Beau Peep Notice Board
Beau Peep Notice Board => Just a Fort => Topic started by: Mince on September 06, 2007, 11:02:44 AM
-
I often use the stories of Sherlock Holmes to explain the technique of viewpoint to my students.
The character of Watson is crucial to the Holmes stories. Doyle knows that his creation of Holmes is more intelligent than he is, and so he could not write the stories in first person from Holmes? point of view because this would allow us into Holmes? thoughts and deductions. Doyle knew that showing us Holmes thoughts would make them seem mundane and uninteresting. So instead he created Watson to ask Holmes questions about what he was doing and generally make Holmes seem mysteriously intelligent.
Cleverly, Doyle creates a detective who is a genius without having to be a genius himself. He creates a character who is cleverer than himself.
Anyway, all I wanted to point out is that in Beau Peep, Roger (like Doyle) has also cleverly created characters who are more intelligent than he is.
Well done!
-
Elementary, my dear Mince.
-
No, he's created Holmes to be more intelligent than Watson, not himself. If the character was going to be more intelligent than the writer, the plots would never be connived, deduced and eventually solved in the first place. ::)
One thing I have spotted in Beau Peep is that Beau is intelligent and quite articulate when together with Dennis or Egon, but when he is in other situations, with the Sergeant, Pierre, etc., he assumes the mantle of blithering idiot!
I wonder if Professor Baker's noticed this.
-
If the character was going to be more intelligent than the writer, the plots would never be connived, deduced and eventually solved in the first place. ::)
What? Doyle could never be a detective like Holmes. And are you saying that the writers of Doctor Who must be more intelligent than a 900-year-old time-traveller to write Doctor Who?
-
You are also forgetting that Doyle "connived" the plots at leisure whereas Holmes solved them in real (well, story) time.
-
A STORY
Peepmaster, Roger and Tarquin were walking down the street when they noticed a coin on the floor, and they all instantly realised that it had been dropped by a peg-legged woman with a glass eye.
I am now officially smarter than all of you.
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
Yup! He's right. Correct spelling AND punctuation. It can't be the real Peter.
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
Yup! He's right. Correct spelling AND punctuation. It can't be the real Peter.
It's good, but it's not perfect. The comma that should have followed "Elementary" has leaped forward to become a possessive apostrophe in "Tark's".
Devious!
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
Yup! He's right. Correct spelling AND punctuation. It can't be the real Peter.
It's good, but it's not perfect. The comma that should have followed "Elementary" has leaped forward to become a possessive apostrophe in "Tark's".
Devious!
Who the person who wrote the above diatribe, or me.
-
Give it up, Moriarty. Your cover has been blown!
-
Moriarty and the Master on the same forum - who would have believed it?
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
Yup! He's right. Correct spelling AND punctuation. It can't be the real Peter.
It's good, but it's not perfect. The comma that should have followed "Elementary" has leaped forward to become a possessive apostrophe in "Tark's".
Devious!
You picked the coin up therefor you possessed. It was alimentary.
-
Moriarty and the Master on the same forum - who would have believed it?
Oh, I think some of the regular contributors to these boards are far harder to swallow.
-
No, you're not. I've got the coin!
If you look closely you will see it is a fake. You have once again been foiled. Elementary my dear Tark's.
This post did not come from Peter. I am using his site whilst he is away.
Yup! He's right. Correct spelling AND punctuation. It can't be the real Peter.
It's good, but it's not perfect. The comma that should have followed "Elementary" has leaped forward to become a possessive apostrophe in "Tark's".
Devious!
You picked the coin up therefor you possessed. It was alimentary.
Only if I'd swallowed it.
-
I'm still struggling with the concept that a writer can come up with a character more intelligent than himself. This is straying into the loony ventriliquist/dummy scenario.
-
I'm still struggling with the concept that a writer can come up with a character more intelligent than himself. This is straying into the loony ventriliquist/dummy scenario.
Precisely my point, Roger. Thank you.
-
Precisely my point, Roger. Thank you.
It must be nice to have your point backed up by someone else who does not understand it.
-
Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Mince here. Surely fiction is all about creating illusions, and it is perfectly possible to create the illusion of a super-intelligent being without having to be one, and think as they would 24/7?
Are you as bad a cook as Egon, Roger?
Are you as barmy as Colonel Escargot?
Are you as violent as Mad Pierre?
Are you as wise as the Nomad?
Are you as thick as Dennis?
Are you as foolishly devoted to Dundee United as Hamish?.........Ah!.......
