Charismatic literary creations.

[Emil Miller]

Who do you consider to be the most charismatic fictional character in literature?

[kelby_lake]

Humbert Humbert probably.

[stlukesguild]

Humbert Humbert is a good choice. For all his flaws he is able to seduce the reader into actually liking him. I would also point out Milton's Satan... who is equally seductive. And what of the Narrator for Byron's Don Juan? His digressions are far more engaging that the overarching narrative. And there's always Dante... a character so subtle and so believable that most forget that he... the Dante who is at once the narrator and participant in the journey of the Divine Comedy... is as much a literary invention as any other.

[kelby_lake]

I think it is the dark characters which are most seductive and charismatic.

[namenlose]

Hamlet, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza are certainly among the most charismatic, although I'm usually more fascinated by Dante. His Commedia works in so many different levels to achieve its almost supernatural degree of persuasion that I never cease to be astounded by each new reading of the book. Odysseus would be other worthy candidate, as would be Iago and Cleopatra. Joyce's Bloom would also be a good choice, although I suspect his strong presence is more indebted to the completeness of characterization and the large scope dedicated to him in Ulysses than to his own personality.

[mal4mac]

Nicholas Nickleby

[mona amon]

How come you people find Humbert charismatic? His narrative is very lovely, but based on what he says about himself, as well as what you can get by reading between the lines, he comes across as rather pathetic (as in deserving of pity, I don't mean it in a negative way) with his one sided obsession for a girl who is completely unsympathetic to him. A charismatic person is one who has enormous amounts of charm and appeal and the power to attract, and I feel poor HH has none of this.

I think Jesus of the gospels would fit the bill. I believe he is real, but as long as you are reading about him, he's a literary character, right? And Genji from The Tale of Genji. He is a Don Juan type whose actions towards his many women are questionable, but he's described as a divinely beautiful, gifted, perfumed, radiant creature, beloved by all. The narrative does not show us, it tells. But so seductively that we completely believe in this "Shining Prince".

Emil, who do you think is the most charismatic literary character?

[Snowqueen]

I would say Edmond Dante especially when he disguises himself as Count of Monte Christo.

[JBI]

The classic example is the great tactician Odysseus. Cao Cao is also not so bad as a charismatic literary creation, though the real figure is said to have been even better than his fictionalized account.

[kiki1982]

I think Rochester deserves a place.

[kelby_lake]

How come you people find Humbert charismatic? His narrative is very lovely, but based on what he says about himself, as well as what you can get by reading between the lines, he comes across as rather pathetic (as in deserving of pity, I don't mean it in a negative way) with his one sided obsession for a girl who is completely unsympathetic to him. A charismatic person is one who has enormous amounts of charm and appeal and the power to attract, and I feel poor HH has none of this.


He charms us enough to read the novel. When reading between the lines he comes across as pitiful but if he didn't have any charisma, we wouldn't bother probing him any further. He apparantly has enough to charm Charlotte (if his statements are correct, which is dubious).

I don't know about how they are portrayed in the novels but the Phantom and Jean Valjean seem quite charismatic. Maybe that's just because they're singing songs?

Oh, Iago and Edmund.

[Corona]

Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment is a very charismatic character, as well

[kiki1982]

I don't know about how they are portrayed in the novels but the Phantom and Jean Valjean seem quite charismatic. Maybe that's just because they're singing songs?

Judging by your argument for Humbert (I have not seen the musical of Les Misérbles), I don't think Jean Valean would be a charismatic figure. Mostly he plays in the background. He is quiet, modest and a very good, even too good, a man. Actually I do not feel he is charming. Well, charming in a kind of weird way, without wanting to be charming. As an anonymous misérable, he only got his part in the book because Hugo felt like giving him one. That's about it, really.

Not to say that he's a bad underdeveloped character (by no means), but I wouldn't call him charismatic. Don't know about the Phantom.

[Emil Miller]

Emil, who do you think is the most charismatic literary character?

Georges Duroy, the eponymous protagonist 'Bel Ami' of Maupassant's best novel.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Some good suggestions already. I might tip my hat to Lord Henry as well perhaps?

[qimissung]

Genji is absolutely charismatic. I also agree that Rochester is as well as Odysseus. I guess Humbert Humbert is, but I always think of charismatic people as drawing in lots of people. I would say Humbert is charming as opposed to charismatic.

[TenderButtons]

It seems a bit odd to think of Rochester as charismatic, but I did think of him almost immediately as well.

[Kafka's Crow]

Oh yes, it is got to be the Narrator of Byron's Don Juan:


Oh Plato! Plato! you have paved the way,
With your confounded fantasies, to more
Immoral conduct by the fancied sway
Your system feigns o'er the controlless core
Of human hearts, than all the long array
Of poets and romancers:--You're a bore,
A charlatan, a coxcomb--and have been,
At best, no better than a go-between.

Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities is also charismatic in his absent-minded, unusual and silent devotion.

[qimissung]

It seems a bit odd to think of Rochester as charismatic, but I did think of him almost immediately as well.

True, yet I think he is. And Sydney Carton, too. Good one.

[kiki1982]

Some good suggestions already. I might tip my hat to Lord Henry as well perhaps?

That was also one who popped into my head straight away.


It seems a bit odd to think of Rochester as charismatic, but I did think of him almost immediately as well.

Why is it odd? I confess he is attractive in a kind of inappropriate way in the beginning. Makes him a little creepy (certainly if you know what kind of motives he is working under), but nevertheless, to me, his charisma practically splashes off the page.

If it was only about charm, I would say Henry Tilney is also a good candidate, but he's not got the foreceful ways of his brother and father, which would have made him more charismatic in this thread's kind of way.

[Coeusful]

Frankenstein's Creature was very charismatic, or at least had some sort of compelling quality, I thought. I think the attraction came from the fact that I really didn't expect such eloquence from the 'wretch', and his tragic background sparked some pity as well. Of course Lord Henry is exceedingly charismatic, and all the more intriguing when you wonder how he gets away with spreading such dark influence. I found the Time Traveller in Wells's The Time Machine fairly attractive in his presentation. He's the lone, enlightened prophet in an age that won't listen to him.

[mal4mac]

Although I'm tempted to stand by Nicholas, he is a bit of a naive youth, so today I'm tempted to plump for Sherlock Holmes. I've just read "The Speckled Band" in which a giant villain tries to intimidate him by bending his poker. Sherlock Holmes just coolly calms the villain down; after the villain leaves Sherlock, to Dr Watson's amazement, just bends the poker back. All charisma...

[TenderButtons]

kiki1982: When I think of charismatic, I think of the kind of person who inspires or motivates a lot of people in the way of a celebrity or politician.

[kelby_lake]

kiki1982: When I think of charismatic, I think of the kind of person who inspires or motivates a lot of people in the way of a celebrity or politician.


Surely it's Shakespeare's Marc Antony in Julius Caesar then?

[TenderButtons]

I don't know. I haven't read Julius Caesar for a long time, and I was always fond of Brutus for some reason. I think he was the part I read out loud most in class though--I can't really remember much about Marc Antony in Julius Caesar. I remember his long speech a bit of course, but beyond that?

[Snowqueen]

Georges Duroy, the eponymous protagonist 'Bel Ami' of Maupassant's best novel.

Georges Duroy has a charismatic personality no doubt (truly a lady killer). I’ve recently finished reading Bel Ami and it’s an amazing novel.

[mona amon]

Judging by your argument for Humbert (I have not seen the musical of Les Misérbles), I don't think Jean Valean would be a charismatic figure. Mostly he plays in the background. He is quiet, modest and a very good, even too good, a man. Actually I do not feel he is charming. Well, charming in a kind of weird way, without wanting to be charming. As an anonymous misérable, he only got his part in the book because Hugo felt like giving him one. That's about it, really.

Not to say that he's a bad underdeveloped character (by no means), but I wouldn't call him charismatic. Don't know about the Phantom.

I agree. Jean Valjean is an appealing character, but I think the Archbishop is the one I'd choose as a charismatic figure.


