Characterization and Reader Empathy

[valis2]

Readers want to empathize with the protagonist of a story.

It's a natural impulse. Throughout the movements of hero, anti-hero, and heroic anti-hero, we want to be engaged with the protagonist. Usually we see something in him or her that is familiar to us, that makes us think we know this character and can understand them. It is that feeling of identifying with them that usually propells us through the story.

When I first read through the HP books, I was reading very much for entertainment. I thought they were enjoyable and interesting, and didn't think much more than that until I started reading fanfiction. I decided to read them again, in preparation for a story I wanted to write, and that's when I started to wonder. Instead of reading for entertainment, I was reading as resource, and I was studying the characters more thoroughly than I had before. I came to the conclusion that Hermione was actually quite different than I had pictured her in my original reading. She is good-hearted, of course, and this is not meant to be seen as Hermione-bashing, but I thought very strongly that she was a character for whom the ends justified the means. The more I read, the more convinced of this I was.

So when I began to write the story, the Hermione character behaved in much the same way. She distrusts a new character (the OFC), engages in blackmail in order to attempt to get something she wants, steals something from a teacher, and, in general, is nosy and protective of Harry. She also turns on a dime at one point in the story, putting her distrust behind her because she's heard someone say something that makes her trust the OFC, and then she approaches said OFC in order to get something she desperately wants because she thinks it will help Harry.

I was surprised to receive reviews that said she was OOC. In fact, I'm certain I've lost readers because of it. Obviously there is more to it than what I can provide here; I must not be showing enough of Hermione's positive traits, or I've missed something in her dialogue. But to reject her characterization based on any of the actions above is kind of strange to me, because if we look at canon we see many of the same kind of actions (which is precisely why I included them).

• She sets a teacher's robes on fire because she thinks that he is trying to jinx Harry's broom. (PS/SS)


• Comes up with the entire subplot of: brewing an illegal potion (Polyjuice), stealing the ingredients for said potion from a teacher's storeroom, feeding Sleeping Potion-filled cupcakes to Crabbe & Goyle, and impersonating them in order to infiltrate the Slytherin common room. (CoS)


• Uses a Timeturner to take all of the classes that she wants to take (PoA)


• Talks back to a teacher (Trelawney) and storms out of class. (PoA)


• "Helps" other students with their lessons, sometimes even doing it for them. (PoA)


• Leaves articles of clothing around Gryffindor Tower so that the house-elves can be "freed" unwittingly, despite the house-elves' desire not to be freed. (GoF)


• Traps an transformed animagus in a glass jar, and only releases her because the animagus agrees to be blackmailed into publicly writing about Harry and the most dangerous wizard in existence (Voldemort). (OotP)


• Gives Harry the original idea to create a secret society (the DA), and urges him into it, because she doesn't want to fail her Defense O.W.L. (OotP)


• Has the members of the secret society unwittingly sign a magical contract (that she herself does not sign!) that will disfigure them facially should they break it. (OotP)


• Bases the enchanted coins on the Dark Marks of Voldemort's loyal followers. (OotP)


• Leads a teacher into the Forbidden Forest purposely to cause her harm (Umbridge and the Centaurs). (OotP)


• Casts a Confundus Charm on a rival so that Ron can stay on the Quidditch team. (HBP)

Certainly she had valid reasons behind many of them. That's the entire point; the ends justify the means. With valid enough reason, I think she would do quite a lot. If Harry's life, or Ron's life, were in danger, I wonder what her limits would be. Obviously the stories are grooming us for Harry to kill Voldemort (well, they seem like it, at least). Harry has even tried to use the Cruciatus Curse on an enemy, despite knowing that its use all but demands a stint in Azkaban. But what about Hermione? I think she could be just as dangerous, with the proper motivation.

It interests me that we tend to give the characters we are interested in the benefit of the doubt. After all, we have information and insight into their personalities, and we understand them and empathize with them, so when they do something that isn't quite the best action ethically/morally, we tend to understand that they have the right reasons, and we let it go. In the case of the long fic I wrote, it's easy to see that because what Hermione is doing is not seen entirely through the lens of Harry's POV, it's more difficult to reconcile with the image some readers have created of her. Even more interesting is that the OFC is actually a rather unsympathetic character at many points, with plenty of missteps in the past, and yet people still identify with her and hope for the best for her. In fact, some readers lambast Hermione in the reviews, pointing out her character flaws, yet still empathizing with the OFC, who is hardly a nice person, especially compared to Hermione.

What does the character have to do to break with the reader's empathy? Obviously, each reader has her own personal limit, a point past which she stops relating to the character and becomes repulsed instead. But sometimes we are so psychologically invested in the characters that we are carried past our usual limit, the limit that we would tolerate in everyday life, because we "understand" and see where the action came from. I find it fascinating that Hermione does so many things that go against most normal ethical/moral behavior and yet most in the audience find her a likeable, "good" character, and could not imagine her in any other way.

Thanks to gillieweed for help in this.

Comments

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't worry about complaints from readers about an OOC Hermione. Most of them are convinced that if she's not shagging Snape by 2nd year, she's OOC. Ok, some of them think he'd at least wait until after the Yule Ball in GoF, but that hardly matters. If she ain't bedding Snape, she's OOC in the mainstream fandom.

Go figger.

From your description of her actions in your tale--doing as she pleases to and reading the rules so that they apply to her as she she sees fit--I'd say you got her spot-on.

A while ago, I read an interesting description of the scene in OoP in which Umbridge preparing to crucio Harry. She has to talk herself into it--convinve herself it's 'justified'. The poster said that to her, that monologue sounded exactly like Hermione convincing herself something not right was the right thing to do for very a righteous reason. And why not? It's the same way she convinced herself it would be okay to use Polyjuice, and she was only twelve then.

I always thought that Umbridge = Hermione + 25 years, that absolutely clinched it for me.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Ok, some of them think he'd at least wait until after the Yule Ball in GoF

...where he would make a grand entrance, face hidden by a black silk mask, and twirl her around the dance floor until her head was spinning with delight---oops, sorry, got carried away there.

I do think I will scrutinize her carefully while I'm revising. Hermione is an important character, and I do want to get her right.

Umbridge and Hermione? That might go to explain the instant sparks of bitter hatred when they first locked horns...don't we all hate those that have our worst habits most? heh.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

Umbridge = Hermione + 25 years

Oh yeah, there are definitely shades of Umbridge in Hermione's character. She is just as ruthless when convinced something's "right".

[mehitobel-ny.livejournal.com]

The Hermione/Umbridge comparison is very interesting. But I think it would be going too far to say HG + 25 yrs = DU. There is a reason we like Hermione (or at least, some of us do, or at least can see her as likeable), and the same cannot be said of Umbridge. Can you really imagine Hermione using that horrible pen on anyone? Esp. a child? Hermione may be capable of rationalizing away her highfalutin' principles, but she has a heart, and sympathy for the downtrodden. She ain't Umbridge.

But having read your comments, I wouldn't be totally surprised if it was intentional on JKR's part, another example of characters with some marked similarities who yet are totally different in the choices they make.

Like whether to shag Snape in the Great Hall, right before the dinner crowd is expected, or in the privacy of his own Sekrit Torture Chamber of Luv.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

She's still young, give her time. Yes, I can see her using The Pen on someone who she sees as Teh Ebil. See Poor Marietta's case below.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

She really is awful.
Is Marrietta permanently disfigured? She spent all summer at home presumably under the care of adult witches and wizards and hopefully whatever passes for medical care and her face still bears the scars of Hermione's "snitch" countercurse. For someone so averse to the Dark Arts, our Hermione certainly gets her money's worth out of 'em. But it's all for good, you see.

[effseedee]

You're spot on about Hermione - she has this conviction that she knows best that's actually rather dangerous (her tendency to run off without filling in Harry and Ron, for instance - think of how much shorter CoS would be if she'd said 'Hey, it might be a Basilisk - I'll just go check the library.' Instead she had to make sure she was right before venturing her thoery, and it got her Petrified) and I know quite a few people who think that there's some sort of come-uppance down the line for her.

And the problem may not be your characterization of Hermione - there's this widespread belief in parts of fandom that Hermione is some sort of wise, saintly figure, to the point where I've seen people ranting about how OOC Hermione was in HBP - for instance, the Confunding of McLaggen, despite the fact that, well, it's not. I'm not one of those who claim an author can never write their own characters badly/inconsistantly, but this really isn't the case here.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

she has this conviction that she knows best that's actually rather dangerous

Oh, yes, exactly what I'm talking about!

I hadn't even thought about the Basilisk example. You're totally right.

there's this widespread belief in parts of fandom that Hermione is some sort of wise, saintly figure

Yes, which is what always worries me. Is it that I'm writing Hermione OOC, or that she is just revered and people are "smoothing" out her faults mentally?

I'm going to take a good look during revising.

I'm glad, though, that JKR doesn't pull punches with her, and lets her have her moments of Confunding, because that's what makes the characters deeper and more complex.

[jen-deben.livejournal.com]

What does the character have to do to break with the reader's empathy?

I think the answer to that question is that the reader has to stop understanding the character's motives. As long as you completely understand why a certain action make sense to the character, you can empathize with that character.

Yes, every reader has limits, but a skillful enough writer can take a reader much farther into empathy than they would have believed possible. The big example for me is "Lolita", by Vladimir Nabokov. The main character is a pedophile, which should just squick the hell out of me. And the story did make me feel ill, but I also stayed interested in the main character's story, because Nabokov pulled off the unthinkable by making me empathize with this horrible person.

Nabokov starts by limiting the main character's tastes to girls who are only barely pre-pubescent - the main character Humbert doesn't feel anything for very young children; he only likes 11 - 14 year old girls.

This helps keep the reader from flinging the book away. The author is striving to keep from crossing that line beyond which the reader cannot possibly empathize with Humbert. By limiting Humbert's tastes, Nabokov is pulling the story back from the brink a little.

Then, Nabokov has Humbert explain so ardently what it is that he finds beautiful about these girls that you can start to understand his obsession. He also has Humbert recall a specific childhood incident that shaped him, and which the reader can (without any squick at all) empathize with. Humbert recalls being a barely pubescent boy, and sharing a profound lust with a girl his own age who died suddenly, before they could explore anything physical with one another. This dangling love affair helps the reader understand why as an adult, Humbert is still in love with girls that age.

So what Nabokov does is keep you understanding Humbert motives. Even if you still think he's vile, you can empathize with Humbert just enough to still be willing to let him inhabit your head for a while, and to keep reading.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Such a fascinating comment. I had completely forgotten about Humbert, and you make great points here.

I think you're right, too. There are things which push the reader "too far" and upset the balance, making the character unlikeable, especially if the writer hasn't put together enough background to make the reader feel sympathetic.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Interesting discussion... I used to identify with Hermione a lot, especially during my early readings of the books, and I was one of those whose OOC-meter swung up during HBP. It had a different reason than most people's though, I think: I thought it very unlike her to court that Cormac character just to make Ron jealous. The only reason why I thought that OOC, I realised, was because I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I had to take my distance and say to myself, "she's not that much like me apparently, and if JKR, who created her, makes her act like that, then by definition it is IC". Her actions certainly do make perfect sense with the excellent character sketch you give here. She can indeed be quite ruthless, and the only thing HBP does is to show that she extends this ruthless streak to her lovelife as well :-).

