Posted by Andy Morley on September 04, 2000 at 23:12:50 from 212.159.1.6:
In Reply to: Re: More about Pauline Marshall, Broadcast and Memoirs... posted by Prue Eckett on September 03, 2000 at 23:55:39:
> As a writer, I can assure readers that no one person ever is
> responsible for a book character. Most writers begin with the picture
> of a character, as Ransome obviously did with Pauline Marshall and
> her sister for the Amazons, and then adds more character traits to suit
> as the book or books develop
As a writer Prue, I think you're probably correct. I made a similar remark, myself -
"Most writers base their characters on real people, in composite form."
However, to be awkward, I have just decided to disagree with myself.
I think there are about three types of character.
Some writers write about identifiable real people who do not seem to be constructed in a composite way. Not just biography or political anecdote or what have you. Historical novels are an obvious example of it. Arthur Conan Doyle and Walter Scott included characters such as the Black Prince and Queen Elizabeth the 1st. Robert Louis Stevenson did the same in Kidnapped. Defoe's Robinson Crusoe was about Alexander Selkirk. In those books, the fictional character may be perceived as playing second fiddle to the real character on which he or she is based, but even in these cases, the character in the book isn't really the same as the real person. Ultimately it's fiction, and arguably you can even apply the same argument to biographies. How often are biographies completely truthful..?
Then there are the authors like Ransome who draw inspiration for fictional characters from real people. Your statement Prue is probably true on average. But some writers will blend real people into fictional characters with such subtlety that it would be impossible to tease out what bits of which people went where. At the opposite end of the spectrum, other writers may incorporate real people directly into the plot, completely true to life. This is most likely to happen with secondary, one-dimensional characters like the beggar you see on Kings Cross Station who you use, directly in your book, but in some cases it can apply to main characters too.
Then there is the third category of writer that I'd forgotten about - those who draw on other writers. For example, I think that the Harry Potter books owe a great deal to John Masefield. Not as plagiarism necessarily, but in some senses J K Rowling has used a partly inverted Kay Harker to make Harry Potter.
In all of these categories, there is always an element of the shopping basket, the melting pot and the pestle and mortar. The writer always adds something, takes something away and transforms other parts with their magic wand. So in that sense, you're right. As a writer that is.
The trouble is, were not dealing with writers here, we're dealing with readers - a totally different kettle of rhubarb. Even the ones who have written books have come at it from the angle of being Ransome readers. They identify with the characters in the books in a totally different way from a writer. In some instances they believe in the characters as people, almost as friends almost, that they have grown up with.
Here in England, we have a radio soap opera called "The Archers" and some listeners (a similar animal to the reader) write horribly confused letters of complaint to the BBC. They sense that somehow the Beeb is in control, but at the same time, their letters suggest that they think these cruelties of plot are being perpetrated against real people. Likewise, the Post Office had to set up a special department dedicated to dealing with letters addressed to Mr Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson at their mythical address in Baker Street. Some readers are literally incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. However the writer can be partly to blame for this confusion. A classic example was Orson Wells' adaptation of HG Wells's "War of the Worlds" which had half of America in a panic when it was read on the radio. Perhaps some best-sellers don't realise their potential, perhaps if Ransome had known that he would be one, he might have disguised his character influences rather more.
Anyway, the key is perception. Take Pauline's metaphor of the geese. If you see them as terrifying, then they will chase you. If you wave a stick, they will run away. Peter Roche is right, Pauline has taken a very sound approach to dealing with these problems with over-emotive Ransome fans. What a pity he didn't follow her example. As it is, he didn't take a stick to the Ransomite geese, he took a belt-full of hand-grenades, a couple of flame-throwers and a Bren-gun carrier. I had a quick peek into the "Club Hut" on the suggestion of his accomplice and all I could see were some singed feathers floating about. But I dare say that outside the Internet, they are still going about their business honking cheerfully.
Applying different perceptions to the two Peters is an interesting exercise. On one level, you can see them as a couple of crows, circling about, looking for opportunities. As soon as I introduced a bit of carrion in the form of my anecdote about Mixed Moss and its editors, in they swooped to have a swift peck and exploit the political advantage. Looked at this way, some might find them pretty scary. Let's have some Alan Garner:
"I… I don't like this place, Colin" said Susan: "I feel that we're being watched."
Colin did not laugh at her as he might normally had done. He too, had that feeling between the shoulder-blades; and he could easily have imagined that something was moving among the shadows of the rocks; something that managed to keep out of sight. So he gladly turned to climb back to the path.
They had moved barely a yard up the dell when Colin stopped and laughed.
"Look, somebody _is_ watching us!"
Perched on a rock in front of them was a bird. Its head was thrust forward, and it stared unwinkingly at the two children.
"It's the carrion crow that was round the farm after tea" cried Susan.
That's one way of looking at them. However, I prefer to think of our peck of pickled Peters as the crows from Walt Disney's "Dumbo". OK, so they don't have nice manners and they may be a little lacking in polish. But if you're a Dumbo elephant, learning to fly with your ears, then they can have their uses, if you handle them right. Oh I do love mixing my metaphors - from geese to elephants in two paragraphs.
Playing with perceptions is fun, I can recommend it, and so is comparing people with characters in children's fiction. I see Ian Edmonson Noble, just to take an example at random, as one of the house-elves from Harry Potter. Tomorrow morning, he will get into work and will get all in a pother because he'll read all this, and think that it's CONTROVERSIAL. So he'll want to delete it, but then, if other people have replied to it, he won't know what to do, so he'll probably sit with his hands over his head wailing "pooooooor Dobby…".
And having had my fun with you all, I shall take Pauline's boaty stuff and start putting it in SERIOUS format on the Web in eGroups. That is, if she doesn't get too cross with me after reading this frivolity.
Cheers and bye bye,
Andy Morley