-
Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Mince here. Surely fiction is all about creating illusions, and it is perfectly possible to create the illusion of a super-intelligent being without having to be one, and think as they would 24/7?
Are you as bad a cook as Egon, Roger?
Are you as barmy as Colonel Escargot?
Are you as violent as Mad Pierre?
Are you as wise as the Nomad?
Are you as thick as Dennis?
Are you as foolishly devoted to Dundee United as Hamish?.........Ah!.......
All good points Tarkquin. But were does that leave us.
Has Roger got to pick out the ones that he agrees with. Or does he have to match you line for line.
Does he have better shaped legs than you.
Is he better looking than you.
Is he broader than you.
Does his football team play better than yours.
Do they wear more Stylish shirts
These are vital questions that need answering.
-
How many guest are there that wont post just look. 8
-
Ah, but, Tarks, "creating the ILLUSION" of a super-intelligent person is completely different to creating a character that is more intelligent than its author. That is simply impossible. The creation is limited to exactly what the author is intellectually capable of. It's almost as though you and Mince are suggesting that the character can start doing or saying things that the author does not understand. That's weird, man!
-
If you are writing fiction, it's always an illusion. If it's not, surely it's an autobiography.
-
Ooh! I'm really getting into this topic!
-
It's almost as though you and Mince are suggesting that the character can start doing or saying things that the author does not understand. That's weird, man!
No, but the author can spend several hours researching a point of detail involving thermo-nuclear physics which he can then include in his writing as a sudden passing thought (and not an atypical one) in his character, thereby creating his character's far superior intellect and knowledge base to his own.
Again, to try to put it into your own context (and perhaps in a more relevant way than i attempted earlier), I know you take great care to get the words of your strips just the way you think they work best. Necessarily then, you may take several minutes, possibly even hours to get a particular punchline to work with the optimum words and phraseology to really nail the gag. That line is then delivered by Beau as an instant riposte to something Dennis has done, making it appear like an effortless and totally natural talent that Beau has for belittling his mate.
Eric Morecambe appeared to be a master at ad lib humour, and yet we know from those who appeared alongside him that every off the cuff remark was very carefully rehearsed beforehand. In effect, and in a sense, he was creating an even better comedian than he actually was. I'm sure he was a very witty man off stage, but he obviously didn't sustain that level of humour in every walk of life. Just as you are great company in 'real life', which thankfully means you enjoy more meaningful and deep conversations over a curry than constantly nailing every third bit of speech with a razor-sharp nugget of sarcasm (or worse, playing Andy Capp to your lovely wife's Flo).
We're talking about the illusions created by fictional writing here, not sharing a brain.
-
Unlike Mince, I try to keep it snappy. ::)
-
It's almost as though you and Mince are suggesting that the character can start doing or saying things that the author does not understand. That's weird, man!
No, but the author can spend several hours researching a point of detail involving thermo-nuclear physics which he can then include in his writing as a sudden passing thought (and not an atypical one) in his character, thereby creating his character's far superior intellect and knowledge base to his own.
Again, to try to put it into your own context (and perhaps in a more relevant way than **** i **** attempted earlier), I know you take great care to get the words of your strips just the way you think they work best. Necessarily then, you may take several minutes, possibly even hours to get a particular punchline to work with the optimum words and phraseology to really nail the gag. That line is then delivered by Beau as an instant riposte to something Dennis has done, making it appear like an effortless and totally natural talent that Beau has for belittling his mate.
Eric Morecambe appeared to be a master at ad lib humour, and yet we know from those who appeared alongside him that every off the cuff remark was very carefully rehearsed beforehand. In effect, and in a sense, he was creating an even better comedian than he actually was. I'm sure he was a very witty man off stage, but he obviously didn't sustain that level of humour in every walk of life. Just as you are great company in 'real life', which thankfully means you enjoy more meaningful and deep conversations over a curry than constantly nailing every third bit of speech with a razor-sharp nugget of sarcasm (or worse, playing Andy Capp to your lovely wife's Flo).
We're talking about the illusions created by fictional writing here, not sharing a brain.
And you talk about me
-
We're talking about the illusions created by fictional writing here, not sharing a brain.
[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm saying. Whether the author spends hours researching--or working out the perfect ad-lib--it's all illusion. You cannot create a more intelligent character than yourself.
-
I see both sides of the argument I don't no which way to lean I will wait a bit before I jump.
-
Sorry Tarks I have just jumped on to Roger side.
It is what I said earlier "Your are what you are." No clever no dumber.
Whether you research a subject or not you will only be able to put it into words that you under stand. Otherwise it will sound like gobbledegook, then you would not write it
-
I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.
