Speculation and Worldbuilding: Immortality and Emotion · 3:41pm Apr 28th, 2015
Immortality—or a functional equivalent—is one of those situations that presents an interesting challenge to writers. It has no real life equivalent, so writers have nothing to reference to give it verisimilitude. Like all unorthodox situations, the freedom available to writers is offset by the need to ground it in reality and consistency. How would one react to situations, how would they act, if they had lived for centuries or millenia? How would it affect their outlook? Or their emotions?
This is compounded in the world of FIM—not only do several major characters have long lifespans, but they all act rather differently. An author working in the verse needs to address the above things, and also needs to make sure their characterization slots into canon (or at least doesn’t contradict it, but that’s another blog).
My approach is actually very simple. I treat immortal characters as if they have Seen It All; they have experienced so many bizarre situations and occurrences that nothing surprises them anymore. This means that most of the time they come off as stoic, calm, and/or in control.
The fun comes when such characters encounter new experiences. A stoic character keeps a handle on their emotions no matter what. An immortal character, however, only appears stoic until they encounter a new experience. They can and do emote, and will likely emote strongly, but it takes a very unusual circumstance for them to get to that point.
This lines up perfectly with Celestia and Luna as seen in the show. Celestia is always very calm and capable, except in instances that are new/unexpected (like when she lasers Chrysalis) or instances where her past experience was unpleasantly dangerous (Tirek/Discord/Sombra returning). Luna starts out as being bombastic and easily flustered, but that’s because she is unfamiliar with pony society (due to that whole subjective time skip thing). Once a few seasons go by and she adjusts to modern society, she acts a lot like her sister; dealing with dream creatures and other ponies in a very calm and controlled manner.
It evens explains Discord’s behavior, to a degree. When he loses control of a situation, when he encounters new experiences, he loses his smug confidence and shows actual emotion (like being lasered by the Elements or being sad about upsetting Fluttershy).
This approach is not without its problems. It is not intuitive, and so readers might find it OOC or bizarre when the above characters react strongly to something. Consistency can mitigate this, but for shorter stories there might not be enough scenes with a given character to make this evident.
The positives and negatives can be seen in all my stories that star Celestia and/or Luna. I like to think their portrayal is consistent; they react strongly to new things and calmly to familiar things. Since a lot of those same stories have short word counts, however, many readers were a bit put off by these (seemingly) sudden bursts of emotion.
So there you are; one possible approach to a very complicated problem. As always, don’t be afraid to comment, whether it be critique of my ideas, shared insight, your own approach, or whatever else.
I can see this being a logical reason and a serious factor in the life of Celestia. Living life to the point where the everyday can even be boring or simply calm until something unexpected and new comes along. This also gives readers a good idea on why Celestia acted the way she did in your story "Inexcusable". Interesting.
I like it. It's built around a reasonable enough assumption, and it gels well with canon, since you built the theory around it. Though I don't really think it applies to Discord well. I think he shows genuine emotion when something genuinely emotional happens to him. Those moments may be new in his wealth of experience, but I don't think it's because they're new that he shows emotion towards them. He experiences new things all the time. Humour's often derived from the unexpected, after all. I don't think a character as easily bored as Discord would laugh so much if he was the kind of immortal who feels he's seen it all.
3025743 I dunno, a lot of Discord's behavior strikes me as very non-chalant and blase, as long as he was prepared for it. Whenever he summons a goofy item he does it with a fairly straight face. As long as he is instigating an event or effect, he doesn't react to it strongly, be it donning a maid outfit or creating sentient dishes. It's the actions of other characters that surprise and anger him (like getting turned to stone or Twilight breaking his brainwashing).
Admittedly, Discord has pretty different morals and priorities than the other characters, so slotting him into the same sorts of characterizations is probably a bad idea. I tend to think of him as a more complicated troll; all his actions are designed to incite others. That seeming non-chalance might just be an act to mess with ponies, but the times when it breaks and the times he emotes are varied enough to support other interpretations.
3025698 Well, she does intentionally invite Twilight's friends to the Gala hoping they'll make it less boring. I've seen fics that go the opposite way believably, though; she loves routine and breaking her out of it is difficult.
Some of the reader reactions to Inexcusable did prompt this post
I like to think I use it consistently across all my stories, though
One approach to immortality I always seem to reject is the cliched 'Immortality Curse' (otherwise known as Who wants to live forever? on TVTropes). It seems that immortality would change how we perceive things if given that state of existence, perhaps make us wiser and more aware of the 'big picture' while perhaps losing interest or focus on the smaller, more immediate details.
But more to the point, the idea of losing your loved ones making all life unbearable just doesn't seem to add up. Some of us have experienced such tragedies yet few seek death as an escape from that suffering. Yet in fiction, that seems to be one of the primary reasons for why someone might bemoan living forever. For others, its a more general malaise - boredom, apathy, depression, etc. But in the end the entire concept comes up a little too frequently for my taste.
It never sat right with me, yet it occurs frequently. It always struck me as an attempt to force a character to seem brooding or generate sympathy that always falls flat - sorta like how 90% of Super Heroes seem devoted to winging and complaining about being demi-gods, but that's a different argument.
While there are horrible scenarios for how true and absolute immortality could end in a living hell (an immortal buried in cement, for instance), the concept that immortality isn't a blessing but a terrible curse really never sells itself when examined fully. As you say, immortality is not something we are able to enjoy - or perhaps fully comprehend - so perhaps the solution is to look at it from outside the box.
3025915
It's a common trait of comedians that they're able to prevent themselves from laughing at many of their own jokes. Discord might just find it funnier to be straight-faced while he does bizarre things, because, like you say, I think he does it all to get a reaction out of others rather than to amuse himself. The snarky cynic might come out with plenty of quips that others laugh at while continuing to appear outwardly dour, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they find their own jokes boring.
3025937 That particular trope never sat right with me either. Part of that may be execution; a lot of stories that use it skip the in-betweens and that gives the end result less emotional weight.
I think the bigger problem might be scaling. As you said, losing a loved one is something many people have dealt with, and the longer the life the more loss it involves. Immortality would probably improve one's ability to deal with losing an individual, if anything. For loss to affect an immortal the same way it affects a mortal, it would have to be much grander. Would the loss be as easy to recover from if someone outlived an entire generation, rather than an individual? What if they outlived a monument or landmark? A city? A civilization? A planet? (
story idea? Celestia retreats from a burning city, was a flashback to teach a lesson to Twilight?nah)Of course, this has its own problems; an immortal getting Survivor Guilt would require circumstances so specific as to be contrived. It would take some good planning to make such guilt believable. Humans are social animals, but we have limits.
Ultimately, there are downsides to immortality, but I agree that focusing on them tends to expose a lot of faulty logic/world-building, more often than not. Though like anything, execution is the real deciding factor.
Perhaps it's just all in the timing.
Somewhere in one of my published fics I have Celestia basically giggling because she has no idea why the main six suddenly seem to be far more powerful and likely immortal. Luna is also pretty thrilled when she comes up with an answer and it's something that seems entirely new.
3046663
Oh, he's certainly always looking to push his limits, and yes, he is very easily bored. That much is not in question. I just don't believe that it's because he's "seen it all". I think it's just because there are a lot of things that he finds boring by default. This idea that immortals feel like they've seen it all requires that the immortal have the kind of worldview that would see the details as unimportant in the grand scheme of things and lump all their various life experiences into broad categories and patterns. Because even they will never literally see anything. They can only put themselves in a mindset where they see everything as a variation on a theme.
And I just don't think that Discord is that kind of character. Come to that, I don't really think that the sisters are those kinds of characters either, but I think that their characterisation in canon is ambiguous enough that that interpretation is justified. But with Discord, I don't think it can work at all. He doesn't seek an orderly and predictable world. Quite the opposite, in fact. So he wouldn't spend his time thinking about how similar everything is to something else he's seen before somewhere. He'd be busy appreciating all the little things, all the details, and what makes it different, because those are what he takes pleasure in. You could even justifiably characterise Discord as someone who forgets most things he does immediately after doing them, so that he can enjoy thinking of them again sometime in the future.
If we speak very broadly, we could say that Discord might conceivably have a pattern of ruining nations by making them fall to chaos and then having fun by leaving them in a state like the one we saw in Return of Harmony, because he certainly did it to Equestria more than once. But he didn't seem any less amused when he did it the second time. He even brought back some elements of his original reign, like the floor pattern. But he didn't bemoan the similarities. He just took joy in tormenting his new opponents.
I just don't think Discord is built to be a world-weary character. Odd as it might sound to say, I think he's too much of an optimist for that.
The few immortal characters I have tinkered with tend to fall into two categories - social and non-social immortals.
Social immortals often are either incarnations of living nature, or ascended mortals - often as a reward for heroic deeds. They eventually begin to treat mortals as pets (being too used to outliving them to make a deeper connection) and entire civilizations as ant farms and social engineering experiments. They may still feel genuine sympathy for them and go to great lengths to defend their favorites, but also have enough long-term perspective to cut their losses and rebuild somewhere else (unless they need to hold the location because it is the source of their immortality). As far as fears do, they fear very little except for the loss of their companions - be it other immortals or "their" mortals (as a general group or species). Depending on if they are able to, they might fear losing their ability to create life (be it by procreation, animation or genetic engineering) more than losing their immortality. Their other most valued ability might be to protect their friends.
