Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Literary Focus: Characterization

Prose Fiction
Laura Anne Gilman states in her blog about literature,
     “Clever's not enough to hold me - I want characters who are more than devices to be moved about for Effect.”
What are your thought? Do you agree with Gilman?  Please explain your answer.  Also, do not forget to respond to at least one of your peers.

75 comments:

  1. I agree with Gilman in the sense that characters shouldn't just be clever. This is because a good character is one that has a deeper meaning and can stand very well off on their own. Furthermore, a good character is one that people can relate to or believe can actually exist. All in all, a character isn't just something to be used as an author's pawn, they can be seen as idols and can impact the world of literature greatly--just look at Romeo and Juliet, one of the most famous couples in literature ever seen. A character shouldn't only contain qualities that make them appear perfect and out of reality's reach, but instead, should have dimensions added to make the reader and author see them at a higher level as well. This is what goes beyond a clever character and brings upon the great one that Gilman would prefer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Emilia, when you say "good character is one that people can [believe to actually exist]." what do you refer to? Do you mean characteristic traits that real people have mixed with others different traits? Or characterics that readers have? If the character can exist in our world, would it be limited?

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with you. The characters Should give a deeper meaning to the story. It shouldn't just be like a chess piece that the author can manipulate. The character should be made to seem as an independent character that can think. This would make the character seem more human-like instead of just as a robot.

      Delete
    3. I truly like what you said Emilia,by a character that does'nt"appear perfect". At times when we are given the power to create a character we want to create someone perfect, but the best character is the one that is most human in my opinion, for instance, a character that feels true human emotions which are, bitterness, resentment, envy, joy. Let it not be a character that seems sub-human, like what Mr. Rogers said in class on thursday, "the girl doesn't always get the guy" and that is raw reality that at times in books try to reverse, making the character and ultimately the story less relatable or believable.

      Delete
  2. Gilman doesn't want characters who are just there for effect, which uses cleverness to make that effect. She wants something more, like maybe an emotional appeal or a personal connection with a character. If you have that, the effect is already there without you having to search for it or you having to create it. That's what Gilman thinks of literature. Otherwise, some writers utilize their "cleverness" to make their piece be effective. When that happens, you cannot really have more in a character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you when you said she might want an emotional appeal or personal connection with her audience. It makes sense since while you are reading a book or watch something all of your attention and focus tends to go to the characters you can relate with. Those are the interesting ones, and if all the character has to their personality is being clever that does not give the audience much to relate to making him/her dull.

      Delete
    2. Jennytrinh NguyenAugust 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM

      I agree with you completely. Creating cleverness alone in a work will result in a dull or unrealistic character. There will be no connections that will draw both the author and the readers together. In creating an emotional appeal or personal connection, it gives the reader an "eye to eye" level with the author, thus creating an effect. Simply utilizing "cleverness" as a source of an effect will give the characters no sense of individuality but rather clinging on to the author for support.

      Delete
  3. EsperanzaElizarrarazAugust 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

    I agree with what Laura Anne Gilman is saying. In my opinion, I feel that she means she doesn't want shallow characters that are just there to fill up a spot. I feel the same. Characters should be complex and very well developed, in a way that they help guide a reader through the story to understand the plots and themes that they bring up. They should be deep and have their own thoughts , this is a being that is being created through the way they act, the way they are, and what they do. So they definitely have to bring that with them in order to create this unique person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a point, a "shallow" character does not bring much to a story. A well rounded person in the other hand brings forward that "unique person" you speak of. No intricate story contains just clever characters because they are not interesting and seem just perfect.

      Delete
    2. Esperanza I agree with you readers should be able to understand the characters more in order to understand the plot otherwise parts of the story or the actual reader wouldnt understand why the character would do such thing if they can't relate to or understand its personality.

      Delete
  4. I think what Gilman is trying to say is "clever" is usually looked as a flat characteristic. It's limiting the way clever can be be looked as. Giving the feeling, if you are clever than that is all you can be. Gilman wants to be more than that. As for characters, it can be looked as rhetorical devices. Or a method to get a point across. Gilman wants to go deeper into the characters, to giving more detail and personal traits which will led to emotional events, capturing readers interest. I agree with Gilman, because authors limiting themselves creates dullness. It will not capture any attention much less make any effect. If characters are only used as "devices", it will eliminates all the creative drama and suspense that any good novel can have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, true. If a character has nothing more than wit and cleverness, then that character is as flat as invisible. There is no connection made and what the reader reads will not hit home for them.

      Delete
    2. I agree, if the character has no personality then what the purpose of that character. If authors don't go that much into depth about a character than the reader will get lost

      Delete
  5. As literature has evolved, most of the characters have not. Gilman makes a correct assertion when saying that characters should be more than just clever characters that are there to give the text an effect of possibly terror or even a jovial mood. Characters should not just "be there," they should be more like real people. They should serve to give an effect to the novel, but they should also play a bigger role. They should portray a real person with all the emotions, thoughts, and mood changes that come along with being a human. Writers have to evolve their characters more to begin a new era of more inventive and unique writing. Enough with the flat two dimensional characters! Novels now need three dimensional characters that pop out to the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christian ShaughnessyAugust 1, 2012 at 11:41 PM

      That's right, even as literature has developed into all sorts of subgenres and topics ( even previously frowned upon material, and I shudder to call it "literature" of course, but Fifty Shades of Gray is salient here) tropes and classic archetypes have stayed resilient, despite cliches naturally developing out of this mess. Cliches are by their nature creativity and thought terminators and poor writers *must* understand that use of them only damns the rest of us to the same purgatory of the mind that they're in. Still what could be a a truely objective third dimensional and even dare one say *authentic* metric for a character? No doubt many a reader and writer would disagree bloodily on this. What pray tell would be *your* standard of authenticity on a character Ms.Marin?

      Delete
    2. True, even after so many years of literature evolving after so many years, most stories still, at times have many dull characters that are just there for effect. Definitely they should be characterized as a real
      person, if not then all characters would be plain boring.
      -jesus A.

      Delete
    3. Right, if the characters don't stand out then they make the novel or short story seem dull or even emotionless. The character should be well rounded in order to create a hook or attention grabber in the novel.

      Delete
    4. I see your point Christian, you are right when you mention that the archetype characters roll on throughout literature. But to answer your question, there probably isn't an authentic metric for a character, but my standard for authenticity would probably be a character that doesn't make you think, "yea right, that could/would never happen in real life." The character would have to not be perfect, it should make mistakes and seem less fictional, even if it is a fiction story. And even in a fiction story like Frankenstein, the monster seems realistic because it portrays the perspective we have of monstrous figures.

      Delete
  6. I completely agree with Gilman's opinion about characters.Cleverness shouldn't be the only quality of a character,because readers have a tendency to read books where the character shares attributes that they can relate to.Characters should have flaws and be unpredictable to keep the readers wanting more.I can relate to characters like Forrest Gump,who was constantly doubted but surprisingly overcame his situation and came out on top. Great characters with Gilman perfers make a reader have a relationship with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brianna RodriguezAugust 2, 2012 at 9:05 PM

      I agree, readers like to know they are not alone. They look for books that they can relate to. Its easy to say that anyone can write what people want to hear, but not what really happens in life. Readers like to see that not everything is perfect there are stories that are interesting to them because they have gone through it before.

