Character Identity
I don't know when you guys will get sick of stuff relating to fiction, but here is a paper I wrote last semester. I spent more time on this and put more thought into it, and, accordingly, it is far more complicated and (probably) convoluted. Anyway, I'd love some comments on it, especially if your intuitions differ significantly. (No matter what, my intuitions are right, but I'll enjoy hearing yours!) This paper is Can Sherlock Holmes Fight Crime with James Kirk? or Conditions for Character Identity. It is an attempt to discover, surprisingly enough, the necessary and sufficient conditions for character identity.
At the very least, I hope it contains no typos. At the very most, I hope it makes sense.
3 comments:
Although I haven't given nearly as much thought on the subject of character identity as Michelle has, I'll weigh in and give my two cents.
First off, the two conditions for "an in-story character's identity with a particular character" (author's intention as such and reader acceptance) seem right at first glance (at first glance only, MWA AH AH!!). I won't quibble with the first condition, but that second condition seems problematic.
In general, I think the average reader doesn't typically approach character identity as a sort of monolithic figure who is to be identified thus and so. Fiction readers never struck me as viewing characters as being THE characters and all others as being merely based on them. I'll offer up an example.
Consider that last bastion of high literary merit: comic books. My favorite character is Superman (whose isn't?). The guy is a complex of nearly infinite power, angst, twisted self-perception, totalitarian tendencies, and libertarian dreams. Typically, whatever character embodies some or all of those along with other readily identifiable markers, simply IS Superman. None of which traits really depend on my acceptance so much as the author's intent (the first condition).
To explain, in comic history, Superman's origins, attributes, character, friends, etc., have all changed, quite drastically in some cases. They've changed enough to merit what's commonly called in the business a retcon (retroactive continuity) multiple times. That is, all of the so-called 'inconsistencies' in the Superman lore have been in many cases rewritten or incorporated into the history of a Superman of another world (similar to the actual possible worlds, if that makes sense, of a sort of Lewisian type).
Thus, the Superman of Earth-1 (the canon Superman) is young and hearty, married to Lois Lane, grew up in Smallville, etc). But the Superman of Earth-2 is old and has all those same attributes. Different retcons, different Supermans, i.e. there is no single guy named Superman whom we identify as THE Superman. We even get drastically different Supermans depending on the author's intentions: a Superman born in Russia, a Supergirl intended to be that world's Superman, a powerless Clark Kent, the Ultraman of one world with all the same characteristics as Superman but is evil, we get Supermans with different colored uniforms, etc. (I think I'm THIS world's Superman: just call me Superpimp, the slaptastic smackanator)
All this is really to say that readers don't accept or reject (full stop) characters intended to be identified with other characters. There are simply those characters who are presented in slightly different ways depending on the author's intentions.
If this makes sense, then yay me. If not, then, um, well, it was all a joke. Yeah, just a joke.
I agree with you, Chris! However, I disagree with you if you think that there are cases in which someone
...I fail at this.
Okay, I'll try again.
I agree with you, Chris! However, I disagree with you if you think that there are never cases in which someone would look at a character an author intends to be Superman and then say, "Psh! No! That's NOT superman." (And, by the way, Batman's my favorite.)
So, suppose there's a new comic series made in which there is a man who can fly, is impervious to bullets, shoots lasers out of his eyes, wears a blue and red suit, was raised in Smallville by loving farmers, so on and so forth, named Superman.... But, in the opening story, this Superman captures Lex Luther, who then offers this Superman a few million dollars to let him go.. And Superman accepts the deal. I don't know about you, but my response would be, "What? No! That's not Superman. Superman wouldn't do that. Author, you have gotten this all wrong -- you fail at giving me a story about Superman."
Now, of course, I can't assume you would have the same response. I do not mean to give a guide to deciding whether characters have certain identities. But I am willing to hypothesize that there is at least some story that could be written about a character named Superman, which the author intended to be the Superman, which you, Chris, would respond to by going "Psh! No! You fail, Author, you fail!" Because we have standards as to who Superman is. Or, to put it in more appropriate terms, of what Superman is.
Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is a specific cut-off point.. That, say, there are certain stories that a person accepts as Superman and then certain stories that a person does not accept as Superman. There are gradations. A character in a story can be Supermanny, or Superman-esque, or.. Well, you get the idea. My point is that people have some sort of idea of what counts as Superman, as what makes Superman Superman as opposed to some other character. Most of the time, if an author intends a character in a story to be Superman, we are willing to accept a family resemblance between that character and what we consider to be Superman. But, sometimes, the story just goes too far, as it were, and asks us to accept characteristics that go too far against what we accept as characteristics of Superman.
I don't know if I've addressed your concerns, or agreed with you, or disagreed with you. But, boy, was it nice. Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment