The characters of Medea by Euripides come with many traits. But through his craft, however, Euripides characterizes them in ways to make them unique. Due to the nature of this work, Euripides never uses direct characterization. This piece has no narrator and therefore no person can talk directly to the audience. But clues and traits can be shown or spoken by the actors/characters, thus building personalities for each character. Therefore, the approach most prominent in his piece is indirect characterization.
This work is a play, and as such it is most likely that an audience would be viewing characters enacting the events and reciting the lines. The first characterization is made in this way. The audience can physically see the characters and make their initial impressions of them based on how they look, act, and speak. But Euripides goes much deeper than just the visual aspect of the play when creating his characters. Subtly throughout the play, certain phrases or lines give a glimpse into the characters personalities, revealing more about them individually. This technique becomes used quite frequently and allows Euripides to add contextual information without explicitly stating it to the audience. One character often characterized by subtle gestures and phrases is Medea. Just by reading the play, the reader cannot fully understand her physical qualities and personality, but other characters who speak about her in the dialogues give information which help to develop a better understanding of her. For example, in one scene the Nurse describes Medea as having “The look of a lioness who has just given birth that she glares at the servants — or like a bull — when anyone ventures near her, trying to bring a word of solace” (Euripides 6). Deeply hurt by her former husband, Jason, Medea has become extremely volatile and her mere presence is a danger to the others. This comment by the Nurse gives the reader a sense of the Medea’s hostile nature and provides a visual representation of how she behaves.
Also found in the play, Medea characterizes herself by revealing previously unknown background information. She gives a clue to her past when she exclaims “I killed my brother in cold blood for him!” (Euripides 5). Here it becomes clear that she is no ordinary woman and her heart is very full of desire and vengeance. Clues such as this open the door for more debate about her personality such as whether or not she is a morally stable individual. Similarly, Medea reveals her murderous nature when she proclaims “I should set the bridal chamber on fire or thrust a sharp sword through her liver, in silence going into the house where the bed is laid” (Euripides 10). Lines such as this provide depth to Medea’s character and allow the audience to question the actions of the play’s supposed protagonist. By using characterization in this way, Euripides creates a more natural reading and theatrical experience. Even when reading the play without seeing it, there is still ample characterization present to allow the reader to fully understand each character.
The characters in Madame Bovary are interesting because no two are alike. Each share absolutely unique and distinct character traits that they rarely overlap, if ever. While creating too many different characters can be overbearing in some stories, but in this one the characters are so well made that the traits only add more definition to their motives and actions.
What’s even better is that the side characters even have overwhelming personality that makes them much more realistic. Often the characters that aren't seen particularly often are given one defining trait and remain static during their brief moments in the story. But Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary contains so many characters who appear for only a section of a part that go through development that typically only occurs to characters present for a long duration of the story. Madame Bovary Senior pops up once in a while in the book to make a few quick comments, so the expectation is not for her to be a fully fleshed developed person. But instead she has a history that the reader is told explicitly affects her motives. Her husband, drunk and likely abusive, creates an environment she never wanted her son to experience, or create, so she pushed him to marry well for himself.
It doesn't end with her though. Mister Bovary Senior, Emma Bovary’s father, the first Madame Bovary, even the school children are created as actual people, who are not wholly good or evil but have reasons and logic. They are as close to normal people as is possible to write. Almost all of the work put into the story is character driven, as the story is designed to follow Emma Bovary and her journeys, so the focus has to put on characterization.
Seeing as Slaughterhouse Five is based on a true story, there is not much characterization to speak for other than the realistic human nature of the people. Kurt Vonnegut emphasizes how everything in the story is true and the events taking place within the story actually took place during World War II. Within the first paragraph, Vonnegut states “One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn’t his. Another guy I knew really did threaten to have his personal enemies killed by hired gunmen after the war” (Vonnegut 8), warning the reader of the realism of the events in the novel. Therefore, if the story did take place and the characters were real people, then the people in the story would have the same outer personalities of the people in real life which they are based on. Due to this, all Vonnegut would have to do to create these characters is recall his memories of them.
However, if readers are to believe the characters in the novel were once real people and Vonnegut is remembering them, then who they actually were could differ from how Vonnegut sees them, leaving the character’s personalities up to the speculation of the author. Because it is Vonnegut remembering the people and not the people themselves commenting, there lies potential bias within the way the characters are displayed. In addition, there is a possibility Vonnegut could have mixed up the different people and their respective personalities. Not only does Vonnegut have trouble remembering the war in the beginning of the story, but also states “I’ve changed all the names” (Vonnegut 8), meaning when he changed the names he could have mixed up the people. There is uncertainty within Vonnegut’s memory of each character and their personality; however this is one way he could have characterized his characters.
Vonnegut could be using a veil of uncertainty as an excuse to characterize the characters in any way he wanted and blame it on a bad memory. In the case where this is true, he could place any control he wanted over his story, tweaking minor details in the personalities of others to further prove his ideals. The people in the story could be made up just for the sake of having dynamic characters in the story or they could be real people with their characteristic traits expanded on to draw more attention to them and their actions. However, it is safe for readers to say Vonnegut would not lie to us, and that each character at one point was a real person with their own distinct personality Vonnegut remembered in vivid detail, thereby having no characterization other than real life and human nature.
I'm assuming this book is a memoir? And I think in this sort of narration who the characters are in 'reality' does not matter as much as who they are to the narrator. The book seems really interesting, I'd like to read it!
I would like to clarify and revise my previous statement. After finishing the book, I found this little treasure hidden away "Slaughterhouse-Five is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are a product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously". Due to this I now know my previous statement was based on false evidence, which I believe pays homage to Vonnegut as he tricks readers into believing him.
Charlotte Brontë crafts an ensemble of characters in her novel, Jane Eyre, varying her usage of direct and indirect characterization. The characteristics and traits of each character usually reveal themselves from direct comments and observations made by Jane as she progress through her story. For example, although Mrs. Reed’s cruel nature presents itself in the torment she forces upon Jane, Jane also directly calls out the woman for treating her with “miserable cruelty” and declares her “deceitful” (Brontë 32). Brontë’s use of direct characterization reduces the unreliability of Jane as the narrator, as these beginning events happened to a young, 10-year-old Jane, a Jane which may not remember every detail perfectly. Jane providing examples of Mrs. Reed’s horrible nature, rather than her just bluntly stating to the reader that she remembers Mrs. Reed to be a dreadful person, provide further evidence to support Jane’s judgments. It makes the characteristics more believable and in-depth to the reader, as he now knows why Jane feels the way she feels about Mrs. Reed and various other characters, rather than relying on unsupported, past opinions. Yet, Brontë’s additional use of direct characterization allows her to effectively reveal, not only the traits she wants all the characters to undertake, but also characteristics of Jane’s own nature. Jane lives in a society where the elders expect the youth to not demur their directions and provide nothing but respect. These expectations are evident in Miss. Scatcherd’s harsh treatment for Helen’s ‘disrespect’ and Helen’s contrite behavior. Instead, young Jane chooses to oppose such expectations and speak her opinions directly, especially towards Mrs. Reed and Helen. Jane’s nature to criticize other characters characterizes her as an outlier in her society. Her outspoken nature may prove to be an issue in Jane, especially in the strict school in which she currently resides, and may foreshadow a conflict in her upcoming journey. Without Jane stating such critical comments, she lacks a great part of what makes Jane, Jane. Additionally, Brontë appears to parallel characters to emphasize the goodness or cruelness of certain characters. For instance, she seems to parallel Mrs. Reed and Bessie in several circumstances. Bessie attempts to save Jane from the red-room, while Mrs. Reed pushes her farther in the room. Bessie takes care of Jane when she falls ill, while Mrs. Reed stays far away from the young girl. And, while Jane nearly cries during her goodbye to Bessie, she removes any possibility of a goodbye with Mrs. Reed. Basically, Bessie represents one of Jane’s “gleams of sunshine,” (Brontë 35) and Mrs. Reed represents nothing more than, “a hard-hearted, bad woman” (Brontë 55). Although it is fairly simple to notice Bessie’s goodness and Mrs. Reed’s cruelness, the parallel between the two allows for the emphasis of each trait. Bessie proves how not every person in Jane’s life treats her as horribly as Mrs. Reed. And, Mrs. Reed reveals how, although Bessie still scolds Jane from time to time, Bessie does it with love rather than with scorn. Bessie symbolizes the love in Jane’s life, while Mrs. Reed represents the hatred, making it difficult to have one without the other. Brontë also effectively parallels other characters, such as Miss. Temple and the other teachers or Jane and Helen, to emphasize their characteristics in comparison to the rest of their environment and society. Without Brontë’s effective tactics of indirect, direct, and parallel characterization, the piece fails to reveal the nature of characters, such as Jane, Mrs. Reed, and Helen, and compare such characters to others in their society, a component especially important to a novel which focuses so highly on the expectations of a Victorian society.
Hi Jill! I was reading your post and many of the elements you spoke of reminded me of "A Room with a View." Expectations of a society in your novel correlates to the theme concerning class difference in my novel, which I thought was interesting =) I think the usage of parallels with these topics remains a popular idea to use when writing, because they push to unite differences and prove how similar we all are to each other no matter how society divides humanity. Keep up the swell blogging!
The characterization in “Daisy Miller” by Henry James separates each character in the novel into two groups and ultimately helps the plot progress. James classifies the individuals by several distinguishable traits; however, Winterbourne fails to be associated with either side thus far in the book. The characters of the novel constantly refer to the ethnicity of other characters, particularly classifying them as either European or American. These labels lead to other connotations that differentiate Europeans as typically more urbane and Americans lacking the same elegance. Henry James, through direct characterization, explains to readers the two very different worlds Winterbourne lives in and the people identified with each. The most apparent comparative labels in “Daisy Miller” are whether the characters are “American” or “European.” The clearly “American” members include Daisy, Mrs. Miller, and Randolph while the “Europeans” consist of Eugenio and Mrs. Costello. The characters that James portrays as Americans display disrespect, flirtatiousness, and lack of manners and culture at some point or another in the novel. Even though the Millers are considered wealthy and dress lavishly, they could be referred to as “new money” as opposed to the “old money” that Winterbourne and his aunt belong to. Mrs. Costello, Winterbourne’s aunt, made a point to castigate the Millers and tell Winterbourne that “They are very common…They are the sort of Americans that one does one’s duty by not – not accepting” (James 19), further emphasizing the judgmental and proper attitude the “Europeans” possess. While Winterbourne maintains a certain level of experience and flawless manners, he does not go so far as to exclude the Millers from his social circle, directly disregarding his aunt’s wishes. Furthermore, James uses direct characterization in order to express Winterbourne’s observations when he writes, “She is completely uncultivated….But she is wonderfully pretty, and, in short, she is very nice” (James 20). Winterbourne, although he is influenced by his aunt’s manipulative comments, decides to take the active route and show Daisy the Chateau de Chillon. So far, Winterbourne has not shown any indication as to which side he will follow, European or American, and by doing so, the author fails to recognize which grouping he considers better. In the end, readers can only assume that Winterbourne will have to decide which opinion he values more, his exclusive aunt or the young, intriguing girl who has captured his interest. As of now, I personally feel like Winterbourne could be easily swayed by his aunt; however, I hope he is able to find his own voice and abandon not only Mrs. Costello, but also Daisy (I don’t like the way in which she seems to use men to entertain her).
Leo Tolstoy exposes his cast in Anna Karenina with a multitude of discreet techniques. Tolstoy rarely addresses the character's personalities directly, and is so subtle in his characterization that the reader may truly feel as if they are getting to know many characters as they do with strangers in the real world.
In part, the actions of each of the characters constitutes their personalities. In the case of Oblonsky, he says many a noble thing of repentance for cheating on his wife and shows good intentions yet continues to be unfaithful, which exposes his incapacity to keep his word and perhaps inability to commit. He speaks of his sympathies towards his wife, yet when she found out about his philandering, he simply smiled a foolish smile. His actions seem to be involuntary and in retrospect, Oblonsky says, "This smile he could not forgive himself," (Tolstoy 19). Contrarily, Count Vronsky shows his own commitment to his love for Anna Karenin by following her to St. Petersbourg and complying with her wishes by returning to her whenever she would call him. He even mentions this plainly to Anna when she sees him at the train station on her way home, "I am going in order to be where you are," (116). In contrast to Oblonsky, Vronsky does not fail to admit his true desires.
The thoughts and opinions also reveal the desires and values of many characters. There are many debates on the modernization of marriage and the general change of values concerning in which characters voice their opinions. Princess Betsey, for example, has the strong belief that one must marry for wealth and social status and find love after, whereas Kitty disagrees. Although the thoughts and opinions of some characters are constantly changing, the reader can notice certain themes and reasons behind their changes of mind which show their values. Levin constantly changes his opinions of his ideal wife, his faith, and communism, and rarely settles down with one thought for a while. Levin quit the council in the country in which members spoke of making change but never acted on their words. In parallel, he jumps from one side to another in the philosophical dispute between his brothers on the way of living. Through this, however, the reader can see he values servicing people--like his brothers, and especially those who work hard, like his servants--and making a difference.
The contrast between thoughts and opinions, and the actions of the characters most effectively displays the inner workings of each characters minds, and yet the reader can see another layer of the characters through their family relationships and childhoods. Levin upholds a certain criteria of what it is to be a woman ever since his mother died, whom he so admired. Based on this vision, he wishes Kitty to conform and thus holds her on a pedestal, "All the girls in the world were divided into two classes: one class included all the girls in the world except her, and they had all the usual human feelings and were very ordinary girls; while the other class -herself alone- had no weaknesses and was superior to all humanity," (53). Count Vronsky seems to hold no value to the idea of family. His relationship with his mother seems to be fake, and unlike Levin, has no intentions to many.
The presences of many of the characters are so fluid and real that I feel as if they exist in a more real dimension than literature! The complex personalities and ideals of each of the characters adds significantly to the intrigue and philosophy of the book.
