The fall quarter started today, and I met three new classes’
worth of readers. I always spend a few
minutes on the first day getting to know the students, and introducing them to
the subject. My folklore students were
pretty eager, really. They came in
thinking it sounded fun, so we talked about why. What are some of the fundamental differences
between folk literature and authored literature?
Folk literature is orally composed—people tell stories they
have heard told, but each version is legitimate to a folklorist. Orally composed texts tend to focus on plot,
not character, and use stock scenes and characters to build up a
narrative. We stopped there for a
while. One of the fundamental
differences between folktales and novels, say, is depth of character. Folktale characters are bare-boned. Novel characters are developed, fleshed out, or
what E.M. Forester called “round” (as opposed to “flat,” which folktale
characters definitely are).
Folktale heroes and heroines have very few identifying
traits, as a rule. Nice, young girls and
clever boys populate this world. All we
know about Little Red Riding Hood is that she’s young and beloved. All we know about Jack is that he’s poor and
clever. The effect of these sparsely
developed characters is that anyone can identify with them. There are so few details, they tend not to
hamper our seeing ourselves in them. We
can quickly insert ourselves in to the story and focus on the plot: live the adventure.
Novels are different, as are modern television or movie
characters. These, we read (or watch)
for character development, and they don’t disappoint. Anyone who reads The Great Gatsby has a crystalline vision of that character. Scarlett O’Hara—very clear. Any character we spend that much time with,
we get to know, and if they’re well-written, “round,” we know them very
well. This actually makes it harder to
identify with completely. We may be like
them in some ways, but some of their actions or emotions make it hard to
identify completely.
This is why that recent Facebook trend, to post pictures of
the three fictional characters who define you, requires three. When it comes to fictional characters, one
won’t do it. There’s always some detail
to the character, or some lack, that keeps us from identifying fully. But if you could choose three… that makes it
easier. I chose Molly Weasley because I
am a goofy-but-fierce mom and wife. But there are some qualities about her I
don’t embody, some actions she takes that I wouldn’t. I chose Mole from The Wind in the Willows because I am an incontrovertible optimist
who finds reasons to be joyful all around me, but I’m not, you know, a mole. Or
a male. I chose the Lorax because I
speak for the trees; I am a nature nut, a tree- hugger, a hiker, a bird
watcher, and an environmentalist--and because I sometimes sound self-righteous
and priggish. But if I left any of these
out, the picture would be hopelessly incomplete. Molly Weasley wouldn’t address the teacher in
me; Mole leaves out my protective Molly-ness.
The Lorax, without some Moley and Molly would be insufferable as a
person.
Human beings are more
complicated than the roundest of characters.
And in the wave of Facebook quizzes and people asking to be told who
they are, this one feels refreshing. We
choose (I had help from my family), and we get to be complex, multiple. Instead of a Facebook quiz spitting out one
‘80s song or aura color or spirit animal for you to believe represents you, you
get to choose your own, and you get to choose several. Narratives inform our lives, but it takes a
lot of narratives to come close to containing us. And so we keep reading—searching for and
finding more of ourselves in each book.
That was just the first day.
It’s going to be a good quarter.
