In response to the first prompt, I think that empathy plays a key role in the reader's experience of any book. It is the reader's empathy that allows him to not just witness events as they occur, like a neutral bystander, but to experience them with the characters and to take in the character's thoughts as if they were the reader's own. Without enough empathy, the reader may continue reading for the sake of resolving the storyline, but he may not care what happens to characters along the way. It would be much more difficult to feel the characters' fear when in peril or the characters' joy upon triumphing over hardships. And for many, this is an integral part of the reading experience: the magical ability of a book to transport the reader into the lives of a book's characters without the reader ever having to leave a comfy chair.
Ability to identify with the characters allows the reader to empathize more easily. When the reader relates to a character's situation, not just in terms of setting, but also a character's psychological and emotional state, the reader can subconsciously recall his own reaction to the situation and feel what the character is feeling much more deeply than someone unfamiliar the character's situation.
Personally, I have always identified the most with Hermione's character and her determination to succeed at everything, often just for the sake of succeeding. As a result, I empathize with her character much more than the others, and this differentiates my perspective on the novels from other readers, because I anticipate her reactions to events and follow her thoughts quite clearly despite the fact that the narrator gives us the most insight into Harry's mind rather than hers. In the Chamber of Secrets, when she becomes petrified, I was appropriately shocked, as if my avatar in the Harry Potter world had just been put out of commission. Even worse, the fact that she is holding a mirror around a corner indicated to me she almost definitely had solved the entire mystery on her own but became incapable of revealing her discovery. I can relate to working tirelessly to figure something out, only to discover all my hard work was for naught. Fortunately for me, seeing that this is a children's book and she was one of the main characters, I was reasonably confident that she would at the, very least, not die. Also, it occurred near enough to the end of the book that I had double the resolve to plow through to the end of the book all in one go.
One of the genious moves on J.K. Rowling's part was to offer three strong lead characters that complement each other in such a way that it is very easy for readers to identify closely with at least one of them. Those with broken or dysfunctional families probably can relate to Harry on a much deeper level than I can. Those who are undermined by a multitude of siblings and struggle to find their own niche probably can identify strongly with Ron. And just to balance everything out, Hermione is an only child with muggle parents, meaning she must learn herself how to make it in the wizarding world and thus relies heavily on the friends she makes in Ron in Harry. She of course struggled with being something of a social outcast for five chapters of "The Sorcerer's Stone" before the incident with the troll on Halloween unites the three of them.
I can imagine those that associate with the more traumatic elements of the first two books find them much more emotionally jarring than I do. I often want the characters to succeed because I would want to succeed in this world and not as much because I feel their pain. However, I imagine, for those that do relate to Harry's pain, his triumphs are that much more sweet and joyful.
I wish to give a brief response to the second prompt as well. I find it interesting how J.K. Rowling constructs the first novel in many ways like a generic children's fantasy tale, with a main character thrust from a simple life into the center of some dark plot in magical world and managing to overcome great obstacles to save the day for everyone. But in "The Sorcerer's Stone" she immediately hangs a pall over the books with the revelation of the not just James and Lily's deaths, but their murder. It's as if J.K. Rowling wishes to warn the reader that this is no ordinary children's story, that expectations may not be fulfilled, that characters will die. Death is often considered taboo in children's literature, since many parents wish to motivate their children with "and they lived happily ever after" scenarios and avoid anything that might be remotely traumatic for a child not yet psychologically mature.
The first book mostly avoids failing the reader's expectations, apart from revealing that the character set up as the villain (Snape) in fact has redeeming qualities. I actually think this is good message to send to children about judging people too strongly and jumping to conclusions. For those who didn't read the book when it originally came out, it may be surprising that Voldemort plays a key role so early, but that was not as surprising for those of us who read it before the second book existed. The second book is notable for Rowling's lack of restraint in petrifying anyone and everyone. Even Hermione is not spared. For a while the reader is led to believe someone will die, and by the end the reader has no reason to believe that Ginny hasn't. It is quite brilliant on Rowling's part how she slowly builds up from simple shocks like Mrs. Norris being petrified to Draco not being the heir of Slytherin and finally to the petrification and disappearance of Hermione and Ginny respectively, so that by the end of the book the reader can just throw out all expectations because Rowling is clearly taking the integrity of her books very seriously. The climax and resolution are all the more engaging because of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment