Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,189
edits
Fiction/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) m (Looney Toons moved page Main/Fiction/In General/Headscratchers to Fiction/Headscratchers: Moved to fiction namespace) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
== Adventures ==
* Main* Getting shot at, seeing people die, having near-death experiences, facing the possibility of mass destruction. Why on earth are these things called ''adventures''?
Line 45:
* When the [[Status Quo Is God]] , it's bad enough that the characters will never experience any meaningful changes unless [[Real Life Writes the Plot]] in the form of departed cast members or impending cancellation, but on a more personal note, it's a bit disconcerting to have a character in an ongoing [[Long Runner]] be old enough to be one's peer then by remaining the same age to go to be young enough to be a younger sibling then a niece or nephew of an older sibling then finally, one's own child's peer group. Whatever happened to generational character sets? If they need for each new group to be a [[Generation Xerox]], so be it. It's less off-putting that way.
* Why read fiction anyways? I just don't see the point in reading about people who don't exist doing something that never happened.
** Because we feel like it.
*** Rather, some people read fiction as to escape the borders of reality. Fantasy exists because some guy decided to write about things that would never happen in real life, and some of us thought that this concept was interesting. Fiction is the way it is because we like to read about stories that never happened, and might not ever happen in reality.
** If you honestly feel that way, this is not the website for you. Go read [[The Other Wiki]].
** Because, if you want to get Freudian, it's a way of understanding ourselves, and others and humanity in general. Freud compared it to children playing with toy towns and stuff. We're enacting alternate choices, lifestyles and events through imaginary cyphers. And that's just one interpretation, though I'm sure there are many.
Line 70:
**** Fictional characters don't exist within the confines of the story. They don't exist at all. A fictional story is just a really long string of words describing people that never existed and things that never happened. It can describe anything the writer wants it to, and it doesn't have to describe every single detail. If the story describes them knowing something that the writer hasn't though of, then there really isn't any contradiction. Yes, knowing information that doesn't exist is impossible, but fictional characters don't know anything. They don't even exist. That's what the word fictional means.
**** I'm fairly certain this is a what if sort of thing, what with the whole imagine word being used. Why are you here if all you're going to do is reduce everything to "it's fiction so it's not real" Every question and nitpick can be answered with that. So I object to that piece of your argument. However, since the character is the product of the author and created entirely by the author and has absolutely no life of their own besides what the author has given them, everything they are comes from the author and that goes all the way to the way the world works. And where do your actual memories come from anyway? What evidence do you have that they're real? The whole thing is a non-issue. Everything in a work of fiction exists within that work of fiction because the writer says so. Regardless of any inconsistencies or plot holes. End of Line.
**** I'm reminded of one of the classical arguments for the existance of God:<br />"Imagine a perfect deity. Non-existance can hardly be a property of a perfect deity. Therefore, God exists."<br />There are numerous flaws with this argument, many of which start with, "Imagine a perfect island..." The main problem with the argument for god and the question that started this discussion is a shifted perspective. All fictional characters are aware of things that only exist in the context of the story, namely, their own history. Hermoine is aware of the events of her fifth birthday (which never really happened), and this doesn't seem to be causing anyone any existential confusion. The theory of magic is no more or less non-existant than every other thing Hermoine knows that only exists within the context of the story. Harry has a lightning-shaped scar, which doesn't really exist, but he knows about it!<br />This does get tricky when characters should be acting on knowledge that they don't have because the author hasn't made it up yet. This is a real (er...) problem in RPGs, where the characters have existed in a world full of details that some players may know, but others may not. If it's a DM-created world, things can get out of hand really fast. As an example of what I'm talking about, I was in the mood to play a Paladin in one campaign, and there was one organized religion around, but the DM forgot to include in his summation of the setting he gave us that the church had some starkly evil properties (namely, hunting down and killing magic-users). As a result, the character I was trying to play couldn't logicly exist in the setting, and my behavior was constrained by facts I didn't know. Ugh. This is one reason why many campaign worlds aren't all that original. We all know what a [[Standard Fantasy Setting|medieval-fantasy-pastiche setting]] looks like, so we all come in with a common base, and there are fewer surprises hiding in the bushes ready to trip us. Ditto the [[Standard Sci
** Having given this some thought, I believe I've come up with a construct. Fictional characters are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Real people live in a universe with finite entropy, where information is constantly changing form. The information in your life will persist for a length of time, but ultimately it will degrade until the content is no longer recognizable. Fictional characters have near-zero entropy; the information within their life is fixed and unchanging. Thus, a character cannot possess or display information until energy is added to the system (by the author and violating the First Law of Thermodynamics) and they ''actually do''. Moreover, if information that is added that contradicts previous information, ''both are ultimately valid'' within the system due to the complete lack of entropy, violating the third law. This is a complicated way of explaining, basically, of saying that fictional characters are not subject to the same physics as you or I.
