Sunsplashed's post about Zeno Cosini got me to thinking about great, memorable characters who seem to step outside their fictional world and become real to us.
Does it not feel as if we all have stood beside Sherlock Holmes as he solves cases; isn't the idea of meeting Hannibal Lecter a realistically scary one?

So, for my first suggestion:
Captain Nemo. Firstly, I love his name--Nemo=no-one. Escaping the human race to live on a deserted island to build an awesome submarine whilst dressed as a Indian rajah....what's not to love. He works well outside of Verne's novels also, which makes him an archetype and an individual, so yes, I choose Nemo.

Pretty obvious choice, but I'd have to take Holden Caufield. The voice of the character is fantastically well done. Every time I read Catcher I learn something different about Holden.

For me, it's a bit of a toss up between Kurtz, in "The Heart of Darkness," and Ahab (nods to Ishmael) in "Moby Dick."

What I love about both characters is how their obsessions take them to the brink, and beyond. Both characters fall into the "heart of darkness" and fail to pull back. They embrace darkness, and ultimately it destroys them both. I suppose Ishmael and Marlowe are less interesting, because they go to the brink, but are able to pull back. I believe that they are the characters with whom we're meant to identify, but I totally get the idea of a destructive obsession.

I loved Holden during a period of my life. Years later, though, I have little patience for him. He would totally be the lead singer in an emo band right now. Still, I gave the book to my teen-aged son.

great choices so far guys.

Isn't Ahab often used as a metaphor for the US itself?
This force of nature that hunts and kills and whose ambitions are often perverted by monomania....no slight on the great Yankees here on this forum

I think it's certainly possible to see Ahab that way now. Of course, when the book was written, the US was still a fairly minor player on the world stage. I would say that England might have come more to mind for readers of Melville's time.

Of course, it's a cliche that that is precisely what makes certain works of art great: their ability to continue to speak to people years, centuries and even millenia after their creation.

I would have to say, though, that I think that one of the things that tie together the few characters that we've named so far is how personal and individual each one is. Sure, they are at some level archetypal, but they are also so fully drawn that they are recognizable as individual humans.

They, as you said, "seem to step outside their fictional world and become real to us."

It's so hard to choose just one, but I guess I'd have to go with Don Quixote.

I reserve the right to add others, but without coming up with obvious reasons why, Scrooge.

Don Quixote is a particularly interesting one, because to the Spanish, he may as well be real.
There is a mass of commentary on him in Spanish letters; people pray to "Our Lord Don Quixote"; Spanish identity is now intertwined with the man as powerfully as strangler vines on a giant jungle tree.

Oh, to bequeth the world such a character.

Huckleberry Finn is another favourite.
Would write more, but I reckon I gotta light out for the territory ahead of the rest.........

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsplashed:
It's so hard to choose just one, but I guess I'd have to go with Don Quixote.

Good call, S/S. I'm sorry I didn't come up with him myself.

Do you think Don Q works independently of Sancho Panza?

I read a list of the 100 most memorable American literary characters once; Holden Caulfield was 2; Jay Gatsby was 1.

I think I'd have to say Holden too though. I think he's kind of a stepping stone in adolescence, you identify around that age and then later you look back and laugh at him (and yourself) or at least that's how I did it. And you think about like, Mark David Chapman and Hinckley and they both had some obsession with Holden. I don't know.

I read Catcher in the Rye at age 19, a perfect time of life to come across Holden, and while I feel largely separated from him now, he was indeed a powerful influence on my teenage mind..(for good, not evil. repeat..not evil )

His outrage at the adult world made, and still does make entire sense to me. His particular stroppiness and sulkiness I hope I have left behind, but his aching sense of bewilderment in the face of merciless time and its claims...well, possessed by it I remain.

Yoda lives!

i def agree with holden being a terrific character in fiction, but i personally love cal trask in "east of eden"... just something about redemptive characters and potential to change is so powerful.... also, alex in "a clockwork orange"

I, too, loved Alex. But tell me, did you read the British ending, or the American? I think the differences in endings completely change the tenor of the story and the character.

Much as I loved Alex, and Clockwork Orange, I, personally don't think the book, or the character carry the weight and gravitas of some of the other characters here. I think Clockwork is more regional and specific. Less universal than a Don Quixote, for example. Just my opinion, of course.

I've always loved Jake from The Sun Also Rises.

I agree with kendocubano re : Alex as a character..he is a great creation , but is not fully human like others discussed here, which may make him more a cipher than a character.

However, I disagree with the kendo on another thread,(Absurdistan better than Dunces,,,!!! I guffaw!. Repeat, I guffaw) so roll on great ocean, roll on

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
I, too, loved Alex. But tell me, did you read the British ending, or the American? I think the differences in endings completely change the tenor of the story and the character.

Much as I loved Alex, and Clockwork Orange, I, personally don't think the book, or the character carry the weight and gravitas of some of the other characters here. I think Clockwork is more regional and specific. Less universal than a Don Quixote, for example. Just my opinion, of course.

the british version!!! haha there was a terrific introduction by burgess as well, saying how fictional characters are supposed to change, evolve... i can't find my version at my apartment right now, but it basically nails what i think fiction in general is supposed to do: the susceptibility to change and the choice to follow through. the american version of "c.o." fails, imho, because there is no follow-through.

i guess i saw alex as a vehicle for all these human traits/characteristics.

I agree with you. Like most in my generation, I saw the movie first. I liked my Alex unrepentant and sociopathic. ("I was cured all right")

When I first read the British version, I was terribly disappointed. Now, as I've grown older, and recently re-read the book, prior to giving it to my 14 year old son, I appreciate Alex's change. I'm not the anarchist I once was, and it doesn't make sense to let Alex stay an adolescent forever either.