Reasoning the unreasonable.
November 4, 2017 9:44 PM Subscribe
"You can play this game forever, with any given set of magical powers. Controlling the elements, for instance, seems considerably harder than controlling an animal (unless, perhaps, it is a cat)—but, if you are going to try to control the elements, summoning a breeze seems easier than turning night to day. If you’re going to work magic on your own body, becoming invisible seems more plausible than transmogrifying, perhaps because of the abundance of everyday ways to conceal ourselves. Yet, if transmogrification is going to occur, I’d wager that it is easier to turn oneself into a wolf than one’s enemy into a toad."
An article on the relative plausibility of impossible beings and reasoning about unreasonable things, SLNewYorker
An article on the relative plausibility of impossible beings and reasoning about unreasonable things, SLNewYorker
This was pretty great. Thanks for posting it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:32 PM on November 4, 2017
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:32 PM on November 4, 2017
Ghosts can shrink, expand, time-travel, and walk through walls.
Ok, this bit requires some explanation.
Under normal circumstances, ghosts do not possess the ability to time-travel. There is, however, a little-known loophole that has on rare occasions been exploited. It turns out that if you die while cosplaying and become a ghost, you actually come back as the ghost of the character you're cosplaying rather than as yourself*.
So if you die while cosplaying as a character who can time-travel and become a ghost, your ghost-self will possess time-travel abilities. Note that the Doctor and Marty McFly do not have time-travel abilities; you would need to die in the presence of someone who was also dying while cosplaying as the TARDIS and Delorean respectively and both of you would need to become ghosts in order for that trick to work. The recent popularity of Overwatch-inspired Tracer cosplay is expected to lead to a sharp increase in time-traveling ghosts in the next few years.
* If you've ever wondered about the preponderance of ghosts of Leonardo (the juvenile reptilian ninja, not the Renaissance painter), one need look no further than the tragic Halloween 1989 fire at Sunshine Daycare Center.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:37 PM on November 4, 2017 [14 favorites]
Ok, this bit requires some explanation.
Under normal circumstances, ghosts do not possess the ability to time-travel. There is, however, a little-known loophole that has on rare occasions been exploited. It turns out that if you die while cosplaying and become a ghost, you actually come back as the ghost of the character you're cosplaying rather than as yourself*.
So if you die while cosplaying as a character who can time-travel and become a ghost, your ghost-self will possess time-travel abilities. Note that the Doctor and Marty McFly do not have time-travel abilities; you would need to die in the presence of someone who was also dying while cosplaying as the TARDIS and Delorean respectively and both of you would need to become ghosts in order for that trick to work. The recent popularity of Overwatch-inspired Tracer cosplay is expected to lead to a sharp increase in time-traveling ghosts in the next few years.
* If you've ever wondered about the preponderance of ghosts of Leonardo (the juvenile reptilian ninja, not the Renaissance painter), one need look no further than the tragic Halloween 1989 fire at Sunshine Daycare Center.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:37 PM on November 4, 2017 [14 favorites]
But he did allow that, if forced to choose, writers “should prefer a probable impossibility to an unconvincing possibility.” Better for Odysseus to return safely to Ithaca with the aid of ghosts, gods, sea nymphs, and a leather bag containing the wind than for his wife, Penelope, to get bored with waiting for him, grow interested in metalworking, and abandon domestic life for a career as a blacksmith.
To me, this is the most interesting bit in the piece, though it gets set aside somewhat as the article continues.
The quote illustrates well some of points of disagreement in discussing fictional works and their often fantastical worlds. Arguing over "believable" motivations or their meaning is often of more contention than in accepting implausible or impossible actions or events. To be sure, griping will occur over particularly egregious seeming implausibilities, even as other equally impossible happenings pass without finding disapproval. What is and isn't acceptable is, as the article mentions, as much a part of how the information is delivered, the context presented and "rules" the people engaging with it believe they understand as it is the likelihood of the happening itself.
What makes that interesting is that similar logic of story is applied to motivations or actions that are entirely possible physically, but nonetheless deemed too unlikely "realistically" for the character to engage in. The example given of Penelope hints at what the cost of too ready demand for "realistic" motivation might be, as narratives can become a kind of determinism for how we understand the world and how we reflect that understanding back into narratives in assessing plausibility.
Penelope becoming a blacksmith instead of waiting would make for a worse story overall or at least break expectations of what a story is "supposed to do", but at the same time her becoming a blacksmith might not only be the far more possible option, but the better one culturally. I mean that not entirely in the sense of the fictional character Penelope being better off for the choice, though she may be given the alternative of annoying suitors pestering her for years. Nor do I mean the story would improve by simply breaking with expectations since that is no great difficulty in itself and doesn't provide any greater satisfaction other than that of difference for the sake of it, a sort of willful perversity some find pleasing.
I mean that the limits of the imagination that binds Penelope to Odysseus, limiting her acceptable, believable, possibilities to an exceedingly narrow range of choices since that best suits the narrative carries outward from the story into life, aiding in the narrowing of choices and believable and acceptable possibilities for woman with husbands that wander. Those that write the stories shape events as they would hope to see them and as they believe true regarding the limits and abilities of others, those engaging with the stories take in that information and add it to a store of values that they then use to judge the rightness of actions in the real world. This feeds a cycle of expectation and demand between the real and the fictional that helps perpetuate artificial limitations due to the need for narrative fulfillment. But, as I say, the article only touches on this before moving on to yetis and levitating bowling balls. Still interesting though.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:16 AM on November 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
To me, this is the most interesting bit in the piece, though it gets set aside somewhat as the article continues.
