Практика Shadowing: The Myth of the Nameless Hero - Изучайте разговорный английский с YouTube
C1
I think it’s interesting how seriously humans take fictional characters. I mean, I know you know they’re not real… but you do still seem to think of them that way. You tend to treat them like people. I’ve seen so many arguments on the internet about what a character would really do—what they would say, what they would think, how they would react to any given situation.
30 предложений
Если предложения слишком короткие или длинные, нажмите Edit, чтобы их изменить.
1
I think it’s interesting how seriously humans take fictional characters. I mean, I know you know they’re not real… but you do still seem to think of them that way. You tend to treat them like people. I’ve seen so many arguments on the internet about what a character would really do—what they would say, what they would think, how they would react to any given situation.
2
I’ve seen people trying to decide whether you’re a good or bad person… for relating to a character who doesn’t exist. I’m not even gonna talk about shipping and all the wars people have fought over that. I guess it’s not surprising. I mean, you write them this way on purpose. A good character, I’ve read over and over again, is a character you believe. One you feel as though you could actually meet, out in the world. One you could judge. A good character is a real, fleshed out person. The problem is… I also know so many that aren’t.
3
There’s a whole category of characters that are so far from personhood, they aren’t even given names. Popular characters. Well-loved ones. The Man With No Name from the Dollars trilogy is pretty much synonymous with the word cowboy. The Doctor from Doctor Who is too big to be reduced to a mere person. The G-Man from Half-Life, most of the cast in Jeff Vandermeer’s Annihilation, almost every character in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. I don’t think this is an accident. These aren’t just extras or something—these are characters built this way on purpose. So the question is—if characters are supposed to be people… why would any author ever choose to do this?
4
Why deny your character the most basic element of personhood—a name?
5
Victor Frankenstein has lost a great deal to the thing that he created. His best friend. His wife. His brother. In the end, the monster even took his very name. When you think Frankenstein, I’d bet anything that what comes to your mind is green skin and stapled flesh. After all, it’s the monster at the center of the novel’s drama, not Victor. Boris Karloff’s portrayal of the creature became the face of the entire story. The monster looms so large over the legacy of Frankenstein that, if they don’t know any better, people assume that the novel must be named after him. Centuries after the book’s publication, he’s all but absorbed his creator’s name.
6
…Which is sort of ironic, because in the original story, Frankenstein’s monster is actually denied a name. He’s just… the monster. A fact central to the themes of the entire work.
7
Of course, the characters in the story do call him other things… like “creature,” “beast,” “ogre.” But nobody—not even his creator—ever even thinks about granting him a human name. He is, in effect, denied an identity. It is this precise injustice—and the ensuing loneliness and displacement—that eventually turns him into the violence, vengeful wraith we know today. When at last he finally confronts Victor, he laments, “I ought to be thy Adam!” He’s not just outraged by the fact that he’s spent his short life alone, abandoned, and unloved. He’s plagued by the fact that he’s so deprived of empathy, he hasn’t even been given an identity. A name.
8
Naming things is a way of personifying them. It’s why you give names to your pets, and not your livestock. It’s why you give names to inanimate objects that you feel are particularly important—buildings, ships, countries. It tells you something about Victor that he didn’t even extend that level of importance to his creation. It tells you that, for him, creating life was no benevolent act. There was no empathy in it. In fact, when he was done, he was horrified to see what he had made. He considered the creature to be a less meaningful creation than a ship, or a building. He considered it to be worth less regard than a dog.
9
Even now, while discussing the monster’s life and struggles, I find it sad that I have to refer to him as “the monster.” It’s an indignity. One so profound, it drives the soul of the plot. The monster’s nameless represents everything he’s fighting against. He’s clearly capable of reason—he’s able to read a work as complex as Paradise Lost, and apply it to his own life. He knows anger, sadness, guilt, envy. In every way that matters, he can already think and feel like a man. But without a name, he can only be understood… as a creature.
