Characters Overacting and Overreacting

[charisjulia]

No: HPFGUIDX 39271

Charis Julia wrote:
>
>> JKR as a rule hardly ever has her characters overacting. Quite to 
>>the contrary: from Harry almost all the time to Remus and Sirius's 
>>brief and to—the –point reconciliation, her heroes rarely indulge 
>>in emotional outbursts even when fully entitled to them.

Cindy answered:

>I'd *really* like to see Charis Julia's observation work, because it 
>it so very interesting.


Well, err, actually, I'm going to have to disappoint you Cindy by 
reluctantly admitting that very little of what one might call actual 
* work* has been taking place here. Not as such. Not strictly 
speaking, no. . . But since you went to the trouble of actually 
_asking_, since you even had the foresight to use flattery in the 
form of a very wining _ interesting_ , since you actually went out of 
your way to decorate the cunningly inserted "really" with little * 
asterisks*, well, I guess I'm going to have to do my best anyway. 
Specially for * you*, Cindy. But don't you come turning your nose up 
afterwards at my * work* saying it isn't good enough or anything. 
I've put a good ten minutes into thinking this out I'll have you know!

*         *         *

Now. Uh—huh—hum! Here goes. . .


I do think that the characters in Potterverse are extremely reluctant 
to exhibit emotion. They are very controlled. Not only by themselves, 
but also, I would argue, by the author herself. JKR does not like 
emotional outbursts. I'm not sure she even fully approves of them. 
Cindy is right in observing that overacting and overreacting is a 
quality generally reserved for the villains of the series. Cindy 
would also include Sirius and Hagrid here, I however am not sure I 
fully agree. But I'll get to that in minute and here let me only 
observe that I think Hagrid's little tendency to, err, create a scene 
is supposed to be more of a reflection of his natural simplicity than 
anything else.


Hagrid overreacts because he just doesn't know any better. The reader 
obviously isn't expected to despise Hagrid because of his outbursts, 
but, to my understanding of the character, they are clearly supposed 
to be read as a flaw. Most importantly however they add a lot to the 
outlining of his personality in that it is these outbursts (for me at 
least) that make Hagrid, well, < looks furtively around for Hagrid 
supporters ready to pin her to a tree> not, err, quite, well, 
human. `Cos he isn't really, is he? There is something positively, 
well, beastial about him, something that makes the discovery of his 
giant descent in GoF believable not solely as a plausible explanation 
of his huge proportions. I don't know about anybody else on this list 
but when I got to that part of the Yule Ball Chapter I was like "Uh—
huh. That's right. Totally right." Somehow the fact that Hagrid 
should be half—giant and most especially the fact that giants in the 
Potterverse should be "not very nice" just fits for me. After all 
Hagrid does often gives me the impression of a dog to tell you the 
truth. A really faithful dog that growls and has no qualms about 
attacking too if his master is threatened in any way and a dog that 
whimpers and howls when it's hurt. And he does in a way indeed give 
the impression of being "too big to be allowed" in the rest of the 
WW, not only physically but also as far as his emotions and modes of 
expression are concerned. Of course he * is* allowed by Dumbledore 
and I wonder if that means something on any level further than the 
obvious anti—discrimination one. And before I drop this subject I'll 
tell you one more thing. I'll tell you where exactly it is that 
Hagrid chills my blood:


PoA, "Cat, Rat and Dog", just after Buckbeak `s execution:
"The very last rays of the setting sun were casting a bloody light 
over the long—shadowed grounds. Then, behind them, they heard a wild 
howling.
"Hagrid," Harry muttered."


But, emm, I think I'm digressing a bit, aren't I?


Right, back to the original question: Wizards keeping their cool.


Yes, they do have an astounding capacity for it, don't they?


Cindy wrote:


>After all, Harry rarely has an emotional 
>outburst. His yelling in the Shrieking Shack "He killed my mum and 
>dad" is about the extent of it. This outburst is nothing in light 
>of the many opportunities for Harry to come unhinged but he 
>doesn't. Ron and Hermione (especially Ron) tend to keep their cool 
>and not fall apart. Dumbledore, McGonagall both don't overreact to 
>most things, although McGonagall went to pieces there at the 
>departure of Crouch Jr.'s soul.


