More wonderings on the ontological status of fictitious characters.
Take Sir John Falstaff for instance. This Shakespearean invention seems to have taken on a life of his own...turning up in other plays after Shakespeare"s death. The character would not be silenced! How does the status of such a character compare to say the status of a ghost, supposedly the residue of a "real" person/persona? Most ghosts which persist are the stuff of story, legend and sometimes myth. They have been "storified" and "characterized" in much the same way that a character in a play has been written and then performed. Only in reverse. The theatrical character is written first and then acted out. The "real" person usually acts first. These actions then become a part of the person's biography...personal history...and then ghosthood.
I wonder if anyone has ever reported a ghostly haunting by Plumpjack. Could there be? If the story were told...and believed...that Jack Falstaff was based on a real person...could he then be allowed to haunt his favorite tavern? Of course, the question of a soul will be brought up by some. What is a ghost made of anyway? Maybe only memory. Perhaps the cry should go out across the land, "Free the ghost of Plumpjack Falstaff!" On the other hand, maybe this is all nonsense.
What about James Bond? Elvis, of course, does not have a problem...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment