1. Thus why Sir Arthur Canon Doyle wrote from the perspective of Dr. Watson, rather than Holmes: we can relate to Watson’s ordinariness and “normal” view of things (even if they’re a Victorian normal), and so better appreciate the story as Holmes saves the day. We don’t always have to “like” the characters in a novel in the sense that we’d want to be best friends with them or have them over for dinner (some of my favorite characters would make nightmarish room mates), but we do have to care about them and appreciate their struggles, or the story is meaningless. Tension is created because we are afraid the hero might lose or the villain might succeed (or even vice versa): tension is defused when we simply don’t care who survives, when we care so little and are so removed from the plot that in the end, it just doesn’t matter what happens. That’s when you get into situation Shakespeare wrote about in Macbeth, of “a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

  2. Jeff Chapman says:

    I’ve heard it argued that Tolkien’s time in the trenches during WWI significantly shaped his concept of heroism. He witnessed many heroic acts by enlisted men who had no great love of war or adventure. They just wanted themselves and their mates to go home alive. Often, battles are won and lost based on the seemingly “minor” acts of the seemingly “unimportant” people.

  3. Michelle, great observations about Holmes and Watson. I’d not put those stories in this light before, but I think your point is valid.

    Jeff, I don’t see how an experience like war could help but affect a writer’s work. I can see how Tolkien’s ideas of heroism would be shaped by the experience, then worked out in his books.

    Thanks for the input from you both.

    Becky

  4. Nikole Hahn says:

    I think the little story in Lord of the Rings was how small people can make a big impact on the world (and I’m not talking size of people). :o)

What do you think?