** If the character needs to impart information that doesn't exist in the confines of the story, then the author will create the information and it will become known. All unkown information about the universe exists in the author's imagination potentially, to be created and written down as needed.
** I've always thought of fictional characters minds and memories to be fluid, adapting sort of things. I'm reminded of the scene in ''[[Last Action Hero]]'' where the young boy tries to prove to Arnie that he's not real by showing him a terminator poster in a video store, but instead of Arnie its Sy Stallone. In the confines of the series of [[Show Within a Show|movies]] that Arnies character is in, they probably never mentioned who played the terminator until the young boy called attention to the fact and Stallones performance was instantly created, altering the memories and past of the world around it, as it happens. So, basically, whenever a character mentions a piece of information in a story that hasn't revealed said information before, it's like a mini-retcon. [[Star Wars|Luke had never bullseyed wamp rats until he mentioned it in the death star briefing]], [[Back to The Future|Marty had never heard of Johnny B Good before he got on stage]] and [[Harry Potter|Hermione doesn't really know the theory of magic, at least not until she explains it.]] She may be under the impression that she knows it, but it's not actually in her mind until the plot calls for it to be.
** I've always thought that fictional characters DO exist, simply in another place and in another time. For instance, suppose someone tells you a story. You would be inclined be believe that it is true, because of the vividness and sense of realism. But because of some detail framing problem, the story did not happen. For example, someone said something but it was really someone else. Now, imagine a story-teller, his pen weaving the words of his own little tale. And on the other side of reality, the same thing happens, but not to any work of the writer. It's all a big coincidence (for lack of a better term). And what happens when they change details that they don't like? They TUNE, like finding the right station on the radio.
*** My beliefs are similar. Well, moreso my hopes than my beliefs, since I refuse to believe without any proof. I think that every world of fiction exists, and we just can't access it. Every different version (remakes, alternate takes, etc.) is a similar but different world. Books, shows, movie, games, etcetera are simply windows into other worlds. Inspiration has to come from somewhere, after all...
** This very issue is one of the core ideological debates in the world(s) of ''[[Myst]]''. Some practitioners of “The Art� believe that they're creating worlds from scratch when they write, while others believe they're merely referencing existing worlds from among infinite possibilities, and call the tomes they write “Linking Books� with this in mind. The cardinal bone of contention is where all of these little details come from (I.E.: One writes about a blank white field of snow, steps through the link, and discovers flowers under the snow.) This is especially hilarious given the nature of the actual games, which required the brothers to painstakingly model, draw and animate every single detail by hand.
Line 85:
*** Whilst there's many cases where the author just didn't do the work properly (or they were trying to be ''too'' clever and subtle), in fairness there's plenty of cases where the fans just see what they wanted to see and actually did just miss the point entirely. People listen to a cool tune and neglect the lyrics or they focus on a really dreamy actor's good looks and completely overlook the fact that the character this actor is playing is a complete prick. That's gotta be frustrating.
