posted
This is something important that hardly ever gets discussed here. It is difficult to discuss characterization in general terms. What did you think of the characters? What do you think Rowling did to make them come alive? What made you like/dislike them?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
I don't think characterisation was excedingly well done. Actually, what makes it work is the use of stereotypes to first describe a character (not a very good idea, but it would work if the writer then did something to show us that there was more to the character than that. She didn't): Harry is the heroic orphan, Hermione the know-it-all, Malfoy the snobbish bully, etc. While this is fine for secondary characters (for Neville, for instance), it makes the main characters lack depth. Also, the use of the POV is semi omniscient: by that I mean that Rowling does not go very deep within the characters. I think that the problem was solved (partially) with the later books, but the intrigue and the setting hooked me more than the characters. A good test, I have found, is whether I am ready to re-read the book after I remember everything that happens in it: if only the plot carried it through, then I am ready but not enthusiastic, but if the characters carried it, then I'll reread it and be glued to it. I only reread the Philosopher's stone because of the reading group, while I have read several times the Prisoner of Azhkaban (not sure of spelling, apologise in advance for those who'll scream if I made a mistake). So it does seem characterisation got a little bit better with the books (I have not reread the last two, but that's more because of their thickness...)
[This message has been edited by Silver6 (edited April 27, 2004).]
posted
I think the trouble with what you're saying is that these characters are children. That's how they think of each other. You're right, #1 was semi-omniscient but whenever any clear POV was maintained it was always Harry's and I think tha you summary is poretty much how he thought of eveyone. As for himself, he's 11, which doesn't make him incredibly well defined himself.
Just some thoughts, you might be right. Hopefully we can get some more opinions in here.
posted
While thinking about the other "which character are you" thread, I realized something. Almost all the male characters, Harry included, lack real depth. Harry is not interested in studying hard, and playing sports (quidich) is his main desire. Ron is pretty much in the same boat, but a touch slower and not as gifted. Ron also sits in Harry's shadow all the time. Malfoy and Ron are oposite sides of a coin...but not a one of the male children are actually interested in being intellegent. All of them have a strong interest in quidich, but lack in the true desire to learn. Percy was probably the only one with disires that were not common "boy" related only, but he was cast in the "nerd" role.
So I can see that only the girls get true definition as being different and having true potential outside of sports. This is something I don't think is a highlight of the books, but since I had to think about it a bit; it doesn't hurt the story that much.
Harry alone I could deal with as being the way he is portrayed, but I wish the male children had a bit more diversity...
posted
I still have to disagree...in my mind the characterization was one of the BEST aspects of the book. I have a feeling that you've missed some things, if your impression is as two-dimensional as you describe.
First of all, the characters grow with each book. Most eleven-year-olds are not well defined in real life. They are instruments of social life and peer pressure. With each book, however, the characters become better defined. Ron stays in Harry's shadow, but we see that he doesn't like it there, for example.
But back to the first book. Hermoine is more than brains...when Ron says for her to hear that she doesn't have any friends she goes to the bathroom to cry all day. This was terrific characterization. We see that she's more than books and know-it-all attitudes. She has feelings, and they got hurt. In the same scene, we recognize that while Ron said what he did, something any kid might say (they can be cruel) he felt bad about it when he saw how it affected her. There's some characterization.
At the end, Hermoine comes to understand that there are more important things than books. (Although it is a part of who she is to be bookish and know a lot of things.)
All of them are impossibly curious and nosey, which we see continuously.
Ron is characterized as wel. He's the second youngest of seven kids, and he feels dwarfed by his brothers and sisters. He hates being poor, but you also have a sense that he's also quite proud of his family, even if he'd love to distinguish himself in some way. It is ironic, therefore, that he ends up with Harry as a best friend, who will inevitably drawf him as well.
Harry, meanwhile, wants the love of his aunt and uncle, who are the only parents he has ever known. (You don't get this at all int he movie, one of my qualms with it.) He might not have been so upset about being an orophan if he had gotten the parenting he needed from his foster parents. He has had to look for strength inside most of his life, though finding friends, and in fact, the equivalent of family at school meant the world to him.
