Real characters & persuasive argument

[Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50254

Ebony wrote:

> So my writing an essay like mine means that I don't love the 
> characters?  

No, I wasn't saying you were chewing up the characters.  Sorry for 
being unclear.  When I wrote--

> > Ebony's post, and more especially Eileen's follow-up trashing Ron 
> > *and* Harry, made me think about how we tend to chew up 
characters 
> if they are less than perfect.

--I was just following a train of thought from your post to Eileen's  
to a general trend that you may have been fortunate enough to miss, 
where people do reduce complex characters to flat characteristics 
such as I described.  I wasn't intending to say that you were 
trashing.

I do think Eileen was trashing--sorry, Eileen.  It's not a matter of 
affection for the characters (there's no arguing that point, as 
affection for characters is as irrational and indefensible as 
affection for real-life people), but of supporting your argument with 
the full range of evidence.  Ron and Harry are both, at times, 
inconsiderate.  Evidence abounds.  But to say that on balance they 
are inconsiderate, to my mind, flattens out characters who have both 
amply demonstrated concern for others' feelings.  On rapid reflection 
I would say Harry is definitely more considerate than otherwise; 
Ron's a tougher case; in either case it takes more than a citation of 
their inconsiderate moments to make the argument.  At least, that's 
what it takes if you want to convince *me.*

I suppose the disagreement between us may come down to the fact that 
we may speak differently about real-life people.  If a friend of mine 
whom on balance I liked occasionally did something inconsiderate, I 
wouldn't say "Lois is inconsiderate."  I'd say "Lois did something 
really inconsiderate."  I'd save "Lois is inconsiderate" for people 
who frequently, or better yet dominantly, exhibit that trait.  YMMV.

Amy Z