Why do readers personify characters with the author?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 02. 2024
- Watching booktubers, I occasionally stumble upon phrases that intrigue me. That happened the other day when I watched this video
• OCTOBER TO JANUARY REC...
by
/ @maedbetweenthepages
I highly respect her content, but this one inspired me to go into this question why some readers personify one or more characters with the author.
This video is purely meant to be food for discussion, and not to convince anyone of my take on this subject.
The other booktuber mentioned:
/ @bookpilled
Drop me a line: Dutchgreybeard@aol.com
Great entry Ed! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Some times we have a hard time separating the actions of story characters from the creator of the characters
Totally makes sense. Agree
I totally agree with you! Readers who confuse the storyline of a work of fiction with a writer's personal opinions are completely missing the point and showing their lack of understanding as to what fiction is. And, changing the words of a deceased author's books should be unacceptable to everybody! Thank you for the discussion.
Thnx BJ! It somehow remains a mystery to me why readers do this.
Thank you for this discussion, DG. I think you've taken a very reasonable and balanced position, and I'm inclined to agree with nearly everything you've said. The only point on which I might disagree is when you state that "... if you change the words of a writer who cannot protest anymore, you have to have very good reasons to do so." At the risk of toying with absolutes, I'm of the opinion that there can never a reason sufficient to justify this. As an alternative, I think adding a foreword (or afterword) that provides context is a far better choice, and can be very effective. It respects the integrity of the original work (controversial though it may be), doesn't insult the readers' intelligence, and avoids whitewashing history.
I am reminded of Ha Ling Peak, just south of Canmore in my home province of Alberta, which until 1997 bore a rather offensive name. I'd encourage you to read the short entry on Wikipedia which succinctly tells the story of the peak and its name (rather than me trying to relay it here). When the name changed, it was a controversial decision in the local Chinese community, with many opposing the name change. I opposed it, because bearing it's original name, it piqued peoples' interest. It certainly piqued my interest when I first heard the name as a child, and as a result I learned the story, learned about the Chinese workers who built the railroad, and learned about the history of the early Chinese immigrants to Western Canada. Rather than feeling offended or minimized, this research gave me a newfound pride in my distinct cultural heritage. I fear I'd have missed out on all of this had political correctness caught up with that mountain just a few decades earlier. Similarly, I fear young people today who hear "Ha Ling Peak" will think nothing of it, missing out on a experience similar to my own. To me that seems a shame.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting we give mountains racist names so that kids are more interested in learning about them. Just positing that when we attempt to avoid giving or taking offence at all costs, and when we whitewash history-even with the very best of intentions-we risk losing context, and with it opportunities for people to gain a deeper, more nuanced understandings; something the world sorely needs right now.
Longer than I expected, and not exactly on topic, but that's my opinion anyway. Be well!
Thank you for this (absolutely on topic) contribution! I am tempted to agree with you on the first (never a reason to change the words of a writer), but it is as you say. It is toying with absolutes, and if there's anything I've learned along the way, it is that absolutes are prone to become nonsensical. I read the Wikipedia entry on Ha Ling Peak. More than once people in their attempt to do good destroy things they were not aware of. People should be better aware of this risk of losing context. As I mention in my video: you cannot possibly please everyone.
Awesome video and subject. Great to see deeper discussion on booktube
Great video. I agree with you wholeheartedly. These days, many will find cause to be offended by anything and everything. Fiction is fiction and if we do not include the wicked elements of life, I would argue that the fiction we produce will not resonate with readers, because although we are reading fantasy, we still want the fiction to be based in reality. Including wicked scenes perpetrated by wicked characters is essential and does not mean the author condones anything (even if the character they are writing about does condone it).
My thoughts, exactly!
Great video bringing awareness to this. If I had to point one thing out though, I would say that the title of the video isn't dealt with in the video, as in it is not discussed why readers do this. Looking forward to more videos about non book specific topics!
Thnx. Good point! Still, the question remains, even if I don't have the answer.
Interesting discussion, Ed! I think the reason readers personify characters in books with the author might have something to do with the notion that every author brings parts of themselves to the story. The words come from the author's brain and therefore might suggest to some readers that there is somewhat of an overlap between the author and his or her fictional characters. I agree with you that this is usually probably not the case. Especially when the words or sentiments used by the author are completely in line and fitting to the character they are writing about. I suppose the same goes for reading books by authors who in fact turned out to be somewhat (or entirely) on the wrong side of things in history (for example H.P. Lovecraft or more recently the trans hate by J.K. Rowling). Can you see the personal lives of authors seperate from their fictional writing and still enjoy their books? I don't always know the answer for myself to be honest.
Very good points! It's a thin line between both (author and the story) in literary fiction. And no doubt even writers of fantasy, horror or mystery put something of themselves into the character(s) or the story. Perhaps it is even impossible to do that. But perhaps the distance between author and characters/story is bigger in genres such as fantasy, horror or mystery/thriller. Still I think that in some cases (such as the Anne McCaffrey example) there is no question that the author does not advocate certain behavior. Thanks for your respons. The discussion is an interesting one.
I think a lot of this depends on how the author portrays the subject in question. If I have a character that shows support of a belief and receives no pushback or is shown in a positive light after receiving pushback, I'd expect readers to assume I support said belief.
Moving to a more specific example. Say I write a racist character. When they make a racist comment, no one questions them on it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone assumed that was my opinion.
Since you touched on fantasy and murders, I'm working on writing fantasy myself. I have a few characters who have killed, but this is portrayed as necessity. One has killed for the first time in the book, in order to save a friend's life. Despite this, she is struggling with the consequences of her actions. If a reader came away from that as me being pro-murder, I'd be surprised.
I haven't read the book mentioned here, and the single passage alone is hard to judge.
Thanks, you raise an interesting subject. True, that the way an author portrays character matters. Still, if pushback on say a racist character within the story is needed, that still limits the author. The character could be among like-minded people. When we talk about fiction, unless it is admittedly autobiographical, an author should have free rein.
@@DutchGreyBeardJust pushback was an oversimplification on my part, there are other ways an author might distance themselves from the belief. In my example, I was picturing the protagonist, normally portrayed in a positive light, encountering someone saying or doing something racist. The protagonist, when encountering either doesn't challenge this, or does so in a way that results in the racist person coming across as right. I'm also assuming for this particular example that it's not being used to illustrate a failing of the protagonist (such as a pattern of not confronting things, or being bad at making points when challenging someone). At this point, I might question why the author included that example of racism.
In your example where the character is only around like-minded people, why is that the case? A scene where all characters gathered are generally painted in a negative light won't reach the same point of reflecting the author. On the other hand, why would you have characters gathered, normally portrayed positively, casually all being racist?
The obvious answer to my own question would be a period story, such as a tale in the American south pre-civil war, and while that is a good example, I personally think not having anyone challenge it is a missed opportunity.
My last thought on this matter at the moment is not all examples are going to be blatant. With racism and other -isms especially, people think to big blatant statements or acts, but not everything is that obvious. When an author makes a character who just shouts slurs and talks about the superiority of their race, you can take a different view than a more subtle view, like someone who wants to uplift a marginalized or oppressed race because they view the characters as incapable.
There's a lot of nuance in the matter, but I feel a subtle take, unchallenged in any way shape or form, is more likely to be the author's views slipping in than the blatant equivalent.
@@OxyMauron Obviously this subject is food for thought. It seems impossible for me to envision all possible fictional instances in which offensive actions or statements can occur. That is perhaps why I’m such a strong advocate to give the author of fiction free rein. In the end it is the reader who decides whether something is or isn’t acceptable. Thanks for your thoughts!
@@DutchGreyBeard I think in the end, assuming no views represented reflect the views of the authors is as much a disservice as assuming all views represent the authors. To do so would be in insult to the many authors who have written a moral argument in a story that is completely non-autobiographical.
Authors should write what they want, and we as readers will have to do our best to navigate what is or is not reflective of the author, and we have to acknowledge that sometimes we will get it wrong.
Despite that, as readers we also have the right to decide whether or not we want to consume said content, simply because it exists.
To bring this back over to the original subject, I'm not willing to debate whether the author normalizes martial rape based on the information presented alone, but whether or not she does, I appreciate the BookTuber mentioning the content.
You've provided an interesting discussion, and I very much appreciate it.
@@OxyMauron Those are wise closing words! Thank you. I very much appreciate your thoughts on this.
I haven't read Anne McCaffrey and I want to, but I would say that books can reflect the biases of their time, in ways that aren't just waved off by "a character said it". I haven't read the book so I don't know if it's true, but if, for example, rape is presented as something a character does or just something that exists and is an eternal fact of life, and it's completely unchallenged. Either explicitly in trying to change the world for the better, or even if its place in the piece is used to make us think and consider how common rape is in our own world today (I would bet this is how it's presented in the book). But if it's just presented as 'normal' and acceptable (eg the sexism in the sword of truth books), then it's fair to criticize the author. Again, I do not know if that's the case and would be surprised with such a great author, but it is true that some works have dated poorly. And that we are more educated about what has problems. But even then, what matters is still contextualisation. So if it's not contextualization within the text, it's contextualisation outside the text. eg, trigger warnings aren't to make people not read/watch something, but give people the information they need to know what to expect so they can be ready (if for example they had a v personal trauma associated with it).