Writing fanfic has changed my attitude towards characters, and to some extent perhaps spoiled the fun I would otherwise have had with the conclusion of the series. I have dug into characters and imposed my own interpretation on them, but with each book that comes out, these interpretations are either validated or dismissed. These characters are simply not my creations, when it comes to the crunch; it's what their creator does with them that constitutes what is IC. I will find it illogical if Snape should die in Book 7, because the logic I have imposed on him based on earlier books requires him to survive no matter what; but I'll do my best to remind myself not to shriek "OOC!" when he does die in canon :D. You just get involved with these fictional people, and it's difficult when you find you have to correct your view on them based on canon; it's not difficult to understand why people should chastise you for doing something they consider OOC in fanfic, even if the only thing it does is take canon logic a bit further.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

She can indeed be quite ruthless, and the only thing HBP does is to show that she extends this ruthless streak to her lovelife as well

Absolutely. In fact, I wonder about the entire Krum thing as well. Honestly, I think she admits somewhere that he's not really a conversationalist, so one wonders why, exactly, she continued such a long penpal relationship with him, until one considers the possibility of upsetting Ron.

You just get involved with these fictional people, and it's difficult when you find you have to correct your view on them based on canon; it's not difficult to understand why people should chastise you for doing something they consider OOC in fanfic, even if the only thing it does is take canon logic a bit further.

Oh, totally, completely true!

I remember reading the books again after reading lots of fanfic, and suddenly realizing that the image I had constructed of Snape was not reinforced by the books. It was a pretty unsettling moment. We fill in the gaps, we invent pasts, we infer things, but JKR is the only one who will be able to truly explain the characters. Sometimes most of fandom invents more or less the same detail for a character, and it persists so much that when the next book destroys it, there's much unhappiness.

I love fandom. *laughs*

[netbyrd.livejournal.com]

Here from a fandom newsletter of some sort. I think you've got Hermione'e characterization down pretty well. The problem in fandom with her character is that she gets Sue-ized or becomes St. Hermione the perfect all to often. She has an entire different fanon accepted characterization, to the point whrere when you do write her as the books depict her, people tend to freak out.

I think it's also why people spazed about her in HBP, because she wasn't behaving as this all perfect St. HErmione that had mutated in fanon. She was jealous regarding Ron, she was angry regarding Harry's cheating by using the HBP potion book, she didn't perform everything flawless or succeed near the end... but these are things that have appeared in small doses in the first 5 books and were sort of ignored.

And it does seem like characters that have flaws, aren't sympathetic, etc., either canon or OC's, tend to be forgiven of their flaws more readily. Have no idea why, but that's what it seems like to me.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

The problem in fandom with her character is that she gets Sue-ized or becomes St. Hermione the perfect all to often. She has an entire different fanon accepted characterization, to the point whrere when you do write her as the books depict her, people tend to freak out.

That could be it.

Fanon!depictions are quite a fascinating subject, too. We tend to iron over the faults, and emphasize the strengths. I'm a huge Snape fan, and I see this all the time---suddenly he's a brooding, Byronic hero, capable of quoting Wordsworth and turning a perfect waltz on the dance floor of Snape manor.

She was jealous regarding Ron, she was angry regarding Harry's cheating by using the HBP potion book, she didn't perform everything flawless or succeed near the end... but these are things that have appeared in small doses in the first 5 books and were sort of ignored.

Oh, this is exactly what I'm referring to! It isn't as if she suddenly went off the deep end. Her entire subterfuge with Krum was partially to make Ron jealous, so she already was on this course before the attacking birds made their appearance. ;)

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

I think that's a good deal of it. You wrote a very realistic Hermione, one consistent with canon - and canon Hermione is very much "ends justify the means," sneaky and vindictive. Good heavens, I'd say she fits Slytherin more than Ravenclaw for a secondary House!

So much of the fanon makes Hermione into this perfect Mary Sue who farts incense and shits rosepetals. She is not like that in canon.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

bwahahah!

Exactly. Hermione goes for the end result nearly every time. She's a great source of exposition, true, but I love that JKR also gives her this streak of cunning.

[snapesforte.livejournal.com]

I'd just like to register the fact that I agree completely. We've already chatted about it, so I won't repeat myself. But, my agreement has been officialy registered now.

Also, let's not forget how angry perfect Hermione was when Harry started making better Potions that her, in HBP (because no one is allowed to be better than Queen Hermione at anything). She thought it was 'cheating', but did not think that Confunding McLaggen was 'cheating'. Of course not, she's not a hypocrite, or anything. I kept wanting to stick my hand into the page and strangle her, whenever she opened her mouth in HBP.

[mehitobel-ny.livejournal.com]

Well, honestly, would you have the slightest interest in St. Hermione? Blecch!

What is being discussed here is a far more interesting character(and a far cry from St. Hermione - in fact - more like Hermione as she really is. Why, I'd put Marietta right out of my head! And now I know why, thank you valis and gillieweed, et al.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Good to know we've corrupted---er, reminded you of that bit about Marietta. *grins*

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I *loved* the Half Blood Prince jealousy in HBP, that was beautifully done. Hermione fuming in the corner about Harry's obsession with his Prince...it was a lovely treat.

Wish I'd remembered to add that to the list!

Oh, fab icon, dahling.

[aurora-enkeli.livejournal.com]

Here from hogwarts_today ...and too lazy to use coding!

I never, well rarely anyway, write Hermione or read things that involve her because I'm one of these Scary Slytherin Sympathisers but when you listed the things Hermione has done, she almost seems to have a rather Slytherin-esque streak in her.

The one thing that has surprised me is that your readers have been going against Hermione. In canon (that thing we often like to ignore!) Hermione, and the rest of the Gryffindors do things, like the ones you've listed, and are almost praised for it. But if Draco or Blaise were to do it, folk would be saying "Oh look at the evil Slytherins". It always seems, to me anyway, that Gryffindors can do no wrong. But anyway, I'm losing my point here! Assuming I had one in the first place.

Basically, I have developed a slight intrigue into Hermione after reading this. That, and one belief about the fandom has just been countered. Again. Bloody fickle fandom.

What does the character have to do to break with the reader's empathy?

Something that the reader doesn't agree with. Which is why sometimes you lose one reader but gain another. Like you said, when we like a character we'll "let them away" with so much more, things that if another character did them, we'd lynch them and wish them fall off something. High. And onto concrete.

Rora, who loses the point.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

In canon (that thing we often like to ignore!) Hermione, and the rest of the Gryffindors do things, like the ones you've listed, and are almost praised for it. But if Draco or Blaise were to do it, folk would be saying "Oh look at the evil Slytherins".

Oh, yes, absolutely. I'd say that many, if not all, of the things the Slytherins have done have not been as "bad" as the things Hermione has done in her efforts to get to the required ends.

Bloody fickle fandom.

*laughs* You've said it all.

Character empathy is an interesting balance. It seems skewed towards the character, until you reach that invisible line for that particular reader.

[magicicada.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree with you about Hermione believing the ends justify the means, though she has the potential to be a sympathetic and interesting character. I think she’s often so focused on her goals that she doesn’t realize how her actions affect others. If I were to read a fic where she enjoyed causing pain, I might lose my ability to empathize with her, but I don’t see her about to have an egomaniacal power trip just yet.

Actually, in general, I have a much easier time identifying and empathizing with obviously flawed characters than ones who can do no wrong, so the Hermione you described seems much more interesting to me than many of the other characterizations I’ve come across.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Actually, in general, I have a much easier time identifying and empathizing with obviously flawed characters than ones who can do no wrong

That's very true, too. A completely perfect *cough*marysue*cough* character turns off most readers as well. I think it's great to spend time with a flawed character. In fact, it's unrealistic to have a perfect character...as you say, it's uninteresting.

When I started writing I thought it would be completely realistic for Hermione to be suspicious of a new character and to react in similar ways that she has before...I still need to really take a good look at the story again, but I was very surprised by a few reactions.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I wrote a long story with an unnamed heroine and I believe most readers assumed it was Hermione. When this became obvious, I didn't name the character because I didn't want to deprive readers of the opportunity to make the character whoever they wanted -- and as the story went along, I actually lost the ability to name her. (Also, I think it might have been too stupendous a breakthrough for her love interest to use her first name in a casual manner. It was a point never reached.)

