And I wanted to finish the novel before I blogged for this week. Now that I’ve read the conclusion of The Uses of Enchantment, I’m probably no more qualified to take on this week’s challenge, but what the hell.
A novel should make the reader judge its characters. This sounds strange, but perhaps this is the first time I’m being completely honest about the guilty pleasures of the novel. Fictional characters have to withstand the same rigorous judgments of character as actual people. We all agree that when you read an excellent novel, you are physically in the world of the novel, so it only makes sense to say we feel like we know the inhabitants of the novel. I think this is why people have pretty extreme reactions to characters in novels, and novels themselves. If a writer creates a really phenomenal, exceptional, unique character (Holden Caulfield, Harry Potter, Ahab, Sethe, Humbert Humbert, Jesus Christ?) the results are explosive. Readers identify with and cling to that character more completely and innocently and intimately than probably most people they encounter in the real world. And when the characters fail and are flat, boring, predictable, simple, and unconflicted, the novel might still be a decent read, but it does not (for me) have the same literary staying power.
It goes without saying that I agree with Virginia Woolf so I won’t bore you talking about her.
I would argue that William Lyons Phelps’ definition of “a good story well told” is grossly simplistic and will allow many silver medal “stories” to invade the upper echelon of gold medal novels (get it?! PHELPS! hahaha). People like Michael Crichton, James Patterson, Agatha Christie have talent and are successful and should not be belittled, but the reason their novels all blend and meld into the same indistinct group is because their characters cannot shine through the plots. They are good stories well told, but their characters can’t carry the story.
I thought the same thing about Phelps’ definition. Yeah, I get it, the form and content both have to be there, but his description is vague and a bit of a copout. Anyway, I was thinking about your point about the character making the novel. I was trying to think of novels I’ve read in which there was a mediocre character and I was still engaged. I think the only one I can come up with at the moment is the main character in Phillip Roth’s Everyman. He’s pretty average, as denoted by the title, and doesn’t do anything extraordinarily good or bad, but I think his story is captivating because of the very fact that he is every man. He doesn’t even have a name but his reflections on his life in old age give a personal twist to the middle-class man in America in all of his imperfections. He’s average, but he’s complex like the rest of us, and does “carry the story” well.
“A novel should make the reader judge its characters. This sounds strange, but perhaps this is the first time I’m being completely honest about the guilty pleasures of the novel. Fictional characters have to withstand the same rigorous judgments of character as actual people. ‘
I disagree, as I think that characters will never be able to match people. We go through so much in being human, an even a well written character only gets a part of their life explained. I think that in fiction the knowledge that characters are shaped, or that their lives are pushed in a certain direction should be acknoweldged. So, I don’t think that characters should be doing all the pushing in the novel, plot has to be a factor in it as well. This is why I like The Hours more than Mrs. Dalloway.
However, a novel like Pride and Pejudice does a great job of blending the two. There is an initial plot that sends things into motion, and subplots that appear then the characters do the rest. The solutions to some of the plots are a bit typical, but for the most part it works.
Your statement and idea of books should be judged by good characters and I agree in this statement because people can read more and get more about the book by identifing with the main characters. I like your idea and comparison of great characters in novels like Harry Potter are good examples of great, well known books that do have relatable and reliable narrators and characters. But what about good novels with good characters that are not reliable, like Fight Club or Jane Eyre; two different genres of books but two examples of books that have unrelatable characters but they are interesting and unique characters that make the novel more enjoyable to read.
A novel should be judged by characters is a good idea which im neutral about. I agree in some ways because by having good relatable characters like Harry Potter, which is a well known character and popular novel or Twilight which is also becoming a movie in that is read by many because of the main character is so relatable. Readers get a lot out of the novel by them enjoying their novel more because of the characters.
But some novels are good but they have good characters but unreliable and unrelatable to people like Fight Club or Jane Eyre. They both are different genres but are about characters that are unrelatable but are enjoyable novels and have a lot of concepts and ideas about them.