Posted by Peter H on October 18, 2005 at 13:09:08 from 86.130.122.74 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: Questions about Nancy posted by Jock on October 18, 2005 at 00:17:35:
(Jock - I wasn't referring to your recent exchanges with JN about eel-mail, which were quite understandable, as you point out. I really meant the eternally long 'Oddities' thread involving 'CSS' - whatever that means - I don't think it has much to do with AR, but nobody bothered to explain. However, should we move on now? OK --)
Going back to your queries about Nancy:
Do you think that any differences that may exist between the way AR has portrayed Nancy and the Swallows are because the latter are based on real people and the former is 100% fictional?
I don't myself believe that Nancy is 100% fictional. She would surely have been based on one or two young women that AR met, plus some qualities which AR heard or read about - Nancy would be a 'composite' character, as most characters in fiction are. The author's task is to 'tailor' a character to suit a story in such a way that the character's individuality is not killed off. You build in the characteristics, and then hope that the character takes off with a life of his/her own. In Nancy' case, she took off a lot further than AR anticipated, to the extent that she could not be kept out of the stories, even when he wanted to do without her. In this respect, she is a superb literary creation. I always think that the test of the figurative power of 'Nancy' is that a boat has been named after her, and it seems absolutely exciting and right, whereas I feel that a boat called 'John Walker' or even 'Dorothea Callum' just doesn't sound very convincing. However, I agree that these other characters - Swallows and D's - are much more 'anchored' and based on possible single prototypes, or even dare I say it, stereotypes (Dick - the recognisable school 'Prof' for instance, although AR makes Dick interesting through the use of quiet humour).
Or do you think AR may be holding something back?
Yes, all writers do (or did). It's called self-discipline. The readers want to get to know your characters, not you.
Finally, leading on from the fact that AR's most charismatic and memorable character is female, I turn back to Tarboard, and a question which I believe is more important than any minor 'bike shed' (a male term if there ever was one) kerfuffles which may have taken place recently. Why aren't there more female contributors to Tarboard? OK, if this was a board about, say, photography, rugby or motor cycles, you would expect it to be male-dominated. The few other non-gender-orientated forums that I know seem about 50/50 male and female. The BBC 'Archers' (a UK radio 'soap') Discussion Forum has, I would guess, more female participants. AR's books appear to be read just as much by female children as male. I find the near-total absence of female participation on Tarboard highly regrettable, and I think it would also help restore some common sense from time to time, as women do. Nothing anyone can do about it, of course, but does anyone have any theories about this?