world building and quirks

[marycatelli]

Was pondering a world I'm trying to build and Eco's quote on the topic:

"It is necessary to create constraints, in order to invent freely. In poetry the constraint can be imposed by meter, foot, rhyme, by what has been called the "verse according to the ear." In fiction, the surrounding world provides the constraint. This has nothing to do with realis (even if it explains also realism). A completely unreal world can be constructed, in which asses fly and princesses are restored to life by a kiss; but that world, purely possible and unrealistic, must exist according to structures defined at the outset (we have to know whether it is a world where a princess can be restored to life only by the kiss of a prince, or also by that of a witch, and whether the princess's kiss transforms only frogs into princes or also, for example, armadillos)."

Naturally the muse decided that some tyrant is going to try to smoke out the hidden prince by finding a sleeping princess and forcing all the young men to kiss her, and see what happens. Or perhaps some other kiss-broken spell.

I gave it a gimlet eye and told the muse that it's going into the fictional history of the story's world. Or perhaps a joke.

Comments

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

I have a difficulty with this, because I think Eco is being too parochial.  Specifically, he's approaching it from a rational, Enlightenment view where, like Linnaeus, order is imposed upon chaos.  Learn the rules, and you can win the game.

That's not the right mindset here. The world exists as it does because the immortal god(s) wish it so, and asses fly and princesses are restored to life si deus volens - indeed, we could quote to Eco from the Acts of the Apostles, “Quid incredibile iudicatur apud vos si Deus mortuos suscita?”

There are no rules - such a notion is impious.  What parliament, what constitution may constrain the will of God?

… So the scientific method your tyrant is demonstrating, simply wouldn't occur to him, nor would he have any reason to think it would work!


        "You have erred, perhaps," [Holmes] observed, taking up a glowing cinder
        with the tongs and lighting with it the long cherry-wood pipe which was
        wont to replace his clay when he was in a disputatious rather than a
        meditative mood --"you have erred perhaps in attempting to put color and
        life into each of your statements instead of confining yourself to the task
        of placing upon record that severe reasoning from cause to effect which is
        really the only notable feature about the thing."

        A C Doyle, “The Adventure Of The Copper Beeches”


It's also quite a new feature about the thing.


Updated to add:  Look at The Lord of the Rings, for example.  “Hey, if Sauron can use it, we can use it!”

“No, it doesn't work that way.”

“'The rings of power were forged by the Elven smiths of Eregion, long ago.'  Can we bring in a few of 'em, see if they can take the cover off this thing and maybe reprogram it?”

“No.”

There are no rules to learn.  It must be destroyed by an epic quest - and no, Gwaihir the Windlord can't just airlift Frodo to Mount Doom, let him toss it in and be back in Rivendell in time for dinner - even though that's exactly what Gwaihir's brother Landroval then did!

“It doesn't work that way.”

[marycatelli]

Huh? There are definite rules in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf even mentions at one point what Frodo would have to do to use the Ring as other characters can. And that the ring can not be used or reprogrammed is a rule.

[marycatelli]

"There are no rules - such a notion is impious. What parliament, what constitution may constrain the will of God?"

Exactly. And therefore no parliament or constitution can force him to act whimsically and not by rule.