10
Namelessness can be dehumanizing. It lets us know that a character isn’t worthy of the significance you would give another person. And we don’t just see this with Frankenstein’s monster. In the third installment of The Witcher, unborn children buried without being named become monsters called botchlings. In the musical adaptation of Les Miserables , the police inspector Javert often refuses to refer to Jean Valjean by his real name, instead calling him by his former inmate number: 24601. Jaqen H’Ghar in Game of Thrones is a “faceless man”, or a shapeshifting assassin.
11
The faceless men are trained to “become no one,” giving up their own identities—so they can take on a variety of others. Naming something is a fundamentally intimate act—it signals that the thing being named is worth regarding. To deprive someone of their name, or to neglect to give them one, is to signal that they’re not a person worth referring to—to signal that they’re less than a person, less than a pet, less than even a sentimental object.
12
In effect, a character without a name… isn’t a person at all.
13
And I think the authors… might be trying to tell us this.
14
It initially seems strange that Dark Souls lets you put so much effort into character creation.
15
Like, it’s really strange. When you start the game, your character immediately looks like this.
16
They’re what the game calls “hollow”, a sort of zombified form, devoid of humanity. It more or less renders all the time you spent lovingly designing your character… completely worthless.
17
Even once you manage to reverse the hollowing, you get maybe half-an-hour of gameplay before you get your hands on your first helmet—and from that point on, you probably won’t see your character’s features ever again. If that weren’t enough to make character creation feel totally useless, none of the characters in the game even use your name. In most games with character creators, you at least get to do some roleplaying. You’ll get pointed, morality-deciding questions. Maybe you want to be lawful good or chaotic evil, that sort of thing. Not in Dark Souls. In Dark Souls, nobody is as concerned with who you are, so much as they are with what you are.
18
This is all part of the point, though. Your character, the Chosen Undead, isn’t really meant to be a “character” at all. They’re more of a… stand-in. A vessel, if we want to stick with the Dark Souls language. You don’t know it at the start, but there are actually… a lot of moral choices to make throughout the game. You can kill just about any NPC, which means that leaving them alive is a choice—one that often has ripple effects throughout the entire world. You can deliver characters crucial items that are necessary for their survival—or you can use them up for your own selfish benefit. At the end of the game, you ultimately choose whether or not to destroy the world—a choice that the game has been implicitly preparing you the entire time. If the Chosen Undead was a discrete character, these choices might feel a bit less like choices. there would always be a pressure on the player to do what they would do—to ignore your first instinct and attempt to perform the role of the character “properly.” Instead, by making the Chosen Undead a nameless, personalizable stand-in, you can approach the world of Dark Souls with your own moral worldview.
19
This is not exactly a novel approach. Video games do this a lot. It’s sort of a way to bypass the character, and put yourself into the world. The Courier in Fallout: New Vegas, is also a player stand-in that serves as the vessel for that story’s choices. In Undertale, name is incredible complex, but I’ll try to boil it down by saying that what you name the player character not only impacts the way they respond to situations, but it also impacts who they turn out to be. In The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, you are said to be the chosen one, on a predestined path, but you really take some liberties with that in the game. Ultimately you define every single thing about the character and essentially dictate the nature of the prophecy yourself.
20
In all of these cases, the point is to allow the player to express themself. After all, if the character you're controlling has no name, that means there’s space for you to put your own.
21
The Main Character of Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian… barely even qualifies as a main character at all. He’s known simply as “The Kid”, and then later “The Man.” In huge portions of the book, he sort of… disappears into the background of the narrative. As he joins a gang of outlaws and descends into a life of violence and bloodshed, pages upon pages pass without so much as a mention of him. There’s a lot of “they” did this and “we” did that—very rarely is his individuality from the gang asserted in the text. Even by the story’s end, we learn vanishingly few details about him at all. His name is never among them.
22
This isn’t because The Kid is literally absent from the narrative. It’s because The Kid… isn’t important. He’s only there to act as a vessel—a window into Blood Meridian’s bloody, merciless world. His namelessness is a key signal from the author to the audience.
