Who's your favorite character, and why?

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

Although I read my first Forest books at 12, it was 13 years before I found a forum where I could analyse them with other fans. When I did, I was surprised to discover a widespread dislike of Tim, who has always been my favorite character. Observing this made me muse on what it is that draws or repels a reader about a fictional character. I've noticed three factors which seem to shape readers' tastes, which I could tentatively divide into identification, affiliation and characterisation (fledgeling theory).

With identification, what seems to be most important is that the reader understands and feels empathy with the character. This is of course influenced by the point of view from which the story is being presented. Since the dominant PoV for the Marlow series is Nicola's, it's not surprising that most readers seem to identify most with her, disliking characters who ill-treat her and tending to share her opinion of the other characters. This, I suspect, is one major reason for the dislike of Tim, who often clashes with Nicola, and is dismissive of her priorities, especially in End of Term.

For me personally, while I do feel for Nicola in the series, at times I weary of her upstanding, noble ways and stiff upper lip, as I tend to value being resourceful over being principled, and emotional expression over emotional repression. Tim, on the other hand, is very resourceful, her style of managing her own emotional vulnerability is much more similar to mine, and I respect her dedication to her art.

Affiliation is about whether readers think they would like the character were s/he a real person. This overlaps with identification, but not completely: you could, for example, understand Lois' feelings about Nicola and even empathise to a degree without liking her in the least (AF handles this sort of thing particularly well). As we saw in the recent entry from carmine_rose on whether people would prefer Tim or Miranda as a best friend, there seems to be lurking distrust of Tim's perverse sense of humour and desire to 'run the show' (both in the theatre and out). Me, I like Tim's articulate, irreverent style, and am inclined to think that she'll grow out of its less appealing manifestations.

My tastes in fictional characters and my tastes in real people are based on different criteria, so much so that the affiliation factor doesn't enter the picture at all when someone asks me what characters I like in a novel. In fact, I'm more likely to apply this factor to the author (who *is* of the real world domain): would I like and get along with her, based on novels she writes?

Unlike the other two factors, characterisation takes a much more 'mechanics of fiction' approach. It's not about whether the character would be a nice person in real life, it's about whether he or she is a character who creates interesting tension and plot development in the fictional world created by the author. Many of the 'best' characters according to this criterion wouldn't be at all likeable! Another score for Tim in my book: her audacity in Autumn Term, her betrayal in End of Term, her wry perspectives in Cricket Term, her quirky creativity in Attic Term... she's always there, not always nice, but always making things interesting.

This, of the three factors, is always the one I weight most heavily when choosing my favorite character (hence my favorite character in Lord of the Rings is Gollum, and my favorite character in Harry Potter is Severus Snape, etc.). When it comes to fiction, interesting trumps nice every time for me. Which is why even though I follow Nicola's journey sympathetically through the books, I gain much more enjoyment character-wise from Lawrie and Tim.

Comments

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Oooo, what an interesting topic for discussion!

I think I identify with Lawrie and Ginty entirely too much for my piece of mind. They remind me of things about myself that I dislike, so while I can often see their point of view, I still don't like either of them as characters very much. And while I do "stick-up" for Nicola in my mind, her constant nobility gets on my nerves - though when she does something that isn't nice, that annoys me too, because I'm inconsistant. Her treatment of Ann in particular bothers me, because I feel a lot of sympathy for Ann - I'm not like her at all, but I really don't see why Nicola finds her so irritating, especially since I get the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) that in this case AF expects us to agree with Nicola.

I have a bit of a crush on Patrick - I think AF intends that to happen!

Heh

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

Oooo, what an interesting topic for discussion!

(So far only two other people seem to think so... heh, perhaps I should retitle it "Who is your favorite character, and why?")

I like Lawrie and Ginty for the same reason AF describes people liking Crommie: their flaws are more stimulating than the more conventional virtues of their fellows. The character I identify with too much for comfort is the dreaded Lois, of all people! As a teenager I cared too much about being seen as a high achiever but achieved inconsistently and envied people who succeeded all the time, apparently without trying.

