Characters vs. People (was: Draco vs. Ron)

[gwendolyngrace <gwendolyngrace@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52688

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants <rusalka at i...>" 
<rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> Well, yeah, that's what the whole thread has been about, isn't it?  
> Draco and Ron as people.  
> 
>  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.
> 

Well, the problem is you don't seem to understand what I mean by 
people vs. characters.

I think this is starting to veer off-topic, so maybe if the thread 
doesn't die after this, it should move to OT.

But, to clarify (if I can)... what you mean by "people" is 
essentially what I mean by "character." Kind of.

To me, evaluating a character as a person is the sort of thing Amy Z 
was doing: would I like this character if he were real? Would I 
invite him to dinner? That's valid - but it only gets you so far. It 
tells you what kinds of people you like. It doesn't really tell you 
anything about what makes a good character.

By using the term character, I don't mean to reduce them to nothing 
more than their literary and narrative functions, as you put it. I 
mean I am evaluating them based on the conglomeration of stuff that 
the author put into them in order to make them ring true for whatever 
kind of personality they are supposed to represent. 

Being an actor, I look at characters - any character - for the things 
I can identify within, in order to establish connection between 
myself and the character in question. For example, if I were to 
portray Juliet, I would want to tap into the kinds of emotions, 
thoughts, feelings, social standings, political leanings, education, 
etc. that go to make Juliet who she is. Now, I don't happen to like 
Juliet as a person - I think she's a stuck-up, vain little brat who 
really doesn't love Romeo but sees in him a conquest and perhaps an 
escape from Paris - but that doesn't matter. It's my job to find in 
her *character* things that I can identify with, and things that make 
her credible. And just because I would probably never have hung out 
with Juliet in high school, that doesn't mean I can't stretch my 
sympathies to bring out those characteristics. But I don't *ignore* 
the flaws about her that I happen to think are present. I can give 
her some of Elkins' Edge and play to that undercurrent of bitchiness 
that I think is there. I don't apologize for the bad; neither do I 
completely ignore the good.

> 
> 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. 

But that's an overstatement of what I was saying. That's taking what 
I said to its extreme outlying exaggeration.

Of course you're supposed to get emotionally involved. Of course 
you're supposed to believe in the characters. It just feels 
unproductive to me to pick out the characters I like or dislike based 
solely on whether I'd want to know that *character* in the course of 
my own life. Ron is never going to walk in off the street and 
introduce himself. Draco will never be your daughter's fiance. No 
matter how much you may think of them as real, they are not living, 
breathing, people. I think it's unjust, therefore, to ignore the 
aspects of their characters that *make* them *so* alive, in order to 
focus merely on personal preference.


So, in this case (to bring it back to canon even a little), if I were 
portraying Ron, whether by playing him in a production or writing him 
as a character, I would be sure to make him genuine, I would want to 
bring out his intelligence within the wit, and I would be careful 
about capturing his fierce loyalty. But, I would also include his 
tendency to leap before he looks, his sarcasm, and the dark 
undercurrent of his jealousy and low self-esteem. 

If I were playing Draco, I would not shy away from making him nasty 
and ridiculing. I would be sure to show his selfishness and his 
bravado, and I would not be afraid to let his utter snobbery shine. 
But I would also bring out the tension he feels regarding his father, 
I would let him occasionally be a little vulnerable, and I would 
portray his intense drive to be popular. I would channel the subtext 
that underlies Draco's over-confidence even while playing up how 
little he knows about life.

I wouldn't dwell for a second on whether I personally care for either 
one. As *people* - that is, as role models or examples of human 
archetypes - the answer is somewhat clear. As *characters* - that is, 
as the contruction, not of literary functions, but of bundles of 
emotion and thought and belief and morals and the things that *make* 
them feel real - I like them both about equally. In that sense, they 
do serve their purpose - as Marina put it, they make me believe in 
them. And in believing them, I accept them each for what they are.

Gwen