Yes, Harry is of course the supreme paradigm of self--control, isn't 
he? Heck the kid won't even cut himself a break at the end of GoF and 
allow himself the good bawling, wailing, blubbering boo—hoo he 
deserves after the ordeal he's just been through. He feels 
a "burning, prickling feeling in the corners of his eyes" of course. 
He has the urge to let out a "howl of misery", sure. But he never 
gives in. He fights against these annoying, humiliating emotions and 
what's more prevails. And despite all his addiction to the Mirror of 
Erised and his Marge—inflating, he's never once as far as I can 
remember has shed one tear for the loss of his parents. And then 
there's the many other telling little phrases littered around in the 
books as well:

"* Dear Professor Dumbledore, Sorry to bother you, but my scar hurt 
this morning. Yours sincerely, Harry Potter.*
Even inside his head the words sounded stupid."

"There was no point in putting in the dream, he didn't want it to 
look as though he was too worried."—GoF

"He felt it would be too melodramatic to say "to kill me"—GoF

Harry is the apotheosis of emotional control.


And the other heroes in the books aren't left far behind are they? 
Ron does keep his cool admirably in sticky situations and even when 
the focus is on his personal feelings he usually manages to save the 
situation by doing something manful like shift the blame to somebody 
else ("I don't know why you're bothering to lie"—GoF, to Harry) or 
fling out ridiculous, unfounded accusations ("You're—you're-- * 
fraternising with the enemy*, that's what you're doing!"—GoF, to 
Hermione). There are feelings of course, like his hatred of Malfoy, 
that Ron has nothing to be ashamed about and therefore exhibits 
fearlessly, but otherwise he's a pro at disguising and even flatly 
denying compromising emotions: "Well—that just proves – completely 
missed the point--" His tearing off of Bulgarian Seeker miniatures' 
arms is always done in private.


I'm not quite so sure about Hermione – she has been known to fling 
herself around people's necks and break down—but she's learning: at 
the end of PoA for all her "whimpering" and "screaming" she keeps it 
totally together when swinging feet out of nowhere (Way to go, 
Hermione!) and Stunning Professors is in order and in GoF, though she 
does burst into tears when the boys make it up, this time she 
remembers to flee from the room at once.


I could go on boring everyone for ever here with more examples, of 
course. I will only however challenge Cindy's evaluation of Sirius 
and Hagrid's control performances:


>There's the Sirius Problem. Sirius 
>overacts *Big Time* in the Shrieking Shack. I mean, he is really 
>chewing the scenery there. He has good reason to be miffed
>(confronting the man who set him up), but the clawing the air and 
>all is almost over the top.
>
>There's also the Hagrid Problem. Giving Dudley a pig tail. 
>Slamming Karkaroff against a tree. Falling completely to pieces 
>when the chips are down. Hagrid overreacts, too.


Ah, now here we're getting to the heart of the problem. Do Sirius and 
Hagrid " overact"? I'd say no. And the reason I'd say no would have 
to do with the definition I'd give to the word "overacting *. My 
dictionary cites "to overact" as "to act with exaggeration, to overdo 
the performance of". For me therefore overacting would have to do 
with fake feeling, with lack of correspondence between what is shown 
and what is felt. And Sirius and Hagrid's behaviour does not IMO 
fulfil this definition at all. Hagrid exhibits great emotion because 
he feels great emotion. This is also the point in which he differs 
with both the Goodies (who suppress what they feel) and the Baddies 
(who show more that what they feel). There is absolute honesty in 
Hagrid's shows of feeling and "honesty" is one word I cannot 
compromise with "overacting". Hagrid "overreacts" on occasion, but 
does not "overact". And I never said anything about overreacting you 
know ;^)


Sirius OTOH according to my definition of "overacting" fits right 
into the Good Guy mould. I'd say that in the Shrieking Shack for all 
his clawing and BELLOWING he is holding back. What you've got to keep 
in mind here is that it's a heated scene all round really. 
Everybody's emotions are rising high. And in view of this context I 
wouldn't say Sirius "overacts". Compared to the volume of emotions 
that must be soaring through him during the whole of that scene 
(seeing his old friends, so near revenge, seeing Harry, possibility 
of clearing his name etc) his reactions are (in every case besides 
that of his hatred for Pettigrew where they are nothing more or less 
than what would be expected) rather understated. 


