Your point is very well taken Natasa, and perhaps sums up for me why I could never describe myself as a 'character junkie' because I simply don't enjoy reading passages like the imaginary one you gave.
If someone maintains that Vila is a sage behind his clownish mask, that's fine with me. If the above paragraph were his stream of consciousness, I don't think I would complain.
I think you are being too kind here, though.
On the other hand - who knows what people are like 'inside their heads'. I have a problem in that most of what I do inside is non-verbal, which is why I am so often groping for terms and names. However many linguistic philosophers claim that thought is entirely couched in verbal terms, and perhaps this is for them an accurate representation of how they experience their own internal life.
Perhaps this explains why people (like me) are so prone to use ellipses, disjointed phrases, repetition etc. Stylistically I am doing it to try to convey in verbal terms a non-verbal experience. Uhh.. I guess.
Alison
--- Alison Page alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk wrote:
On the other hand - who knows what people are like 'inside their heads'. I have a problem in that most of what I do inside is non-verbal, which is why I am so often groping for terms and names. However many linguistic philosophers claim that thought is entirely couched in verbal terms, and perhaps this is for them an accurate representation of how they experience their own internal life.
The last book I read on the subject, or at least started to read, (Pinker - The Language Instinct) suggested that we think non-verbally. The argument was that we use the same word (or words) for different things. For example I used to work in the same building as a chap called Chris Boucher. Now when I am thinking about getting my phone fixed, I may think "I must phone Chris Boucher". However I am not planning to ring the author of "Star One". The argument runs, therefore, that we think in non-verbal terms and translate them into verbal terms, the verbal terms "Chris Boucher" representing two separate things. Linguistic philosophers are probably so used to this process of translation that they are not aware that it happens !
On a Blake's 7 note - how would this affect Cally's Telepathy ? As explained in Time Squad it would correspond with this theory. Cally can send because she has translated her thoughts into *speech* but cannot read minds, presumably because one's thoughts are too inchoate. In later episodes she is capable of recieving emotions but not thought. (At least, as far as I recall).
Any thoughts ?
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Alison Page wrote:
Your point is very well taken Natasa, and perhaps sums up for me why I could never describe myself as a 'character junkie' because I simply don't enjoy reading passages like the imaginary one you gave.
Hmm. But this character junkie loathes that sort of thing, too. It totally distorts the character, for one thing.
On the other hand - who knows what people are like 'inside their heads'. I have a problem in that most of what I do inside is non-verbal, which is why I am so often groping for terms and names. However many linguistic philosophers claim that thought is entirely couched in verbal terms, and perhaps this is for them an accurate representation of how they experience their own internal life.
A lot of what goes on in my own head is verbal, because I'm an extremely verbal person. But some of the most important things that happen even in my own head are non-verbal, and I think that's going to be true for the characters, as well. And that's really hard to write. Sigh.
-
Alison Page -
Betty Ragan -
Stephen Date