Georges Duroy, the eponymous protagonist 'Bel Ami' of Maupassant's best novel.

I've only ever read Maupassant's short stories, but I think I'll try this sometime. Love charismatic characters!

[kiki1982]

Well, I would go with a less inspiring definition. I agree about motivation, but not necessarily in a positive way.

In the first Wikipedia definition (compelling attractiveness or charm tat can inspire devotion in others), Jean Valjean might be a charismatic figure, though the bishop would probably anwer in a more straightforward way to that. Rochester also inspires others, although the second definition (divinely conferred power or talent) suits him more. He doesn't have power in the most positive sense. I suppose all Byronic heroes do to some extent. Heathcliff is a superb example of the kind of commanding attitude that weirdly attracts, but is destructive at the same time.

[mal4mac]

In the first Wikipedia definition (compelling attractiveness or charm tat can inspire devotion in others), Jean Valjean might be a charismatic figure, though the bishop would probably anwer in a more straightforward way to that. Rochester also inspires others, although the second definition (divinely conferred power or talent) suits him more. He doesn't have power in the most positive sense. I suppose all Byronic heroes do to some extent. Heathcliff is a superb example of the kind of commanding attitude that weirdly attracts, but is destructive at the same time.

The novel is a secular tradition so I don't think we should consider the "divinely inspired" definition. You might argue that saying "Rochester is divine" is a metaphorical use of "divine", but we should be careful here as I think the dictionary definition is referring to a *literal* use. Rochester has great power - he's very rich, an aristocrat, but makes subtle use of this power. This is surely a large part of his charisma. But, as you say, it's not a very positive charisma. Think of Nicholas Nickleby - he beats up aristocrats who abuse his sister, thrashes the evil headmaster, helps those who can't help themselves,... all far more positive. But the girls like Rochester and Heathcliffe more... a sign of decadence in modern womanhood?

By the way, why have no charismatic females been mentioned. I was holding off, but the women on the forum have not been forthcoming. Is this a sign of the death of feminism? I'll nominate Moll Flanders, maybe Becky Sharp, but she's a bit too naughty...

[mal4mac]

kiki1982: When I think of charismatic, I think of the kind of person who inspires or motivates a lot of people in the way of a celebrity or politician.

I don't think they need to inspire crowds of people; Rochester and Nickleby do not, for instance. The dictionary definition is a "capacity to inspire followers with devotion and enthusiasm". It does not say *many* followers. I'd argue there may be only one - like Sancho Panza, who I'd argue isn't charismatic; he's the follower, its Don Quixote who is charismatic.

[mal4mac]

Genji is absolutely charismatic. I also agree that Rochester is as well as Odysseus. I guess Humbert Humbert is, but I always think of charismatic people as drawing in lots of people. I would say Humbert is charming as opposed to charismatic.

Humbert is a failed charismatic - he draws in followers, but by abusing children he loses them. I think even his charm is damaged beyond repair. Jimmy Saville is a real-life example...

[kiki1982]

'Divinely conferred' does not only have to do with God as we know Him in Christianity, though. In that respect Catherine Earnshaw is also charismatic and Faust, I presume. Indeed, I suppose you could even call Paradise Lost's Satan charismatic. He would even answer to the second definition, because he was ultimately created by God as an angel, but abused s 'divinely conferred' power to corrupt God's creation..

Not all novels are secular, either. Jane Eyre is thoroughly diffused with Christian beliefs, as is Wuthering Heihts. Paradise Lost as one of the novel's precursors is also not secular by any means.

I can't agree with Moll Flanders. To me she was more happy go lucky as well as devious and straight to the point. The thing she wanted was to be comfortable. And she attained it as well as a loving husband, with some chicannerie in the middle. If I had to take a woman, I would either opt for Caterhine Earnshaw, as I said earlier, or for Clarissa Harlowe. She's charismatic, in both senses of the word (up till now anyway).

[mal4mac]

Not all novels are secular, either. Jane Eyre is thoroughly diffused with Christian beliefs, as is Wuthering Heihts.