I always feel that AF approves of Nicola and shares her views on other characters a bit too much as well. Tim haters are quick to criticise her for bullying Pomona, but slow to judge Nick for her contemptuous attitude towards Ann...

Re: Heh

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I don't know where everyone else is! I think it's totally interesting.

Anyway, it might help if you re-phrased it a little to be more asking a question, if you know what I mean. Something like - Who does AF want us to like? I don't know.

I think it's the affiliation thing that I do, mostly - I think Miranda and Patrick would be nice to be friends with, so I like them pretty unreservedly. But there's a bit of identification going on there, because in a lot of ways I'm like Miranda. And with all of the other characters, there's something that bugs me. Sometimes I tend to like the people AF disapproves of, and dislike the ones she obviously thinks are "bricks". But not always, though, obviously.

Wow, I'm being very inarticulate! It's not that I dislike Nicola or Rowan, for instance, just that you are obviously meant to really like them, but I can't totally identify with them. They're too good, and not in the apparently bad way Ann is good.

I think I most identify with Lawrie - and it bothers me that AF is so negative about her. Especially because to me, Peter seems to share a lot of her flaws yet isn't condemned as much. Perhaps though, I'm mixing up AF's opinion with Nicola's. I don't know.

(sniff)

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

I don't know where everyone else is!

Perhaps they are just rendered speechless by the brilliance of my entry! Or perhaps just turned off by my user-unfriendly pseudo-academic waffling...

Seeing no-one else is looking (peers about furtively) I'll risk musing that AF's (and Nicola's) code of Approved Behaviour seems stereotypically upper class English to my iggerant Australian eye. During our brief, embarrassing meeting, I definitely got the impression that she identified with Nicola and shared Nicola's perspective on the other characters. At one point I suggested something and she said, with a proud expression "Not my Nicola!".

I like Lawrie! It's such a relief to have someone being volatile and passionate and selfish after all that stoic noble Nicolism. Both characterisation and identification there, as I'm inclined to a touch of the Lawries about things I feel strongly about.

Oh, and I too find Patrick disturbingly attractive... ;P

Re: (sniff)

[owl]

Yes; AF's moral code as filtered through Nicola seems typical mid-century English to me. Upper-middle rather than upper-class.

It's not that I don't like Lawrie (and Ginty, in fact), because I do. Despite all her maddening moments, she's lovable. And a whole cast full of 'Nicola's would get tedious. Still, I do like Nicola more.

Re: (sniff)

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I've just been re-reading the whole series, and while I would have agreed about upper-middle rather than upper-class before, now I'm not so sure. It's really stood out to me this time just how huge and grand Trennels must be (though it does fluctuate a little between books, growing and losing bathrooms etc). I do appreciate that the family wasn't raised there, that it was inherited through the indirect line rather than father to son, but the fact that such a home was in the Marlow family, combined with the names of Pam's poor dead brothers (Rollo? Gah!) has started me thinking they're more like the gentry. Maybe in reduced circumstances at times, but still. Though should the gentry be classed as upper-middle or upper class?

I'm confused now. I guess I shouldn't post when I'm so tired - sorry jediowl! I think I'm just trying to express my surprise at the size and importance of Trennels when the previous times I read the novels, I've just thought of it as a biggish parsonage type of size.

Re: (sniff)

[owl]

Actually I was pegging AF herself rather than the Marlows. But, bearing in mind that I'm Irish, not English, and born fifty years after the event, I shall attempt the Marlows too.

What they certainly aren't is aristocratic/high society. There is some suggestion in FL or so that Rowan might have gone to a finishing school, but her vague idea was an architect, not a deb.

The thing about Trennels is that's it not a grand estate, it's a working farm. I think the Marlows do go up a notch in the social scale by inheriting it (not the monetary one; have you heard the joke about the farmer who won the lottery? He's just going to farm on till the money's done.) But I'd say upper-upper-middle maybe :D All old farmhouses are inconveniently huge (luckily the Marlows were so prolific!)

