Heuristic Femmes Fatales

[Higgins]

Rather than making the portrayal of atheist characters a kind of
decision-point for non-atheists...perhaps it would be easier to propose
a heuristic model of the atheist as being roughly equivalent to a
femme fatale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale

Thus a fledgeling non-atheist could write the atheist role using a femme fatale as a stand-in and just adjust the character later.

For example the single critical item in defining a femme fatale as a character is that she is extraordinarily sexy. As with an atheist this may have nothing at all to do with the rest of her life or character and as with an atheist she may or may not want to make this essential characteristic public. Th rest is just a matter of plot.

[Albedo]

Look, if theists want to write all their atheist characters as extraordinarily sexy, I'm going to stop complaining right now.

[veinglory]

I really don't understand what 'femme fatale' and athiesm have to do with each other at all. I mean if the atheist character is a 70 year old Polish man in a coma I doubt writing a first draft where he acts like a femme fatale would be very helpful?

[Higgins]

I really don't understand what 'femme fatale' and athiesm have to do with each other at all. I mean if the atheist character is a 70 year old Polish man in a coma I doubt writing a first draft where he acts like a femme fatale would be very helpful?

Actually this might be the best heuristic solution: write the atheist as the dream-fantasy femme fatale of a 70-year-old old Polish man in a coma and then remove the 70-year-old old Polish man in a coma and just use the femme fatale (transformed into an atheist...very easy...just substitute..."doesn't believe in god" for "very sexy") and there you are.

[SPMiller]

So are you advocating that theists write atheists as one-dimensional characters completely defined by their lack of religious beliefs, then alter their character to be deeper at a later stage of revision?

[veinglory]

I am having trouble seeing this as any kind of serious suggestion, but then electronic communications are difficult like that.

[SPMiller]

I have the same suspicion, but I had to ask just to be sure. We'll see what the response says...

[Higgins]

So are you advocating that theists write atheists as one-dimensional characters completely defined by their lack of religious beliefs, then alter their character to be deeper at a later stage of revision?

I am having trouble seeing this as any kind of serious suggestion, but then electronic communications are difficult like that.

I have the same suspicion, but I had to ask just to be sure. We'll see what the response says...

I'm seriously suggesting that for people who know nothing about atheism and don't want to try, the femme fatale is a reasonable (merely heuristic and not perfect) model for an atheist in terms of relating character to plot because the femme fatale is obviously "fatale" for others, just as the a-theist seems to have certain upsetting characteristics for others (its the theist who puts the theist in a- theist and its the desire-ous that put the fatale in femme fatale).

There's nothing inherently dangerous about an atheist or a femme fatale -- if we think of the plot -- it is the response of others to a characteristic that may only be peripheral to their self-identity that generates the plot events... unlike say a cowboy.

Or to put it another way: an atheist is structured more like a femme fatale than a cowboy....in terms of relating to a plot.

[veinglory]

Well, I disagree but I very much doubt that it would constructive to devote more time to explaining way as it would only reiterate what I have said a few times before--such as in the thread where this idea was first raised.

[Medievalist]

I'm seriously suggesting that for people who know nothing about atheism and don't want to try, the femme fatale is a reasonable (merely heuristic and not perfect) model for an atheist in terms of relating character to plot because the femme fatale is obviously "fatale" for others, just as the a-theist seems to have certain upsetting characteristics for others (its the theist who puts the theist in a- theist and its the desire-ous that put the fatale in femme fatale).

In order for an analogy to function, and make sense (and yours does neither) the terms of the analogy must be clearly defined.

Here's the AHD on femme fatale:

1. A woman of great seductive charm who leads men into compromising or dangerous situations.
2. An alluring, mysterious woman.

A femme fatale constructs herself to be a femme fatale; she is making herself alluring with deliberate intent. It is a social role and personal construct she chooses. (Unless said fatale aspect is projected externally).

Here's the AHD on atheist:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

An atheist isn't "constructing" anything; the atheist is asserting that there is
is nothing to be constructed.

If you are asserting that the atheist to the theist functions as a femme fatale functions for amorous partners, and "leads them astray," or "into compromising or dangerous situations" then you still need to define your terms--and it's an observation that is at best trite.

[Eeek]

I also don't get it. (An atheist is like a femme fatale how?) Also, I don't understand this:

I'm seriously suggesting that for people who know nothing about atheism and don't want to try ....

If a writer knows nothing about atheism and doesn't want to try, then why would they even be writing about an atheist character in the first place? Isn't the whole point of writing fiction to create characters in order that you (and then, with luck, your readers) can better understand what makes them tick?

[Eeek]

I just want to add that I was taught to "write what you know." I don't completely agree with that, though. I think you can use your imagination to write about things that you don't know about directly from your own life -- but you have to be curious about what you are writing about, and eager (and willing) to learn more.

Someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know about something can't write about it in any useful way. At most, they may end up trotting out some tired old stereotypes that will most likely be laughable if not outright offensive.

IMHO, of course.

[Higgins]

I also don't get it. (An atheist is like a femme fatale how?) Also, I don't understand this:



If a writer knows nothing about atheism and doesn't want to try, then why would they even be writing about an atheist character in the first place? Isn't the whole point of writing fiction to create characters in order that you (and then, with luck, your readers) can better understand what makes them tick?

A femme fatale is (to put it very tritely) like an atheist because the -fatale comes from others and so does the -theist. Left to themselves, the atheist is just a person some basic mental agility and the femme fatale is just a beautiful woman.

As for knowing nothing about atheism and not wanting to try...well...clearly atheists are a potential stock-figure of great interest to the theocentrically, morally concerned. They can for example be tormented and learn terrible lessons...but...generally a femme fatale would do better in your average plot.

[Medievalist]

As for knowing nothing about atheism and not wanting to try...well...clearly atheists are a potential stock-figure of great interest to the theocentrically, morally concerned. They can for example be tormented and learn terrible lessons...but...generally a femme fatale would do better in your average plot.

In other words, you don't, actually, have a point.

[Higgins]

In other words, you don't, actually, have a point.

I had a point but you did not chose to quote it. The point is this:

A femme fatale has a certain relation to plots, and in that relation the femme or beauty of her being (which is actually essential) is somewhat arbitrarily made fatale.

Similarly, for an atheist (who presumably pops up in religious plots to stimulate feelings of guilty horror -- rather like a femme fatale) has the relation that their actual mental processes (which actually are essential) is made to "deny theism" somewhat arbitrarily.

Without the plot/others a femme fatale is just a beautiful woman and without the plot/others, an atheist is just a person with a certain amount of mental agility.

[veinglory]

Another assumption problem, I think. For a start I see the 'fatale-ness' as being as intrinsic to the archetype as the 'femme-ness'. E.g. the vampire seductress is not just a misunderstood bombshell.

Nor do I assume atheist characters appear only in religious works as a monster figure.

[Eeek]

clearly atheists are a potential stock-figure of great interest to the theocentrically, morally concerned. They can for example be tormented and learn terrible lessons

Do people really write these kinds of things? (Maybe I've led a sheltered existence.)

[Medievalist]

Without the plot/others a femme fatale is just a beautiful woman and without the plot/others, an atheist is just a person with a certain amount of mental agility.

You just proved my point that you have no point, and then tossed in a garnish of more vague assertions that suggest a profound level of discomfort with the words you use.

Do you actually read fiction? At all?

Do you understand the difference between plot and story? Do you understand the relationship between plot, story, and characters?

1. You made an inane and inappropriate analogy.

2. You then assert that "a femme fatale is just a beautiful woman and without the plot/others, an atheist is just a person with a certain amount of mental agility."

Without the plot, as you so quaintly put it, a femme fatale, like an atheist, or a Swede, is just a movable. A one-size-fits all token.

The questions writers ask themselves and their characters have to do with what matters in terms of plot and story. Without context (that is plot and story) whether a character is an atheist, a femme fatale, or a Walloon, is immaterial--and may not even be apparent to the reader.

So, yeah, no point in your initial post, or the subsequent ones.

Where did I leave that Etch-A-Sketch . . .

[Medievalist]

Do people really write these kinds of things? (Maybe I've led a sheltered existence.)

A better question is:

Do publishers publish these things?

[Higgins]

Do you actually read fiction? At all?


A very interesting question.

Suppose I had just heard of fiction and had no direct experience with it.
How would my views of the inane analogy between femmes fatales and
atheists change? How could I plausibly report or record these shifts in views? Or have I in fact succeeded in doing just that?

Would such a report really be "pointless"? Wouldn't we learn a great deal from a hypothetical (if verbally uncomfortable) entity with those characteristics? Even assuming I was such an entity?

It is at least possible that (if I could only prove that I have only heard of fiction, but never actually read any) such a viewpoint might be far from pointless?

[Medievalist]

Ignore lists are useful for avoiding the posts from people you don't want to read. If you add a member to your ignore list, posts by that person will be hidden when you read a thread.


Go to your User CP panel

On the left, under the category of Miscellaneous, click Buddy / Ignore Lists

In the field labled Ignore List, enter the member whose posts you wish to ignore.

Click Save List


You will no longer see the annoying persons.

[ColoradoGuy]

A very interesting question.
I don't think she meant it to be interesting.
Suppose I had just heard of fiction and had no direct experience with it.
Okay, let's suppose that.
How would my views of the inane analogy between femmes fatales and
atheists change?I don't know--they're your views, why don't you tell us?
How could I plausibly report or record these shifts in views?By telling us. In plain English.
Or have I in fact succeeded in doing just that?
No. Definitely no.
Would such a report really be "pointless"?
Maybe, maybe not. It would depend upon how you wrote it. I'm not so much thinking pointless as incomprehensible.
Wouldn't we learn a great deal from a hypothetical (if verbally uncomfortable) entity with those characteristics? Even assuming I was such an entity?
Maybe. But it's hard to discern much through an opaque prose-window.
It is at least possible that (if I could only prove that I have only heard of fiction, but never actually read any) such a viewpoint might be far from pointless?
Possibly. But it is also possible that monkey with his typewriter could produce Hamlet.

[t0neg0d]

The questions writers ask themselves and their characters have to do with what matters in terms of plot and story. Without context (that is plot and story) whether a character is an atheist, a femme fatale, or a Walloon, is immaterial--and may not even be apparent to the reader.


This is making large assumptions that a character alone has no substance. If your characters are defined by your plot, then your characters are very one dimensional. I am who I am... whether I go to the store today or not. A character is as easily developed outside of the story plot (and help to define the path and outcome of said plot) as they are inside of the plot... though, if they are developed outside of the plot they are given considerations that the plot would have not led to--making them more believable when all is said and done.

A character's habit of smoking may seem totally irrelevant to your plot at the beginning, but very well may be critical to your plot's development. Now, if something as simple as smoking could do this, how extreme do you think the impact of a belief in/or lack of belief in god/s might be? Or the fact that they were born beautiful and have no choice in how they are perceived/or utilize this is their advantage? Not all writers have their plot developed fully when they write and little (or big) character attributes contribute to developing the plot as it continues.

Not to mention, what works for one, doesn't always work for all.

Saying his post is pointless is a little on the harsh side and unwarranted, no?

[veinglory]

...the inane analogy between femmes fatales and
atheists

As you have now clarified that the thread was started with the apparent intnetion of being innane I am closing it. Any future thread that seem to have a similar provocative rather than constructive approach aim will also be closed.