Ship-Fanon-Cho/Character-Person/Rhetoric/'trash' (5 of 5)

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 51456

(continuing)

Elkins:
> The distinction that I wished to
> make between "fairness to
> characters" and "fairness to real
> people in real life" was mainly
> prompted by the Cho Chang thread, in
> which a poster's attempt to explain
> why a fictional character's
> narrative function had inspired in
> her a sense of dislike was likened,
> in rapid succession, both to racial
> prejudice and to real world
> misogyny.

I think I see where you got racial 
prejudice from (see below) but you've 
lost me on the misogyny reference...

Elkins:
> Now, perhaps I am overly sensitive,
> but I found this exceptionally 
> upsetting to read.  *My* feelings
> were hurt by it.  I could only 
> imagine how it might have felt to
> the person against whom it had 
> actually been directed.  

Let me take a load off your
imagination - here's Maria's response 
to me:

> OK... I thought about what Petra
> Pan said for a while, and came up
> with a possible reason for why I
> dislike Cho Chang. I am still not
> sure if that is the real reason,
> but that comes much closer than
> anything else. 

to another listee:

> Oh, dear... I seem to be under
> attack. :) OK, let me rephrase my
> I-don't-like-Cho moments...

That just doesn't read 'upset' to me.

Elkins:
<snip>
> So, for example, we can see this,
> from Petra Pan:
> 
> > So, how can such dislike be 
> > explained? Or justified? To have a 
> > strong opinion, positive or 
negative, 
> > about people we barely know is the 
> > definition of prejudice after all.
> 
> > You know, the older I get, the 
more 
> > forgiving I am of those who 
prejudge. 
> > It happens - we are mere mortals 
who 
> > are still works in progress. It's 
> > what we CHOOSE to do once we 
> > recognize our own prejudices (be 
it 
> > racial or otherwise) for what they 
> > are that is truly telling of who 
we 
> > are.
> 
> Disliking Cho Chang on the basis of
> her narrative function within the
> text is akin to *racial prejudice?*

<oy!> Elkins, you're killing me! <g>

You do realize that the above is the 
initial post on my tangent?  Posted 
BEFORE and in fact prompted Maria to 
go back and identify more precisely 
what it was that bothered her: Cho's 
narrative function.

My point then was that what Maria said 
does not specify what she meant.  Do 
you contend that all references to 
characters MUST be assumed to be using 
the narrative construct framework 
rather than the framework that refer 
to characters as those people the 
author is telling us about?  If you 
do, you're risking being a step ahead 
of the essential starting point of 
objective criticism: experience the 
work.

I'm afraid what I said did not stem 
from my failure "...to draw that 
distinction between fictional 
characters and real people."  It is 
precisely because I know the 
difference that I wanted to know which 
Maria meant.  The first paragraph of 
the excerpt above is an example of a 
rhetorical question.  In fact, so was 
my first sentence in that same post to 
Maria: "Does this mean you dislike Cho 
solely because Harry has a crush on 
her?"  which is of course not "How 
DARE you dislike..."

Y'know, since we're on the topic, the 
problem with insisting on a disconnect 
between fictional characters and real 
people is that storytelling seeks to 
connect paradigms/archetypes with 
cycles of life/actual people; striving 
for verisimilitude is one of the main 
goals of storytellers.  The 
distinction you desire serves not the 
narrative's raison detre that most 
people as readers are familiar with.

Most people discuss the emotions the 
narration has engendered in them.  
They are not used to having to go to 
the next step and discuss just how an 
author achieves such an effect.  
That's of more interest to writers, 
devout readers and critics than to the 
bulk of the author's audience.  
General audience can turn into devout 
readers who discuss literary 
constructs, however, that's not a 
paradigm shift that occurs without 
prompting.  How can it?

Anyhoo, in regards to racial 
prejudice, please note that in the 2nd 
paragraph above, which BTW was noted 
in the original post as the digression 
that it is, my intent with that 
parenthetical is to point out that 
prejudice does NOT always involves 
prejudgment based on race...and that 
what I have come to realize about 
prejudice applies NOT only to racial 
ones.  In other words, I didn't want 
the race card on the table to muddle 
things any further.  What you say next 
is precisely why I wanted the race 
card off the table and the only way to 
do that today (at least in the US, me 
thinketh) is to remind people that 
racial isn't the only kind of 
prejudice.

