Skip to main content
Added "action" and "behavior" to the list in the proposed excerpt. Did some wordsmithing of said excerpt.
Source Link
verbose
  • 30.1k
  • 12
  • 18

Here is a suggested edit for the tag wiki excerpt that might finesse the issues raised in the question:

Questions about literary characters, addressing: the structural role one or more characters play in a given fictional universe; thetheir psychological traits, physical appearance, sexuality, motivation, emotions, behavior, actions, ethnic or racial background, etc. of those characters as represented in that universe; and/or how the writer's linguistic choices shape that representation. This tag should be used together with the relevant work, series, or author tags.

I believe this excerpt distinguishes the two meanings of the term character while allowing the tag to be used for both. Appropriately for this site, it foregrounds the literary roles played by characters in a fictional universe. It also avoids ethnic or racial determinism by making writers, rather than some essentialist principle, responsible for shaping their characters and their characters.

Feedback requested. If this suggestion (after the requisite edits) is adopted, I would be more comfortable with 's being applied to the Heathcliff question that started me off here and the rollback I made can be reverted in its turn. We would be able to point to the tag wiki as the source of truth for our view of the character of fictional characters.

There is always the danger that someone might mistakenly use the tag for a question about graphology or about the meaning of particular ideograms, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.

Here is a suggested edit for the tag wiki excerpt that might finesse the issues raised in the question:

Questions about literary characters, addressing: the structural role one or more characters play in a given fictional universe; the psychological traits, physical appearance, sexuality, motivation, emotions, ethnic or racial background, etc. of those characters as represented in that universe; and/or how the writer's linguistic choices shape that representation. This tag should be used together with the relevant work, series, or author tags.

I believe this excerpt distinguishes the two meanings of the term character while allowing the tag to be used for both. Appropriately for this site, it foregrounds the literary roles played by characters in a fictional universe. It also avoids ethnic or racial determinism by making writers, rather than some essentialist principle, responsible for shaping their characters and their characters.

Feedback requested. If this suggestion (after the requisite edits) is adopted, I would be more comfortable with 's being applied to the Heathcliff question that started me off here and the rollback I made can be reverted in its turn. We would be able to point to the tag wiki as the source of truth for our view of the character of fictional characters.

There is always the danger that someone might mistakenly use the tag for a question about graphology or about the meaning of particular ideograms, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.

Here is a suggested edit for the tag wiki excerpt that might finesse the issues raised in the question:

Questions about literary characters, addressing: the structural role one or more characters play in a given fictional universe; their psychological traits, physical appearance, sexuality, motivation, emotions, behavior, actions, ethnic or racial background, etc. as represented in that universe; and/or how the writer's linguistic choices shape that representation. This tag should be used together with the relevant work, series, or author tags.

I believe this excerpt distinguishes the two meanings of the term character while allowing the tag to be used for both. Appropriately for this site, it foregrounds the literary roles played by characters in a fictional universe. It also avoids ethnic or racial determinism by making writers, rather than some essentialist principle, responsible for shaping their characters and their characters.

Feedback requested. If this suggestion (after the requisite edits) is adopted, I would be more comfortable with 's being applied to the Heathcliff question that started me off here and the rollback I made can be reverted in its turn. We would be able to point to the tag wiki as the source of truth for our view of the character of fictional characters.

There is always the danger that someone might mistakenly use the tag for a question about graphology or about the meaning of particular ideograms, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.

Source Link
verbose
  • 30.1k
  • 12
  • 18

Here is a suggested edit for the tag wiki excerpt that might finesse the issues raised in the question:

Questions about literary characters, addressing: the structural role one or more characters play in a given fictional universe; the psychological traits, physical appearance, sexuality, motivation, emotions, ethnic or racial background, etc. of those characters as represented in that universe; and/or how the writer's linguistic choices shape that representation. This tag should be used together with the relevant work, series, or author tags.

I believe this excerpt distinguishes the two meanings of the term character while allowing the tag to be used for both. Appropriately for this site, it foregrounds the literary roles played by characters in a fictional universe. It also avoids ethnic or racial determinism by making writers, rather than some essentialist principle, responsible for shaping their characters and their characters.

Feedback requested. If this suggestion (after the requisite edits) is adopted, I would be more comfortable with 's being applied to the Heathcliff question that started me off here and the rollback I made can be reverted in its turn. We would be able to point to the tag wiki as the source of truth for our view of the character of fictional characters.

There is always the danger that someone might mistakenly use the tag for a question about graphology or about the meaning of particular ideograms, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.