The basic form of my question is: Can the intensity of one's emotional response to a fictional situation exceed the intensity of one's emotional response to a similar real situation?
I think so, yes. It is probably more common to react in a stronger manner to a real life situation, as one knows that real people are affected therein, but there are also many exceptions. For example, one might react with stronger emotion to the fictional death of a beloved character than to the death of a relative one only met once.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Q&A 4, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Is an emotional reaction to an incorrect perception of a real person essentially the same as an emotional reaction to a fictional character?
I do not think so. When one reacts emotionally to events involving a fictional character, one is always aware that the character does not exist in reality; thus, even if the events are (purportedly) taking place in the present, one will not attempt to affect them. When the events one reacts to involve a real person, even if one's perception of the person is flawed, one may still act to affect the events. This may lead to unanticipated consequences, due to one's lack of accurate knowledge about the person, but it will still have an effect. If a person attempts to affect fictional events or characters, no matter how hard they try, they will be unsuccessful.
I do not think so. When one reacts emotionally to events involving a fictional character, one is always aware that the character does not exist in reality; thus, even if the events are (purportedly) taking place in the present, one will not attempt to affect them. When the events one reacts to involve a real person, even if one's perception of the person is flawed, one may still act to affect the events. This may lead to unanticipated consequences, due to one's lack of accurate knowledge about the person, but it will still have an effect. If a person attempts to affect fictional events or characters, no matter how hard they try, they will be unsuccessful.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Response: Confused Emotions
In response to Kelsey Phifer's post "Genuine Emotion and Fiction as a Game" (February 14, 2012):
In this post, the statement that people can become upset if an author is inconsistent in portraying a character caused me to think about why that might be. I think that a lot of it may be due to the fact that inconsistency in a character can confuse readers, because they no longer know how to react to that character's behaviour; if a character had at one point been portrayed as having a problematic aversion to water due to their almost drowning as a child, and then later that incident disappears from canon but the aversion remains, reader might not know whether to feel annoyed at the character for their now apparently irrational phobia, or understanding towards the character because of their (now nonexistent) past.
This is actually a bit similar to how people sometimes react to confusion in real life. If something happens and people are not certain why, or what the event's consequences are exactly, or even if those consequences are merely unfamiliar, they may feel confused and fluctuate between different emotional states.
As such, I don't think that people's abiding by certain conventions set by an author, or feeling upset when the author violates those conventions, invalidates the reality of the emotional reactions they have to fiction.
In this post, the statement that people can become upset if an author is inconsistent in portraying a character caused me to think about why that might be. I think that a lot of it may be due to the fact that inconsistency in a character can confuse readers, because they no longer know how to react to that character's behaviour; if a character had at one point been portrayed as having a problematic aversion to water due to their almost drowning as a child, and then later that incident disappears from canon but the aversion remains, reader might not know whether to feel annoyed at the character for their now apparently irrational phobia, or understanding towards the character because of their (now nonexistent) past.
This is actually a bit similar to how people sometimes react to confusion in real life. If something happens and people are not certain why, or what the event's consequences are exactly, or even if those consequences are merely unfamiliar, they may feel confused and fluctuate between different emotional states.
As such, I don't think that people's abiding by certain conventions set by an author, or feeling upset when the author violates those conventions, invalidates the reality of the emotional reactions they have to fiction.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Imaginary Emotion
Imagination, I think, can lead to people's experiencing real emotions just as reality can. This is because when people react emotionally to something, they are not really reacting to that thing - they are reacting to their perception of the thing. If my roommate breaks his arm and informs me of it, I will feel bad not for him directly, but for my perception of him as having broken his arm and being in pain. If I misinterpret his reaction as being a practical joke, I will not feel bad for him, because although he has still broken his arm I have not perceived it.
People can perceive imaginary objects, worlds and characters in a way similar to how they perceive the real world. It is true that there is a difference in the manner of perception, but I do not think it is significant enough to warrant creation of a separate, lesser class of emotions for imaginary perceptions. As an example, let me present four similar scenarios: 1. A child is beating up their younger sibling in your presence. This causes a strong emotional reaction on your part, and you step in to interfere. 2. You read an autobiography, and at one point the author recounts how their older sibling used to beat them up as a child. You still have an emotional reaction, but you do not attempt to interfere because you cannot affect the past. 3. You are watching the news on television, and see some live footage of a child beating up their younger sibling. You have an emotional reaction, but do not attempt to interfere because you cannot reach the children in time to do anything. 4. You read a story about a fictional child beating up their fictional younger sibling. You have an emotional reaction, but do not attempt to interfere because you cannot affect fictional realities.
The emotional reaction is not identical, but it is similar. I think that people, while recognizing that fiction is in fact fictional, can still perceive it as real in a way - real emotionally, but not literally.
People can perceive imaginary objects, worlds and characters in a way similar to how they perceive the real world. It is true that there is a difference in the manner of perception, but I do not think it is significant enough to warrant creation of a separate, lesser class of emotions for imaginary perceptions. As an example, let me present four similar scenarios: 1. A child is beating up their younger sibling in your presence. This causes a strong emotional reaction on your part, and you step in to interfere. 2. You read an autobiography, and at one point the author recounts how their older sibling used to beat them up as a child. You still have an emotional reaction, but you do not attempt to interfere because you cannot affect the past. 3. You are watching the news on television, and see some live footage of a child beating up their younger sibling. You have an emotional reaction, but do not attempt to interfere because you cannot reach the children in time to do anything. 4. You read a story about a fictional child beating up their fictional younger sibling. You have an emotional reaction, but do not attempt to interfere because you cannot affect fictional realities.
The emotional reaction is not identical, but it is similar. I think that people, while recognizing that fiction is in fact fictional, can still perceive it as real in a way - real emotionally, but not literally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)