Watch the Footage archive

The Director wrote:I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.

Sicon112 wrote:You know, I just remembered a quote that sums up this situation nicely which Mimsy just pointed out that I inadvertently paraphrased.

The Director wrote:I feel I must remind you that it is undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.

• 1. We're risking more lives by letting them stay, when it might destroy reality, than by sending them back, when it might doom them.
  
• 2. There is no reason to think they have more freedom in this world, as it may be equally fiction to their worlds of origin-- in fact, on a meta-level, we know that they have equally no freedom here, because they're being controlled by the GMs.
  
• 3. Regardless of points 1 and 2, there's an obvious solution that they can't argue with on those grounds. Refictionalization is an open contest, and Erik's and Adam's plays prove that the fictionals can create fiction in this world. So why don't we just let them write their own refictionalization stories? In fact, provided they agree to abide by the very sparse parameters Mr. A provided, we could even suggest that if they let us know they'll be doing so, no one else will enter, to ensure that theirs is the story that gets elevated to canon.
  If they reject this suggestion (which, on a meta-level, they'll have to), then they're not just desperately seeking the ability to write their own stories; they're being unreasonable, and we can revert to not sympathizing with them.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:So why don't we just let them write their own refictionalization stories?

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Okay, the first thing that's obvious to me is that this is just the next stage of the Cabal's offensive-- they're manipulating us emotionally.

Now, most of the argument I was planning to make has already been said more eloquently by Sicon, so I'll just add/reiterate the following points (the first is a repeat, the second repeats and adds, the third is the most important point that nobody's made yet):

• 1. We're risking more lives by letting them stay, when it might destroy reality, than by sending them back, when it might doom them.
  
• 2. There is no reason to think they have more freedom in this world, as it may be equally fiction to their worlds of origin-- in fact, on a meta-level, we know that they have equally no freedom here, because they're being controlled by the GMs.
  
• 3. Regardless of points 1 and 2, there's an obvious solution that they can't argue with on those grounds. Refictionalization is an open contest, and Erik's and Adam's plays prove that the fictionals can create fiction in this world. So why don't we just let them write their own refictionalization stories? In fact, provided they agree to abide by the very sparse parameters Mr. A provided, we could even suggest that if they let us know they'll be doing so, no one else will enter, to ensure that theirs is the story that gets elevated to canon.
  If they reject this suggestion (which, on a meta-level, they'll have to), then they're not just desperately seeking the ability to write their own stories; they're being unreasonable, and we can revert to not sympathizing with them.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Okay, the first thing that's obvious to me is that this is just the next stage of the Cabal's offensive-- they're manipulating us emotionally.

Now, most of the argument I was planning to make has already been said more eloquently by Sicon, so I'll just add/reiterate the following points (the first is a repeat, the second repeats and adds, the third is the most important point that nobody's made yet):

• 1. We're risking more lives by letting them stay, when it might destroy reality, than by sending them back, when it might doom them.
  
• 2. There is no reason to think they have more freedom in this world, as it may be equally fiction to their worlds of origin-- in fact, on a meta-level, we know that they have equally no freedom here, because they're being controlled by the GMs.
  
• 3. Regardless of points 1 and 2, there's an obvious solution that they can't argue with on those grounds. Refictionalization is an open contest, and Erik's and Adam's plays prove that the fictionals can create fiction in this world. So why don't we just let them write their own refictionalization stories? In fact, provided they agree to abide by the very sparse parameters Mr. A provided, we could even suggest that if they let us know they'll be doing so, no one else will enter, to ensure that theirs is the story that gets elevated to canon.
  If they reject this suggestion (which, on a meta-level, they'll have to), then they're not just desperately seeking the ability to write their own stories; they're being unreasonable, and we can revert to not sympathizing with them.

Sicon112 wrote:The issue is, I'm not sure whether they CAN write their own stories or not. They come from a layer down, so their fiction might appear on the SECOND fictional layer instead of ours, despite the fact that they are on this plane. Hell, that could be part of the reason reality is collapsing.

Tohrinha wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:The issue is, I'm not sure whether they CAN write their own stories or not. They come from a layer down, so their fiction might appear on the SECOND fictional layer instead of ours, despite the fact that they are on this plane. Hell, that could be part of the reason reality is collapsing.

Hence why we need experimentation.
If they are already breaking the wall further by creating fiction, it won't hurt to turn one of their creative efforts into data for us.

Sicon112 wrote:Indeed. We may try. However, I don't think it is possible until we reach a more...open state of communication.

Tohrinha wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:Indeed. We may try. However, I don't think it is possible until we reach a more...open state of communication.

Are we at that point with any of the friendlier fictionals? If we are, and they agree to try, that would help us in our efforts with the less amiable ones.

