Talk:Fictional character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fictional character article.
Article policies
Fictional character is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.See comments
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Meous

How would the character/role of 'the common man' in A Man for All Seasons fit in this article? i don;t know

"Some language- or text-oriented critics emphasize that characters are nothing more than certain conventional uses of words on a page: names or evenn just pronouns repeated throughout a text. They refer to characters as functions of the text. Some critics go so far as to suggest that even authors do not exist outside the texts that construct them."

Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. You can relate to characters emotionally in a way that you can't relate to a dispassionate block of text. Lee M 05:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who said anything about "dispassionate"? That same school of critics would probably refer to your emotions as just another set of functions of the text. :)

Tom

Whereas I would describe them as functions of my hormonal system... :-\ Lee M 13:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Is Macbeth really a readers to imagine characters as real people by giving them realistic names, names that were often the titles of books, such as Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre or Charles

for the whole) would only make sense if one were using Hamlet to refer to all of Shakespeare's work or something along those lines, but that would be a rather strange way to use the term.

On another note, I'm not sure of the usefulness of the oft-alluded-to characters list. If someone doesn't get an allusion, wouldn't they just look up that person's entry on the wikipedia? When would you want to use a list of oft-alluded-to people? -- Thomas Mills Hinkle

My hope is actually that people will eventually add similar characters from India, Japan, etc. If so, and the list is subdivided by cultural region, it could be useful as far as pointing out characters that areto. I know a tiny about Japanese religion and culture and whatnot, for example, but couldn't even begin to name a character with iconic significance. I'd like of famous characters, rather than a list of characters so famous that they have acquired an identity of their own outside of their work that is a major part of our culture. Hermione Granger was recently added to the list -- while she and the other Harry Potter characters are certainly famous, I don't believe her name has grown outside of Rowling's control in the same way as characters like Quijote, Big Brother and Jeckyl and Hyde. I'm inclined to begin pruning this list boldly if people don't mind -- there are many lists of characters on the wikipedia, and I want to avoid having this article turn into another one. Tom 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree this list should be pruned quite significantly. If you said "She's a bit of a Hermione Granger" I'm not sure anyone would know what you meant. If you said "He's a bit of a Jeckyl and Hyde" then people would know exactly what you meant. Jeckyl and Hyde should stay. Granger should go. --JimmyTheWig 8 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
Agreed, even though I'm a big enough Harry Potter fan that I actually could imagine calling someone a "bit of a Hermione Granger" and having people know exactly what I meant. That said, I'm still a bit nervous about starting doing this. Can anyone give any insight into regular wikipedia practice. I think this really is a case where too much new content threatens to overwhelm the pagethe 'pedia, but I also am loathe to start removing content others put time into adding. Tom
I was going to say "Seeing as no-one was defending the list as it stands, I propose removing x, y and z". But now I've had another look at it, I find it hard to prune.
I'm concerned about deleting someone just because I haven't heard of them, especially if they're from another culture. I've never heard of "Brother Jonathan", though he may be famous in the States (I'm in the UK). Similarly, there are Czech and Russian characters on the list that I've never heard of.
I propose removing the following from the list: Archie Bunker, Brother Jonathan, Captain Ahab, Captain Kirk, Hamlet, Hermione Granger, Holden Caulfield, Ivan-durak, Jara Cimrman, King Lear, Nozdrev, Ophelia, Penelope, Sharikov, Siren, Tom Joad.
If someone is removed then I suggest the text is copied to this talk page to preserve it, at least for now.(UTC)
I disagree with Archie Bunker, Captain Ahab, Hamlet and Penelope, I think they are all sufficiently archetypal (probably Ophelia too - there is a book with the title "Saving Ophelia", for example, which relies on people having the association of "suicidal young woman" with the name). Someone has addedreversed for Yoda and Merlin/Gandalf (they have Yoda as the archetype influencing the characters of Merlin and Gandalf, which is chronologically impossible apart from any other issues).
I will remove the X-Men characters and insert Merlin as archetype rather than influencee. We should have a link to "archetype" somewhere as well.
I think what we should probably use as a criterion for inclusion in this list is "Is this the originating character which subsequently is referenced by future characters of the same type?" So Merlin is is but Hercule Poirot isn't (not because they don't significantly extend the archetype but because they didn't originate it).

MikeRM 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When editing, please note the helpful comment at the top of the list (not mine):

"For the sake of brevity and only using the most helpful examples, please no national personifications, mythological heroes, very contemporary characters or characters that are not extraordinarily iconic."

