In Character: Ken Follett’s World Without End and an Analysis of Character in Literature

Last night I said farewell to old friends. I left them where they were and walked down the dirt road that led through town. I passed through the heavy gates that protected the city. I walked over the bridge, the centerpiece of my friends’ lives, and out of the Middle Ages, back into 2008 and the busy paved street that led to my house with indoor plumbing, central heat and air, and a great big comfy reading chair. I closed my book, placed it on the table beside me and sat silently for a few minutes, grieving. I had just finished Ken Follett’s historical fiction novel World Without End.

After nine hundred and twenty-seven pages, I had become attached to a cast of fascinating people. In the best novels, we are deliciously tricked into believing that when we close the cover, life between the pages goes on without us. How can characters so vivid just disappear into thin air when the book is closed? Therein likes the writer’s craft. Character Basics

Unlocking the character code can be a tool for critiquing literature. A character is born where speech, appearance, and action come together around a name. A characterization is the process by which the writer makes the character seem real to the reader. The protagonist, a hero or heroine, is the character with whom we become most deeply involved. The antagonist is the character that parallels or opposes the protagonist, providing the conflict in the story. A character that does not change through the text is a static character. A dynamic character does go through change as a result of the action in the plot. A flat character is one that has one or two simple qualities or traits and is not psychologically complex. Sometimes flat characters are called “stock characters.” These can be easily summarized, and are more a “type” than an individual.

Characters that are more complex and fully developed are round characters or dramatized characters. Round characters generally are consistent in action and reaction, and plausibly motivated. Writers may use direct presentation to tell the reader by exposition or analysis about the character. Writers also use indirect presentation, showing the character in action and letting the reader infer the character’s qualities. Traditionally, readers explore characters on a personal level. In other words, a reader asks, “What kind of person is this character? Is she a person I’d like to know?”

A reader might also try to figure out why the character behaves as she does, or compare the character’s action with what we would do in a similar situation. In order for a reader to become involved with a character on a personal level, we make a few assumptions about literary characters •• The character is motivated from within to act •• The character is responsible for their own actions •• The character is unique and responds in personal ways •• The character is can be judged by comparing thoughts with actions.

A personal approach to reading characters implies that the character is morally accountable for her actions in the same way a real person is judged accountable. As with contextual readings based on social customs, character readings based on social customs may reinforce the prevailing set of values and discount new, different, or novel beliefs and practices.

Characters as Signs

Another way to interpret characters is to see them as signs or devices that represent values in the text. In fiction, characters can be used to open up or explore aspects of human experience, or to illustrate a trait of human behavior. A symbol is something that stands not only for itself, but also for an abstract idea, belief, or quality. Conventional symbols are ones that are widely accepted and used by writers. Some symbolic characters are consistent throughout the text, but others gather new meaning throughout the text.

An archetype is a universal symbol or prototype that evokes response in a reader, sometimes unconsciously. An archetype symbolizes basic human experiences, regardless of time and place. Conventional archetypes include •• the “great mother” •• the “wise old man” •• the “trickster” •• the “scarlet woman” •• the “faceless man.” •• the “artist-scientist”

Example: The Symbolism of the “Artist-Scientist”

One archetype is that of the “artist-scientist.” The artist-scientist is a builder, an inventor, a seeker or dreamer, and a thinker. They may be so caught up in their own thoughts, they often must be reminded to eat or sleep, or come in out of the rain. They are both highly knowledgeable and innocent. They represent the wonder and the danger of curiosity.

The artist-scientist is an agent of change. This archetype character might spend hours concocting elaborate plans to reach the tower of the castle to rescue the princess, while the hero simply walks in the front door and up the stairs, scoops up the damsel and rides off into the sunset. The artist-scientist has an idealized view of reality. As a failure, the artist-scientists may symbolize the futility of trying to control one’s own fate. If successful, the artist-scientists can symbolize the idea that you can’t stop a dreamer from trying to change the world. Frequently naïve, the artist-scientist can also symbolize a gap between knowledge and fact.

Application:   The Artist-Scientist in World Without End

In Follett’s historical novel World Without End, the characters were vivid and detailed. His research was thorough, and he effectively used indirect presentation to flesh out the characters, which behaved, thought, and spoke in keeping with the historical period. The character Murthin is an example of the artist-scientist archetype. He’s of noble birth, but forced by poverty to become a builder. Since little science and engineering was known in those days, Murthin had to excel as an engineer, an architect, and a physicist.

When faced with a problem, Murthin never failed to invent or create something that solves it. In particular, Murthin designed a bridge to replace one that failed. Murthin studied the problems with the old bridge, and came up with new technologies to solve them. Superstition and religion are at cross purposes with Murthin’s science and Murthin mirrors the medieval trend from church rule to secular rule.

 To the townspeople, Murthin’s methods are strange and untried, and Murthin is faced with constant efforts to thwart his plan. Murthin represents the science side of the science-religion debate. He is determined, logical, and tolerant of new ideas. He is so persistent, that the changes he wants to bring to the town seem inevitable, like the proverbial progress that is said to be unstoppable.

By refusing to work with mindless adherence to the past, Murthin represents the idea that knowledge isn’t finite, that all there is to know is not already known. For Murthin, knowledge as dynamic rather than static, and mere mortals are capable of moving knowledge forward. Murthin literally and figuratively builds, stone by stone, the foundation for the village’s inevitable crossing into an uncertain future.

Bibliography

Schema (psychology); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

Glossary of Literary Terms, Mayer Literature

http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/literature/bedlit/glossary_p.htm#top

 PAL: Perspectives in American Literature – A Research and Reference Guide – An Ongoing Project, Paul P. Reuben http://web.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/append/AXG.HTML

Literary Archetypes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Literary_archetypes

Schema Theory: An Introduction, Sharon Alayne Widmayer, George Mason University, http://www2.yk.psu.edu/~jlg18/506/SchemaTheory.pdf

A Glossary of Literary Criticism http://www.sil.org/~radneyr/humanities/litcrit/gloss.htm Anatomy of Literary Criticism, Frye, Northrop 1957.

http://www.sil.org/~radneyr/humanities/litcrit/anacrit.htm

Follett, Ken, World Without End, 

 New York, Penguin Group. Moon, Brian, Literary Terms,

The NCTE Chalkface Series, 1999 Segal, Robert Alan; Jung, C. G. (1998). On mythology, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01736-0  

Internet Safety and Children

Who bothers with the mall anymore? That’s so ten minutes ago. The Internet is the new “mall” — as much a kid’s hang out as the malt shop was for the Richie Cunningham and the Fonz. Yet, the internet is so huge and anonymous that it’s easy to forget there are real dangers out there—especially for kids.

To keep your children safe online, follow these tips. Talk about them with your children and then post them on a wall near your computer.

• Keep personal information personal. This applies to kids and to adults. In the hands of the wrong person, personal information about you or your kids is dangerous.

• Limit time in front of the computer. Don’t let them forget about such concepts as “outside” and human “friends.”
• The computer should be in a family room, not in the child’s bedroom. This makes it easier for the parent to keep an eye on what the child is doing on line.

• If necessary, up your computer-savvy quotient so you can talk with and enjoy using the computer with your child.

• Remind your child that they should feel comfortable coming to you with questions. If your child knows they can take tough problems to you for help rather than recriminations, many dangerous situations can be avoided.

• Don’t allow your kids in chat rooms unless they are monitored.

• Get to know any on line friends your child makes just as you would their other friends.

• Warn your children that people aren’t always how they portray themselves on the Internet. Someone may represent that they are a 13-year old boy, but in reality be an adult. Predators use this to gain the trust of kids.

• Discuss these rules with your kids. Ask them to sign off to agree to stick to the rules, and post them on a wall near your computer. Don’t forget to monitor their compliance with the rules.

• Use a hub for your children’s Internet research or a child friendly Internet search tool like the one at yahoo– HTTP://kids.yahoo.com/ Another good option is Microsoft Student Encarta encyclopedia is broad and complete and easy to use. Everything necessary is there, but prescreened links to other websites are included. It’s safe, and it is manageable for children and teens.

• Do not give out your passwords. Don’t store them where they can be found. Choose a password you can easily remember, but not one so obvious that your kids or others can figure it out. Change passwords frequently. People looking over your shoulder may learn your passwords. Don’t use the “remember me” feature on websites.

• Talk to the parents of your children’s friends. Agree on a system for monitoring each child’s on line activities when they are visiting other’s houses. If possible, try to use similar parental controls.

• Don’t court temptation by leaving your credit card or credit card information on the computer. Follow safety rules when using credit cards on line and use only secure lines.

Fixing Our Broken Schools

NASHVILLE, TN   Tennesseans are met almost every morning with newspaper stories reporting the array of symptoms caused by problems in our state educational system.  Nashville faces the possibility that the No Child Left Behind law will require our state Department of Education to take over local schools next year. 

Education woes affect every state, but Tennessee ranks low in many of the national educational indicators.  This morning, the editorial page of The Tennessean revealed that the average ACT score of Tennessee students is lower than the national average.  “According to the ACT board, only 18 percent of the 50,000 who took the test in 2008 were ready for college-level reading, math English and science.”  Ouch.

The paper’s editorial staff tells parents to consider the transition from high school to college as a “come-from-behind project.”  That sound you hear is my jaw plunking down on my hardwood floor. 

Two guest editorials exemplify the difficulty of defining and solving problems in education.  The first one argued that the problem is our curriculum standards—the stuff our kids are supposed to master—are too low.  The second, suggests that if kids don’t learn the necessary skills by third grade, remediation becomes progressively more difficult each year, becoming nearly impossible by the senior year.  To solve the problem of poor college readiness, this editorial argues that we have start thinking about a student’s readiness way back in kindergarten class.  I think this writer has a point, but when’s the last time you saw a politician take a twelve-year view on anything? 

So, according to these articles, we should either make school harder, or start focusing most of our resources on kindergarten, first, second, and third grade classrooms.  Could these two solutions be more different?

I’m not saying this is an easy problem to solve.  Even coming up with a definition of a “good education” is like trying to grasp mercury in your hand.  Ask ten people on the street, and they’ll give you ten different answers.  Ten different experts will disagree as well.  If we could agree on what makes a good education, could we agree on how to implement and measure said good education?  Probably not.

So, what do we do?  Throw up our hands and hope for the best?   No, we cannot do that.  Our responsibility to our children is too great.

To have excellent schools, we must first change the way we think about learning.  Learning doesn’t begin in preschool and it doesn’t end after high school graduation.  Learning begins the moment a baby is born, and doesn’t end until we take our dying breath.   We are always learning, even when we are old and, supposedly, wiser.

Our brains are made to learn.  With every sound you hear, or thing you see, or smell you detect, your brain is performing an elaborate dance that enables you, almost instantaneously, to detect, direct, process, and tell your body how to react.  When we learn something new, our brain takes the information in, cross-references it with everything you already know, and sends it to the appropriate filing cabinet. There are lots of scientific words that describe this process more elegantly, but the idea is simple.  Our brains are lean, mean, thinking machines.

Until we see learning a life-long process, we will continue to be frustrated by the challenges that face our schools.   Children are in school only part of their time, yet they learn all of the time.  It isn’t possible for schools to “do it all” and we cannot delegate total responsibility for our child’s education to schools. We need to determine what schools do best—things which benefit from standardization, for example.  But to raise well-rounded lifetime learners, parents have to be the go-to person for their child.  Parents should be able to focus on providing an individualized learning environment at home that rounds out their child’s schoolwork.