Nero wrote:Those flaws make such a character more realistic.
totally agree. if characters don't have flaws then they aren't realistic. the problem is because the reader is the equivalent of a third party in an argument then we see the character flaws alot more than the character would in real life. Its the same with people :D,
characters tend to be unrealistic and more 'prefect' in books because of the author being a third person creating an argument and therefore the arugument imediately becomes more rational than a normal argument would and this is the same for the reader.
its alot different when real people are shouting at each other or having opinions without looking at the other side of the coin.
I dislike kitty because she just wasn't as imersive as a character as the other two. nat has character development, bart has his humour and kitty has her back story and rebelion.
but her backstory isn't that tragic as a driving force, (it happened to her mate, not even her) the magicians didn't do anything to her and she's angry about it not troubled by it or tortured which would make a character more interesting for me; she doesn't even blame herself. and she's nothing special as a character. she's a good character, the sort of feisty lead female that i love in a book, not some soppy mop (
i.e. bella) but compared to the other two....well. in anohter book i'd love her....
now, who thinks i've just rambled on pointlessly for half hour *raises hand* :P
nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:I feel Nat was better because he was somehow made more comical than Kitty and so his faults didn't seem so bad. I don't know if you get what I mean, so I'll try explaining it properly. See, Kitty was portrayed as a pretty cool character who never seemed to doubt her righteousness (except for her thoughts later on the Resistance- and she seemed nicer for thinking it). But when she somehow failed to meet that standard in a few instances (like feeling it was morally wrong for her proposal to Bartimaeus being rejected), it kinda makes you disappointed and makes you think she didn't deserved to be thought of as she was described in the book. And her described abilities didn't seem like an exaggeration as in the case of Bartimaeus, where you can laugh it off. Nat was different; we knew he was a complete idiot in some things and his faults were written quite comically too.
Anyway, for me, it is Bart>Nat>Kitty. Always.
yeah, i see your point, the fact that nat and bart were made comical make you take them less seriously (specially nat). i didn't look at it like that but i see your point.
I know this sounds bad but i really didn't think anything of kitty, i never thought she was big headed or anything, just commited to her cause; and it's quite hard to think she's wrong when the magicians are characterised as the corrupt bad guys throughout the book.
now you say it though i see your point. she was very unreasonable with her views.
i always thought kitty was just a strong personalty rather than having flaws adn thats what strong people are like :$
anyway, i can't think of what else i was going to say
(which is annoying) but the characters go Nat>Bart>Kitty for me.
