Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
July 20 Information
List of imaginary characters in fiction
I'm looking for zillions of them, like the rabbit in Harvey or Tyler Durden. Can you help think of some? Also, would this be a viable article if many were not standalones, but rather sections within articles or even black links?
Anyhow, I've stubbed it. If it does not get populated, I will delete it. Please give it a bit before the speedy tag. :)
Thurber! Ah, I love Thurber. "Have it your way. You heard a seal bark!"
Yes, characters that are imagined by one of the other characters. Is this viable or an incredibly stupid article? Don't spare my feelings. This is Wikipedia. :)
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
03:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
My more mischievous self was just wondering about adding almost all the characters from the major religious texts. But I don't think I have the courage or energy to take on that fight today.
HiLo48 (
talk)
03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
HiLo is trying to say that religion is fiction. But if it's only characters that characters imagine, that narrows it down considerably. For example, atheists consider God to be fictional, but in the collection of literature called The Bible, God is not fictional. However, there are fictional characters presented within, such as in dream sequences. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
06:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it is better to avoid religion altogether. Adding a god would be opening a real can of worms. And, since the article is about characters in fiction, then religious people would not like adding imaginary characters in relgion that because it implies that the religion is fiction, right?
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
07:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
You might be missing my point. If you consider the Bible to be fiction, then God is a fictional character in it - but He's not an imaginary character in it. An imaginary character could be someone appearing in a dream of one of the fictional characters. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
No, those cacti were real, and as far as I recall they didn't talk back. However, the lead character Hazel in the webcomic Girls with Slingshots owns a potted cactus which she perceives as conversing with her, often when she's drunk but sometimes apparently not. It is ambiguous as to whether or not other characters also sometimes perceive him to be talking (and performing various actions). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.206.216.248 (
talk)
21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Rather like
Hobbes. There would need to be a sublist of ambiguously imaginary characters. (Harvey, in the film version, becomes this when at the end we see a door moved by an unseen force.) —
Tamfang (
talk)
06:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Elements of the Peanuts world, Snoopy in particular, are kind of surreal. Snoopy could be said to be his own imaginary character. And you have elements like the "kite-eating tree" which is sometimes presented as anthropomorphic. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
13:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Been wondering about
Life of Pi. Can one say for certain that all the zoo animals in the scenes at sea were imaginary, or is this getting too close to religion as well?
HiLo48 (
talk)
00:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Another example whose classification might be tricky or ambiguous is
Nicola Walker's character in River. She existed, unimaginarily, as a colleague and love-interest in the protagonist's real life, but is dead now, and her appearance is entirely fed by his memory and imagination. ---
Sluzzelintalk13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Such an enquiry might best be addressed to a professional
Literary agent who deals with those organisations. Financial data of this kind are likely to be regarded as
proprietory information and will not generally be available to casual public enquiry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
2.219.34.253 (
talk)
01:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
July 20 Information
List of imaginary characters in fiction
I'm looking for zillions of them, like the rabbit in Harvey or Tyler Durden. Can you help think of some? Also, would this be a viable article if many were not standalones, but rather sections within articles or even black links?
Anyhow, I've stubbed it. If it does not get populated, I will delete it. Please give it a bit before the speedy tag. :)
Thurber! Ah, I love Thurber. "Have it your way. You heard a seal bark!"
Yes, characters that are imagined by one of the other characters. Is this viable or an incredibly stupid article? Don't spare my feelings. This is Wikipedia. :)
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
03:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
My more mischievous self was just wondering about adding almost all the characters from the major religious texts. But I don't think I have the courage or energy to take on that fight today.
HiLo48 (
talk)
03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
HiLo is trying to say that religion is fiction. But if it's only characters that characters imagine, that narrows it down considerably. For example, atheists consider God to be fictional, but in the collection of literature called The Bible, God is not fictional. However, there are fictional characters presented within, such as in dream sequences. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
06:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it is better to avoid religion altogether. Adding a god would be opening a real can of worms. And, since the article is about characters in fiction, then religious people would not like adding imaginary characters in relgion that because it implies that the religion is fiction, right?
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
07:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
You might be missing my point. If you consider the Bible to be fiction, then God is a fictional character in it - but He's not an imaginary character in it. An imaginary character could be someone appearing in a dream of one of the fictional characters. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
No, those cacti were real, and as far as I recall they didn't talk back. However, the lead character Hazel in the webcomic Girls with Slingshots owns a potted cactus which she perceives as conversing with her, often when she's drunk but sometimes apparently not. It is ambiguous as to whether or not other characters also sometimes perceive him to be talking (and performing various actions). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.206.216.248 (
talk)
21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Rather like
Hobbes. There would need to be a sublist of ambiguously imaginary characters. (Harvey, in the film version, becomes this when at the end we see a door moved by an unseen force.) —
Tamfang (
talk)
06:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Elements of the Peanuts world, Snoopy in particular, are kind of surreal. Snoopy could be said to be his own imaginary character. And you have elements like the "kite-eating tree" which is sometimes presented as anthropomorphic. ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
13:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Been wondering about
Life of Pi. Can one say for certain that all the zoo animals in the scenes at sea were imaginary, or is this getting too close to religion as well?
HiLo48 (
talk)
00:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Another example whose classification might be tricky or ambiguous is
Nicola Walker's character in River. She existed, unimaginarily, as a colleague and love-interest in the protagonist's real life, but is dead now, and her appearance is entirely fed by his memory and imagination. ---
Sluzzelintalk13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Such an enquiry might best be addressed to a professional
Literary agent who deals with those organisations. Financial data of this kind are likely to be regarded as
proprietory information and will not generally be available to casual public enquiry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
2.219.34.253 (
talk)
01:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply