Defining "plural enough" for the pluralstories catalog

[lb_lee]

Sneak: I think me and Mori have agreed on a definition of what counts as "plural enough" for @pluralstories!

To count, the story must have at least one of the following:

• Bodysharing
• Mindsharing
• Soulsharing
• Interaction with people who are not considered "real" by the culture the story takes place in, who are considered (truly or falsely) to be created or influenced by the minds or imaginations of people around them.

That last one is kind of a mouthful, sorry! Let me break it down.

The idea of "real" or what makes a person is a cultural idea, not an absolute, and a lot of plural experience is reflected in the idea of "not being real." It can be used as coding. But the story's culture matters. Ghosts aren't real in my culture, but they are totally normal in the Xanth books! Not plural.

If we only stick with "people not considered real by the culture around them," then that covers a lot of supernatural fiction that just isn't plural; we used that Patrick Swayze movie Ghost as our litmus test. In Ghost, Patrick Swayze is dead, a roaming spirit not considered "real", but he is clearly not created or influenced by the minds of anyone around him. He doesn't require human company, and his wife cannot see or hear him. He really is just a ghost! Not plural enough.

However, when Helen's pet rat dies in the Tale of One Bad Rat, only to appear in giant form throughout the rest of the book, it IS plural enough, because it is clearly a part of her. Unlike Swayze, it can't affect the physical world or leave Helen unless she asks it to. She later compares it to Harvey, the famous imaginary friend of classic cinema. Unlike Swayze, Helen's rat cannot interact with others, never does classic ghost things like haunt or spook. It may or not be a ghost, but it is clearly tied to Helen.

Any fictioneer that a character interacts with automatically counts as "plural enough," because fiction is created by human imagination. So when Thursday Next interacts with Edward Rochester, or Ib interacts with Mary, even if Mary or Rochester have their own bodies and (in Mary's case) are not known to be fictional at first, they are "not real" and were created by the human imagination within the context of the story. Plural enough.

In Dream A Little Dream, Mich and Spirit count as "plural enough," because even though they have their own bodies and lives, they see Nola as their Creator. They would not exist without her, and her Creator status gives her special powers in the dream world.

Ernest Shackleton in Ernest Shackleton Loves Me also counts, because he only appears to the protagonist after intense sleep deprivation. Probably psychologically generated, and while he was a real person, he is also long dead so not "real" in the present. Plural enough!

"Imaginary friends" has proven to be a catch-all term for anyone "not real" who is mostly seen only by children. Michael from Sunday's At Tiffany's is probably one of the most ambiguous cases, because he can be seen by adults if he chooses, has an independent life of Jane, and has worked as an imaginary friend for many children. We decided to keep him, since JANE sees him as her imaginary friend, and mistakes him for psychologically generated--and indeed, he is pulled by irresistible compulsion to his next client, so he is strongly influenced by the person he's imaginary friend of, even if he goes from person to person over time. Other imaginary friend stories may not make the grade.

It's also tricky when stories are deliberately ambiguous. Are the visions Fran Bow sees psychological, or glimpses to another dimension? Both? It's unclear. We decided to keep it, because Itward is imaginary... and, depending on interpretation, so is Mr. Midnight, one of the most important characters. Plural enough, especially with the themes of "you are crazy for seeing and talking to people who aren't real."

Well, at least we have some guidelines now!

Comments

[lb_lee]

Mori: I like how we've apparently decided that social definitions of "real person" are more important for defining plurality than noncorporeality.

[lb_lee]

PATRICK SWAYZE IN GHOST IS NOT PLURALISH, MORI.

Sneak

[lb_lee]

Mac: it is so weird to realize that my role in this system is basically Patrick Swayze in Ghost.

Not that I mind. He's my hero! (And he's about as convincing a banker as I am.)

[the_broken_tower]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning for either position if you care to talk about it.

- Myrddin (he/him)

[talewisefellowship]

Hell yea that vibes!!!

