Novels = Free Indirect Discourse

Does this exist in games? (Laura.)

Does it exist at all? (My question.)

Movies use voice overs for interior monologue but this fails often, close-ups, images are more common and successful. ~ Laura

Plays use the monologue. ~ Laura

Games have their own set for developing interiority. ~ Laura

"The Hero's interiority is your interiority and vice versa." ~ Laura

What of the silent hero Laura?

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars is a wonderful example of an incredibly expressive silent protagonist in a game with limited graphic capabilities.

The protagonist, Super Mario, never says a word, instead the writing of the script implies an understanding on the part of the characters around him combined with hilarious play-mime sequences in which Mario acts out, in a quick and humerous way, the various plot points relevant to explain how the party (the characters you control) arrived at whatever circumstance.

Link from The Legend Zelda: The Windwaker is the same but the graphic are far beyond SMRPG: LotSS. Here you are familiar Laura, with his wide eyes and stylized movements Link is very expressive despite not "speaking" or "thinking" aloud. Instead, his motivations and thoughts are either givin to us implicetly or placed upon him by our own mind...perhaps both.

I feel like that cuts directly to your "movie tools." Rather than wahtever mechanics you seem to espouse in novels, these game have more in common with the various cuts, visual tricks, in film to express deliberation on the part of the characters.

The issue then is, perhaps, that I "don't care?"

Which is to say, there ARE established and effective ways to do things from one genre to another...I just belive that, while they method may differ, if the end result is the same, why the distinction?

Although the second I wrote that I felt awkward...because I do value the power of medium so highly. Hmm...

Continuing from editing...

What about more explicit, direct characters?

Sora's development is upfront in Kingdom Hearts, granted I haven't played enough of the series (although I have played quite a bit). He starts off as what appears to be a care free boy on an island with little to worry about. As the story progresses he is confronted with the concepts of fate, heroism, opposing (but valued) perspectives, the meaning of friendship and/vs duty, but - although he does speak for himself, even giving a monologue or two I believe - the vast majority of this is up for us to draw from and judge upon. I don't think this actaully differes from a text though. As you've touched on in class, reading is an interpretation of symbols...just as playing a game is the same + manipulation of said symbols to progress rather than a mere turning of the page.

Drawing "this character is young and immature" from a scene of a boy on beach building a raft and play fighting is no different than reading a description of a boy on a beach building a raft and play fighting provided you look at the goal of the scene in terms of characterization.

Even in other goals they are simliar. If opening scenes of fiction are meant to establish a contract between the author and the reader of the world and people they will be reading about then the opening scene in Kingdom Hearts is the same, one where the universe is established and the controls introduced, a contract between the designer and the player that states rules of interaction and intention.

Continuing

Okay, Marche Radiuju from Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced goes through an excellent character arc and often questions his actions, his circumstances, the people around him, etc..

In the game Marche, his friends and the people around them, are sucked into a magical book that constructs a world not-unlike the games from the Final Fantasy series (which the characters are aware of, a hilarious and awesome reference of self-awareness very common in video games, which itself is interesting as I think it is something they've always done rather than something that, in writing, has developed over time). Initially this is "cool" and various characters embrace the new world as their own, supposedly forsaking the "real" world.

Meanwhile, Marche is concerned with survival first and returning to the "real" world at a very, very close second...but when confronted with his friends, their perspectives and opinions on whether to return, Marche's resolve comes into question.

He asks himself whether to return is the best thing for him/them. This is not something implicetly drawn from the "text" but something Marche absolutely wonders via dialogue and monologue...which I use to say "personal thinking," he is not addressing an audience but debating with himself.

Is it right to force his younger brother, Doned, into a world where he can walk no longer? (His brother is a cripple in the real world but in Ivalice, the "fictional" world, he is "normal.")

Is it his place to send his friend Ritz back to a world where she feels alone? She has found a place in society unique to her, one in which she is highly valued and appreciated...can he take that away and live with himself?

And what of his friend Mewt? Whose father is the highest knight in the land...but on "earth" is a jobless, alcoholic widower. In fact, in Ivalice, his mother is alive and he is a prince. Why take that away?

Through the course of the story we see deeper motivations and admissions about life and perception, disillusionment and reality, on the part of numerous characters (some "real," some "fictional" !!!) and Marche also finds his resolve.




I feel like you're searching for a difference that is inconsequential, splitting hairs across already split genres. Why not recognize the shared goal?

I'm just not clear on what you're looking for I guess.

