Characterizations: Rowling vs. Steele

[Ebony]

No: HPFGUIDX 8026

Hi, Jim and all--

I *just* finished posting a list of characterizations unique to
fanfic on the HP FanFiction list.  GMTA!  Anyway, I'm about to
get on 
my soapbox... 

::::The entire list runs away, plugging up their ears.::::

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Jim Flanagan" <jamesf at a...> wrote:
> Although I'm not a great reader of fanfic, I notice that a lot of 
> what I have encountered tends toward the Romantic variety, a la 
> Danielle Steele. 

Oh, no!  Poor Jim!  Word of advice:  never, ever venture to the HP 
ff.net corner without a specific author/title in mind.  I used to 
sift through the site this summer, but I simply cannot bring myself 
to do it anymore.  The rate of growth has been *exponential*... when
I first arrived at the site in March, there were only 10-16 pages of
fics (with between 50-100 fics listed on each I think).  Now there 
are 300+ pages.

Blaise, one of our members here, is extremely good for "serious
fic" 
or non-romance recommendations... and quality MWPP stuff.  I also 
love her fics... she's on my favorites page.  I'm mostly into
romance 
and unashamed of that fact, but I can point out a lot of good humor 
writers and those who write across the genres.

Soapbox unrelated to Jim's post:  A common misconception is that 
Paradigm of Uncertainty (as one R/H shipper termed it, "the H/H 
Bible") is purely or primarily romance.  But it, its prequel ASA,
and 
its sequel STNE are classified as *mysteries*!  If these stories were 
made into movies, they wouldn't be shelved between the Jane
Austen 
movies and the Meg Ryan flicks.  They would go into the 
action/adventure or drama category.  Cassie classified her Draco 
Dormiens series as romance... but it's more romantic comedy, and
DS 
would be action/adventure also IMO.  

I've seen a few knock these ladies and other popular writers in
the 
fandom for the "shippiness" (I tend to think it's sour
grapes... if I 
don't like something I just don't recommend it, instead of
going 
around ranting).  Name a movie/book/video game *with a plot* that 
doesn't include even the barest hint of sentimentalism.  In lit 
studies, feminist critics call this tendency "panopticism"--a 
cultural trait left over from chivalry, in which the archtypal female 
becomes objectified under the male gaze.  

I'm usually neutral on the gender debate, but I *do* point out
the 
fact that there is a sad reason why our books have J.K. instead of 
Joanne Kathleen splashed on their covers.  There are certain 
assumptions that are often implied about writers who happen to be 
female.  Many of these assumptions are inaccurate.
 
It's probably a lot easier to write Danielle Steele (who I've never 
read) than JKR.   But a common misconception is that most romantic 
fiction has no plot.  This is simply untrue and quite unfair.  Yes,
the market is flooded with cheap dime-store romances.  Might I point 
out that the market is also flooded with poorly written thrillers, 
mysteries, Westerns, etc.?

Brace yourself--most of the works in the Western canon deal with love 
as a major theme, if not *the* central theme.  As a matter of fact, 
one sociologist has stated that the Achilles' heel of Western culture
may be this obsession with "love of ____".  (It would take a long 
time to explain his entire argument... and I digress.)

Most people hear/see the word "love" and think of "eros"--romantic
love.  In fact, this is but a small subset of the l-word.  How about:
--love of family 
--love of a friend
--love of country/planet/humanity
--love of occupation
--love of justice
--love of power
--love of knowledge
--love of money
etc. etc. ad nauseam

These are generally cloaked under various synonyms (patriotism, 
greed, etc.).  However, unmasked, these are all a type of love.  And 
I'd daresay that you'd find some vestige of one of these Great 
Universal Ideas *somewhere* in almost any narrative.

I've been told over and over by my writing teachers that it's
far 
easier to write a plot-driven story than a character-driven one.  
When an author can write both effectively at the same time--you wind 
up with a Rowling or a Tolkien.

Ending rant with this:  There's a reason why I'd be willing
to bet 
that more people know the plot of "Romeo and Juliet" than of
"King 
Lear".

> Nevertheless, it seems to me that writing complex 
>characterizations must be far more demanding 
>than, for example, describing a kiss that is "not too wet, not too 
>dry, and with just the right amount of tongue," as I read in one HP 
f>anfic recently.

LOL!  As for hormones... spend a day or two with modern kids the same 
age as the HP characters.  I'll admit, not *all* kids in the
upper range of the 10-14 age bracket are obsessed with the opposite 
sex... but some are.  According to my older students (the eighth 
graders), they think it's extremely unrealistic that the HP 
characters are still in the "latent stage" at 14-15.  I did counter 
with the arguments that have been batted around here (wizards live 
longer, they have to control their emotions/magical powers, etc.).  
But one of my students summed up their attitude about it this 
summer. "Yeah, well, they're not space aliens, Miss
Thomas."