--Hikaru

[the_broken_tower]

>> The idea of "real" or what makes a person is a cultural idea, not an absolute, and a lot of plural experience is reflected in the idea of "not being real." It can be used as coding. But the story's culture matters. Ghosts aren't real in my culture, but they are totally normal in the Xanth books! Not plural. <<

So... this is a really good summary for why the people on this side aren't within a plural space and don't consider the term applicable to things on Rhea's side. Consciousness is studied where we come from and there are species that have unique structures and interactions with it. Those fall into farseeing with time, space, and other such things (like telepathy, which also works with consciousness). They're very real and studied, and we understand the mechanisms that go into them.

Part of Plural in this world seems to be that it's a phenomenon with a lot of variation, but isn't understood or accepted as a real thing. It's primarily seen as something that exists inside a person's head, within a body. Consciousness itself isn't really understood here either.

When someone uses the Outlet from Rhea's side, they're only here for at most a couple days at a time, so it doesn't make sense for this local culture to take precedence when we have... yknow, actual science and shit and live in the place where consciousness is pretty well understood. We already know that this world is barely into its first baby step when it comes to that field so there isn't any bad feeling for declining the categories that locals are using to categorize things. They're for people from this world, or people who want to take them up, and we don't fall into either camp.

It's... not easy trying to explain that without offending someone. "Plural" isn't for us, but it can be for (the general) you, and that's fine. Those perspectives can coexist. We don't generally go into plural spaces because (for one) the experiences are so different from ours, and there's so little awareness on alternative experiences that it's tiring having to explain every time.

Then, you know, consent. Consent and having that baseline respect that a person knows their own situation (and appropriate terms) best is more important to us than having to potentially argue with people over it.

Consent matters out in the wild, interacting with people, but it doesn't really apply to Pluralstories - you're writing something for an audience, or pointing out relatable experiences for your community.

- Em (they/them)

[lb_lee]

Sneak: That's fair! And that's one of the big limits of the catalog, our perspective and definition. And then it gets awkward when it's unclear if the creator themself sees the work as plural or not. In some cases, such as gl1tch-co, we can just ask if they're okay with it, but if we can't reach the creator, what then? For big popular books, like Northern Lights/The Golden Compass, it doesn't seem to matter so much, but when it's a very small, more personal thing, like Sam Medlock's War Zone, are we hurting the creator by labeling it "plural" or "pluralish" when that may well not be how they see it? If it comes from a different cultural context, like yours?

At the same time, though, I feel like HAVING those differing perspectives is important for plurals to read! To know that there is more than one cultural view, more than one way to be. And there is no concise way to name a catalog "different ways of embodiment/personhood/ensoulment" without it descending into total opaque gobbledygook! It makes me want to smack my head against a wall.

[the_broken_tower]

>> when it's a very small, more personal thing, like Sam Medlock's War Zone, are we hurting the creator by labeling it "plural" or "pluralish" when that may well not be how they see it? If it comes from a different cultural context, like yours? <<

Those are very important questions to ask - and you're right that it isn't always possible to ask them.
When someone doesn't see it as "plural" or "pluralish", that's an opportunity to look at things from more sides, too. What makes it familiar? What makes it different?

>> At the same time, though, I feel like HAVING those differing perspectives is important for plurals to read! To know that there is more than one cultural view, more than one way to be. <<

It really is important.

I suspect that a lot of people are used to plurality being an umbrella designed for inclusivity and haven't encountered anyone who purposefully separates themselves from it. When someone says it isn't appropriate to include their specific case, it can be jarring.

We've only met one other group who went that route before us (the Exes followed suit after we did), and most of the ones we're aware of now aren't active online anymore. There aren't many alternatives perspectives in easy reach.

>> And there is no concise way to name a catalog "different ways of embodiment/personhood/ensoulment" without it descending into total opaque gobbledygook! It makes me want to smack my head against a wall. <<

Sympathy there, especially when it comes to local definitions.

We have names for phenomena on Rhea's side, but they aren't necessarily applicable here - and shouldn't be an authority for local experiences by other people. That's why our Museum's main post encourages people to think about what their own experiences are, how things work for them, and to determine for themselves what's best for them.

- Myrddin (he/him)