Ken Kesey has a quite original way of revealing characterization in his masterwork, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. In a story about mental patients, there are obviously many personalities to choose from. But since characterization is such a big topic, I'm going to limit myself to one character, McMurphy. While this seems very typical, I can assure you RP McMurphy is not the average John Smith kind of character. He brings light and color to an otherwise very white and pale place. Kesey clearly took his time when crafting him as her wouldn’t be as interesting as he is here.
To bring everyone up to date here, McMurphy is a man charged and convicted of multiple crimes including but not limited to, gambling and battery. These crimes do not immediately scream INSANE on them, but McMurphy was able to fake insanity so he could avoid a prison sentence. Now if this doesn't scream schemer to you I don't know what will. Kesey by simply giving the backstory of our protagonist gives the audience a pretty good impression of the man that is RP McMurphy. Unfortunately for him, he is now stuck in this institution.
Kesey also uses time and language to show off his main character's special personality. RP McMurphy is such an interesting character since he is so colorful compared to the rest of the patients who could be considered "Black and White". Since he just got into the institution, he is fresh and is not in sync with the others. He often views himself as an outsider and a free man which is ironic as he has to listen to Nurse Ratched. McMurphy unlike the rest of the patients also speaks in slang using words like, “twitches” (prostitutes) and bird (patients) “Worth it to any of the rest of you birds?” (Kesey 44) Most of the other characters speak blandly and have no color in the way they speak. Whenever McMurphy talks, you wonder what he will say next. He is quite sporadic and unique in that aspect.
Kesey loves his characters, and one can see this by the uniqueness he uses to reveal characterization. McMurphy is one of those characters that had love poured into him. While he himself may not be very loving, McMurphy brings passion and pizazz to an otherwise dull and lifeless place.
The Picture of Dorian Gray is very specific in that each character is described differently by every other character. No character is ever seen in the same way by two other characters. It is a very human approach to looking at people because everyone has different ideas of beauty and intelligence so it is understandable that a man could be quite homely to one man but a vision of beauty to another. Lord Henry is described in the first few paragraphs by Hallward but only briefly. The audience is informed that Lord Henry has a beard, he smokes opium, and is married. He detests married life, and he talks a great deal about things he does not believe. But that is the only information given from the conversation between Hallward and Lord Henry.
But when Dorian meets Lord Henry, he described him as a “tall graceful young man [with a] romantic olive-colored face and worn expression…and his low languid voice was absolutely fascinating” (Wilde 98). Lord Henry suddenly goes from a graceful old art critic to a handsome, ideal gentleman. Hallward is old friends with Lord Henry; he is not interested in him the way Dorian becomes so he sees him differently than Dorian does. The same goes for Lord Henry’s views on Dorian versus Hallward’s. Hallward is overpowered by Dorian and his personality, he claims that “from the moment I met [Dorian] his personality had the most extraordinary effect on me” (Wilde 106). Dorian is a living statue to Hallward with his beauty and charm being the only aspects of the man he truly sees. But Lord Henry is not infatuated with Dorian, at least not in the same way as Hallward. He recognizes why Basil Hallward worshiped him because, as Lord Henry put it “He was one to be worshiped” (Wilde 90) but he is more interested in Dorian’s mind. After a month in the company of Dorian, Lord Henry notes how “different [Dorian] was now from the shy frightened boy he had met in Basil Hallward’s studio! Out of its secret hiding place crept his Soul, and Desire had come to meet it on the way” (Wilde 124). Lord Henry is interested in what he can do with Dorian’s mind, how he can effect change in it, while Hallward is interested in keeping Dorian’s mind in the same state of boyhood it was in when they met, so their perception of the young boy is altered.
This is different than most books in that the audience gets to see how each character views one another, as opposed to seeing how one character sees all the other characters. This does make all of Oscar Wilde’s narrators unreliable because every look at one particular character is biased by the character who is describing him or her.
Perhaps the most clear and interesting way the author characterizes the people in "The Color People" lies in their social interactions. As mentioned in the previous post, Cecil displays little self-importance. Instead, her complaisant manner allows others in her life to overpower her desires. For example, Cecil cannot even shop for dresses without interference from other people's opinions, "Plenty of red but she say, Naw, he won't want to pay for red. Too happy lookin. We got choice of brown, maroon or navy blue. I say blue" (Walker 22). Although shopping for a dress may seem trivial, the underlying tones of this conversation reveal the truth behind's Cecil's personality. When Kate told the young woman to not buy red, she simply conceded to the short list of colors to choose from. Furthermore, Cecil accepted that her decision depended on the opinion of a presently absent man. Unfortunately, Cecil allows others to overpower her will to such an extent that she passively lets absent people choose for her. Conversely, Cecil's father and Mr. _______ share the same dominant personality. The both treat Cecil firmly and rarely grant her any freedom. However, the father displays much more brutal treatment. He rapes his daughter, take her out of school, and when he feels he no longer needs her, the father simply marries her off to Mr. ______. And even though Mr. _____ does not express or feel love or even attraction to Cecil, he possesses a subtle bit of compassion. As mentioned above, he allows Cecil to buy the dress (admittedly with Kate's help). Similarly, he occasionally seems honestly interested in her opinions, "You looks nice, I say. Any woman be proud... You thinks so? he say... (Walker 25). Strangely, these two both have a dominant presence over Cecil, and yet they differ in strictness. On the other hand, Sophia refuses to let Harpo rule over her as Mr. ________ dominates Cecil. Despite his best attempts, he cannot control his self-empowered wife. Even though this may seem as simple plot, this strange marriage reflects greatly on their personalities. Sophia grew up having to fight off the men in her family for whatever reason, On the other hand, Harpo grew up obeying his father's demands. As such, Harpo cannot seem to gain the control he desires because Sophia refuses to give up her will. Most importantly, these different relationships offer Cecil benefits as the novel progresses. The shift from the complete subjugation imposed by her father to the slightly kinder Mr. _______ allows Cecil to slowly grow into freedom. Similarly, Sophia and Harpo allow Cecil to recognize that she does not need to always play the rule of the obedient wife. She could further grow into a more empowered women. And even if these predictions do not come to fruition, they still impact Cecil in a major way which can most certainly cause a shift in the novel in one way or another.
Hemingway reveals characters and their personalities through actions and interactions with other characters. This indirect characterization method allows readers to form their own opinions regarding characters, and how the actions are interpreted.
Early in the novel, Frederic Henry rejected religion, spending his efforts visiting brothels or drinking. While in the hospital, his unit’s priest visited and talked about God and religion, claiming he could find peace in spirituality. Again, Frederic rejected the priest’s offers. However, when Catherine offered her cross of St. Anthony, and when a friend asked him to wear it, Frederic clasped the cross around his neck. At this moment, the reader may interpret the situation as a step from the secular world to the spiritual, or as an act of love.
Later in the novel, Henry’s heroism is exposed during a critical moment. While sitting in a dugout during a major battle, the four ambulance drivers were hit by a mortar shell. Frederic and two others survived, but Passini dies while Frederic attempted to make a tourniquet. Outside the hospital tent, Frederic argued that other casualties should be attended to, because “there are much worse wounded” (Hemingway 58). To both the narrator and character forms of Frederic, these actions were not heroic. To others, especially Lt. Rinaldi, the moment was worthy of a silver medal for bravery and heroism. His actions reflect those of Meursault in The Stranger by Albert Camus. Neither of the men highlight any positive qualities about themselves, nor do they resist or accept any consequences for their actions. Here, a reader may interpret the heroism as true heroism, and a scholar might see hints of absurdist qualities.
The author of my novel, Khaled Hosseini, introduced the characters in a similar way. He does not give details the reader would not receive in a real life interaction with a stranger. Also, Hosseini includes intense events in order to make the decision about the character either easier or more difficult. I personally like this way of characterization because it makes the story more realistic and enjoyable.
Austen reveals her characters, not only through dialogue, but also within the content contributed by the third person omniscient.
For example, Mrs. Bennet, the mother of protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet, and Mr. Bennet, Elizabeth's father, are revealed to be quite different as far as their views on their daughter being wed. After Mr. Collins shares the news with Mrs. Bennet regarding Elizabeth's rejection to his proposal, Mrs. Bennet will not stand for it. Though Mr. Collins seems content with the rejection, Mrs. Bennet still says, "'I will go directly to Mr. Bennet, and we shall soon settle it with her, I am sure'" (Austen 76). When she does bring the subject to Mr. Bennet's attention, Mrs. Bennet wishes for him to force her into marrying Mr. Collins and insist that she does so or else he will change his mind.
Mr. Bennet, who is revealed to be the more caring and level-headed of the parents, gives Elizabeth the ultimatum that "'Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins and I will never see you again if you do'" (Austen 77).
The impression of these two characters, Austen reveals through dialogue. In Mr. Bennet siding with Elizabeth, he is proven to be the more favorable of the parents. Mrs. Bennet, on the other hand, is less respected by Elizabeth. She had no qualms with becoming a stranger to her mother and would much rather assert her independence than become a stranger to her father.
In regard to characters being revealed through third person omniscient, Mr. Darcy fits the mold. Although the withdrawn nature of his character is revealed through dialogue between him and Elizabeth, third person omniscient allows for his character to be revealed through his thoughts and emotions. For example, there is a paragraph on page 15 that reveals a change in the way Darcy looks at Elizabeth. The paragraph begins with how Darcy initially "looked at her without admiration" and "looked at her only to criticize". It was her eyes that changes how he thought of her. They were "light and pleasing" and "he was caught in their playfulness" (Austen 15). This paragraph reveals the enamored Darcy that is typically hidden by his proud front.
*sorry this has taken long, I don't think this website likes me!
The characters in "Catch-22" are all very different and interesting people. As I mentioned in the last blog, Heller created a lot of characters and sometimes the are hard to keep track of. One thing that Heller does which is unique is he names each chapter after characters. This in a way makes it easy to learn about the characters and their importance to the story. The chapter focuses on the person it's named after and their impact on Yossarian.
Heller gives incredible and vivid descriptions of characters. For example the narrator is describing Milo Minderbinder, the mess hall officer, "Milo's disunited eyes, which never looked at the same thing at the same time. Milo could see more things than most people, but he could see none of them too distinctly" (Heller 64). This description tells us something to look for in the rest of the chapter. It tells us about Milo's inability to see specific things or look beneath the surface of Yossarian's actions. Another example of physical descriptions revealing character is when the narrator introduces Doc Daneeka, "He had a dark complexion and a small, wise, saturnine face with mournful pouches under both eyes" (Heller 32). The mournful pouches under Doc Daneeka's eyes sympathize and show pity for himself. Any time Yossarian is talking to him, Doc Daneeka always brings himself into the conversation, "'What about me? My precious medical skills are rusting away here on this lousy island while other doctors are cleaning up.'" (Heller 173). Doc Daneeka wants Yossarian to stop complaining and in order to do that Doc Daneeka complains about himself. The one character that we do not get a lot of physical description about it the main character, Yossarian. We only read about his actions and they shape the physical image of him just as Heller made the other character's physical image shape their characteristics. None of the characters including Yossarian seem to look beneath the surface of the people or things that happen around them. Yossarian only complains about Catch-22 and how it has impacted him. The word crazy is used a lot between the characters when describing each other and it is really just another word for absurd. None of them really understand why they are crazy or what makes them crazy.
The narration is in third person so we don't know too much of what the characters or even Yossarian are thinking. We only get to see their appearance and actions which Heller uses to speak a lot about each of them. The notion of the narrator seems mostly observational so they only repeat what they see or hear from conversations or stories. Because the narration is in third person they are able to follow any character.
-Ms. B, sorry I didn't post yesterday I'm trying to post and use this on my phone but it keeps glitching out on me
“‘My dear…I think that you are repeating what you have heard older people say. You are pretending to be touchy; but you are not really’” (Forster 27)
Forster continuously shapes and develops his characters throughout “A Room with a View.” Through actions as well as narration, Forster reveals traits of his characters as the plot continues. Miss Bartlett, or Charlotte, exclaims the first statement of the novel, expressing her disdain over the room mix-up. Compared to Lucy, Miss Bartlett appears more sophisticated and serves as a didactic role model for her cousin. However, her opinion of lower-class people, namely the Emersons, reveals her value of class. Interestingly enough, Lucy muses about how “it is so dreadful for Charlotte, being poor” (Forster 14), yet Charlotte distances herself from those nearly equal to her. A character similar to Miss Bartlett happens to be Miss Catharine Alan, a minor character save for her vital comment about how the Emersons “don’t understand our ways. They must find their level” (Forster 43), further alienating the two. Mr. Emerson and his son, George, do not possess the same scorn for those of a higher class. Instead, Mr. Emerson leads a simple life, offering assistance to anyone who requires it and attempting to spread his radical ideas. The aforementioned quote was spoken by him to Lucy, for her reluctance to join him and George in Santa Croce had not been because of her own reservations. Furthermore, despite his ruffled exterior, Mr. Emerson urges Lucy to “let yourself go” (Forster 31), an encouragement to both understand herself and also to learn to love George. Forster uses body language to first describe George as “perplexed and sorrowful” (Forster 9), a bit moody when he and Lucy first meet, but capable of smiling at her when she and Charlotte left. He and Lucy’s relationship begins with his rescue of Lucy after she faints from seeing a murder. Previously, Lucy had purchased a few pictures and had left them at the crime scene. When she asked where they were he anxiously replied that “I didn’t know what to do with them” (Forster 48) because the pictures had blood on them. His choice to discard the photos so as not to frighten her reveals his kindhearted personality and growing affection for Lucy. The one character who completely baffles me continues to confuse. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, often converses with Charlotte and Lucy at the inn. Forster provides a physical description of Mr. Beebe as a man “whose head was bald and who wore a pair of russet whiskers” (Forster 39), but the most confusing information about him is his affiliation with women. The narration describing Mr. Beebe reveals his love “to study maiden ladies” (Forster 38), a rather curious statement. He also muses about how he once tried to introduce the Emersons into society, but had long since given up because society found the father and son strange and too radical. His purpose within the novel has yet to be revealed. Thus far, the only female character worth paying attention to in terms of development is Lucy Honeycomb, the protagonist. At first glance, she appears as a young woman, privileged and inclined to follow her cousin’s mannerisms in public. As her adventure in Italy progresses, however, readers meet the Lucy outside of the public eye. Initially, the room predicament evoked disappointment from Lucy, who had hoped to escape London only to find a room with a view of a courtyard. Forster’s emphasis on her disappointment reveals Lucy’s adventurous side, as she later on travels through Santa Croce without her trusty Baedeker (fancy talk for a travel guide). Lucy constantly struggles with the concept of serving as a functional, acceptable lady within society. She acts as she believes others would expect of her, wondering “Why were most big things unladylike?” (Forster 43) and hoping to find the beauty in life.
