Make baby Jesus cry

[hazelk]

This weekend the Guardian review section ran an article by a guy called James Wood
about what gives a fictional character life. The latter half of the piece was an argument in favour of the kind of ‘flat’ characterisation denigrated by EM Forster. His point was illustrated by a demonstration that the term fit a whole selection of characters from Mrs Micawber to David Brent who despite being easily reduced to “a series of jingles and tags and repetitive gestures” are so recognisable as to be actually more illuminating of the human condition than many more obviously rounded types. I think Icould see what he was getting at, it seemed related to the argument that the more cartoonishly a character in a comic is drawn the easier it is for the reader to identify with them, human nature abhorring a vacuum as it were. And yet not all vacuums are equal, not every middle manager in a British sitcom works the way Brent does. I’m not sure where the difference lies.

Wood’s own disdain was reserved for Amazon and Book club reviewers who fetishise character, demanding growth, depth and like-me-ability across the board. It made me wonder what he would make of fan fiction, which (because its readers already know who to expect) often exhibits the flat and yet mimetic characterization Wood favours but does so from a position of profound belief in the ‘reality’ of fictional individuals.

In other news I think all the vid watching and feedbacking for the new-you–me challenge has had side effects. Before this week I had quite a clear idea of what I wanted to do vid–wise whenever the current teaching logjam cleared. I was going to start by re-mastering Safe From Harm and then get working on the Very Serious, Political and Meta BSG vid that’s been chuntering in my brain for the past few months. Now out of nowhere I’ve been hit by an idea for Buffy. A Slayers vid. To Sinead O’Connor being cryptic and miserable and boy can that woman be miserable, I can’t even play the damm song without coming over all pre-menstrual. It’s a mess. All over the keyboard. And if that weren’t enough the Independent this week included a freebie ‘Stiff Records’ compilation CD and now I also have to vid Nicki/Jessica to Is Vic There?. Or possibly DL. Or the Haitian. Worse if you play Desmond Dekker’s The Israelites backwards I’m convinced it includes subliminal instructions to download a shitload of Charlton Heston movies and submit the results to Club Vivid. Maybe I can get away with substituting The Life of Brian for Moses. The hats are the same.

Comments

[herself_nyc]

Very interesting essay,thanks for linking it. Wood is a very prominent literary critic, FYI.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I can haz google :-)

[yourlibrarian]

It made me wonder what he would make of fan fiction, which (because its readers already know who to expect) often exhibits the flat and yet mimetic characterization Wood favours but does so from a position of profound belief in the ‘reality’ of fictional individuals.

Hmm, well I think his theory certainly explains why shallower characters (and not particularly well written shows) nevertheless tend to have tons of fanfic written about them. At the same time while I agree that a lot (percentage-wise) of fanfic doesn't do a stellar job of exploring character, I think that a lot of fic sets out to do exactly that (or if not character, then relationships). For example the popularity of the 5 Things format seems to me an example of looking at what shapes characters and how they might be different in other circumstances.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

But that's kind of the thing, fanfic is about exploring the characters but it doesn't have to do it by creating them in situ. So the characters in a fic can afford to be flatly written compared with those in an original novel, the art is in being able to convey the character in just a few brushstrokes enough to make the reader want to do the rest of the work. Characters like Mrs Micawber are walk on parts but still vivid. David Brent and Miss Jean Brodie are subjected to lots of different circumstances and we see how they react but only from the outside, they're all surface but something about the writing makes it feel as if you get under their skin.

Some of it I think is that Wood is making the point that fiction is more complicated than the idea that you can judge how well written a character is by his/her roundness, flat characters can have just as much life. Also being a literary critic he's as interested in how we perceive characters as the characters themselves and the fact that a flatly written character can work speaks to that. So I think the point I was reaching for with fanfic had to do with him praising Muriel Sharp for very deliberately writing Jean Brodie as she did because she was interested in that same question as Wood is. Whereas fanfic writers might use similar techniques but for different reasons and are not trying to sketch universal types like Brent but very specific individuals ( or at least as each fan perceives them). I wondered if he (Wood) would be able to tell the difference just based on the texts.

[yourlibrarian]

I thought his point about how one defines "flatness" was important too -- whether the tics and habits of the thinly sketched character added up to something significant about them (and, perhaps, served a larger story purpose) or whether they were done in place of character (kind of reminds me of the generic Herald in Shakespeare).

Yes, I see your point about how fanfic has the latitude to do both because the reader automatically fills in the gaps (not to mention somtimes fills them in in a way they want to see).

I wondered if he (Wood) would be able to tell the difference just based on the texts.

It would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it? Kind of goes to the question about whether there is anything distinctive about fanfic writing compared to other literary genres and if so, what is it?

Another thing that caught my attention in the article was simply the issue of authors now being able to see how actual readers react to their work. Because it seems to me that pre-Internet authors at best got very fragmented views of this -- from people they knew, or perhaps the odd book signing and such. Whereas now things like Amazon's reviews allow them to see how people actually respond to literature and what they want it for.

I think part of the negative reaction some authors have to the idea of fanfic is the same they have to those "foolish" and "feeble" readers and reviewers as well. It has less to do with appropriation and legal issues than it does with the fact that they heartily dislike discovering that people don't read their work the way they intended (and, I also think, believe they deserve a "higher class" of reader).

I find it not unlike the prestigious chef (or in more cases, the chef with pretentions of being prestigious) who is appalled to see diners adding salt, pepper or (shudder) condiments to their creations to make it more to their taste. The fact simply being that an actual customer -- of literature or food -- approaches it with their own reasons and tastes intact and is pretty indifferent in most cases to what the author wanted to do with their work. Creators of all stripes are discovering this -- including product manufacturers and software designers who are increasingly able to see how people adapt their work to their own purposes. I think the difference is that software designers and manufacturers are more clear about wanting sales as a final goal and thus any kind of market research they can get is helpful to them. By contrast I think a lot of creative producers are kind of appalled by what they're finding, whether it's on TWoP or Amazon.

This is getting kind of long but back when I was taking Lit Crit one of the few discussions I still remember is a rather fascinating one about intended audience and the multiple narrators of Wuthering Heights. And it occurs to me now that one reason for these many narrators was because the author was much clearer about the multiple audiences for the work (especially since novels weren't well regarded in those times) and deliberately inserted narrators of various classes and viewpoints to speak to the various types of readers expected.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I think the sniffiness about amazon reviews here is more a professional critics versus bloggers thing than a creator's reaction. Wood is defending his patch. Authors seem to vary greatly about wanting people to read their work in a particular way, you get the impression that the less talented are more possessive. It's about confidence maybe, you write to communicate so if people get the wrong impression you failed, or you write as a game and the more people want to play the better but that means letting go of the specific meaning.

[yourlibrarian]

Heh, yes I definitely gathered that in his writing. You make an interesting point about the different motivations for writers though and how that may color their reactions. I don't know that it's an issue of talent alone though. There's been plenty of miffed writers who don't like how critics (or fellow writers) have interpreted their work.