      Delete
  7. Christian ShaughnessyAugust 1, 2012 at 11:25 PM

    Gilman is absolutely correct in her judgement that conveniently "clever" characters in literature often fail to capture actual human characteristics that will speak to your human readers. At best the all too over used, wonderfully intelligent, wisecracking, and perpetually sarcastic one dimensional smartass character in literature is nothing more than filler and dressing for a writer's temporary block and at worst a cover for sheer laziness and lack of imagination. Characterization that will be even remotely relatable to one's readers needs to utilize, well *real* characteristics, and unlike the constant deus ex machinimas that always seem to come to the rescue of "clever" characters in the form of eye roll inducing sudden insights into the characters environment ( Locked door? I know! Let's use this key I picked up from my long lost grandfather's old dusty box that for some reason my cardboard personality made me keep in my pocket!) "Real" people fail as much as they succeed and decent literature ought to show this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that these overused "wisecracking" characters aren't relatable to the majority of readers. The 'deus ex machinimas' (Fancy! I didn't even know what that was until I googled it) you mentioned are incredibly cliche and do present a lack of imagination. However, maybe these characters aren't created for relatability. Think of Sherlock Holmes-- you're not supposed to relate to him, you're supposed to laugh at his remarks and awe at his ability to Houdini himself out of any situation. It's possible the author only intended for the character to be humorous and entertaining.

      Delete
    2. Christian ShaughnessyAugust 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM

      Ah, but Sherlock Holmes *is* a bit more than just a clever facade. The man is quite rounded, he's a cocaine addict, as a male he views women as interesting only when they offer him problems ( exactly the opposite of the rest of us I might add), he has a deep friendship with Watson, and he retires as a beekeeper for God's sakes.

      The man is clever but precisely because he is clever, he can be so much more on the way to exercising that habit.

      With your last point; I suppose that an author really could just have a humorous and entertaining character present if there really is a purpose there.

      Just no prolefeed please.

      Delete
  8. Gilman's statement is telling us that an average character isn't good enough to keep a reader's full attention. I agree with her statement, because a character who is considered to be "clever" can only entertain the reader for so long. Once the character overuses that specific trait he/she becomes dull and uninteresting which tends to bore the reader. The overuse of cleverness in a character is a common cliché nowadays. So Gilman strives to create inventive characters that will keep the reader on edge and interested throughout the plot. It's no wonder why she's such a successful writer who has mastered the art of creating series in which her characters are able to hold the reader's interest all the way through, not just for a short amount of time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The usage of the word "clever" in Laura Anne Gilman's claim applies to not only the characters in the fiction but the author as well. The author used these characters as mere tools in his or her fiction to create an effect, similar to a player using pawns to checkmate the king. Rather than going more in depth with the character's background, they were used as to demonstrate the ability of the author's work. Gilman is correct to assert that the use of the characters should be more than an effect, such as to characterized them as individuals with human qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Gilman. In works of fiction, a simple character is not enough to please an audience. The characters of a story are not made to add a bit of interest; they are created to give the tale purpose. It is almost as if they are actual beings, and beings are not often born from nothing; they are given a past, a present, and a future. If they have no past, then their present could be difficult to understand, leading to a story that one would not enjoy. Characters can be as real as any human, and their purpose is to tell the story, not to add "effect".

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with Gilman because characters should be easily related to a person no matter what the circumstances. The characters are able to be seen as a real life human bieng just by how they act, we shouldn't be guesing if they are human or not
    -jesus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True; however, having the character made out to be mysterious and different can hook a reader more. Relatable characters, although easy to understand, can sometimes become boring to some readers who crave something different than their own life. I do agree, I just believe that a story can also contain complex characters, as well.

      Delete
  12. I agree with Gilman to a point. I feel that the main characters should be more complex and interesting, because it keep the readers more entertained. Not only would they be trying to figure out the plot of the story, but they would also be busy trying to understand the characters and what makes them tick. However I do believe that some characters need to be simple in order to support the main characters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say that "it keep the readers more entertained" but Gilman wants characters that add story not just effect. The effect means that it is not just going to be entertaining but also complex and to add to the meaning of the story. With clever characters it can add more then just the effect Gilman states, with the clever characters used correctly it can make a piece of literature more complex and more difficult to understand but also more entertaining as you stated.