Anyway, when they inherit it the kids are early twenties down to thirteen; what they've been raised as is Navy brats in Hampstead, decidedly upper-middle even if they are now an important old family in the land. Notice how it takes Nicola a good few books to acquire country attitudes.

Re: (sniff)

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I agree that they weren't raised as higher than upper middle class - but I do think Trennels is a bit posher than just a big old farmhouse. In Peter's Room, when he's thinking about the real Malise, he imagines the lad riding away from trennels, then corrects himself - at the time of the Civil War the family would have lived in the farmhouse proper where the Tranters now lived - Trennels the house was built by some ancestor who'd made a packet in the slave trade. Plus someone says to Nicola something about the Marlow family having been there since the Conquest or thereabouts - so I'd definitely class the family pile and the family name, so to speak, if not those Marlows themselves, as lower-upper-class. If there is such a thing! :)

I wouldn't say Trennels is a country estate like those is the Jeeves and Wooster novels - I'm imagining something smaller and more homely, but still more imposing than a farmhouse, even though it is a working farm. Does that make sense?

Re: (sniff)

[owl]

Often it's the country families that have the lengthy pedigrees back to 1066, while the titled aristocracy got their pile and their title by being a ruthless so-and-so a mere four centuries back or so. :D

BTW, this is a 17th/18th 'farmhouse' somewhere near where I live. Trennels-esque to you? By the early 20th century the family were what I'd say was top of the upper-middle for Ireland.

I think the Trennels Marlows must have been slowly and gently running out of lolly since the slave-trader. Perhaps someone who is a)English and b)was alive somewhere nearer the relevant period would add their opinion.

Anyway, as far as the attitudes of Nicola and the others go, it's the Navy tradition that seems to have the biggest effect, and their outer-London-suburbs upbringing (didn't they live at Richmond or Kingston at some point too?)

Re: (sniff)

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd say that was quite Trennels-esque - except in my head it's a mellow stone, rather than white. :)

One thing which does imply largish to me is the baize door, between servants' and family bits of the house - I always think of that as indicating a largish house with a decent sized staff (at one time, obviously not at the time Mrs. Bertie was there), whereas an actual farmhouse might have maids but wouldn't divide them off so distinctly. And I also get the impression that the village folk look upon the Marlows as the squires almost - the way the children were talking about the summer fete in Falconer's - that if they didn't join in it would look stuck up - and that Captain Marlow had been asked to be the judge... it seems to me that they are a class above the average farmer. Still, if the Marlows are the squires, I'm not sure where the Merricks fit inot that, as I thought of their home as being a bit more imposing than Trennels - what with the ballroom, priesthole and private chapel.

But, yeah, I agree now I've thought about it more - Nicola and her attitudes aren't upper-class, strictly speaking. Her values are definitely from her more middle-class background. (I think they had lived in Maidenhead when their London house was bombed?) But I reckon the family was more "important/upper class" once of a day.

To be honest, my ideas about class in England are a bit jumbled up, and I'm just thinking it through. I know more about class in towns than in the country! :)

Re: (sniff)

[anstruther.livejournal.com]

I think jediowl is bang on when she says it's often the country families who have the longest pedigrees.

If it's any help, the Marlows are described as "yeoman farmers" in The Players' Boy.

Wikipedia on yeoman farmers: "Yeoman" is an antiquated British term for a farmer of middling social status who owned his own land, and often farmed it himself. The yeomanry shared attributes with both the upper and working classes, though had little in common with the urban middle class. A yeoman could be equally comfortable shovelling manure on his farm, educating himself from books, or enjoying country sports such as shooting and hunting. By contrast members of the landed gentry and the aristocracy did not farm their land themselves, but let it to tenant farmers."
If you're interested, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman) for more information.

