JKR vs CSL revisited

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 27887

Luke:
>Poster A (I believe it was Tabouli) had assumed that the 
'good character development' referred to having characters that were 
"fully fleshed-out" and therefore deemed Harry Potter was superior in 
this right.  Poster B (I believe it was Steve Vander Ark) had assumed 
'good character development' referred to having characters who grew 
and changed, and therefore deemed Narnia was superior in this right.<
(...)
> neither side was apparently aware that 
they were debating completely separate issues because of an alternate 
interpretation of a particular term.<

Accch, but isn't "difference in definition of key terms" central to a lot of arguments?  Especially those which occur across cultures, of course.  I once had a client accompanying her (Japanese) husband to Japan, and one of the first things I got her to do was define a "good husband" to me, after which I contrasted this with the Japanese definition of a good husband and got her to identify possible areas of difficulty for herself.  Anyway...

I'm glad Luke has mentioned this, as I was a bit sad that that the HP/Narnia comparison discussion never got going (it was raised on September the 10th, which effectively ended it).  Having no background in Eng. Lit. style analysis myself (though it's definitely my sort of thing...!), I'd be foolish to take Luke on here, but I will attempt to explain my interpretation of the word "development", technically incorrect tho' it be...

I think I was talking about "development" from the an author's craft point of view.  How well has the author "developed" believeable, fully-fleshed out characters with whom the readers can identify and feel acquainted?  IMO, change in a character is part of what makes a character believable, and if and when characters *do* grow and change in a series (like Harry in HP, or Eustace in Narnia), the degree to which this is convincing in the context of the plot is a measure of the author's craft.

>From this interpretation, I argued that JKR is a better "developer" than CSL, because her characters have distinct, recognisable voices and personalities, which we are able to analyse to the nth degree on a list like this.  CSL's characters are nowhere near as deeply realised: they are, by and large, dolls with a small handful of distinguishing features (e.g. sweet young girl, gloomy Marsh Wiggle) which he steers through the much more fully realised descriptions of his magical world and adventures (now where did I leave that bullet-proof vest again?).  As JKR includes *both* detailed characterisation *and* descriptions of her world and adventures therein, I argued that her work is more ambitious.

Steve's defence (if it was indeed Steve) that CSL's characters "developed" (i.e. grow and change) more than JKR's is, I think, related to but less extensive than the point I was making.  I think that growth and change are part of what Luke called "fleshing out" a character, and can be crafted well or less well.  Yes, CSL's characters undergo dramatic changes in Narnia, more dramatic than JKR's do in the Wizarding World, but from the "author's craft" position I was taking, what is important is not how much the characters change, but how well the author handles the change.  Is the change believable and convincing, from what we know about the character's personality and how s/he is likely to respond to the events which prompted the change?

I think that the changes in JKR's characters, though subtle, are entirely believable, whereas the dramatic "reform" of Eustace from spoilt, condescending whinger to noble nice young man is a bit too much, and I don't like the way CSL signposts it with "from that time forth Eustace became a different boy".  In my view, the reason why CSL has to signpost the change in that way is because we really don't have enough insight into Eustace's personality and thinking and "voice" to accompany him through the change and recognise him afterward.  In order to track the shift from "spoilt, condescending whinger doll" to "noble, nice doll with the same name" CSL needs to point it out to his readers.  By contrast, JKR does not need to fly "from that time forth Hermione became a different girl" flags in the narrative voice (though she occasionally does, albeit in the voice of her characters), because she "shows" us, she doesn't need to "tell" us about it.  We understand Hermione, and we can appreciate how what happens to her in the books cause her to change without suddenly failing to recognise her.

What I thought was particularly interesting was the comment that CSL is working from a Christian perspective of repentance and reform, which neatly explains his habit of one step transformations of Edmund and Eustace.   Anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Narnia books.  I just think that they're much more firmly embedded in the simple, tidy fairy tale world than Harry Potter, which is peopled with complex, believable, unique human characters.

Tabouli (bracing herself for the counter attack...)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]