One-trick Pony?

[sr71plt]

Well, you probably deserve it.

Not Braun. She's spiraled up into that great circular apple barn in the sky.

 

[lovecraft68]

When we did the tag team competition I came up with a story that featured a lot of bdsm/fetish sex because the male lead owned a strip club/brothel.

But there were a lot of other aspects to the story a "sins of the past" type motiff for both characters, a corrupt religious leader(are there any other kind), action, an undercover "mission" a shoot out and my typical level of over the top violence.

But once it was finished and I have been rewriting some of it lately to make it all mine(as parts of it were done by my partner xelliebabex) it dawned on me that what I had-minus the heavy fetish sex-was a "real" novel, too much sex for mainstream because it was accurate and no one met their inner goddess repeatedly, but it told me my muse was capable of kicking aside the majority of the sex and creating an actual mainstream piece.

So who knows? Maybe down the line an idea will strike and I'll give it a shot.

 

[StrangeLife]

Dude! Did we read the same series?

JKR is a fantastic world-builder, no doubt, but the majority of her characters are cartoonish. Severus Snape is the only character who approaches real person territory, and even he can't walk across the room without his robes billowing dramatically.

Are you kidding? Cartoonish? Did you watch the movies or read the books?

 

[lovecraft68]

Are you kidding? Cartoonish? Did you watch the movies or read the books?

Cartoonish? Uh, oh! Dems fighting words

 

[Bramblethorn]

Are you kidding? Cartoonish? Did you watch the movies or read the books?

I think "cartoonish" is fair for most of them. Don't get me wrong, they are well-drawn cartoons and powerful in their way; I almost walked out of the cinema because JKR and Imelda Staunton did rather too well at portraying Umbridge's awfulness and it pushed some of my buttons.

But Umbridge is very one-dimensional, so completely horrible that even her strongly-implied rape at the end of OotP is presented as comedy:

Professor Umbridge was lying in a bed opposite them, gazing up at the ceiling. Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the centaurs; how he had done it-how he had emerged from the trees supporting Professor Umbridge without so much as a scratch on him-nobody knew, and Umbridge was certainly not telling. Since she had returned to the castle she had not, as far as any of them knew, uttered a single word. Nobody really knew what was wrong with her, either. Her usually neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of twigs and leaves in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed.

"Madam Pomfrey says she's just in shock," whispered Hermione.

"Sulking, more like," said Ginny.

"Yeah, she shows signs of life if you do this," said Ron, and with his tongue he made soft clip-clopping noises. Umbridge sat bolt upright, looking around wildly.

"Anything wrong, Professor?" called Madam Pomfrey, poking her head around her office door.

"No… no…" said Umbridge, sinking back into her pillows. "No, I must have been dreaming…"

Hermione and Ginny muffled their laughter in the bedclothes.

(and yes, centaurs in myth have strong associations with rape, and JKR knows her mythical background well enough to be aware of that.)

There are some characters with more complexity. Dumbledore, Snape, and Petunia become more nuanced late in the series, and I could probably come up with a few others if I had time (gotta leave for work). But for every character like that there are dozens of broad-brush depictions like Filch, Lockhart, Vernon, etc etc.

 

[allamagione]

Are you kidding? Cartoonish? Did you watch the movies or read the books?

The books. And don't get me wrong, I love the series!

But I did a double-take when you said three-dimensional characters because most of her characters read as archetypal to me, bordering on farcical at times. In a way, they had to be. She was writing books for children. Everything had to be exaggerated, e.g. the Dursleys, Slughorn, Rita Skeeter, Mad-Eye Moody, Bellatrix, the Malfoys, Romilda Vane, even Arthur and Molly Weasley are rather flat...

I haven't read her other work. Perhaps the characterizations are more nuanced when she's targeting an adult audience?

 

[StrangeLife]

The books. And don't get me wrong, I love the series!

But I did a double-take when you said three-dimensional characters because most of her characters read as archetypal to me, bordering on farcical at times. In a way, they had to be. She was writing books for children. Everything had to be exaggerated, e.g. the Dursleys, Slughorn, Rita Skeeter, Mad-Eye Moody, Bellatrix, the Malfoys, Romilda Vane, even Arthur and Molly Weasley are rather flat...

I haven't read her other work. Perhaps the characterizations are more nuanced when she's targeting an adult audience?

I am not claiming that she doesn't use archetypes, like Rita Skeeter and - as Bramblethorn says - Umbridge, who is basically everything you have always hated about bureaucracy combined into one person. And there is no doubt that parts of the books are written a bit tongue-in-cheek, in that snide British style we know and love.

But you are never in any doubt about a characters motivation - even the bad guys. Compare Voldemort - whose journey to the darkside is very well fleshed out in the books - to Sauron for instance. Who is Sauron, where does he come from and why is he so pissed off at everybody? We have no answer, except: "well, he's... y'know... bad".

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am not claiming that she doesn't use archetypes, like Rita Skeeter and - as Bramblethorn says - Umbridge, who is basically everything you have always hated about bureaucracy combined into one person. And there is no doubt that parts of the books are written a bit tongue-in-cheek, in that snide British style we know and love.

But you are never in any doubt about a characters motivation - even the bad guys. Compare Voldemort - whose journey to the darkside is very well fleshed out in the books - to Sauron for instance. Who is Sauron, where does he come from and why is he so pissed off at everybody? We have no answer, except: "well, he's... y'know... bad".

Tolkien provided plenty of answers to that in the Silmarillion. In brief, Sauron is something like a fallen angel, created before the world, the same order of being as Gandalf, Saruman, and the Balrog, though much more powerful. He was corrupted by Morgoth (effectively a Lucifer-type figure) because he had a passion for order and admired Morgoth's decisiveness and ability to get things done.

LotR is part of a broader canon; reading it on its own is a bit like coming into the HP series at the start of Deathly Hallows.

 

[lovecraft68]

Tolkien provided plenty of answers to that in the Silmarillion. In brief, Sauron is something like a fallen angel, created before the world, the same order of being as Gandalf, Saruman, and the Balrog, though much more powerful. He was corrupted by Morgoth (effectively a Lucifer-type figure) because he had a passion for order and admired Morgoth's decisiveness and ability to get things done.

LotR is part of a broader canon; reading it on its own is a bit like coming into the HP series at the start of Deathly Hallows.

I had a hard time with Silmarillion took a few tries to get through it, it really didn't read smoothly

 

[squirrelzo]

No, no I was just responding to JBJ's comment that Strike is an oddly named character. Just pointing out most detectives in fiction are uniquely named...

No need to convince me I'm JKR's biggest fan...

You are looking at it from the wrong angle Squirrel. It is true that Cormoran Strike is the cliche anti-heroic drinking and smoking detective, but this is a perfect example of how Rowling operates.

Look at Harry Potter for instanpooce. Harry himself is probably the least interesting character in the entire book. He is a totally cliche teenager of the more timid variety - not especially talented or intelligent. He is born into a notoriety he never earned and is basically coasting through the books relying on the supporting characters to suck him into challenging situations (and often save his magical ass too).

But the world in which Harry Potter exists is realised in amazing detail and the characters who inhabit it are three-dimensional and everything but cliche. Nobody is inherently good or bad - just like real people - and if you remember when the books were still being released, the readers were thrown around so many loops it made you dizzy yet everything came together perfectly in the end. This is where Rowling shines - she's a world builder and a highly character driven story teller.

Now translate this ability to the detective genre.

Take a relatively cliche detective who is moderately competent but with a strong desire to do the right thing (like Harry Potter). By himself he is not that interesting, but then he gets the task of looking into the death of a super-model who was part of the upper crust of London's fashion scene and suddenly Rowling is back to building an engaging world of weird and interesting characters. Except that in this case they're not wizards but fashion designers, models, lawyers and movie moguls with their neurotic trophy wives. In a way she is totally doing her Harry Potter thang again.

So when it comes to this author you should never judge a book by it's protagonist...

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Ive said it before: deep down, most readers want archetypes--it's easier and doesn't require a lot of thinking. Most people want to feel good. You'll catch a lot more flies with a Yoda or an Emperor than you will a Holden Caulfield, even if the second is more respected.

Originality=cred
Archetypes=popularity.

Every once in a while, someone makes an original character that it so good that it becomes an archetype. That's the holy grail.

 

[StrangeLife]

Tolkien provided plenty of answers to that in the Silmarillion. In brief, Sauron is something like a fallen angel, created before the world, the same order of being as Gandalf, Saruman, and the Balrog, though much more powerful. He was corrupted by Morgoth (effectively a Lucifer-type figure) because he had a passion for order and admired Morgoth's decisiveness and ability to get things done.

LotR is part of a broader canon; reading it on its own is a bit like coming into the HP series at the start of Deathly Hallows.

That's retconning. Silmarillion was written well after LOTR and is not part of the trilogy. It wasn't available in 1955 when Return of the King was published.

Despite being sold as a "series of novels" Harry Potter is basically one cohesive 4000 page heptalogy written over a period of ten years. It makes no sense for a new reader to begin anywhere but at the beginning of book 1.

 

[allamagione]

I am not claiming that she doesn't use archetypes, like Rita Skeeter and - as Bramblethorn says - Umbridge, who is basically everything you have always hated about bureaucracy combined into one person. And there is no doubt that parts of the books are written a bit tongue-in-cheek, in that snide British style we know and love.

But you are never in any doubt about a characters motivation - even the bad guys. Compare Voldemort - whose journey to the darkside is very well fleshed out in the books - to Sauron for instance. Who is Sauron, where does he come from and why is he so pissed off at everybody? We have no answer, except: "well, he's... y'know... bad".

