Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26484417-20180225092054/@comment-26484417-20180303084146

DYBAD wrote: Let's avoid off-topic diversions, shall we ? Right now, the subject is Fictional Transcendence. Well, you were the one who is attempting to change the issue from the conceptual limitations of Fictional Transcendence, to whether or not the character in a story has autonomy. So--as I have been indirectly saying before, and as you now agree--let's avoid off-topic diversions.

By the way, maintaining something without providing any justication doesn't weigh much ^ ^; Which is why my previous reply on the matter includes the justification, and why I re-iterate once more down below.

NOTE: I should think that attempts like these a little beneath you.

Why, yes there is. Since the characters are being puppeteered by the writer into deceiving the readers, that explicitly means said characters have in truth no such abilities, and are simply, you know... "being puppeteered by the writer into deceiving the readers" (hard to be make it any clearer). Indeed, it could be hardly clearer--though it was pretty clear in the first place. First, "deceiving the readers" is a form of interaction, in other words, this too is an interaction between the character and the audience. Second, like I've said before, it doesn't matter whether the characters are lead to do something by their respective authors or not (and they are--we all know they are), the result is nonetheless that the characters address the readers / viewers with some of their actions or words. As for how they accomplish this? Keep reading below.

Of coure he doesn't, he's just a fictional character ^ ^; (see paragraph above). In order to actually adress the readers, he would have to be real, which he's not. "Deadpool" is literally just ink on paper (or whatever artistic tech has replaced them), shaped into a famously recognizable humanoid pattern.

As a matter of fact, that's all he is : a highly popular make-believe.

How could he possibly address us ? This is truly surprising. How can a character address someone in reality? Nothing simpler! Allow me to introduce 'Example', my ad-hoc character, it says "Hi, DYBAD!". Now, while it was me who made Example address you, it nonetheless happened. As for how a character can address random audience, all it needs to use the designation "you" when it's made clear that the character doesn't use it to refer any in-universe character or characters.

My point being, contrary to what you're suggesting, there is no rule or constraint whatsoever that prevents this from occurring; at least there is no such thing in the common use / definition thereof.

RoyalGuard-Elite wrote:...He keeps spouting how character autonomy is of no consequence yet he is the one who believes the characters should jump off the page. Contradiction if you ask me. I realise that logic and logical fallacies aren't your forte, but it's not a contradiction. In fact, the argument--that a character cannot utilise its powers without autonomy--is not only a prime example of false-cause fallacy, it's outright nonsense. Do you not realise that you're currently on a wiki that exists because characters use their powers all the time despite their lack of autonomy?