Looking at the list I found a lot that I am dubious about. Usually they are relatively modern characters based on older archetypes. My opinion is that we should go for the earlier character rather than the one that may be more familiar, but I am open to argument here. The lead-in paragraph does make fame one of the criteria for an "iconic" character.

All of the Star Wars based on archetypes from Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces".

Also, are we restricting ourselves to literature? The article's title is "fictional characters" so it would seem appropriate to include only characters which have first appeared in fiction (including media other than text in the broad category of fiction, but excluding myth and legend). However, this test would exclude Robin Hood, Santa Claus and probably King Arthur, for example, and I'm not sure we want to do that. (King Arthur isn't currently included - although he arose from folk legend/history, our earliest available sources are literary, so he may count after all.)

  • Bugs Bunny - based at least partly on Brer Rabbit (certainly as regards "benign slyness and cunning"), who in turn is a traditional mythological character, although he is known to Western culture primarily through the "Uncle Remus" rendering. Do either of these (Bugs or Brer Rabbit) belong here?
  • Buffy - based on earlier vampire slayers, notably Abraham Van Helsing (from Bram Stoker's Dracula), * I don't think Doctor Who is "extraordinarily iconic". I am open to being convinced. If he is, he is probably based on the Wandering Jew or some similarly itinerant legendary figure.
  • Indiana Jones is based on earlier adventurers such as Doc Savage or, further back, Allan Quatermain. But you would be more widely understood if you said "He's an Indiana Jones type" than if you said "He's an Allan Quatermain type", at least until someone films the H. Rider Haggard books again and does a decent job of it.
  • Robin Hood, while widely used in fiction, wasn't originally literary, was he? Does he count? He does in all other ways.
  • Removed He-Man and the Flash as they are not "extraordinarily iconic".
  • Santa Claus - another non-literary one.
  • Mr Spock - probably a literary descendant of Sherlock Holmes, so I'm dubious about his status as "iconic" if we are taking the earlier one as the icon.
  • Superman definitely belongs.
  • Captain America, I'm not so sure. If we are including non-literary characters I would say Uncle Sam was a more* Spiderman might squeak in as an iconically troubled superhero, but I'm dubious.
  • Removed Wolverine as not "extraordinarily iconic".
  • Obi-Wan Kenobi is a "wise old man" figure who is derived from an archetype rather than being one. Removed.
  • Replaced Yoda with Merlin as per my other note above.

MikeRM 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You make some very good points, Mike; although there's certainly some merit with going with the earlier version in many cases (as they did come first; my justification for listing 'Sam Spade' as the 'iconic' character for the Gumshoe archetype), the problem as I see it with going simply by the earlier archetype is that many of the later archetypes are either (a) more well-known and therefore established as being more 'iconic' in the public mind (as you point out with the Indiana Jones / Allan Quatermain example), or (b) are different in respects that establish them as being 'iconic' on their own merits (such as Darth Vader and Sauron - although clearly influenced by Sauron, there's elements in Darth Vader's character that are arguably 'iconic' in their own right, although I'd say there's certainly a space for Sauron on the list, what with the success of the Lord of the Rings movies). As such, as well as adding some characters whom I think are iconic (although I'd certainly be open to discussion about them), I've also taken the liberty of expanding slightly on some of the entries (such as Vader and Doctor Who) in an effort to expand on why they're iconic in their own right. After reading this discussion, I also took down a few characters I'd added whom, on further consideration, I didn't feel were really 'iconic' enough.

Regarding Sherlock Holmes and Spock, however, I agree that there's very little difference between the two characters beyond the superficial; reading their entries side-by-side, they're virtually the same, and Holmes is a clear inspiration for Spock. As such, since Holmes did come first, I've merged the two into Holmes' entry. --Joseph Q Publique 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character as Reference

I just put back in much of the stuff about cultural/feminist reading of characters in relation to stereotypes. It had been replaced by a pithy mention of stereotypes which didn't do justice at all to this kind of criticism (the point is not that stereotypes are bad and bad authors use them -- the point is that authors rely on or react to stereotypes in their writing).

My edit may have been overzealous -- I started out trying to fix a bunch of typos and grammar errors that had been introduced, then realized content had been lost. In the process, I cut some of what was added by User:151.201.28.80, but I think I kept the core examples that were added and actually expanded on one in the newly forged paragraph.

