Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / StrangerThanFiction

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Maybe it defeats the purpose, but why couldn't Karen just write her original ending ''after'' saving Harold? If the story is over, it seems unlikely he'd be trapped back under her "control", so to speak. Or would the same little boy somehow end up in front of a bus in front of Harold again?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:


*Maybe it defeats the purpose, but why couldn't Karen just write her original ending ''after'' saving Harold? If the story is over, it seems unlikely he'd be trapped back under her "control", so to speak. Or would the same little boy somehow end up in front of a bus in front of Harold again?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** Because that wouldn't have made good narrative for her. The movie's all about how she wants to write a good story and is too concerned with it to do something like that.
N

Added: 589

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** There have been plenty of very successful works where the ending was known by the audience in advance. Everyone knew what was going to happen to the titular ship in Titanic and the main character of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, for example. For that matter, relatively faithful adaptations - such as Romeo and Juliet (which Shakespeare adapted from previous works) to its original audience, or the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies - would have the same issue and do fine despite many of the fans already knowing not just the ending but most if not all of the major plot points.
N

Changed: 267

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** Even if her previous novels did result in real deaths, it's entirely possible they don't have enough details about the people to push it beyond the realm of coincidence. Particularly possible if they all led relatively ordinary lives and didn't have unusual names.
N

Changed: 283

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** She was preoccupied with the issue of deciding Harold's fate and the question of whether she's unintentionally killed several other people. We don't know if she wrote anything to test the limits of whatever was happening sometime later, once the initial shock/horror dulled a bit.
N

Added: 259

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** And c) how much her re-write changed along with whether or not that retroactively changes Harold's actual life. The final version of her story might not have resembled his life as much (assuming it even got widely read if the final version was just okay).
N

Changed: 4

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It's not uncommon for bits of foreign material to wind up inside of people's bodies for various reasons (from injuries to amateur tattoos and the like). There'd be a risk of infection early on, but the open wound itself even without the piece of the watch would cause that. By the time his injuries healed, any bacteria would either have been cleaned or killed by antibiotics (possibly after causing an infection, which the hospital would treat), so as long as the material itself isn't toxic it wouldn't be a continued risk. It being that close to an artery would probably be a bigger concern, since it's possible an otherwise minor injury later could damage the artery again, though how likely that is probably depends on the watch piece's shape and exactly where it is.

to:

** It's not uncommon for bits of foreign material to wind up inside of people's bodies for various reasons (from injuries to amateur tattoos and the like). There'd be a risk of infection early on, but the open wound itself even without the piece of the watch would cause that. By the time his injuries healed, any bacteria would either have been cleaned out or killed by antibiotics (possibly after causing an infection, which the hospital would treat), so as long as the material itself isn't toxic it wouldn't be a continued risk. It being that close to an artery would probably be a bigger concern, since it's possible an otherwise minor injury later could damage the artery again, though how likely that is probably depends on the watch piece's shape and exactly where it is.
N

Added: 775

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** It's not uncommon for bits of foreign material to wind up inside of people's bodies for various reasons (from injuries to amateur tattoos and the like). There'd be a risk of infection early on, but the open wound itself even without the piece of the watch would cause that. By the time his injuries healed, any bacteria would either have been cleaned or killed by antibiotics (possibly after causing an infection, which the hospital would treat), so as long as the material itself isn't toxic it wouldn't be a continued risk. It being that close to an artery would probably be a bigger concern, since it's possible an otherwise minor injury later could damage the artery again, though how likely that is probably depends on the watch piece's shape and exactly where it is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Probably neither and the events of the film is a one time occurrence that is outside of both Karen and her typewriter.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* This is a kind of pointless question: But is it Karen who is magic- or the typewriter that is?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** I feel like it's something a bit more simpler than these questions: ''Karen's book is shorter than the movie.'' In other words, the only parts that Karen actually wrote where the things she narrated. Everything else can be assumed by the reader afterwards. The parts in between her narrations are {{Timeskip}}s. What do you think characters do during timeskips?

to:

** I feel like it's something a bit more simpler than these questions: answers: ''Karen's book is shorter than the movie.'' In other words, the only parts that Karen actually wrote where the things she narrated. Everything else can be assumed by the reader afterwards. The parts in between her narrations are {{Timeskip}}s. What do you think characters do during timeskips?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* I feel like it's something a bit more simpler than these questions: ''Karen's book is shorter than the movie.'' In other words, the only parts that Karen actually wrote where the things she narrated. Everything else can be assumed by the reader afterwards. The parts in between her narrations are {{Timeskip}}s.

to:

* ** I feel like it's something a bit more simpler than these questions: ''Karen's book is shorter than the movie.'' In other words, the only parts that Karen actually wrote where the things she narrated. Everything else can be assumed by the reader afterwards. The parts in between her narrations are {{Timeskip}}s. What do you think characters do during timeskips?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* I feel like it's something a bit more simpler than these questions: ''Karen's book is shorter than the movie.'' In other words, the only parts that Karen actually wrote where the things she narrated. Everything else can be assumed by the reader afterwards. The parts in between her narrations are {{Timeskip}}s.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical. Alternatively or both: he thinks his life is so pathetically pitty that anyone watching it would just laugh

to:

** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical. Alternatively or both: he thinks his life is so pathetically pitty pitiful that anyone watching it would just laugh
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical. Alternatively or both: [[HeroicSelfDeprication he thinks his life is so pathetically pitty that anyone watching it would just laugh]].

to:

** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical. Alternatively or both: [[HeroicSelfDeprication he thinks his life is so pathetically pitty that anyone watching it would just laugh]].
laugh
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical.

to:

** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical. \n Alternatively or both: [[HeroicSelfDeprication he thinks his life is so pathetically pitty that anyone watching it would just laugh]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** I read somewhere that in most comedies, we laugh because of the characters misfortunes- even though it isn't funny to them. Just think of all the times a character had something bad happen to them and you laughed at it. Then suddenly, his idea of him being in a comedy is quite logical.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** That's right. For all we know, for those who have read and enjoyed her past books, a character dying would be a trope, not a cliché. It'd be no different from Agatha Christie writing a mystery where someone dies (she wrote a lot of mysteries which involves deaths of characters), or John Grisham writing stories that involves the law, lawyers and/or court cases (a majority of his work does), or Stephen King writing stories that involving supernatural elements (most of his stuff does), or William Shakespeare writing in two different sets of genres: tragedies and comedies (he did). Since she works in writing tragedies where the leads die in the end with a fulfilling story that leads up to it, it may just be a trope that she's known for by those who read her works.

to:

*** That's right. For all we know, for those who have read and enjoyed her past books, a character dying would be a trope, not a cliché. trope. It'd be no different from Agatha Christie being known for writing a mystery where someone dies (she wrote a lot of mysteries which involves deaths of characters), or John Grisham writing stories that involves the law, lawyers and/or court cases (a majority of his work does), or Stephen King writing stories that involving supernatural and/or possible psychological elements (most of his stuff does), or William Shakespeare writing in two different sets of genres: tragedies and comedies (he did). Since she works in writing tragedies where the leads die in the end with a fulfilling story that leads up to it, it may just be a trope that she's known for by those who read her works.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** That's right. For all we know, for those who have read and enjoyed her past books, a character dying would be a trope, not a cliché. It'd be no different from Agatha Christie writing a mystery where someone dies (she wrote a lot of mysteries which involves deaths of characters), or John Grisham writing stories that involves the law, lawyers and/or court cases (a majority of his work does), or Stephen King writing stories that involving supernatural elements (most of his stuff does), or William Shakespeare writing in two different sets of genres: tragedies and comedies (he did). Since she works in writing tragedies where the leads die in the end with a fulfilling story that leads up to it, it may just be a trope that she's known for by those who read her works.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** Also, there's no indication that any of her past novels occurred as she written them as well. For all she knows, as well as the audience, this is a one-time event that's occurring and it's happening to Harold and her. So, what's to say that her writing anything outside of Harold's story would come true for her? For all we know, the events that we see happen could probably only happen in Harold's story and not another story outside of that.

Changed: 1715

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

**** There's no indication that editing the book after the first draft would result in changing of events in the real world. Think about it like this: let's say in the first draft, she writes it to where he lives. When it comes to the second draft, what's to say that changing the ending would mean the first ending would continue to stick? For all we know, changing the ending would just delay Harold's death and result in him dying the way she written it at a short time later. She had no way to know for sure if editing it would end up altering the real life events. From what is suggested with the fact that she seems to write a story where Harold is suppose to be unaware of his impeding death, in the real world, he's clearly aware of it because he can hear her narration. This suggests that in the editing she said she was going to do, she ended up adding his reactions to her voice, meaning that what he is hearing may have been her edited version of the story.




to:

** As mentioned before, there are classics of literature that are just that. The fact is that there is a small divide in the book world that exist: what people consider real literature and what people consider genre writings. Many people have considered Stephen King a genre-writer, even though some of his works could constitute as literature (many literary fans have argued this topic in relation to his work for years, and even now, many people cannot give a good answer as to if his works are genre work or true works of literature, because it technically falls into both). So, the question is if Karen's novel is something that could be considered literature or if it's a genre work, and the answer varies depending on who you ask.

Changed: 1050

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** There's also another possibility that is brought up that even Karen contemplates: is Harold's story a one-time event or is all of her novels having had been based on people she wasn't aware existed? She doesn't know for sure, but it's suggested that maybe this is the first time it's ever happened (or at least the first time that one of her characters got in contact with her). Karen, as well as the audience, aren't sure if her previous works had a similar situation to Harold's or not. But there is the possibility that this is the only time this situation has happened to her just as much as it's happening to Harold, and the other characters she's killed off in past novels were never real. And as mentioned above, since she's never written ''Star Wars'' or ''Harry Potter'', there's no reason for any characters from those works to turn up as characters (if anything, they'd probably be referenced and criticized, as Karen may not like the works and may have one of the other characters in Harold's story mention their dislike of them).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** {{Case}}: It seems Karen is only writing the plot-advancing stuff. The other stuff that Harold is doing isn't in the book at all, at least not in the first draft. For this to really make sense, fate/luck has arranged it so that Karen will have writer's block whenever Harold is doing something non-plot-advancing, and/or vice-versa. When Harold starts seeking out Karen, his shenanigans start getting plot-important, so fate's only choice is to act as a voice in Karen's head to have her write about it even before he calls her. Fate could have alternatively forced Harold to forget about calling her and pushed along with the story as Karen intended, but that would have dissatisfied even higher powers than fate -- the writers, producers and viewers. Aside: it is heavily implied that other people did die to Karen's stories; those stories went as Karen planned because she's a recluse and those people didn't have access to what they needed to contact her: tax records.

