![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lb_leeSneak: 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:
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!
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.
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!
no subject
Date: 2022-09-13 03:10 am (UTC)Not that I mind. He's my hero! (And he's about as convincing a banker as I am.)