Frakenstein

Well I wouldn't call her a hero, when tasked with creating a character from Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, I found the "Hero Creator" woefully inadequate, I couldn't stop thinking of A.B.A. from the excellent fighting game series, "Guilty Gear."

From her sparse Wikipedia article:

A.B.A

* First Appearance: Guilty Gear Isuka

Created atop a mountain home named "Frasco", A.B.A is an artificial life-form, the creation of a scientist who lived within Frasco. However, before her 'birth', the aforementioned scientist was taken away by the military, which was planning to use his skills for unknown reasons. When her eyes opened for the first time, A.B.A found herself alone within Frasco, and lived the first 10 years of her life in total isolation.

Escape from Frasco was not impossible. Nevertheless, A.B.A quickly realized that she had no knowledge of how to exist outside of her home. To find relief from her sadness, she began to collect keys of all kinds, as they represented the opening of a bold new world and an escape from imprisonment.

While roaming outside one day, still tired of her isolated life, A.B.A stumbled upon an ancient relic known as "Flament Nagel". It was love at first sight, as the war relic was shaped like a key, A.B.A decided to keep it as her partner; she renamed it "Paracelsus". Her new goal was to acquire an artificial body for her newfound partner.

Not quite the "paragon of humanity" that The Monster was meant to be but, a created humanoid regardless, who woke up without guidance and seeked meaning. I find her fixation on keys to be particular well done, a powerful symbol indeed.

More interesting though is at the heart of Guilty Gear itself, "Gears" are man-made creations, far superior to us, but at the same time considered less than. I wonder what A.B.A. would think of the Gears? What would they think of her? Hmm...

Wuthering Heights, the Failing (the Movie...and in some ways, the book)

What did _____ do to improve scene _____?

To be honest, I can't answer that.

Because I don't think the film really improved anything except perhaps "simplify" some of the complexity in the method or relaying the story. If you've read the post previous to this one you'll note that, near the end, I complain about the way the story is told through an increasingly complex chain of people/methods. This is superfluous and, I suppose, a sign of the times, what with the novel still in fledgling form and Bronte playing with a "direct" method of telling thoughts. *shrug*

So, the film does away with a bit of that, presenting things in the visual and skipping a few unnecessary narrative loops.

Too bad everything else is terrible...at least, in comparison to the novel.

Okay, that's harsh...it's more like that shouldn't be compared as opposites or parallels. They are simply too different...I'll ignore the question of whether that is a good thing or not.

Instead, I'll point out one scene as an example of irrevocable change.

In the novel, a major point of tension is that Heathcliffe and Catherine, while very open to themselves and us as readers, and in many ways to each other, never actually come straight out and say how they feel until AFTER Catherine marries Edgar. In this way, the actions of both characters, while sad or frustrating, are also understandable and - to the reader and possibly between the two - even forgivable, with or without apology.

Meanwhile, in the film, in a similar scene to one of their confrontations (about halfway through the each version), Heathcliffe PHYSICALLY STRIKES CATHERINE.

This is INSANELY changing to me. Maybe I am recalling the novel differently (it's been a few weeks, haha) but I'm pretty sure this never happened...but in the movie, there it is. This is an action that is entirely inappropriate for Heathcliffe, would give Catherine a VERY real reason to marry Edgar and, essentially, removes all tension or apprehension that exists in the novel with a mere playing out of events.

I've no clue why they made such a change and utterly disapprove.

Emphasizing the Digital - A bit of me on Bronte

Her: i get involved in things and stay up later sometimes

Me: The same for me, except it happens all the time.

Me: "My past haunts me, if I do not distract myself until the very moment I slip into unconsciousness it will consume me, of this I have no doubt and have experienced many a time." ~ This is how I talk to my sister and other people I favor. hahahaha

Her: you wax poetic

Me: indeed m'lady

Me: although, the BritLit course I'm currently reading for may have something to do with my diction as of late.

Me: bloody Wuthering Heights

Her: hahaha

Me: have you read it?

Me: or perhaps seen the film?

Her: i've read it, haven't seen the movie

Me: Please, bestow upon me your thoughts of it.

Her: it was interesting

Her): not my favorite, but pretty good

Her: heathcliff was a pretty sweet character too

Me: hmmm

Me: I am, perhaps, halfway through the novel

Me: I found the beginning rather entertaining, taking delight in the misanthropy and general peevishness of many a character

Me: soon their actions grew weary though

Me: each of them irredeemable

Me: Catherine's death and Heathcliff's admissions of emotion have kept me turning the pages but I recognize my sympathy has been manipulated and that actual actions of Heathcliff are not to be accepted

Me: still, pages to go

Her: oh there are good times to be had

Her: actually i don't remember, it has been a long time

Me: well know that to my fresh eyes Heathcliff, who I so wanted to like, what with devilish nature, has done little to appear worthy of the words printed for him.