If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)
-
Sorry Tarks I have just jumped on to Roger side.
Well I've just ambled over to TT111's side. The reasoning he uses makes perfect sense.
-
Roger could introduce a character into Beau Peep who says he is a Rocket Scientist, has won Brain of Britain seven years in a row, and has had the highest IQ ever recorded by man. Now that character isn't brighter than Roger; he's just a work of fiction. Mince gave the impression that a character could be created who would then go on to show remarkably high intelligence through the intricate crime-solving storylines - something that the author himself wouldn't have the intelligence to solve. Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??
-
I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.
If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)
No, we're arguing over the difference between creating a character in a book and what Baron Frankenstein did (had he not been a character in a book). Great argument, but ultimately extremely silly.
No-one has actually created, or even attempted to create a real person with a superior intellect, called Sherlock Holmes. Nor has anyone argued or suggested this is the case. What has been argued is that Doyle could, and did, create a fictional character with an intellect superior to his own.
It can be done. I do it here every day.
-
Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??
Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.
-
Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??
Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.
Mince - If a team of top scientists, sawed open the top of your head, removed your brain, then dissected it into twenty-three parts, each one stored on a separate plate before being sent to different research laboratories around the globe and scraped into respective bins, I'd be immensely satisfied!
-
Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??
Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.
Mince - If a team of top scientists, sawed open the top of your head, removed your brain, then dissected it into twenty-three parts, each one stored on a separate plate before being sent to different research laboratories around the globe and scraped into respective bins, I'd be immensely satisfied!
See. That's exactly what Mince and TT111 are writing about. It probably took you ages to compose this message, yet it comes across as witty repartee.
-
Thank you, Vulture - I have to admit it took me about 2 minutes, but I'm brighter than I look. You also appreciated my comment on the good Dai Young thread, so I've decided you can be one of my fans ;D
-
Oh. Thank you, kind sir. I've gone all of a dither. :o
-
I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.
If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)
Sorry Mince just because you travel on a train it does not make you a train driver but you do it. (Doc who)
It does not make you any more intelligent. It just makes you a passenger.
What Roger is saying is the the character can appear to be of a higher intelligent but he is still only as intelligent as the writer capacity
to write.
-
If you don?t mind me straying off topic a bit ? we have a US TV show shown in Canada called House (I think the first season it was House MD) ? it is about a brilliant but cranky and drugged up doctor. There is a website that lists all the Homesian attributes of House. http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php (http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php)
Do you get that TV show in Britain? It is one of my favourite shows.
-
If you don?t mind me straying off topic a bit ? we have a US TV show shown in Canada called House (I think the first season it was House MD) ? it is about a brilliant but cranky and drugged up doctor. There is a website that lists all the Homesian attributes of House. http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php (http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php)
Do you get that TV show in Britain? It is one of my favourite shows.
Sorry Diane we are on series 3 but I agree it is good
-
I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.
If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)
Sorry Mince just because you travel on a train it does not make you a train driver but you do it. (Doc who)
It does not make you any more intelligent. It just makes you a passenger.
What Roger is saying is the the character can appear to be of a higher intelligent but he is still only as intelligent as the writer capacity
to write.
Sorry, Peter. I have to disagree with you.
Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research.
If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.
-
Sorry, Peter. I have to disagree with you.
Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research.
If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.
I disagree.
I already said that but just because he has researched a subject it does not make him write any more intelligently. Or be able to pilot a plane.
-
Shall we settle it with a Harry Hill "There's only one way to find out . . . fight!"?
-
It was Dick Francis' wife who did the research, I believe. I have never been much of a reader of books, but when I discovered Dick's books around twenty years ago, I was hooked. I read them all one after the other. I saw his latest one in Woolies last week and bought it. I was sad to see that it was the first he'd written for 6 years - he'd stopped the annual output following the death of his wife. I think that shows the input she had.
-
Shall we settle it with a Harry Hill "There's only one way to find out . . . fight!"?
That is a typical kids reply
-
Shall we settle it with a Harry Hill "There's only one way to find out . . . fight!"?
That is a typical kids reply
I blame the parents.
-
It was Dick Francis' wife who did the research, I believe. I have never been much of a reader of books, but when I discovered Dick's books around twenty years ago, I was hooked. I read them all one after the other. I saw his latest one in Woolies last week and bought it. I was sad to see that it was the first he'd written for 6 years - he'd stopped the annual output following the death of his wife. I think that shows the input she had.
