Reader Interpretation of Characters (Was What do you like best about the HP books?)

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 72491

Buttercup wrote:
There are so many
> people in these books and every one is an interesting
> individual. No one's stereotypical or dull. She does
> such a good job that these characters seem like REAL
> people. Readers really care about them.

To which Marianne responded:

"This is an interesting question.  A lot of people think that none of 
the Slytherins are more than two-dimensional, and that Draco has not 
progressed at all as a character over the last several books.  I 
personally have a real problem with how Sirius' characterization has 
changed from GoF to OoP. 

And, there is the question of how JKR seems to think she has written 
characters, judging by what she says in interviews, with how readers 
perceive the same characters.  She has described Snape as a sadistic 
teacher who abuses his power.  And, yet, lots of readers think Snape 
is a wonderfully complicated character who has ample backstory to 
explain whatever inadequacies he may have as an adult.  And, they can 
find all sorts of explanations as to why his teaching style is maybe 
not that bad.  

JKR has said she likes Sirius and she cried when she killed him off.  
And a number of people on this list said either, 1) they didn't care 
about Sirius, so the death didn't bother them, or 2) they don't like 
Sirius, so thank god he was the one who died, or 3) gee, she said 
this was the death of a major character, but it was only Sirius, so 
what's the big deal...

Well, are those readers missing the point, or has JKR not written 
those characters well enough to make people see them the way she 
purportedly does?"

Now me (Wendy):

This gets back to some questions Marianne posed in a response to one of my
posts a couple of weeks ago (I planned to responding to that post after
getting caught back up after attending Nimbus), but since the questions
have popped up here, I'll respond on this current thread instead. 

I think the question of why reader responses to characters are so varied is
very interesting. Something that came up for discussion in a few of the
Nimbus sessions I attended is that most (all?) texts fall into one of two
categories: "closed," meaning that the author has left very little to
reader interpretation - events and characterisations in the story are laid
out very clearly, and the author intends every reader to take away the same
response; versus the "open" text, in which the text is more ambiguous,
leaving each indvidual reader to come to his or her own conclusions. (I
hope I've explained this properly). It might be a bit early to say whether
or not, by the end of Book 7, we'll see the series as more open or closed,
but at this time since we don't yet have a complete canon, I think it's
safe to say that the text is very much "open." I tend to think that even
after the series had been completed, we'll still think of it as a mostly
"open" text. Many of JKR's characters seem to be shaded grey - a bully who
martyrs himself  in defense of his family; a former Death Eaters who is now
on the side of good, but is still an unpleasant git; a best friend who is
incredibly book-smart and clever, and yet can be really thick about things
some of the time (<cough>S.P.E.W.<cough>). Even our main character has
plenty of less-than-perfect aspects to his personality, and I'm talking
about more than just a normal level of teenage anger and rule-breaking.
With characters drawn in this way, it's only natural for there to be a
great deal of variation in how readers respond to them. Each of us brings
his/her own set of experiences, prejudices, and values to the text, all of
which affect the way we think about the characters. I identify with
Hermione, so I'm more likely to forgive what I see as her faults. Percy
(and people like him in RL) has always annoyed me, so I'm less willing to
cut him any slack when he acts like a git. And each of us have feelings
like this about our favourite (and hated) characters.

