This article in the New York Times on the latest "Next Big Thing" in literature has some interesting, and possibly useful, tidbits for fiction writers and readers.
Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :
Thanks for posting this.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
I don't know how long it will be available to non-NY Times subscribers, but I thought it had some interesting points, especially the one about the mind keeping track of three things at a time being applied to character interactions.
Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :
Right, and using those to arbitrate and agenda you want to forward. I think Dan Brown employed that technique with Sir Leigh Teabing, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu in The da Vinci Code.
Posted by billawaboy (Member # 8182) on :
The article actually deal with one of the fundamental concepts of Game Theory called Common Knowledge
There's -first order knowledge(n=1), where you know the rules of the game. -second order knowledge(n=2), where you know that your opponents know the rules also. - third order (n=3), where you know they know that their opponents know the rules
you can see where this is going - Common knowledge assumes that, in an ideal game, a player is aware of ALL levels possible. It's like reaching Nirvana - literally becoming the Buddha of playing that game!
-- Incidentally we see this over and over in The Dark Knight. The Joker always uses the advantage of rigging the 'battle for Gotham's soul' based on knowing what Batman and the Police know about the clues he had left behind for them - then using that to manipulate them to great effect. There is even the subexample of the ferry scene where the two groups are aware of the rules of the game and know that the group on the other boat are aware too. I bet The Joker was a game theory enthusiast. --
I think this a great tool to be aware of when plotting - figuring out who knows what and when and the figuring out how they act accordingly. You can create some very clever villians who are masters of knowing who knows and predicting behavior - using that intellect for evil gains.
Hmm...maybe we should do a writing challenge - write a story of two antagonistic characters who know that they both know they know that they both know. Know what I'm sayin'? I know you do. And now, I know you know that I know you do know - know what I'm saying?...
Great post KDW!
[This message has been edited by billawaboy (edited April 01, 2010).]
Posted by dee_boncci (Member # 2733) on :
That was an interesting read. But I believe the human need for stories is a much deeper and more basic drive which in turn drives our fascination with fiction. It is at the heart of our ability to adapt and to pass knowledge to each other. Desires to understand the thinking and manipulate/outwit each other are elements that can enrich a story, but the core is (for most people) lies in characters they can identify with acting to resolve a problem. That type of research could point to a practical limit or optimization of the chess-like confrontations a reader can be expected to juggle.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
One other point about the three things idea that I got from the article is the implication that trying to get readers to wrap their brains around more than three characters at a time may be asking a little too much.
This can be something for writers to think about as they introduce characters in a story as well as when they have characters interact in a scene. Anyone ever wished the author had included a score card (or "dramatis personae") to help you keep track of everyone?
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Reminds me of "Six Degrees of Separation." Six degrees of knowing?
