Kevin's Watch

For a few days now, I've been thinking of something I read when I was reading about Tolkien. As some of you may know, Tolkien was a Catholic, and he believed that the act of writing about Middle-Earth, detailing its history, customs, languages, and so on was ot just an act of literary exercise, but it was actually what he called a "sub-creation". Basically, as far as I understand, he believed that he was actually creating Middle-Earth on some level. From a religious point of view, this even makes sense: if, as the Bible says, we were created "in God's image", then it makes sense that we should be able to "create", after a fashion.

So I couldn't help but wonder, regardless of how silly it might be - what if the literary act of creating a whole world - not just a period or two, but a detailed world, with history, geography, races, and so on - were indeed an act of "sub-creation", indeed creating that world in a lower level of reality than we inhabit? What if, by creating a detailed world, the author were indeed creating it in a reality in which it has physical existence, and its inhabitants are as real to each other as we are to each other here?

It's definitely a weird thought, but the idea fascinates me. Some theories of physics suggest that the Universe is infinite, and therefore that whatever we can imagine exists somewhere (hey, words of physicists, not mine )... the thought that by creating a world I'm actually giving it life somewhere, even if I were never able to actually see it, has something wondrous about it. Don't you think?

It certainly does. And the idea that the stories that we create become real somewhere has sometimes been a popular one.

Heinlein for example created an entire universe where they discovered that stories became true. All of his, and many other stories, intersected in his novel, The Number Of The Beast.

I would suspect though that the idea would be considered...a little arrogant at best by believers in an actual creation though.

Now me, I think we create our own world from day to day as we go along, which is not quite the same thing, although similar in a sense. I think it was Frank Herbert in Dune who wrote that we need to have a feel for the myth that we are becoming. (I could be wrong about that though.)

And as you say, if the universe is infinite, (which I dispute btw ), then anything possible, however improbable, should in theory exist somewhere in it.

If nothing else, the idea that the characters that we love are indeed alive and living in some alternate universe (I like the idea of them, Everret-Wheeler-Graham model, isn't it?) is an attractive one.

--A

I know the concept wasn't invented in Sophie's World, but it was interesting when those characters learned that they were characters in a book. Maybe we are too.

Avatar wrote:And as you say, if the universe is infinite, (which I dispute btw ), then anything possible, however improbable, should in theory exist somewhere in it.

I also dispute that the universe is infinite. Or, at least I don't think we've proven it. However, even if it is, I dispute your conclusion. That's kind of like the infinite monkeys typing away forever. There's no guarantee that the complete works of Shakespeare would come out of one of the typewriters, and I'd be extraordinarily surprised if we got even a single play. Although it's darned unlikely, it's conceivable that they would all hit E forever. Or maybe they'd all avoid E forever. There are an infinite number of things besides Shakespeare's works that could be typed forever, and my money's on not seeing his.

I dunno...I see what you're saying. But I don't think the premise you talk about expects one monkey to turn out a play. I tend to think more along the lines of one monkey accidentally typing "Verona", for example, another typing "fair" etc.

The thing is, infinity divided by anything must still be infinite, mustn't it?

I dunno.

--A

Yes, you can remove an infinite number of members from an infinite set, and have an infinite number of members left.

Anyway, I'm sure we would, indeed, get Shakespeare's works the way you just described. But I've only heard the premise I described, and I don't think we would ever find a stretch of several hundred pages of one typewriter that said: "To be, or not to be. That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune..." and on and on, covering all of his works. That's more like what I think you're suggesting in what I quoted you saying in my previous post.

To go back to the topic, the idea that a writer, in creating a world, is performing an act of creation or sub-creation that actually gives a kind of reality to that world, whether we can actually perceive it or not, is indeed fascinating. And, Av, I may not be the most indicated person to answer your doubt, but I don't think that any believers would feel offended at the notion. The creative effort - whether it truly leads to an act of physical creation in a lower reality, or not - is probably one of the greatest human achievements, and, to a believer, is obviously a gift from God - the human reflection of God's creative power, so to speak. So, in essence, if the act of me building a world actually does lead to a true creation in some other reality, then I might easily say that if I could do that in the first place, is because I'm a creation of God and made in His image.

