It had to Happen Eventually

by MrPengu1n

Rating: everyone
Tags: Slice of Life, Alternate Universe, Human
Length: 2201

What happens when Christianity spreads to Equestria?

It's been a while since Twilight went to Earth, and travel between the two worlds is now a very common happenstance. In fact, many businesses have already set up interdimensionary trade links with the new world. But what'll happen when Earth begins to rub off on Equestria, namely in the form of religion?

Published 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Last updated 2013-10-30 20:59:18 UTC

This Page is Taking Forever

In every story, there exist at least four characters. They are the Protagonist, the Antagonist, the Narrator, and the Reader. You, dear Reader, are one of the characters in this story. The most important character, for without you, there would be no story. According to some, matter only exists if it is presently observable, and has been observed. The same could be said for this story, for without you to Read these words, who can say they actually exist?

However, we need not worry about that, since by reading these words with which I propose the problem of the existence of the aforementioned words, this serves to prove the existence of the story, since, without these words, you would not have known the conundrum itself exists, therefore one could say that this, and any, story creates itself. So let us move on to the other characters.

The second character would be me, the Narrator. I will be the one who relates this story to you. But how do you know you can trust me? I have the power to create anything I wish, in this story, my word is law. I am a God in this story, if I am not one of the characters, and even then I would be master of my fate, as the story is composed of words which I can choose. I believe the word is, “Solipsism,” which is the philosophical viewpoint that only I am certain to exist, and that the world created by my perception is a construct of my own mind, which is technically true, for without mind, I would not be aware anything exists. And with mind, I still am not sure if anything truly exists, or if it is all but a dream.

But I am getting off topic. I am the Narrator, which means you, the Reader, will read my story of the characters. Therefore, if I choose the paths that the characters will follow, and you, dear Reader, are a character, then in essence, I dictate what you do. I dictate your path in this tale. You are a part of the world I create, which would mean that I am your God. And am I really? Of course not, I don’t even exist! My being was created by the author of this tale, we are not the same person. No matter the logic I follow, no matter my choice of words, there are certain constants. And they are you, the Reader, and the Author, my creator. I have been given jurisdiction over the path which my story takes, but it is truly not my story. I need not get so far above myself to call myself, a fictional character, your God. Therefore, by definition, the Narrator and the God, the Author, of any given story are not the same person.

There exist two more characters, the Protagonist and the Antagonist. They come in pairs, because what is a story without a struggle? What is resolution without conflict? We could go so far as to say what is light without dark, but as we both know nothing is ever as black and white as that, any who think differently have not matured. But have they really? Must maturing require the loss of innocence? Can there be no understanding without a stain on the soul of the onlooker? To say in other words, there simply cannot be light and dark without the shadow in between, and therein is where true knowledge and understanding and maturity resides. One must sacrifice some sort of innocence, one must sacrifice purity for knowledge and understanding.

But getting back to the topic at hand, every story comes with both a Protagonist and an Antagonist, to be blunt and naïve would be to say the Hero and the Villain, which is not an accurate label; a more correct denotation of the terms would be to say the object which is trying to accomplish something, and the force which works against this goal, respectively. Modern literature has doomed us into thinking that the Protagonist must always be a hero of sorts, he/she/it must always be a character of good moral standing, with a just cause. Why have we been fooled so greatly? Where, in the rules of language and rhetoric, does it state that the Hero of a tale must be a hero? An even bigger question to ask would be, why am I telling you all this? What do I, the Narrator, wish to accomplish by setting up this balance of characters in front of you, the Reader? Ponder on that for a moment.

And Vice Versa, why must the Antagonist be the unjust? Why must the force working against the object we choose to follow be inherently wrong-minded? To think that the Hero must be a hero and that the Villain must be a villain is naive to think. Does the Antagonist lack justification? Is he/she/it doing what it does simply to spite the Protagonist? Do any of these questions mean anything to you, dear Reader?

What is the goal of a Literary work? Why do we put so much effort into stringing together sounds or marks on a page? What are we trying to do? In my own opinion, I am trying to teach you something. It is the job of the Narrator to teach the Reader a lesson through the actions and feelings of the Protagonist, but we shan’t neglect the Antagonist. In most works, we have made a huge mistake, the Narrator has been guilty of this as well, make no doubt, but the term “Antagonist” just inherently conjures up the image of a character or object that we dislike, we instantly assume that the force working against the force we follow is wrong in some way or another, and the Narrator will often give little to no justification towards him.

