Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eugene Glus
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:50 pm

Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Eugene Glus »

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?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Impenitent »

ask a bible writer

-Imp
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pm 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?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
Of interest for literary criticism on this in the form of an author's fear of obsessive fans, check out Stephen King's "Misery". [If you can find it, there is a softcover version with two covers...the normal one and the one the author in the story's book with humor you'd have to infer for yourself in context to this question.] The book is an entertained fantasy of what would happen if some obsessive fan of a popular series of books literally takes her favorite author hostage to write/rewrite an ending she felt appropriately granted the protagonist of series justice to this question.

As for another recommendation related to whether we ourselves may be just a relative fiction of some other author's technological creation, see the 1999 movie, "The Thirteenth Floor". This movie was released at the exact time that "Matrix", which stole the attention away from it undeservedly. It reverses your question and is so related too.

Good question.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

No.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be stumped about this.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:41 pm Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

No.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be stumped about this.
It is a good one for philosophy and extends to concerns of artificial intelligence because it asks to what degree of artificial constructs can we deem some machine or non-living thing to be 'alive'? Also, if, like myself, you believe that reality is based on nothing, then whatever is 'alive' is as real or unreal as something appears 'real' to us by some testability measure. If we are a product of nature, and that 'nature' is itself just a manifestation of the best possible model, then we too are just a complex possibility based on the relative 'fiction' that we are all there is (...since there are an infinite possible worlds, one by itself is not the complete possible truth that exists.)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

First:
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 8:49 am like myself, you believe that reality is based on nothing,
Why would you (a) think that reality needs to be "based on" something,

and given that,

Why would you (b) think that reality is "based on nothing"?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:17 pm First:
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 8:49 am like myself, you believe that reality is based on nothing,
Why would you (a) think that reality needs to be "based on" something,

and given that,

Why would you (b) think that reality is "based on nothing"?
Foundationally, Totality, not simply our universe, is based on 'nothing'; Relative to those worlds that are 'consistent', such as our particular Universe, this has patterns that are 'something(s)'.

I gave a couple examples regarding the OP's idea, granting it charity to meaning, fictional characters are just our relative 'artificial' constructs. And given the CAN lead to real products, I think you can MAKE a 'fictional character' relatively real. This was one of Stephen King's points in his Misery given the woman was so obsessed in a fictional character as being required to fit with her idea. He (the author within the story) was "writing off" the particular character in mind of the series this woman was obsessed about. Basically, she interpreted the character as 'real' and was upset that his final work of the series appeared to be trivializing of the fan's means of fantasizing this character.

I gave the point about A.I. to you because it too also relates. Can we create, for instance, a character in which the fans acted as the 'evolutionary' selector. Take Nintendo's Zelda character, for instance. If in time we can evolve to an advanced point, their character could be manifest as sufficiently real to not be able to tell the difference.

[Not that any of this matters. I hate it when some OP asks a question but doesn't stick around to discuss. So it probably doesn't matter now...unless you wanted to expand upon this as a thought experiment between us independently.?]
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Walker »

Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pmAnd finally what does it mean – to be a character?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
To live the novel of your life means to live as the main character of a story, and what makes a story interesting is for the character to beat the odds that keep weighing against all of his actions on the way to resolving a singular, simple question such as, will I win the presidency or not, which is just a fictional question for practically everyone.

If you the main character of your life-novel crap out and quit the quest that will answer your singular question, then although it’s creative and meaningful to you, your story won’t be particularly interesting to a stranger, because once you set the expectation and don't answer it for the witness, you've cheated the sense of drama conditioned by a lifetime of interesting, well-told stories.

And the nihilist says so what, strangers don’t even know I exist, I don’t know that they exist, and soon I really won’t exist.

Such drama.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:38 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:17 pm First:
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 8:49 am like myself, you believe that reality is based on nothing,
Why would you (a) think that reality needs to be "based on" something,

and given that,

Why would you (b) think that reality is "based on nothing"?
Foundationally, Totality, not simply our universe, is based on 'nothing'; Relative to those worlds that are 'consistent', such as our particular Universe, this has patterns that are 'something(s)'.

