Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9566562" data-attributes="member: 7044566">I really don't see things that way. This might sound pretentious but earlier in the thread I was saying that what Maxperson is doing is a form of expression about the human condition. Making a statement. Basically mutually creating art. It's just from the first person perspective it's often framed and feels like, this is what my character would do. This has a lot of unconscious influence.So the conflict is between the characters, not the participants. The resolution is basically making a statement about the human condition.Let's say I have the squire cede because he's scared of going against Sir James authority. How does that work out for him? How does throwing around his authority work out for Sir james?Anyway the other part of this is the idea of moral/thematic escalation. (and crimsons recent post was a good example of that)A character might not get their way but what then?Let's say that Sir James started the conversation more amicably and was like, you're young and inexperienced this is puppy love. The squire doesn't cede. What does Sir James do? maybe he escalated across a moral line and 'that's' when he starts throwing around his authority. What does that say about him as a person? How does it work out for him?So to get back to your point. Audience consensus or who is better at social manoeuvring is still missing the point. That framing still conceives of things as control over the story. Does that make sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thefutilist, post: 9566562, member: 7044566"] I really don't see things that way. This might sound pretentious but earlier in the thread I was saying that what Maxperson is doing is a form of expression about the human condition. Making a statement. Basically mutually creating art. It's just from the first person perspective it's often framed and feels like, this is what my character would do. This has a lot of unconscious influence. So the conflict is between the characters, not the participants. The resolution is basically making a statement about the human condition. Let's say I have the squire cede because he's scared of going against Sir James authority. How does that work out for him? How does throwing around his authority work out for Sir james? Anyway the other part of this is the idea of moral/thematic escalation. (and crimsons recent post was a good example of that) A character might not get their way but what then? Let's say that Sir James started the conversation more amicably and was like, you're young and inexperienced this is puppy love. The squire doesn't cede. What does Sir James do? maybe he escalated across a moral line and 'that's' when he starts throwing around his authority. What does that say about him as a person? How does it work out for him? So to get back to your point. Audience consensus or who is better at social manoeuvring is still missing the point. That framing still conceives of things as control over the story. Does that make sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification