>From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
>
>Hmm, maybe what I'm looking at is more like "abilities
>which a member of that group would normally be
>expected to have".
Yeah. That without which the character is not deserving of the title of the keyword.
> > That group, however, can
> > be as small as you like, including being imaginary
> > and only actually
> > containing the one member who is the character.
>
>Oh, nice! I think I may be doing that, but without
>explicitly realising it.
I was being more stringent, myself, trying to find some level of group (I was typically trying to associate it at the culture level). But I think that, yeah, Mark's idea is quite intuitive once you see it.
> > that's still enough of an archtype from which to
> > decide whether or not an
> > ability should come from that keyword or not.
>
>Yes, it's short-hand for an archetype. Stereotype.
>Something like that.
Or just a type.
Mike
Powered by hypermail