Draco vs. Ron

[marinafrants <rusalka@ix.netcom.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52674

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwendolyngrace 
<gwendolyngrace at y...>" <gwendolyngrace at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
> <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > Well.  I can think of *lots* of pairs of people, both in real 
life 
> > and in fiction, in which the two have lots in common but I only 
> like 
> > one and not the other.  I "like" Ron, as in, I think if he had 
been 
> a 
> > real person of my own age when I was a teenager, I would have 
> enjoyed 
> > his company.  I "dislike" Draco, as in, if *he* had been walking 
> the 
> > halls of my high school, I'd have ducked into a classroom 
whenever 
> I 
> > saw him coming.  Despite their similarities, they are two 
different 
> > people.
> 
> 
> Oh, sure... if you're talking about liking them as *people* and 
not 
> as *characters.* 

Well, yeah, that's what the whole thread has been about, isn't it?  
Draco and Ron as people.  The whole thing started with a discussion 
of whether or not Draco is bad/evil/redeemable/destined to become a 
DE, and moved on into comparing his personality with Ron's.  The 
issue of how well either Draco or Ron fulfill their respective 
narrative functions in the books hasn't really come up much.

And I'm now more confused than ever, because I thought that you were 
talking about them as people, too: you originally said that it was 
unfair to Draco and Ron to like one of them over the other, and then 
you backed that up with a very nice post comparing their 
personalities and pointing out the traits and attitudes that they 
had in common.  As people.  All of which made sense to me, even if I 
disagree with your conclusions.  But if you were talking about 
evaluating Draco and Ron as *characters* -- that is, as artificial 
literary constructs fulfilling a narrative function -- then I really 
don't understand why it should be considered unfair to like one but 
not the other.  Their narrative functions are completely different, 
and they fulfill them in different ways.

FWIW, I think Draco does present a decent portrayal of a bratty 
antagonist, though he's really been more of an annoyance than a 
credible threat.  The thing is, though, he's starting to look more 
and more lame compared to the increasingly horrific evils and 
dangers Harry's been facing.  I think JKR is going to have to either 
reform him, make him more dangerous, or let him fade into the 
background, because schoolyard squabbles just aren't going to carry 
much weight now that Voldemort is back.


> I guess I've never understood the visceral reaction readers have 
to 
> characters as if they're real. Sure, there've been times when I 
> *really* wish a character could step off the page, either so I can 
> dazzle them, or alternatively, put them in their place, but that's 
no 
> reason not to see their worth in terms of what they add to the 
story.
> 

But isn't that what good fiction is *supposed* to do -- to get the 
readers emotionally involved? To get us to respond to their 
characters as if they're real?  If I read a novel and never see the 
characters as anything more than made-up figures perfoming their 
purpose in a story, I consider that novel to be a faliure.  The fact 
that Rowling's characters and her world feel real to me, that they 
can take root and live in my imagination, is the main reason I love 
the books.  I can -- and have -- discuss them on a lit-crit level; 
but my opinion of the characters is shaped largely but what I think 
of them as people; not by their symbolic meaning, or the archetype 
their represent, or the clever way they're used to facilitate a plot 
twist in chapter 27.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com