So, I guess I am saying, don't worry about it. If I can write "Hermione" without trying to ... so much of what readers read is personal perception.

I agree with your insights on Hermione, though. I have never really liked her character, too know-it-all, with her hand in the air and all, but I cheered her on because she read books and spoke her mind, and seemed a good role model for girls, until HBP. Fooled us!

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I have never really liked her character, too know-it-all, with her hand in the air and all, but I cheered her on because she read books and spoke her mind, and seemed a good role model for girls, until HBP. Fooled us!

Heh...yes, the first time I read the books I didn't mind her. But after OotP I was very frustrated with her as a character. I was very surprised at the things she was doing.

Then when I re-read everything I realized that it shouldn't have been a surprise after all...this has been her standard operating manner for some time. :)

[our-innocence.livejournal.com]

While I don't agree with all your points on Hermione, I do agree with your general idea, which was very well presented.

I think we tend to latch on not just to characters, and certain traits. And more importantly, the ones we agree with. Personally, I enjoy Hermione's 'I will steamroll anything in my path that dares try to get in my way,' but I tend to be the same way when I'm really set on something. Although I like to think I'm a little more tempered.

I, personally, like to take any one particular trait in different fics and work with it. So I've made Hermione to be an incredible bitch, very wise, very naive, etc. It's the tone of the story that sets it.

I see all characters in the series as human. It's generally why they do what they do that attracts or repels us, right? While objectively, the only character we can really [imho] as really being 'good' is Luna, subjectively, we relate. And some of the minor characters do this as well; McGonagall has moments where she does 'bad' things. So we take it with a human grain of salt. Depending on how we analyse the world, we create our attraction to certain traits of characters.

That probably made no sense...

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I, personally, like to take any one particular trait in different fics and work with it.

An interesting approach. I'm certain you've had some fascinating fics from it!

some of the minor characters do this as well; McGonagall has moments where she does 'bad' things. So we take it with a human grain of salt.

Very true. I think it's much more realistic, to show that even the "good" characters have moments where they can't resist temptation. In fact, that often increases our respect for them, because we've all had the same kind of moments.

[grimorie.livejournal.com]

Hi, sorry for stumbling in late just found this discussion and must join in.

Really? Some people think Hermione is a perfect, saintly person? That's... strange. Like you I thought Hermione was an ends justifies the means person and that more than anything she's Harry's perfect strategist.

She's my favorite character precisely because of this complexity. She has a moral center and she's very firm about what's right but at the same time she has a certain moral flexibility when she thinks it would help with their cause.

She's willing to compromise and ruthless enough to follow thru with her plans (i.e. leading Umbridge to the forbidden forest) its this chilling ambiguity that made me sit-up and notice. I've always been partial to heroes who are willing to do the hard choices that others can't do.

It's going to break her somewhere along the line but its so facsinating to watch and makes her far more interesting than the designated 'saintly' role other fans are putting her in.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Really? Some people think Hermione is a perfect, saintly person?

I've honestly read some fics where Hermione has perfect morals, is incapable of a naughty act, and is arguing with the other characters about performing a naughty act. It's crazy!

I must admit, I didn't see her complexity the first time I read the books, but then again, I wasn't that interested in her, and I only read up to GoF that time. So on my second read-through I really was surprised by how she acts overall...I took off my goggles and really paid attention to her characterization, and that's when I saw her...as you put it..."moral flexibility."

What was most surprising to me, was that after I wrote that fic, I received reviews that were not very happy with her characterization. I don't know if it was because it wasn't through the Harry filter or what, but it really shocked me, because I thought she was fairly close to her canon characterization. She is trying to obtain knowledge from someone, and does whatever she has to do to get it.

I, too, wonder how it will affect her in the end, and whether JKR will allow her to be affected.