I *do* agree with the value you place on subtle characterization, 
Jim.  I absolutely love creating story-people.  A snappy plot never 
draws me in.  Interesting characters inevitably do.  This is because 
I'm a people person... I find who people *are* more interesting than 
what they do.

 > Snape is the first character that comes to mind with respect to 
> complexity, but we have yet to see more than an inkling of his 
>other  side.  I'm still holding out for the possibility that his 
behavior toward Harry is just a ploy for Voldemort's benefit. I'd 
like to know that he's more than just a colicky 8-year-old in a man's 
body.

Again, I think you'd like reading Blaise's work.  She really
does a 
good job probing into Snape's head, a place that I'd rather
avoid.  :)


> Harry has most of the conventional characteristics of a kid's book 
> hero.  However, he sometimes displays a hard edge, and can be too  
quick to judge, characteristics perhaps acquired while living with 
the Dursleys. I was very glad to see him buckle down and work in the  
last book -- this shows that he is maturing and growing more 
> responsible. Maybe he'll even stop to read "Hogwarts, a History."

I agree with this totally.  Harry to me was mainly a POV narrator in 
PS/SS and CoS.  I didn't really start to feel as if he was a hero
in the conventional sense until reading PoA.  But GoF—I read the
last four chapters on July 8 standing up and pacing around the room.  
Then I closed the book, got online, and spent the next week searching 
for adult fans.  I just *had* to discuss the book... and had to tell 
someone besides my students that there had to be more behind Harry's 
scar/survival of the Killing Curse than met the eye.

> Ron displays typical adolescent bone-headedness, but we get to see 
loyalty, courage, and humor as well. I think that JKR writes his 
> character particularly well (I knew kids just like him in school). 
I know that people here have written that Ron is one of the *least* 
> developed characters, but I think that JKR's writing accurately 
> reflects Ron's level of maturation.

I still would like to see more Ron.  We haven't seen as much of
him in the last two books as we did in the first two.  I think that 
Hermione's character was brought to the forefront more in PoA and 
GoF.  I have a feeling they'll be less and less omnipresent as
the books go on, though... if (as JKR says) GoF is to be the longest 
of the books, most of the remaining storyline *has* to be devoted to 
the rise of Voldemort/Snape/Dumbledore/Hagrid, Madame Maxime and the 
Giants/the Dementors and Azkaban, etc.   So I'd say we might see
less of the friends as the books go on... meaning they won't be at
Harry's side as much.  Or might not be able to.

I'll leave your idea of Hermione alone, as she is my favorite 
character.  I think the way JKR has "drawn" her is just fine... I can 
totally relate to her.  ;)

 > Hagrid, the cuddly bear figure, drinks too much, sometimes uses 
poor  judgement, has been to prison (twice!), cusses, and violates 
the laws against harboring dangerous creatures whenever it suits him. 
He is perhaps one of JKR's most extensively described characters, and 
far  better developed than an equivalent character in Narnia, for 
example.

YES!  I adore Hagrid and totally agree with the above.  I think
he's 
underused in fanfic as well... and do think we'll be seeing a lot 
more of him in the last 3 books.

> Dumbledore, for me, remains one-dimensional in his role of 
providing > the polar "good" in the story, just as Voldemort provides 
the > polar "evil." Dumbledore is quirky and he makes mistakes, but 
he has > *no* vices. Even the charge of moral relativism for allowing 
Harry et > al to violate school rules can be dismissed because "it's 
for the > good," an old fairy tale standby. Maybe a mild dose of 
Danielle would > pep him up a little.

LOL!  I'm no expert on fantasy/sci-fi, but I think we've said
here 
that Dumbledore is the "guide" figure in the novels.  How
pepped up 
was Yoda?  I'm not sure...

> Finally, I think that Draco is a fairly well-developed character 
> already, but has a lot more room for growth (and not just so that 
> he can fit more snugly in his leather pants). I hope JKR will take 
> his character in an interesting direction.

Leather aside, I think the Draco as developed by fans is perhaps the 
most probable fanon characterization of all.  Lucius seems to be 
firmly fixed on the "pure evil" route... but will his son
choose the 
same path?  If rumor is correct (Jenna's site?  An interview I
read a 
long time ago?), Draco will play a key role in Book 7... assisting 
Harry in his final defeat of Voldemort.  It would be more cliche to 
keep him unredeemable and evil.

As always, I enjoyed reading your thought processes, Jim!  Anyone 
else have a different take on the characters?

--Ebony

**************
"Love is not all; it it not meat nor drink,
Nor slumber, nor a roof against the rain.
Nor yet a floating spar to men that sink,
And rise and sink, and rise and sink again.
Love cannot fill the thickened lung with breath,
Nor cleanse the blood, nor set the broken bone,
Yet many a man is making friends with death
Even as I speak, for lack of love alone."

--Emily Dickinson