The quote illustrates well some of points of disagreement in discussing fictional works and their often fantastical worlds. Arguing over "believable" motivations or their meaning is often of more contention than in accepting implausible or impossible actions or events. To be sure, griping will occur over particularly egregious seeming implausibilities, even as other equally impossible happenings pass without finding disapproval. What is and isn't acceptable is, as the article mentions, as much a part of how the information is delivered, the context presented and "rules" the people engaging with it believe they understand as it is the likelihood of the happening itself.
What makes that interesting is that similar logic of story is applied to motivations or actions that are entirely possible physically, but nonetheless deemed too unlikely "realistically" for the character to engage in. The example given of Penelope hints at what the cost of too ready demand for "realistic" motivation might be, as narratives can become a kind of determinism for how we understand the world and how we reflect that understanding back into narratives in assessing plausibility.
Penelope becoming a blacksmith instead of waiting would make for a worse story overall or at least break expectations of what a story is "supposed to do", but at the same time her becoming a blacksmith might not only be the far more possible option, but the better one culturally. I mean that not entirely in the sense of the fictional character Penelope being better off for the choice, though she may be given the alternative of annoying suitors pestering her for years. Nor do I mean the story would improve by simply breaking with expectations since that is no great difficulty in itself and doesn't provide any greater satisfaction other than that of difference for the sake of it, a sort of willful perversity some find pleasing.
I mean that the limits of the imagination that binds Penelope to Odysseus, limiting her acceptable, believable, possibilities to an exceedingly narrow range of choices since that best suits the narrative carries outward from the story into life, aiding in the narrowing of choices and believable and acceptable possibilities for woman with husbands that wander. Those that write the stories shape events as they would hope to see them and as they believe true regarding the limits and abilities of others, those engaging with the stories take in that information and add it to a store of values that they then use to judge the rightness of actions in the real world. This feeds a cycle of expectation and demand between the real and the fictional that helps perpetuate artificial limitations due to the need for narrative fulfillment. But, as I say, the article only touches on this before moving on to yetis and levitating bowling balls. Still interesting though.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:16 AM on November 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Mixes up the philosophical problem of counterfactuals with literary plausibility (where context is essential and radically transforms the prospects for suspension of disbelief). She also, I think, falsely assumes that the properties of fictional or mythical entities are fixed and agreed. They’re not. You can mount an argument that rhinoceroses are unicorns, but not if it’s specified that they barf rainbows. The point about differing conceptions is illustrated by what seem, to me at least, to be errors in her own account; eg, she doesn’t know pixies have wings, she thinks unicorns attract virgins instead of the other way round, and she doesn’t know about real zombies.
posted by Segundus at 1:40 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Segundus at 1:40 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Most philosophers don't seem to side with Kant much these days, but everyone does seem to agree that existence isn't a property. (Maybe I have this wrong, but I think this idea comes from his demolition of the ontological argument for God. If you aren't sure if you should believe me, consult a professional philosopher).
That's a pity, because it is quite pleasing to think of a unicorn as having various kinds of properties, but happening to lack the property of existence. The Meinongian jungle is nothing to fear - just bring a machete.
posted by thelonius at 4:51 AM on November 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
That's a pity, because it is quite pleasing to think of a unicorn as having various kinds of properties, but happening to lack the property of existence. The Meinongian jungle is nothing to fear - just bring a machete.
posted by thelonius at 4:51 AM on November 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Ooh, what a fun party game! I say Leviathan is the most plausible supernatural creature on the list; the Tooth Fairy is the least plausible. Furthermore, I hold that genies are more plausible than either demons or angels. Fight me.
posted by ourobouros at 5:59 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by ourobouros at 5:59 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ooh, what a fun party game! I say Leviathan is the most plausible supernatural creature on the list; the Tooth Fairy is the least plausible. Furthermore, I hold that genies are more plausible than either demons or angels. Fight me.
posted by ourobouros at 5:59 AM on November 5 [+] [!]
Eponysterical?
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:20 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by ourobouros at 5:59 AM on November 5 [+] [!]
Eponysterical?
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:20 AM on November 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you like this game, I recommend buying my wife a couple drinks then mentioning Sasquatch
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:48 AM on November 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:48 AM on November 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
See also The Flying Snowman by John Scalzi:
When my daughter was much younger, my wife was reading to her from a picture book about a snowman who came to life and befriended a young boy, and on each page they would do a particular activity: build a snow fort, slide down a hill, enjoy a bowl of soup and so on. The last three pages had the snowman walking, then running, and then flying. At which point my wife got an unhappy look on her face and said ‘A flying snowman? That’s just ridiculous!’posted by officer_fred at 8:26 AM on November 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Parasite unseen, of course ghosts can time travel. That’s like the only thing that recomends them for your basic Christmas Carol job. That and their cheapness. Angels will do too, but eventually you have to pay them off in wings or the unions get involved and it’s a whole nother headache.
Cosplying ghosts DO get jump start on costuming, and usually get that cherry ghost-of-XX-future role.
posted by es_de_bah at 11:19 AM on November 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Cosplying ghosts DO get jump start on costuming, and usually get that cherry ghost-of-XX-future role.
posted by es_de_bah at 11:19 AM on November 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Segundus: "she doesn’t know about real zombies."
Tell me more! Or are you referring to that mold/fungus that takes over ants or whatever from Planet Earth?
posted by Grither at 8:22 AM on November 7, 2017
Tell me more! Or are you referring to that mold/fungus that takes over ants or whatever from Planet Earth?
posted by Grither at 8:22 AM on November 7, 2017
« Older “We talk in our heads” | This is why we can’t have nice things Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by belarius at 10:12 PM on November 4, 2017 [6 favorites]