Elkins:
<snip>
> I do not believe that these reader
> responses reflect a bigoted or
> misogynist nature.  There is a
> profound and significant difference
> between how people approach a work 
> of fiction and how they approach
> real people in real life.

(That difference does exist in SOME 
persons but not EVERYone.  So those 
who do differentiate and does not 
allow for the possibility that others 
do not is just as incorrect, y'know.

In any case, your statements about 
yourself having separate approaches 
in judgment should require no more 
proof than what we already know of 
you - how you engage your fellow 
listees.  There are those who differ 
than you in this respect...but that 
fact doesn't actually invalidate the 
existence of your discernment, right?

'Nuff said.)

In turn, I truly do not see why you 
insist that I have actually called 
any PERSON a bigot or a misogynist.  
I have however pointed out unclear 
statements as being confusing to me.

Nowhere did I accuse anyone of 
bigotry or misogyny.  How can I when 
I am unsure what has been said?  I 
asked for clarification along with 
making clear what my personal answers 
to the admittedly rhetorical 
questions would be.

A bit leading?  Essence of the 
rhetorical question!  Engagement in 
conversation?  Yes...with lots of 
grinning involved...

Accusations?  On my part?

None at all.

Just thought I'd point that out...

Elkins:
<snip>
> So it does make me extremely
> uncomfortable when I feel that the
> relationship between reader and
> character is being equated with the
> relationship between person and 
> person.  It hurts my feelings,
> because it makes me feel as if I am
> being accused of being ungenerous or
> uncharitable or unkind or bigoted in
> real life.  It makes me feel 
> constrained from expressing myself,
> because it implies to my mind that I
> should not be speaking of the
> characters in a manner in which I
> would not speak of a real person who
> was not present to defend himself --
> which doesn't leave me with very
> much freedom, honestly.  It also
> makes me feel *very* nervous and
> twitchy and paranoid, not least of
> which because precedent suggests
> that when I see this happening, the
> very next thing that is going to
> happen is that someone will be 
> hurling some dire ad hominem or
> another in my general direction.

So...would you like ME to 'shaddup' 
now? <rhetorical grin>

Even though I haven't said ANYthing to 
you until this post?

If you actually read the whole thread, 
please tell me why you felt a 
preemptive attack was 
necessary...'cause I just don't see 
anyone attacking you.  If you are 
having sympathy pains, who is the one 
in pain that INSPIRED such an attack?

<polite puzzlement barely masking 
seriously wicked grin>

Having said that, why don't we talk 
about what Elkins has been going on 
about:

There are at least two different 
things here that we refer to with a 
character name.  It's very problematic 
because they refer to very different 
things really.  This BTW is at the 
root of my confusion with Maria's 
statement from ever soooo long ago: 
"...since then I've always disliked 
Cho..."  I couldn't tell with any 
degree of certainty just which of the 
following she meant:

(1) the character as an entity in the 
narrative with cohesive internal logic 
the way I am a person in real life 
with my own reasons for being - this 
is used mainly to discuss characters 
as they are to each other, and

(2) the character as a storytelling 
device, having narrative function - 
with this framework, we acknowledge 
the fact that everything we know of 
the character is part of the author's 
intentions and is of her devising.

I've always used the character's 
name when I mean (1) and then 
indicate that I mean (2) through 
context, i.e. throw in whatever 
literary term that's applicable.

What with the many posts about meta-
thinking [that'd be (2) right?] and 
the confusion about such a concept, I 
don't think we should continue to 
assume that every listee (and we'll be 
getting some even newer ones soon 
enough) understand the two different 
frameworks as being different and 
therefore will be sure to make clear 
which is being referred to.  Meta-
thinking isn't well know enough - 
can't even find it in my dictionary or 
my Abrams Glossary of Literary Terms.

Petra, of the lesser-known Lost Girls 
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com