> From:         J. R. Raper
> Subject:      Re:      Round and Flat characters
>
> Reuven,
> Good point.  Road novels don't have much opportunity to develop the
> characters who will be left behind--TOM JONES being the master exception.
> Muir's book is a wonderful one, which I like as much as Forster's--perhaps
> more, because it undercuts the notion that all novels can be judged by the
> same criteria.  Doesn't he add that the picaresque works are more about
> places and social levels than about character?
> What you say about Dickens touches on the trouble I have with a novel like
> COPPERFIELD.  To me it seems hollow at the core.  Personal response, I
> guess.
> jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norman Holland" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:27 AM
> Subject: Round and Flat characters
>
>
> > Jack,
> > you've stricken a string in my memory concerning a distinction to
> > which I was addicted when I was very young. There is a sequel to
> > Forster's typology of "flat" and "round characters". Edwin Muir in his
> > _Structure of the novel_ adopts Forster's basic typology, but rejects
> > the notion that flat characters occur chiefly in support roles to the
> > major or rounded characters. He distinguishes between novels which
> > develop in time ("dramatic" novels) in which the major characters are
> > typically round, and those which develop in space, where the major
> > characters are typically flat (e.g. picaresque novels; or Dickens'
> > novels). From this point of view, making all the characters in a novel
> > simple types doesn't make it bad, but a particular legitimate genre.
> > Forster does prefer novels in which the major characters are round,
> > because his own novels (e.g., _A Passage to India_) belong to this genre.
> >
> > Reuven
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Murray Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >      From: J. R. Raper [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >      Subject: Re: FW: completeness of representation and valuing sense
> > of presence
> >
> >      Douglas,
> >      According to E. M. Foster's classic Aspects of the Novel, even
> > serious
> >      novels have a place for simple or type characters, but chiefly in
> > support
> >      roles to the major or rounded characters. Type characters, as I
> > remember
> >      his argument, are those abstracted to a few traits that
> > economically fill
> >      out the picture the novel is creating. The rounded ones are those
> > who have
> >      diverse dimensions that reveal themselves as the novel unfolds.
> >
> >      If I understand your question correctly, Foster's book would be
> > worth a
> >      look.
> >
> >      A bad novel could err either in making all the characters simple
> > types or in
> >      rounding out all the characters, even the minor ones. TV tends to
> > fail in
> >      the first way. What does that do to a culture, one hates to think.
> >      Jack
> >
> >      ----- Original Message -----
> >      From: "Murray Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]>
> >      To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >      Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 3:16 PM
> >      Subject: FW: completeness of representation and valuing sense of
> > presence
> >
> >
> >              From: Douglas Galbi
> >              Subject: completeness of representation and valuing sense of
> >
> >      presence
> >
> >
> >              How does self-perceived completeness in representing
> > another person
> >              affect the self's value of sense of presence of that
> > person? In
> >              literature, highly valued figures tend to be open,
> > ambiguous, and
> >              complex. On the other hand, mass market literature tends
> > to present
> >              simple characters associated with common desires and
> > experience, i.e.
> >              sex and violence. In personal relationships, sense of
> > security in
> >              relationships is highly valued, but a fixed>
> > representation of a beloved
> >              other can be oppressive and can lead to conflict. How can one
> >              understand this range of response?
> >
> >              My study of the communications industry as a
> > communications industry
> >              economist indicates that sense of presence is a major
> > driver of demand
> >              for communications services. Understanding how persons
> > make sense of
> >              another using communication services is thus important
> > for understanding
> >              the evolution of the communications industry. You can
> > find discussion
> >              of these issues, drawing upon study of biological
> > sciences, artistic
> >              masterpieces, and media history, in my work "Sense in
> > Communication,"
> >              freely available at
> > http://www.galbithink.org/lessmore.htm It seems to
> >              me that study of psychology and literature can contribute to
> >              understanding better sense of presence, not just in
> > literature, but in
> >              communication services generally. I would welcome any
> > thoughts,
> >              references, or suggestions that list members might offer.
> >
> >              Douglas Galbi
> >              FCC Industry Economist
> >              [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >      This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
> >      at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> >
> >
> > Reuven Tsur
> > The Cognitive Poetics Project
> > Professor Emeritus
> > Hebrew Literature
> > Tel Aviv University
> > http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsurxx/
>
>
>