August Primate

The August Primate Universe is an experimental interconnected world for new characters of the Public Domain. The main objective is to build a living breathing fictional universe that absolutely anyone can use and add to, at no cost whatsoever.
 
HomeRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Consensus Canon

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
SimianAngel
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 116
Personage : 2
Registration date : 2009-02-16

PostSubject: Consensus Canon   Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:16 pm

Recently, on Twitter, my friend Rebecca and I had a small debate over the characteristics of vampires. I feel like 140 characters isn’t nearly enough to elaborate my position, and my position is relevant to the August Primate, so here we are.

MrsRPattinson @(Someone I don’t know, who has referenced cloudy weather) Perfect weather for vampires though ;)

prototype138 @MrsRPattinson NO. Perfect weather for vampires = NIGHT. Cause otherwise they will BURN TO DEATH, not SPARKLE. Dumb girls bedazzle anything.

MrsRPattinson @prototype138 Seeing as vampires are fictional, I think they can do whatever they want. However, sparkling is super gay.

I’m glad that she agrees with me about sparkling vampires being awful, but my actual point is that it’s also wrong.
Her point that a fictional character can be or do anything is valid. However, I believe that a fictional archetype (like a vampire) does not have the same freedom.
Vampires, dragons, deities, and the like don’t exist in our empirical reality, but they do exist within the consensus reality of our imaginations. This is much different from the existence of a specific character, in that we all have a collective definition of these archetypes. In consensus, they are as well defined as we have defined the real world around us. Sometimes, these archetypes are defined even better.
The main difference between the definition of a fictional character and the definition of a real person is that the real definition has been tested and observed empirically. The fictional character has been almost reverse-engineered, using much of our own definition as a base and swapping out much of the minute details for ones of our own creation.
So, in effect, the fictional character has nothing but its definition.
This begs the question, just how much of an archetype’s definition can you change before it suffers from speciation and becomes a separate archetype entirely?
Let’s say that I’m creating a western style dragon. His name is Carlos.
Like most dragons, he’s very large and likes to hoard gold. But, to make things a little different and more interesting, Carlos isn’t green. In fact, he doesn’t even fly or breathe fire. He’s not reptilian either, but instead is humanoid in appearance.
Well, it seems that Carlos isn’t a dragon at all. Rather, he seems more like a miserly giant. If I further refined his definition to include having only one eye, he becomes a classic Cyclops. Certainly, he is no dragon.
Likewise, Edward Cullen™ is no vampire. He shares many vampire-like traits, as defined and redefined by vampire canon over the course of history, but not nearly enough.
He, and his asinine baseball-playing family, are an abomination and should be purged from our imaginations before they cause irreparable damage to the vampire archetype.
That’s my opinion, anyway.

What’s yours?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://augustprimate.forumotion.com
angrygn0me
Private
avatar

Number of posts : 16
Age : 34
Location : Phildelphia, PA
Personage : 1
Registration date : 2009-03-18

PostSubject: Re: Consensus Canon   Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:43 pm

The Twilight™ Vampires, no matter how lame you may thing they are, still follow the basic archetype. They avoid sunlight, the reason has just changed. And honestly, I think that whole idea could have gone a lot cooler if they were, for instance, kind of translucent in nature.... and therefore had to avoid the sun because direct light would shine right on through, highlighting veins and making them look far more monstrous. The sparkling is silly, but a lot of other authors referenced luminous, marble-like skin... the sparking was just taking it a bit TOO far.

But they have all the same characteristics. Super speed and strength. Cold skin. No visible fangs....but really, who needs pointy fangs when you can just tear into them with super bite pressure... and suck?

I'm not a fan of fast, superhuman zombies.... but they're still zombies if they're walking corpses and eating flesh. Technically they'd still be zombies if they didn't eat brains. Zombies are simply the dead returned to life, in definition anyway.

Anne Rice's vampires didnt shrink from holy water or garlic. A stake through the heart didn't kill them. They were still vampires though.


Last edited by SimianAngel on Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added Trademarks.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
furiostatic
Private
avatar

Number of posts : 10
Age : 34
Personage : 1
Registration date : 2009-03-27

PostSubject: Re: Consensus Canon   Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:11 pm

I've been meaning to reply to this; i just need to time to sit down and write it out. one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SimianAngel
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 116
Personage : 2
Registration date : 2009-02-16

PostSubject: Re: Consensus Canon   Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:53 pm

angrygn0me wrote:
The Twilight Vampires, no matter how lame you may thing they are, still follow the basic archetype. They avoid sunlight, the reason has just changed. And honestly, I think that whole idea could have gone a lot cooler if they were, for instance, kind of translucent in nature.... and therefore had to avoid the sun because direct light would shine right on through, highlighting veins and making them look far more monstrous. The sparkling is silly, but a lot of other authors referenced luminous, marble-like skin... the sparking was just taking it a bit TOO far.

But they have all the same characteristics. Super speed and strength. Cold skin. No visible fangs....but really, who needs pointy fangs when you can just tear into them with super bite pressure... and suck?

My point wasn't that the differences were just that disparate. My point is that the sheer volume of differences (physically and psychologically) is enough. I use the term speciation, because I wouldn't expect them to be as different as Wolves and Sheep, but more like Wolves and Coyotes.

angrygn0me wrote:
I'm not a fan of fast, superhuman zombies.... but they're still zombies if they're walking corpses and eating flesh. Technically they'd still be zombies if they didn't eat brains. Zombies are simply the dead returned to life, in definition anyway.

See, your definition is exactly the problem. By that definition, a vampire is a zombie. It also makes zombies out of a host of other undead creatures who all have their own names for a reason.

angrygn0me wrote:
Anne Rice's vampires didnt shrink from holy water or garlic. A stake through the heart didn't kill them. They were still vampires though.

I don't think that people can't take artistic license. In Preacher™, the vampire has no fangs. And you make a good point about Anne Rice's vampires being different as well.
Here's where speciation and evolution come back into play.
Joss Whedon, Garth Ennis, and Anne Rice all made differing variations of the vampire archetype. They all diverged in their own ways, making them drastically different from eachother. But they were still equidistant from the core archetype. With Stephanie Meyer, I get the distinct feeling that she didn't base her vampire on the archetype at all, but most likely on Anne Rice's version (I can't prove this conclusively, but it's reasonable based on observation).
If you were to chart this on a 'tree of life', you would see the Twilight™ vampires noticably further from the 'trunk' that represents the vampire archetype.
Life, in fiction as well as in reality, evolves in just this fashion.
I should be more accepting, I suppose, but I am not.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://augustprimate.forumotion.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Consensus Canon   

Back to top Go down
 
Consensus Canon
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Best canon couple~!!
» Do you consider NaruHina as canon already?
» DBZ Canon vs Movie Villains
» Which pairing is canon and which fanon (known as crack too)?
» My First article as an OATM: Back to Kindergarden! Learn your VWXYZ!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
August Primate :: August Primate Universe :: Miscellaneous Thoughts-
Jump to: