character

Interacting with such interfaces as Eliza is certainly enjoyable. I wanted to use this blog entry to perhaps elaborate my thoughts a bit about ELIZA, and what it means to be a character. I believe up front that "she" (or "it" in this case) qualifies as a character because there are certain preferences that she employs. For example, she has certain speech patterns. This translates as she responds in predictable ways once you get to know her. A funny thing about these types of computer automated bots is when they break, or reveal themselves as we discussed in class. This is like revealing the man behind the curtain in the wizard of oz.

(incidentally, LOST had a similarly titled episode which dealt with a "character" named Jacob which was quite spectacular!)  read more »

I was glad to see in the Chatman chapter on existents that I'm not alone. I have always heard people talking about how a character wasn't deep enough or wasn't believable, and I could never quite understand what they meant. I don't have a problem with asking hypothetical questions about the characters like others that he cited did, but I still just see characters as created things.

I think for me the problem has always been that the line between well developed and flat characters is blurred. I've never understood what makes a character real or better than another. I don't know much about Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby, but I still find the character very real. I don't feel like I need to know everything about a character for them to be good. For comics, such as achewood, just knowing their locution and conversational tendencies is enough. I don't know much about Glottis in Grim Fandango, but he's still a very memorable character. Do I need to know where each character came from, go inside their thoughts like Mrs. Dalloway, or know what they're planning to do next for it to be a good character? The line just seems too blurred and too artificial.