I could go on, but have I made my point yet? You're suggesting that the characters are shallow because we don't spend much time thinking about schoolworkd for the boys? Books and classes aren't everything, and in point of faact, it is just the setting for the book, not what the book is about at all. Therfore, we don't need to hear that much about the kids in relation to their classes. We see it when we need to. But actually, Harry talks quite a bit about his classes at fist, how difficult they were. We don't get his exact scores, but that's a good thing, because Rowling wants many kids to be able to identify with him. I thought this was a clever bit of information to leave out. But we do get as much as we really need to know about his classes, and frankly, I didn't find quiddich came up that much in the first book. It was given less time than his classes, and indeed, less time than the plot of the book. But many kids, especialy boys, like sports very much. I never found that Harry was more into it than anyone else, nor that it consumed him. He likes it very much, but then again, that's rather a characterization of him too. He becomes more into it after he finds out his father was a seeker too, and he wants to feel a connection to his father, or to any father figure.
posted
Good points, Christine, though I can't help but to generally agree with the others. I wouldn't say the characters are completely two-dimensional, but it's also true that Rowling doesn't put a whole lot of time into characterization and doesn't expend a whole lot of effort to show us deep motives. Which is okay, in my opinion, because that's not really what Harry Potter is about.
Though, one thing I have to say, I don't buy the excuse that kids aren't "fully formed". By the age of 8, every child is very different from each of his friends, and it's readily visible. Just because they have childish desires and act like children, it doesn't mean they're flat and two-dimensional. I rather prefer Orson Scott Card's treatment of child characters--he takes into account their childishness, but they're still complex individuals who often have equally complex desires and motivations. But I digress.
posted
No, but most eleven-year-olds are self-centered. That is, they themselves will be well characerized (as Harry is) but it may take them a long time to understand deep motivations in others (and to a great extent, we do not understand the other characters until later books.)
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Well, going along with Aero's comment, if I were to contrast Harry with Ender ... I would dare say that Ender is the better developed, more interesting, more real character, while Harry, relatively speaking, is more of an exaggerated stereotype individual with no real personality complexity. Perfectly predictable.
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
If Harry's actions were predictable, then that must have stemmed from adequate characterization.
Seriously, though, I still don't get what many of you are talking about. Let's digress from the book itself for a while. Because one thing that amazes me about these books is the number of people who identify with and relate to the characters. This leads me to believe that the characterization is rich and complex.
Back to the books. What is missing from Harry's character dossier? We've got history, motivation, physical appearance, attitudes, friends, goals (mostly to live and get through school, but he does have a seriously evil bad guy after him, so that makes sense), desires....I'm not seeing the stereotypes. I'm not seeing the lack of development. I actually am seeing a boy who not only has history and character in book one, but who grows and develops with each book. Each book is older, clearly,a nd so is each Harry.
I have an idea...let's see if someone can answer this question: What steretypic mold is does Harry fit into? This will help further the discussion, I think, because at this point i think I'm missing something. So if you could describe the specific steretype that Rowling is using in developing Harry, I'll see if I can't understand where you're coming from a little better.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 03, 2004).]
posted
I think that the real charicterization happens later, book four starts to add much more depth to me. Not that I am saying all the characters are two dimensional, but I do see some common concepts that seem to fit most of the male characters more so than the female characters. I know that I and most of my friends were never big sports fanatics, sports were something for the jocks.
Anyways, Harry does fit the orphan stereotype pretty well. He is unhappy with his home, which is more than justified. He starts off shy and eager to please to anyone who shows an interest in him.
I think the missunderstanding is that in the first book the characterization does not deviate from stereotyping that much. They all start out as more cardboard cutouts than children. Fortunately they do change and grow as the books go on, but I can agree that it could have been done better.
One very important point to remember is that the Harry Potter books are the most sucessfull books so far. J.K. isn't hurting for $$$ like some authors are. So even if the characters could have been better, they did the job.
I think the reason I liked the fifth book so much is because the characters diverged so much more and started to show more individuality. I have to say Luna is one of my favorite characters, I wish she had been around earlier.
posted
To me an important part of characterization, is names. I like names that mean things. Gryffindor = Golden Lion. Albus Dumbledore implies a dottering old fool, which he isn't. The one name that bothers me is Sirius Black. Naming the character that shapechanges into a black dog after the dog star is taking the easy way out.
posted
Christine, I don't think I can agree with you on this one,
quote:If Harry's actions were predictable, then that must have stemmed from adequate characterization.
To a point that does stand to reason, however, by "predictable" what I was trying to say was that the characterization she was using seemed stereotype-expectant and not dynamic, which works great for the supporting cast but from the main character .... I'd expect more.
And Rux, I didn't know where that name was derived from, actually I always somehow passed it off as a pathetic play off of the word, "Serious," and so "Sirius Black," to me, was a connotatively cheesy antagonist name you'd expect from a really-really bad comic book ... but I guess you learn something new everyday.
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 11, 2004).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
