I am writing my second scene for scriptwriting right now. (Actually, I'm taking a break to reflect.) It's a curious topic to think about drama and narratives. Imagining possibilities that have not, and most likely will not take place. Engaging in your world by engaging in a world self-created.
I was debating with myself if I, as a conscious agent in reality, have actual control over the characters in my scene, conscious agents in a fictionalized reality. Seeing as my goal is to make my writing as plausible as possible, I have to restrict myself to what is set as "characterization" and "narrative structure". A character acting out of character is a serious offense in criticism of drama. You can't have Beowulf jumping into a glorious fight with Grendel and in the midst of the fight decide that he wants to be a circus performer without saying he has a serious bipolar disorder! (That might be laughably entertaining if you're going for something surreal, but if you're going for a serious epic, it fails.)
So if I'm restricted, how can these be my characters? If my characters are restricted to their personalities, how can they be free?
Well, it has to do the setting of a criterion choice. I'm free to choose the restrictions imposed on my character based on my own creativity, and based on that choice, all of the pieces should fall into place. The characters aren't free from the world. They aren't restricted though either. They're free in the world. The world created is interdependent. The agents are as much apart of the world as the forces said to be controlling them. What gives them control is their ability to rise to action. As the humanists and the existentialists say,"You can always make yourself into something other than what you were made out of."
Even if their is a deity that is writing our lives, in order for him to make our lives good fiction, he has to let us have our own control. He isn't forcing our hand to do anything he wants us to because the character set for us resists it. It's almost like narrative is a choice encased in a choice encased in a choice until death.
This post was a little bit disorganized, but so is life.
Until Next Time!
Christ Martyr Parson
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
It's sad...
It's sad that my first post is piggy backing on Kevin's post from "Casino on the Moon" He was talking about personal responsibility, and I responded. I promise the next one will be based on independence, liberty, freedom, and the good ol' U.S. (That won't be the topic...I promise for real this time...)
Anyway here's my response to: http://casinosonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/01/listening-to-peoples-conversations.html#comments
"I agree. If you can guess who this is, you wouldn't be surprised why I agree. Humankind is formed through social learning, so our livelihood as human beings depends on other...well...human beings. It's odd that people would reject humanism for individualism. Humanism in itself contains both the qualities of individualism and socialism, because those are both aspects of human life.
I think, however, that most of the people who oppose socialist programs do so because they feel simply robbed. It presents a sort of Robinhood imagery. (Is Robinhood a proto-communist? :O)
Are they robbed, though? We could ask if the money they "possessed" truly belonged to them in the first place,but I really want to not go on a socialist tirade, so let's just assume that the money was, in principle, under their possession. Going off of that you could say they were robbed, but it's really sad to see it that way.
There are people who do leech off of the system, I admit that. The whole idea of welfare is to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. So it really is a sort of a parasitic relationship. I'm not saying that leeching is a bad thing entirely, but it certainly can lead to a weaker society if the person being provided for remains in poverty permanently. Could this be prevented? I think so. This is where personal responsibility comes into the picture.
We always have options, and we should always analyze those options. Do I take welfare or not? That's the first crossroad. Most people, I would think, if offered would say yes; so moving on. What can I do and what should I do with this money? Those questions I am really unable to answer because they are very dependent on the situation. Though, I've seen people purchase 3 20 liter Mountain Dews with their "allowance", which I think is really irresponsible, I can't generalize it to the point where I can say everyone is spending it on unneeded things.
I think the main reason welfare fails to solve the problem is because it's really just a temporary solution for poverty. I can give them all the money they want; they can use it to help support themselves, but it's not pulling them out of their situation. So really welfare is in essence a supplementary treatment for poverty which is best used with educational programs and job services. (Universal Health Care system is probably more beneficial to a society than welfare is, since it is providing aid directly. That's a whole other story though.)
Really, I'm not an expert in this area so it's difficult to know exactly what goes on, but this seems to be a decent enough model of social programs. "
Anyway here's my response to: http://casinosonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/01/listening-to-peoples-conversations.html#comments
"I agree. If you can guess who this is, you wouldn't be surprised why I agree. Humankind is formed through social learning, so our livelihood as human beings depends on other...well...human beings. It's odd that people would reject humanism for individualism. Humanism in itself contains both the qualities of individualism and socialism, because those are both aspects of human life.
I think, however, that most of the people who oppose socialist programs do so because they feel simply robbed. It presents a sort of Robinhood imagery. (Is Robinhood a proto-communist? :O)
Are they robbed, though? We could ask if the money they "possessed" truly belonged to them in the first place,but I really want to not go on a socialist tirade, so let's just assume that the money was, in principle, under their possession. Going off of that you could say they were robbed, but it's really sad to see it that way.
There are people who do leech off of the system, I admit that. The whole idea of welfare is to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. So it really is a sort of a parasitic relationship. I'm not saying that leeching is a bad thing entirely, but it certainly can lead to a weaker society if the person being provided for remains in poverty permanently. Could this be prevented? I think so. This is where personal responsibility comes into the picture.
We always have options, and we should always analyze those options. Do I take welfare or not? That's the first crossroad. Most people, I would think, if offered would say yes; so moving on. What can I do and what should I do with this money? Those questions I am really unable to answer because they are very dependent on the situation. Though, I've seen people purchase 3 20 liter Mountain Dews with their "allowance", which I think is really irresponsible, I can't generalize it to the point where I can say everyone is spending it on unneeded things.
I think the main reason welfare fails to solve the problem is because it's really just a temporary solution for poverty. I can give them all the money they want; they can use it to help support themselves, but it's not pulling them out of their situation. So really welfare is in essence a supplementary treatment for poverty which is best used with educational programs and job services. (Universal Health Care system is probably more beneficial to a society than welfare is, since it is providing aid directly. That's a whole other story though.)
Really, I'm not an expert in this area so it's difficult to know exactly what goes on, but this seems to be a decent enough model of social programs. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)