*I suppose I wrote a little much so it would not allow me to paste all of my writing in....anyway here is the rest!
Although she enjoys the company of the Emersons, she then reminds herself “that her mother might not like her talking that kind of person [irreligious], and that Charlotte would object most strongly” (Forster 31) and separates, or is separated, from the two. Forster uses a piano to further reveal Lucy’s true character, for music serves as a transporter to a world outside of societal expectations. Lucy, as a young woman, has trouble with thinking for herself without the opinions of her family following her. One last character worthy of mentioning goes by the name of Miss Lavish, Lucy’s travel companion on the way to Santa Croce. Her personality is revealed through her dialogue, where many of her comments contain wise knowledge. Miss Lavish, compared to Miss Bartlett, lives vivaciously and without many cares about the opinions of others. Her message to Lucy, “you will never repent of a little civility to your inferiors. That is the true democracy” (Forster 22), provides a bit of foreshadowing, along with Mr. Emerson’s advice, to Lucy’s development as a character as the novel progresses. Forster’s incorporation of parallels within the novel so far helps create a black and white outlook on his themes. Miss Bartlett and Miss Alan’s disapproval of lower classes against Lucy’s tolerance and indifference towards the issue when alone creates a simple truth on a complex matter. In a way, his lack of physical descriptions of his characters leaves much to the reader’s imagination while also making a statement about social class differences.
Aaand I messed up once more! In my first reply, there should be the word "effective" in the last paragraph between the words "Foster's" and "incorporation." =) *My sincerest apologies for the late post!
For anyone interested in an outside reading book I would totally recommend Joseph Heller’s “Catch .22”. Although the book is rather lengthy, it is definitely worth the time.
Interestingly enough Heller has named almost all of the names of the chapters after a specific character in the life of the protagonist, Yossarian. The positive aspect of this concept is that it allows the reader the ability to somewhat easily understand Heller’s characterization of each man. On the other hand, it oftentimes causes confusion due to the large number of names and the dislocation of plot events. The narrator oftentimes jumps back and forth from past and present sporadically, making it difficult to follow along where and when each character’s impact is on the novel.
The story is easily able to follow a specific character because the narration is in the third person. This virtually gives the reader the ability to follow each character better than if it was first person per say. This narration style helps to give a more objective view of each character as opposed to a biased one had it been told by another character such as Yossarian. Perhaps the only drawback to the third person narration style is that it eliminates a personal connection with the characters, focusing primarily on the actions and reactions of characters rather than emotion.
Unlike so many authors, Heller uses actions to express the majority about individual characters. Oftentimes a character will say one thing and do another. Not only does this provide important information about a specific character but it adds to one the overarching themes; the unreliability of words. This was first foreshadowed in the first chapter when Yossarian deletes seemingly random words while censoring soldier’s letters. In regards to Heller’s “actions speak louder than words” characterization, it can be seen in a multitude of characters within the novel. One such character is Colonel Cathcart, an aspiring general. Cathcart’s actions are grounded in the fact that he is trying to impress higher ranking officials rather than the safety of his men. Indirectly Heller has allowed the reader to come to the realization that Cathcart is in fact a corrupt leader.
Heller also uses more conventional methods of characterization such as physical characteristics. However the physical descriptors range from simply describing a characters outside appearance, the case with The Texan, to providing insight on a characters disposition, such as Milo’s eyes.
Nathaniel Hawthorne has successfully perplexed me. I have yet to see any characters, of the few mentioned in the book so far, actively do much of anything. As such, Hawthorne characterizes through physical discription of the character and the objects around them.
The character the novel focuses on is known as Hepzibah Pyncheon, a distant relative of the late Colonel Pyncheon. An entire chapter is devoted to old Miss Pyncheon rising from bed and getting ready for the day. What interests me is the depth with which Hawthorne describes the process. The chapter starts of as follows: "It still lacked half an hour of sunrise, when Miss Hepzibah Pyncheon-- we will not say awoke, it being doubtful whether the poor lady had so much as closed her eyes during the brief night of midsummer--- but, at all events, arose from her solitary pillow, and began what it would be a mockery to term the adornment of her person". No, Miss Puncheon did not simply get up from bed. She rose in a dismal fashion, as if ready to face death that moment. Hawthorne's use extensive vocabulary, and the skillful way in which he assembles his words, strengthens his ideas. There is no doubt that this woman is a wreck so down trodden and weary. Consequently, she lives in solitude in The House of the Seven Gables.
The reclusive lifestyle Hepzibah leads is personified in the room she spends her time in. Many years ago, one of the Pyncheon's opened a store on the front of the building. Long out of business, the shelves and stands have accumulated layers of dust and cobwebs due to poor upkeep. Readers can begin to see the relation between the state of the room and Hepzibah's own state. The room seems to be a personification of Hepzibah. Both are old and ignored, abandoned by those previously around them. By the end of the chapter we see the old woman begin to tend to the shop and clean it up. This could be the beginning of a new start for woman, or at least an attempt to start again.
I've felt your pain -- I still remember that the first time I read The Scarlet Letter, I was so overwhelmed with the never-ending, actionless descriptions of the Custom House that I thought it might be the story itself! In my book, the author isn't as active as a narrator as I remember Hawthorne was, but she still has her moments of dictating descriptions as well. Sometimes the way authors reveal this type of information makes a difference -- I bet Hawthorne's giving you an extra layer of depth somewhere in his narration of the characters' lives. But don't take my word for it -- you're the one who's reading the book here. Let me know if I wasn't too far off track :)
Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina details the social circle of Moscow, Russia. All of the characters are connected in one way or another and the author uses this to expose different sides of the characters’ personalities.
The novel opens with Oblonsky who recently cheated on his wife with their French governess. Tolstoy then recounts the reactions by Oblonsky and Dolly (his wife) as well as their interaction to provide insight into both of the characters. For example, Oblonsky is rather selfish and indifferent towards his wife, feeling no remorse for the affair. When attempting to repair their relationship, he states, “‘Dolly- what can I say? ...surely nine years of our lives ought to atone for a few moments…’” (Tolstoy 11), emphasizing his lack of concern and feebleness towards the matter. Rather than directly stating facts regarding Oblonsky’s character, Tolstoy uses dialogue and interaction between characters.
When Anna Karenina, the book’s namesake, is introduced, we first see her through Count Vronsky’s perspective. He is in awe of her as he describes “the subdued vitality that played over her face and fluttered between her shining eyes” (Tolstoy 64). She enchants those around her. Tolstoy uses Vronsky’s initial admirations to illustrate the spark of the relationship which will later form between these two characters.
A less obvious form of characterization may be found in the juxtaposition of Oblonsky and Levin. At lunch one day in a Moscow restaurant, the two men begin talking. They attribute their friendship to time rather than similarities as it becomes clear the two have none. Levin lives in the countryside, overseeing land and peasants and despises the city whereas Oblonsky is involved with government and immerses himself with the social elite. They have trouble comprehending one another’s lives. Levin’s reactions to Oblonsky and vice versa reveal the characters thoughts and opinions towards certain aspects of life.
Each character plays a crucial role in the understanding of the other characters. Our knowledge of them enhances the plot and makes the novel more realistic and intriguing.
“Mr. Pontellier wore eye-glasses. He was a man of forty, of medium height and rather slender build; he stooped a little. His hair was brown and straight, parted on one side. His beard was neatly and closely trimmed” (Chopin 44).
In Kate Chopin’s, “The Awakening” the unique use of the third person omniscient point of view acts as a bridge between the reader and the characters. In traveling through the story and receiving not only a description of the characters traits, but a look into their thoughts as well, the reader gains a more concrete understanding of who the characters are.
Throughout the novel, the reader hears Edna’s story though a mystery, all-seeing narrator. Because of this, we not only get Edna’s thoughts on the events taking place, but also get to follow the other characters, and here what they have to say as well. For instance, like I mentioned in my earlier blog, when Madame Ratignolle engages in a conversation with Robert while strolling back from the beach, we hear her tell Robert to stop flirting with Edna. She feels that because Edna comes from a different world, she’ll misinterpret his feelings for something more. From this, the reader not only learns what Mrs. Ratignolle thinks of Edna, but we also learn about Mrs. Ratignolle and what her views and beliefs are. This is the same way with the other characters as well. In listening to their conversations, we learn how they feel about the events taking place. The reader can then take these reactions and form an idea of who that person is.
There is no shortage of detail in “The Awakening.” Every choice Kate Chopin makes plays into the story and the characters. Just in the first sentence alone, the reader receives a metaphor the main character, Edna: A parrot in a cage, squawking to get out. From this alone, we learn that Edna feels trapped by her marriage, and is dying to escape the chains that have been placed on her. In addition, much is also to be learned by the clothing choices made in the novel. Take Adele for instance. Mrs. Ratignolle is always seen wearing white, fluffy, beautiful gowns, exemplifying the characteristics of an angel. Conversely, Mademoiselle Reisz is described as having no taste in dress, wearing rusty black lace and flowers in her hair. Clearly, she has no interest in fitting in to this formal, structured society. As Edna stops caring about this structure as well, she’s seen going from wearing these wonderful gowns that accent her beauty, to literally throwing off her clothes and going skinny dipping. Chopin uses clothes to represent society and its structures, just as she does with speech and dialogue. In examining the wealthy, well-educated characters, you see that correct grammar and language is always used. Everything these characters say is precise, proper, and restrained, just like society. Really, the only exception to this rule is the parrot, who is constantly yelling, swearing, and saying all the things everyone is thinking but are too afraid to vocalize. And what character does this character represent? Edna. She is the only character to realize the shackles society is trying to place on her, and thus the only one trying to break free.
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe seems to favor revealing characterization through the characters’ actions and statements, but she maintains a balance at the same time by directly stating some facts to the reader in her own sort of narrative presence. In this way, Stowe states only what is necessary, and leaves the reader to form his own impressions of each character based on the information he can gather from the characters’ actions.
One technique that marks a unique approach of Stowe’s for characterization is juxtaposition of the way two characters respond to a similar topic. I noticed this approach during a discussion between Eliza and George, the married (and troubled) slave couple. Separated by very different owners, the two are able to love each other dearly while possessing very different senses of faith. George, the ambitious young man whose jealous owner took him away from his life of usefulness in the factory and put him to menial labor instead, sees the world as unforgiving and unfair to slaves. He declares that he wishes he had never been born throughout the discussion, and angrily maintains that he “won’t bear” the injustice his owner continually imposes on him (Stowe 16). Living a hardened life due to his slave status, George notes that he has trouble putting faith in God to make things better.
Eliza, raised in the Shelby household (who treated their slaves much better), demonstrates her nature primarily through her thoughts and actions, as has her husband. She has not known as difficult a life as George, and holds a much firmer trust in God. She begs George to pray and put his faith in God when he tells her of his plan to escape, saying, “pray yourself, George, and go trusting in him” (Stowe 19). Stowe uses the couple’s differing levels of faith to parallel their differing standards of treatment. Still, I believe the unstated piece of characterization Stowe sneaks in to this scene is that love holds stronger than adversity.
In the previous example, I found that Stowe left most of the “work” of analyzing characterization to the readers. She doesn’t always force the reader to examine the characters’ discussions, however, even when a technique like juxtaposition comes into play. In the case of Uncle Tom himself, Stowe gives readers’ ciphering minds a break.
Here, Stowe’s approach is to directly reveal characterization through contributions from her own narrative presence. Stowe makes it clear from the outset that she wants readers to have a vivid picture of Uncle Tom: “as he is to be the hero of our story, we must daguerreotype for our readers” (Stowe 21). I did some research, and found that the word “daguerreotype” refers to an old, meticulous photographic process. I believe this means Stowe is quietly telling readers that she’s going to “take the reins” on describing Tom, because she wants it done clearly, done right, and done so that the reader sympathizes with Tom, the hero of the story.
Stowe paints Tom in a positive light throughout her narrated description. She describes a physically sound man, possessing “an expression of grave and steady good sense, united with much kindliness and benevolence” (Stowe 21) to boot. Stowe later describes him as a “patriarch in religious matters” (Stowe 29), strengthening Tom’s case as a moral figure to become more evident later on in the novel. These narrative “gifts” of characterization are just as effective for authors as revealing characterization through actions. It seems to me that Stowe understood that both methods were tools to reveal her message differently, and I believe through her careful choice of usage, Stowe confirms a suspicion I wrote about in my first post – namely, that she constructed this novel very carefully to convey exactly the points she wanted to convey to readers.
