![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hee. A friend of mine called me yesterday and congratulated me on "the big win."
And I said thank you. Like I actually won something.:-)
I just find it incredibly amusing that my love of Frodo and Sam is so known that ROTK winning eleven oscars is obviously about me! Because I did win something, in a way. Of course, this was the one friend who, when I said I was doing the Lincoln Center thing, did not react by saying I was crazy and how could I sit through all those movies because they're so long, but with the far more rational, "That's not really going to the movies, that's like going on vacation." Anyway, I thought the guys were very classy in their wins.
I know by now people feel like other movies were the underdog, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that PJ is a Hollywood outsider, and the films far more risky and out there than any independent film. If another movie had won I think it might have been seen by some now as Hollywood bravely standing up against the extravaganza but I think that would have been short-sighted. Just another of those movies where years from now, when the USA network shows it every Christmas and it's a standard, people would hear what movie beat it and shake their heads at Academy silliness. Iow, even though it was epic, this movie was this year's ET, not this year's Ghandi.
Meanwhile, there's an excellent discussion on Molly Weasley and all the yelling in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivyblossom's lj. Basically, she's challenging the imo bizarre fandom idea that the best place anyone could wind up was in the warm bosom of the Weasley family, preferably by marriage. Had I been born into that family I no doubt would have spent most of my time finding places to hide, and I would have moved as far away as possible as soon as possible.
Which led me to the side issue that, wankiness aside, HP fandom seems to have some pretty consistently good character discussions. Yes, there's the stupid people whose character discussion basically consists of how evil the evil characters are and how great everybody else is, or how anybody who doesn't like their favorite character is a jerk, or that racism is bad and that's why hexing Slytherins is funny etc., but I'm talking more about stuff like this. My question is, Why is this, and why does it seem so much less the case in LOTR fandom for me?
Okay, on one hand you've just got more characters in HP. More characters with more flaws, maybe, and that makes them more open to criticism. Plus, in LOTR characters are on a quest and so away from home by definition--at least the hobbits are, and they are the most humanly drawn characters in the story--so they're not as tied to their own communities. The human characters tend to be princes and kings, so not very connected to their people that way. they don't have the kind of entanglements you get in HP. But I just find it interesting, I guess, that while Tolkien gives us genealogy and history, I still get more of a sense of a continuous timeline in HP. Part of it is, I guess, that HP is more connected to "our" world so we can bring that into it--MWPP lived during the 70's, and we know about the 70's. And they obviously have a pretty dramatic story of their own. I've just been realizing that maybe because of that I sometimes feel like the LOTR characters we don't know about are fuzzier, less real. I mean, we are told that Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam are exceptional hobbits, so it's sometimes hard to write about other hobbits. HP writers are often slack in writing Peter into the MWPP era (and JKR herself doesn't make him too believable as a real friend either), but he still gets more attention than Fatty Bolger, who is entirely replaced by Sam in fanfic. The Gamgees household is big like the Weasleys, and also has a parent who speaks plainly and uses hard names. We *do* get hints of great family fighting with the Sackville-Baggins', but it's usually handled for humor (which I think is very appropriate) or blown out of all proportion to become ritual abuse.
Anyway, so I realize there are obvious reasons for HP inspiring this kind of talk. There's more canon, the characters are more personally connected (rather than just coming together for a good cause). It's not like anybody writes about Hermione's family that barely exist in canon. But still, when it comes to the hobbits I've gotten into some great character talk and people have written some great fanfic thinking about it. Yet it doesn't seem to lead to the same kinds of intense discussions.
I find it interesting, for instance, how little we know about Frodo's relationship with Bilbo. Willow's one author who's attempted to build a relationship for them based on what we're told in canon--Bilbo doesn't know Frodo as a child and only starts to notice him when he stands out as being different. Willow also presents us with a Bilbo who, imo, believably captures Frodo's own attention as an interesting fellow within a community of older hobbits. Other authors are much more comfortable changing their relationship into something more familiar: They make Frodo a child when he comes to live with Bilbo instead of a youth (in a time when adolescence isn't really recognized the way it is today). Or Frodo and Bilbo are given an intense relationship where Bilbo is rescuing Frodo from abuse (in ROP too, of course, Frodo's days at Brandy Hall are numbered). In canon, meanwhile, we're just told Bilbo had few friends until his younger cousins started to grow up, and Frodo was his favorite. He invited him to live with him, wrote to Saradoc, and Saradoc was fine with it. Then Bilbo leaves, leaving Bag End in the capable hands of his younger cousin (yes, capable hands, Frodo knew where everything was and how it was run--I just started re-reading FOTR and was surprised to remember that Frodo forcibly ejects hobbits hunting for treasure after the party!). Frodo is struck by just how much he's going to miss the old fellow. Later, in Rivendell, they have a happy reunion where they talk like old adult friends, it seems. After the quest Bilbo's a bit senile, yet Tolkien says Frodo loves him above everyone else.
