My B-day sketch, also of my characters. I shall provide character explanations in the comment section...

- On problems of fictional characters being "not real" -

- Abstract -

So it's that holy time of year again; It's not often that when I am in Fan Discords or Forums that I run into this philosophical quandary. What be of the quandary? Why that of what a character constitutes and the moral-ethics that should follow with treating a character outside of the literary canon. Of course is there more to this presumptuous boundary? Well you can bet your boots there is and there's a lot to be unpacked from this limitation of scope alone. However, firstly, we should be talking about what the peck do fictional characters get put into before we even "explore" the subject.

Often, if one peruses the internet for more than a second, they see fictional characters receive their fare share of fanfiction, cosplaying, fan videos, fan art and... well their fair share of rather near unthinkable subjects like NSFW/R34 content. It is true, this isn't deniable that fan favorites do get put into content were clearly they in canon were never in. Id est, literal porn and the such - already I can hear the comments objecting: "Anon! I contribute not to this mess!" And look down below: the valley is filling up with objections on this paragraph alone. Neat, might as well intoxicate myself while writing this (as I pretty much party in the meanwhile checking up on the grammar).

- The actual problems -

The bigger and more graver problem comes in the defense of such material - surprisingly enough. For it plays into a dangerous minefield that easily should trigger dogmatic behaviour, but rather these folks are sterilized for "fictional" beings. Why does it seem to the be case? Why for such defenders can they justify the "lewding" of characters? How can they make inappropriate jokes that would make even the laxest of conservatives pimp slap the shit outta that badmouther? Why, o why? Niech Bóg Cię błogosławi, grzeszniku...

If I were to humour a folly, a delightfully poisonous one that would make even Lacan and Freud puke as they still sleep in their coffins, then I saw it stems from a grave word. Why, it stems from the adjective right before the character: fictional. This one word, signifier really, makes them feel that their moral-ethical Other (qua the Law) care not and allow them to depict such material in relation to the character. Often they cite since they're "not real," therefore all is permitted and one shouldn’t care about lewding.

Must I not also mention that they've categorized such content? Should I mention that "lolis" - "child" from the Japanese apparently, maybe slang - are one amongst this group as well? Do I have to go on with this incessant howling from the cliff-side to get to the point that the pervert's literal conscious justification is that they're fake ----> not real ----> no need to consent. When really that chain (metonymy) is more: fake ----> can't complain about "consent" / the objection ----> free reign to make all sorts of art! ----> Displacement of moral-ethical quandaries / "exceptions." The problem with the pervert's conscious line of reasoning is that, really, our brain cares not for the petty distinction of actuality for any one thing. (This fits rather well with Lacan's definition of pervert - the one who steers both the gaze and the look. Exempli gratia: porn directors.)

More-so, our brain goes through trusting everything it senses lest previous experience tells it, through counterintuition, that something’s awry. The problem with “fictional” being used before character as it's not strong enough for our minds to not focus in on the thing and impose our “normal” unto the character. To see ourselves, whatever we can see, in them and see our reflection back, distorted as it may be. Or to say: we identify with what we see as it pertains to us as we can't ever achieve the sense of completion. Or to say again: we're narcissistic to certain degrees and a level of communication is to make our conscious self feel more "whole." Now this behaviour is found within all people, yet objections are to still raise upon this grievance of mine.

Nonetheless, if they were fictional, then we wouldn't go to great lengths to make such tributes for they are. After all, they're fictional and they can’t see us pay tribute to them nor give them respect... But why do it nonetheless? Why go through all the rituals to just appreciate the character? Again we end up in these why's but get rarely any satisfaction upon this hysteric's discourse...

So in fact, why care for fiction and, subsequently, the development of a character? Or to mourn when they die in any fashion, whomever they may be? To cheer for when they’ve slain the big baddie after suffering so much under the big baddie? Or to even dare give a damn blush when they’ve struct love with a character we did or didn't expect to date our protagonist? Or be hammered in confusion when they reached a low that we thought impossible?

