Which of these characters do you think deserves more sympathy? Which one was, in your opinion, not bad but misunderstood?
SK Yearbook: Most Misunderstood Character
- Thread starter Doc Creed
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I chose Carrie. I felt so bad for her. And Vera Donovan, just for being misunderstood.
Traci Lords
(Shoot... I always get the novels and movies confused.
)
(Shoot... I always get the novels and movies confused.
)
Carrie White, for certain.
I see it happen constantly in the middle school where I teach.
I see it happen constantly in the middle school where I teach.
...Harold, because he contains certain elements of me.....
Yes, me too. Everytime I read The Stand I feel like I empathize with Harold more and more. I've felt like him many times in life, mostly as a young man. Even though some of his actions are despicable and he makes bad choices, I understand his root motivation. Everyone who has ever felt slighted or alienated can relate to the primal (almost childish) need for retaliation or vindication. I think he just wanted to be "his own man" and he had too much pride to make friends with Stu. Losing Frannie would've hurt. What guy can't relate to that?
It was a toss-up between Harold and Carrie for me, although "misunderstood" might not be exactly correct.
No one -- or almost no one -- even bothers to try to understand these kids, and that's not really the same thing, is it? They're objects of derision who don't really have any substance to their peers. Carrie gets more of a break than Harold in this case because she's entirely insulated. She has no frame of reference from which to recognize the one compassionate person she meets. Of course, Harold is a pawn in someone else's game, too ... so maybe he should get bonus point for that.
I dunno.
No one -- or almost no one -- even bothers to try to understand these kids, and that's not really the same thing, is it? They're objects of derision who don't really have any substance to their peers. Carrie gets more of a break than Harold in this case because she's entirely insulated. She has no frame of reference from which to recognize the one compassionate person she meets. Of course, Harold is a pawn in someone else's game, too ... so maybe he should get bonus point for that.
I dunno.
Carrie. Her life was a "bummer" from the start. Bullying in school, and the victim of religious propaganda at home. What can you do, after having to look at a bleeding crucified Christ for hours, except lie down and scream.
Both Harold and Henry. Too be fair none of the drama caused by Harold might've happened had Frannie not just ignored him most of the time after they met up with Stu.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Hrm. I don't think I agree here. I don't think anyone misunderstands either Harold or Henry in the books. We get far too much insight directly into their minds, and we have a broad sample of their actions. It would be dangerous, I think, to assume motivations or different actions on their parts based on "what If" situations. Frannie didn't ignore Harold because she met Stu. Nor would her going out of her way to try and placate his feelings have made him into a better person. Harold had made his mind up about what the world owed him and what he wanted. The viewpoint you are putting forward here is, to some degree, that of Harold who saw Stu as an interloper. Stu simply became the latest scapegoat for Harold's woes. Do you follow?
We can pity Henry Bowers because we make the assumption that no infant is born a monster. We understand the forces that forged him. No one reads that book and fails know how Bowers came to be. I suppose what I'm looking for here is how you feel these two are misunderstood characters? Are you saying we the reader misunderstand them, or are you making the argument that they are misunderstood within the confines of their stories? I'm not sure I would agree with either premise but I would like to know how you mean it. My own view is that Harold and Henry are so effective, and tragic, as villains precisely because we do understand them. They aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. They are ugly little things that unsettle us precisely because we know how they came to be.
I think it is also important to understand the fundamental, telling difference between Harold and Henry, i.e. why one is even more monstrous than the other. Henry is the product of his environment, molded into a monster by bad parenting, horrific racism, poverty, and Derry. He never questions his actions against the Losers. We only see doubt and shame in him once, and that is when he thinks of how he abandoned Belch. I make no excuses for Henry, but I feel that he is far more pitiable. He lacks much of the tools required for introspection and is thus a lesser evil. Harold is an entirely different animal. He is smart, educated, and knows better. He makes a conscious choice which he knows is the wrong one morally. It is far harder to feel pity for Harold because he isn't lacking in tools. His evil is greater precisely because of the latitude of his choices.
My point is that Harold was also shaped by the world around him, I'm not saying that it's all Fran's fault that Harold began to break. We know Harold was always a social outcast was ignored by almost everyone, and he was also at least verbally abused by his father. Also the chapter where he
kills himself
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
What I'm saying is that NONE of Harold's breakdown or moral failures are Fran's fault. We are all shaped by the world around us, but Harold's background isn't that bad. Compared to Henry Bowers, Harold had it pretty good.