      Delete
    2. The purpose of reading is to entertain oneself so when Gilman says she doesn't want a clever character I don't think sge means she doesn't want an entertaining character, but that she doesn't want a one trick pony. She wants a complex character like u said, one that is more than just funny or smart, but one that is more human like. This kind of character is easy to relate to and more entertaining.

      Delete
    3. No main character is ever just one thing. How is cleverness simple? Last time I checked people need to have knowledge or background information to truly understand a clever thing said otherwise it's just overlooked. I personally am attracted to those clever characters for I feel as though I can relate to them the most. What do you mean human like?

      Delete
    4. Well said Serigo. However Chris Gilman states "Clever's not enough to hold me ..." she never directly says she doesn't want clever characters but implies that she doesn't want one trait for a character such as being clever but having a variety of traits. As to your question sergio I believe Chris means "Human like" as in containing traits that some readers can relate to as well as flaws. A one trick pony could be just as important as the one who knows many.

      Delete
    5. Thats exactly what I was thinking christian, except for the pony thing. I do enjoy clever characters but only when theirs more to them. Although at times it might not seem like there is more to them there usually is and finding a connection to them is whats gains a reader's attention.

      Delete
  13. I agree with Gilman. Giving a character clever tricks to captivate a reader can only take ones interest so far. It would help to give a character a more complex personality or background. Even an unusual plot to be centered in can hook a reader. It's nice to have simple characters to have the main character stand out more, as well. Figuring things out about characters and plot points is what makes a short story or novel exciting to read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But each character should already display a complex personality or background. Understanding that an unusual plot is what grabs the reader but maybe a structured outline could help the reader understand the character more.

      Delete
  14. I disagree with Gilman because the clever character can add more then just effect due to the character being intelligent. An intelligent character can be a dynamic character, and he/she can play the role as a main character that also adds effect to the story. As a drug addict and the main character in the book "A Million Little Pieces", James Frey plays as the main character who also brings out the best of other characters. He is only able to do this because he is extremely clever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said "clever character can add more than just effect". But an intelligent character does not have to play the role of a main character. S/he can be a mentor to a main character and still can add more to the story.

      Delete
  15. I agree with Gilman that a character should not just be clever but contain some flaws along the way. A reader is able to connect more with a character who faces similar conflicts rather than a person who seems to have life resolved at there hands. These flaws are what intrigue a reader into a story. The more complex the characters are the more the plot becomes unique to the story as each character faces different difficulties along the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to disagree with you Daniela. Sorry! But, when I think of clever I dont think of perfect at all. Which is why I thought it was funny that you said a "character should not just be clever but contain some flaws along the way." Is it not plausible that for a character to be clever could be a flaw all on its own. Consider Puck from, "A Midsummer Night's Dream" he was definitely flawed, but throughout the story considered to be clever.

      Delete
  16. True,a character without any flaws is not perfect but dull and uninteresting.The more complex a character is the great the flaws should be in order to create a sense of the character being real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is actually my reply to Daniela's post... Sorry I messed up

      Delete
  17. In Gilman's statement she in saying that she wants more than one trait from a character. I agree with Gilman in a sense that a character who is -just- clever is dull, I want more to a character or I will pay little or no attention to them. A popular series when I was in middle school was "The House of The Night Series" and the most memorable character was Aphrodite. Aphrodite was not the main character nor did she save the day but, because she is a very diverse character, with many traits, a unique style and strong attitude she is memorized. When a character has only one characteristic they are flat, but the readers yearn for a round character because a flat character is a boring character. When we spoke of characterization in class, we mentioned Romeo and Juliet and the different traits of Romeo. One of the traits that we discussed was that he had been fickle, this trait had made him interesting because it makes one question his love and the strength of his love, among many other traits which allows the reader to examine the character carefully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you use your own example of a character that is in the lead but still memorable. You also make a very good point of how characters should have multiple characteristics, which is very true. The characters of a story really do mean more if there is more to them.