Non-social immortals often are either incarnations of non-living nature or abstract concepts, or mortals who became immoral either through science (alchemy and necromancy included) or becoming the embodiment of an abstract concept (constant execise of willpower and oaths that require constant efforts (or at least vigilance) included). They are not necessarily antisocial or immoral but see little point in social (or any) interaction (even with other immortals) except as part of an overarching project. Depending on what this project is, they may value it more than their immortal existence, besides that they might fear losing their powers or their immortality way more than actual final death - "existence is nothing without control - if I am not able to defend myself, forever, death is a forgone conclusion". They might have their pet projects regarding mortals (and the secrets of their own immortality) but their focus is on scientific inquiry instead of recreational gardening.
It is entirely possible for non-social immortals to be very emotional, but it tends to focus on defying death and who else gets on their way, or unfettered curiosity.
Likewise it is entirely possible (even in combination with the former) to not even view themselves as a person (more a as a principle incarnate), and much less see others as anything beyond threats and resources.
As such it is entirely possible for ascended mortals to shift between both (sometiems repeatedly), but it tends be a gradual process.
3065534 That's an interesting approach. It certainly emphasizes and highlights the Blue and Orange Morality that immortals might be prone to. It creates distinct attitude, while still having some real-life reference.
Such an approach could make for some interesting scenarios. Since it severely dehumanizes the immortals in question, their behavior could be used to explore how immortality might affect an ex-mortal. That same factor would also require care, though. Characters who lack empathy or are really hard to relate to require more setup and effort to get audiences to sympathize with. Making a character who is so far above humans interact with them in a way that wasn't awkward to read would be tricky.
3068624 Morality is shaped by priorities, even the very concept of "value" is nothing but priority. Priorities in turn are partially shaped by necessities - but the question of what to regard as necessity -even whether to regard one's own survival as one- is turn a question of priority. Morality shapes itself through it's own reflection - and evolves (or devolves) in the process.
The key to creating sympathy for a character is making the reader empathize with the character's priorities, to the point they feel the same emotions in his decisions, and can genuinely look over his shoulder into his worldview. One way for example is by treating the character reaching these priorities as a Hero's Journey in itself (whether the character is still journeying or this particular path is completed is an entirely different decision - and half of all fanfiction spawns from the readers having their own ideas on this topic).
The only "natural" guide are instinctive responses, and those are entirely shaped by what happened to be helpful to the survival of your ancestors at some point - and may no longer apply in the same way e.g. an impulse for binge eating, regardless of actual hunger, is very valuable when you do not know when you will next find something to eat and have no means to securely store food - but nowadays it very likely results in obesity which is detrimental to your continued survival. Or take the people who hoard things when they feel emotionally insecure - when the source of your insecurity is whether you will have enough firewood for a long winter, it is a very valuable survival instinct, even acquiring collectibles to sell them later makes sense - if one is confident they will retain their value, equating to an actual value increase if few pieces remain.
Then there is the social component - how much of your time and resources should you dedicate to others, how much to your own security - and to which degree does dedicating it to others buy you security? After security comes status, knowledge and pleasure, again with the same question.
Then one comes to genuine morals, and considering that we as a species still have massive problems in regarding each other as fully human and choosing justice over convenience, we are still on a long way there.
And that does not even account for religion, even when one's belief only extends to a general concept of one's afterlife.
Imagine you believe in reincarnation and have to choose between either acquiring a piece of knowledge you may not come across again in a hundred lives, in the hopes of remembering it in a later life, or surviving next week, because the plundering hordes are coming. What is the most valuable decision - to acquire knowledge that may help your peers in a later life, to acquire knowledge that may help yourself in a later life (or may help you to leave the cycle of reincarnation altogether?), or to stay alife?
And now account for immortality - half the necessities of a mortal existence no longer apply, if you are lucky not even a third. If you are unlucky half of the physical pleasures no longer apply. Many other priorities shift as you have more time or less need, not even accounting for powers. At the same time things have a much longer timespan in which to come back to bite you, and you have to find ways to deal with things that most mortals would deal with by resigining to their death.
This in turn leads to an entirely new set of morals, even in such small things as whether to accept or decline if a mortal invites you to into his house for dinner, if you no longer need to eat. Should you honor him, and waste his resources, or spare his resources, even if he may consider it a dishonor? Is there a third way to honor his hospitality without wasting resources? Or should you simply not approach mortal dwellings althogether, "for to see an immortal if one is only mortal invites envy and despair"?
Immortality dehumanizes because the immortal is genuinely no longer human. The key to immortal morality is thus to get rid of human weaknesses and to maintain human strengths - but what is a weakness and what is a strength, and what is too double-edged either to lose or to keep? And with what substitutes an immortal the lost human strengths and weaknesses, and what gets double-edged (or loses one or two edges) in the process? Are there triple-edges? In addition each way to reach immortality may complement or compromise other strenghts and weaknesses - imagine a hindu vampire.
In regards to a pony immortal, there is the third question which human strengths and weaknesses apply to a pony in the first place, and to what degree, and which strengths and weaknesses might be unique to ponies on their own (in degree anyway). Which in turn gives each species a unique spin in regards to both morals and immortality. Imagine what for example an immortal diamond dog would be like.