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that ANY blame could be placed at Fran's feet for not being Harold's property. Fran was not his due, nor did she owe him anything more than was given.More to the point, there is a larger question in regards to Harold. Which side chose him? Think about that. Most of the people the Walking Dude wanted for the final showdown ran into him quite early and had already made certain choices. Most of them were already damned. The other side, if we accept the notion that they were selected at all, weren't all Saints. Most of them, in fact, were people on the cusp, people who had to make a CHOICE.
Harold, I submit, wasn't ordained for survival by the Walking Dude (or the forces he serves). Harold was like Larry Underwood. He was a self-important man with great potential. Harold was selected because he wasn't damned yet. He still had the choice to "stand and be true." Choice is the undercurrent of everything. Without that choice, the whole exercise is meaningless. Harold had the same opportunity to rise to the occasion that others did. His defection for the most base, selfish reasons is the mirror image of the choice Larry Underwood made.
We don't know that actually. You and I read the same book and we only know some things about Harold. Some of it comes from Harold himself and he is an unreliable narrator at best. If anything, I suspect Harold wasn't lectured enough by his father. We know that Harold didn't come from a physically abusive home. How do we know that? We were in Harold's mind directly. A watershed series of experiences like that wouldn't be a gray area. We know he didn't come from abject poverty. We know he did get an education. We know he got more breaks and access than many people. We also know that he has an inflated sense of his own worth from the very start. We know that Harold attributes all his problems to others and takes no responsibility for them. We lie best when we lie to ourselves, but Harold is so bright he even knows he is being untruthful.
We can agree to disagree but I'm saying the ONLY cause of Harold's actions in the book is Harold. Of course I feel some pity for Harold, but not much. The point upon which we disagree is about how much control Harold had over his actions. I'm saying he had complete control, and that is what made his choices meaningful (however wrong). We do not blame a shark for being a shark. We can blame Harold for behaving like a shark. In essence, the final showdown between good and evil in that world wasn't measured by armies. It was always going to boil down to the choices of a few individuals, most of them flawed. It is their choices upon which the world, and ultimately that level of the Tower stood.
"Fault" isn't a good word, more like inadverntently caused Harold to get angry. For instance it's not her fault for Harold snooping around and reading her diary, but had she kept better security of it, Harold never would have found it and started his ledger. My point of the first post wasn't really trying to accuse Fran of making Harold who he is, but more like she was the center object of Harold's mental decline, it's Harold's own fault for getting so pissy over who she chose to love. I really believe Harold was trying to be a genuinely good person for the beginning of the book, but his additude and jealousy mixed with his self-righteousness and lust for Fran got ahead of him.What I'm saying is that NONE of Harold's breakdown or moral failures are Fran's fault. We are all shaped by the world around us, but Harold's background isn't that bad. Compared to Henry Bowers, Harold had it pretty good.
More to the point, there is a larger question in regards to Harold. Which side chose him? Think about that. Most of the people the Walking Dude wanted for the final showdown ran into him quite early and had already made certain choices. Most of them were already damned. The other side, if we accept the notion that they were selected at all, weren't all Saints. Most of them, in fact, were people on the cusp, people who had to make a CHOICE.
Harold, I submit, wasn't ordained for survival by the Walking Dude (or the forces he serves). Harold was like Larry Underwood. He was a self-important man with great potential. Harold was selected because he wasn't damned yet. He still had the choice to "stand and be true." Choice is the undercurrent of everything. Without that choice, the whole exercise is meaningless. Harold had the same opportunity to rise to the occasion that others did. His defection for the most base, selfish reasons is the mirror image of the choice Larry Underwood made.
We don't know that actually. You and I read the same book and we only know some things about Harold. Some of it comes from Harold himself and he is an unreliable narrator at best. If anything, I suspect Harold wasn't lectured enough by his father. We know that Harold didn't come from a physically abusive home. How do we know that? We were in Harold's mind directly. A watershed series of experiences like that wouldn't be a gray area. We know he didn't come from abject poverty. We know he did get an education. We know he got more breaks and access than many people. We also know that he has an inflated sense of his own worth from the very start. We know that Harold attributes all his problems to others and takes no responsibility for them. We lie best when we lie to ourselves, but Harold is so bright he even knows he is being untruthful.
We can agree to disagree but I'm saying the ONLY cause of Harold's actions in the book is Harold. Of course I feel some pity for Harold, but not much. The point upon which we disagree is about how much control Harold had over his actions. I'm saying he had complete control, and that is what made his choices meaningful (however wrong). We do not blame a shark for being a shark. We can blame Harold for behaving like a shark. In essence, the final showdown between good and evil in that world wasn't measured by armies. It was always going to boil down to the choices of a few individuals, most of them flawed. It is their choices upon which the world, and ultimately that level of the Tower stood.