I agree that the more questions you ask the better but it''s also just as important to ask the right questions for the situation at hand.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
characters
OK-
This isn''t what I do, but it works for some people. ( I tend to go w/, as MadKeith said, treating them as if they already exist in this world that I''m discovering. I''ve even gone so far as to hold a ''conference'' w/ the various characters and let them speak their own roles in the plot events. Anywho, I think that''s the wardens at my door soooo. . .)
Many view their stories more holistically, as a dramatic exposition of colliding philosophical viewpoints. By this view, the characters exist for the purpose of the story, not t''other way ''round. So lets say the theme is free will v. societal pressures. Character A (Bob) represents the inveterate slacker, disdainful of convention, perhaps a guitarist for some shitty punk band. Character B (Bruce) is an upstanding citizen who looks down his nose at Bob and his freewheeling ways. And of course Character C (Sally) represents the conflict itself, as she is in love w/ Bob, but is being wooed by Bruce. Sally might be the protaganist, and is pulled by Bruce''s stability, rich family, etc. on the one hand, but on the other, Bob''s music makes her SO DAMN HORNY. Or whatever. The point is, the characters say what is needed for the exposition of the theme. They do what is needed for the exposition of the theme. And their individual quirks (Bob''s Knox-Gelatin spikes v. Bruce''s combed over part, Bob''s high-strung stutter v. Bruce''s smooth-as-velvet demeanor) all exist to personify the philosophical forces they represent.
It sounds alot like allegory, but its alot closer to the traditional novel in the actual technique. Its alot subtler than allegory. The representations are never spelled out for the reader, and the artist is bound by his craft to allow the conflict to play itself out truthfully, unlike allegory, where the resolution is usually forced.
Oh well, its interesting enough, but I''d never use it. As a programmer, I like the "neatness" and the architectural aspect of it, but its too manipulative. Anyway, its an idea, innit?
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
This isn''t what I do, but it works for some people. ( I tend to go w/, as MadKeith said, treating them as if they already exist in this world that I''m discovering. I''ve even gone so far as to hold a ''conference'' w/ the various characters and let them speak their own roles in the plot events. Anywho, I think that''s the wardens at my door soooo. . .)
Many view their stories more holistically, as a dramatic exposition of colliding philosophical viewpoints. By this view, the characters exist for the purpose of the story, not t''other way ''round. So lets say the theme is free will v. societal pressures. Character A (Bob) represents the inveterate slacker, disdainful of convention, perhaps a guitarist for some shitty punk band. Character B (Bruce) is an upstanding citizen who looks down his nose at Bob and his freewheeling ways. And of course Character C (Sally) represents the conflict itself, as she is in love w/ Bob, but is being wooed by Bruce. Sally might be the protaganist, and is pulled by Bruce''s stability, rich family, etc. on the one hand, but on the other, Bob''s music makes her SO DAMN HORNY. Or whatever. The point is, the characters say what is needed for the exposition of the theme. They do what is needed for the exposition of the theme. And their individual quirks (Bob''s Knox-Gelatin spikes v. Bruce''s combed over part, Bob''s high-strung stutter v. Bruce''s smooth-as-velvet demeanor) all exist to personify the philosophical forces they represent.
It sounds alot like allegory, but its alot closer to the traditional novel in the actual technique. Its alot subtler than allegory. The representations are never spelled out for the reader, and the artist is bound by his craft to allow the conflict to play itself out truthfully, unlike allegory, where the resolution is usually forced.
Oh well, its interesting enough, but I''d never use it. As a programmer, I like the "neatness" and the architectural aspect of it, but its too manipulative. Anyway, its an idea, innit?
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
