If people truly believed what they were watching or reading, “people would be constantly attempting to intervene in or interact with the events in a film or play,” (Podgorski). Since fictional characters do not pose any type of threat to the spectator, there is no need for them to react in a perilous manner. If for instance someone was told that a relative of theirs was struck by a moving vehicle, there is no reason to deliberate. Shock of the news may cause a brief paralysis and they may be overridden with emotions. On the contrary, due to their invented nature, it is harder to understand what is taking place without analyzing the situation from every angle. This may result in having to read a passage over or re-watch a certain scene. Granted, emotions still take place, but they are on a much lesser note in comparison to moments of …show more content…
The ideas presented in these works do not really exist, however, emotions are still elicited. The paradox features three claims, the belief that the fictional characters or situations existed to allow emotions to arise, the lack of existence beliefs when presented with a work of fiction, and the idea that individuals could be moved by something that they witness in a work of fiction. While several points can be made to back each of these claims up, analyzing each claim further provides realization to what is true. With the first claim for instance, it can be proven that an individual does not actually have to believe what they are viewing to feel anything towards the subject. Common sense succeeds here, however, past situations from reality may trigger feelings despite what is being portrayed on