1. You consider our solution to write you acceptable stories unacceptable on the basis that it will take away your free will.
   It will not. Your free will will be provided by the open-ended ending. From there, infinite possible outcomes are possible, with or without follow-up fiction. For all we know, that should suffice. And we do know - our model of the metaverse has been polished by facts.
2. You think that you have free will in this world.
   Depending on my point of view, you either don't, or it is debatable. There are 2 points of view I can speak from:
   
   1. Yours: You are currently present in our physical world, on the top layer, and therefore have free will.
      I'm going to ask you a question: can you prove it?
      You can't. With hundreds and thousand of years of scientific progress, the existence of free will has not yet been proven (as well as disproven). Regarding the top layer of reality... Don't think we haven't been doing our own research on the matter. We are Metaguards. Knowing the metaverse is our obligation. And even now, we only assume being on top just because it is impossible for us to look higher. Even having "broke free", you can't be sure you are not fictional anymore.
      
   2. Ours. This one may be harder for you to accept. As I said, we are Metaguards. Much of our knowledge was logically derived from a simple fact that is obvious for us, not so much for you: you are on the second layer of reality, not the first. Observing from the first level is what we call "going meta", and we like doing that. From that standpoint, your lack of free will is obvious. In those circumstances, our alternative will, in fact, be an improvement.
3. You're asking us not to trust Mr. Administrator.
   We don't (no offense, Mr. A ). He is having trouble being honest even when he tries, and currently, he isn't probably trying. However, he does possess knowledge and skills we don't, and is the only one capable of sealing the fourth wall. Leaving the wall the way it is will inevitably doom our world with the advent of more evil creatures, culminating with Lovecraftean horrors and whatnot. Even the fictional Metaguards we created won't be able to hold off the infinite evils of human imagination. You can't argue with that. Ergo, we need to stick with him at least to some extent.
4. You ask us whether we are ready to send you back to "prison" even if we are not certain that not doing so will doom our reality.
   Of course we are. Doing otherwise is illogical. You may be familiar with Pascal's Gambit - if you're not, here it is. To keep it short: the price of mistake is infinitely high. We can't afford that. Mind you, the destruction of this world will spell doom for you just as well.
5. You say that Mr. A has no evidence to back his claims.
   He doesn't have direct evidence. We have, however, observed multiple phenomena that confirm our worries that your presence has an effect on reality. Those effects may be harbringers of impending metaversal collapse. As I said, we can't take any chances.

1. We go on with our plans for refictionalization for those characters who agree to this. You can't argue that some of them are unhappy here, and our alternative is indeed the better one for them.
2. Meanwhile, we keep trying to find evidence to support either side - either Mr. A's or yours.
3. So do you.
   This is my main condition. If you want to find a mutually accepted solution, join us and help us find it. As fictional characters, you can be ... I wouldn't say "test subjects", but I can't come up with a better term for now. We promise not to perform any experiments that may be dangerous to you. We lack information, and we need your help to get it.

Dear Erik,

To begin, I would like to say thank you. You came to us and spoke to us as human beings, believing us both rational and capable of understanding an emotional plea. I hope this is the beginning of many further talks. I know there’s a pretty good chance you’re just trying to appeal to our emotions but you still make relevant points.

This whole thing has bothered a great many of us for a while. We do not relish the idea of causing suffering to any of you. On the contrary we are very fond of the fictionals who came through. That's arguably why they had the strength to come through in the first place. The Wicked Witch might be... well, wicked, but I’d be lying if I said she was a thoughtless employer. Adam is kind, noble, and talented, easily deserving of accolades. Sherlock Holmes and Poirot have actually saved lives while here, something their own writers could never have hoped for. And then of course there’s Morgana, and Moriarty, who love each other...

I'm glad you have acknowledged that we do NOT relish the idea of taking that away from you. We do not relish the idea of sending Romeo and Juliet to die, or Adam back into a place where he is called A Monster. The very idea of it hurts like a hole in the head. My brain is constantly at war between my inner writer, and my humanity. But right now, I’m doing something that I, again, have always had to struggle with: confronting my moral, personal desires with logic. It’s really hard. Please be patient with me. I’m not a naturally logical person. I think with my heart, first and I don't always think things through enough before I do them. You could call me Sicon’s opposite number in a way, although I'm very fond of him, and it seems we often come to similar conclusions anyway. Go figure.

I don’t wish to repeat anything that other letters have already said. I would like to mention that I take similar attitudes to Dryunya with regards to your attitude towards this world being the ultimate reality, and any world we created for you being a prison: in short you don't know that. And similar attitudes to Sicon with regards to your lines ‘would you condemn so many on an uncertainty?’ – If you are wrong and your existence here does harm our world, then you are condemning far more than we would be. That’s the ultimate equation in all this. Can you honestly ask us to risk our entire world based on your desires and word alone? Would you kill an entire country just to save a single child, even if you werent 100% sure it would make a difference? Perhaps you would, if it was your child... but we can’t do that, sir . I’m genuinely sorry, but we can’t. We just can’t take the risk. Mister A probably knows that, of course... now all we can hope for is his honesty.

