I don't know why it depresses me to read some of J.K. Rowling's comments about the Harry Potter series.
Strike that. I know
exactly why it depresses me.
Of course, that depression very quickly turns to fury.
It's a natural response of mine. Something that I can't help. I've been a writer longer than I've been anything else; it's in my blood and it's just something that I've always done. My strengths, I like to think, are in character development and in the complex relationships between those characters to form the plot. Oh, and plot twists. I know I'm good at those.
Rowling, however, had the right idea in the beginning. The first four books were beautifully written and they showed a finesse in writing constantly growing characters and relationships. The characters were easily likable and easy to relate to. They were complex enough that people could see real life in them.
And then she got struck with a nasty case of FTS.
Faerie Tale Syndrome.
It is, without a doubt, the worst thing that can happen to a fantasy writer. I've suffered from it myself a few times until I went back and reread the stories and realized with growing horror just what I had done to my characters. Needless to say, I fixed it.
She didn't. In fact, she supported it 200%.
As a reader, it makes me sick. As a writer, I have never been so offended.
And as a side note: when I am offended, you
know you've gone too far.
Writing is a sacred art to me. It is language and without language, humanity is nothing. Writing must be respected and for that to happen, one must understand that writing is, in fact, not about the author at all. What I want to happen has nothing to do with what happens in the story. I simply create the characters and let them do their thing. It is, after all,
their story. It is the lives of the characters that we are telling, and we must respect them as we would any any living human we would write about. They have their quirks and their ups and downs, but they do not live charmed lives that clean up neatly at the end.
Characters are people too, if you're a writer worth your ink. The line between fiction and reality is quite easy to keep, though I know it sounds as if I cannot make that distinction, I assure you that I can. It is the reason I can write some of the things I can write. I compartmentalize everything. It helps.
Now, I have learned the hard way that sometimes characters grow together. When I began developing them, Lydia Mason and Aleck Smart of ARA began to revolve around one another. It just happened. It wasn't planned, nor was the relationship between Alexei Kokinos and Cassidy Turner of
Lady Masquerade supposed to be so...genuine. But it was and when I just let it happen, it became a much better story. Even in stories where I write the entire thing, I sometimes don't notice that the pairing I had planned simply doesn't work. I had
Genevieve planned out, with Blake sweeping her off her feet (or rather the other way around), but instead it became apparent half way through that Blake was meant for someone else--Genevieve too, albeit in a different story--and so the extended ending came about to preserve my dear friend Diane's romantic dreams about the story.
I let that go, because I wrote the real ending too.
Now, Rowling didn't do this. The thing about romantic pairings between characters, undoubtably one of her greatest failings as a writer, is that the subtle hints you're supposedly leaving, sometimes aren't there.
Again, I learned this the hard way. The
VERY hard way. 100+ pages had to be thrown out and the plot ripped to shreds because my "subtle hints at true love" between the two main (human) characters was something that had no real chemestry. In real live, they would've hated each other, and the little spitfire narrarator of mine simply wasn't going to let me write her with someone completely incompatible with her. I like to think that
Broken Wings is an exponentially better story now that I've gotten over that case of FTS.
There are questions that have to be asked when working on romantic pairings in stories, mostly concerning the female in heterosexual relationships (though I ended up answering these with a character in
Salvation and came to the conclusion that the character was a lesbian. Unsurprisingly, the character development for her turned out better than ever when I faced the truth about her). Now, of course, these could probably be applied to a male character, but since I mostly write female leads, I direct these towards the female.
When upset, who does she rely on?
Who does she stand by through thick and thin?
Who will stay by her regardless of what happens?
Who does she strive to help?
Who strives to help her?
Who matches her on an intellectual level?
Who actively tries to protect her?
Who runs to her when things go wrong?
Who does she always make time for?
Who does she always defend?
Who is she willing to suffer for, even if the pain is coming from them?
Who will she break the law for?
I could go on forever with these questions, but by this point I usually already have my answer concerning the character. Sometimes, it ends up being two, although I would like to point out that there were extenuating circumstances in that particular case, but that when I asked more in-depth questions, it was finally brought to one character. I was willing to accept that the other relationship was genuine, and it made for a better plot.
It always does.
Now, when reading the Harry Potter novels through the eyes of a writer, rather than those of a reader or a fan, and you will see things different.
Hopefully.
In first year, who stands together through everything, truly helping each other and showing caring for each other that, at that time was unparalled in the development of the other characters?
Harry and Hermione.
In second year, who finds the note in Hermione's hand and to whom does she run to upon her release from the hospital wing?
Harry.
I would like to point out that that second point in the question is by far the most important. Regardless of our age, humans see the importance of various people in different ways, and it is often our unconcious treatement of them that differentiates between future romantic and platonic relationships. She always goes to Harry, except in the literary travesty that is the seventh and final...no, I can't bring myself to call it a book. My pride as a writer won't allow me.
Now, in third year, who did Hermione break the law for?
Harry, and in the case of the Firebolt, she only sought to protect him, willingly taking any ire to do so.
In the fourth year, who did she sacrifice so much for?
Harry: helping him with spells and the like and standing by him when no one else did.
Also in the fourth year, when presented with an unknown force, who did Harry rush to protect?
Hermione: with Grawp, he could have left her to take care of herself, as she could have done and, let's face it, Ron would have left her to fend for herself.
Fifth year brought the incident at the DOM. Which character's injury caused more worry within Harry: Hermione or Ginny (who is heard screaming)?
Hermione. The fight with Dolohov leaves him worried for her survival in a way that is decidedly not platonic. No one worries that much about someone who is "meant" for them and not the one who is.
Sixth year is when the disaster really began and Rowling's FTS grew to have an epic nature. Seventh year, however, is extremely important.
Who stayed by Harry's side and went with him to visit the one place that carries more emotional significance for him than Hogwarts?
Hermione. Something that important should have been shared with Ginny, not his "sister".
Now let's examine the other side of this: the Weasley siblings.
I do not, under any circumstances, pull punches when it comes to the Weasley family (save the twins and Charlie, who I have always found to be an intruiging character and was quite disheartened when virtually no information was given about him). I do not like them. They are the perfect example of what NOT to do when developing characters.
They are made out to be the perfect family, when in fact, they are not. Rowling leaves a lot to be desired in her characterizations. This is where being a seasoned reader (preferably one with a history in creative writing) comes in handy.
Character archetypes.
Every character has an archetype. Not all archetypes have names and are widely recognized, but they are always present in a story, sometimes combined with other archetypes and welded together with a brilliant characterization.
...needless to say, such characterization is lost in HP after book five (except in Snape and Narcissa Malfoy, but that's another discussion for another time).
The archetypes for most of the Weasley family are...not pretty.
Molly, taking what is known and extrapolating, is a controlling manipulative shrew. Which would be right, based on my readings of the books. She was just too interested in the lives of her children, too eager to do some things and she seems, based on her treatment of them, to have already planned Ginny's and Ron's weddings to Harry and Hermione.
It's disgusting.
Realistically, being brought into a family like that so quickly and without question would be expected for Harry. For Hermione?
Not so much.
Molly's family proves this. She's a Prewett, and with her aunt's infamous statement regarding Hermione's heritage, it only goes to follow that something is not right with Molly. The Prewett's were likely wealthy, an old pureblooded family. Given what most purebloods are like, and what Augusta Longbottom is suggested as being like, I have trouble believing that Molly would be completely free of her family's views. While not as vicious about blood purity as other family's, they clearly take status seriously.
I bring up Augusta Longbottom because her son Frank's wife, Alice Longbottom, is listed as having the maiden name of Prewett (I cannot seem to find this information, but I do know that it was Alice Prewett at Hogwarts. Then again, Rowling likes convoluted families more than I do, and I wrote
Lady Masquerade).
Why does Molly not have any family money to fall back on? Why does she have a rather...archaic view of the family? The way her children react to certain things is an indication to her character. Arthur is too timid to be the force needed to raise six sons and one little princess. Molly would have been the one to be there and to spoil Ginny, since daughter and father have very little (if any) interaction over the course of the books. As such, taking the archetype and extrapolating, Molly would be the character to drive them all insane.
Take a look at what she does in DH. When she realizes that the Trio have plans that she might not like, she separates them and works from there. Divide and conquer, anyone? That's a little Slytherin for good old Gryffindor Molly. Actually, it's very Slytherin. Molly's not a saint, and that manipulative move is enough to convince me beyond my lingering doubts through the previous six installments that Molly is not the character for to be looked up to as the perfect mother. Her control over the family is admirable, but even my feminist views are irritated by just how much control she has. Even at Grimmauld Place, Molly attempts to control those around her. She shelters those who shouldn't be and she turns her nose up at those who need it (Harry and Draco, respectively).
And Ron's words about the "scarlet women" in fourth year? Yeah, one of the instances that cemented my dislike of the character. There's a war going on. Children have to grow up quickly in such an environment and her manipulations (I hold she was one of the ones setting up the nausea-inducing ships within the confines of the books) are keeping those children who need to grow up from doing so.
Thus, I am brought to Ronald B. Weasley.
The absolute WORST best friend for a character like Harry. The fact that I find Grint to be one of the best actors in the films has done nothing to save my opinion of the character.
Looking at the mess called a plot within the HP 'verse, the logical action would have been Ron's death in book...five or six, probably five at the DOM.
Ron is not as talented as Hermione and Harry. He knows it. He is insecure and he has temper tantrums that are not even befitting of my tempramental three-year-old neice. He is easily moved to jealousy and he is gullible because of that. In GOF, as a true friend, he would have stood by Harry, rather than following the crowd. He's a sheep. It's far beyond irritating.
Now, looking at the characters of Harry and Hermione, they should never have forgiven him in DH after he abandoned them. They were in the middle of a war, constantly in danger, and he
turned his back on them. Perhaps this has to do with my personal views more than anything, but I trust my analysis of the archetypes and the characters themselves. Harry was unstable, and therefore unpredictable upon Ron's return. Hermione, however, should have sent him packing. He did something unforgivable in a crisis, proving that he was unreliable in a time when they needed stability of the strongest kind. Draco Malfoy would have been a better choice to arrive at that time, but it would take far too long to back that up right now, so I'll save that discussion for later. Even Neville would have been better.
Ron's petty emotions, of which he can only manage a teaspoon of at a time, are what make him the wrong choice for Hermione. She would be too successful and he would always be known as
Harry Potter's best friend and
Hermione Granger's husband. He wouldn't stand for that. It was why they fought all the time. Ron couldn't stand the fact that he was being overshadowed yet again and that immaturity is exactly why the Trio was never really a Trio. Ron did not belong. His characterization simply didn't fit.
Ginny...wow. I'm going to have to have some more time to talk about her. She's in a class of her own, the lying little *****.
:)
Character development is important
beforehand when writing. Try to develop the characters past the point of knowing the basics. You don't need to know everything, you never will. Write the story, not how you want to, but how the characters would really live it. FTS is dangerous. The best work can be ruined by it. Having a good knowledge of who they are can make writing characters at the beginning so much easier because it becomes much easier to respect them. Characters a part of the author, and aspect of our own being, regardless of who we base them off of. *cough*Draco*cough*
And please, DO NOT write the ending first unless pink elephants in tutus can come sweeping in with a musical parade and turn everyone into canaries and not change a word in the ending. In all my years of writing, this has only happened twice: once in my own fiction and once in a fanfic.