Because they’re as human as we are, period. For disregarding that we created them and they reflect the human condition in such a way that a real mirror cannot, they're human. Yet for those not sated, dear defender of these profane arts: know that what ultimately, and truly, makes them fictional is that they cannot object to the content they’re submitted into. More-so, that they, the "fictional character" is compounded in a darker twists of fantasies that we don't have to physically face. For if those fantasies were practiced on an actual one (an actual them), the victim will object to the scene and that already disturbs the fantasies built around the person. And this is what separates a "real" person from a "fictional" person: the denial of becoming a fantasy object of desire.

While it is true that "real/fictional" people tend to mainly be fantasy objects of desire (not used, but imagined to be which abstracts from the actual entity), that means it is right to do what we do as we treat them as such. To pull up one last bad gag and force it down the reader, take only one minute to remember what R34 content is. Sincerely do so even if I insincerely won't do so and drown it out with a shot of rum... Of course, these are just one of the many conclusions of this fetishizing of characters.

- Let's get Lacanian here -

For if one were to step back and to analyze the many defences of sexualizing characters and the what not: they indiscriminately use the "fantasy character" excuse. Every single, bar a few exceptions, case - not one change in such particular argument. Give me some leeway and I shall say that it tells a damning tale that they're admitting this is their fantasy object to get at their desires. As of which, they could care less of whomever could fulfill that desire; it truly is a slot that is constantly replaced. If one believes me not, I must say you either are pious to never go unto 4chan or is the dirtiest liar. One advice: lies have short legs.

Anyways, this sexual desire, pure as-is, is what they unconsciously want to achieve. But, hypocritically, they shall never feel satisfied even when they invested time into such. For which now perpetuates a cycle of continuing to fulfill the desire but never attaining satisfaction. Under our Capitalist World this is evident whenever there’s any new female character of any fictional content and media. The only saving grace is that this act can never last for long; as they have smoked a lot without excuse and can never smoke again. Or so they thought when they see the new brand of cigarettes, sorry female characters, and begin smoking that something else to death.

To make the slow transition back, what speaks of “actual” female Subjects? (Of which I must remind that female Subjectivity can be also found in those not of the female sex.) This, unfortunately, is where the reverse is true - the fantasies of a person can remain forever. Since one “isn’t smoking continuously and must continuously say one last time to themselves.” Thus they remain a smoker forever, always smoking the same person in different ways and in different stresses.

The cycle truly ends when a rupture happens with the female Subject or the complete annihilation of one's image for the fantasy object of desire. (No it doesn't mean the actual person has to be dead as to make one figure a new fantasy object of desire; a dead person equally can become a fantasy object of desire.) Where that Subjectivity can no longer be a fantasy object (The Woman in this case) and has become radically different to the male (not all of the male sex) subject’s means to their desires.

With this difference and differentiation between the two, it's telling of why often lewding can go on. Because they can “cheat” and work around the parameters until they can commit to the action they wished to do all along. Which, continuing to do so without any "special" or hype emotions around the act, acts nonetheless as a normalization of lewding. Finally leads to the questioning of the sincerity of their love for the character if one only cares for the character for their sexual desires. Even when they do rituals like spreading regular fan art that's a bit "mature" and what not, it's all to justify this underlying unconscious understanding of the character.

- Concrete -

And returning back to the mere digestion of characters: one cannot realistically adopt they are fantasy (thus not real) while caring for them. For if we cannot prove them real, why bother? If we care for them, then it shows that there’s more to why we even bother with any character. As aforementioned, it's because they remind us too much of humanity and we can't really treat them as "fictional" things but our own children we can mold to our liking. Like stories of old, the characters are things imbued with chains of signifiers in a story full of such. Which, in even middle school literary analysis, means that they do represent, reflect and respond to the World around them when they clash with conflicting chains of signifiers.

Ultimately meaning that fictional characters do indeed reflect both the author’s Subject and society at their time. Which, to extrapolate as this is still the case, these stories with such characters shall forever haunt us beyond their time. How we choose to respond, rework, remodel or even rethink old values shall always be dependent on how we relate to the SuperStructure (culture and ideology) of the time and how stable that SuperStructure is. For the stability of such depends on the stability of the Base (economy) and how the intense class conflict is between the various working and ruling classes at any given point. (But of course, a proper post on that within the second week of back-to-back posting.)