My life, like anyone else's in the West, is throrougly diffused with Christian beliefs, that doesn't stop me being secular. It doesn't stop Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights being secular, either. Shakespeare is post-Christian, and the serious novel has kept up that tradition. (I say serious, in case you bring up C.S. Lewis...)



Paradise Lost as one of the novel's precursors is also not secular by any means.


That's why I said "novels" :)



I can't agree with Moll Flanders. To me she was more happy go lucky as well as devious and straight to the point. The thing she wanted was to be comfortable. And she attained it as well as a loving husband, with some chicannerie in the middle.

Can't you be a happy go lucky charismatic who aims for comfort? In any case she doesn't just aim for comfort, she leads an exciting life, so the aim for comfort is (in practice) rather ambivalent.

[Emil Miller]

Humbert is a failed charismatic - he draws in followers, but by abusing children he loses them. I think even his charm is damaged beyond repair. Jimmy Saville is a real-life example...

I hardly think charm is an attribute that could be ascribed to J.Savile. He was always a nobody on the make ,like practically everbody else on the pop music scene.

[kiki1982]

Modern society is thoroughly diffused with Christian beliefs only to the point where we have Sundays and Saturdays off and that we have public holidays like Christmas. English society has toroughly hollowed that out by giving a bankholiday and not having 1 November off and by making Sunday a shopping day too. Jane Eyre is practically led by her beliefs and the end of Wuthering Heights has a profound Christian feeling of redemption to it. Les Misérables too, starts and ends with heaven. That's not secular. how can it be if anyone and everyone in that society went to church every single week (some even every single day) and were practically intolerant to anything non-Christian? Even Catholics were despised until well into the 19th century in the UK.

When you say 'secular', you probably mean 'not moralising'. That is true, but do not confuse everyday beliefs with the preacher in the church.
I grant you some novels are more secular than others (Austen is less religiously motivated than the Brontë sisters), but it is not a given in the world of novels. It depends on the author's beliefs. where an author has his views, he will express them. If he is a person more tending towards kind of Celtic (country) beliefs, like Hardy, he will incorporate them more than those he has learnt going to church, whereas another might put such beliefs everywhere.

Shakespeare was part of a time when the system was being overhoaled. It was dangerous to express anyting. A few years down the line, you could be put in prison for saying what was right at the time. I haven't read him well enough to judge, although there seem to have been discussions amongst scholars as to whether he was Catholic or not. Taking that, I would say, there should therefore be enough ground to tread for such scholars in his work to identify certain Catholic or Protestant themes. Calling him post-Christian is a bit quick when you've got Richard III being usurped by another power-hungry man who wonders about that move all his life. Not to mention the battle of Agincourt or King Lear who is punished for his ways. Shakespeare's characters are all very human and do not moralise per se, but they do get confronted with certain issues. Maybe not with a cross or something (that would have been too obvious), but I wouldn't call his plays secular.

Moll Flanders aims for comfort or let's put it differently, for survival. All her life, she is lucky in getting comfortable and something new and better seems to drop into her lap every time she comes to the end of one chapter. However she remains aware that she is leading 'a wicked life'. I don't know if she inspires or motivates people per se. or has a dinvinely conferred charm about her. Maybe she does (maybe I should read it again).

However, there, you've also got the Christian thing, as she says at the very end, 'And [my husband] is come over to England also, where we resolve to spend the remainder of our years in sincere penitence for the wicked lives we have lived.' Although the preface says that apparently it did not relly work out all that devout.
Although, the novel itself presents itself as an account that is penitent in itself and instructing for those 'unfortunate creatures who are obliged to seek their re-establishment abroad', 'letting them know that diligence and application have their due encouragement' and that 'no case can be so low, so despicable, or so empty of prospect, but that an unwearied industry will go a great way to deliver us from it, will in time raise the meanest creature to appear again in the world, and give him a new cast for his life.'
That seems like redemption to me. Typically protetant though. Diligence and application. God won't come and save you :p. That's for Hugo to write.

[mal4mac]

Modern society is thoroughly diffused with Christian beliefs only to the point where we have Sundays and Saturdays off and that we have public holidays like Christmas.