If you're going to do any major edits, please discuss here.

Also, I'm starting to think that I should look for references and quotes of literary criticism to go along with these sections, rather than relying on generalities and examples of books. While the expanding selection of example characters/texts is useful, "ways of reading characters" is really about reading, so example readings would, I think, be even better :) Tom 23:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Persons?

Fictional characters can also include Animals and Animated objects (usually anthropomorphized). Simple examples would be Bugs Bunny on Looney Tunes and Bender the Robot on Futurama. Should the definition of "person" be expanded for this? I think not because an anthropomorphized animal is really only a fictional device so I think it really belongs here. Of course the future of artificial intelligence may one day break down the barrier of "person" but it hasn't come close yet.

What do people think?

Jeff schiller 00:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the article already covers this. Take a look at the opening paragraph again:
A fictional character is any person who appears in a work of fiction. More accurately, a fictional character is the person or conscious entity we imagine to exist within the world of such a work. In addition to people, characters can be aliens, animals, gods or, occasionally, inanimate objects.
The first sentence does assert a character "is any person", which is the most general case. Given that the technecality is cleared up in the next sentence, I'm inclined to leave it as is. After all, wikipedia is not a dictionary -- the goal is to write a clear article, not a precise definition. As a clear opening sentence, I like the simple if slightly incorrect, "A fictional character is any person...". The following sentence (which begins "more accurately", making it clear that it gives the more technical definition) covers the cases you've brought up. --Tom 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good...Jeff schiller 14:07, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
Does it mean that real people appearing in works of fiction are also fictional characters? Ausir 16:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yup -- I think so -- and I think that makes sense. Once an author throws you into a fictional work, you're a fictional character, whether you are the author's roomate or a long-dead king or the author him or herself. Tom 19:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Characters and Types

I think everything here is great, and I would also like to see a little more to show the distinction between a full character and one who is less individualized and is more defined by as being a type (not strictly a stereotype). In some of my screenwriting classes, I recall the fact that distinguishing between a character and a type was a very important skill in both character/story creation and analysis. Perhaps this would be viewed as a relatively minor technicality, but I feel it's important and might be worth highlighting more right from the start of this entry. -forteanajones 15:15, 23 Mar 2005 PST

I say go for it. I think it would be best added under the section Round Characters vs. Flat Characters, which already works more from the perspective of writing than the other sections (which I wrote, mostly, from the perspective of criticism/reading). Tom
I fleshed out round vs. flat a bit and added dynamic vs. static as well. These categories could have gone in the "Characterization" article as well, but "Dynamic character" already redirected to this page. I moved these two categories to the top of the section because I felt they were more commonly encountered terms than some of the others. Also, I realize my examples of round characters are a little strange; they were what I could pull off the top of my head. IrisWings 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a list of fictional horror killers to the category - I think it is a relevant list for horror afficianados and also important as part of the fictional character list. Piecraft 22:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some things to add to the article?

It seems to me something should be said about the importance of fictional characters to both authors and readers in how they see themselves and grow. Some questions related to this are:

  1. Why are so many people so fascinated with fictional characters? (e.g., many Wikipedia articles devoted each to a character)
  2. Fictional treatments of historical characters who actually existed (e.g., Miyamoto Musashi wrote a book about martial arts and existed, but a book was written about him by Eiji Yoshikawa and a film was made about him by Akira Kurosawa)
  3. Fictional treatments where historical characters are mixed with fictional characters (e.g., Horatio Hornblower and Napoleon)
  4. Characters like Adam and Eve
  5. nicknames and avatars used in online communities and role playing games

-- Sitearm | Talk 03:21, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

[edit] Is List of fictional people known for their names appropriate?

A link to a List of fictional people known for their names has been added to this page by User:Jrleighton. Is the linked page appropriate for an encyclopedia?

--JimmyTheWig 09:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should Ziggy Stardust be classed as a "fictional character"

Musicians create fictional characters. For example, David Bowie created Ziggy Stardust, among others. Is there a special word for these, or should they also be termed "fictional characters" in the same way as characters in cartoons, for example. Alan Pascoe 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about non-persons?

The opening sentence reads, "A fictional character is any person who appears in a work of fiction."

Just curious, why is it restricted to being a person? Are not anthropromorphic creatures in works of fiction also characters? Consider the cast of A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh, or any number of cartoons such as Yogi Bear.