I think it's easier to peg the Merricks than the Marlows. The Merricks are definitely the local squires - they are landed gentry types, uppper class certainly, possibly somewhat aristocratic. The Marlows are more difficult, the whole junior-branch/London/Navy/landowning-but-farming-it-themselves mix makes things more ambiguous but they are definitely lower in the social scale than the Merricks. I think it's quite telling that in TPB Nicholas is surprised that Anthony Merrick speaks to him, although he expects Anthony to know who he is as a matter of course. Things had obviously levelled out somewhat by the twentieth century but the Merricks would still seem to have "better" social standing.

Re: (sniff)

[(Anonymous)]

"I think it's easier to peg the Merricks than the Marlows. The Merricks are definitely the local squires - they are landed gentry types, uppper class certainly, possibly somewhat aristocratic. The Marlows are more difficult, the whole junior-branch/London/Navy/landowning-but-farming-it-themselves mix makes things more ambiguous but they are definitely lower in the social scale than the Merricks"


I agree - but isn't there a suggestion that Father Merrick married above his class? I'm thinking of "he was a penniless Lieutenant" in Ready Made Family. I havent read the 16th century books, but I've always assumed that the Merricks were yeomanry -on-the-up.

Re: (sniff)

[anstruther.livejournal.com]

hmm, I don't remember anything about Anthony Merrick's background from the books but Geoff Marlow was the "penniless Lieutenant" of The Ready Made Family - during the bathtime conversation Mrs Marlow says it was one of the several reasons Mme Orly objected to their marriage.

Definitely recommend the sixteenth century books if you can get hold of them.

Re: (sniff)

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Geoff Marlow was the "penniless Lieutenant" of The Ready Made Family - during the bathtime conversation Mrs Marlow says it was one of the several reasons Mme Orly objected to their marriage


That's what I was referring to, and what made me suggest that he was marrying above himself - hurrah! I've worked out logging in at last

Re: (sniff)

[anstruther.livejournal.com]

Well done and LOTS of fellow feeling about any posting problems you're having with LJdom - I only got an LJ recently and I'm still very hit and miss when it comes to posting. And I still haven't sorted myself out an icon (which is entirely my own incompetent fault because carmine_rose (http://www.livejournal.com/users/carmine_rose/) has very kindly given me permission to use her icons).

And, erm, I think we're in agreement but I got confused because you referred to "Father Merrick" in your first post.

Re: (sniff)

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I have to ask - what did you suggest to AF? What's "Not my Nicola!"?

Re: (sniff)

[(Anonymous)]

I'm still desperately waiting to hear the answer to this one... what was "not her Nicola?"

Re: (sniff)

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I'm not sure, but I think it was my views on Nicola's noble stoic stiff-upper-lippery, which I unwisely voiced (I did a lot of unwise things during my meeting with Antonia Forest. Am embarrassingly idiotic fangirl). I said something like "Gaaah, she's just so Noble and Stoic! Can't she ever show a *bit* of emotion and cry or yell or sulk or something??"

Cue for proud, fond smile. "Not my Nicola."

Re: Heh

[owl]

Hmm. I don't think Peter takes Lawrie's flaws as far as she does--he's starting to grow out of his tendency to flap like a very flappy thing in moments of crisis, which Lawrie isn't, yet. (And if everyone keeps carrying her through crises, I don't know how she ever will.) I'm thinking of Ran Away Home, where although he does go into rather a funk when Giles is stramaging about the cosat of France, he does manage okay when Giles is concussed. There's no-one else around and he has to cope with the boat and possiblydead!Giles, and so he does. I don't think he might make such a bad officer after all, but I don't think he'll stay in the Navy for ever--he's not Giles. Nor is he Nick, who apart from seasickness and girl-ness is much more obvious officer material. :D

I don't know that Lawrie is condemned greatly--I think Ginty gets more astringency. The bits where you get the author disapproval, IMO, is where Lawrie's behaving badly even according to her own lights, like in EoT where she's thinking all those nasty thoughts about Nicola getting the Shepherd Boy. And I don't know that Peter is all that like her. Lawrie at her worst is self-dramatising, self-absorbed and tends to retreat into childishness to avoid things. With Peter, it's more that he cares too much what people think of him (which is like Ginty, not Lawrie), and he's measuring up his physical courage and competence against Giles and Rowan all the time, with the result that he tries too hard at things he really can't do (heights and horses). Also, he bullies the twins sometimes.