      Delete
  18. I agree with Gilman, many readers look forward to a character who they are relatable to and who seem to stand out from the crowd. Having a character more than just clever adds more excitement especially when trying to understand the plot. It is important to have characters that are well rounded and are deep thinkers. This is the hook that is sought after. With just clever characters there is no connection between characters and the reader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, characters should be people that the reader can relate to. But also even to some extent, characters should be people that the reader can not relate to, they can be something completely different from the norm, something unexpected. The unexpectedness causes the reader to become even more intrigued with the story. But I also like how you said that if the character is solely clever that it will result in no connection between the reader and the character. Even though I disagree on the reader having to relate with the character, I do agree that there should be a connection, and that connection can only be created if the character is one that is well rounded.

      Delete
  19. I disagree with Gilman, every character is clever in their own way. They don't all think alike. Other wise the story would not have effect to grab the readers attention. Simone Elkeles has written a trilogy that includes three brothers. One for each book. The bothers face similar problems but the plot is constructed differently. In each book the brothers use different tactics to uphold the bad guy.If its facing the bad guy alone or ambushing him, they each use clever differently and in using clever tactics makes the books effective to grab the readers attention.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with Gilman because I think all characters should be more than "clever" characters that anyone can relate to or find interest in. As a reader characters that are well rounded and tend to be important get the readers interested in the story because of their interesting personality and the way they are presented.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brianna RodriguezAugust 2, 2012 at 8:56 PM

    Cleverness does not define any one character. This statement is interesting because a character is not meant to be boring it is meant to be intriguing. A character gives the reader more reason to want to keep reading and discover something new. I would have to agree with Gilman, in the sense of "clever's not enough to hold me". Characters are there for effect to keep ones mind interested and their eyes constantly moving to the next line. Having characters that are not boring and have no interesting traits is not what moves a story. Gilman wants to be able to experiment with the traits of characters and not have them constant all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You made a good point, a character is the reason why the reader should keep reading. If cleverness is the only thing that character has, then, in a way, it is boring. We have to be able to "experiment" with the character as if they were a real human being.