In Equus, Peter Shaffer approaches characterization in a way that is an equally psychological experience for his characters and his audience. Shaffer begins the play with a tone that is both unsure and unaware. As a play, there is no narrator and no interlude in which the audience learns coveted background information on either the plot or the characters. This lack of direct characterization creates an experience that is suspenseful and mysterious, with an audience constantly waiting for the next possible outcome of the boy’s therapy. He characterizes the experienced psychologist to be the only one who can heal an unstable boy. Shaffer introduces the boy with little background, only explaining the need to understand his unclear motive behind his vicious attack against six horses. Shaffer uses characterization in a way that makes the audience as unknowing as the characters. So far as the play progresses, the main subject of characterization is religion. It is easy for Shaffer to immediately bring attention to distinct differences between the young boy’s father and mother and their personal positions on divine power. Shaffer uses these differences to open a rift between the pair, exemplifying how tension on the home of a growing child can have the most negative affects. As the psychologist rummages through the uncomfortable relationship this child has grown to experience, it characterizes the two parents. The father is portrayed as cold and disinterested in the ideals his wife has for their child. The mother, on the other hand, is ridden with anxiety and overbearing with both religion and care. It is the combination of these two worlds that is used to characterize the offspring. The boy is confused and troubled by his motives. He refuses to share his emotions, but seems to be fighting a constant burden. The struggle to combine two differing worlds has created a boy who is burdened by the pressures of existence. The boy is odd in way that makes the audience uncomfortable. He screams random phrases and says crude things. The members of the audience are expected not to judge, it is with an unbiased eye all evidence must be gathered and only then can opinions be drawn. There are six characters left that share an interpretation of characterization. The blinded horses must be as equally symbolic as they they are realistic. These innocent creatures have been blinded with no motive and no justice. With an act that cannot be undone, there is no promised satisfaction. The reader is asked to regard these animals with respect. They are idolized in both the life of the boy and the lives of many others. The stage directions in the play state the actors to wear costumes with wire constructed horse heads with no attempt to be made that they are controlled by a human. Perhaps a representation that in the most beautiful creatures there is the destruction of man and in man there is a beautiful creature. A psychological background provides a setting of unbiased characterization. There is no pressure, both the psychologist and the audience urge the boy to share his deepest fears and darkest motivation. Shaffer finds the importance of time, there is no rushing as the roles of the characters feed into each other. The lack of direct characterization allows the true personalities to be seen, perhaps as Shaffer intended. Equus and it’s characters intend to serve as reminder that there is good in all beauty and beauty in all good.
Hosseini describes the early lives of the main characters and quickly overviews long spans of time of later introduced characters that will be of importance in the novel. The protagonist, Mariam, had been described from when she was first born so it was easy to notice changes in her personality over time. One drastic change was that when she was young she was outgoing and loved to go out and play and talk and adventure, but after becoming married she became accustomed to staying hidden, sitting around and believing some of the awful things her husband did to her was okay. The most noticeable changing points in her life were when she saw her mother who had committed suicide and when she began wearing a burqa for her husband and was okay with it because she believed she belonged to him. When Rasheed, Mariam’s husband, was introduced, his physical description was given in detail first. He was portrayed as a very unpleasant old man but as the story went on it was difficult to decipher whether he was a gross and awful as his looks. As the novel went on and their life together continued, Mariam seemed happy and Rasheed seemed to be a better husband than expected. But once Mariam lost about seven children to miscarriages, Rasheed became irritable, stubborn and violent. He began hitting, punching, kicking and beating her. When her cooking was not good enough for Rasheed, he forced Mariam to chew on pebbles, breaking two of her molars and telling her “that’s how it tastes to eat your rice”. Hosseini includes brief physical descriptions of his characters introduced later in the novel; his characters grow and develop through their actions, as a normal human being would. The characters change a little bit to a lot depending on the events that are occurring in their lives, and when meeting a new person or character, the reader can see what they look like but they are not told about them other than some basic information like where they live, their occupation and their family. The rest the reader will learn about the character is by seeing how the characters act at home, with friends and in stressful situations. Reading the novel, A Thousand Splendid Suns, the reader will discover each character as if they are meeting them in real life, with a first impression of their appearance and brief life background. But over time, the reader will comprehend a deeper understanding of each character and can then decide whether they are nice, mean, good, bad, helpful or even important. Also, discovering characters in a natural way, can assist the reader in predicting later events that the character may be involved in or even events that could happen based of how each character has been or does act.
Driven entirely by dialogue, Oscar Wilde crafts his characters in The Picture of Dorian Gray with precision and tact. In the beginning chapters of the book, there have been three major characters: the artist Basil Hallward, the cynical Lord Henry Wotton, and the beautiful and youthful Dorian Gray. Each character is unique, bringing their personal perspectives and actions to the novel.
Taking a back seat to the action after the very opening of the novel, the artistic Basil Howard is the devoted artist and friend to both Wotton and Dorian. Howard, driven by his desire to capture the beauty and youth of Dorian, paints what Wotton claims to be one of the most exquisite pieces of art he has ever seen. Basil balances the opinionated and cynical Wotton, for in lieu of the cynicism of the lord, Basil is a lover of art and beauty. An idealist at heart, Basil rejects the bitterness of Wotton and embraces the beauty and loyalty of Dorian. Wilde builds this character with the dialogue between the characters, and as Basil and Wotton engage in their back and forth the reader learns of his deepening love for Dorian. A taboo subject in 1893, Basil’s feelings for Dorian verge on open declarations of love for another man. This was no mistake or misinterpretation by the modern mind; Wilde intentionally includes these homosexual tendencies to demonstrate his personal beliefs. In his day, Wilde was widely criticized for his prolific themes and eventually found himself imprisoned when news of his many boyfriends found its way to the authorities, and his writing reflects his personal life. Basil embodies the pure love and appreciation of art, and through dialogue amongst the characters his purity shines.
In direct contrast to Basil’s love, Lord Henry Wotton plagues everyone in his vicinity. Serving as a foil to Basil, Wotton is the embodiment of corruption. Upon seeing Dorian Gray, Wotton is ensnared by the youth’s good looks and morality, and continues to seek out his companionship. Wotton’s greatest characterizations surface in his tirades on the true nature of love or a variety of other topics, ranging from beauty to the fallacy of women in life. Setting the tone with bitter judgments and manipulative logic, Wotton is nothing like his dear Basil. The two men share a love for Dorian, but where Basil sees the art in Dorian’s beauty Wotton only sees yet another tool for his own life. Going off on many tirades, claiming that after experiencing true pleasure, “nothing remains then but the recollection of a pleasure, or the luxury of a regret. The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” Naturally, this is not something the everyday married man would say to a boy barely out of his teens, and this is where Wotton’s corruption and manipulation of Dorian begins. Wotton believes one must embrace desire for if, “ [you] resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful.” In his world, Wotton sees pleasure as the only escape and the true meaning of life. He passes this message onto Dorian, intervening into his life both for his own enjoyment as well as to inquire as to the boy’s feelings for Sybil Vane, the enchanting singer whom Dorian falls for. The prying and manipulative Wotton forever hovers behind the boy, and throughout the dialogue between characters, we see glimpses the true nature of this corrupt man.
The object of both the men’s desires, Dorian Gray is little more than a pretty face. Golden haired, youthful, and energetic, Dorian embodies the innocence and vitality of youth which Basil wishes to immortalize in paint and Wotton wishes to bend to his own will.
Characterized as a near perfect human specimen, Wotton and Basil’s charming dialogue with the boy emphasis his innocence and reluctance to embrace the two men’s philosophies. Wotton seeks to impose his cynicism and “pass on” his teachings to Dorian, while Basil seeks only to worship and appreciate the true beauty of his magnificent face. These two men, embodiments of good and evil in Dorian’s life, shape the boy’s actions, and Dorian continues to develop as Wotton moves in to become a greater part of Dorian’s life.
Thus far the novel has very little in the way of narration; nearly every page is a dialogue between characters building their lives. We learn a great deal from the conversations between Wotton and the various men and women with whom he speaks, and through the dialogue of the novel Wilde crafts his intricate characters
Luckily for me, Pride and Prejudice is key on characterization. Jane Austen is an absolute queen when it comes to characterization and one of the main premises of Pride and Prejudice revolves around the way in which Elizabeth and Darcy interact. However, even besides the love story of Lizzie and Darcy that the story revolves around, we have the characterization of these two, everybody else is deeply characterized as well. The reader finds themselves deeply entrenched in Nethersfield, and through Mrs. Bennett, as well as Jane and Lydia and Charlotte and Kitty and of course, Elizabeth. The story revolves around the characterization and the social life of this complex to create a tangled web of romance and conflict between socialites. From the first page, Jane Austen uses characterization to scope out the obvious hopes and goals of Mrs. Bennett. For Pete's sake, the first line of the book is "It is a truth universally acknowledge that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Not only have we set up the entire premise of the novel, but we already have our first insight into the mind of Mrs. Bennett, which focuses solely on marrying off her daughters to well endowed men. Mrs. Bennett's actual obsession comes to light when Jane finally feels better over at Bingley's, but it still hasn't been a week so she refuses to send the carriage or receive her daughters home kindly. Lizzie is soon realized to be the not-so-perfect daughter, who doesn't mind walking three miles to go see her sister even if it isn't exactly ladylike, and who, after seeing the manner in which Darcy behaves, refuses to even give him a chance. In fact, most of the characterization experienced is formed through gossip and small social encounters, but that also appears to be the entire premise of the story. Jane Austen lets the reader form opinions about characters and gives them personality and traits through not only their actions but also the gossip and discussion that surrounds all of them when their back is turned and through these socialite experiences, we view every character in extensive detail.
PART I: With so many variations of characters in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” – the rich and seemingly stuck up, the lower-class and desperate, the rich and terribly nice, and the poor and kind – there are a few ways that Austen reveals her characters in the story. That being said, dialogue is the most common method of character revelation. However, she also employs the narrator as a way to reveal characters in the text. Characterization is so involved in the story because, essentially, it is characterization that molds the plot – the way Elizabeth (and some other less major characters) sees and interacts with others – most importantly, how she sees and interacts with Mr. Darcy. On a smaller scale, take a look at Mr. Bingley and Jane Bennett’s relationship. Even to her dear sister, Jane is shy and soft-spoken. While the readers and Elizabeth understand of this, Charlotte, Elizabeth’s close friend, points out that while she understands Jane’s nature, Mr. Bingley may not. “Remember, Eliza, that he does not know Jane’s disposition as you do” (Austen 22). Therefore, because Jane’s disposition kept her from “helping him on,” Mr. Bingley later decides, with the added suggestion of Mr. Darcy, that Jane must be disinterested in him. Even smaller yet, as I stated in another blog, dialogue reveals characters similar to how people learn about others when sitting at a Starbucks table drinking coffee and giggling. A lot of the initial character revelations appear to be nothing more than gossip. However, to some extents, this gossip is merely what it is – rumors. Meanwhile, the talk of the town is also sometimes accurate. Heck, even at the very beginning of the book, the mentioning of Mr. Bingley is between the Bennett women (and Mr. Bennett), asking about his character, what other people have heard, and so on. They perceive him to be the “rich and terribly nice” that I mentioned earlier. He is wealthy, but kind to all he engages in conversation with, regardless of class. And so he is!
Alternatively, the readers and most of the characters better affiliated with Elizabeth assume Mr. Darcy to be the “rich and stuck up” type, due to his reserved nature, and an unfortunate event revolving around Elizabeth overhearing conversation about her appearance. To an extent, he is “rich and stuck up,” however, Darcy grows kinder and falls deeply in love with Elizabeth. Though, when he finally tells her, it’s not in the most elegant of ways, as he brings up the matter of her lower class. This brings out the prejudice ;) against Darcy that Elizabeth maintains from the beginning of the story. “From the very beginning – from the first moment, I may almost say – of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, … I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry” (Austen 161). At this time, Elizabeth is still blinded by what she initially heard and thought that she could not see any good in Mr. Darcy. Despite the rejection of his confession of love, he shows his love through his actions, the most important action being saving the good name of the Bennett family when Lydia leaves suddenly to live with Mr. Wickham, with no “…intention of being [married]” (Austen 247), as described in a letter from Mr. Bennett’s brother. This was a huge scandal at the time, quickly resolved by Darcy paying off Wickham to get him to marry Lydia. Much to her surprise, Lizzie discovers this noble act through dialogue with Lydia. “Oh, yes! – [Mr. Darcy] was to come there with Wickham, you know but gracious me! I quite forgot! I ought not to have said a word about it. I promised them so faithfully” (Austen 261). At this time Elizabeth changes her perspective on Darcy, especially after she notes that he does not interfere in Bingley’s proposal to Jane. Suddenly he is much kinder than he appeared, and truly good at heart. Now, instead of acting in aggression toward Darcy, Elizabeth too becomes kinder to and fonder of him. In essence, Mr. Darcy defies his original characterization through his actions.
Joseph Heller is a master of character customization. He creates unique characters each with their own impossible, but entirely memorably attitudes and outlooks. All of his characters have been influenced by the WWII setting in which they find themselves thrust, some unwillingly. Many of the members of Yossarian's, the main character's, squadron have been mentally affected by repeated missions in combat without any real chance of going home. Yossarian himself is desperate to stay alive. Accordingly, he avoids his missions as a bombardier as much as possible, often hiding out in the hospital with faked symptoms. Even when he does fly his missions, Yossarian drops his bombs as quickly as possible with no regard for where they land. Joseph Heller's approach in the satirical "Catch 22" (I can't figure out how to italicize) seems to be to make his characters stranger than life. Almost all of his characters do something completely illegal, insensitive, or just completely counterproductive to their own war effort. Above all, Heller’s distinct, lasting characters, even if many of them do not survive the duration of the novel. One of Yossarian’s fellow squad members, always referred to as Hungry Joe, consistently flies his missions in combat and patiently waits for his orders to go home. Unfortunately, before they come, Colonel Cathcart always raises the required number of missions, forcing Hungry Joe to unpack his belongings and fly once more into combat. The repeated stress of finishing his missions- but not going home- turn Hungry Joe neurotic. Hungry Joe has nightmares that leave him screaming every night that he waits for orders to return to the US. Conversely, he sleeps peacefully only after he has been denied and must continue flying. Hungry Joe also has one unforgettable, but perverted, idiosyncrasy; he attempts to photograph nearly every woman he sees in the nude. None of his photographs ever turn out. Lastly, and even more weirdly, Hungry Joe dies, not in his numerous combat missions, but from his roommate’s, Huple’s, cat. The cat sat on his face and suffocated him, the least heroic death of potentially the hardest working character in the novel. Above all, Heller makes fiction stranger than real life with many characters that make no logical sense. Their illogical natures provide Heller with an effective platform from which to write against the illogical nature of war.
The characters of Medea by Euripides come with many traits. But through his craft, however, Euripides characterizes them in ways to make them unique. Due to the nature of this work, Euripides never uses direct characterization. This piece has no narrator and therefore no person can talk directly to the audience. But clues and traits can be shown or spoken by the actors/characters, thus building personalities for each character. Therefore, the approach most prominent in his piece is indirect characterization.
ReplyDeleteThis work is a play, and as such it is most likely that an audience would be viewing characters enacting the events and reciting the lines. The first characterization is made in this way. The audience can physically see the characters and make their initial impressions of them based on how they look, act, and speak. But Euripides goes much deeper than just the visual aspect of the play when creating his characters. Subtly throughout the play, certain phrases or lines give a glimpse into the characters personalities, revealing more about them individually. This technique becomes used quite frequently and allows Euripides to add contextual information without explicitly stating it to the audience. One character often characterized by subtle gestures and phrases is Medea. Just by reading the play, the reader cannot fully understand her physical qualities and personality, but other characters who speak about her in the dialogues give information which help to develop a better understanding of her. For example, in one scene the Nurse describes Medea as having “The look of a lioness who has just given birth that she glares at the servants — or like a bull — when anyone ventures near her, trying to bring a word of solace” (Euripides 6). Deeply hurt by her former husband, Jason, Medea has become extremely volatile and her mere presence is a danger to the others. This comment by the Nurse gives the reader a sense of the Medea’s hostile nature and provides a visual representation of how she behaves.
Also found in the play, Medea characterizes herself by revealing previously unknown background information. She gives a clue to her past when she exclaims “I killed my brother in cold blood for him!” (Euripides 5). Here it becomes clear that she is no ordinary woman and her heart is very full of desire and vengeance. Clues such as this open the door for more debate about her personality such as whether or not she is a morally stable individual. Similarly, Medea reveals her murderous nature when she proclaims “I should set the bridal chamber on fire or thrust a sharp sword through her liver, in silence going into the house where the bed is laid” (Euripides 10). Lines such as this provide depth to Medea’s character and allow the audience to question the actions of the play’s supposed protagonist. By using characterization in this way, Euripides creates a more natural reading and theatrical experience. Even when reading the play without seeing it, there is still ample characterization present to allow the reader to fully understand each character.
The characters in Madame Bovary are interesting because no two are alike. Each share absolutely unique and distinct character traits that they rarely overlap, if ever. While creating too many different characters can be overbearing in some stories, but in this one the characters are so well made that the traits only add more definition to their motives and actions.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s even better is that the side characters even have overwhelming personality that makes them much more realistic. Often the characters that aren't seen particularly often are given one defining trait and remain static during their brief moments in the story. But Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary contains so many characters who appear for only a section of a part that go through development that typically only occurs to characters present for a long duration of the story. Madame Bovary Senior pops up once in a while in the book to make a few quick comments, so the expectation is not for her to be a fully fleshed developed person. But instead she has a history that the reader is told explicitly affects her motives. Her husband, drunk and likely abusive, creates an environment she never wanted her son to experience, or create, so she pushed him to marry well for himself.
It doesn't end with her though. Mister Bovary Senior, Emma Bovary’s father, the first Madame Bovary, even the school children are created as actual people, who are not wholly good or evil but have reasons and logic. They are as close to normal people as is possible to write. Almost all of the work put into the story is character driven, as the story is designed to follow Emma Bovary and her journeys, so the focus has to put on characterization.
Seeing as Slaughterhouse Five is based on a true story, there is not much characterization to speak for other than the realistic human nature of the people. Kurt Vonnegut emphasizes how everything in the story is true and the events taking place within the story actually took place during World War II. Within the first paragraph, Vonnegut states “One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn’t his. Another guy I knew really did threaten to have his personal enemies killed by hired gunmen after the war” (Vonnegut 8), warning the reader of the realism of the events in the novel. Therefore, if the story did take place and the characters were real people, then the people in the story would have the same outer personalities of the people in real life which they are based on. Due to this, all Vonnegut would have to do to create these characters is recall his memories of them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if readers are to believe the characters in the novel were once real people and Vonnegut is remembering them, then who they actually were could differ from how Vonnegut sees them, leaving the character’s personalities up to the speculation of the author. Because it is Vonnegut remembering the people and not the people themselves commenting, there lies potential bias within the way the characters are displayed. In addition, there is a possibility Vonnegut could have mixed up the different people and their respective personalities. Not only does Vonnegut have trouble remembering the war in the beginning of the story, but also states “I’ve changed all the names” (Vonnegut 8), meaning when he changed the names he could have mixed up the people. There is uncertainty within Vonnegut’s memory of each character and their personality; however this is one way he could have characterized his characters.
Vonnegut could be using a veil of uncertainty as an excuse to characterize the characters in any way he wanted and blame it on a bad memory. In the case where this is true, he could place any control he wanted over his story, tweaking minor details in the personalities of others to further prove his ideals. The people in the story could be made up just for the sake of having dynamic characters in the story or they could be real people with their characteristic traits expanded on to draw more attention to them and their actions. However, it is safe for readers to say Vonnegut would not lie to us, and that each character at one point was a real person with their own distinct personality Vonnegut remembered in vivid detail, thereby having no characterization other than real life and human nature.
I'm assuming this book is a memoir? And I think in this sort of narration who the characters are in 'reality' does not matter as much as who they are to the narrator. The book seems really interesting, I'd like to read it!
DeleteI would like to clarify and revise my previous statement. After finishing the book, I found this little treasure hidden away "Slaughterhouse-Five is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are a product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously". Due to this I now know my previous statement was based on false evidence, which I believe pays homage to Vonnegut as he tricks readers into believing him.
DeleteCharlotte Brontë crafts an ensemble of characters in her novel, Jane Eyre, varying her usage of direct and indirect characterization. The characteristics and traits of each character usually reveal themselves from direct comments and observations made by Jane as she progress through her story. For example, although Mrs. Reed’s cruel nature presents itself in the torment she forces upon Jane, Jane also directly calls out the woman for treating her with “miserable cruelty” and declares her “deceitful” (Brontë 32). Brontë’s use of direct characterization reduces the unreliability of Jane as the narrator, as these beginning events happened to a young, 10-year-old Jane, a Jane which may not remember every detail perfectly. Jane providing examples of Mrs. Reed’s horrible nature, rather than her just bluntly stating to the reader that she remembers Mrs. Reed to be a dreadful person, provide further evidence to support Jane’s judgments. It makes the characteristics more believable and in-depth to the reader, as he now knows why Jane feels the way she feels about Mrs. Reed and various other characters, rather than relying on unsupported, past opinions.
ReplyDeleteYet, Brontë’s additional use of direct characterization allows her to effectively reveal, not only the traits she wants all the characters to undertake, but also characteristics of Jane’s own nature. Jane lives in a society where the elders expect the youth to not demur their directions and provide nothing but respect. These expectations are evident in Miss. Scatcherd’s harsh treatment for Helen’s ‘disrespect’ and Helen’s contrite behavior. Instead, young Jane chooses to oppose such expectations and speak her opinions directly, especially towards Mrs. Reed and Helen. Jane’s nature to criticize other characters characterizes her as an outlier in her society. Her outspoken nature may prove to be an issue in Jane, especially in the strict school in which she currently resides, and may foreshadow a conflict in her upcoming journey. Without Jane stating such critical comments, she lacks a great part of what makes Jane, Jane.
Additionally, Brontë appears to parallel characters to emphasize the goodness or cruelness of certain characters. For instance, she seems to parallel Mrs. Reed and Bessie in several circumstances. Bessie attempts to save Jane from the red-room, while Mrs. Reed pushes her farther in the room. Bessie takes care of Jane when she falls ill, while Mrs. Reed stays far away from the young girl. And, while Jane nearly cries during her goodbye to Bessie, she removes any possibility of a goodbye with Mrs. Reed. Basically, Bessie represents one of Jane’s “gleams of sunshine,” (Brontë 35) and Mrs. Reed represents nothing more than, “a hard-hearted, bad woman” (Brontë 55). Although it is fairly simple to notice Bessie’s goodness and Mrs. Reed’s cruelness, the parallel between the two allows for the emphasis of each trait. Bessie proves how not every person in Jane’s life treats her as horribly as Mrs. Reed. And, Mrs. Reed reveals how, although Bessie still scolds Jane from time to time, Bessie does it with love rather than with scorn. Bessie symbolizes the love in Jane’s life, while Mrs. Reed represents the hatred, making it difficult to have one without the other. Brontë also effectively parallels other characters, such as Miss. Temple and the other teachers or Jane and Helen, to emphasize their characteristics in comparison to the rest of their environment and society.
Without Brontë’s effective tactics of indirect, direct, and parallel characterization, the piece fails to reveal the nature of characters, such as Jane, Mrs. Reed, and Helen, and compare such characters to others in their society, a component especially important to a novel which focuses so highly on the expectations of a Victorian society.
Hi Jill! I was reading your post and many of the elements you spoke of reminded me of "A Room with a View." Expectations of a society in your novel correlates to the theme concerning class difference in my novel, which I thought was interesting =) I think the usage of parallels with these topics remains a popular idea to use when writing, because they push to unite differences and prove how similar we all are to each other no matter how society divides humanity. Keep up the swell blogging!
DeleteThe characterization in “Daisy Miller” by Henry James separates each character in the novel into two groups and ultimately helps the plot progress. James classifies the individuals by several distinguishable traits; however, Winterbourne fails to be associated with either side thus far in the book. The characters of the novel constantly refer to the ethnicity of other characters, particularly classifying them as either European or American. These labels lead to other connotations that differentiate Europeans as typically more urbane and Americans lacking the same elegance. Henry James, through direct characterization, explains to readers the two very different worlds Winterbourne lives in and the people identified with each.
ReplyDeleteThe most apparent comparative labels in “Daisy Miller” are whether the characters are “American” or “European.” The clearly “American” members include Daisy, Mrs. Miller, and Randolph while the “Europeans” consist of Eugenio and Mrs. Costello. The characters that James portrays as Americans display disrespect, flirtatiousness, and lack of manners and culture at some point or another in the novel. Even though the Millers are considered wealthy and dress lavishly, they could be referred to as “new money” as opposed to the “old money” that Winterbourne and his aunt belong to. Mrs. Costello, Winterbourne’s aunt, made a point to castigate the Millers and tell Winterbourne that “They are very common…They are the sort of Americans that one does one’s duty by not – not accepting” (James 19), further emphasizing the judgmental and proper attitude the “Europeans” possess. While Winterbourne maintains a certain level of experience and flawless manners, he does not go so far as to exclude the Millers from his social circle, directly disregarding his aunt’s wishes. Furthermore, James uses direct characterization in order to express Winterbourne’s observations when he writes, “She is completely uncultivated….But she is wonderfully pretty, and, in short, she is very nice” (James 20). Winterbourne, although he is influenced by his aunt’s manipulative comments, decides to take the active route and show Daisy the Chateau de Chillon.
So far, Winterbourne has not shown any indication as to which side he will follow, European or American, and by doing so, the author fails to recognize which grouping he considers better. In the end, readers can only assume that Winterbourne will have to decide which opinion he values more, his exclusive aunt or the young, intriguing girl who has captured his interest. As of now, I personally feel like Winterbourne could be easily swayed by his aunt; however, I hope he is able to find his own voice and abandon not only Mrs. Costello, but also Daisy (I don’t like the way in which she seems to use men to entertain her).
Perhaps Winterbourne's admiration of Daisy shows he admires how free Americans are, while still respecting how proper the Europeans are.
DeleteLeo Tolstoy exposes his cast in Anna Karenina with a multitude of discreet techniques. Tolstoy rarely addresses the character's personalities directly, and is so subtle in his characterization that the reader may truly feel as if they are getting to know many characters as they do with strangers in the real world.
ReplyDeleteIn part, the actions of each of the characters constitutes their personalities. In the case of Oblonsky, he says many a noble thing of repentance for cheating on his wife and shows good intentions yet continues to be unfaithful, which exposes his incapacity to keep his word and perhaps inability to commit. He speaks of his sympathies towards his wife, yet when she found out about his philandering, he simply smiled a foolish smile. His actions seem to be involuntary and in retrospect, Oblonsky says, "This smile he could not forgive himself," (Tolstoy 19). Contrarily, Count Vronsky shows his own commitment to his love for Anna Karenin by following her to St. Petersbourg and complying with her wishes by returning to her whenever she would call him. He even mentions this plainly to Anna when she sees him at the train station on her way home, "I am going in order to be where you are," (116). In contrast to Oblonsky, Vronsky does not fail to admit his true desires.
The thoughts and opinions also reveal the desires and values of many characters. There are many debates on the modernization of marriage and the general change of values concerning in which characters voice their opinions. Princess Betsey, for example, has the strong belief that one must marry for wealth and social status and find love after, whereas Kitty disagrees. Although the thoughts and opinions of some characters are constantly changing, the reader can notice certain themes and reasons behind their changes of mind which show their values. Levin constantly changes his opinions of his ideal wife, his faith, and communism, and rarely settles down with one thought for a while. Levin quit the council in the country in which members spoke of making change but never acted on their words. In parallel, he jumps from one side to another in the philosophical dispute between his brothers on the way of living. Through this, however, the reader can see he values servicing people--like his brothers, and especially those who work hard, like his servants--and making a difference.
The contrast between thoughts and opinions, and the actions of the characters most effectively displays the inner workings of each characters minds, and yet the reader can see another layer of the characters through their family relationships and childhoods. Levin upholds a certain criteria of what it is to be a woman ever since his mother died, whom he so admired. Based on this vision, he wishes Kitty to conform and thus holds her on a pedestal, "All the girls in the world were divided into two classes: one class included all the girls in the world except her, and they had all the usual human feelings and were very ordinary girls; while the other class -herself alone- had no weaknesses and was superior to all humanity," (53). Count Vronsky seems to hold no value to the idea of family. His relationship with his mother seems to be fake, and unlike Levin, has no intentions to many.
The presences of many of the characters are so fluid and real that I feel as if they exist in a more real dimension than literature! The complex personalities and ideals of each of the characters adds significantly to the intrigue and philosophy of the book.
Ken Kesey has a quite original way of revealing characterization in his masterwork, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. In a story about mental patients, there are obviously many personalities to choose from. But since characterization is such a big topic, I'm going to limit myself to one character, McMurphy. While this seems very typical, I can assure you RP McMurphy is not the average John Smith kind of character. He brings light and color to an otherwise very white and pale place. Kesey clearly took his time when crafting him as her wouldn’t be as interesting as he is here.
