The Ontology of Characters:
Characters as Lures for Feeling
Characters in fiction are not mere marks on a page. They are alive—or at least come alive—in the imaginations of readers. In their aliveness, they resemble characters in dreams: they seem to possess agency and the capacity to act independently. We don't just speak to them, the speak to us, if not in words then in their ways of living in imagined worlds.
A student of mine had grown up with Harry Potter—the young wizard who discovers his magical heritage and embarks on adventures at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. For my student, Harry was not just marks on paper in a book on her shelf; he was a living presence in her imaginative life. Thinking about Harry helped her think through problems, navigate doubts, and find courage in times of need. In short, for her, Harry was not just ink on paper; he was real in the only way that mattered. He was a companion to her journey.
The same applies to fictional characters performed in film and theatre, or danced on stage. Consider some of Shakespeare's characters as performed on stage: Hamlet, Juliet, King Lear, Ophelia, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth. They come alive with the performances and continue after the performances. Those who love Shakespeare think about these characters endlessly and talk about them as if they were real. In short, the character is not merely a collection of marks on a page, or a set of words in a script which is then performed on a stage or screen. The character has, or seems to have, a life of its own in the imaginations of those who think about them.
What kind of existence does such a character have? Is the character real? What does real mean, anyway. In what ways does a character exist, even if only in the space of the imagination?
Here the philosophy of Whitehead can be helpful. In Process and Reality he proposes that there are eight "categories of existence" by items of experience can be understood: actual entities, eternal objects, prehensions, subjective forms, nexuses, contrasts, propositions, and multiplicities. All are real in a certain sense, in that they can really be experienced, whether physically or imaginatively, while asleep or awake, whether drunk or sober.
Characters as Lures for Feeling
I offer a suggestion. Characters in the imagination are a form of what Whitehead calls "propositions." To be sure, the word "proposition" carries different meanings for different people. For many people the word suggests a logical statement of one sort or another: a verbal proposal. Or the word suggests something that is necessarily verbal. They are more than this for Whitehead. Propositions, in Whitehead’s philosophy, are what he calls "lures for feeling." They can be ideas, proposal, images, sounds, performances - they exist as real potentials which function as living invitations to perceive and respond to the world in particular ways.
Characters, I suggest, are complex lures for feeling, serving as vibrant centers of affective resonance. They "live" in our individual and collective imaginations as ontological intermediaries between what is and what can be, between actuality and potentiality. Their nature is partly determined by the interpretive acts of audiences and creators and partly determined by their own intrinsic nature. Thus their very existence is relational in the sense that they depend on others even as they also have their own selfhood of a sort.
This selfhood is not entirely passive; characters exert a kind of agency within the imaginative spaces they inhabit, shaping emotions, influencing thoughts, and even inspiring real-world decisions. And they are themselves in process, instances of becoming.
Hamlet as a Case Study in Processual Characterhood
Hamlet exemplifies the ontological complexity of literary characters. Across centuries of interpretations, performances, and adaptations, he has been portrayed in various ways, from a deeply introspective philosopher wrestling with existential doubt to a vengeful prince caught in a tragic web of fate. Each enactment draws from the same textual foundation but reconfigures its affective and conceptual weight in response to cultural, philosophical, and artistic contexts.
From a Whiteheadian perspective, Hamlet is not a static identity but a fluid field of possibility, continuously actualized in new ways through performances, reader responses, and critical interpretations. Every portrayal—whether by Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, or a contemporary theater company—constitutes a new concrescence of possibilities, shaping and reshaping the character’s ontological presence in cultural memory.
Moreover, his famous soliloquy—"To be, or not to be"—functions as a lure for feeling, not only within the play’s dramatic structure but also for audiences encountering it anew. These lines evoke existential questioning, inviting audiences to participate in Hamlet’s process of becoming. The character does not merely act within the world of the play but extends into the subjective experiences of those engaging with him, demonstrating how literary characters inhabit a realm between fiction and reality.
The Processual Nature of Characters
Unlike rigid entities, characters exist dynamically, adapting across interpretations, performances, and retellings. Hamlet in Shakespeare’s text differs from his representation in modern film adaptations, yet both draw from the same field of possibility. This suggests that characters are better understood as evolving processes rather than fixed identities. Their existence is event-based, renewed with each encounter, and dependent upon the interplay of artistic intent and audience reception.
Moreover, characters in performance exist uniquely in each enactment. The same role played by different actors can generate entirely distinct experiences, reinforcing the processual, relational nature of these entities. Just as actual occasions in Whitehead’s philosophy contribute to the becoming of future occasions, each portrayal of a character feeds into a larger cultural memory, influencing future understandings and interpretations.
Characters and Plots
Characters are inseparable from the plots and narratives in which they are embedded, although they may (or may not) be what is most important. Some works of literature and performing art are plot-driven and some are character-driven.
In any case, plots, too, shape a character's identity. The identity is shaped significantly by the storyline, the challenges they face, and their interactions with other characters. These plots provide the context and structure through which characters develop and express their distinctive traits and motivations. Hamlet, for example, becomes who he is through his interactions with the ghost of his father, his confrontations with his uncle Claudius, and his profound soliloquies. Similarly, Harry Potter's identity and growth are deeply intertwined with his battles against Voldemort, his friendships at Hogwarts, and his discovery of his own courage and morality.
Furthermore, characters and their plots resonate deeply with the narratives of people's lives. Readers or viewers often find parallels between fictional characters' struggles and their own experiences, using these stories as tools for self-understanding and growth. The plot of a story can illuminate the complexities of human emotions, moral dilemmas, and existential questions, offering a safe space to explore and navigate personal challenges. In this way, the narratives of fictional characters become intricately woven into the fabric of our own life stories, influencing our thoughts, actions, and even shaping our identities.
Historical and Mythical Characters
The concept of characters as lures for feeling is also applicable to historical and mythical characters. Historical figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, or Mahatma Gandhi, transcend their historical existence and enter the realm of imagination and interpretation, becoming complex propositions. They evoke feelings, inspire actions, and invite continual reinterpretation. Their "character" is not merely confined to their historical deeds but extends into their symbolic significance and imaginative resonance.
Similarly, mythical characters like Achilles, Hercules, or the Norse god Thor serve as powerful lures for feeling. These characters embody archetypal qualities, inviting audiences to engage with universal human themes—courage, betrayal, sacrifice, and redemption. Mythical characters, though they may never have existed in historical terms, nevertheless exist powerfully in the imagination, shaping cultural values, ethical ideals, and personal aspirations.
Both historical and mythical characters function as propositions in the Whiteheadian sense. They are potent possibilities that bridge the gap between fact and imagination, past and future, and actuality and potentiality. They live as vibrant, dynamic centers of meaning, influencing our collective and individual experience.
The Role of Characters in Moral Formation and Empathy
Characters, whether fictional or historical or mythic, play a significant role in moral formation and the cultivation of empathy. Through engagement with characters, readers and viewers experience situations from perspectives other than their own. This imaginative act can nurture empathy by allowing individuals to understand and feel the emotions, struggles, and joys of others. Encountering characters who embody different moral frameworks or face ethical dilemmas provides opportunities for reflection, debate, and growth in moral understanding.
Characters often serve as moral exemplars or cautionary figures, helping individuals navigate complex ethical landscapes. For example, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies integrity and courage in the face of social injustice, inspiring readers to question and refine their own moral beliefs. Similarly, characters like Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice invite readers to reflect on the nature of judgment, pride, and personal growth. In these ways, characters become powerful tools in shaping empathy, compassion, and ethical decision-making, influencing not only individual readers but also broader cultural values and social norms.
God as a Character: Villain or Friend to Life
God, as understood in various religious and philosophical traditions, can also be considered a character—one who may or may not be actual in a conventional sense but nevertheless functions powerfully as a constructive lure for feeling. However, the character of God is complex and multifaceted, and perceptions vary widely. In some interpretations, God is seen as a benevolent friend to life, embodying love, justice, compassion, and support. In these narratives, God serves as an uplifting and inspiring force, encouraging ethical living and nurturing empathy.
In other narratives, however, God can appear as a villain or antagonist, associated with wrath, punishment, or perceived injustice. For example, interpretations of religious texts or experiences of suffering can lead individuals or communities to perceive God as oppressive or indifferent. This characterization of God also functions as a powerful lure for feeling, provoking intense emotions, critical reflections, and moral reckonings.
Whether viewed as friend or villain, the character of God remains deeply influential, shaping personal beliefs, communal values, and broader cultural attitudes. As a dynamic and complex proposition, God continually invites diverse responses and interpretations, serving as a potent catalyst for moral and emotional exploration.
The Open and Relational Project aims to encourage a shift from viewing God as a villain to understanding God as a friend of life. This perspective emphasizes a conception of God who is loving, compassionate, and relationally engaged with the world. It promotes an understanding of God as a source of continual creativity, empathy, and encouragement toward ethical living. By reframing God in relational terms, this project seeks to foster healthier and more constructive emotional and moral responses, emphasizing collaboration, empathy, and mutual support within communities.
For open and relational theologians, the aim is to propose that God is an actual entity rather than a proposition or lure for feeling. God, in this view, is actively involved in the ongoing processes of the world, engaging in dynamic relationships with all forms of life. This understanding underscores God’s reality as a living, responsive presence who continuously interacts with creation, influencing and being influenced by the unfolding of events. Still, it seems to me, the objective of theologians is to offer a fresh lure for feeling for contemporary generations.
However, it seems to me that there is a place in the world for agnostics, who believe in the value of the proposition that God is actively involved in a loving way with the world, and receptive to all its joys and sufferings, without being sure that God "exists" as an actual entity. For them, God is a proposition - a lure for feeling - who may or may not exist, but who is worthy of trust as an uncertain possibility.
A student of mine had grown up with Harry Potter—the young wizard who discovers his magical heritage and embarks on adventures at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. For my student, Harry was not just marks on paper in a book on her shelf; he was a living presence in her imaginative life. Thinking about Harry helped her think through problems, navigate doubts, and find courage in times of need. In short, for her, Harry was not just ink on paper; he was real in the only way that mattered. He was a companion to her journey.
The same applies to fictional characters performed in film and theatre, or danced on stage. Consider some of Shakespeare's characters as performed on stage: Hamlet, Juliet, King Lear, Ophelia, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth. They come alive with the performances and continue after the performances. Those who love Shakespeare think about these characters endlessly and talk about them as if they were real. In short, the character is not merely a collection of marks on a page, or a set of words in a script which is then performed on a stage or screen. The character has, or seems to have, a life of its own in the imaginations of those who think about them.
What kind of existence does such a character have? Is the character real? What does real mean, anyway. In what ways does a character exist, even if only in the space of the imagination?
Here the philosophy of Whitehead can be helpful. In Process and Reality he proposes that there are eight "categories of existence" by items of experience can be understood: actual entities, eternal objects, prehensions, subjective forms, nexuses, contrasts, propositions, and multiplicities. All are real in a certain sense, in that they can really be experienced, whether physically or imaginatively, while asleep or awake, whether drunk or sober.
Characters as Lures for Feeling
I offer a suggestion. Characters in the imagination are a form of what Whitehead calls "propositions." To be sure, the word "proposition" carries different meanings for different people. For many people the word suggests a logical statement of one sort or another: a verbal proposal. Or the word suggests something that is necessarily verbal. They are more than this for Whitehead. Propositions, in Whitehead’s philosophy, are what he calls "lures for feeling." They can be ideas, proposal, images, sounds, performances - they exist as real potentials which function as living invitations to perceive and respond to the world in particular ways.
Characters, I suggest, are complex lures for feeling, serving as vibrant centers of affective resonance. They "live" in our individual and collective imaginations as ontological intermediaries between what is and what can be, between actuality and potentiality. Their nature is partly determined by the interpretive acts of audiences and creators and partly determined by their own intrinsic nature. Thus their very existence is relational in the sense that they depend on others even as they also have their own selfhood of a sort.
This selfhood is not entirely passive; characters exert a kind of agency within the imaginative spaces they inhabit, shaping emotions, influencing thoughts, and even inspiring real-world decisions. And they are themselves in process, instances of becoming.
Hamlet as a Case Study in Processual Characterhood
Hamlet exemplifies the ontological complexity of literary characters. Across centuries of interpretations, performances, and adaptations, he has been portrayed in various ways, from a deeply introspective philosopher wrestling with existential doubt to a vengeful prince caught in a tragic web of fate. Each enactment draws from the same textual foundation but reconfigures its affective and conceptual weight in response to cultural, philosophical, and artistic contexts.
From a Whiteheadian perspective, Hamlet is not a static identity but a fluid field of possibility, continuously actualized in new ways through performances, reader responses, and critical interpretations. Every portrayal—whether by Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, or a contemporary theater company—constitutes a new concrescence of possibilities, shaping and reshaping the character’s ontological presence in cultural memory.
Moreover, his famous soliloquy—"To be, or not to be"—functions as a lure for feeling, not only within the play’s dramatic structure but also for audiences encountering it anew. These lines evoke existential questioning, inviting audiences to participate in Hamlet’s process of becoming. The character does not merely act within the world of the play but extends into the subjective experiences of those engaging with him, demonstrating how literary characters inhabit a realm between fiction and reality.
The Processual Nature of Characters
Unlike rigid entities, characters exist dynamically, adapting across interpretations, performances, and retellings. Hamlet in Shakespeare’s text differs from his representation in modern film adaptations, yet both draw from the same field of possibility. This suggests that characters are better understood as evolving processes rather than fixed identities. Their existence is event-based, renewed with each encounter, and dependent upon the interplay of artistic intent and audience reception.
Moreover, characters in performance exist uniquely in each enactment. The same role played by different actors can generate entirely distinct experiences, reinforcing the processual, relational nature of these entities. Just as actual occasions in Whitehead’s philosophy contribute to the becoming of future occasions, each portrayal of a character feeds into a larger cultural memory, influencing future understandings and interpretations.
Characters and Plots
Characters are inseparable from the plots and narratives in which they are embedded, although they may (or may not) be what is most important. Some works of literature and performing art are plot-driven and some are character-driven.
In any case, plots, too, shape a character's identity. The identity is shaped significantly by the storyline, the challenges they face, and their interactions with other characters. These plots provide the context and structure through which characters develop and express their distinctive traits and motivations. Hamlet, for example, becomes who he is through his interactions with the ghost of his father, his confrontations with his uncle Claudius, and his profound soliloquies. Similarly, Harry Potter's identity and growth are deeply intertwined with his battles against Voldemort, his friendships at Hogwarts, and his discovery of his own courage and morality.
Furthermore, characters and their plots resonate deeply with the narratives of people's lives. Readers or viewers often find parallels between fictional characters' struggles and their own experiences, using these stories as tools for self-understanding and growth. The plot of a story can illuminate the complexities of human emotions, moral dilemmas, and existential questions, offering a safe space to explore and navigate personal challenges. In this way, the narratives of fictional characters become intricately woven into the fabric of our own life stories, influencing our thoughts, actions, and even shaping our identities.
Historical and Mythical Characters
The concept of characters as lures for feeling is also applicable to historical and mythical characters. Historical figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, or Mahatma Gandhi, transcend their historical existence and enter the realm of imagination and interpretation, becoming complex propositions. They evoke feelings, inspire actions, and invite continual reinterpretation. Their "character" is not merely confined to their historical deeds but extends into their symbolic significance and imaginative resonance.
