What Does It Mean To "Like" A Character? -- "Types" -- Hagrid

[ftah3]

No: HPFGUIDX 34078

Elkins:
> Some thoughts here on the various ways in which it is possible to
> "like" characters: as characters (Do we enjoy reading about them?  
Do
> we enjoy the narrative function they fulfill?), or as people (Do we
> identify with them?  Do we consider them to be "good people?"  Do we
> think that we would enjoy their company in real life?)

I enjoy characters as characters.  When I fall into contemplative 
mode, I'll draw lines between characters and people I know to try to 
explain to myself or others an opinion I hold about the characters, 
but I never really feel that a character *is* someone I know.  Er.  
If that makes any sense.  

What generally determines whether or not I like a character is 
whether or not the character is either well-crafted ("alive" on the 
fictional plane), or is a particular favorite character type of 
mine.  I.e., I like both Harry and McGonnagal because they're 
both "alive" to me; but I like (to yank from another book; couldn't 
think of an HP example) Legolas from Tolkiens Rings books because, 
even though the character is dimensionless, he's a favorite character 
type (frufry mystical nature-boy archer guy type, LOL).  

I do also enjoy characters for their function in a story.  Neville, 
for example, I enjoy mainly for the way he throws everything out of 
whack when he enters a scene (either by bumbling, or by doing 
something impressive but surprising, like standing up to Malfoy).

> What I suppose that I was really trying to express there was 
something
> more along the lines of: "I really hope that when Hagrid says these 
> awful things, he's only saying them because he is *Hagrid* -- a 
> sweet, well-meaning, but not always terribly thoughtful member of a
> far-from-utopian society -- and not because he is actually serving 
as 
> the author's mouthpiece."
> 
> That I find myself thinking such things at all, of course, reveals a
> certain lack of trust in the author on my part.  But the fact is 
that
> I *don't* altogether trust Rowling -- and from the discussions here,
> I gather that this is not all that unusual an ambivalence.

Agreed on the desire to view Hagrid (for example) as a character 
rather than a mouthpiece.  On the other hand, unless it's 
outrageously obvious that a writer is spouting dogma through 
characters, I'm oblivious to soap-boxing.  And I don't really see it 
in HP.

> Which brings us to the question of how readers respond when an 
author
> whose work they enjoy suddenly seems to be attacking closely-held
> beliefs.

On the other hand, I can be made uncomfortable by events in a book.  
It may or may not be the author's intent to promote such things, but 
I can be put off.

> Now *this* I find absolutely fascinating!  Mahoney, do you
> think that you might be able to explain why you think that
> Hagrid and Snape's positions reverse themselves, once you imagine 
> yourself meeting them in person?  

Personal reaction.  Hagrid would seem overbearing to me, and certain 
of his flaws would grate on my nerves severely.  Snape, on the other 
hand, would fascinate the heck out of me, because awful people are 
fascinating; and if he showed signs of being not actually evil, I 
would be tempted to cut him some slack.  Until he kept on being awful 
and I got tired of putting up with it....  ;-P

> Mahoney concurs:
> 
>   > ....(And actually, I would probably seek out Snape to 
>   > challenge me as a teacher...)
> 
> To which I can only say: Wow.  You guys really are *brave.*

I've had a Snape-ish.  Rude to all the kids, quick with snide 
comments.  But knew a LOT, and I learned a lot from him.  In college, 
I deliberately took classes from the profs other students hated, 
because often those profs were hated because they had a lot to teach 
and expected students to keep up, and that was fantastic.  They were 
challenging.  I'd probably love Snape as a teacher.

Great post; wish I had more time to spend on adding more to my answer!

Happy weekend,
Mahoney