23
“This is not a person”, McCarthy seems to be saying. “Don’t mistake him for one.” The circumstances that push The Kid into becoming an outlaw aren’t a matter of personal character or background. If he had a name or a detailed history, the implication would be that his personhood mattered. That whoever he was in the past determined who he became. The truth, as in any McCarthy novel, is far more brutal. He could have been any kid who happened to show up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Born in the wrong generation. He stands in for any young man, driven to violence by the sheer force of ennui and instinct—all the naive kids who, over the ages, have felt compelled to war. You see it? How choosing not to turn a character into a person affects the story? Characters like the Kid can, in a way, become something bigger.
24
Instead of just the people that they are, the readers confront them through the roles that they play. They represent ideas, archetypes, concepts. The unnamed narrator in Fight Club is a disaffected, neurotic office worker with no hope for the future. He represents every disaffected, neurotic office worker with no hope for the future. All the jurors in 12 Angry Men are only named by their juror number. They’re meant to be common archetypes of everyday American citizens so that the (American) audience can see themselves in their situation. The G-Man from Half Life is a dispassionate bureaucrat with powers beyond our understanding. Nameless, without identity, he literally becomes the ultimate “government man”—perhaps the most Kafkaesque of all cosmic horrors. There’s another character in Bood Meridian, who plays a fairly similar role. You may have heard of him. He’s pretty infamous. I am talking, of course, about The Judge. He’s the driving force behind the violence of the book. He is symbolic in the extreme, Manifest Destiny personified. His origins are also left unexplained. But, unlike The Kid, the Judge has a clearly articulated worldview, a defined personality, and, of course, a name: Judge Holden. Compared to the Judge, the Kid is an empty vessel, not unlike The Chosen Undead. You start to see why you might not give a character a name. Nameless, a character lends itself to symbolism. Nameless, a character stops being a person and becomes a device. It turns out, when you don’t have anything to call a character, you are forced to call them what they are. Aaron Sorkin once said, “the properties of people and the properties of character have almost nothing to do with each other. (...) People don’t speak in dialogue, their lives don’t unfold in a series of scenes that form a narrative arc—the rules of drama are very different than the properties of life.” And, you know, to add to that—people generally have names. But characters don’t always need to, because, as Sorkin says, they are not merely theoretical people. They can be more than that.
25
The idea of namelessness seems cruel in theory. How many Frankenstein’s monsters do we want to create? But I think that story demonstrates how important names and identity are to people. How much you need them. Fictional characters aren’t like that. They have no preference, until you write one for them. For them, namelessness can be a blessing. Like the Chosen Undead, they can become vessels, subject to countless worldviews, countless perspectives.
26
Like the Kid, they can become symbols or archetypes—representative of something so much bigger; an ideal, or a position in the world. It can be fun to think of fictional characters as real people. It’s an interesting challenge to try to make them believable. But… you can never really know them that way. They’re written. Contrived. Created. They are literary devices, not dynamic, self-defining human beings. As compelling as a fleshed-out character can be, I think it’s also somewhat limiting to aspire to create that alone.
27
Maybe, instead of trying to make you understand who they are, these characters are here to help you know… yourself. Okay so after Talking a bit about Dark Souls, and how… hostile it is to its players… you kind of have to wonder… why? What reason would someone have for creating such a rich, deliberately-crafted world… and then holding it just out of arm’s reach, on purpose. Turns out, Hidetaka Miyazaki had a very good reason for doing it. An entire philosophy, in fact. We found this line of thinking so interesting that we made a whole micro documentary about it called “The Frustration Artist”, where we dive into who Miyazaki is and how his experiences guided this weird, hostile vision.
28
It’s part of our six-episode series, Worldsmiths, where we talk about some of our favorite authors, and the inspirations behind their work. You can watch it all over on our streaming platform, Nebula. We actually have a lot on Nebula. You can find our old videos that aren’t on youtube anymore, exclusive content that you can’t find anywhere else, even next week’s video is live, right now, waiting for you to go watch it! And on Nebula? All of it is totally ad-free.