Similarly, mythical characters like Achilles, Hercules, or the Norse god Thor serve as powerful lures for feeling. These characters embody archetypal qualities, inviting audiences to engage with universal human themes—courage, betrayal, sacrifice, and redemption. Mythical characters, though they may never have existed in historical terms, nevertheless exist powerfully in the imagination, shaping cultural values, ethical ideals, and personal aspirations.
Both historical and mythical characters function as propositions in the Whiteheadian sense. They are potent possibilities that bridge the gap between fact and imagination, past and future, and actuality and potentiality. They live as vibrant, dynamic centers of meaning, influencing our collective and individual experience.
The Role of Characters in Moral Formation and Empathy
Characters, whether fictional or historical or mythic, play a significant role in moral formation and the cultivation of empathy. Through engagement with characters, readers and viewers experience situations from perspectives other than their own. This imaginative act can nurture empathy by allowing individuals to understand and feel the emotions, struggles, and joys of others. Encountering characters who embody different moral frameworks or face ethical dilemmas provides opportunities for reflection, debate, and growth in moral understanding.
Characters often serve as moral exemplars or cautionary figures, helping individuals navigate complex ethical landscapes. For example, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies integrity and courage in the face of social injustice, inspiring readers to question and refine their own moral beliefs. Similarly, characters like Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice invite readers to reflect on the nature of judgment, pride, and personal growth. In these ways, characters become powerful tools in shaping empathy, compassion, and ethical decision-making, influencing not only individual readers but also broader cultural values and social norms.
God as a Character: Villain or Friend to Life
God, as understood in various religious and philosophical traditions, can also be considered a character—one who may or may not be actual in a conventional sense but nevertheless functions powerfully as a constructive lure for feeling. However, the character of God is complex and multifaceted, and perceptions vary widely. In some interpretations, God is seen as a benevolent friend to life, embodying love, justice, compassion, and support. In these narratives, God serves as an uplifting and inspiring force, encouraging ethical living and nurturing empathy.
In other narratives, however, God can appear as a villain or antagonist, associated with wrath, punishment, or perceived injustice. For example, interpretations of religious texts or experiences of suffering can lead individuals or communities to perceive God as oppressive or indifferent. This characterization of God also functions as a powerful lure for feeling, provoking intense emotions, critical reflections, and moral reckonings.
Whether viewed as friend or villain, the character of God remains deeply influential, shaping personal beliefs, communal values, and broader cultural attitudes. As a dynamic and complex proposition, God continually invites diverse responses and interpretations, serving as a potent catalyst for moral and emotional exploration.
The Open and Relational Project aims to encourage a shift from viewing God as a villain to understanding God as a friend of life. This perspective emphasizes a conception of God who is loving, compassionate, and relationally engaged with the world. It promotes an understanding of God as a source of continual creativity, empathy, and encouragement toward ethical living. By reframing God in relational terms, this project seeks to foster healthier and more constructive emotional and moral responses, emphasizing collaboration, empathy, and mutual support within communities.
For open and relational theologians, the aim is to propose that God is an actual entity rather than a proposition or lure for feeling. God, in this view, is actively involved in the ongoing processes of the world, engaging in dynamic relationships with all forms of life. This understanding underscores God’s reality as a living, responsive presence who continuously interacts with creation, influencing and being influenced by the unfolding of events. Still, it seems to me, the objective of theologians is to offer a fresh lure for feeling for contemporary generations.
However, it seems to me that there is a place in the world for agnostics, who believe in the value of the proposition that God is actively involved in a loving way with the world, and receptive to all its joys and sufferings, without being sure that God "exists" as an actual entity. For them, God is a proposition - a lure for feeling - who may or may not exist, but who is worthy of trust as an uncertain possibility.