A Thinking Question . . .
 

I'm not sure where to post this. But anyhow:

When you read a book, is it important to you whether or not the character is believable? For instance, in Lord of the Rings, there are plenty of unbelievable characters, but did that affect the way you read the book in any way?

Just any old question [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Merri ]

That's a great question. For me, the thing I love about books is it allows my imagination to go wild so I can believe just about anything. So I guess the answer to your question would be no, it doesn't matter to be whether a character is really believable or not. In LotR, i think it's more the situations that are unbelievable. But I suppose it's not every day that you would run into a hobbit, dwarf or elf. I love these books and I when I read them for the first time I didn't even consider whether it was believable or not. To me, it just was! Hope that's what you meant by your question. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Merri, I agree with Elvenglass. This is an excellent question!

You know, it usually irritates me on principle when things in general are unrealistic. The setup of Middle-Earth trappings is unrealistic compared to our world. However, I have always just accepted that and enjoyed it anyway. The important principles and themes, particularly that of the struggle between good and evil, are the same. In a way Middle-Earth is more realistic, for these common themes are clear, illustrated in the flesh and felt in the soul.

Therefore, as far as unrealistic characters go - whom do you have in mind? When I think of unrealistic characters I think of men - as in mankind - whose thoughts and behavior are inconsistent with human nature. Most of the characters in LOTR are not human, however, so this standard cannot realistically ( [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) be applied.

I hope my response makes sense. You've started me thinking on something I've never considered before, and when that happens I tend to go to the beginning of the issue and analyze from there. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I've been thinking in writing. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Any thoughts?

Well, as for me, I believe that what is 'believable' and 'unblievable' are completely left up to perception. That being said . . .

A certain level of me can believe in the Middle Earth's existence. It's like when you're very young, you still sincerely believe that it's possible to fly. A part of me can believe whole-heartedly that Middle Earth exists, so I could read the books actually believing that they happened, and that the characters existed at some point.

I would say more, but I can't, as my Mother's telling me to get off line.

That's exactly how I felt when I read Lord of the Rings or any of Tolkien's works! His descriptions of Middle Earth and his characters, although they are fantastical, are very believable to me. While reading the stories, I can be almost convinced that it is a real history of long ago and not just a story in a book. The fact that some of the characters don't really exist in our world, such as hobbits, elves, and dwarves, doesn't take anything away from the reality of the story. But then I love fantasy of all sorts. I have friends who think a story about things such as hobbits and dragons is childish and boring. I personally think though that since the Lord of the Rings' characters are from Tolkien's imagination, that they are made all the more interesting because of it.

Yes, I'll say it again, that's a great question. My answer- no and no. I agree with elvenglass that its good to let your imagination run freely. But do you really think about whether a character is
believeable or not while your reading the books? I'm not criticizing you or calling you stupid but if you do that, why? When I read the books, I don't think about that. I just read. To me, when you read a book about middle earth, you sort of enter ME as an illusion but you forget what's real or not. So reading tolkien literature, is kind of a way to escape from reality, and that's why I love it so much. But I'm straying from the topic...anyways, just read, and don't worry about your question. I think that if you think about your Q while you're reading, you're thinking too much. Just read and get lost in the book, I think that you'll enjoy it if you haven't already.

To me, the characters in the book are very believable. They all feel human emotions. They know fear, pain, wanting, love, so therefor they are believable. Just because they are another race doesn't mean anything (especially since I am a firm believer in extraterrestial intelligence).

I have a very hard time reading a character if I don't believe in them, but whether or not a character is realistic depends as much upon the world in which the book is set as it does on my own perceptions. Every author creates their own universe to some extent, and if they create it and its people well - and stay consistent - they will be realistic and believable to a reader even if nobody remotely similar ever existed on *this* particular earth. The trouble begins when an author is sloppy or inconsistent about their book-world (the story is set in a time we know something about - say, the French Revolution - and yet everyone uses 1980s style slang). Good characters can't really exist in an inconsistent world.

But different characters are believable in different worlds even you've never met anyone close to either one. I've never met anyone like Aragorn, and I doubt that many of his kind exist in the world (or ever did). But because of the way his world is drawn, it's plain how consistent his character is with the rules of that particular place, and so I believe in him. And by way of comparison, take a character in another book I've been reading recently - Sherman McCoy in Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities." This character is a rather troubled bond salesman in 1980s socialite New York, and he and his world are also very well and consistently described, and within the context of his world (which I have less experience of than of Middle Earth, frankly) he is a believable character. I have no more idea if anyone like him ever existed than I have about Aragorn. And if either of these characters wandered into each others' books - Aragorn popped up at the Bavardages' dinner party, or Sherman became the 10th member of the fellowship - they'd be rendered instantly and completely unbelievable. Why? Because they're in the wrong context. Simple as that.

It is an author's job to make the character believeable, but I think that it is also the reader's job. It is our belief that breaths life into a character. Anything can be believeable, I mean.. do you watch the news???
Being an actor, I have to be able to believe in whatever text I am reading (especially performing), because if I don't believe it then no one else will either. It is clear that Tolkien believed in his characters deeply... therefore we also do. It goes hand in hand. Those who say it is unbelieveable probably live in a box and have no imaginations. Modern day has sucked them dry. Look at the world today... anything is possible... anything is believeable.
That's my opinion.

I found that the books were very believable beacause there was so much detail, mapping out middle earth as an existing place. The characters themselves are realistic enough, they have backgrounds, families, thoughts, feelings. There's no reason for me not to think of them as believable. A lot of characters are written in an entirely two-dimensional way, but I think Tolkien managed to effectively give his characters more presence.

It's important to consider the world in which they live. It's very different from ours, and probably wouldn't be so unfathomable had you existed in that world. Napoleon, Hitler...there are characters in reality that I'd have trouble believing in if they were characters in a work of fiction, but they were real. How much more believable are the heroes and gods of Greek and Roman mythology?

In order for the characters to be totally believable to our minds in this world, their world, too, would have to be believable - a simulation or parallel of our world. That would be no fun! Besides, Elrond probably wouldn't believe a book he read that explained computers, cars, and CDs.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

So true, Meela. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I have read many books which I could not stand because the characters were unbelievable...and I think it was because the author did not put enough work into making me believe in them. Tolkien totally does. Like he said in Letter 142:

I think if an author's heart is really and truly into the story, than it will be believeable, because it all stems from a real person's true feelings.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

I think it often depends on the character traits whether a character is realistic or unrealistic.

For example: Saruman. The idea of wizards coming across from the West seems, at first, to be unrealistic. But the traits Saruman shows, of being turned to darker things, being two faced, are things that affect us all at some point in our lives, and this makes it realistic.

All characters have some realistic and unrealistic elements to them, and the unrealistic elements just add to the magic of the story. Generally it really depends on setting and plot how far you can make the story unrealistic and still have people believe it.

I don't think whether a character is believable or not matters at all. What matters is how the author capture the readers' emotions and imagination.

well when I pick up a fantasy..I'm not really thinking of it in terms of being believable..although I do think that Tolkien gives all of the characters very humanlike attributes that makes them more believable..I can always think of people in real life that remind of me characters in Lord of the Rings

I never really question whether a character is realilistic or not. When I read, I make a kind of deal with the author. I say "Alright this is your book, your rules." I open the book, step into the story and the charicters could be exploding grapes from Mars and it would be alright because they are realalistic to their world. Who am I to question what's real when I'm in someone else's place.

So when I step into Middle Earth and walk through Hobbiton it's real. Of course the hobbit have hairy feet. All hobbits in Middle Earth have hairy feet. Of course Legolas can walk on snow. Of course Gandalf is a wizard. I'm in Middle earth and anything Tolkien wants to be real is real.

I agree with Rose Cotton , if in their own world the characters are realistic and in place and the author saw them as that , then so be it . Tolkien knew what he was doing and whether they are "realistic" or not is not the real point . It's whether the reader has enough imagination to MAKE them real.

Well, it's not so easy as that. Speaking as an author (which I am) I can say that the author has to assume a great deal of responsibility. It's not fair to insult your reader and say that they don't have enough imagination. Perhaps I (as the author) did not convey clearly enough what I was thinking, so that what is on the page cannot possibly explain the character's motivations the way I know them.

Then of course there is the author who is out to make a buck. I work at a library; I've seen a thousand trashy paperbacks and please don't tell me that those authors really believe or care about their story as art.

In Tolkien's case, his world is an absolutely believable un-real world. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But to make a sweeping statement that all authors are that way, and to think that as a reader you should never judge the believability of an author's work is selling yourself and good authors short. Tolkien knew just how to convey to us everything about his world. Not every author can (or cares to) do that.