It's a bit more than that - many schools still have a morning Christian assembly, even secular types tend to bury their dead using Christian funeral rites. Also weddings. So Christianity is "in my life", but certainly not central to it - and the same goes for most "the novel". There may be the odd exception like les Miserables (though this isn't regarded as a top notch novel by most critics... not surprising if it starts and ends with heaven!... how passe... how de trop...)

I read Wuthering Heights recently and not once did i think, "this is a very Christian work." Same for Jane Eyre, although it's some time since I read that. Time for re-read - I will watch out for Christian diffusion.

Going to church every single week is seen as a device for getting everyone together to gossip, it might as well be a tea party in the 19th century novel.


However, there, you've also got the Christian thing, as she [Moll] says at the very end, 'And [my husband] is come over to England also, where we resolve to spend the remainder of our years in sincere penitence for the wicked lives we have lived.'


I read this as ironic... she hasn't really led a wicked life, and knows it, but pays lip service to Christian dogma.

[mal4mac]

I hardly think charm is an attribute that could be ascribed to J.Savile. He was always a nobody on the make ,like practically everbody else on the pop music scene.

Twenty million viewers were charmed by him, including me as a ten year old (fortunately never at close quarters!...) His evil ways could never have caused so such damage if he hadn't possessed a certain kind of rough, surface charm.

[OrphanPip]

Moll Flanders is interesting because it is definitely infused with Defoe's Dissenter morality and politics. Defoe was almost equally known for publishing conduct manuals as he was as a novelist, in fact he continued to write them after he stopped being a novelist. The less religiously motivated authors of the time, like Pope and Swift, derided Defoe as a moralizing, hack writer.



I read this as ironic... she hasn't really led a wicked life, and knows it, but pays lip service to Christian dogma.

Well maybe, but Defoe's view of prostitution is pretty well documented. In his pamphlets he advocates an aggressive crackdown on brothels. It's important to keep in mind that Moll is a response to a popular genre of the period, whore biographies. They were often sensual and salacious stories about fallen women, and they really were thinly veiled as moralizing (if at all). I think Defoe is more serious in his desire to describe the moral issues of prostitution when he writes a fictionalized whore biography. He wrote political tracks calling for aggressive abolition of brothels, where he describes how prostitutes ruin the lives of young men.

As a Dissenter his politics were maybe a bit more "liberal" than the general public as he was more ready to blame circumstance, and the men, for the crime. Defoe wants to eliminate brothels for the good of the men who frequent them and for the women.

[qimissung]

I think the word you are looking for is "infused", Kiki, as opposed to "diffused." I think Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are infused with some ideals of Christianity. How could they not be, having been written in a time in which Christianity was so very prevalent and prominent in the culture? That is not to say that the two novels set out to be moralistic in a Christian sense or to spread these ideals. They are not about Christianity. It's hard for any writer to completely separate him/herself from the culture they live in, however hard they try.

[kiki1982]

:lol: I think that is indeed what the word was :lol:. Hmmm, I urgently have to work on this...

But I guess we were still talking about the same thing.

Thanks, Pip, for that nice explanation. I personally never read Moll Flanders as ironic. Defoe's Robinson is not a satire either. It is serious, up to a point. Moll tells her story in a fun way, but that doesn't mean it is really meant to be the opposite of what she means. It's not like Cleland who masked his shameless Fanny Hill as moralising and instructing, but doesn't mention anything about that aspect at all later on. Of curse, the size of a male part is important to instruct people never to look at it :D. Defoe is then more in earnest.

Les Misérables is maybe a big thing, but I wouldn't want to mention what you said to a French person. Maybe it is ambitious in the way that it does not tell one story but many, but it doesn't make it a bad novel. On the contrary. It is not the odd exception.

The ideals Jane Eyre sets out with, her attitude when her wedding doesn't go as planned and how she deals with the disappointment and after, all of that is thoroughly inspired by the gospel. Aside from all the obvious references Brontë provided.
Wuthering Heights is more subtle, but it doesn't make it any less potent. On the contrary, probably it is even more powerful in that way.
Tom Jones, too, is an 'instructing' story. It may be fun, but it also carries a typically early plot of 'everything comes right in the end', if you only want it to be like that. It is sincere regret that redeems you.

[OrphanPip]

Thanks, Pip, for that nice explanation. I personally never read Moll Flanders as ironic. Defoe's Robinson is not a satire either. It is serious, up to a point. Moll tells her story in a fun way, but that doesn't mean it is really meant to be the opposite of what she means. It's not like Cleland who masked his shameless Fanny Hill as moralising and instructing, but doesn't mention anything about that aspect at all later on. Of curse, the size of a male part is important to instruct people never to look at it :D. Defoe is then more in earnest.


Cleland is definitely not trying to moralize. He's actually a lot closer to the "real" whore biographies that circulated at the time. Fanny gets rich off of being a whore, and she even gets to be with the man she loves (and who "ruined" her in the first) by the end. Any moralizing in that text is ironic or merely conventional.

[razumihin]

Ebenezer Scrooge is a reasonable choice, I'd think. He embodies, in different parts of the story, some of the least and most attractive qualities. He attracts our interest in all of his manifestations.

[mal4mac]

Scrooge initially attracts our interest like, say, the overly strict, sarcastic teacher. But that hardly makes him charismatic. He suddenly turns into a *possible* charismatic on Christmas day - but will he maintain that persona? Will his family and workers take to him and continue to follow him. I don't think we, or the characters, get to know the "new" Scrooge well enough to see if he has truly become charismatic. Maybe Pickwick is better example? The charismatic leader of a gang of middle aged adolescents?

Maybe Dickens is, largely, so attractive because he shows so many characters moving from weak, naive innocence to powerful, charismatic innocence? (Nickleby, Oliver, David Copperfield, etc, etc,...) Given the state of his marriage, perhaps Dickens was trying to repair his flawed charisma by trying to capture, or recapture, true charisma through his characters. Scrooge's real affect on the reader is a negative charisma, as with Fagan... interesting characters... but fatally evil and flawed...

[mal4mac]

I thought it was accepted by most critics that the novel was a secular form? Christianity is part of the 19th century novel, of course, just as horse and carts, but its concerns are secular - like who marries who, will Sherlock get the bad guy, will the hero find worldly fulfillment, ... not are we going to heaven if we don't believe that Christ is the son of God...

Donna Tartt: ‘the novel in its history and genesis is an emphatically secular art form: the product of a secular society, addressing primarily secular concerns’

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/N/bo5564173.html

The French themselves have done a far better job of slamming les Mis. than me, from Wikipedia: "The Goncourt brothers expressed their great dissatisfaction, judging the novel artificial and disappointing. Flaubert could find within it "neither truth nor greatness." French poet Charles Baudelaire reviewed the work glowingly in newspapers, but in private castigated it as "tasteless and inept." .

[kiki1982]

Scrooge initially attracts our interest like, say, the overly strict, sarcastic teacher. But that hardly makes him charismatic. He suddenly turns into a *possible* charismatic on Christmas day - but will he maintain that persona? Will his family and workers take to him and continue to follow him. I don't think we, or the characters, get to know the "new" Scrooge well enough to see if he has truly become charismatic. Maybe Pickwick is better example? The charismatic leader of a gang of middle aged adolescents?

When I saw the name 'Scrooge', I instantly thought, 'There is the non-secular theme again.' The whole point of A Christmas Carol lies in the portrayal of Scrooge as a ruthless and avaricious bastard (as the definition of 'a scrooge' is now) which makes him a miserable man with an empty life, unhappy, alone and despised by his family and the rest of his community no doubt. The whole point of the spirits of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Yet To Come is to show him what life is about and what sorrow he could prevent. What he has done and what the consequences will be if he carries on. What rewards in his being he would get if he changed. As the night passes and he has seen the error of his ways, he regrets and is gloriously redeemed. He grows cheerful and starts spending his money on good things. And yes, depend on it, he will stay that charismatic figure, his business will thrive, maybe he'll even marry and have lots of babies, making a loving husband and his community will honour him. He will be remembered as the great Scrooge who miraculously became a better man. It's a 19th century novel after all, and transformations in such novels are always final.

