After having read the Sons of Sin series by Anna Campbell and having read Courting Julia, and now working on Dancing with Clara by Mary Balogh, I begin to understand how characters in different stories by different authors complement each other, as does their focus and use of language. I'll attempt to give an example, by commenting on what Adaryn wrote earlier:
The love scenes were really well written, realistic and authentic (which is a plus), showing something which is so much more than "sex" as a trifling, "fun" and basic act/function, making it a spiritual, soul shaking (in a good way), transformative experience for both characters – the real deal, so to speak.
Mary Balogh on the other hand is more discreet when it comes to the most intimate passages. Campbell would probably have treated them differently.
One of the great strengths of Balogh is her detailed descriptions of the internal dialogues of the characters. And the commentary that Balogh weaves into her story places the relationships in a greater context. However, it would not necessarily become a better book if Campbell and Balogh developed a book together. It would just make the story much longer and less accessible. Still, next time I read a book by Campbell, I will imagine what the weaved in psychological commentary would be, if Balogh had been involved. As one reads more books and authors, one will probably gain more insight - at least if one is interested in the aspect of complementarity between the authors and their stories. At the same time the various stories stir different qualities of the emotions.
Compared to reading the first book in the SOS series, - - SOS may stand not only for Sons of Sin, but also for Save Our Soules, which in a certain sense is what happens to the protagonists - - my experience was different from reading the subsequent books. I think it had to do with the initial lack of familiarity with the genre, the language, and the types of issues being dealt with. By now, I have become more occupied with the psychological drama of the characters, as they in their search for truth and love struggle to discover something deeper in the other and in themselves. I have also become more conscious of how language can be used to describe emotions and physical experience, and since language for me also is like a tool, it helps me to think. One experiment I did today was to read sections of Dancing with Clara out loud. It is slower, but interesting and different. I read until my voice was getting tired, but will try again another time. I often look up words, I don't know too well, even if the overall meaning is there, because I like to understand the nuances of the characters. Kindle has a dictionary, which is great. Otherwise if I read on the computer, there are
Oxford,
Collins,
Macmillan,
Longman,
Cambridge,
Google,
Yandex,
Wiktionary.org etc.
Thoughts on the structure of the stories
In the stories there is a dynamic play between opposites, like love and hate, courage and fear, honour and dishonour, responsibility and irresponsibility, friendship and enmity, truth and a lie or false, virtues and vice etc. , It reminded me of the dialectical method which in the early 19th century was promoted by the German philosopher, and contemporary of Jane Austen,
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) Here is what the Wiki has to say about
dialectic:
Dialectic or
dialectics (
Greek: διαλεκτική,
dialektikḗ; related to
dialogue), also known as the
dialectical method, is at base a
discourse between two or more people holding different
points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the
truth through
reasoned methods of
argumentation.
Within
Hegelianism, the word
dialectic has the specialised meaning of a
contradiction between ideas that serves as the determining factor in their relationship. Dialectic comprises
three stages of development: first, the
thesis, a statement of an idea; second, the
antithesis, a reaction that
contradicts or
negates the thesis; and third, the
synthesis, a statement through which the differences between the two points are resolved.
The above description of the element of the dialectical process into thesis, antithesis and synthesis might be related to the descriptions of
protagonists and their role in a story:
A
protagonist (from
Ancient Greek πρωταγωνιστής,
prōtagōnistḗs, meaning '
one who plays the first part, chief actor')
[1][2] is the main character of a story.
The protagonist is at the center of the story, makes the key decisions, and experiences the consequences of those decisions. The protagonist is the primary agent propelling the story forward, and is often the character who faces the most significant obstacles. If a story contains a
subplot, or is a narrative made up of several stories, then each subplot may have its own protagonist.
[3]
The protagonist is the character whose fate is most closely followed by the reader or audience, and who is opposed by the
antagonist. The
antagonist will provide obstacles and complications and create conflicts that test the protagonist, and revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the protagonist's character.
[4]
I'm not convinced that an antagonist can only be something outside, it may also be some aspect of character that has to be dealt with or even another protagonist, as when a man and a woman in a story both are protagonists, but also in some scenes serve as each other's antagonist. Regarding the role of the outer antagonist in the stories, part of a happy ending seems to be that justice has been served. At least, this was the impression I had from reading the SOS series, but justice served involves both the protagonists and the antagonists. The protagonists attain happiness, but have to suffer for their mistakes, until they have learned their lessons.
The etymology of hero and heroine
The protagonists in these stories develop into something close to heroes and heroines by overcoming themselves and their limitations. As I looked up the
etymology of hero, I found descriptions that made me think the genuine hero is connected to a higher density,
hero (n.1)
late 14c., "man of superhuman strength or physical courage," from Old French heroe (14c., Modern French héros), from Latin heros (plural heroes) "
hero, demi-god, illustrious man," from Greek hērōs (plural hērōes) "demi-god," a variant singular of which was hērōe. This is of uncertain origin; perhaps originally "
defender, protector" and from PIE root *ser- (1) "to protect," but Beekes writes that it is "Probably a Pre-Greek word."
See also: in the same article:
heroine (n.)
1650s, "demigoddess," from Latin heroine, heroina (plural heroinae) "
a female hero, a demigoddess" (such as Medea), from Greek hērōine, fem. of hērōs (see hero (n.1)). Meaning "heroic woman,
woman distinguished by exalted courage or noble achievements" is from 1660s. Sense of "principal female character in a drama, poem, etc." is from 1715.
It is perhaps interesting that the wife of Zeus was called Hera, again pointing to the hero or heroine being well connected with the Cosmos, at least originally.
Hera
sister and wife of Zeus, the type of virtuous womanhood, from Greek Hēra, literally "
protectress," related to hērōs "hero," originally "
defender, protector" (see hero (n.1)).
Connecting thesis, antithesis and synthesis to protagonists, antagonists, heroes and heroines.
If I was to try and connect the different terms, then I would say the protagonists at the beginning of a story, before transformations is the thesis. The opposition offered from within and without, the antagonists, could be the antithesis. The interaction between the protagonists and the antagonists generates the synthesis, or protagonists that have shown themselves to share the qualities of heroes and heroines, who have worked for and ideally have achieved a true self, and in relation to another person genuine Love.
)