This makes me wonder, sometimes, if the relationship Tolkien describes here is just too foreign for many writers to know what to do with it. Or perhaps even too masculine. Bilbo's not Frodo's mother (whereas Sam can sometimes rather be that), he's not his playmate like M&P. He's kind of his father, but not in the intense style of Lucius/Draco or even Harry/James. It seems like Frodo's quite mature by the time he comes to live with Bilbo--he's perhaps already the more sober and thoughtful of the two in his tweens, so what exactly strikes Bilbo's fancy? The films do try to touch on this--rather wonderfully at times, imo. I love the EE addition of Bilbo yelling for Frodo to answer the door, and their reunion in Rivendell. (The scene in the cart is, of course, sublime by my standards, bringing Movie Frodo to the persona of Book Frodo at last.) People just rarely seem interested in recreating a sort of Edwardian lifestyle for them, I guess. Though I'd say the same with Frodo, Sam and Rosie, who become like modern roommates. This is probably a big part of what I love about Code of the Brandybucks, it creates a whole world of entanglements for the hobbits to live in driven by marriage and money, the main things the Shire seems to run on in canon. Only with salad oil!!
I guess I just think that's a valid question to ask when it comes to characters being OOC. The same people who will rant that Frodo has to be a virginal librarian with the vapors (when canon says nothing about his sex life and suggests he's vigorous enough to consider himself as having gotten "soft" before the Quest) also expect young Frodo to confide in Sam and occasionally his two cousins, when canon tells us Frodo's time was spent with Merry, Pippin and Fredegar Bolger and assumes, I think, that Frodo and Sam's relationship existed within the framework of their different classes.
And I said thank you. Like I actually won something.:-)
I just find it incredibly amusing that my love of Frodo and Sam is so known that ROTK winning eleven oscars is obviously about me! Because I did win something, in a way. Of course, this was the one friend who, when I said I was doing the Lincoln Center thing, did not react by saying I was crazy and how could I sit through all those movies because they're so long, but with the far more rational, "That's not really going to the movies, that's like going on vacation." Anyway, I thought the guys were very classy in their wins.
I know by now people feel like other movies were the underdog, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that PJ is a Hollywood outsider, and the films far more risky and out there than any independent film. If another movie had won I think it might have been seen by some now as Hollywood bravely standing up against the extravaganza but I think that would have been short-sighted. Just another of those movies where years from now, when the USA network shows it every Christmas and it's a standard, people would hear what movie beat it and shake their heads at Academy silliness. Iow, even though it was epic, this movie was this year's ET, not this year's Ghandi.
Meanwhile, there's an excellent discussion on Molly Weasley and all the yelling in
ivyblossom's lj. Basically, she's challenging the imo bizarre fandom idea that the best place anyone could wind up was in the warm bosom of the Weasley family, preferably by marriage. Had I been born into that family I no doubt would have spent most of my time finding places to hide, and I would have moved as far away as possible as soon as possible. Which led me to the side issue that, wankiness aside, HP fandom seems to have some pretty consistently good character discussions. Yes, there's the stupid people whose character discussion basically consists of how evil the evil characters are and how great everybody else is, or how anybody who doesn't like their favorite character is a jerk, or that racism is bad and that's why hexing Slytherins is funny etc., but I'm talking more about stuff like this. My question is, Why is this, and why does it seem so much less the case in LOTR fandom for me?
Okay, on one hand you've just got more characters in HP. More characters with more flaws, maybe, and that makes them more open to criticism. Plus, in LOTR characters are on a quest and so away from home by definition--at least the hobbits are, and they are the most humanly drawn characters in the story--so they're not as tied to their own communities. The human characters tend to be princes and kings, so not very connected to their people that way. they don't have the kind of entanglements you get in HP. But I just find it interesting, I guess, that while Tolkien gives us genealogy and history, I still get more of a sense of a continuous timeline in HP. Part of it is, I guess, that HP is more connected to "our" world so we can bring that into it--MWPP lived during the 70's, and we know about the 70's. And they obviously have a pretty dramatic story of their own. I've just been realizing that maybe because of that I sometimes feel like the LOTR characters we don't know about are fuzzier, less real. I mean, we are told that Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam are exceptional hobbits, so it's sometimes hard to write about other hobbits. HP writers are often slack in writing Peter into the MWPP era (and JKR herself doesn't make him too believable as a real friend either), but he still gets more attention than Fatty Bolger, who is entirely replaced by Sam in fanfic. The Gamgees household is big like the Weasleys, and also has a parent who speaks plainly and uses hard names. We *do* get hints of great family fighting with the Sackville-Baggins', but it's usually handled for humor (which I think is very appropriate) or blown out of all proportion to become ritual abuse.
Anyway, so I realize there are obvious reasons for HP inspiring this kind of talk. There's more canon, the characters are more personally connected (rather than just coming together for a good cause). It's not like anybody writes about Hermione's family that barely exist in canon. But still, when it comes to the hobbits I've gotten into some great character talk and people have written some great fanfic thinking about it. Yet it doesn't seem to lead to the same kinds of intense discussions.
I find it interesting, for instance, how little we know about Frodo's relationship with Bilbo. Willow's one author who's attempted to build a relationship for them based on what we're told in canon--Bilbo doesn't know Frodo as a child and only starts to notice him when he stands out as being different. Willow also presents us with a Bilbo who, imo, believably captures Frodo's own attention as an interesting fellow within a community of older hobbits. Other authors are much more comfortable changing their relationship into something more familiar: They make Frodo a child when he comes to live with Bilbo instead of a youth (in a time when adolescence isn't really recognized the way it is today). Or Frodo and Bilbo are given an intense relationship where Bilbo is rescuing Frodo from abuse (in ROP too, of course, Frodo's days at Brandy Hall are numbered). In canon, meanwhile, we're just told Bilbo had few friends until his younger cousins started to grow up, and Frodo was his favorite. He invited him to live with him, wrote to Saradoc, and Saradoc was fine with it. Then Bilbo leaves, leaving Bag End in the capable hands of his younger cousin (yes, capable hands, Frodo knew where everything was and how it was run--I just started re-reading FOTR and was surprised to remember that Frodo forcibly ejects hobbits hunting for treasure after the party!). Frodo is struck by just how much he's going to miss the old fellow. Later, in Rivendell, they have a happy reunion where they talk like old adult friends, it seems. After the quest Bilbo's a bit senile, yet Tolkien says Frodo loves him above everyone else.
This makes me wonder, sometimes, if the relationship Tolkien describes here is just too foreign for many writers to know what to do with it. Or perhaps even too masculine. Bilbo's not Frodo's mother (whereas Sam can sometimes rather be that), he's not his playmate like M&P. He's kind of his father, but not in the intense style of Lucius/Draco or even Harry/James. It seems like Frodo's quite mature by the time he comes to live with Bilbo--he's perhaps already the more sober and thoughtful of the two in his tweens, so what exactly strikes Bilbo's fancy? The films do try to touch on this--rather wonderfully at times, imo. I love the EE addition of Bilbo yelling for Frodo to answer the door, and their reunion in Rivendell. (The scene in the cart is, of course, sublime by my standards, bringing Movie Frodo to the persona of Book Frodo at last.) People just rarely seem interested in recreating a sort of Edwardian lifestyle for them, I guess. Though I'd say the same with Frodo, Sam and Rosie, who become like modern roommates. This is probably a big part of what I love about Code of the Brandybucks, it creates a whole world of entanglements for the hobbits to live in driven by marriage and money, the main things the Shire seems to run on in canon. Only with salad oil!!
I guess I just think that's a valid question to ask when it comes to characters being OOC. The same people who will rant that Frodo has to be a virginal librarian with the vapors (when canon says nothing about his sex life and suggests he's vigorous enough to consider himself as having gotten "soft" before the Quest) also expect young Frodo to confide in Sam and occasionally his two cousins, when canon tells us Frodo's time was spent with Merry, Pippin and Fredegar Bolger and assumes, I think, that Frodo and Sam's relationship existed within the framework of their different classes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Two, Tolkien filled every possible gap for us. Fanfic flourishes where canon forms a trajectory. Rowling is imminently good at tying things in within the books -- two extra-canon books that are barely pamphlet thickness and that's it. (Though I'm hoping she does publish her notes in encyclopedia form after the last book.) You don't have to venture far to find internal consistency for any one character.
Tolkien, on the other hand, has a library full of footnotes... very hard to go through and typically the stuff we're looking for is scattered all over the place. Really hard to write fanfic, much less have a discussion on characters. For instance, how many people know that Saruman and Gandalf had a snappish exchange about pipeweed about a thousand years back? Heck, I don't even remember which of Christopher Tolkien's journals that's in. Even if they've read the books, I despair of talking to people about my favorite scene in the Trilogy, as it's in Appendix A.
It's just the sheer volume of the back-canon. Till the Tolkien estate allows us to do a hyperlinked e-text, it's just so difficult to get a rounded picture of everything, including the characters.
From:
no subject
It's kind of interesting, though, that the stuff we do have often doesn't really appeal to people, maybe because it's not modern enough. Gollum, for instance, could be a fascinating character in a fanfic. Like that post I wrote a while back where I said the movie suddenly made me really wonder about Smeagol and how Andy Serkis' thoughts made him even more interesting, yet I've never seen a fanfic interested in Smeagol's fall. Not even to the point of some of the drabbles I saw on the new Dark is Rising drabble community on Hawkins.
It's like certain things appeal to fanfic authors and they're very specific things that Tolkien wasn't quite interested in. But we do get hints about some things that fanfic authors sort of disregard in ways they won't disregard other things.
From:
no subject
I think the core of the problem is what you described above---that their relationship is simply one our modern society doesn't understand. The character of an elderly benefactor (a generous uncle, a wealthy maiden aunt) to a young protagonist is a classic one, but one that doesn't really exist in our own time, in which extended families are almost non-existent and it would be highly irregular to adopt your own cousin, and one that was almost an adult at that. That's why I think many writers go looking for the "reason" that Bilbo adopted Frodo, and tend to settle upon the often melodramatically-played idea that Frodo needed to be saved from terrible abuse or neglect at Brandy Hall. I'm willing to agree that Brandy Hall may not have been the most promising environment for someone like Frodo, but there's nothing to suggest that his years there were especially traumatic or that the adoption marked his deliverance.
Addiitonally, I think a lot of writers just find the reality of their relationship somewhat uninspiring. Really, what do we have here? An eccentric old bachelor who can't stand his rightful heirs develops a fondness for a younger relation, obviously sees some sort of promise in the boy that might not be fulfilled in his present situation, and so takes him under his wing. It's good for both of them---Bilbo gains an heir, Frodo gains an inheritance. The two of them then live together agreeably. There's just not a lot there to work with. So writers have to spice things up---Frodo becomes an abused orphan or a rebellious teen, Bilbo turns into some sort of Hobbitton playah, deftly wrangling his relatives and Shire business. Or they simplify the relationship, by basing it on a simple (and very modern) father/son one in which Frodo apparently requires a great deal of cuddling (not that there's anything wrong with Frodo-cuddling!) and Bilbo is always there to dole out warm paternal advice. And cuddles.
Elements of their relationship are barely hinted at in the book. One of my favorite moments is in Rivendell, when Frodo attempts to thank Bilbo for all of his "many kindnesses." Poor Bilbo, obviously flustered by this uncommon display of emotion looks out the window and starts humming! It's apparent from this scene that, although they cared for each other deeply and Frodo definitely feels gratitude to Bilbo, demonstrative affection was not part of their relationship, and that their usual interaction was probably somewhat formal. Again, it's not only difficult for us to understand, but it also isn't exactly a source of juicy material.
The exquisite "cart" scene at the end of RoTK is, to me, the perfect blending of canon and fanon Bilbo-Frodo. There is a sort of formality there in the way they speak to each other, but at the same time, there is that lovely tenderness that so many writers enjoy exploring. It takes my breath away every time.
From:
no subject
I do love that scene in canon when Frodo is trying to thank Bilbo and he starts humming. It's so sweet but funny at the same time, and Frodo comes across like such a gentleman who's probably saying something incredibly eloquent but since this is the way he actually speaks it's not ridiculously formal. When you think about it it's rather amazing Bilbo would make the effort to bring Frodo into his home when he didn't have to, and the way he does it in canon is that exact blend of obvious love and denial of it, because he just says Frodo ought to live with him at Bag End so they can celebrate their birthdays together and that's what stands as an invitation.
I guess that's why I feel like it's sort of a shame that everybody feels the need to spice things up. Not because I don't understand it because hey, I love a good Frodo-cuddle and Frodo-angst is fine with me as well. Spicing up is fine too. But sometimes I do wonder about the possible gentle stories that could come out of the eccentric bachelor who's the center of attention yet all alone, and Frodo who is seems obviously isolated by being an orphan yet has such good friends. He even continues celebrating Bilbo's birthday when he's gone, something I think would touch Bilbo to no end. Even when he meets him again at the end there's little attention paid to the sadness of Bilbo being so old. And then there's Bilbo's relationship with Sam as well.
It would be fascinating to see what someone could do with a more canon relationship, if they would be able to suggest the depth of feeling without the emotion. A lot of fanfic, after all, jumpstarts the feeling through devices like illnesses and nightmares--and there's nothing wrong with that. I love me a good sick Frodo fic! But it's interesting the way Tolkien just barely hints at deeper emotion without showing any of it, just by mentioning that Frodo felt deeply how much he cared for Bilbo right after he disappeared (despite being in on the joke for months), that Frodo kept celebrating Bilbo's birthday while everyone in town said he was dead, and by giving us that little scene in Rivendell.
But he's also frustrating because we have so little idea how the two of them interacted ever on a daily basis. Like when we see Bilbo can't really discuss the quest with Frodo after it's over, it's hard to know exactly how they would have discussed it if Bilbo hadn't been so aged. When Frodo's preparing to go, Bilbo's not exactly helpful, asking him to think up an ending for the book etc. (Bilbo and Sam crack me up in that scene--I think it's one of Frodo's funniest moments dealing with them.)
From:
no subject
Frodo's comments about Bilbo to Gandalf make it clear that he has affection for and understands the old hobbit, but isn't afraid to take a critical look at his secrets. And he comes across very much as Gandalf's equal in the way he speaks to him - it's only when he's out of his element that he seems younger, and Gandalf a definite mentor.
And I absolutely love the scenes at the party - Bilbo's inarticulate attempt to tell Frodo he loves him (and Frodo's quizzical reaction to Bilbo attempting to get serious); their partnership in escaping the Sackville-Bagginses; his protectiveness towards Bilbo when the dragon firework swoops over everyone's head, and his reaction when Bilbo disappears. For the most part, their affection for each other is understated, but certainly understood, much like the books. And I can certainly picture that Frodo calling Bilbo a "silly old hobbit" in a loving tone. It was those scenes that sold me, and I've never looked back.
And I will ALWAYS love the writers for allowing Gandalf to mention the "incident with the dragon" - and Frodo treating it as a slightly embarrassing old family story. It still brings a goofy smile to my face whenever I see it.
From:
no subject
I too feel that the filmmakers really hit the mark with the Frodo-Bilbo relationship right from the beginning. They don't smack you over the head with it, as films are wont to do, but it is quite clear that there is a long, comfortable relationship there.
From:
no subject
The other scenes you mentioned as well show this is the way they were going. They were sometimes a bit more demonstrative, but even then it was always in that halting, awkward way that showed they weren't used to showing emotion. Bilbo doesn't quite know what to say to Frodo when he says he isn't like him, and Frodo isn't sure how to comfort Bilbo after he's gone for the ring. It's interesting how very different it is from Frodo's relationships with the other hobbits, who are all much more openly emotional about their feelings for him. With Bilbo he can run joyfully to him and hug him in Rivendell, but good-bye or anything serious is more difficult.
Perhaps, though, this is a change that comes from the quest. No way are Merry and Pippin able to hide how sad they are at his leaving (and Sam's a mess, of course), while Bilbo walked onto the ship like it was just another adventure.
From:
no subject
I think it might have something to do with the fact that it's still an open-ended canon, so to speak. It's not complete, so there's a lot more room for speculation and open discussion. The internal inconsistencies also help some, I think. There aren't that many, of course, but those that are there imo make it just that much more interesting.
But really I think it all just boils down to a difference in style. As someone said, LotR is basically a travelogue, and most of the characters are "important people" i.e. Kings, stewards, princes, etc. with heightened syntax. But most of the characters in HP are regular people, even Dumbledore has his quirks and (as proven in the 5th book) weaknesses.
*Shrug*
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Hmm. Now I feel challenged. :) I've never written LOTR fanfic but now I want to try this one.
From:
no subject
It's a combination of a friendship of equals and a mentorship of someone Bilbo already respects as having great potential. And so they live together, and find things in common that they share with no one else, and Bilbo teaches him all kinds of incredible things.
Yes! It's so fascinating and we don't get a peek at it. It's just so rare nowadays to find that sort of mentor relationship in fiction, particularly because youths in fiction tend to seem, well, more like youths. Frodo in the opening scene is very young by our standards but he acts like an adult. I think it's possibly a huge change, for instance, that we don't see Movie Frodo dealing with people after the party. The movie clearly makes the party mostly Bilbo's domain, with Frodo not even knowing he's leaving, whereas in the book Frodo's not only in on it but deftly handles the social fallout from Bilbo's joke. Not that the movie makes Frodo a child, either. It's just interesting not to see Frodo shown in that light when in Tolkien it's the first way we see him.
From:
no subject
HP, on the other hand, is more like your typical fantasy-novel, which successfully mixes fairytale and realism. That means the characters are archetypes, yes, but they're also (in most cases) very real, very human, and most of all more complicated than "pure archetypes" (not saying of course that LotR characters are completely "pure archetypes", but they do seem to be closer to it.)
I can obviously not say anything about Tolkien's characterisation skills, but I generally admire JKR:s. In many cases, I think she's succeeded with depicting a character very precisely, capturing his or her (but it's usually his, as she seems to have more of a neck for male characters) essence with only a couple of lines, or within a couple of scenes.
From:
no subject
Tolkien, otoh, writes much more archetypally, you're right. The only characters that really grab me much at all are the hobbits and there it's almost like there are sketches that I get to fill in. Based on their personalities I can often imagine the kinds of conflict at the heart of JKR's characters, but Tolkien really doesn't give them to us. The movies are far more character-driven than the books. In fact, sometimes major character revelations aren't even given until the end--it was the movie's idea to show us Rosie Cotton in the first scene. In the book we've no idea Sam has a girl until she's conveniently there for him to marry!
I also agree, though, with JKR's universe being more like ours and so lending itself to more of this kind of discussion.
From:
no subject
But that's exactly what I mean, tough. In the "I'm worth twelve of you, Malfoy", and the fight that follows shortly after, you get the essence of Neville; he's insecure at his own abilities, but will cling on to any kind of compliments, no matter how unconvincedly, or uncomfortably and he's very brave, but in an awkward way, and all these things combined makes him an easy target for mocking, but it certainly awakes the reader's sympathies (well obviously not all readers, but it's always been impossible to gain universal popularity, even for fictional characters.)
"Draco Malfoy didn't blush, but a pink tinge appeared upon his cheeks", and with this sentance alone he managed to catch my interest and sympathies from the very first book. Because these words are really all JKR needs, to describe something very essential about his character: He will not show anyone when he hurts! We see this characteristic again and again in the books; he reacts worse than Harry to insults of any kind, he won't cry, no matter how much it costs him, when Moody himiliates him, etc. But it would have sufficed with that "pink tinge"-line, to give us the indication that there's more there, than meets the eye, and that he's holding back most of his feelings (except the anger! :D)
So that's what I'm talking about. She has the ability to work with these little, often subtle, details, to give her readers important clues about the essence of her characters.
That's also why Ginny is my least fave character, because I've always missed those specific, subtle, details in her description.
I'm not denying that JKR can be inconsistant in her writing/characterisation, though. I think she's been consistant with Harry, which is what matters the most, considering he's the main character. But she's been inconsistant with Ron, Hermione, even Draco and probably others as well, if I bothered looking into that. (I won't even go into Ginny). But I still admire her skills of creating characters.
From:
no subject