20 thoughts on “How deeply do you take readers into the minds of your characters?”
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
I remember the passages from Roland’s Death where the King was tearing his beard and fainting multiple times when they told him one of his knights or another died… It was so sad yet kinda hilarious because it was so wierd to see this guy fainting over and over again.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
That’s a really interesting article in lots of ways, but the purist in me objects to calling stuff between 1000 and 1500 AD “ancient fiction”! Arguably (really) ancient literature such as the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, or indeed parts of the Hebrew Bible, show considerable insight into mental and emotional states, along with judicious use of conventions both overt and restrained for signalling these.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
Yeah, I actually wrote a paper on this. My hypothesis is that the less pluralistic a culture is, the less likely they are to discuss theory of mind issues within their literature. This is because it’s more or less assumed that the audience will understand the emotional content of any piece implicitly – the semiotic system is more heavily coded because there is very little ambiguity in it.
That makes a lot of sense, Derrick Sanders.
That makes a lot of sense, Derrick Sanders.
That makes a lot of sense, Derrick Sanders.
That makes a lot of sense, Derrick Sanders.
That makes a lot of sense, Derrick Sanders.