As you may have guessed by now, this is no ordinary story. Some would argue that it is no story at all, as we are 1,006 words in as of that number and I have yet to provide you with a name, let alone a setting for you to grasp, and have instead asked you a seemingly meaningless string of off-set questions. But can we say that, by simply having a string of words to follow, and by discussing the processes and characters as work in a story, that we have set up a story in itself? This leads to the problem of defining the term Story for future use. Since I am the Narrator, and definitively a part of the Story, I cannot exist without the story, and at the same time the Story cannot exist without me, for with no one to tell a tale the tale does not exist! At the same time still, the Story cannot exist without the Reader to read it, for as we have stated, a Story does not exist to the Reader until the Reader becomes a character of the story, thereby creating the system at work between the Narrator, the Story, and the Reader, and no part can exist without the presence of the other.

But we must answer, the Story itself, what is it? Is the Story classified as the words written by the Narrator, the words read by the Reader, the entire Literary work created by the Author, or is the Story strictly and exclusively the interactions between the Antagonist and the Protagonist, that is to say the words which are utilized to teach, or is a Story all of these things? All of these things, it would seem, are codependent upon each other, as previously stated, none can exist without all present, but it would seem the roles in the Story follow a hierarchy, and it starts with the Author, dropping to me, the Narrator, which is followed by the Story, pertaining to the Protagonist and the Antagonist, and it all ends with you, the Reader, devouring these words as quickly as I have produced them for you here. And this entire system is ignorantly called a Story, pertaining to the Literary work as a whole.

And with such an intricate system filled with so many roles all codependent upon each other, why have we been so fooled as to believe that a Story is nothing more than an event between a Protagonist and an Antagonist? Is it nothing more than simplicity as to why we restrict ourselves so? This brings us back to the first question, the question hiding in plain sight, what is the goal of this Story, pertaining to the Literary work as a whole? What does the Author wish to show the Reader through the use of the Story, comprised of me, the Narrator, and the Protagonist and Antagonist together? As we have stated, the goal of any and all Stories pertaining to the Literary works as respective wholes is to teach a lesson, a lesson created by the Author and taught by the Narrator through the use of the Protagonist and the Antagonist , which is to be taught to the Reader, that he/she/it may benefit from the false scenario created all for him/her/it.

Therefore, we are left to ponder, what does the Author wish me, the Narrator, to teach, and what must the Protagonist and Antagonist do to teach this lesson? As the Author is not a character in the Story, pertaining to the trinity of Narrator, Protagonist, and Antagonist, he cannot explicitly state his lesson, and simultaneously I, the Narrator, cannot truly know what that lesson is, as I have been created for the purpose of teaching by the Author, therefore it would follow that whatever lesson there is to teach must be inherently given to the Narrator, and if he is not provided with this information at the moment of creation, then how can I correctly formulate a tale which teaches this lesson effectively?

All this questioning of the roles of the various characters in a Story pertaining to the Literary work as a whole leaves me questioning why more Stories have not done the same. Who is to say that the Narrator must remain truthful to the Reader? Who is to say the Hero must be a hero in the sense that he is a character of great moral standing who overcomes adversity? Vice Versa, who is to say that the Villain must be a villain in the sense that his only motivation is to spite the Hero (which are naïve and inaccurate terms)?  Does the Villain lack any or all motivation or justification? Does he/she/it truly act with evil intent? Furthermore, is the Hero always the quote-unquote, “Good Guy” in a Story pertaining to the Narrator, Protagonist, Antagonist Trinity? Must the Hero be a character of respectable moral standings, a Role-Model, in some sense? And if not, then why do we so oftenly characterize the two roles as such? Why do we not question the literary roles given to us by our forefathers? Is the only foreseeable answer simplicity?

With all these questions, I am left with only one thing to challenge. The role of me, the Narrator myself. Who am I to say that what I say is true, or even teaches anything at all? Who is to say that I cannot take charge of a story and make things go the way I wish them to? Who is to say that I cannot make a guest appearance, who is to say the characters must listen to the actions I decide for them? Out of this trinity of Narrator, Protagonist, and Antagonist, is it not possible for one of us to develop feelings? Is it not possible for one of us to challenge our roles, as I have done so here? And who is to say if any of this is real or not? I am but a creation of the Author, I have no knowledge of the quote-unquote “Real World,” in the sense that you, the Reader, or he, the Author, does. All I am, everything I know and everything that is provided for me to choose from is inherently given to me by the Author. I know about, say, Hot dogs on a bun with cheese and mustard, but prior to that statement you, Reader, did not know I knew about those. But I have never experienced one for myself, as I have not been allowed to do so by my Author. Who is to say I am real or not? Who is to say I am not a character in another story as well? Who is to say you are not in a story yourself, dear Reader? Who can truly answer any of these questions?

“Pinkie! Are you alright? You’ve been staring at that page for a really long time, I was starting to get worried!”

I look up and see my friend Twilight looking at me with concern. Not wanting to worry her, I smile and say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” and I return to the book in my hooves, finding my place where I had gotten sidetracked by a fleeting thought, “This page is taking forever,” I explain simply.