Re: Heh

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can't really back up my previous remark about Peter and Lawrie's faults being similar at all with any evidence! But I do think he is as unpleasant/annoying as she is sometimes. I don't know if we're meant to like him, as Nicola does, but I never have done, really.

Hmmm. I'm tired, so this will be disorganised, sorry. I think maybe I feel that AF criticises Lawrie a lot because the things she obviously disapproves about are the things about Lawrie that I see in myself, if that makes sense. And they are the things I most dislike about myself - youngest child, a bit spoilt, a bit selfish, wants her own way too often, shouts until she gets it. So I feel defensive and protective of Lawrie and notice the disapproval, while at the same time disliking the way she so often is. And I do think that even when Lawrie doesn't know she's being unbearable, we're sometimes supposed to find her so. I don't notice the Ginty criticism as much - what makes you say that AF is harder on her?.

With Peter - his faults aren't that similar to Lawrie's, really. I think I just feel that his faults are equally annoying - he's sulky and stubborn, he bullies the twins and snubs Ann, and he's entirely too worried about the way he appears, as you noted.

But he does a very good job in the boat, and he also comes through in Traitor, from what I remember. He's certainly a lot more able/willing to conquer his fears than Lawrie, but his good job in Voyage Home reminds me a little of Lawrie's stiff upper lip in the play in End of Term, when for once she gets on with the job rather than erupting into a tantrum.

(If this appears twice, sorry - I thought I'd posted it, then it wasn't there, so I re-posted)

Re: Heh

[owl]

Ginty at various times gets it in the neck from both the Merrick parents, Karen, Jon, Rowan, Nicola and even long-suffering Ann. I think one of the most pointed bits, apart from Mr Merrick's 'Lady of Shallot' comparison, is 'her sister Karen had once told her disapprovingly that she was a very light-weight sort of person, and Ginty hadn't liked it all so she had dimissed it and ran off to play tennis' (paraphrased from Traitor).

The thing about Lawrie is that for her, playing her part, however trivial it is, is more important to her than whatever miseries she has in her life at that point. It suggests to me that she will make a success of her acting career. Peter, OTOH, can't seem to detach 'Peter the naval officer' from the rest of him the way Lawrie can with 'Lawrence S. Marlow' or 'Sophia Lawrence' or whatever she's calling 'Lawrie the actress'.

Peter at his worst I think is less obtrusive than Lawrie at her worst--everyone will know when Lawrie's having a tantrum, but Peter being snarly is less of a social embarrassment. Oh, and another not-so-nice facet of Peter, for which Nicola does roundly condemn him, is his tendency to wriggle out of any work and see will Ann do it for him (which Lawrie and to an extent Ginty do too). Of course Nick goes in the opposite direction and gets self-righteous and snappy about doing her own jobs.

Basically all the lower-deck Marlows are very real with their warts and all, but there's no question that AF preferred and identified as Nicola.

Re: Heh

[richenda.livejournal.com]

'her sister Karen had once told her disapprovingly that she was a very light-weight sort of person, and Ginty hadn't liked it all so she had dimissed it and ran off to play tennis' (paraphrased from Traitor).


Proof of pudding, yes? Very neat and a typical AF subtlety.

[owl]

Yes, I think Patrick is meant to be fanciable. Gold-coloured eyes :D

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, with the black hair and eyebrows as well. Total yum!

[owl]

Mmm. I've never seen anyone I'd be inclined to cast as Patrick, but I have quite a clear image of him in my head. What about you?

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm hopeless at casting. If I see someone on TV, I can think "He'd be perfect for [whoever]!" but I can't do it the other way around. But I have a very clear picture too; partly because I knew someone at school who (apart from being a bit too short) was just how I imagined Patrick.

But have you ever read any Anne MacCaffrey? Because F'lar is totally Patrick all grown up.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Ooh, just thought; maybe Orlando Bloom could do pull it off, though his eyes are a bit dark.