The point is, all that he didn't know was researched (by someone [whether it was his wife or not is a moot point] nonetheless, it was researched) and it enabled Dick Francis, the author, to pass on the information as if he knew it!!! In all likelihood, he immediately forgot all that he'd learnt once he'd committed it to paper, but the reader wasn't/isn't to know that.
-
It was Dick Francis' wife who did the research, I believe. I have never been much of a reader of books, but when I discovered Dick's books around twenty years ago, I was hooked. I read them all one after the other. I saw his latest one in Woolies last week and bought it. I was sad to see that it was the first he'd written for 6 years - he'd stopped the annual output following the death of his wife. I think that shows the input she had.
The point is, all that he didn't know was researched (by someone [whether it was his wife or not is a moot point] nonetheless, it was researched) and it enabled Dick Francis, the author, to pass on the information as if he knew it!!! In all likelihood, he immediately forgot all that he'd learnt once he'd committed it to paper, but the reader wasn't/isn't to know that.
Oh yes, Vulch - I completely agree with you. I wasn't trying to lessen your argument, just throw in an interesting fact.
-
If you don?t mind me straying off topic a bit ? we have a US TV show shown in Canada called House (I think the first season it was House MD) ? it is about a brilliant but cranky and drugged up doctor. There is a website that lists all the Homesian attributes of House. http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php (http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php)
Do you get that TV show in Britain? It is one of my favourite shows.
Sorry Diane we are on series 3 but I agree it is good
Nothing to be sorry about - we are on season 4 :)
-
Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research. If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.
Coo, this is all a bit deep. To put things into perspective (I think), refer to Beau introducing readers into Book 6:
"....I thought it was time to explain how my two chroniclers set about their business. To capture the flavour of my life in the Legion, months of research are needed. To make my visits to the pub authentic, the lads (Roger, writer, and Andrew,artist) forced themselves to spend hours at a time in hundreds of bars throughout the country.
"It was a terrible sacrifice," said Roger, "but one we felt necessary".
Andrew agreed. "It was hell. Sometimes after hours of research, we could hardly stand".
To learn about the desert, Roger looked at a postcard of Morocco.........."
;D
-
Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research. If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.
Coo, this is all a bit deep. To put things into perspective (I think), refer to Beau introducing readers into Book 6:
"....I thought it was time to explain how my two chroniclers set about their business. To capture the flavour of my life in the Legion, months of research are needed. To make my visits to the pub authentic, the lads (Roger, writer, and Andrew,artist) forced themselves to spend hours at a time in hundreds of bars throughout the country.
"It was a terrible sacrifice," said Roger, "but one we felt necessary".
Andrew agreed. "It was hell. Sometimes after hours of research, we could hardly stand".
To learn about the desert, Roger looked at a postcard of Morocco.........."
;D
Nah, Rob. This wasn't research: this was on the job training. ;D
-
Just the point I was making but it did not make him write more intelligently you can only convey to others in words.That which you understand and use.
If you take what we are talking about the other way, a person with a vocabulary of ten words is unable to communicate well.
As he learn more words he will get better. This is his research.
He could possible know of Enstien theory.but he would not be able to work it out.
Therefore as Roger pointed out he can say his character knows how to work it out, but could not explain how to the reader.
look here now
-
Just the point I was making but it did not make him write more intelligently you can only convey to others in words that you understand there use.
If you take what we are talking about the other way a person with a vocabulary of ten words is unable to communicate well.
As he learn more words he will get better. This is his research. He would possible know of Enstien theory.but would not be able to work it out therefore as Roger pointed out he can say his character knows how to work it out but could not explain how to the reader
Peter, your post has explained exactly the point you are trying to make. ???
-
I thought can Peter has making things even more are we? I know I went.
-
I particularly like the way Peter quotes and responds to a blank line from Vulture.
-
Peepmaster, I though Peter made his point very well. If you can't write, no amount of research is going to redress that! ;D
-
I particularly like the way Peter quotes and responds to a blank line from Vulture.
Isn't it just!
-
Ok so I got all the boxes wrong.
You do not know how much pressure I was under when I was typing it. Her Indoors was On my back to take the dogs out.
When she says jump I ask how high. Don't we Mince.
-
Aside to the p...s taking I have really enjoyed the discussion.
It has really got the the old grey cells slowly moving.
I did just wonder whether I was the only sane one.
Then realise the inmates were running the show.
-
Anyway, all I wanted to point out is that in Beau Peep, Roger (like Doyle) has also cleverly created characters who are more intelligent than he is.
Well done!
Rereading Minces first premiss I notice that he calls Roger a moron
I cannot find a single character in Beau Peep with any vast intelligence.