I'm gonna talk about this idea I came up recently, which I talked about here. It's a deconstruction of the "cartoon character in the real world" trope seen in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and other similar works. My current idea is that this animator creates a cartoon character during the 50's and tries to pitch it to a studio, which turns it down. So the animator makes a comic strip about the CC instead, which lasts until the 60's. After the strip ends, the CC comes to life to cheer up the depressed cartoonist. Eventually the cartoonist grows old and dies while the CC stays young and alive, and this is what helps kickstart the CC's emotional crisis. So, what I'm having a problem with is how the CC is brought to life. I want to leave it ambiguous for a few reasons. 1: Real life doesn't always provide the answers. 2: That's not what the story is about. It's about the CC's emotional crisis, not how he was brought to life. 3: Every explanation I use will just raise more questions. (See "Voodoo Shark" on TV Tropes.) 4: None of the characters in-universe know how he was brought to life, so why should the audience? But I just know people are gonna complain about me leaving it ambiguous how he was brought to life, so I'm gonna bring up examples from fiction where the plot point works better when it's not explained. Star Wars: In the original trilogy, the force was just a vague magical thing that audiences accepted. In the prequel trilogy, it was infamously revealed to be the result of microbes in the Jedi's bloodstream, which ruined the franchise for many. Calvin and Hobbes: Is Hobbes a real tiger, or just a figment of Calvin's imagination? The answer is neither. In Bill Watterson's own words, "the strip is more about the subjective nature of reality than dolls coming to life". Hobbes's reality was never focused on, and the strip was all the more better for it. There's also the Noodle Incident and Calvin's bedtime story Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie, which Bill left both ambiguous because he thought it would be funnier in the reader's head. Toy Story: What magical force brings the toys to life? Who cares? That's not what the franchise is about. Frozen: A lot of people complain about how the origin of Elsa's powers were never brought up, but it doesn't bother me for the same reasons mentioned above. (No one in-universe knows, and that's not what the story is about.) They actually were originally going to reveal it in an opening prologue, but it ended up being boring and expositional, so they removed it. Maybe they can talk about it in the sequel. So, would it be the end of the world if I left how the CC came to life ambiguous for the reasons mentioned above?