Also, must a person in a work of fiction be fictional? There are many literary and theatrical works that feature real people in fictional situations. Examples are Adolf Hitler in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Franklin D. Roosevelt in Yankee Doodle Dandy.

— Michael J 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh is a person too! There is a list of real people in a fictional context (I forget the exact title). Perhaps the lead could say "A fictional character is one who appears...", but then that assumes knowledge of the word "character" (which itself could imply human, anyway). I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's too much of a problem. violet/riga (t) 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
it´s quite a problem--89.212.209.233 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listcruft

Over half of this article is an unreadable laundry list. I intend to start trimming it over the next few days. Would anyone like to opine about why these lists are important or necessary before I begin? Nandesuka 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope - I'd be happy if you axed the whole thing. "Iconic" is utterly unverifiable and POV. Percy Snoodle 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Please also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, a project to identify and keep lists under control. Nandesuka 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the removal -- any chance we could remove the whole list of Iconic characters too? Tom
Go for it - Be bold! Percy Snoodle 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What might be good is to pick a small number of those "iconic characters" -— say, 3 or 4 — and replace the list with a small paragraph, using those as examples. Just my $0.02. I'll do that later today if no one beats me to it. Nandesuka 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Percy Snoodle 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] round vs. flat and dynamic vs. static

Round v. flat and dynamic v. static were recently moved to the top of the list of "ways of reading characters" This strikes me as wrong -- if you note, the other ways of reading characters all have a parallel construction and they really refer to modes in which literary critics might approach character.

Round vs. Flat and Dynamic vs. Static refers to types of characters that exist in a work (rather than ways of reading characters). In other words, ways of reading characters refer to multiple ways in which readers could interpret the same character whereas round v. flat etc. refer to classification schemes with which you can differentiate characters.

I'm not sure what a good sub-heading for them would be -- perhaps, "basic uses of characters" or "basic types of characters". Any ideas? Tom 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the current change, "Some ways of classifying characters." I knew at the time that round/flat, dynamic/static didn't fit with the other schemes, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. IrisWings 06:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refine intro para

Fictional character includes a character or personna portrayed in a performance by an actor or provocateur, or as part of a breaching experiment, where the continuity of the performance or experiment depends on the illusion that the character is in fact "real". dr.ef.tymac 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Fictional character to Character (fiction)

Hello, Mike Klaassen. I just noticed your move of the article Fictional character to Character (fiction), and I must say that I don't feel that this move is for the best. I saw that one of your reasons for the move is that you feel that the title Character (fiction) is easier to find than the title Fictional character. As stated before, I don't feel this way. Many editors here have been typing the words Fictional character as to internal-link that article for a while now, and it's easier to type than to have to pipe-trick the character part of the title. Would you mind further explaining (seeing as I read your edit summary about it) to me why you feel that this move is for the best on this matter? Flyer22 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer. Rather than argue the merits of either title, I changed it back. Mike Klaassen 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I would have been fine with "hearing" your side on this matter, of course. Anyway, thank you for the move-back. Flyer22 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 : It's better moved back, but I think the piping wasn't an issue per se, because we could still happily link to the fictional character redirect without any piping needed – actually piping wouldn't have been desirable here, it's a common misconception that any and all link to a redirect must be bypassed or piped, when actually many links need to be kept to separate redirects, so as to sort them out by different usage based on which redirect they link to, with separate "What Links Here" lists. I however see a different reason for the move back:
  • Mike Klaassen : WP:FICT allows articles about notable characters under the condition that we clearly inform the reader of their fictional nature, right after their name: thus, I believe that quantitatively, the #1 use for this article on Wikipedia is by far for leads such as, "Foo Bar is a fictional character in the works of John Smithee." Of course, the redirect was good enough too, but as per Wikipedia standards it's preferable to have the article sit at the name it's the most commonly linked to. — Komusou talk @ 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Komusou. I know that we could have still relied on the Fictional character redirect. I should have cited your reason first for the move-back — its common name. Good point of bringing it up. I was kind of touching on that subject when I stated that many editors here have been linking to that name for a while now. I'll see you around. Flyer22 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

by calliope h.p

[edit] Wording in first paragraph

I don't like the wording in the first paragraph because not all fictional characters are created as a figment of one's imagination. In other words, the fictional character may be influenced by an existing person or entity. Please give me a response within two days. Otherwise, the rewording will be likely to be reverted. Marcus2 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)