>the ones who seem to overreact and overact are often the villians.
>Pettigrew and his sobbing, trembling, begging, crying.


Yeah, and not only does he make a spectacle of himself but he doesn't 
even * mean* it too. He's just using this show of excessive emotion 
to * touch* his attackers. The way his eyes keep on flitting to the 
closed door and boarded windows. All Pettigrew's doing is trying to 
find a way out of there.


>Voldemort and "Leave him to me!"


<snigger> He did have to make a whole show and dance of his rebirth 
and brilliantly evil capture of Harry didn't he? Give Harry his wand 
back, have a duel. . . much simpler to kill him off while he's still 
helplessly tied to the gravestone really. But, that's evil overlords 
for you.


But yes, you are right though I'd never though of this before. It is 
always the Bad Guys who overact. I think this is probably because 
they're supposed to be presented as hypocrites. There was I recall a 
relevant thread a few weeks ago. The idea was I believe (sorry, can't 
seem to remember who suggested this) that Voldemort and his 
supporters are hiding from their real selves, whereas what the 
members of the Light Side must strive for is to realise Who They 
Really Are. A Socratic "gnothi safton" kind of theory. I don't know 
how strongly this will figure in the plot of the All—Shattering End 
at book 7, but as far as characterisation goes I think it's a valid 
interpretation.


I also think that JKR subscribes to the idea that "people who show 
less, feel more". She even uses it I think as a writing technique to 
avoid emotionally overloading her books. Take the Harry and Ron 
reconciliation scene. Nothing said, everything obvious. And of course 
my favourite: 

"But he never finished his question, because what he saw made his 
voice die in his throat. Lupin was lowering his wand. Next moment, he 
had walked to Black's side, seized his hand, pulled him to his feet 
so that Crookshanks fell to the floor, and embraced Black like a 
brother."


That's it. That's perfect for me. I mean, just think what they must 
be feeling! Lupin realising at last after 13 lonely years that his 
friend was after all innocent! Sirius receiving for the first time in 
so long the reassurance that someone cares! And think of all the 
repulsive, long monologues full of elaborate, floral, flowing 
speeches that could be devised on this emotional background: "Oh, 
Sirius, my long—lost friend, how could I ever have doubted you, the 
endless years, not a friendly smile from anywhere, the memory of our 
childhood days and the belief of your guilt weighing down on me like 
a heart of lead,  blah, blah, blah". Yuck. None of that mush thank 
you. Neither one even speaks a word. "embraced", "like a brother". 
Yeah, that totally does it for me. 


This expressional austerity is actually one thing I like most about 
the books. Incidentally it is also one of the factors that make the 
books IMO so overwhelmingly British, something I love.


>Do JKR's characters ever 
>overreact, and if so, is there any discernable pattern to which 
>characters tend to go over the top?


Well, nobody ever seems to have any problems expressing anger. This 
of course possibly ties in with the Warrior Ethos thread from a few 
months ago. But my point is—though linked-- another one. Wizards, the 
way I understand them, feel deeply, but say little. They're more, 
err, people of action.


As for Neville from whom all this begun, again we've got same thing. 
He suffers deeply, but gives no indication of it. I'd really hate to 
think that the clutching of desks and dropping of food means that 
Neville's actually beginning to cave in after all those years of 
patient, lonely struggle. And again, people going to pieces just 
because of an ugly sound that actually has nothing to do with any 
part of their past (for their past would only account for screaming 
sounds, not wailing ones) * is* too much over—the—top IMO.


Charis Julia, who only loses it about important things like not 
finding her favourite pencil or something.