29
We don’t even put sponsors on those videos. I know, this probably isn’t the first time you’ve heard of Nebula. We’re probably just one of like… a dozen different channels you know who talk about it all the time. But… that’s because it deserves to be talked about. It’s a platform made by creators, for creators. Worldsmiths is just one of like… countless other original projects that were brought to life by Nebula. Lindsay Ellis alone has like… seven different HOUR-LONG specials over there. Abbie Thorn, the creator of Philosophy Tube, directed an actual feature-length film called called Dracula’s Ex-Girlfriend. Did you know Tier Zoo has an original series where he explains the behaviors of different animals as if he’s playing as them in a video game?? I didn’t!
30
There is honestly… so much on Nebula. And for all of that, it is actually shockingly affordable. It’s usually only $6 a month, or $60 a year. But, If you use our link, go.nebula.tv/talefoundry, it’s only going to cost $36 a year—which comes out to just $3 a month. Or, if you don’t want to subscribe… you could also get a lifetime membership. That’s right. Pay $300 one time, and then never again. No matter how big Nebula gets, how prestigious its projects, you will always have access. Again visit go.nebula.tv/talefoundry to get Nebula for just $3 a month, or $300 one time for your entire life. If you like the idea of not only getting access to exclusive projects from your favorite creators, but being part of the reason they exist? Join Nebula. It is one of the best ways to support creators like us.
Скачать приложение
ИИ-оценка каждого произнесённого вами предложения
TRENDING
Популярные
Контекст и предыстория
В представленном видео обсуждается роль вымышленных персонажей в жизни людей и как они воспринимаются. Спикер рассматривает, насколько серьезно люди относятся к персонажам, даже если они не существуют в реальности. Он подчеркивает, что хорошо прописанные герои вызывают у нас ощущение настоящего общения, словно мы встречаем их в реальной жизни. Однако среди таких персонажей существует категория, не имеющая имен, что ставит под сомнение их человечность и индивидуальность. Этот предмет легко может быть использован в качестве материала для практики разговорного английского, так как дает возможность понять не только содержание, но и контекст, в котором персонажи существуют.
Топ-5 фраз для повседневного общения
- How would they really react? – Как бы они на самом деле отреагировали?
- That’s the irony of it all. – В этом вся ирония.
- It’s sad that I have to refer to him as “the monster”. – Грустно, что мне приходится называть его «монстром».
- Naming things is a way of personifying them. – Называние вещей – это способ наделить их человеческими чертами.
- He doesn’t have a personal identity. – У него нет личной идентичности.
Пошаговое руководство по шадоуингу
Чтобы эффективно использовать данный видеоматериал для shadowing, вы можете следовать следующим шагам:
- Слушайте аудио сначала без субтитров. Попробуйте уловить основные идеи и выражения в контексте.
- Записывайте ключевые фразы. Воспользуйтесь приведенными ранее фразами для создания основы практики. Это будет полезно для практика разговорного английского.
- Смотрите видео с субтитрами. Это поможет вам увидеть, как звучат слова и как они записаны, что возможно поможет разобраться в трудных моментах.
- Сравните свои записи с оригиналом. Повторяйте за спикером, уделяя внимание интонации и произношению. Это идеальный момент, чтобы применять технику shadowspeech.
- Практикуйтесь регулярно. Запланируйте время для занятий по shadowing английский на основе выбранного вами контента, чтобы улучшать произношение и понимание на слух.
Постепенное применение вышеуказанных методов поможет вам углубить ваши знания и навыки в английском языке, а также позволит вам лучше понимать контексты различных фраз и выражений в реальных условиях общения.
Что такое техника Shadowing?
Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.
☕ Угостите нас кофе
ShadowingEnglish остаётся 100% бесплатным благодаря вашей поддержке. Стоимость серверов и ИИ высока — ваш кофе поддерживает нас! 🙏