Timeline for Should the [character-analysis] tag be used to ask about physical traits?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2021 at 6:51 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | @verbose To be fair, broadening the scope of character-analysis to simply characters might also involve retagging a lot of questions. I'm sure I remember asking questions about characters but not adding the CA tag because I didn't feel the question was about analysing the character. | |
| May 16, 2021 at 19:59 | history | edited | Tsundoku | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2021 at 19:47 | comment | added | verbose | (1) I guess I don't see why one would want to separate out character analysis from other questions about characterization (2) Psychoanalytic criticism is not restricted to (and in contemporary iterations, not even interested in) analysis of a character's psychology as defined in the alternative tag suggestion. | |
| May 16, 2021 at 19:38 | comment | added | Tsundoku | @verbose (1) I am aware that accepting a narrower scope for the tag would require retagging of a number of questions. There is more than one way of defining "character analysis". (2) What you regard as naïve may still be the subject of a valid question here. (3) One specific type of character analysis would be psychoanalytic criticism, which I don't think is naïve (whatever its merits may be). | |
| May 16, 2021 at 19:26 | comment | added | verbose | We already have tons of questions using this tag that aren't about the character's psychology, e.g., this one. Limiting this scope would require going through all the questions and retagging those that are about the social or structural role of characters or about their linguistic representation. And I don't think there is any reason to separate out these sorts of questions. (I also think that questions about characters' psychology, as though they were real people, reflect a somewhat naïve approach literary analysis, FWIW.) | |
| May 16, 2021 at 15:26 | history | answered | Tsundoku | CC BY-SA 4.0 |