<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Fictional&#8221; and &#8220;Fictitious&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:06:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Breed</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/comment-page-1/#comment-395787</link>
		<dc:creator>Breed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/#comment-395787</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s get back to Alice.  The character is NOT &quot;Alice in Wonderland,&quot; because the character is NEVER referred to in that manner in the book.  &quot;Little Red Riding Hood&quot; is called that within the text, so it is the character&#039;s name.

The &quot;fictional&quot; vs &quot;fictitious&quot; discussion is similarly flawed, as the person making the original posting is basing his argument own merely his own speculation, not on fact.  It must be sad to have to try to pass yourself off as educated, when you&#039;re clearly not.  Must be some sel-esteem issue (obviously related to the pathological inability to admit a mistake).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s get back to Alice.  The character is NOT &#8220;Alice in Wonderland,&#8221; because the character is NEVER referred to in that manner in the book.  &#8220;Little Red Riding Hood&#8221; is called that within the text, so it is the character&#8217;s name.</p>
<p>The &#8220;fictional&#8221; vs &#8220;fictitious&#8221; discussion is similarly flawed, as the person making the original posting is basing his argument own merely his own speculation, not on fact.  It must be sad to have to try to pass yourself off as educated, when you&#8217;re clearly not.  Must be some sel-esteem issue (obviously related to the pathological inability to admit a mistake).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/comment-page-1/#comment-393274</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/#comment-393274</guid>
		<description>It seems the distinction is not very clear. I&#039;ve just watched &quot;Captain America: The First Avenger&quot; and in the end credits I&#039;ve found a line &quot;The persons and events in this motion picture are fictitious&quot;. Shouldn&#039;t it be &quot;fictional&quot; in this case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems the distinction is not very clear. I&#8217;ve just watched &#8220;Captain America: The First Avenger&#8221; and in the end credits I&#8217;ve found a line &#8220;The persons and events in this motion picture are fictitious&#8221;. Shouldn&#8217;t it be &#8220;fictional&#8221; in this case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: venqax</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/comment-page-1/#comment-388815</link>
		<dc:creator>venqax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/#comment-388815</guid>
		<description>Well, I tuss that shows their Library, like most things Congress, can be incorrect more than average. Twice in one ref.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I tuss that shows their Library, like most things Congress, can be incorrect more than average. Twice in one ref.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allison</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/comment-page-1/#comment-388355</link>
		<dc:creator>Allison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/#comment-388355</guid>
		<description>The Library of Congress refers to Alice (fictitious character: Carroll)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Library of Congress refers to Alice (fictitious character: Carroll)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/comment-page-1/#comment-387465</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 22:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/fictional-and-fictitious/#comment-387465</guid>
		<description>and also, I know plenty of teachers who have taught English far longer. When I was sixteen I asked an English teacher of thirty years if it would still be classed as pedophilia if the child was deceased, or if it would become singularly necrophilia, and he actually couldn&#039;t answer me straightly, and teaching doesn&#039;t make you right at whatever you are doing. 

Characters adopt personifying names in many books or movies, and occasionally their entire name is one personifying statement.

Little Red Riding Hood, as far as I am concerned that is the name of the character, name of anything else she has been involved with, and there isn&#039;t a name to be found. This character is one entire statement, and that is what she is known by.

The statement could without the personification be said to be wrong, because Alice is not a fictional character, Alice is a name, a real person, and there is plenty of them. Alice in Wonderland is the title she is most known by, people use that name and have used that name since it was first created to talk about the character, and the movie, and the book, in the same way as Little Red Riding Hood would be, and it is no more incorrect than if you swapped those names around just because she is known by more than one name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and also, I know plenty of teachers who have taught English far longer. When I was sixteen I asked an English teacher of thirty years if it would still be classed as pedophilia if the child was deceased, or if it would become singularly necrophilia, and he actually couldn&#8217;t answer me straightly, and teaching doesn&#8217;t make you right at whatever you are doing. </p>
<p>Characters adopt personifying names in many books or movies, and occasionally their entire name is one personifying statement.</p>
<p>Little Red Riding Hood, as far as I am concerned that is the name of the character, name of anything else she has been involved with, and there isn&#8217;t a name to be found. This character is one entire statement, and that is what she is known by.</p>
<p>The statement could without the personification be said to be wrong, because Alice is not a fictional character, Alice is a name, a real person, and there is plenty of them. Alice in Wonderland is the title she is most known by, people use that name and have used that name since it was first created to talk about the character, and the movie, and the book, in the same way as Little Red Riding Hood would be, and it is no more incorrect than if you swapped those names around just because she is known by more than one name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.dailywritingtips.com @ 2012-02-09 10:07:16 -->
