We have also been asked to consider whether a protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts from the narrative itself?
My answer, predictably, is 'It depends.'
I would suggest that for somebody to be a recognised author, they would need to have written a number of successful books. It is unlikely that anybody will have written a biography/autobiography of a young author who has just released their first novel. As such, what information is out in the public domain about such an author? Often very little. Nobody will know if the heroin addict or high-flying executive in the novel is based on personal experience, or drawn from imagination.
Very often it is not realised which of an author's characters are drawn from life until much later in their careers. Those who only achieve success posthumously may never have a biography written about them during their lifetime, and therefore never have a chance to dispute the accuracy of a biography published later.
As such, tempting as it is for academics to read meaning into similarities between a character and the author, I hesitate to draw those connections, as there is a risk of twisting the facts to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. There are obviously many instances of authors using their demons to assist their careers, but it is important to differentiate between the factually provable instances, and unproven theories posited by critics.
I would disagree with the idea that the author needs to be well-known before you can recognise their characters as based on themselves - because you can never be 100% certain about it unless they admit it, but you can still make assumptions. Often I read something and the way the protagonist is handled - given too much unquestioned/unchallenged authority or ability in the text usually - kind of tips you off that it's a self-insert for the author. E.g. Quentin from Lev Grossman's The Magicians series, Bella from Twilight...I even get that feeling from Moffat's idea of Sherlock. From that you can extrapolate who they wished they were at least, even if you can guess at anything concrete about them.
ReplyDeleteHi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, you've proved my point. All of the examples you've given above are a series of texts, not one standalone novel or work.
My point was that, personally, I'd consider it presumptuous of me to assume that a fictional character was an alter ego of the author based on a single work. If the same character, or similar characteristics kept appearing across multiple works, then I'd feel more comfortable in making some assumptions regarding the author. Although I'd always be aware that these were my opinions, and not fact.
Picking an author at random, if I read the first Stephen King novel when it was first published, how much insight would I have into Stephen King? The central character is a 16 year old girl with telekinetic powers who destroys a town. I (personally) don't believe that this character is an alter ego of the author. I wouldn't finish the book and assume that I knew very much about Stephen King.
However, if later I read more of SK's books and found consistencies across books, then finding those consistencies might allow me to make *some* assumptions about how Stephen King sees the world, though again, those assumptions would only be personal opinions.
I think some of this goes back to what Kass was saying in the lecture about being careful to not assume that the author and the protagonist are one and the same.
Certainly as somebody who quite enjoys writing antiheroes, and whose central characters have (on occasion) done horrible things, I'd be mortified if I thought people assumed my central characters were direct manifestations of my own personality. Unless I'm writing something personal, I try to keep me out of my writing!