is it rational to bare emotions for purely fictional characters???

[thewatchman]

i was reading "the hustler" by walter tevis yesterday.. (best book on billiards ever) and although i loved it, whilst reading it i kept on thinking that my interest and emotions for the characters were meaningless due to the fact that they were purely fictional. this hindered my enjoyment of the rest of the book. has anyone else had similar difficulties???

and does anyone know of any interesting articles on this dilemma???

thanks, tom.

[ArthurDent]

I think it's very rational.

In my optinion a book that actually make you care or feel strongly for/about a character, are the best books.

I still have a little crash on Trillian :) and the main character in "Man in the maze" still has an impact at how I look on society. I remember reading this book and feeling so sorry for him. Not to mention I cried, reading 1984, for Winston's reality.

Yep. very rational.

[TariNumenesse]

I think it's perfectly rational. I have had literary crushes on hundreds of characters...some of them continue to this day. I think it is a sign of a good writer - if they can make you care that much about their characters, then they have done a good job in creating them.

But I never find that it hinders my enjoyment of the book - it makes me love it even more.

[oceanflower]

I think it's rational. I've been madly in love with Sherlock Holmes for years! :)

[Durga]

If i am not baring emotions with characters it means 4 me that the book was not worth reading. Thanks Gog:i'm quite emotional;)

[one_raven]

Let me start by saying that, although I consider myself to be a very empathetic person, I have never been driven to tears over a book, movie, song lyrics, poem, etc, even those that were based on true stories.
I have, however, experienced profound emotional reactions to such things.
The reactions I have experienced were not for the purely fictional characters or situations, though.
Not really.
The emotional reactions I experienced were for what those characters and/or situations represent, by author's intention or not.
Somebody mentioned 1984, and that is a perfect example.
I don't think 1984 was written exceptionally well, to be honest, but I did and do have significant emotional reactions when reading it. Not because of what the chaacters are put through. Not because of the pain they feel. Because it makes me recall and experience the real pain of seeing the injustices and suffering in the real world around me.
The best authors, in my opinion, are the ones who accomplish that on a wholly subconscious, subliminal way. When I read a story that makes me recall my mother at a specific time in my life, and recall, on an emotional level alone, what I felt at that time without me even realizing that's what is happening until after I sit and think about it.
I am not sure if that qualifies as "purely fictional".

On another level, the words themselves, regardless of what is being said, can draw an emotional reaction out of me.
This happens far less often and are the most wonderful to me.
Whan I am moved by the way something is said, rather than what is being said, I treasure that piece far more than I can express in this post.
It is much the same reaction I get to an exquisitely played musical instrument.
The cello, played by the right artist, can nearly move me to tears, just by virtue of the beauty of the piece and the gift of the musician.
The right words, strung together by the right gifted writer, can have the same effect on me.
One such example is "Written on the Body" by Jeanette Winterson.
There are parts of that book in which I get completely lost and drown in her words.
It doesn't matter what she is talking about in that moment -in fact, I probably couldn't even tell you afterwards what it was about- what matters is the music of the words.
Like I said, I couldn't possibly express what those pieces mean to me emotionally in this post -if at all- but I think those that have experienced the same thing understand what I mean.

[one_raven]

I can certainly understand having a crush on Trillian, but it's not Trillian that I have a crush on, it is the person that Trillian represents for me, whether I have met her yet or not.
The Trillian archetype who, if I met in real life, I would have a crush on.

When my girlfriend and I went to see the movie, the scene where Arthur Dent meets her and she asks him to go to Madagascar with her came on and my girlfriend turned to me to said that she hoped I never met her because she knew I would have gone if it was me. :D

[Lavender Heart]

I think it as rational as having emotion for "real" people. For it is not the flesh and blood that we have emotions for in any person but their "characteristics". That is, their character. We love our partner because they are kind, funny, compasionate, etc. Not because they are flesh and blood. For all intensive purposes, we are all "fictional" characters to one another. Most of us will never physically meet and yet, I can have a fondness for many of you, for what your words inspire in me.

Likewise, I play a RPG called Ultima Online where people from all over the country create "characters" that interact. We grow to love the characters we create and they take on unique personalities and even thought I am one person, I would venture to say that other players feel differently about one of my characters versus another. Although they are really interacting with me and know that, they can run into my Archer (Sadie Cross) and have a different relationship with her, versus Abby, my warrior/mage. They come to life, just as the characters in our beloved books do...:-)

[MagicCeilingFan]

Before you ask if it is rational to get emotional over a work of literature, you have to ask yourself, "What exactly are emotions?"

Really, all emotions are just irrational ideas expressed in certian situations. After all, all they really do is retard human instincts and ideas. If we were completly devoid of all emotions, people wouldn't get bogged down with all sorts of emotional baggage, we'd only care abour ourselves except in situations where it would benifit our survival, and we wouldn't have many of the silly rules in our socitey today that slow scientific progress. The other upside is, the fact that no one would ever be sad or unhappy, because no one would have any emotions.

However, that being said, if we didn't have emotions, what would be the purpose of our existance? We would merely continue with no real aim in life or reason for doing so. Usually, a persons end goal in life is to be happy. Without emotions, there would be no happiness, so this goal would be gone. Our goal in life would be merely to continue.

Ironically, though we wouldn't care, because we would feel no emotional mourning for something greater. I would say that we would be content, but contentment would not exist either. War would probably never had existed as well as most petty arguments and murders.

Personally though, I love emotions, but then love is an emotion too, so I am obviously speaking from the standpoint of an extremely irrational man who thrives on his own emotional irrationality.

So in answer to you question, no, it is not rational to bare your emotions to purely fictional characters, but as I mentioned, neither is bareing any emotion towards anything. But then, who wants to be rational anyway? Being irrational is much more human, and in my opinion, a much better way to live life. Of course you can disregard this if you do not care for the opinion of an irrational man.

[skye]

Maybe it's not rational, but it's perfectly natural.

[one_raven]

Before you ask if it is rational to get emotional over a work of literature, you have to ask yourself, "What exactly are emotions?"

Really, all emotions are just irrational ideas expressed in certian situations. After all, all they really do is retard human instincts and ideas. If we were completly devoid of all emotions, people wouldn't get bogged down with all sorts of emotional baggage, we'd only care abour ourselves except in situations where it would benifit our survival, and we wouldn't have many of the silly rules in our socitey today that slow scientific progress. The other upside is, the fact that no one would ever be sad or unhappy, because no one would have any emotions.
I couldn't disagree more.
But, then, that's not really the point of this thread, is it?
I always get myself in trouble for derailing threads.

[oceanflower]

I couldn't disagree more.
But, then, that's not really the point of this thread, is it?
I always get myself in trouble for derailing threads.

You can always start a new thread.:)