Do we doubt that Cinderella or Snowhite will be happy with their prince? Do we doubt that Sleeping Beauty will regret the day she decided that the man who woke her up was the man for her? No, we don't.

[mal4mac]

And yes, depend on it, he will stay that charismatic figure, his business will thrive, maybe he'll even marry and have lots of babies, making a loving husband and his community will honour him. He will be remembered as the great Scrooge who miraculously became a better man. It's a 19th century novel after all, and transformations in such novels are always final.

But the "ruthless and avaricious bastard" is one we remember, and the "dictionary definition". I guess we moderns are too cynical to *really* believe in this transformation. A few dreams and he's a good guy? That just doesn't happen...

[OrphanPip]

I thought it was accepted by most critics that the novel was a secular form? Christianity is part of the 19th century novel, of course, just as horse and carts, but its concerns are secular - like who marries who, will Sherlock get the bad guy, will the hero find worldly fulfillment, ... not are we going to heaven if we don't believe that Christ is the son of God...

Donna Tartt: ‘the novel in its history and genesis is an emphatically secular art form: the product of a secular society, addressing primarily secular concerns’


I think that's a bit too simplistic a conception of the novel, certainly not in its genesis is it an entirely "secular" form. Religion isn't the primary concern of novels, but isn't absent either. The early days of the novel were dominated by epistemological arguments, based in Platonism (itself connected to Christianity at the time), about the value of prose as a medium for conveying truth. This obsession with truth is why so many novelists made claims that their novels were documentary. Defoe's theoretical writing presents a basic neoplatonic defence of novel writing, where he argues that although his novels are not true histories, they are in fact morally true, or true in the realm of ideas (they reflect a higher truth). Many early novels were either expressions of skepticism about the novel's ability to convey truth (like Fielding) or were intended as moral allegories (Richardson). However, by the end of the 18th century this settles into an aesthetic of verisimilitude. Yet, the moral virtue of protagonists remains a major concern for authors and their readers, it was very common for these topics to be debated in the reviews.

Edit: Of course, at the same time you have the romance tradition, and the sensationalist literature circulating during the early period, but it gets quashed out by the 1730s-40s. Even some of its major writers, like Eliza Haywood, become Richardsonian in their style after the 1740s.

[kiki1982]

I know that does not happen in real life (although, be careful with such claims), however, certainly the early novel, and a fair chunk of them to come after that, deal with such issues. Tom Jones is one, all of Austen's novels deal with that on the side (Darcy, Wentworth forgives, Emma big time, General Tilney afterwards, Marianne and Elenor), I'm sure you can find a lot in Dickens complying with this, Dumas big time (even the young Louis XIV grows from a frankly nasty piece of narcissistic work into the model of a king), Hugo at least in Les Misérables turns the hardy convict Jean Valean into this mellow man who is hardly fathomable, and that under the mere influence of a few hours of a bishop. Hardy in Angel provides one and I believe Bathsheba to a certain extent.

The whole point of romanticism is positive as it is fuelled by the Enlightenment. Reason and man are capable of greatness. It is only later, partly influenced by a faulty interpretation of Darwin that that opinion changes and that man is not capable of anything at all. Things become very negative until they become realistic again.

The fact remains, however, that things which end well in stories like that are final. The author provides hope, like Defoe in his preface to Moll Franders. The point is not whether it can really happen (everyone knows they're reading fiction, that's part of the charm, and because it has not happened, an author has licence to even ake it more unrealistic like Oliver Twist), the point is what the message of it is, not whether that message is realistic.

[razumihin]

Scrooge is an engaging character, an archetype, obviously not realistic but then this is Dickens.
His post-transformation Self is expansively magnetic and childishly energetic and monomaniacal.
The whole story is ridiculously simplistic in its neatness and "Happy-Endingness".
Yet the Scrooge character is an enduring symbol of the possibility of redemption.