I've never read LotR (or seen the films), so I can't make the comparison. Honestly, I think Voldemort is rather one-dimensional. He journeys from a sociopathic little boy into a sociopathic adult with bigger weapons at his disposal.

Now GRRM... there's an author who can write a multi-dimensional character. Compare Voldemort with Tywin Lannister.

 

[allamagione]

Ive said it before: deep down, most readers want archetypes--it's easier and doesn't require a lot of thinking. Most people want to feel good. You'll catch a lot more flies with a Yoda or an Emperor than you will a Holden Caulfield, even if the second is more respected.

Originality=cred
Archetypes=popularity.

Every once in a while, someone makes an original character that it so good that it becomes an archetype. That's the holy grail.

I agree that most readers want the monomyth. It's familiar, powerful, universal. And it does require use of archetypes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's retconning. Silmarillion was written well after LOTR and is not part of the trilogy. It wasn't available in 1955 when Return of the King was published.

Despite being sold as a "series of novels" Harry Potter is basically one cohesive 4000 page heptalogy written over a period of ten years. It makes no sense for a new reader to begin anywhere but at the beginning of book 1.

Not hardly. Tolkien started working on the Silmarillion way back in 1914. He had a lot of that material written before he started on The Hobbit almost 20 years late. When his publisher asked for a follow-up to The Hobbit, he sent them a draft of Silmarillion, but they knocked it back so he wrote LotR instead.

Silmarillion was published last, but having been written first it's far from a retcon. In fact, there is some retconning in LotR where JRRT forgot some of the stuff he'd previously established in Silmarillion - Glorfindel was supposed to have died thousands of years earlier.

(And not like there isn't retconning in Harry Potter - some examples here.)

 

[StrangeLife]

Now GRRM... there's an author who can write a multi-dimensional character. Compare Voldemort with Tywin Lannister.

No protest here. Martin is in a class of his own.

Not hardly. Tolkien started working on the Silmarillion way back in 1914. He had a lot of that material written before he started on The Hobbit almost 20 years late. When his publisher asked for a follow-up to The Hobbit, he sent them a draft of Silmarillion, but they knocked it back so he wrote LotR instead.

Silmarillion was published last, but having been written first it's far from a retcon.

Hmmm, I must admit that my Tolkien lore is less than complete. I wasn't aware that he wrote Silmarillion so early. Still, it doesn't do much to "humanize" Sauron. Even if you know what he is, he feels more like a force of nature than a badguy. He is like a big red lightbulb that goes out once the mission is accomplished.

Compare this to a Gandalf, who is also a Maia. While far less complex than Dumbledore, he is at least relatable and has a personality. As a reader you care what happens to him.

(And not like there isn't retconning in Harry Potter - some examples here.).

Actually those are continuity errors - not retconning. Rowling wrote the books over the span of a decade and when she started out she had no idea how diligently they would be examined by fans. Considering the complexity of the world she built, she did pretty good though.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hmmm, I must admit that my Tolkien lore is less than complete. I wasn't aware that he wrote Silmarillion so early. Still, it doesn't do much to "humanize" Sauron. Even if you know what he is, he feels more like a force of nature than a badguy. He is like a big red lightbulb that goes out once the mission is accomplished.

Compare this to a Gandalf, who is also a Maia. While far less complex than Dumbledore, he is at least relatable and has a personality. As a reader you care what happens to him.

Yeah, fair points.

I think one of the things with Tolkien is that although most of his stories are set in the same world, the style shifts around a lot. Silmarillion is world-building with a cast of thousands and told over thousands of years, and it aims for a sort of mythic style that relies on shiny heroes and dastardly villains without much in between. The Hobbit and LotR have more room for fleshing out characters, so we get people like Boromir and Gollum who have a bit more complexity to them; even the orcs in LotR are a bit more 'human'.

Even between Hobbit and LotR there are some noticeable shifts, e.g. the slapstick trolls with the talking purse would be quite out of place in LotR.

I'm not a Tolkien scholar and haven't checked the development history, so I could be completely wrong, but I suspect the characters who are more nuanced are the ones who were created for Hobbit/LotR, without such strong Silmarillion influences.

Actually those are continuity errors - not retconning. Rowling wrote the books over the span of a decade and when she started out she had no idea how diligently they would be examined by fans. Considering the complexity of the world she built, she did pretty good though.

Yeah, some are simple continuity errors, but others I'd class as retconning, e.g. the nerf to Apparating or the change to Percy's badge noted here, where later editions of PS/SS were edited to make it consistent with book 5.

But the biggest retcon IMHO is the idea that a wizard who defeats another wizard becomes the owner of their wand. This seems like the sort of thing every wizard ought to know, and there are several incidents in the early books where it would have been relevant, but I don't think it's even mentioned until very late in the series when JKR needed to invoke it in relationship to the Elder Wand. This is the only one that really bugged me; the others are pretty minor details, this one's a really important plot point.