I gave a couple examples regarding the OP's idea, granting it charity to meaning, fictional characters are just our relative 'artificial' constructs. And given the CAN lead to real products, I think you can MAKE a 'fictional character' relatively real. This was one of Stephen King's points in his Misery given the woman was so obsessed in a fictional character as being required to fit with her idea. He (the author within the story) was "writing off" the particular character in mind of the series this woman was obsessed about. Basically, she interpreted the character as 'real' and was upset that his final work of the series appeared to be trivializing of the fan's means of fantasizing this character.

I gave the point about A.I. to you because it too also relates. Can we create, for instance, a character in which the fans acted as the 'evolutionary' selector. Take Nintendo's Zelda character, for instance. If in time we can evolve to an advanced point, their character could be manifest as sufficiently real to not be able to tell the difference.

[Not that any of this matters. I hate it when some OP asks a question but doesn't stick around to discuss. So it probably doesn't matter now...unless you wanted to expand upon this as a thought experiment between us independently.?]
So, it's become apparent after a couple steps that I don't really understand what you even have in mind by reality being "based on something." Could you explain what you're thinking there?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:45 pm
So, it's become apparent after a couple steps that I don't really understand what you even have in mind by reality being "based on something." Could you explain what you're thinking there?
I'm losing context to the discussion for what you are asking. I have my own separate views that I use in context if one already knows me from other discussions. I can digress to discuss this but do not see it as essential for the OP here other than that I can relate to it in light of my own views and if you happen to agree to them.

I'm saying that the apparent artificiality of a story (or its characters) do not limit the possibility of us to extend that to BECOME reality. For instance, prior to an actual computer's creation, abstract ideas were premodeled befor the reality of the first actual computers. The blueprint is a relative 'fiction' before it is manifest into 'fact'. As such, a prior original fiction CAN be turned into fact in future contexts.

The psychological misconnection of those who might RE-interpret the past fiction AS 'fact' is related too and why I mentioned Misery as an example of just such. As a proper context for philosophy, one can discuss many related issues to this topic. For example, one can ask how we should interpret 'history' based upon where we are as a reconstruction of what we think WAS true based upon what we experience today. So one might, for instance, discuss why one should be skeptical of some miraculous claimed event of the past as expressed in some Biblical text. Given we cannot literally fly, we cannot presume angels with literal wings of beings in the past because we cannot reconstruct such possibility in the present context. The dialectic of discussing something as odd as whether a fictional character could be real is thus functionally useful for philosophy. I only mentioned a few various examples but was my intentional point of your first response to the OP: to show THAT the topic CAN have relatively valid interest for philosophy.

[If you are still interested in my own views relating how I think reality is manifest from nothing, we can discuss this elsewhere. I don't want to tread on the OP's stated meaning by digressing it into a topic about my particular views. It should suffice to note that if reality itself manifests/causes anything, the cause precedes the effect....the prior non-reality is relatively 'fictional' as a cause is to what may become a 'fact' as an effect later on.]
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by popeye1945 »

Yes, fictional characters do have an independent existence from the realm of what we call the real. Though we know most often when a character is fictional, both the real and the fictional are known only cognitively and fiction itself can be elemental in the formation of the future or indeed the opinions and desires of the present. The fictional is often used by governments to manipulate the populace into desired behaviors, to prep them for war and to sell them on particular policies. The future can often be thought of in the present as the fictional, yet perhaps not to be. Athletes use the power of visualization seeing themselves to fulfill a feat, to perfect a performance in the mind, for the mind often cannot discern the real from the imagined. Much of our own identities are a hodge podge of the fictional and the real, the imagined and the forgotten are elemental in character formation. Scott, please expand, your thoughts are entirely relative, and most interesting.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:38 am ... such as our particular Universe ...
Universe means, "all there is." There is only one universe. There cannot be more than one, "all there is."

This, "multiple-universe." nonsense is just science fiction. It's not philosophy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by RCSaunders »

Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pm 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?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
If they had their own existence they would not be called, "fictions." It's what fiction means, just, "made up," in someone's imagination.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Impenitent »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:14 pm
Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pm 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?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
If they had their own existence they would not be called, "fictions." It's what fiction means, just, "made up," in someone's imagination.
no, they'd be called noumenon...

-Imp
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by RCSaunders »

Impenitent wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 7:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:14 pm
Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pm 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?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/
If they had their own existence they would not be called, "fictions." It's what fiction means, just, "made up," in someone's imagination.
no, they'd be called noumenon...

-Imp
That Kant be true.
Post Reply