*** I personally think the problem doesn't so much stem from people interpreting characters in their own way, but when people let their interpretation of a character blind them to what that character really is. There seems to be a tendency for a lot of characters who get [[Misaimed Fandom|'Misaimed' Fandoms]] or [[Draco in Leather Pants]] followers who seem to be blinded to the simple fact that their favourite characters are the ''bad guys'' - ergo, they're villains. Ergo, they're gonna do not-very-nice things. They're villains, it's what they do. As such, when they do bad things - which, being the villains, you'd expect them to do - the fans who've willingly blinded themselves feel betrayed and start whining about how the author's forcing the character to act out of character, when they've haven't.
*** There's no problem with interpreting a character however you want as long as you don't try to force your vision on the author or on the rest of the fandom. If you want to write a fanfic about how your [[Mary Sue]] redeems your favorite [[Draco in Leather Pants]] character, by all means go ahead (and if it's well-written and actually believable, more power to you). The problem comes when people start publicly ranting that everyone, including the author, should conform to your vision of the character. In the same vein, it's wrong for everyone to expect you to conform to their view of the character, even if it's [[Word of God|canon]]. The biggest problems I have are in roleplay sessions when I'm trying to get the people I'm playing with to accept my attempts to turn the [[Alpha Bitch]] nicer or the [[Draco in Leather Pants]] to a full-fledged hero, that's when conflict typically arises. I remember wanting to have Azula do a [[Heel Face Turn]] in an RP I'm participating in, but my partner and I can't agree on it. We were thinking of settling it by betting on the Super Bowl, but both our teams got eliminated.
*** I also have an interest in ropeplaying, and can attest to what the above troper said. However, I have less problems in sessions, as usually which ever friend I'm roleplaying with accepts my interpretion (although normally I give them the "you can role play all the characters yourself if you're going to keep pushing that I Flanderise everyone" threat when they're becoming unreasonable because they love or hate a character too much) or my friends suffer from the Misaimed Fandom or the Draco In Leather Pants as well, so may put suggestions here and there for possibilities I can explore (which honestly I love the challenge, and as long as I don't feel I'm turning them into a Sue or making them too OOC, in my opinion, I can put up with it). Truth is, the world isn't Black and White, even if you try to protray it in fiction. People will always be reading between the lines, even when there's nothing there to read! There is always some aspect that a person can find as redeemable, and this is where Mileages do vary so it isn't anything to worry about. It's most likely you just find yourself wanting to divulge into something that the author had never put in there (after all, they're characters. There's only so much an author can give you of their persona) which could logically fit or be present if said character were real. Just as long as you don't force your views onto everyone else, there's no problem in having a different opinion.
** The problem with [[Draco in Leather Pants]] is in the trope name: Draco doesn't wear leather pants. The trope isn't about simply liking the villain; it's about ascribing characteristics to the villain ''that do not exist'' for the purposes of ''justifying'' your like of the villain. Take [[Avatar: The Last Airbender|Azula]]; I like Azula, as a character. But if I start saying that she's actually the hero of the story, that she's a good person and so forth, and start trying to justify this by cutting and pasting her lines of dialog to support this theory, ''then'' I have ventured into [[Draco in Leather Pants]] territory.
Line 97:
*** On the subject of the whole Bruce Lee thing, he was just really good as an individual. The man was [[Badass]]. However, Eastern Martial Arts are not "just better". [[wikipedia:Sambo (martial art)|Sambo]], which originates from Russia, was pretty awesome, and [[wikipedia:Kampfringen|Kampfringen]], from the Holy Roman Empire was also awesome. The most awesome Western Martial Art would be [[wikipedia:Krav Maga|Krav Maga]], which originated in Czechoslavakia and was developed in Israel. While it pretty much emphasizes that you fight dirty, it is ''very'' effective, to the point where [[Splinter Cell|Sam Fisher]] uses it.
