Our perception and evaluation of characters will lead us to predict that they will behave in particular ways. While some might argue that we should not discuss fictional characters as if they are real people (e.g., Weinsheimer, 1979), it is apparent that we often do discuss them as if they are real. As Chatman notes;
That characters are indeed simply “people” captured somehow between the covers of books or by actors on stage and screen seems an unspoken axiom [... ] (Chatman, 1978:108)
Chatman notes that from Aristotle through to the formalist and structuralist traditions, characters were often seen merely to be functional, secondary to the events
46
of the plot, with action being the most important aspect of a story (Chatman, 1978:108). The emphasis on plot at the expense of character is evident in Propp’s analysis of the functional roles of characters in Russian folk tales for example; as Fiske notes, what they do is more important than what they are (Fiske on Propp,
1987:136). The emphasis on plot or character respectively may be compared to Forster’s distinction between ‘flat’ and ‘round’ characters; flat characters are
‘constructed round a single idea or quality’, are highly predictable ‘types’ or
‘caricatures’ (Forster, 1974:73), whereas ‘round’ characters are ‘capable of surprising in a convincing way’ or ‘acting out of character’ (Forster, 1974:81).
In more complex modern novels however, personality is often as important as plot; characters are usually represented as complex bundles of personality traits which we interpret just as we interpret the people we meet in real life. Our interpretation of the ‘behaviour’ and ‘personalities’ of fictional characters utilises similar cognitive processes and may be described in a similar way. As Chatman notes;
When fictional characters are psychoanalysed as if they were real people, hard- nosed critics may be right to challenge the effort. But characters as narrative constructs do require terms for description, and there is no point in rejecting those out of the general vocabulary of psychology, morality, and any other relevant area of human experience. (Chatman, 1978:138)
For this reason, it is useful to consider the way in which we adopt a cognitive ‘shorthand’ in order to interpret people, a system of information processing which we also utilise in our interpretation of the ‘personalities’ and ‘behaviour’ of fictional characters. I have already alluded to the notion of a narrative schema (plural
‘schemata’) in section 2. 4 (ii) in my discussion of the role of frameworks for reading. A narrative schema refers to the reader’s familiarity with particular topics, genres and themes, and refers to literary experience. The degree to which we recognise texts and compare them with other similar texts allows us to predict ‘what will happen’. This is
an aspect of our literary experience which I discussed in relation to feminist themes in sections 2.4 and 2.5. In more general terms however, a schema is
generalized knowledge about a sequence of events. A schema, like the script of a play, has a cast of characters, a sequence of scenes, etc.
(Rumelhart, 1977:165)
The notion of schemata is most often associated with the realm of cognitive psychology and information processing. Based on our experiences, we build up a store of background knowledge and general expectations about people and events, which is activated whenever we encounter familiar situations. Just as our familiarity with types of texts may allow us to predict certain things, our information relating to everyday experiences are stored in schemata which allow us to recognise familiar situations with little effort. The notion of cognitive schemata explains how when we go into a restaurant, for example, we usually know what to expect, namely that we will enter, order a meal, eat and leave. The restaurant schema is typically associated with Schank and Abelson, (1977) who developed such ideas as simple schemata for use in
computer programmes. Related to such schemata is the role of inferencing, i.e., we know that when we eat in a restaurant there will usually be a menu, that our order will be taken by a waiter or waitress, that we will have to pay the bill, and so on. Such highly predictable and familiar situations as these allow us to infer such information even when it is not stated explicitly.
Similar sorts of information processing explain our perception of people; we make use of a perceptual shorthand derived from our general knowledge about others, but which is often based on stereotypes. Our perception of the appearance of others and their social roles is used to produce a ‘person’ schema; for example, we anticipate that a doctor will exhibit a different set of personality traits than a student. However, stereotypes are potentially distorted and biased; we might assume that all nurses are
female, or that all students are young. My student schema, for example, predisposes me to imagine a person in their teens, radical, lively, environmentally friendly, and financially insolvent, a stereotype that more closely resembles my daughter than myself, even though we are both students. A person schema thus allows us to make quick character evaluations, which may or may not be confirmed on closer
acquaintance. Similarly, we evaluate fictional characters according to the information which is provided for us concerning their age, appearance, social role, and so on. Our perception of fictional characters is, however, partly determined by the degree of information provided by the author, who selects the relevant information in an attempt to manipulate the reader into an appropriate judgement of the character’s
‘personality’.
In order to illustrate the role of person schemata more clearly, I will refer to the following extract from Pym’s Quartet in Autumn. The extract provides a description of two women characters, Letty and Marcia, (also referred to as ‘Miss Ivory’) as other people see them. Both are similar, in that they are elderly single women on the verge of retirement, information which might be expected to activate a ‘spinster’ schema. However, in Forster’s terms, both are ‘round’ characters, and are more complex than might be assumed from the descriptions below. Marcia, in particular, is interesting for her eccentric, often bizarre behaviour, which can be explained as a result of an operation for breast cancer; the novel implies that her brain has suffered secondary damage despite her mastectomy. Letty’s characterisation is more predictable, due to her greater degree of conformity to the ‘spinster’ schema, but even she is more ‘round’ than ‘flat’. The extract below describes a retirement party held for the two women, and details the impression of them formed by the other office workers present.
It was of course generally known that Miss Ivory had undergone a serious operation, but the dress she was wearing today - a rather bright hyacinth blue courtelle - was several sizes too big for her skinny figure, so that very little of her shape was visible. People at the party who did not know her were
fascinated by her strange appearance, that dyed hair and the peering beady eyes, and she might have provided unusual entertainment if one had had the courage to attempt a conversation with her. But one never did have quite that sort of courage when it came to the point. Ageing, slightly mad and on the threshold of retirement, it was an uneasy combination and it was no wonder that people shied away from her or made only the most perfunctory remarks. It was difficult to imagine what her retirement would be like - impossible and rather gruesome to speculate on it.
Letty, by contrast, was boringly straightforward. Even her rather nice green-patterned jersey suit and her newly set mousy hair were perfectly in character. She had already been classified as a typical English spinster about to retire to a cottage in the country, where she would be joining with others like her to engage in church activities, attending meetings of the Women’s Institute, and doing gardening and needlework.
(Pym, Quartet in Autumn, pp. 85-86)
In order to illustrate the degree to which the two women conform or deviate from our ‘spinster’ schema, it is useful to perform a ‘semantic feature analysis’ (Toolan, 1988:99). Such an analysis involves listing the distinctive features or personality traits for each character in order to compare and contrast them. Figure 3 shows a list of the personality traits for Letty and Marcia that I have selected, mainly as a result of my reading of the extract above, although informed of course by my knowledge of their character development during the novel. Following Toolan, the presence or absence of a trait is marked ‘+ ’ or ‘-’ respectively. The list includes attributes which we might normally associate with such a person schema, namely, that a spinster is female, elderly, single and so on. However, also included are personality traits which are more tangential to the schema, such as ‘smart’ and ‘healthy’, which may not always be evoked, but which are contrasting features between Letty and Marcia. The differences between them highlight the degree to which each character diverges from (my) expectations.
50
Figure 3: Character-Trait Inventory: ‘ Spinster’ schema in Quartet in Autumn
‘Personality ’ Trait Letty Marcia
Female + + Elderly + + Married - - Sane + - Conventional + - Healthy + - ‘Feminine’ + - Modest + - Prim + 9 Smart + - Intimidating - + Friendly - - Sociable - -
It is noticeable that more positive terms are apparent in the characterisation of Letty. This is due to the fact that by contrast with Marcia, Letty is ‘normal’; the absence of such traits as ‘modest’ and ‘conventional’ in Marcia’s characterisation accentuates her ‘oddness’, with more negative terms such as ‘intimidating’ being used to define her. It should also be noted that Letty conforms quite specifically to a
‘typical English spinster’ schema, a woman of a certain class and age, which is useful for the contrast with Marcia. It would have been possible, for example, to evoke a person schema in which ‘spinster’ could produce an image of someone more like Marcia; a person schema for a single woman character from a novel set in the middle ages, for example, might be expected to include such aspects as a strange appearance, peering, beady eyes and bizarre behaviour. Such a person schema would be less likely to evoke the ‘stereotypical English spinster’ schema, than, for example, ‘witch’. (A potential candidate is found in Winterson’s Sexing the Cherry, and is considered in Chapter Three).
The degree to which my selection of traits is subjective is a potential problem in such analyses, although, as Toolan notes, the usefulness of such an analysis is its ability to highlight ‘essential distinctions between characters as the analyst sees them' (1988:101, emphasis in original). While other readers may disagree with my choice of some of the distinctive features for each character, the list highlights features which the text itself articulates as essential differences between them, and which are interpreted by me and assimilated into my person schema for each character. For example, the reference to Marcia’s ‘madness’ (i.e.,‘slightly mad’), is a defining feature in her characterisation, explaining much of her behaviour, and is confirmed both by the perceptions of the other characters, and by the insight into her mind. The perception that Marcia lacks the ‘feminine’ attribute might be questioned however, since the degree to which we see ‘dyed hair’, referred to in the extract above, as an attempt to ‘achieve’ femininity will differ. However, in my reading, the essential distinction between the two women is in the relative ‘success’ of their appearance. In addition, the attribute ‘prim’ is one which might typically be associated with the ‘spinster’ schema; however, due to Marcia’s characterisation as eccentric, it is
difficult to assess whether or not this attribute can be applied to her, since she is more preoccupied with the inside of her mind than with the activities of other people.
The qualities which are shared between the women characters therefore are only those relating to their single status, age, sex, and lack of sociability. Ironically, the first three features are those which might be expected to form a bond between the two women, but from which they are precluded by their lack of sociability, a central theme of the novel. The characters look as if they ‘belong together in some way’ (Pym, Quartet in Autumn, p. 5) but they remain isolated from one another throughout. The qualities which Letty possesses and Marcia lacks, are those which render Letty
52
relatively more appealing (though less interesting, and more stereotypically
‘spinsterish’). The insight into Letty’s mind suggests, however, that her conformity to the image is more superficial than might be assumed from her outward appearance. The qualities which Marcia possesses and Letty lacks are those which alienate others from Marcia, namely, her appearance, her intimidating nature and her insanity. However, of the two, it is Letty who is the lonely one; Marcia’s insanity leads her to engage in endless repetitive tasks and strange activities which leave her less time to become bored or lonely. Letty is more ‘normal’ but is unable to communicate her loneliness to others; rather than the endless round of Women’s Institute meetings, and hobbies envisaged for her, Letty is confined to her rented room, and her retirement leaves a gaping hole in her daily routine.
The character-trait inventory thus illustrates the expectations of the other characters and our own, evoking a person schema which allows us to compare the two women in accordance with a stereotypical norm. Such perceptions are based on appearance and social role, evoking stereotypical information which allows us to predict the personalities of others, and the way in which they can be expected to behave. As noted, Marcia’s eccentricity results in bizarre behaviour, which is explicable to the reader due to the information provided about her mind, as will be discussed further in Chapter Three.
In addition to person schemata, we also have generalised notions of how people can be expected to behave, and we make inferences about their motives, intentions and so on. Insights from social psychology into attribution theory prove illuminating on this point, and will be discussed next.