Her: he's flawed

Me: the only quality I've left to likr him for is his love for Catherine which he mars via deplorable action. The depiction suggests that even for his time period his choices are unacceptable. I've no clue what greater message Bronte wishes to impart nor the motivation to seek it. She has failed this reader.

Her: :(

Me: Well am I to do? Blame Catherine? Oh yes, blame the woman, that's all fine and dandy but even he sees his terrible fault. I don't want him to be some shining saint but to treat the various others around him as he does rather than brood alone...he is not pure in anything nor does he try to be! There's no honor in a thing he does yet!

Her: i like him because he's kind of an asshole

Her: good characters are boring

Me: he doesn't have to be "good"

Me: I love the "bad" characters

Me: but he is, so far, a villian without merit at all!

Me: and yet can't embrace that either

Me: he tries to come off as a gentleman in some ways still!

Me: bah

Her: yeah he's a pretty ambiguous character
Me: in class I will complain of Bronte's writing
Me: the various deliveries of the story are stressing

Her: haha

Me: I can not believe that such a thing would be delivered naturally as so it is printed. Not when it begins as tale from Lockwood's perspective than to a book of Catherine's and then to Nelly retelling what she was told from Heathcliff and then from there others telling Nelly telling it to Heathcliff and then from Heathcliff telling us from Nelly telling him from others BUT ALL IN RIDICULOUS PROSE

Me: that is NOT how stories are relayed

Me): stories are made of significant detail and in such a transference these various bits would not survive!

Me: ARGH

Her: i can see that you are very passionate about this

Me: it merely bothers me and as it is an assignment I can't walk away which leads to frustration
_______________________________
I do not like this book. I desperately WANT to like it, I even DID, but right now I do not.

Heathcliff

As far as I know him, he's a boy involved entirely with himself, his interests to others only as it concerns himself. He lived a hard life and his misanthropy is no surprise. He desperately wants the world to be a good place but has long since accepted it is not. With the death of Catherine, and what may have lead to it that I've yet to read, he is broken, possibly beyond repair. I've yet to finish chapter 10 though but I look forward to some sort of arc or conclusion.

On Notes

Note for Laura: You asked whether or not we could review and rewrite our class notes, to make them into thoughts in a way rather than...whatever they are.

I answered that I would not because, "they are for me, not for you."

In truth I was, at that moment, being more troublesome than serious and fear my reply may have been sharp or dismissive.

But I've a clearer, perhaps more acceptable reason.

My "class notes," are not my thoughts. They are literally bits of what others have said in class to remind me of what occurred that day. I can not make these into sentences because they do not belong to me. It would become only a detailed rendition of events rather than any deliberation on my part.

It is not as if I do "not" provide my own opinion, I do, just later and separately from my notes.

In a way, I doubt you were speaking to me when expressing your desire for rewritten notes, but perhaps I'm self-absorbed.

A(nother) Rape In Cyberspace

So, I've read this before...like, three times. I'm running out of energy to give it.

There's surely things to talk about, but compared to my other obligations talking the same thing to death isn't very energizing.

HOWEVER, because I simply can't let my professor down, I did pick up on something I don't think I've talked about before.

Would this instance have been more or less traumatic if it had occurred in something more visual?

I'm going to use World of Warcraft as an example, not because I like it (I don't), but because there is a good chance everyone can relate.

So, what I'm personally debating, is whether this woman would have been more or less hurt had she been accosted in an engine that provides a distinct avatar rather than one wholly constructed in her mind.

In my experience as a writer, well, as a person really, the ability to distance the self from events is considered a good coping mechanism. In video games, many people have debated which is more effective for the player of a shooting game, first or third person. Do you feel more for the character you can see or the player you are supposed to "see through?"

I empathize with the victim with consideration towards the mental energy, the time put forth into constructing a persona within the MOO and feel that, maybe, it would not have hurt so much if she had been working, instead of with a purely mental construct, with a more visible avatar like a WoW character.

Granted, she would still have been "the player," but maybe a jump would have been easier to "my character" rather than "me."

Then again, maybe visibly seeing it would have been that much worse.

I just think it's easier to say "something terrible happened to my character" than "something terrible happened to me" if you can actually see said character rather than view them in your head.

*shrug*
___________
Con't Notes for the Day:

Emotional Investment...impact via a made-up place.

There is investment in watching a character...is there a different one in "being" a character?