to:

** {{Case}}: It seems Karen is only writing the plot-advancing stuff. The other stuff that Harold is doing isn't in the book at all, at least not in the first draft. For this to really make sense, fate/luck has arranged it so that Karen will have writer's block whenever Harold is doing something non-plot-advancing, and/or vice-versa. When Harold starts seeking out Karen, his shenanigans start getting plot-important, so fate's only choice is to act as a voice in Karen's head to have her write about it even before he calls her. Fate could have alternatively forced Harold to forget about calling her and pushed along with the story as Karen intended, but that would have dissatisfied even higher powers than fate -- the writers, producers and viewers. Aside: it is heavily implied that other people did die to Karen's stories; those stories went as Karen planned because she's a recluse and those people didn't have access to what they needed to contact her: tax records.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** {{Jaabi}}: He believed it was a comedy because he's a tax-man falling in love with one of his clients. He was probably too caught up in the experience to remember that bit of information. (Or the script writers forgot. The movie writers that is.)

to:

** {{Jaabi}}: He believed it was a comedy because he's a tax-man falling in love with one of his clients. He was probably too caught up in the experience to remember that bit of information. (Or the script writers forgot. The movie writers that is.)



** {{Case}}: He's clinging onto what little hope he has: an UnreliableNarrator.

to:

** {{Case}}: He's clinging onto what little hope he has: an UnreliableNarrator.



* {{Jaabi}}: How much of Harold's actions were being dictated by Karen? Her voice wasn't always present so I assumed he was in a way SequenceBreaking by trying to investigate this presence. She only seemed present during any normal, everyday actions he was taking. Think about this- who was he calling in Karen's written version? She couldn't have been writing about him calling her... right?

to:

* {{Jaabi}}: * How much of Harold's actions were being dictated by Karen? Her voice wasn't always present so I assumed he was in a way SequenceBreaking by trying to investigate this presence. She only seemed present during any normal, everyday actions he was taking. Think about this- who was he calling in Karen's written version? She couldn't have been writing about him calling her... right?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Presumably there's more in the book than the guy dying, and the method of the deaths and what they mean are always going to be different. And her audience knows that going in, so they're not going to be turned off by it -- they're probably reading the book ''because'' they know he's going to die, because, again, this is the style she's famous for.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:


* The idea that Karen's novel would be a hit if it kept up her trend of killing the main character at right at the end seems... unlikely. That's the same thing she's done for every other book she's written at that point. Surely it would have just been seen as a cliche. "Yeah, her book ends with a sad death again. Uh-huh. No I didn't care about the main character because I knew he'd die." Like if you read her books you expect it. Having the death be averted feels like it would have been a fresher, more unique take on her tales.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** {{Case}}: It seems Karen is only writing the plot-advancing stuff. The other stuff that Harold is doing isn't in the book at all, at least not in the first draft. For this to really make sense, fate\luck has arranged it so that Karen will have writer's block whenever Harold is doing something non-plot-advancing, and\or vice-versa. When Harold starts seeking out Karen, his shenanigans start getting plot-important, so fate's only choice is to act as a voice in Karen's head to have her write about it even before he calls her. Fate could have alternatively forced Harold to forget about calling her and pushed along with the story as Karen intended, but that would have dissatisfied even higher powers than fate -- the writers, producers and viewers. Aside: it is heavily implied that other people did die to Karen's stories; those stories went as Karen planned because she's a recluse and those people didn't have access to what they needed to contact her: tax records.

to:

** {{Case}}: It seems Karen is only writing the plot-advancing stuff. The other stuff that Harold is doing isn't in the book at all, at least not in the first draft. For this to really make sense, fate\luck fate/luck has arranged it so that Karen will have writer's block whenever Harold is doing something non-plot-advancing, and\or and/or vice-versa. When Harold starts seeking out Karen, his shenanigans start getting plot-important, so fate's only choice is to act as a voice in Karen's head to have her write about it even before he calls her. Fate could have alternatively forced Harold to forget about calling her and pushed along with the story as Karen intended, but that would have dissatisfied even higher powers than fate -- the writers, producers and viewers. Aside: it is heavily implied that other people did die to Karen's stories; those stories went as Karen planned because she's a recluse and those people didn't have access to what they needed to contact her: tax records.

Changed: 278

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

*** This would solve everything if she just wrote the ending where he survives ''first''. A better question would be "Why did she publish the version with the worse ending, instead of just writing it first, so Harold would live, and then type up and publish one where he dies?".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

to:

----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
----

Top