To return back to the point: those that can unconsciously connect to a character are those that often relate to and use them as means to get at their desires. To POC or LGBTQIA+ communities, the sight of a relatable marginalized character (which might as well be their mirrors) getting hurt and having no way to fight back in any works of fiction does indeed elicit feelings of shame, self-degradation, conformity to marginalization and hopelessness in a heartless World and Spiritless conditions. But if those characters are shown as normal, given happy lives (which I must interrupt and say that Lesbian characters are often given the short-end of the stick on this one), overcoming and triumphing tragedies and the farces of such or even represented without a stereotype, it can send to those communities very much needed acceptance and love in a heartless World and Spiritless conditions.

But to arbitrarily bring it back to the main hampering point of the post: the people that use the "fictional" argument are in denial and think crazy of what they do everyday when enjoying pieces of literature. They do indeed unconsciously know of the character's humanity; consciously, however, they very much deny the humanity and “realness” of a character. They know, and know well, this to be the case, but believe it they shall to be not the case. Thus where they can excuse themselves as to avoid self-imposed guilt, but never successfully when people spot and call out bullshit. Yet such is life. No?

- Sources -

Any references to lewding/porn: I swear to Allah, don't even think about typing R34. You will regret it.

Freudianism: A Marxist Critique by Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov

Lacan's Mirror Stage

Lacan's Signifiers

Lacan's Unconsciousness

Lacan's Desire

Theory of the Subject by Alain Badiou

- Birthday picture explanation -

Going left-to-right, bottom-to-top. “BRISBY!” - Dr. @f3nix the red nose reindeer. “Impaled concrete shard” - damaged the poor table D^: “Ciasteczka/cookie-thief with red-green candy-cane arm-tights wearing a gas-mask” - Hero Victor. “Son of Man but kestrel” - It and Its Kestrel. “F3NIX! and acorn ribbon” - @brisby the red nose squirrel. “Flaming concrete shard #1” - smokin’ hot. “T-faced version of a Madness Combat (MC) Grunt holding a PRF” - Stand-in for the human Polish Revolutionary Forces (PRF) from “Appalachian Graveyard” and “Eleven Ninety-Nine.” “Damaged wall” - hey, it’s Winter! “Three wise king cosplayers with CCTV-head” - RN-1199 and their new/recruited allies from a lab experiment. “The Mysts” -Dark Myst of Red-Flame, White-Myst of Blue-Flame, Red Myst of Black-Flame and Blue Myst of White-Flame. “Santa Grunt” - Stand-in for Grunts. “Reindeer Shu’ulathoi” - Stand-in for all Elder and non-Elder Shu’ulathoi. “Saddie!~ mustache/double-ponytail” - Ashley/Ashuri. “Ashuri!~ bandaged arm snatching a tiara/headband” - Saddie. “Swords McGee” - Cap’n Wither as quoted. “Lamp” - Lamp. “Flag” - RSFSR/CCCP/USSR Naval colours (flag) with a white background, blue bottom stripe and a red 5-pointed star and Hammer&Sickle. “Flaming concrete shard #2 and flying concrete shard” - BFFs. “Imp and Bananafish” - Red and oure Potassiumness. “Blerrie! Chop!” - Vernon Locke as quoted. “Necromorph MC grunt” - stand-in for Shamblers and the Shambler saga. Finally, dead-center: “Some tipsy mustach’d-n-beard’d” - Felix Dzerzhinsky, my stand-in.

Some translations:

Blerrie - Bloody!

Mój - My.

Ciasteczka - Cookies.

Kurwa - “Peck” - “Fuck.”

我的奶茶吗？ - My milk tea?

DX - pretty heckin’ dead.

Mentioned:

Octo/Agent; Insurrectionists are tied in with the Shambler; Black swirl star being the Void.