I love this post. These questions are so interesting. I actually thought reading it, "Damn, I want to read her thesis." (So if you need a copy editor at any point -- or just a cheerleader -- I'd be a willing one!) :)
I don't think it necessarily makes it less real. Interesting characters are conflicted, so the choices they make are nuanced and nothing is inevitable (except for the scent of bitter almonds? but what if it weren't? haha), meaning there is the possibility of changing it. But it depends on how well and consistently it's done, again, and whether fundamental truths about a character or situation are respected. X number of things have to be constant in order to change Y number of things?
I think maybe it depends. Sometimes a story is so perfect I don't want to think about what alternate or supplementary versions there are. Like when I wrote the last paragraph, I thought, "What if she HAD married Florentino Ariza!" and I immediately didn't really want to think about it. The way the characters are written, the story wouldn't have worked if they didn't have to wait. And it wouldn't have been so tragic anymore... or it would have been, but different. Would they have even been the same characters if those 50 years didn't pass the way they did? And indeed, a master like Marquez could have done anything with it. But too much might be changed for them to seem "real" or for them to even be themselves anymore. There are other places in that book (it does span more than a half-century) where you could play with it (like Ariza's million encounters). It's just a question of which elements are the most important. If you touch the untouchable, then it stops being itself.
Just to use a famous example (since I'm not really into fanfic, although your discussion of it always makes me want to be), in Great Expectations, both endings are equally real to me -- there's a reason both endings work, and it's because Pip and Estella are conflicted people, and either ending is plausible. The choice of one option over another is balanced on a very narrow rim. A lot of my favorite movies have extremely tenuous endings predicated on decisions that are incredibly hard to make, and they would lend themselves to really interesting exploration. (Of course, I would be afraid to touch them, but the potential is there.) In a minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute can reverse, right?
This post makes me think about your fanfic about the Malfoys/pure-blood wizards, which I loved. It definitely made those characters more real to me. It was so well written and could have convincingly been done by JK Rowling. But it was also so consistent with their characters, personalities and styles -- it just explored something that was left unexplored in the book. It gave answers in places where the question wasn't even fully formed.
And this: "Kind of funny, no? We loom so large in our own minds. For everyone else, we're all just sidekicks and extras. Sometimes we're the cool best friend, or the romantic interest. But protagonists? We're all our own. As it should be."
You should see Synecdoche, New York, if you haven't already. It's amazing and I love it. I think you would, too. (It's pretty depressing, though.) Philip Seymour Hoffman's character says: "I know how to do it now. There are millions of people in the world. None of those people is an extra. They're all the leads of their own stories. They have to be given their due."
And I think you should call your thesis "Windows on the World" -- otherwise the terrorists will have won. :)
I totally wrote a tl;dr comment, and I'm sorry about that! (I hate writing huge comments... but it was just such a provocative post!)
BUT: When do you want to hang out next week? We could do something Monday and celebrate the presidents. (Including the 44th! Yay!) Otherwise, any day for me works but Tuesday. <3
no subject
I don't think it necessarily makes it less real. Interesting characters are conflicted, so the choices they make are nuanced and nothing is inevitable (except for the scent of bitter almonds? but what if it weren't? haha), meaning there is the possibility of changing it. But it depends on how well and consistently it's done, again, and whether fundamental truths about a character or situation are respected. X number of things have to be constant in order to change Y number of things?
I think maybe it depends. Sometimes a story is so perfect I don't want to think about what alternate or supplementary versions there are. Like when I wrote the last paragraph, I thought, "What if she HAD married Florentino Ariza!" and I immediately didn't really want to think about it. The way the characters are written, the story wouldn't have worked if they didn't have to wait. And it wouldn't have been so tragic anymore... or it would have been, but different. Would they have even been the same characters if those 50 years didn't pass the way they did? And indeed, a master like Marquez could have done anything with it. But too much might be changed for them to seem "real" or for them to even be themselves anymore. There are other places in that book (it does span more than a half-century) where you could play with it (like Ariza's million encounters). It's just a question of which elements are the most important. If you touch the untouchable, then it stops being itself.
Just to use a famous example (since I'm not really into fanfic, although your discussion of it always makes me want to be), in Great Expectations, both endings are equally real to me -- there's a reason both endings work, and it's because Pip and Estella are conflicted people, and either ending is plausible. The choice of one option over another is balanced on a very narrow rim. A lot of my favorite movies have extremely tenuous endings predicated on decisions that are incredibly hard to make, and they would lend themselves to really interesting exploration. (Of course, I would be afraid to touch them, but the potential is there.) In a minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute can reverse, right?
This post makes me think about your fanfic about the Malfoys/pure-blood wizards, which I loved. It definitely made those characters more real to me. It was so well written and could have convincingly been done by JK Rowling. But it was also so consistent with their characters, personalities and styles -- it just explored something that was left unexplored in the book. It gave answers in places where the question wasn't even fully formed.
And this: "Kind of funny, no? We loom so large in our own minds. For everyone else, we're all just sidekicks and extras. Sometimes we're the cool best friend, or the romantic interest. But protagonists? We're all our own. As it should be."
You should see Synecdoche, New York, if you haven't already. It's amazing and I love it. I think you would, too. (It's pretty depressing, though.) Philip Seymour Hoffman's character says: "I know how to do it now. There are millions of people in the world. None of those people is an extra. They're all the leads of their own stories. They have to be given their due."
And I think you should call your thesis "Windows on the World" -- otherwise the terrorists will have won. :)
I totally wrote a tl;dr comment, and I'm sorry about that! (I hate writing huge comments... but it was just such a provocative post!)
BUT: When do you want to hang out next week? We could do something Monday and celebrate the presidents. (Including the 44th! Yay!) Otherwise, any day for me works but Tuesday. <3