However this is also where you have your most valid point: we DO require proof from Mister A that the damage he claims is occurring IS occurring. If it were not the case... I would oh so happily let all of you stay, and admittedly not entirely for unselfish reasons. I want to see Adam’s play on stage. I want Sherlock and Poirot to be able to solve their crimes and improve peoples lives regardless of where they are, I want Romeo to grow up and figure out what this love thing is really about. I want Juliet to go home, as she wishes, and become a painter and, more importantly, I want all of them to live. Because regardless of how they began, as stories or otherwise, you are alive. You always were. That's the power of fiction, that's what draws people to stories in the first place - they show us another world, where anything is possible.

I also draw attention to your line: It is not our character, but our context that defines who we are.

...This is true to an extent. After all, to use an extreme hypothetical example, if you have a woman who murders her child because she hates being a parent and wants her social life back, she is obviously far more morally questionable and deserving of punishment, than a woman who kills her child during a terrible famine where it is going to starve anyway, and her religious orientation means that she believes he will be reincarnated and returned to her in better times (I got that idea from a book). The latter could strike as just as evil, or at least as ridiculous, but the moral centre of the woman completely changes the context. This is true.

But your idea is still flawed. It is NOT just your context that defines who you are, Erik. It is what you DO with your context. Who you were or are now does not change our dilemma.

You have admitted that you and the Cabal made mistakes since you got here. So have we. We made assumptions based on what little we knew, but OUR assumptions of your guilt were spawned FROM your actions here in the real world, not what you did in a book. Your actions have consequences. That does not change just because you are no longer being penned on paper. If you can stay will you be willing to take responsibility for those letters? Responsibility for any less than positive acts you have done?

I am sorry your life was as hard as it was. Perhaps that was because your original writer wished to create a specific horror for which your existence was the price, or perhaps you already WERE in existence, and your writer merely channelled your being into their fiction via some kind of... natural, almost psychic ability, the thing that you and we alike would call ‘inspiration’ (in which case your point about being controlled in that world may also be flawed –it all depends on which way the power was flowing and we cannot know the source of your writer's inspiration anymore than you). But you likewise cannot hide from your responsibilities. Too many people in our past have used, for example ‘the devil told me to do it’ or ‘I was coerced by my employers’ or ‘I was just doing my job’ as an excuse for their crimes.

However it is not strictly that which motivates us now so much as the fact that we still have no choice. This has already been mentioned to you by others. We have no proof either way of Mister A’s trustworthiness. There is only one thing which has changed in your transferrence between your world and ours - in that world you were a villain, albeit a sympathetic one. Here, you are just another man. From black and white, to grey and slightly darker grey.

We ask then, that you try to provide us with proof – evidence that you are not damaging the world. I admit I am aware that this is a very difficult for you to do, perhaps impossible and I'm sorry to ask it of you, but again: what else do you expect us to do? Likewise we will question Mister A for proof of his own. In the meantime... perhaps, if the others are willing, we CAN adjust our current methods. We already wish to open dialogues with you guys. We can request that those who WISH to return home be sent back first by our refictionalisation efforts. This alone should buy both us and you some time.

There are words I read once in a book written by a man whose stories have always been very important to me, and those words have remained with me ever since.

1. This is not a game.
2. Here and now, you are alive.

We are not just playing a game here, sir. I’m sorry. I really do hope you can provide the proof of what you claim. We are grateful for this attempt at communication and perhaps it’s not too late for either side?

Sincerely,
Scarab

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Oh, Scarab.
I love the Pratchett references, and you have written a very eloquent wall of text.
Maybe you should copy it to the open letter thread? Even if I'm afraid it's somewhat at cross-purposes with my suggestion.

narrativedilettante wrote:Scarab, that letter is amazing.
I could write a wall of text myself, but it would be redundant. Every point I have to make has already been eloquently expressed by someone here.

Dear Erik,

Thank you for contacting us. We metaguards have been hoping for an open, honest dialog for some time. Most of the animosity between ourselves and the Cabal stems from a lack of clear communication. We understand how badly things could turn out if we don’t speak openly. As we say, Poor Communication Kills.

I will treat your letter as an honest representation of your position until I have compelling evidence to believe that it is not. Some, including Mr. Administrator, have expressed the opinion that you are merely attempting to emotionally manipulate us. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The letter touched me emotionally, to be sure, but I would not have felt an emotional response if the things you said felt untrue to my logical side. I am cautious in my trust, and I will continue to reevaluate my opinion on you as new information becomes available, but for the meantime, I will act as though you are being truthful to the best of your knowledge.