      Delete
  22. A character that is simply "moved around for effect" almost seems like a pawn in a chess game. A pawn isn't very valuable and holds little interest to the player. A character that is solely clever isn't of much value to the story and does not hold interest to the reader. In order for the reader to be captivated by the story, and for the storyline to progress there needs to be characters that are more than merely pawns, there needs to be kings and queens. The characters need to be important, powerful, and valuable- along with clever. I agree with Gilman's statement, characters need to be more than just clever and actually add to the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A character that is simply "moved around for effect" almost seems like a pawn in a chess game. A pawn isn't very valuable and holds little interest to the player. A character that is solely clever isn't of much value to the story and does not hold interest to the reader. In order for the reader to be captivated by the story, and for the storyline to progress there needs to be characters that are more than merely pawns, there needs to be kings and queens. The characters need to be important, powerful, and valuable- along with clever. I agree with Gilman's statement, characters need to be more than just clever and actually add to the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A character that is simply "moved around for effect" almost seems like a pawn in a chess game. A pawn isn't very valuable and holds little interest to the player. A character that is solely clever isn't of much value to the story and does not hold interest to the reader. In order for the reader to be captivated by the story, and for the storyline to progress there needs to be characters that are more than merely pawns, there needs to be kings and queens. The characters need to be important, powerful, and valuable- along with clever. I agree with Gilman's statement, characters need to be more than just clever and actually add to the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A character that is simply "moved around for effect" almost seems like a pawn in a chess game. A pawn isn't very valuable and holds little interest to the player. A character that is solely clever isn't of much value to the story and does not hold interest to the reader. In order for the reader to be captivated by the story, and for the storyline to progress there needs to be characters that are more than merely pawns, there needs to be kings and queens. The characters need to be important, powerful, and valuable- along with clever. I agree with Gilman's statement, characters need to be more than just clever and actually add to the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A character that is simply "moved around for effect" almost seems like a pawn in a chess game. A pawn isn't very valuable and holds little interest to the player. A character that is solely clever isn't of much value to the story and does not hold interest to the reader. In order for the reader to be captivated by the story, and for the storyline to progress there needs to be characters that are more than merely pawns, there needs to be kings and queens. The characters need to be important, powerful, and valuable- along with clever. I agree with Gilman's statement, characters need to be more than just clever and actually add to the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Turning a character to something that is more than just a "device" is the talent of a gifted author, this is just my personal opinion. With this said I completely agree with Gilman, in the sense that a character to an extent must come to life, a character that the reader can feel, sadness, fear, remorse and sorrow for. Simply creating a character that is "clever" is not good enough, but a character that demonstrate diversity and emotion through the story is a true work of literature. I believe in the power of a single character to inflictemotion into the reader, fiction or non-fiction, a well constructed character can change the mood and the state of mind of the reader for good or bad. For example the books "Go Ask Alice", "By The Time You Read This I'll Be Dead" or "Speak" all have very strong characters that when I read the stories I felt anger and sadness for the characters although they were not "real" people and that is what I believe Gilman refers to when she says more than just a "clever" character.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Having characters that are moved around for effect are essential for a story line. However having a character that is not only "clever" draws the reader these characters bring the story to life with their emotions and unique personality. As well as giving the reader something they can connect to whether it be to themselves or someone they know. Characters like these make the reader believe in the story and draw them in closer. These characters are what seperate a good from a great story for many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "These characters are what seperate a good from a great story for many."

      I wholeheartedly agree with this single statement. Many readers today expect stories they read to contain human characters - dynamic characters - rather than the stories' characters to be a compilation of archetypes. But archetypal characters aren't exactly the worse thing that could happen to a story. When done correctly, archetypes can prove to be quite an adequate, and even enjoyable, aspect of storytelling. You seem to clearly understand, reflected by the use of the word "good" instead of bad when doing your comparison. For that, I will applause you.

      Delete
    2. Adaleyci CaballeroAugust 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

      Your right Christian those are the type of characters readers look for. Characters that have human qualities and are able to shift for effect.

      Delete
  29. Gilman is not impressed nor amazed by one-dimensional characters. She clearly stated so with the initial, "Clever's not enough to hold me," which means an archetypal smart character simply cannot "hold" her in a state of emotional investment; which many avid readers expect from good literature. Clever characters are just boring. To elaborate further, clever characters, or other single-worded archetypes, who are "devices" to force some kind of "Effect" is just tasteless in her perspective. What Gilman wants is a dynamic, human character in a literary setting, not a poorly designed tool for a single function.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I actually have to disagree with Gilman. Her use of the word 'clever' to me just felt like a distraction. She insinuates that all authors make characters that are only clever or just surfaced based. What kind of 'more' is she asking for? To me, isn't a characters purpose supposed to be a device. Ultimately they will play a part in the story, small or big, deep or shallow, all for the 'effect' the author is trying to make. Gilman says she wants something more, but I think it's her duty as a reader to read behind just the cleverness she sees, and find what the author intended with the character.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree with Gilman. I am aware that it is often necessary to create characters whose sole purposes are to be foils, or create conflict in the story. However, like Gilman, they don't really interest me either. I appreciate characters who are "more than just devices", more than just "clever". I appreciate the characters who make me wonder-- who make me contemplate things that have almost no connection to the book; characters who go beyond being clever and who present holes in what many of us may think is true, think is reality. Simply 'clever' characters don't really produce profoundness.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I would say I agree with Gilman up to a certain point. I agree that a piece of literature does need more than a clever character to hold the interest of the reader. The reader has to feel a connection with the character and in order for it to happen, the character needs emotions, flaws, weaknesses, etc. But sometime those dynamic characters need a little help. Those "devices" or "clever" characters are needed to keep the story going. Those characters have a purpose in the story, it's just not as big as the main character.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I disagree with what she said. I mean it seems that she want someone who is basically ordinary to be able to tell a story without having to use metaphor or analogy to tell the story. But in any stories, you need devices to be able to flow through the book, movies, etc. She doesn't want just cleverness because it doesn't interest nor captivates her. She want a character to be with more than one personality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well since you do mention that she wants a character with more than one personality, then you would be contradicting your original thought mentioned in your second sentence when you say that she wants an ordinary character. If she wants a character with multiple personalities she's not looking for any bland flat character. Of course they are going to use metaphor and different devices, but those devices won't define who the character is, the character will define what devices it will use, just like us. Gilman can't be asking for just an "ordinary" character if as you said, "She wants a character to be with more than one personality."