ReplyDeleteTo bring everyone up to date here, McMurphy is a man charged and convicted of multiple crimes including but not limited to, gambling and battery. These crimes do not immediately scream INSANE on them, but McMurphy was able to fake insanity so he could avoid a prison sentence. Now if this doesn't scream schemer to you I don't know what will. Kesey by simply giving the backstory of our protagonist gives the audience a pretty good impression of the man that is RP McMurphy. Unfortunately for him, he is now stuck in this institution.
Kesey also uses time and language to show off his main character's special personality. RP McMurphy is such an interesting character since he is so colorful compared to the rest of the patients who could be considered "Black and White". Since he just got into the institution, he is fresh and is not in sync with the others. He often views himself as an outsider and a free man which is ironic as he has to listen to Nurse Ratched. McMurphy unlike the rest of the patients also speaks in slang using words like, “twitches” (prostitutes) and bird (patients) “Worth it to any of the rest of you birds?” (Kesey 44) Most of the other characters speak blandly and have no color in the way they speak. Whenever McMurphy talks, you wonder what he will say next. He is quite sporadic and unique in that aspect.
Kesey loves his characters, and one can see this by the uniqueness he uses to reveal characterization. McMurphy is one of those characters that had love poured into him. While he himself may not be very loving, McMurphy brings passion and pizazz to an otherwise dull and lifeless place.
The Picture of Dorian Gray is very specific in that each character is described differently by every other character. No character is ever seen in the same way by two other characters. It is a very human approach to looking at people because everyone has different ideas of beauty and intelligence so it is understandable that a man could be quite homely to one man but a vision of beauty to another.
ReplyDeleteLord Henry is described in the first few paragraphs by Hallward but only briefly. The audience is informed that Lord Henry has a beard, he smokes opium, and is married. He detests married life, and he talks a great deal about things he does not believe. But that is the only information given from the conversation between Hallward and Lord Henry.
But when Dorian meets Lord Henry, he described him as a “tall graceful young man [with a] romantic olive-colored face and worn expression…and his low languid voice was absolutely fascinating” (Wilde 98). Lord Henry suddenly goes from a graceful old art critic to a handsome, ideal gentleman. Hallward is old friends with Lord Henry; he is not interested in him the way Dorian becomes so he sees him differently than Dorian does. The same goes for Lord Henry’s views on Dorian versus Hallward’s. Hallward is overpowered by Dorian and his personality, he claims that “from the moment I met [Dorian] his personality had the most extraordinary effect on me” (Wilde 106). Dorian is a living statue to Hallward with his beauty and charm being the only aspects of the man he truly sees. But Lord Henry is not infatuated with Dorian, at least not in the same way as Hallward. He recognizes why Basil Hallward worshiped him because, as Lord Henry put it “He was one to be worshiped” (Wilde 90) but he is more interested in Dorian’s mind. After a month in the company of Dorian, Lord Henry notes how “different [Dorian] was now from the shy frightened boy he had met in Basil Hallward’s studio! Out of its secret hiding place crept his Soul, and Desire had come to meet it on the way” (Wilde 124). Lord Henry is interested in what he can do with Dorian’s mind, how he can effect change in it, while Hallward is interested in keeping Dorian’s mind in the same state of boyhood it was in when they met, so their perception of the young boy is altered.
This is different than most books in that the audience gets to see how each character views one another, as opposed to seeing how one character sees all the other characters. This does make all of Oscar Wilde’s narrators unreliable because every look at one particular character is biased by the character who is describing him or her.
Oh, Ms. Barnhart, This is me, Jessica Algieri! I didn't know it posted my name as Sargentfreeloader...Sorry!
DeletePerhaps the most clear and interesting way the author characterizes the people in "The Color People" lies in their social interactions. As mentioned in the previous post, Cecil displays little self-importance. Instead, her complaisant manner allows others in her life to overpower her desires. For example, Cecil cannot even shop for dresses without interference from other people's opinions, "Plenty of red but she say, Naw, he won't want to pay for red. Too happy lookin. We got choice of brown, maroon or navy blue. I say blue" (Walker 22). Although shopping for a dress may seem trivial, the underlying tones of this conversation reveal the truth behind's Cecil's personality. When Kate told the young woman to not buy red, she simply conceded to the short list of colors to choose from. Furthermore, Cecil accepted that her decision depended on the opinion of a presently absent man. Unfortunately, Cecil allows others to overpower her will to such an extent that she passively lets absent people choose for her.
ReplyDeleteConversely, Cecil's father and Mr. _______ share the same dominant personality. The both treat Cecil firmly and rarely grant her any freedom. However, the father displays much more brutal treatment. He rapes his daughter, take her out of school, and when he feels he no longer needs her, the father simply marries her off to Mr. ______. And even though Mr. _____ does not express or feel love or even attraction to Cecil, he possesses a subtle bit of compassion. As mentioned above, he allows Cecil to buy the dress (admittedly with Kate's help). Similarly, he occasionally seems honestly interested in her opinions, "You looks nice, I say. Any woman be proud... You thinks so? he say... (Walker 25). Strangely, these two both have a dominant presence over Cecil, and yet they differ in strictness.
On the other hand, Sophia refuses to let Harpo rule over her as Mr. ________ dominates Cecil. Despite his best attempts, he cannot control his self-empowered wife. Even though this may seem as simple plot, this strange marriage reflects greatly on their personalities. Sophia grew up having to fight off the men in her family for whatever reason, On the other hand, Harpo grew up obeying his father's demands. As such, Harpo cannot seem to gain the control he desires because Sophia refuses to give up her will.
Most importantly, these different relationships offer Cecil benefits as the novel progresses. The shift from the complete subjugation imposed by her father to the slightly kinder Mr. _______ allows Cecil to slowly grow into freedom. Similarly, Sophia and Harpo allow Cecil to recognize that she does not need to always play the rule of the obedient wife. She could further grow into a more empowered women. And even if these predictions do not come to fruition, they still impact Cecil in a major way which can most certainly cause a shift in the novel in one way or another.
Hemingway reveals characters and their personalities through actions and interactions with other characters. This indirect characterization method allows readers to form their own opinions regarding characters, and how the actions are interpreted.
ReplyDeleteEarly in the novel, Frederic Henry rejected religion, spending his efforts visiting brothels or drinking. While in the hospital, his unit’s priest visited and talked about God and religion, claiming he could find peace in spirituality. Again, Frederic rejected the priest’s offers. However, when Catherine offered her cross of St. Anthony, and when a friend asked him to wear it, Frederic clasped the cross around his neck. At this moment, the reader may interpret the situation as a step from the secular world to the spiritual, or as an act of love.
Later in the novel, Henry’s heroism is exposed during a critical moment. While sitting in a dugout during a major battle, the four ambulance drivers were hit by a mortar shell. Frederic and two others survived, but Passini dies while Frederic attempted to make a tourniquet. Outside the hospital tent, Frederic argued that other casualties should be attended to, because “there are much worse wounded” (Hemingway 58). To both the narrator and character forms of Frederic, these actions were not heroic. To others, especially Lt. Rinaldi, the moment was worthy of a silver medal for bravery and heroism. His actions reflect those of Meursault in The Stranger by Albert Camus. Neither of the men highlight any positive qualities about themselves, nor do they resist or accept any consequences for their actions. Here, a reader may interpret the heroism as true heroism, and a scholar might see hints of absurdist qualities.
The author of my novel, Khaled Hosseini, introduced the characters in a similar way. He does not give details the reader would not receive in a real life interaction with a stranger. Also, Hosseini includes intense events in order to make the decision about the character either easier or more difficult. I personally like this way of characterization because it makes the story more realistic and enjoyable.
DeleteAusten reveals her characters, not only through dialogue, but also within the content contributed by the third person omniscient.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Mrs. Bennet, the mother of protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet, and Mr. Bennet, Elizabeth's father, are revealed to be quite different as far as their views on their daughter being wed. After Mr. Collins shares the news with Mrs. Bennet regarding Elizabeth's rejection to his proposal, Mrs. Bennet will not stand for it. Though Mr. Collins seems content with the rejection, Mrs. Bennet still says, "'I will go directly to Mr. Bennet, and we shall soon settle it with her, I am sure'" (Austen 76). When she does bring the subject to Mr. Bennet's attention, Mrs. Bennet wishes for him to force her into marrying Mr. Collins and insist that she does so or else he will change his mind.
Mr. Bennet, who is revealed to be the more caring and level-headed of the parents, gives Elizabeth the ultimatum that "'Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins and I will never see you again if you do'" (Austen 77).
The impression of these two characters, Austen reveals through dialogue. In Mr. Bennet siding with Elizabeth, he is proven to be the more favorable of the parents. Mrs. Bennet, on the other hand, is less respected by Elizabeth. She had no qualms with becoming a stranger to her mother and would much rather assert her independence than become a stranger to her father.
In regard to characters being revealed through third person omniscient, Mr. Darcy fits the mold. Although the withdrawn nature of his character is revealed through dialogue between him and Elizabeth, third person omniscient allows for his character to be revealed through his thoughts and emotions. For example, there is a paragraph on page 15 that reveals a change in the way Darcy looks at Elizabeth. The paragraph begins with how Darcy initially "looked at her without admiration" and "looked at her only to criticize". It was her eyes that changes how he thought of her. They were "light and pleasing" and "he was caught in their playfulness" (Austen 15). This paragraph reveals the enamored Darcy that is typically hidden by his proud front.
*sorry this has taken long, I don't think this website likes me!
The characters in "Catch-22" are all very different and interesting people. As I mentioned in the last blog, Heller created a lot of characters and sometimes the are hard to keep track of. One thing that Heller does which is unique is he names each chapter after characters. This in a way makes it easy to learn about the characters and their importance to the story. The chapter focuses on the person it's named after and their impact on Yossarian.
ReplyDeleteHeller gives incredible and vivid descriptions of characters. For example the narrator is describing Milo Minderbinder, the mess hall officer, "Milo's disunited eyes, which never looked at the same thing at the same time. Milo could see more things than most people, but he could see none of them too distinctly" (Heller 64). This description tells us something to look for in the rest of the chapter. It tells us about Milo's inability to see specific things or look beneath the surface of Yossarian's actions. Another example of physical descriptions revealing character is when the narrator introduces Doc Daneeka, "He had a dark complexion and a small, wise, saturnine face with mournful pouches under both eyes" (Heller 32). The mournful pouches under Doc Daneeka's eyes sympathize and show pity for himself. Any time Yossarian is talking to him, Doc Daneeka always brings himself into the conversation, "'What about me? My precious medical skills are rusting away here on this lousy island while other doctors are cleaning up.'" (Heller 173). Doc Daneeka wants Yossarian to stop complaining and in order to do that Doc Daneeka complains about himself. The one character that we do not get a lot of physical description about it the main character, Yossarian. We only read about his actions and they shape the physical image of him just as Heller made the other character's physical image shape their characteristics. None of the characters including Yossarian seem to look beneath the surface of the people or things that happen around them. Yossarian only complains about Catch-22 and how it has impacted him. The word crazy is used a lot between the characters when describing each other and it is really just another word for absurd. None of them really understand why they are crazy or what makes them crazy.
The narration is in third person so we don't know too much of what the characters or even Yossarian are thinking. We only get to see their appearance and actions which Heller uses to speak a lot about each of them. The notion of the narrator seems mostly observational so they only repeat what they see or hear from conversations or stories. Because the narration is in third person they are able to follow any character.
-Ms. B, sorry I didn't post yesterday I'm trying to post and use this on my phone but it keeps glitching out on me
“‘My dear…I think that you are repeating what you have heard older people say. You are pretending to be touchy; but you are not really’” (Forster 27)
ReplyDeleteForster continuously shapes and develops his characters throughout “A Room with a View.” Through actions as well as narration, Forster reveals traits of his characters as the plot continues.
Miss Bartlett, or Charlotte, exclaims the first statement of the novel, expressing her disdain over the room mix-up. Compared to Lucy, Miss Bartlett appears more sophisticated and serves as a didactic role model for her cousin. However, her opinion of lower-class people, namely the Emersons, reveals her value of class. Interestingly enough, Lucy muses about how “it is so dreadful for Charlotte, being poor” (Forster 14), yet Charlotte distances herself from those nearly equal to her. A character similar to Miss Bartlett happens to be Miss Catharine Alan, a minor character save for her vital comment about how the Emersons “don’t understand our ways. They must find their level” (Forster 43), further alienating the two.
Mr. Emerson and his son, George, do not possess the same scorn for those of a higher class. Instead, Mr. Emerson leads a simple life, offering assistance to anyone who requires it and attempting to spread his radical ideas. The aforementioned quote was spoken by him to Lucy, for her reluctance to join him and George in Santa Croce had not been because of her own reservations. Furthermore, despite his ruffled exterior, Mr. Emerson urges Lucy to “let yourself go” (Forster 31), an encouragement to both understand herself and also to learn to love George. Forster uses body language to first describe George as “perplexed and sorrowful” (Forster 9), a bit moody when he and Lucy first meet, but capable of smiling at her when she and Charlotte left. He and Lucy’s relationship begins with his rescue of Lucy after she faints from seeing a murder. Previously, Lucy had purchased a few pictures and had left them at the crime scene. When she asked where they were he anxiously replied that “I didn’t know what to do with them” (Forster 48) because the pictures had blood on them. His choice to discard the photos so as not to frighten her reveals his kindhearted personality and growing affection for Lucy.
The one character who completely baffles me continues to confuse. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, often converses with Charlotte and Lucy at the inn. Forster provides a physical description of Mr. Beebe as a man “whose head was bald and who wore a pair of russet whiskers” (Forster 39), but the most confusing information about him is his affiliation with women. The narration describing Mr. Beebe reveals his love “to study maiden ladies” (Forster 38), a rather curious statement. He also muses about how he once tried to introduce the Emersons into society, but had long since given up because society found the father and son strange and too radical. His purpose within the novel has yet to be revealed.