I think a good example of this is the recent discussion about whether or
not Snape's treatment of Hermione in the "I see no difference" scene was
just a bit of harmless snarkiness, an altruistic attempt to "toughen" her
up in preparation for the upcoming war, or was in fact a serious breach of
all things good and holy in the world. <G> It seemed to me that those who
came to the discussion with ideas about the way teachers are "supposed" to
act in the context of modern America felt that Snape's actions were
indefensibly wrong. Those who put the scene into the context of British
boarding schools (of days past and perhaps present), didn't find his
actions particularly sadistic, abusive, unusual or surprising. I am vastly
simplifying the opinions discussed on that thread (so don't flame me if you
think I've misstated your position <g>), but it's an illustration of my
point. If you were the victim (or perpetrator) of school bullying, I
imagine that will colour your opinions of the people involved in the
Snape's Worst Memory scene. And yet, that scene is just one piece off the
puzzle regarding those characters personalities, and much of the other
information we had seems contradictory with what we see in that memory. I
don't think JKR often gives us a strong direction, within the text, of how
we "should" feel about events. I think it is her intention to describe the
events (interpreted through Harry at times), and allow us to come to our
own conclusions. I definitely think that by the end of Book 7, she'll have
made it very clear where some characters stand (those whose motives might
not seem clear at this time). But I doubt she'll do that in all cases.
Sirius, for example, will not likely be developed any more in terms of his
personality - those who think he was a jerk will probably not get
earth-shattering evidence to the contrary, likewise for those who think he
was a fabulous guy.  (Although I suppose that when we learn more about the
"Prank" - which we'd BETTER <g> - that might shed more light on Sirius). So
I think on the whole, JKR wants us to react to the characters based on our
own experiences, rather than based on how she sees them. I think she'd
write them differently if she wanted to guide us to one and only one
interpretation.

Having said that, I do think there are times that she's surprised at the
conclusions to which we come! <G> Draco being possibly the best case in
point: JKR seems to think she's written Draco to be an unattractive
(physically and in all other ways) little git, and is surprised that so
many people seem to crush on him. Is it the fault of JKR's
characterisation? Or are other things going on? I can only offer my opinion
on this (obviously), as it's pretty subjective. I think it's a combination
of factors. There's movie contamination (Tom Felton is a really cute kid,
or was in PS/SS, anyhow). Fanfiction depictions of characters can affect
the thoughts of those who read fanfiction. Of course, it should probably be
noted that if an overwhelming number of fanfic writers are interpreting a
character in a similar way, there is probably *something* in the text to
suggest that interpretation. And some of us just have a thing for "bad
boys." <G> (Although, for the record, my bad boy of choice is Snape - I'm
not fond of Draco at all in the canon). 

Of course, these things may *not* always apply. For example, I found Snape
to be interesting, sympathetic and sexy *before* the celluloid thingy ever
came out, and *before* I ever read a word of fanfic, and also before I
wandered online and found tons of other Snapefans with which to compare
notes. There was no outside contamination here, but rather something JKR
put directly in the text which I found appealing. Does she see it? Did she
do it on purpose, and is just being coy in interviews? Is she herself
unknowingly crushing on Snape (which would affect the way she writes the
character)? Or has she just written him in such a complex and ambiguous way
that I found something appealing, while (picking a name out of a hat)
Darrin* doesn't? We're reading the same text, the same clues, the same
adjectives, everything, and yet the reader response is so different. I
think ultimately it is not a *fault* of JKR's writing, but a *strength*. I
think her characterisations are brilliant, so brilliant that it is hard to
put many of her characters in a box - good or evil, mean or nice; smart or
stupid. Hmnh. Sounds suspiciously like people in the real world! <G> I
think part of the fun is that we aren't told how to respond to the
characters. They are a wonderful mix of strengths and faults, and we each
respond to these things based on our own experiences. Now, I won't say this
applies to every character in the books - but do we really expect her to
develop every single student at Hogwarts? <g> The characters she spends
time with are, in my opinion, fascinatingly drawn. Add to that her talent
for humour and fantastic, inventive plot twists (at least I rarely see them
coming), and I feel JKR is one of the most brilliant writers and
storytellers ever. I sure love her, anyhow <g> 

I'd really love to hear what other people think about this - a lot of these
ideas are fairly newly formed in my mind, and I'd be interested in what
others have to say. 

Wendy St John
hebrideanblack at earthlink.net
*(Who hopes Darrin won't feel picked on <g>, but it seems obvious that he's
lately become the "I Don't Like Snape" poster guy around here)  ;-)