Fiction = TrueLife? Roberts, CH 3
Characters in fiction should be true to life...This is the standard of verisimilitude, probablility, or plausibility.
--Roberts, pg 69
I feel like I have to contradict this statement made by Roberts. I'm not saying that he's entirely wrong here--I just think he's forgetting about the gray area. And let's face it...with literature, there is always a gray area.
Probability. Now there's a word to be consider. It's all about what a character *should* do--what a human *would* do. But sometimes, authors decide to throw the good 'ole curve ball and make their characters do something completely off the wall. It makes things interesting. Think about it. If characters *always* did what we expected, where would the fun in that be? It's like playing The Sims...sometimes they just act exactly like humans. They go to the bathroom, they eat, they sleep, they procreate--anyway, the point is, every once in a while, something bizarre will happen--they'll have an alien baby or something, and suddenly, your interest is sparked again! The same applies with characters in literary works. Those moments when the characters break through the molding are the parts that mean the most. They keep readers interested. So what if the cactus doesn't act like a human...it's not a human after all, is it? And let's just keep this in mind...if characters in Fiction always acted like people in True Life, wouldn't we be able to classify them as characters of Non-fiction? Just saying...Roberts needs to stop being so black and white.
As for the rest of the chapter, it was a lot of review--again. Round and flat characters, dynamic and static. Having said that, I thought the essay section of this chapter was exceptionally helpful compared to the previous ones.