Thus far, the only female character worth paying attention to in terms of development is Lucy Honeycomb, the protagonist. At first glance, she appears as a young woman, privileged and inclined to follow her cousin’s mannerisms in public. As her adventure in Italy progresses, however, readers meet the Lucy outside of the public eye. Initially, the room predicament evoked disappointment from Lucy, who had hoped to escape London only to find a room with a view of a courtyard. Forster’s emphasis on her disappointment reveals Lucy’s adventurous side, as she later on travels through Santa Croce without her trusty Baedeker (fancy talk for a travel guide). Lucy constantly struggles with the concept of serving as a functional, acceptable lady within society. She acts as she believes others would expect of her, wondering “Why were most big things unladylike?” (Forster 43) and hoping to find the beauty in life.
*I suppose I wrote a little much so it would not allow me to paste all of my writing in....anyway here is the rest!
DeleteAlthough she enjoys the company of the Emersons, she then reminds herself “that her mother might not like her talking that kind of person [irreligious], and that Charlotte would object most strongly” (Forster 31) and separates, or is separated, from the two. Forster uses a piano to further reveal Lucy’s true character, for music serves as a transporter to a world outside of societal expectations. Lucy, as a young woman, has trouble with thinking for herself without the opinions of her family following her.
One last character worthy of mentioning goes by the name of Miss Lavish, Lucy’s travel companion on the way to Santa Croce. Her personality is revealed through her dialogue, where many of her comments contain wise knowledge. Miss Lavish, compared to Miss Bartlett, lives vivaciously and without many cares about the opinions of others. Her message to Lucy, “you will never repent of a little civility to your inferiors. That is the true democracy” (Forster 22), provides a bit of foreshadowing, along with Mr. Emerson’s advice, to Lucy’s development as a character as the novel progresses.
Forster’s incorporation of parallels within the novel so far helps create a black and white outlook on his themes. Miss Bartlett and Miss Alan’s disapproval of lower classes against Lucy’s tolerance and indifference towards the issue when alone creates a simple truth on a complex matter. In a way, his lack of physical descriptions of his characters leaves much to the reader’s imagination while also making a statement about social class differences.
Aaand I messed up once more! In my first reply, there should be the word "effective" in the last paragraph between the words "Foster's" and "incorporation." =) *My sincerest apologies for the late post!
DeleteFor anyone interested in an outside reading book I would totally recommend Joseph Heller’s “Catch .22”. Although the book is rather lengthy, it is definitely worth the time.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough Heller has named almost all of the names of the chapters after a specific character in the life of the protagonist, Yossarian. The positive aspect of this concept is that it allows the reader the ability to somewhat easily understand Heller’s characterization of each man. On the other hand, it oftentimes causes confusion due to the large number of names and the dislocation of plot events. The narrator oftentimes jumps back and forth from past and present sporadically, making it difficult to follow along where and when each character’s impact is on the novel.
The story is easily able to follow a specific character because the narration is in the third person. This virtually gives the reader the ability to follow each character better than if it was first person per say. This narration style helps to give a more objective view of each character as opposed to a biased one had it been told by another character such as Yossarian. Perhaps the only drawback to the third person narration style is that it eliminates a personal connection with the characters, focusing primarily on the actions and reactions of characters rather than emotion.
Unlike so many authors, Heller uses actions to express the majority about individual characters. Oftentimes a character will say one thing and do another. Not only does this provide important information about a specific character but it adds to one the overarching themes; the unreliability of words. This was first foreshadowed in the first chapter when Yossarian deletes seemingly random words while censoring soldier’s letters. In regards to Heller’s “actions speak louder than words” characterization, it can be seen in a multitude of characters within the novel. One such character is Colonel Cathcart, an aspiring general. Cathcart’s actions are grounded in the fact that he is trying to impress higher ranking officials rather than the safety of his men. Indirectly Heller has allowed the reader to come to the realization that Cathcart is in fact a corrupt leader.
Heller also uses more conventional methods of characterization such as physical characteristics. However the physical descriptors range from simply describing a characters outside appearance, the case with The Texan, to providing insight on a characters disposition, such as Milo’s eyes.
Nathaniel Hawthorne has successfully perplexed me. I have yet to see any characters, of the few mentioned in the book so far, actively do much of anything. As such, Hawthorne characterizes through physical discription of the character and the objects around them.
ReplyDeleteThe character the novel focuses on is known as Hepzibah Pyncheon, a distant relative of the late Colonel Pyncheon. An entire chapter is devoted to old Miss Pyncheon rising from bed and getting ready for the day. What interests me is the depth with which Hawthorne describes the process. The chapter starts of as follows: "It still lacked half an hour of sunrise, when Miss Hepzibah Pyncheon-- we will not say awoke, it being doubtful whether the poor lady had so much as closed her eyes during the brief night of midsummer--- but, at all events, arose from her solitary pillow, and began what it would be a mockery to term the adornment of her person". No, Miss Puncheon did not simply get up from bed. She rose in a dismal fashion, as if ready to face death that moment. Hawthorne's use extensive vocabulary, and the skillful way in which he assembles his words, strengthens his ideas. There is no doubt that this woman is a wreck so down trodden and weary. Consequently, she lives in solitude in The House of the Seven Gables.
The reclusive lifestyle Hepzibah leads is personified in the room she spends her time in. Many years ago, one of the Pyncheon's opened a store on the front of the building. Long out of business, the shelves and stands have accumulated layers of dust and cobwebs due to poor upkeep. Readers can begin to see the relation between the state of the room and Hepzibah's own state. The room seems to be a personification of Hepzibah. Both are old and ignored, abandoned by those previously around them. By the end of the chapter we see the old woman begin to tend to the shop and clean it up. This could be the beginning of a new start for woman, or at least an attempt to start again.
I've felt your pain -- I still remember that the first time I read The Scarlet Letter, I was so overwhelmed with the never-ending, actionless descriptions of the Custom House that I thought it might be the story itself! In my book, the author isn't as active as a narrator as I remember Hawthorne was, but she still has her moments of dictating descriptions as well. Sometimes the way authors reveal this type of information makes a difference -- I bet Hawthorne's giving you an extra layer of depth somewhere in his narration of the characters' lives.
DeleteBut don't take my word for it -- you're the one who's reading the book here. Let me know if I wasn't too far off track :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLeo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina details the social circle of Moscow, Russia. All of the characters are connected in one way or another and the author uses this to expose different sides of the characters’ personalities.
ReplyDeleteThe novel opens with Oblonsky who recently cheated on his wife with their French governess. Tolstoy then recounts the reactions by Oblonsky and Dolly (his wife) as well as their interaction to provide insight into both of the characters. For example, Oblonsky is rather selfish and indifferent towards his wife, feeling no remorse for the affair. When attempting to repair their relationship, he states, “‘Dolly- what can I say? ...surely nine years of our lives ought to atone for a few moments…’” (Tolstoy 11), emphasizing his lack of concern and feebleness towards the matter. Rather than directly stating facts regarding Oblonsky’s character, Tolstoy uses dialogue and interaction between characters.
When Anna Karenina, the book’s namesake, is introduced, we first see her through Count Vronsky’s perspective. He is in awe of her as he describes “the subdued vitality that played over her face and fluttered between her shining eyes” (Tolstoy 64). She enchants those around her. Tolstoy uses Vronsky’s initial admirations to illustrate the spark of the relationship which will later form between these two characters.
A less obvious form of characterization may be found in the juxtaposition of Oblonsky and Levin. At lunch one day in a Moscow restaurant, the two men begin talking. They attribute their friendship to time rather than similarities as it becomes clear the two have none. Levin lives in the countryside, overseeing land and peasants and despises the city whereas Oblonsky is involved with government and immerses himself with the social elite. They have trouble comprehending one another’s lives. Levin’s reactions to Oblonsky and vice versa reveal the characters thoughts and opinions towards certain aspects of life.
Each character plays a crucial role in the understanding of the other characters. Our knowledge of them enhances the plot and makes the novel more realistic and intriguing.
Sorry I had to make a quick edit to my original which is why it says my first comment was deleted!
Delete“Mr. Pontellier wore eye-glasses. He was a man of forty, of medium height and rather slender build; he stooped a little. His hair was brown and straight, parted on one side. His beard was neatly and closely trimmed” (Chopin 44).
ReplyDeleteIn Kate Chopin’s, “The Awakening” the unique use of the third person omniscient point of view acts as a bridge between the reader and the characters. In traveling through the story and receiving not only a description of the characters traits, but a look into their thoughts as well, the reader gains a more concrete understanding of who the characters are.
Throughout the novel, the reader hears Edna’s story though a mystery, all-seeing narrator. Because of this, we not only get Edna’s thoughts on the events taking place, but also get to follow the other characters, and here what they have to say as well. For instance, like I mentioned in my earlier blog, when Madame Ratignolle engages in a conversation with Robert while strolling back from the beach, we hear her tell Robert to stop flirting with Edna. She feels that because Edna comes from a different world, she’ll misinterpret his feelings for something more. From this, the reader not only learns what Mrs. Ratignolle thinks of Edna, but we also learn about Mrs. Ratignolle and what her views and beliefs are. This is the same way with the other characters as well. In listening to their conversations, we learn how they feel about the events taking place. The reader can then take these reactions and form an idea of who that person is.
There is no shortage of detail in “The Awakening.” Every choice Kate Chopin makes plays into the story and the characters. Just in the first sentence alone, the reader receives a metaphor the main character, Edna: A parrot in a cage, squawking to get out. From this alone, we learn that Edna feels trapped by her marriage, and is dying to escape the chains that have been placed on her. In addition, much is also to be learned by the clothing choices made in the novel. Take Adele for instance. Mrs. Ratignolle is always seen wearing white, fluffy, beautiful gowns, exemplifying the characteristics of an angel. Conversely, Mademoiselle Reisz is described as having no taste in dress, wearing rusty black lace and flowers in her hair. Clearly, she has no interest in fitting in to this formal, structured society. As Edna stops caring about this structure as well, she’s seen going from wearing these wonderful gowns that accent her beauty, to literally throwing off her clothes and going skinny dipping. Chopin uses clothes to represent society and its structures, just as she does with speech and dialogue. In examining the wealthy, well-educated characters, you see that correct grammar and language is always used. Everything these characters say is precise, proper, and restrained, just like society. Really, the only exception to this rule is the parrot, who is constantly yelling, swearing, and saying all the things everyone is thinking but are too afraid to vocalize. And what character does this character represent? Edna. She is the only character to realize the shackles society is trying to place on her, and thus the only one trying to break free.
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe seems to favor revealing characterization through the characters’ actions and statements, but she maintains a balance at the same time by directly stating some facts to the reader in her own sort of narrative presence. In this way, Stowe states only what is necessary, and leaves the reader to form his own impressions of each character based on the information he can gather from the characters’ actions.
ReplyDeleteOne technique that marks a unique approach of Stowe’s for characterization is juxtaposition of the way two characters respond to a similar topic. I noticed this approach during a discussion between Eliza and George, the married (and troubled) slave couple. Separated by very different owners, the two are able to love each other dearly while possessing very different senses of faith. George, the ambitious young man whose jealous owner took him away from his life of usefulness in the factory and put him to menial labor instead, sees the world as unforgiving and unfair to slaves. He declares that he wishes he had never been born throughout the discussion, and angrily maintains that he “won’t bear” the injustice his owner continually imposes on him (Stowe 16). Living a hardened life due to his slave status, George notes that he has trouble putting faith in God to make things better.
Eliza, raised in the Shelby household (who treated their slaves much better), demonstrates her nature primarily through her thoughts and actions, as has her husband. She has not known as difficult a life as George, and holds a much firmer trust in God. She begs George to pray and put his faith in God when he tells her of his plan to escape, saying, “pray yourself, George, and go trusting in him” (Stowe 19). Stowe uses the couple’s differing levels of faith to parallel their differing standards of treatment. Still, I believe the unstated piece of characterization Stowe sneaks in to this scene is that love holds stronger than adversity.
In the previous example, I found that Stowe left most of the “work” of analyzing characterization to the readers. She doesn’t always force the reader to examine the characters’ discussions, however, even when a technique like juxtaposition comes into play. In the case of Uncle Tom himself, Stowe gives readers’ ciphering minds a break.
Here, Stowe’s approach is to directly reveal characterization through contributions from her own narrative presence. Stowe makes it clear from the outset that she wants readers to have a vivid picture of Uncle Tom: “as he is to be the hero of our story, we must daguerreotype for our readers” (Stowe 21). I did some research, and found that the word “daguerreotype” refers to an old, meticulous photographic process. I believe this means Stowe is quietly telling readers that she’s going to “take the reins” on describing Tom, because she wants it done clearly, done right, and done so that the reader sympathizes with Tom, the hero of the story.
Stowe paints Tom in a positive light throughout her narrated description. She describes a physically sound man, possessing “an expression of grave and steady good sense, united with much kindliness and benevolence” (Stowe 21) to boot. Stowe later describes him as a “patriarch in religious matters” (Stowe 29), strengthening Tom’s case as a moral figure to become more evident later on in the novel. These narrative “gifts” of characterization are just as effective for authors as revealing characterization through actions. It seems to me that Stowe understood that both methods were tools to reveal her message differently, and I believe through her careful choice of usage, Stowe confirms a suspicion I wrote about in my first post – namely, that she constructed this novel very carefully to convey exactly the points she wanted to convey to readers.
In Equus, Peter Shaffer approaches characterization in a way that is an equally psychological experience for his characters and his audience. Shaffer begins the play with a tone that is both unsure and unaware. As a play, there is no narrator and no interlude in which the audience learns coveted background information on either the plot or the characters. This lack of direct characterization creates an experience that is suspenseful and mysterious, with an audience constantly waiting for the next possible outcome of the boy’s therapy.
