RFC: Theory of fiction

[Melab]

RFC: Theory of fiction

This a real theory that I plan to put into words. This is not a fan theory. Fan theories only stand in the context of fiction. A theory of fiction is to be grounded in the real world, centering around the construction, communication, and imagining of stories. Semantics and knowledge will be addressed. In this thread I look to present members of Comic Book Resources with incomplete portions of this theory as applied to comic books and request that comments are posted in reply.

What fiction is

This will be the theory's foundational aspect built upon the notion that stories and characters are described in a versatile medium. The greatest implication is that anything is possible in fiction, even circumventing the laws of logic, because it exists in words. Realization of this fact comes from when Aristotle says in Metaphysics: "it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call 'man', and others were to call 'not-man'".

External factors must be evaluated

Users on this forum do this already when examining scans in "rumbles". Things may need to be passed off as plot induced stupidity, incoherence, or the fault of the writers. Consider the case of a character proclaiming S and suppose S is not actually true. Several possible explanations that I can think of are hyperbole, the writer has confused the true definition of the word, and the writer merely intends an effect on the reader.

Does anyone agree with this? Can I phrase it better? Am I missing anything? Does this make people see fiction in a new way?

[Melab]

By the way, "RFC" means "request for comments".

[Jeff Brady]

By the way, "RFC" means "request for comments".

Well, that's helpful, but you haven't said anything for anyone to comment on.

[Arvandor]

Is this yet another claim that fiction is theoretical reality in alternate universes or whatever?

[Melab]

Is this yet another claim that fiction is theoretical reality in alternate universes or whatever?

No. It asserts that the existence of fictive worlds is abstractual and exists independently of concrete reality.

[Mike Pothier]

so... fiction is fictional? Mind. Blown.

[Jeff Brady]

No. It asserts that the existence of fictive worlds is abstractual and exists independently of concrete reality.

That falls under the category of "No shit, Sherlock."

so... fiction is fictional? Mind. Blown.

"Whoa."

[Melab]

That falls under the category of "No shit, Sherlock."



"Whoa."

Ehh, it's a formalized system.

[T Hedge Coke]

If

The greatest implication is that anything is possible in fiction, even circumventing the laws of logic, because it exists in words.

why are you concerned with

Things may need to be passed off as plot induced stupidity, incoherence, or the fault of the writers. Consider the case of a character proclaiming S and suppose S is not actually true. Several possible explanations that I can think of are hyperbole, the writer has confused the true definition of the word, and the writer merely intends an effect on the reader.

so substantially?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and all that. Contiguity and continuity, particularly in fiction, but also in functional reality are useful designations, but the grouping is reliant on the elements, the elements are not reliant on the grouping.

[Paradox]

Melab has questions:

Does anyone agree with this?

Not particularly. It seems to stem from a "rumbler" need to categorize and pigeonhole. Has little at all to do with the concept of fiction.

Can I phrase it better?

Eh, phrasing it better won't make it more relevant.

Am I missing anything?

A reason for the need to "explain" everything?

Does this make people see fiction in a new way?

I wouldn't think so.

Really, all you're saying is "fiction doesn't have to follow real life rules and there may be 'exterior' reasons for certain incidents/behaviors/'feats'." Which is of sidebar interest at most. Most people want to read a story, not analyze its comparative reality.

[the4thpip]

This thread is now about invisible myspace profiles.

[Winslow]

Does anyone agree with this? Can I phrase it better? Am I missing anything? Does this make people see fiction in a new way?

I would be more interested in WHY a make believe universe where anything can happen has to be internally consistent.

Or why "deux ex machina" still sucks in a make believe universe where anything can happen.

[Slam_Bradley]

Fiction isn't real, isn't much of a revelation.

[the4thpip]

Fiction isn't real, isn't much of a revelation.

But it does explain why Northstar never returned my calls!

[Melab]

Okay. I get it. This was unneccessary. I was just so amazed by the stupidity of some people over at CV that something like this needed to be developed. Anyway, that is why I don't go there all that often anymore. That and the website is such a cluttered mess.