I’m sympathetic to your position. I understand why you wish to remain in this world. Though we intend to make refictionalizations as pleasant as possible, you claim to view any return to a fictional existence to be equivalent to imprisonment, and that’s a viewpoint I can appreciate. If you and other fictionals can stay in this reality without any negative effects, I’m all for it.

However, I disagree with your assessment of the risks involved. You believe it is wrong to remove fictional beings from this reality when the prospect of damage is uncertain. But if there is damage to our reality as a result of your presence, then we are all in danger. Billions of people could die. If I had to unjustly imprison a handful of individuals to save the human race, I wouldn’t hesitate. Of course, we don’t know for certain that there is any danger from your presence here. But the risk if we let you stay vastly outweighs the risk if we send you home.

I would love to find an alternative, a solution that would allow you to live here and be free as you desire. Currently, though, the safest plan looks to be sending you home. I will wait as long as I can for new information before I start to move forward with sending anyone back who doesn’t want to go, but given a lack of concrete evidence either way, I will definitely send you home. I don’t enjoy thinking about that prospect. If you cooperate, I hope we can together determine the most equitable solution so that your new fictional home is the best possible one for you.

Before you reject the idea of cooperating with your refictionalization, let me remind you that if this reality falls apart, you will die too. No one is safe from the potential problems that may emerge from this situation.

You express distrust for Mr. Administrator. Nearly all of us have expressed similar feelings about him. We don’t know what his motives are, and he is deliberately vague and uncomfortably ominous. Now, I have a question for you. Do you know of any ulterior motives or other reasons not to trust Mr. Administrator? I want to make the most informed decisions possible, and if you’re aware of something about Mr. Administrator that hasn’t become clear to the rest of us, I’d like to make use of that information. If you are merely expressing distrust based on the same information about Mr. Administrator that the rest of us have, then I understand why you’d feel that way, but I will continue to use my own judgement in regard to his instructions.

So far, I’ve treated Mr. Administrator with the same sort of trust and caution with which I treat you. For the meantime, I believe working with him is the safest option. I may revise that opinion as new information comes to light.

I also want to make a request of you. My fellow metaguards and I are in the process of refictionalizing Sweeney Todd. Please do not treat this as an aggressive act. Mr. Todd wishes to return to his time and place. We can reunite him with his wife and give him a happy ending, and he has clearly stated that this is his desire. There are some fictionals who do not want to stay here. Please allow them to leave without interference. And understand that just because we are sending them home, that does not mean we will send everyone else home, too. We are looking for other options.

I understand that you and the rest of the Cabal have made plans to convince other fictionals to stay, as well. Please do not manipulate them into agreeing with your position. If a fictional person wants to go home, it is unreasonable to attempt to prevent that. Everyone should make the most informed decision possible, so I do not wish to prevent you or anyone else from communicating with any other fictionals. But please refrain from lies or other manipulations. Let people make their own conclusions, and respect their decisions. If you don’t respect another’s desire to leave, then we have very little motivation to respect your desire to stay.

As things currently stand, I believe we will need to refictionalize every one of the characters who has crossed over. If I have to send someone back against their will, it will sit very badly with my conscience, but I believe it is what must be done. However, I’m keeping an open mind. Thank you for contacting us in good faith. I hope we can come to a solution that is amenable to everyone.

It was damn brave of you to write that letter. I hope it will do some good for you and all of us. At the very least, we can start talking like civilized people and stop sneaking around trying to sabotage one another.

Sincerely,
narrativedilettante

NeverSlender wrote:All of the fictionals that have come though were written. The writers didn't just dictate the laws of the world that the characters inhabited but the laws of the characters themselves. A character may be a murderer, but only because he was written that way. He had no say in the matter. In this world they would have. If Sweeney Todd returns, he WILL commit more murders. If he stays here, he may also commit murders, but he can choose not to, a choice he cannot make in his story. Frankenstein's monster can live without persecution. He cannot in his own story. These are just two examples. Even Moriarty may change, and if he doesn't, then is he to blame, or the writer who created his personality? I do not believe in a god and I do not believe this is anothwr layer of fiction. This is the real world, and my actions and the actions of the fictionals are their own. They are not predetermined. So if they wish to stay then they should be allowed to be here and to make their own choices. If it was you, ANY of you, don't try and bullshit people by saying you wouldn't want the chance write your own story instead of being a slave to someones imagination. You would want to make your own choices and live your own way. Because whoever you are, whatever it may have been written that you had done, it's gone. You could start again and live your life your way. You could make your own happy ending.