ReplyDeleteHe characterizes the experienced psychologist to be the only one who can heal an unstable boy. Shaffer introduces the boy with little background, only explaining the need to understand his unclear motive behind his vicious attack against six horses. Shaffer uses characterization in a way that makes the audience as unknowing as the characters. So far as the play progresses, the main subject of characterization is religion. It is easy for Shaffer to immediately bring attention to distinct differences between the young boy’s father and mother and their personal positions on divine power. Shaffer uses these differences to open a rift between the pair, exemplifying how tension on the home of a growing child can have the most negative affects. As the psychologist rummages through the uncomfortable relationship this child has grown to experience, it characterizes the two parents. The father is portrayed as cold and disinterested in the ideals his wife has for their child. The mother, on the other hand, is ridden with anxiety and overbearing with both religion and care. It is the combination of these two worlds that is used to characterize the offspring. The boy is confused and troubled by his motives. He refuses to share his emotions, but seems to be fighting a constant burden. The struggle to combine two differing worlds has created a boy who is burdened by the pressures of existence. The boy is odd in way that makes the audience uncomfortable. He screams random phrases and says crude things. The members of the audience are expected not to judge, it is with an unbiased eye all evidence must be gathered and only then can opinions be drawn. There are six characters left that share an interpretation of characterization. The blinded horses must be as equally symbolic as they they are realistic. These innocent creatures have been blinded with no motive and no justice. With an act that cannot be undone, there is no promised satisfaction. The reader is asked to regard these animals with respect. They are idolized in both the life of the boy and the lives of many others. The stage directions in the play state the actors to wear costumes with wire constructed horse heads with no attempt to be made that they are controlled by a human. Perhaps a representation that in the most beautiful creatures there is the destruction of man and in man there is a beautiful creature.
A psychological background provides a setting of unbiased characterization. There is no pressure, both the psychologist and the audience urge the boy to share his deepest fears and darkest motivation. Shaffer finds the importance of time, there is no rushing as the roles of the characters feed into each other. The lack of direct characterization allows the true personalities to be seen, perhaps as Shaffer intended. Equus and it’s characters intend to serve as reminder that there is good in all beauty and beauty in all good.
Hosseini describes the early lives of the main characters and quickly overviews long spans of time of later introduced characters that will be of importance in the novel. The protagonist, Mariam, had been described from when she was first born so it was easy to notice changes in her personality over time. One drastic change was that when she was young she was outgoing and loved to go out and play and talk and adventure, but after becoming married she became accustomed to staying hidden, sitting around and believing some of the awful things her husband did to her was okay. The most noticeable changing points in her life were when she saw her mother who had committed suicide and when she began wearing a burqa for her husband and was okay with it because she believed she belonged to him.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rasheed, Mariam’s husband, was introduced, his physical description was given in detail first. He was portrayed as a very unpleasant old man but as the story went on it was difficult to decipher whether he was a gross and awful as his looks. As the novel went on and their life together continued, Mariam seemed happy and Rasheed seemed to be a better husband than expected. But once Mariam lost about seven children to miscarriages, Rasheed became irritable, stubborn and violent. He began hitting, punching, kicking and beating her. When her cooking was not good enough for Rasheed, he forced Mariam to chew on pebbles, breaking two of her molars and telling her “that’s how it tastes to eat your rice”.
Hosseini includes brief physical descriptions of his characters introduced later in the novel; his characters grow and develop through their actions, as a normal human being would. The characters change a little bit to a lot depending on the events that are occurring in their lives, and when meeting a new person or character, the reader can see what they look like but they are not told about them other than some basic information like where they live, their occupation and their family. The rest the reader will learn about the character is by seeing how the characters act at home, with friends and in stressful situations. Reading the novel, A Thousand Splendid Suns, the reader will discover each character as if they are meeting them in real life, with a first impression of their appearance and brief life background. But over time, the reader will comprehend a deeper understanding of each character and can then decide whether they are nice, mean, good, bad, helpful or even important. Also, discovering characters in a natural way, can assist the reader in predicting later events that the character may be involved in or even events that could happen based of how each character has been or does act.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDriven entirely by dialogue, Oscar Wilde crafts his characters in The Picture of Dorian Gray with precision and tact. In the beginning chapters of the book, there have been three major characters: the artist Basil Hallward, the cynical Lord Henry Wotton, and the beautiful and youthful Dorian Gray. Each character is unique, bringing their personal perspectives and actions to the novel.
ReplyDeleteTaking a back seat to the action after the very opening of the novel, the artistic Basil Howard is the devoted artist and friend to both Wotton and Dorian. Howard, driven by his desire to capture the beauty and youth of Dorian, paints what Wotton claims to be one of the most exquisite pieces of art he has ever seen. Basil balances the opinionated and cynical Wotton, for in lieu of the cynicism of the lord, Basil is a lover of art and beauty. An idealist at heart, Basil rejects the bitterness of Wotton and embraces the beauty and loyalty of Dorian. Wilde builds this character with the dialogue between the characters, and as Basil and Wotton engage in their back and forth the reader learns of his deepening love for Dorian. A taboo subject in 1893, Basil’s feelings for Dorian verge on open declarations of love for another man. This was no mistake or misinterpretation by the modern mind; Wilde intentionally includes these homosexual tendencies to demonstrate his personal beliefs. In his day, Wilde was widely criticized for his prolific themes and eventually found himself imprisoned when news of his many boyfriends found its way to the authorities, and his writing reflects his personal life. Basil embodies the pure love and appreciation of art, and through dialogue amongst the characters his purity shines.
In direct contrast to Basil’s love, Lord Henry Wotton plagues everyone in his vicinity. Serving as a foil to Basil, Wotton is the embodiment of corruption. Upon seeing Dorian Gray, Wotton is ensnared by the youth’s good looks and morality, and continues to seek out his companionship. Wotton’s greatest characterizations surface in his tirades on the true nature of love or a variety of other topics, ranging from beauty to the fallacy of women in life. Setting the tone with bitter judgments and manipulative logic, Wotton is nothing like his dear Basil. The two men share a love for Dorian, but where Basil sees the art in Dorian’s beauty Wotton only sees yet another tool for his own life. Going off on many tirades, claiming that after experiencing true pleasure, “nothing remains then but the recollection of a pleasure, or the luxury of a regret. The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” Naturally, this is not something the everyday married man would say to a boy barely out of his teens, and this is where Wotton’s corruption and manipulation of Dorian begins. Wotton believes one must embrace desire for if, “ [you] resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful.” In his world, Wotton sees pleasure as the only escape and the true meaning of life. He passes this message onto Dorian, intervening into his life both for his own enjoyment as well as to inquire as to the boy’s feelings for Sybil Vane, the enchanting singer whom Dorian falls for. The prying and manipulative Wotton forever hovers behind the boy, and throughout the dialogue between characters, we see glimpses the true nature of this corrupt man.
The object of both the men’s desires, Dorian Gray is little more than a pretty face. Golden haired, youthful, and energetic, Dorian embodies the innocence and vitality of youth which Basil wishes to immortalize in paint and Wotton wishes to bend to his own will.
DeleteCharacterized as a near perfect human specimen, Wotton and Basil’s charming dialogue with the boy emphasis his innocence and reluctance to embrace the two men’s philosophies. Wotton seeks to impose his cynicism and “pass on” his teachings to Dorian, while Basil seeks only to worship and appreciate the true beauty of his magnificent face. These two men, embodiments of good and evil in Dorian’s life, shape the boy’s actions, and Dorian continues to develop as Wotton moves in to become a greater part of Dorian’s life.
Thus far the novel has very little in the way of narration; nearly every page is a dialogue between characters building their lives. We learn a great deal from the conversations between Wotton and the various men and women with whom he speaks, and through the dialogue of the novel Wilde crafts his intricate characters
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLuckily for me, Pride and Prejudice is key on characterization. Jane Austen is an absolute queen when it comes to characterization and one of the main premises of Pride and Prejudice revolves around the way in which Elizabeth and Darcy interact. However, even besides the love story of Lizzie and Darcy that the story revolves around, we have the characterization of these two, everybody else is deeply characterized as well. The reader finds themselves deeply entrenched in Nethersfield, and through Mrs. Bennett, as well as Jane and Lydia and Charlotte and Kitty and of course, Elizabeth. The story revolves around the characterization and the social life of this complex to create a tangled web of romance and conflict between socialites. From the first page, Jane Austen uses characterization to scope out the obvious hopes and goals of Mrs. Bennett. For Pete's sake, the first line of the book is "It is a truth universally acknowledge that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Not only have we set up the entire premise of the novel, but we already have our first insight into the mind of Mrs. Bennett, which focuses solely on marrying off her daughters to well endowed men. Mrs. Bennett's actual obsession comes to light when Jane finally feels better over at Bingley's, but it still hasn't been a week so she refuses to send the carriage or receive her daughters home kindly. Lizzie is soon realized to be the not-so-perfect daughter, who doesn't mind walking three miles to go see her sister even if it isn't exactly ladylike, and who, after seeing the manner in which Darcy behaves, refuses to even give him a chance. In fact, most of the characterization experienced is formed through gossip and small social encounters, but that also appears to be the entire premise of the story. Jane Austen lets the reader form opinions about characters and gives them personality and traits through not only their actions but also the gossip and discussion that surrounds all of them when their back is turned and through these socialite experiences, we view every character in extensive detail.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteWith so many variations of characters in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” – the rich and seemingly stuck up, the lower-class and desperate, the rich and terribly nice, and the poor and kind – there are a few ways that Austen reveals her characters in the story. That being said, dialogue is the most common method of character revelation. However, she also employs the narrator as a way to reveal characters in the text.
Characterization is so involved in the story because, essentially, it is characterization that molds the plot – the way Elizabeth (and some other less major characters) sees and interacts with others – most importantly, how she sees and interacts with Mr. Darcy.
On a smaller scale, take a look at Mr. Bingley and Jane Bennett’s relationship. Even to her dear sister, Jane is shy and soft-spoken. While the readers and Elizabeth understand of this, Charlotte, Elizabeth’s close friend, points out that while she understands Jane’s nature, Mr. Bingley may not. “Remember, Eliza, that he does not know Jane’s disposition as you do” (Austen 22). Therefore, because Jane’s disposition kept her from “helping him on,” Mr. Bingley later decides, with the added suggestion of Mr. Darcy, that Jane must be disinterested in him.
Even smaller yet, as I stated in another blog, dialogue reveals characters similar to how people learn about others when sitting at a Starbucks table drinking coffee and giggling. A lot of the initial character revelations appear to be nothing more than gossip. However, to some extents, this gossip is merely what it is – rumors. Meanwhile, the talk of the town is also sometimes accurate.
Heck, even at the very beginning of the book, the mentioning of Mr. Bingley is between the Bennett women (and Mr. Bennett), asking about his character, what other people have heard, and so on. They perceive him to be the “rich and terribly nice” that I mentioned earlier. He is wealthy, but kind to all he engages in conversation with, regardless of class. And so he is!
Alternatively, the readers and most of the characters better affiliated with Elizabeth assume Mr. Darcy to be the “rich and stuck up” type, due to his reserved nature, and an unfortunate event revolving around Elizabeth overhearing conversation about her appearance. To an extent, he is “rich and stuck up,” however, Darcy grows kinder and falls deeply in love with Elizabeth. Though, when he finally tells her, it’s not in the most elegant of ways, as he brings up the matter of her lower class. This brings out the prejudice ;) against Darcy that Elizabeth maintains from the beginning of the story. “From the very beginning – from the first moment, I may almost say – of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, … I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry” (Austen 161). At this time, Elizabeth is still blinded by what she initially heard and thought that she could not see any good in Mr. Darcy. Despite the rejection of his confession of love, he shows his love through his actions, the most important action being saving the good name of the Bennett family when Lydia leaves suddenly to live with Mr. Wickham, with no “…intention of being [married]” (Austen 247), as described in a letter from Mr. Bennett’s brother. This was a huge scandal at the time, quickly resolved by Darcy paying off Wickham to get him to marry Lydia. Much to her surprise, Lizzie discovers this noble act through dialogue with Lydia. “Oh, yes! – [Mr. Darcy] was to come there with Wickham, you know but gracious me! I quite forgot! I ought not to have said a word about it. I promised them so faithfully” (Austen 261). At this time Elizabeth changes her perspective on Darcy, especially after she notes that he does not interfere in Bingley’s proposal to Jane. Suddenly he is much kinder than he appeared, and truly good at heart. Now, instead of acting in aggression toward Darcy, Elizabeth too becomes kinder to and fonder of him. In essence, Mr. Darcy defies his original characterization through his actions.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Heller is a master of character customization. He creates unique characters each with their own impossible, but entirely memorably attitudes and outlooks.
ReplyDeleteAll of his characters have been influenced by the WWII setting in which they find themselves thrust, some unwillingly. Many of the members of Yossarian's, the main character's, squadron have been mentally affected by repeated missions in combat without any real chance of going home.
Yossarian himself is desperate to stay alive. Accordingly, he avoids his missions as a bombardier as much as possible, often hiding out in the hospital with faked symptoms. Even when he does fly his missions, Yossarian drops his bombs as quickly as possible with no regard for where they land.
Joseph Heller's approach in the satirical "Catch 22" (I can't figure out how to italicize) seems to be to make his characters stranger than life. Almost all of his characters do something completely illegal, insensitive, or just completely counterproductive to their own war effort. Above all, Heller’s distinct, lasting characters, even if many of them do not survive the duration of the novel.
One of Yossarian’s fellow squad members, always referred to as Hungry Joe, consistently flies his missions in combat and patiently waits for his orders to go home. Unfortunately, before they come, Colonel Cathcart always raises the required number of missions, forcing Hungry Joe to unpack his belongings and fly once more into combat. The repeated stress of finishing his missions- but not going home- turn Hungry Joe neurotic. Hungry Joe has nightmares that leave him screaming every night that he waits for orders to return to the US. Conversely, he sleeps peacefully only after he has been denied and must continue flying. Hungry Joe also has one unforgettable, but perverted, idiosyncrasy; he attempts to photograph nearly every woman he sees in the nude. None of his photographs ever turn out. Lastly, and even more weirdly, Hungry Joe dies, not in his numerous combat missions, but from his roommate’s, Huple’s, cat. The cat sat on his face and suffocated him, the least heroic death of potentially the hardest working character in the novel.
Above all, Heller makes fiction stranger than real life with many characters that make no logical sense. Their illogical natures provide Heller with an effective platform from which to write against the illogical nature of war.