I imagine him to be quite skinny and rangy, not a beefy lad, so Orlando fits with that. Plus he's totally hott. ;)

[owl]

Yes, Patrick's lanky, he's a good bit taller than Peter for most of the series (I had to adjust my mental image of Peter in Run Away Home wwhen it said he'd gone all at once from small and stocky to long and thin, as if with malice aforethought to avoid fitting into any of Giles' hand-me-downs. I'd been imagining him as small and skinny.)

Apart from Orlando's eyes I see Patrick as being rather more sharp-featured than that. Give Orlando a nose job and stretch his face a little and you'd be getting close :)

[ankaret.livejournal.com]

Lanky lad is AF, but the bit about Giles's hand-me-downs was me. Unless I plagiarised it from Run Away Home and forgot, which I entirely might have done.

They'd have to put a straight wig and contact lenses on Orli, but it's not as if he isn't used to it. :)

[owl]

Eeek. I've never been confused between canon and fanfic anywhere before. (Talking about fanfic, are you ever going to finish the Doctor Who crossover? :) )

[ankaret.livejournal.com]

God knows. I've hit a wall, and whilst there's some more that could be polished and put up, it doesn't seem fair to do so when I have no idea what would follow.

My own damn silly fault for publishing WIPs, I suppose... :(

[yiskah.livejournal.com]

For me, the characters make the difference between liking and admiring a book, and truly loving it. I can admire the creation of a three-dimensional, interesting and intriguing character, but unless I truly love a character, in the sense of wishing I knew them in real life, I will never truly love a book. To take Harry Potter for an example, I am fascinated by Snape, and feel him to be the most important character in the whole series, but it's characters like Remus Lupin and Sirius Black that really make me love the books. With AF, it's characters like Marie Dobson and Lois Sanger and Tim that prove her to be such an excellent writer, but without characters like Miranda and Patrick, whom I would love to meet, I doubt I would feel as much visceral love for the books.

It's a pretty unsophisticated way of approaching literature, and leads me to loving a number of books that are far from being unusually well-written or well-crafted. But there it is.

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

Is it so unsophisticated? I'd put it down to the difference between engaging the head and engaging the heart, and that for you a book must do both for you to love it. Or something. ;D

Curiously, I project the other way round: I sometimes cultivate people that would make fascinating fictional characters who aren't good people to be around in real life (Tim, Gollum, Snape? Hmmm). Someone once told me I pick my friends because they're interesting and not because they're nice...

[owl]

Hmm. I like to read about interestingly flawed characters, but I tend to pick my favourite characters according to the affilation criterion. Since fictional characters I like seem to take up permanent residence in my head :), this is a good thing. I don't want Gollum in my head, thanks.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

. I've noticed three factors which seem to shape readers' tastes, which I could tentatively divide into identification, affiliation and characterisation (fledgeling theory).

That's very interesting - also interesting is your remark that Nicola's is the dominant POV. I've never seen that before, and I'm still not sure that I agree. (Might that be why AF left her out of Thuggery - becoming conscious of the dominance? I've read somewhere that she talked about "my Nicola"........)

I didn't read the "home" books until I was an adult (although reading Falconer's I began to doubt that, and to wonder if I had read it before.

As a schoolgirl reader, I always saw Kingscote itself as the principal character, and had some sympathy with the "must be so satisfactory to be a Marlow" POV - because I was sent away to school precisely to avoid the possibility of becoming satisfied with being a Xxxxxx.

Reading Ready made Family I began to like Karen very much - not much fun having your juniors deciding that you're not much cop as a stepmother, then proceeding to make sure that you don't get much chance to become one .....
It's clear from Falconer's that she's fairly competent in the kitchen, although she'd rather do a salad than a cake, and we later hear that it's baking that isn't her forte - so she isn't a complete bookworm.
Then in Peter's Room she's quite patient with the younger people when they won't let her get on with her work.
Yes, i quite like Karen.