I had always imagined that the characters look not-quite like their actors. If we get back the metaphysics here (and really who doesn't love metaphysics): how are stories taking place in other universes? Either they take place independent of the writing -- essentially infinite universes exist somewhere -- or there must be information flow between the universe and the writer. That can either be the writer creating the story (hi Drosselmeyer), or the writer interpreting the story happening in another universe.
I think the last is the most interesting, and the most plausible. The writer interprets the history of another universe into the story, perhaps through meditation, perhaps through a spirit medium like a muse. This leads to the same questions as with things like The Bible: did it all really happen that way, or is the writer's interpretation of events making a biased account, or is a part of it pure invention? We know for sure that a lot of the Bible really happened, based on things like archaeological evidence, or the fact that even contemporaneous writings by anti-Christians never argued that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. But at the same time, are we supposed to not notice the retcon called Deuteronomy?
Anyway, assume the writer is connected to the other universe, getting information from it through <insert greek letter> waves. I think we can also assume a movie/TV director can also have information flow that way, and take that into account in things like casting and choosing the best shot. Maybe method acting is even a limited form of possession, of contacting that universe. But how on Earth is it supposed to make actors look exactly like the character in the story? Casting is at least as much for competence as looks. Looks are not an idea, it's a physical fact. Unless you want to say that somehow the person existing somewhere else makes an actor spring into existence here which is just too much information flow. And then how could they act in two different stories?
Which is the same point I had earlier about in-story anime people not looking like waifu who escaped from animuland. Our representation of them can be whatever, but in-story, humans look like humans, because physics again. 40% of our skull can't be eye sockets. That this part of the story is interpretation.
So that's how I'd deconstruct it. If you assume it's just a consequence of unlimited universes, then stories aren't really special, and then you can't explain why the Metacontinuity is collapsing in the way it does, around stories. So it forces the other interpretation, which also forces people to not look exactly like their actors/cartoons. Of course, it's probably fine and dandy if they look pretty similar -- in a dark room or from a distance, the actor would look the same. But up close, most anyone could tell the difference.
That said, if Mal Reynolds has a scheme that requires himself to be in two places at once, I'm pretty sure Nathan Fillion would be down for it. He even dressed up as Mal for a episode of Castle.
On the other topic, I do realize that some people have a reflexive response against polyamory, but I've had a decent number of poly friends. And lived with a girl and her two boyfriends for a while. And in that while, I've started to think that the bigger problem to polyamory is human nature, as those relationships are significantly less stable than 1:1 dyad relationships. The problem is less "what will people think?" and more "how does it even?" Note that it can even... er, poly relationships can be steady-state. It's just the onus is on you as a writer to show how that steady-state works.
I think the last is the most interesting, and the most plausible. The writer interprets the history of another universe into the story, perhaps through meditation, perhaps through a spirit medium like a muse. This leads to the same questions as with things like The Bible: did it all really happen that way, or is the writer's interpretation of events making a biased account, or is a part of it pure invention? We know for sure that a lot of the Bible really happened, based on things like archaeological evidence, or the fact that even contemporaneous writings by anti-Christians never argued that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. But at the same time, are we supposed to not notice the retcon called Deuteronomy?
Anyway, assume the writer is connected to the other universe, getting information from it through <insert greek letter> waves. I think we can also assume a movie/TV director can also have information flow that way, and take that into account in things like casting and choosing the best shot. Maybe method acting is even a limited form of possession, of contacting that universe. But how on Earth is it supposed to make actors look exactly like the character in the story? Casting is at least as much for competence as looks. Looks are not an idea, it's a physical fact. Unless you want to say that somehow the person existing somewhere else makes an actor spring into existence here which is just too much information flow. And then how could they act in two different stories?
Which is the same point I had earlier about in-story anime people not looking like waifu who escaped from animuland. Our representation of them can be whatever, but in-story, humans look like humans, because physics again. 40% of our skull can't be eye sockets. That this part of the story is interpretation.
So that's how I'd deconstruct it. If you assume it's just a consequence of unlimited universes, then stories aren't really special, and then you can't explain why the Metacontinuity is collapsing in the way it does, around stories. So it forces the other interpretation, which also forces people to not look exactly like their actors/cartoons. Of course, it's probably fine and dandy if they look pretty similar -- in a dark room or from a distance, the actor would look the same. But up close, most anyone could tell the difference.
That said, if Mal Reynolds has a scheme that requires himself to be in two places at once, I'm pretty sure Nathan Fillion would be down for it. He even dressed up as Mal for a episode of Castle.
On the other topic, I do realize that some people have a reflexive response against polyamory, but I've had a decent number of poly friends. And lived with a girl and her two boyfriends for a while. And in that while, I've started to think that the bigger problem to polyamory is human nature, as those relationships are significantly less stable than 1:1 dyad relationships. The problem is less "what will people think?" and more "how does it even?" Note that it can even... er, poly relationships can be steady-state. It's just the onus is on you as a writer to show how that steady-state works.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto