Weekly Response #7

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Philips

10/10/12

Weekly Response #7

Woloch: “But the nuanced distinction between “understanding” and “cleverness,” which concerns the interior realm of human character is built in-and-through a social comparison that is necessarily exterior.” (Woloch 52.)

Pride and Prejudice: “In Darcy’s presence she dared not mention Wickham’s name; but Elizabeth instantly comprehended that he was uppermost in her thoughts; and the various recollections connected with him gave her a moments distress; but, exerting herself vigorously to repel the ill-natured attack, she presently answered the question in a tolerably disengaged tone.” (Austen 280.)

Question: Is character interaction necessary to create a character that has depth and understanding, or is it the characters reaction to those interactions that develops depth?

Woloch makes the point that for characters to acquire traits such as ‘cleverness’ and ‘understanding’ they have to be able to exercises those traits against other characters. However I don’t’ think that it is simply interactions between characters that identify those characters with specific traits. More specifically I believe it is a characters reactions to those interactions that define the traits they posses, or bring them to the fore. I am going so far as to say that what makes a character round as opposed to flat is the diversity and complication of their reactions to interactions with other characters, not just the initial display of those traits through interaction.