In any case, the idea that the world and characters you create may live somewhere else is definitely compelling; probably it's because, at least in part, most authors love their characters and find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that once the last word has been written, that's the end of those characters' existences. But to me, the idea is especially appealing because it echoes in some way what I consider one of the greatest rewards of writing: the moment in which the characters in your story start acting differently than you had planned, and move the storyline to other unforeseen directions. The moment in which, in a way, they become "alive" - no longer simply following your script, but actually trying to forge their own path, unless you force them into your idea. If that never happens in a story I'm writing, I know something's wrong with it; when it happens, instead, I throw the rest of the idea I had to the winds, and see where the characters want to go. It may not be exactly what I wanted them to do, but it's going to be definitely more fascinating than forcing them to obey me...

Xar wrote:To go back to the topic, the idea that a writer, in creating a world, is performing an act of creation or sub-creation that actually gives a kind of reality to that world, whether we can actually perceive it or not, is indeed fascinating. And, Av, I may not be the most indicated person to answer your doubt, but I don't think that any believers would feel offended at the notion. The creative effort - whether it truly leads to an act of physical creation in a lower reality, or not - is probably one of the greatest human achievements, and, to a believer, is obviously a gift from God - the human reflection of God's creative power, so to speak. So, in essence, if the act of me building a world actually does lead to a true creation in some other reality, then I might easily say that if I could do that in the first place, is because I'm a creation of God and made in His image.

Although they shouldn't, I can imagine some believers would be offended by this idea. Just as some are offended by the idea of evolution. Some views of God are very narrow, and anything that might cast doubt on that view must be avoided. Just as some believers are opposed to the sciences, some would attempt to ban creative writing if they thought there was a possibility that it created actual worlds. Only God can create actual worlds, meh?

Xar wrote:In any case, the idea that the world and characters you create may live somewhere else is definitely compelling; probably it's because, at least in part, most authors love their characters and find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that once the last word has been written, that's the end of those characters' existences. But to me, the idea is especially appealing because it echoes in some way what I consider one of the greatest rewards of writing: the moment in which the characters in your story start acting differently than you had planned, and move the storyline to other unforeseen directions. The moment in which, in a way, they become "alive" - no longer simply following your script, but actually trying to forge their own path, unless you force them into your idea. If that never happens in a story I'm writing, I know something's wrong with it; when it happens, instead, I throw the rest of the idea I had to the winds, and see where the characters want to go. It may not be exactly what I wanted them to do, but it's going to be definitely more fascinating than forcing them to obey me...

Le Guin says this in the Forward to Tales From Earthsea (WHICH AV IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO FIND, BTW):

AT THE END OF the fourth book of Earthsea, Tehanu, the story had arrived at what I felt to be now. And, just as in the now of the so-called real world, I didn't know what would happen next. I could guess, foretell, fear, hope, but I didn't know.

Unable to continue Tehanu's story (because it hadn't happened yet) and foolishly assuming that the story of Ged and Tenar had reached its happily-ever-after, I gave the book a subtitle: "The Last Book of Earthsea."

O foolish writer. Now moves. Even in storytime, dreamtime, once-upon-a time, now isn't then.

Seven or eight years after Tehanu was published, I was asked to write a story set in Earthsea. A mere glimpse at the place told me that things had been happening there while I wasn't looking. It was high time to go back and find out what was going on now.

Never having been a character (or story or novel) writer, I'm afraid that I can't relate personally to what you describe Xar, but I've certainly heard it mentioned by others.

--A

I think most authors know the feeling and follow it to various degrees... yes, most writers have an outline they plan to follow, so characters can only "diverge" in minor ways, but the only author I know who absolutely rules his characters with an iron fist, making them do what he wants them to do, is Robert Jordan... who claims he is like the "Old Testament God" to them.

I stick to poetry. Much less time intensive.

--A

Avatar wrote: I stick to poetry. Much less time intensive.

--A

Ah, but the pleasure of losing yourself in the writing of a story that has absolutely nothing to do with the one you thought you'd write...

Haha, I have neither the patience or the inclination to write stories. Never made it past a few chapters in any book I tried to write.

--A

Avatar wrote:Haha, I have neither the patience or the inclination to write stories. Never made it past a few chapters in any book I tried to write.

--A

Ah, but if you stick all those chapters together, you'll get a full book A weird book, sure, but maybe intriguing

--A

Xar wrote:What if, by creating a detailed world, the author were indeed creating it in a reality in which it has physical existence, and its inhabitants are as real to each other as we are to each other here?

Just tell them "I am" sent you.