      Delete
  34. Adaleyci CaballeroAugust 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

    I agree with Gilman. A character should not only be “clever”but should have a position that allows the reader to relate to the character. I'm not only referring to main characters but minor characters as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I think that Gilman wants a character that is'nt all that perfect. I kind of get the feeling that Gilman wants this sort of excitment in her characters. I think that "clever" characters have this boring aspect, which for me, I would not enjoy reading. Therefore I think a character should be able to relate to his or her readers.

      Delete
  35. I disagree with Gilman for the fact that I am one that truly enjoys cleverness. She just may not understand or like that certain aspect of people.I do not know her nor her personal beliefs but that's what I get from her. Holden Caulfield, from The Catcher in the Rye,is one of the most clever characters to me and also he is not simple or used just for effect.He is a dynamic and appealing character to all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your point of view because Holden Caulfield is a very approachable character. Even though he is very crazy and careless, he is a shadow of what teenagers are like now a days. His cleverness is what sparks the readers interest and keeps them hooked throughout the entire novel. That type of cleverness in characters is very desirable and enjoyable in reading. He isn't just a crazy kid, he is also an ideal character for rebellious teens everywhere.

      Delete
  36. I agree with Gilman. A character should be have this connection with his readers making it feel more relateable. I think that a "clever" character has this boring side in which nothing changes, and that to me is not enjoyable as a reader. I feel as if Gilman wants to add a dash of spice to her characters, making them more enjoyable and relateable in the fact that the are flawed. All in all I think that characters should be able to relate with the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree with Gilman because she's in search of characters that can do more things than just act. She searches for characters who are down to earth and have the connection with their script enough to make the story come alive and make it approachable by many. Anyone can memorize lines but there are few who can actually bring those lines to life. That's what differentiates a clever character from a dynamic one that sticks out.She is perhaps in search for a dynamic character who can stand out from the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree with Gilman because a character should have many characterizations, they shouldn't just be flat and boring. "clever" is only one character, they need to be well rounded, unique. The characters should be able to relate to the audience in order to have a better perspective. They want to relate to them in order to understand and share the same emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with Gilman about the main character not just being clever. The reason i believe this is because in order for a movie or book to be interesting they must have more than just brains. The main characters have to have looks, humor, and a good personality that way it would get my attention and others too.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gilman's point of view as to what a character should be like is accurate to mine. A character being clever is amusing at times but also at times can be shallow. The reason Isay shallow is because a character always needs to be given a reason to do something. there always has to be a why.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with Gilman's quote. The reason being that there can be a flat character that is always clever. If a character is always clever then the character eventually becomes predictable, which would make the story of the character predictable as well. Characters can have chractericstics like cleverness but the characters need to be put in differenet situations to create more of an interest in the story. A flat character having the predictable trait of being clever can be put in different situations to make use of their cleverness in different ways that can be beneficial to the story, as in making the story more interesting.

    ReplyDelete