The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Orphanism as a literary or storytelling tool is rarely about the specificities of parental absence. It is more a shared construct...a familiar concept that can be used to easily classify a character as an outsider and have-not.
In fantastical or science fiction works, it is most often employed as a means of uniting the audience and character through their shared outsider status: they, like us, are untethered in the world of the story. They are without inherent means or guidance, and therefore their reactions to events can serve as stand-ins for the reactions of the audience.
One popular theory about the application of orphanism in storytelling is that it doesn't actually matter whether or not a character is, strictly speaking, an orphan. Instead, this theory proposes that orphanism in storytelling exists as a subset of traits and conditions. These may include poverty, distrust of others, unusual skills, antisocial behaviors, extreme self-reliance, and a strict, self-designed moral code.
Proponents of this theory believe that these traits function as a sort of compounding, conditional lever. If a character has enough of these behaviors, they believe, then said character qualifies as an orphan whether their parents are dead or not. Add enough traits, and the lever flips. The character is serving the story as an orphan. Thus, the common term for this theory is lever theory.
The obvious opposing theory to this, as proposed by Nathan Albertson, is that orphanism is a distinct literary tool for character design...one which affects the protagonist and story in ways that are independent of the above traits. According to this theory and as described in Nathan's literary criticism books, orphan characters are purposeful demonstrations of "societal reject" figures healing or improving that society (often by remaking it). It's not about character traits, Nate will tell you, but rather about theme and message.
Everyone has to decide for themselves in the end. But if you ask me, I'd say better Nate than lever.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
An orphan (from the Greek: ορφανός, romanized: orphanós) is a child whose parents have died, are unknown, or have permanently abandoned them.
Luke Leia Rey Finn Grogu
Anakin was with his mom who sent him away to a fancy boarding school. Omega is a runaway. Han was probably an orphan, but that's unclear.
Just b/c you find out, in adulthood, that your parents are alive and kicking, does not mean you weren't an orphan as a child.
Anakin’s mom was killed in AotC. Making him an orphan.
Wasn't he adult at that point?
Luke and Leia’s dad was killed when they were adults.
But they were abandoned as children. Anakin's mom sent him to boarding school.
They weren’t abandoned. Their father had no knowledge of their existence. If anything, they were kidnapped.
"died, are unknown, or have permanently abandoned them"
He was not dead, their parentage was known, they were not abandoned by him
Luke was raised being told his parents were dead. His Aunt and Uncle may have even thought that. How is that different that a literal orphan. I'd make the same argument about Leia, but I can't think off the top of my head if she knew that the Organa's weren't her real parents.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 1:57 pm Posts: 32523 Location: Where everybody knows your name
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
wease wrote:
B wrote:
An orphan (from the Greek: ορφανός, romanized: orphanós) is a child whose parents have died, are unknown, or have permanently abandoned them.
Luke Leia Rey Finn Grogu
Anakin was with his mom who sent him away to a fancy boarding school. Omega is a runaway. Han was probably an orphan, but that's unclear.
Just b/c you find out, in adulthood, that your parents are alive and kicking, does not mean you weren't an orphan as a child.
Anakin’s mom was killed in AotC. Making him an orphan.
Wasn't he adult at that point?
Luke and Leia’s dad was killed when they were adults.
But they were abandoned as children. Anakin's mom sent him to boarding school.
They weren’t abandoned. Their father had no knowledge of their existence. If anything, they were kidnapped.
"died, are unknown, or have permanently abandoned them"
He was not dead, their parentage was known, they were not abandoned by him
Luke was raised being told his parents were dead. His Aunt and Uncle may have even thought that. How is that different that a literal orphan. I'd make the same argument about Leia, but I can't think off the top of my head if she knew that the Organa's weren't her real parents.
She did. Remember in Return when Luke asked her about her real mom? And even tho she had literally just been born the only time she saw her, Leia remembered her eyes.
_________________ Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing! - C. Montgomery Burns
It’s ok. First episode is the best I don’t really care for Omega as yet Wrecker is the best thing on it but is best in small doses imho Cool to see Fennec I wonder who her boss is ?? Bring on next week
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35495
I had no interest in clones or their stories. But this is definitely shaping up to be important and same way clone wars is. It looks fantastic and has all the heart in the right place. Excited to see where it goes
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