Re: Agatha Christie. This is not a new criticism. The book and then there were none had a different name in America from the start! Honestly I would not have bought it under the original UK and European name, or even the later name. Those names, especially the first (ten little N) were dehumanizing to an entire group of people. But, it's important to contextualize and that the information that it once had this name, and it once was part of her culture, is known. The information that it once had this name shouldn't be censored, and it isn't. It's very widely known information.
Roald Dahl's recent edits on the other hand are more of a capitalism thing to me. Roald Dahl is an author that brought a lot of people joy, but he was also human and had human blindspots and failings. He was notoriously anti-semitic. He had a very mean spirited view of the world (where physical deformity and fatness etc ect is associated with evil or simpleness etc -> though not as badly as his recent copycat David Walliams). I think it's important to contextualize his books with this, but that doesn't mean they can't be read and enjoyed on their own right. Book publishers tried to handwave criticism and this context by creating the "good" versions of the books. It wasn't "the woke", it was cynical capitalism. I think what would be better is having the original versions of the books, but include some contextualisation for kids, or for adults to give kids. Kids are smart. And critical thinking skills are being lost these days!
I love your channel, and you have such great insight. I was slightly nervous when you said wokeism at the start because it's not really a real thing. Sometimes these are just manufactured dramas. even often progressive people can buy into it too, it doesn't mean all progressive ideas are bad of course. Capitalism will always find a way to profit off us, whether it's new versions of books or just social media clicks and drama. But the more we talk and learn from each other the better we'll be.
It's also interest to compare how authors respond to criticism. I always love to compare JK Rowling and Brandon Sanderson.
Whenever JK is criticized she doubles down and tells the world why the world is wrong. Eg, hey slavery in your book, that seems problematic -> next book has the house elves saying they like being slaves etc, and dobby was a weirdo. Or couldn't the wizards have stopped WW2 -> actually it would have been way worse and the wizard who wanted to stop it was worse than AH.
As an adult (and a trans woman), it's interesting to realise that her books were always mean and very regressive (Harry doesn't change the world for the better at all, just returns it to status quo, and then becomes a cop at the end). Ursula K LeGuin pointed it out the time in a v good quote.
Now Brandon on the other hand, has been criticized a lot over time, however he has always taken it on board and considered it. When Brandon got criticized, eg for homophobia or for his poor descriptions of autism, he educated himself and improved! His books have lots of gay characters etc etc too. He says he writes stories because he wants to learn about people and it shows.
Nobody is perfect. Let's be more like Brandon and less like JK.
Thank you so much for your input. It makes one think. True, books definitely are a product of their time with biases that we don't take for granted nowadays. And thankfully every reader can choose to not read a book.
With regard to Roald Dahl you touch on another subject: should we still read authors who have/had dubious convictions (Céline comes to mind)? You say wise things here. Contextualization indeed is the least we can do here. And yes, cynical capitalism is a driving force behind many 'good behavior'.
Strong closing words, although wokeism (an umbrella term as any other) is real I'm afraid. But that is of course in the eye of this beholder ;-)
@@llauram3650 Let's stick with that: nobody's perfect & you can't please everybody...
@@llauram3650JKR didn't oblige to the readers to conform their tastes and world views. There are literally thousands of authors if not millions, choose yourself what to read and what not to read. There are lots of HP fans (including myself) who don't read into those things you are mentioned as critically as you. And this doesn't mean that I support slavery and nazis. It would be extremely silly to make such conclusions.
And moreover, author can and usually does depict such a world and characters where things considered "bad" in our reality are normal in that world. And it's completely on reader to interpret it as they can and want. Author must not restrict his language or creativity for the sake of current tendencies and morals. Art, humor and speech should be unlimitedly free.
Even if the views of the author are really "problematic" (which you can not judge by the art). That's how I can read Marxists and authoritarian left people without fountains of rage or trying to stop them from speaking out.
@@llauram3650 Author is free to create literally everything they want to create, the way they want to create. Art should not be locked inside current political and moral dogma. It's the opposite - art should be free from any morals or constraints, it should transcend all this. It may be comforting, it may be tendentious and loyal to the current agenda (and gather some prizes) or it may be sad, brutal, completely alien or cruel. It's the reader who is responsible for their own reading list and their actions, not the books people read. Otherwise leftists will start burning books. And I'm afraid, it's not an exaggeration.
Art is the only acceptable way to express and utilize all the best and the worst parts of being human. Bottle this up and see what will happen. And it won't be a pleasant sight to behold.