/characterisation/new batch

[annemehr]

> Anne:
> One other thought: under the Characterisation section, I wouldn't mind
> seeing a code for "believability/exaggeration" or something like that.
> 
> Carolyn:
> Is this to capture Naama-style arguments about whether a character 
> could- or could not do XYZ? I'm coding to 1.3.1 & 1.3.1.2 when these 
> threads come up.

Anne:
Yes, that fits, and we can also code to the example characters
themselves, and to 1.4.2 Effect of PoV narration.  But sometimes the
discussion is about the way JKR writes characters in general (even
when specific examples are included), such as this excerpt from #36000:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the main problem with our debate here is that we're not
talking about the same thing when we say "change." What *I* meant by
it, is a deep shift in our perception of the character's character;
that we find that s/he is not as s/he seems. *You* seem to
use "change" in the sense of "develop."
In order to reach semantic agreement, I'd like to distinguish between
two two kinds of developement (or change). One is the development
that the characters go through as real people. That is, they develop
as they grow up or because of experiences they go through or because
other people influence them, etc. The examples you give of Hermione
and Ginny fall under this category.
A different kind of developement is the development of the character
as a fictional character - that is, the gradual (or otherwise)
revelation of his/her personality by the author. IMO, Crouch and
Bagman fall under this category. During the period of time we "know"
them (that is, GoF) they dont' change in themselves. What changes is
our knowledge and understanding of them.
Of course, during four years the young characters do change and
develop as young people do and should. In this sense, we can talk of
whether their development is in character or not. Is 14 year old
Harry a reasonable "extension" of 11 year old Harry? Is Ron? Is
Hermione? Etc.
But I think that this discussion is much more about the second
category of development/change - that of the change in *our
perception* of the character. It is in regard of this that I claim
that characters do not change (besides those shifts and twists in the
guilty/red-herring characters involved in the mystery plots of each
book).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm thinking of this from the end-user's point of view.  Someone who
was looking for a general discussion of the way JKR writes characters
would probably first look in the Characterisation section, don't you
think?

On further thought, "believablility/exaggeration" is probably much too
specific.  Maybe something like "effectiveness of character
development"... I don't know, I can't think when I can't breathe!
Something that can hold both definitions of change from the quoted
post, anyway.  No?

And as you may have noticed, this post (#36000) is the last in my
batch.  I'm coding it up as you suggested, so I'm ready for some more.

Anne