*** Western martial arts include sambo, savate, krav maga, boxing, catch-wrestling, greco-roman wrestling, Brazilian Jiujitsu (which is admittedly derived from Judo), pankration etc. That's a pretty good score when compared to ''demonstrably effective'' eastern martial arts.
*** It's worth pointing out at this point that many of the Eastern Martial Arts-style moves you see in the movies would in fact be hideously impractical for a relatively realistic fight, not least because many of them aren't actually as damaging as the movies make them appear.
** Bit of [[Wild Mass Guessing]] on my part but it's at least partly a sense of continuity, at least with the armed styles. Weapon design and tactics changed quite rapidly in Europe so the older styles fell by the way. Asia or Japan and China anyway had long periods of stability where there weren't massive changes in weapons so there was greater time for formalised systems of teaching to develop and maintain those traditions, which in turn spilled over into how the unarmed styles were taught. Basically the eastern styles feel like they're part of an [[Ancient Tradition]]. It's all PR rather than a technical analysis of the merits of one style compared to another.
** As was mentioned earlier, there is the aesthetics of eastern martial arts. A lot of them simply look cleaner and better than western ones. But there is also a difference in focus, eastern martial arts tend to focus more on mental discipline with movement while western martial arts are more about beating the crap out of your opponent as quickly as possible.
Line 110:
* Why is the heart depicted in drawings look so different than an actual human heart?
** Because stylized is cute, and realistic isn't. Have you ever actually seen a real heart? It's a biomechanical pump, and looks like one. It's not pretty, or cute, and it's not meant to be.
*** There was a taboo against human disection in western culture for a long time, so animals were the best we had to go on. Look up a [https://web.archive.org/web/20100603132601/http://biology.ucf.edu/~logiudice/zoo3713/Files/image720.gif turtle's heart]. That looks more like the heart-shape than a human heart.
*** That is ''so cool!''
Line 128:
* Know this was mentioned in [[Disney Animated Canon]] JBM, but I had to say it. Why is it that many times villains are more interesting than heroes? I mean, the Joker came across as a [[Complete Monster]] in [[The Dark Knight]], yet he was still a very interesting character, if not the best character in the movie. I mean, I see lists of the greatest villains of all time a lot more frequently than I see greatest heroes and for some reason I like it. But how are we supposed to "like" a villain if they're evil?
** Some people would give you a long speech about how this demonstrates the moral degeneracy of the audience and the inability of decadent modern society to understand the banality of evil. The real truth is that, many times, the hero is a badly written lump of blandness while the villain is actually entertaining.
** You don't like evil characters as people, but you like them because they entertain you. As you said, the Joker was a total bastard, but he's still a favorite character, because he's entertaining to watch.
** If you think about it, in most stories there are far more villains than heroes. Therefore you can assume that there's at least one villain who's more interesting than the hero. I don't know where I'd be going with this if I'm referring to a story with only one villain though.
Line 134:
** Because villains can cheat. Here's what I mean. When a character does something clever, gets over on their opponent and does so stylishly, this creates viewer/reader interest. That's much, ''much'' easier to do with a villain than the hero, because we ''see'' the hero. We ''know'' what the hero has planned and what the hero can do. Case in point: [[The Dark Knight]]. There's ''no way'' the Joker could have snuck that much explosives into a hospital (a building that is operating 24/7). Especially explosives in the form of gasoline (his preferred bomb). But we can ignore that because he's the villain; we don't know what his resources are. The writer can play fast-and-loose with what he does. He cannot do so with the hero because the hero has too much screen time. Also, if the hero starts pulling things out of their ass, the audience is more likely to call them on it. In short, it's easier to make a villain look cleverer, because the villain can cheat.
* Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that says each and every pipe organ that appears in a work of fiction ''has'' to play Bach's Toccata and Fugue? Thank God for the climax of ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time|The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time]]''. And maybe the Exorcist tanks that the [[Warhammer
** No unwritten rule, just the usual [[Small Reference Pools]]!
** The makers of the fiction are aware of how much that melody (particularly its famous opening bars) has haunted popular consciousness ever since first being employed to provide a grim atmosphere in silent movies. They figure that you have to go with what works, and the Toccata really [[Incredibly Lame Pun|strikes the right chord]]. You'll notice, though, that it is neither played on organ nor for any sort of dark atmosphere in [[Fantasia]].
Line 147:
* On the opposite note, why do people ''always'' try to find the "message" in a story, particularly a [[Unfortunate Implications|negative one]], even when it's clear that it's not what the author is trying to say. Like looking at [[Firefly|Rance Burgess]], and taking it to mean [[Joss Whedon]] is saying "Every father that wants custody is a misogynist monster," rather than it simply meaning, "This dude is a douchebag." ''Not everything is an [[Author Tract]], people''. Sometimes, when there's a character portrayed negatively, he's ''not'' a stand in for every member of his demographic.
** Depends on how frequently such a depiction / message occurs in the author's work, I guess. Can't speak fully for the example above (although from what I ''have'' seen, Joss Whedon does at times display a tendency to depict male parental figures in a less-positive light than female parental figures), but one example of such a character by itself is indeed just an example of an individual character being a complete asshat, and shouldn't necessarily be read into too closely. However, if every time or even most times the author wrote a character who was a father they tended to make them asshats of a similar nature, then one might be forgiven for interpreting this to mean that the author has a particular viewpoint about fathers that they want to express. Not everything is an [[Author Tract]], but if an author is consistently presenting a particular idea than it's not unreasonable to suggest that it's an idea the author believes.
* Why do people (like my dad) cry more in movies than they do in [[Real Life]]?
** I believe that sometimes it is easier to identify with the characters and the situation in movies as compared to real life. After all, people only ever see things from their point of view, unless it affects us directly, we never know what's going on with other people and what they were thinking at the time. Mostly, you have to take months to years to get to know people well enough that something tragic to them affect you. Whereas in a movie, you're there to lose yourself in that world for your own pleasure. Because it goes on only for about two hours, the creators have to find a quick way for you to identify and relate with the characters quickly so that you can share their emotions. Also, let's not forget setting the mood, like lighting, camera effects and BGM. These are things that help get the appropriate reaction from the audience - unfortunately stuff like that does not exist in real life to help give us an indication of what we should be feeling.
** I think it's also sometimes easier to get emotional about a story than it is in real life because it's not really real and therefore you don't actually have to feel it as deeply. When you cry over a character's death, it's cathartic because it's a way for you to let out your emotions without having to face the real tragedy of everyday life, which can often be a painful experience.
Line 162:
** Beats me, mate. I guess they just want children to think piracy is really, really bad and they shouldn't do it?
** I'm not sure what you're getting at here; Disney's piratiest series of recent years is ''[[Pirates Of The Carribean]]'', the stars of which are heroic pirates. Even the villainous pirates tend to only be doing bad things due to some kind of curse rather than being inherently evil.
** To be fair, a lot of old-time pirates ''were'' quite horrible people. They weren't all lovably eccentric and charmingly manipulative scamps like Captain Jack Sparrow; there was a ''lot'' of raping, murdering and pillaging going on.
* Has anyone else noticed the decline in originality in a lot of fiction? Especially in fantasy and sci-fi, whose whole purpose is to be imaginative.
** I call bullshit on this one. Fiction has always had the same proportion of originality to the unoriginality. It's just that the books from the sixties and so on that sucked aren't still in print.
Line 169:
* Why is it that, in some stories, when the hero had been rescued and brought into someone's shelter, he/she wakes up to a little child hovering over him/her? In ''Uncharted 2'', this happened to Nate when he wakes up to see a young girl staring at him. Why is this?
{{tropesubpagefooter}}
[[Category:Tropes/Headscratchers]]
[[Category:Fiction In General]]
__NOTOC__
| |||