life (except in the legal sense!). I mean... I think that subcreation in the Tolkien-y sense, is a function of trusting in the solidity of the fictional world. Or rather, it's eternally bubbling, shifting, changing vital force
( ... )
IMW, once a character has been committed to paper and "sent out" into the world (published, or diseminated in whichever way the kids are doing it these days), they exist in the realm of stories - which, in turn, exists in the minds of readers.
In the storyworld, these characters and the stories that house them interact with all the other stories and ideas out there in the world of fiction. Unless it's the first book you've ever read,you never read a story in total isolation.
Exactly, very well put. Fiction is created as a reaction to reality. The fiction you read becomes part of your world - part of your reality. Fiction reacts to reality again. Repeat ad infinitum.
Repeat ad infinitum...or until your brain explodes, whichever comes first!
This has been such an interesting debate. Have been trying to rewrite my response as a blog post, trying to work out what's really at stake here... but, I'm realizing that because we're talking about the nature of reality and how that relates to fiction... I believe I need a nice lie down and a cup of tea.
I agree, an author sets his creation free into the fantasy hive mind so to speak. If a story is really good, if it truly moves me, I will inevitably role it around in my head. I'll alter it, I'll play with it. When I discovered fanfic it seemed so natural to me because it was I had done with every story I ever consumated.
The story spawned a seed within my brain and more story grew from it.
I get the impuls to want to savekeep your creations from other people, but I don't think that's something you can't really do when you go public with them. Might be different for a novelist, but when I do a play and talk to people afterwards, or just hear them laugh from the audience I already feel that interaction and how it in this moment changes what we do on stage. I don't think it's something you can turn off.
I think the metaphors of seeds and hives are great - because, there is something about stories that is generative, living somehow. These are not dead words on a page. There are worlds and people in stories that defy limits.
It's about having a fundamentally different conception of fiction and the author's role and rights in fiction. YES. It's not that I think he's wrong (and I do). The problem is that he thinks he knows where I'm coming from. And he doesn't. But he proceeds to be condescending and patronizing nonetheless (less so in this final post, admittedly).
I'm here via grrm's blog - to use your analogy, I'm about a week late to the party but I just wanted to thank you for bringing up natural law. I had a notion, some time ago, to construct this really elaborate analogy with Locke and Rousseau and Burke and Paine and how the intellectual history of political science actually has ramifications for the Neverending Debate which fanfic appear to be embroiled in. But I gave up because it was too much work. Your post was immensely helpful to me and though I expect this is tl;dr, and you really couldn't be bothered how my odd thought processes work, thank you nonetheless!
Comments 6
Interesting! I just wrote a long post in reply to this, as I didnt want to spam up your comments thread. Here:
http://joe-sweden.livejournal.com/
But, I disagree with the idea that an author cares about characters because they believe they're real, and doesn't care about them because they don't.
I believe that characters belong to everyone because they're real - because they're not just an extension of the author - not because I don't. Interesting characters take on a life of their own, and I don't think the author should get to limit that life (except in the legal sense!). I mean... I think that subcreation in the Tolkien-y sense, is a function of trusting in the solidity of the fictional world. Or rather, it's eternally bubbling, shifting, changing vital force ( ... )
Reply
In the storyworld, these characters and the stories that house them interact with all the other stories and ideas out there in the world of fiction. Unless it's the first book you've ever read,you never read a story in total isolation.
Exactly, very well put. Fiction is created as a reaction to reality. The fiction you read becomes part of your world - part of your reality. Fiction reacts to reality again. Repeat ad infinitum.
Reply
This has been such an interesting debate. Have been trying to rewrite my response as a blog post, trying to work out what's really at stake here... but, I'm realizing that because we're talking about the nature of reality and how that relates to fiction... I believe I need a nice lie down and a cup of tea.
Reply
The story spawned a seed within my brain and more story grew from it.
I get the impuls to want to savekeep your creations from other people, but I don't think that's something you can't really do when you go public with them. Might be different for a novelist, but when I do a play and talk to people afterwards, or just hear them laugh from the audience I already feel that interaction and how it in this moment changes what we do on stage. I don't think it's something you can turn off.
Reply
Reply
YES. It's not that I think he's wrong (and I do). The problem is that he thinks he knows where I'm coming from. And he doesn't. But he proceeds to be condescending and patronizing nonetheless (less so in this final post, admittedly).
I'm here via grrm's blog - to use your analogy, I'm about a week late to the party but I just wanted to thank you for bringing up natural law. I had a notion, some time ago, to construct this really elaborate analogy with Locke and Rousseau and Burke and Paine and how the intellectual history of political science actually has ramifications for the Neverending Debate which fanfic appear to be embroiled in. But I gave up because it was too much work. Your post was immensely helpful to me and though I expect this is tl;dr, and you really couldn't be bothered how my odd thought processes work, thank you nonetheless!
Reply
Leave a comment