Emily Jones

[John Henry]

1. Emily's nastiness is rather hilarious - I think it's okay.

[Pound Foolish]

Are the Sherlock Holmes mysteries children's books? Holmes doesn't evolve in his cases, so according to you, they are.

Besides, character development of major recurring characters is more a special treat than something that should be done often. Otherwise, obviously, the characters would be changing all the time at an unrealistic pace until they were a different person every few albums.

Frankly, Emily has already gotten more character development than say, Holmes, and so arguably as much or even more than she needs.

(As for I Love Lucy, Mr. Thinker said he genuinely cared about those characters and that was indeed a big part of why he watched. I don't know about people in general, I've never looked into it.)

[TigerShadow]

Holmes doesn't evolve in his cases, so according to you, they are.

That's a problem with my own wording. I'm not saying that character development makes a novel "for children" or "for adults"; subject matter and depth of plot must also be considered, among many other factors. What I'm saying is that the rather young kids to whom the mysteries we previously discussed are marketed are comfortable with a boring invincible hero who never evolves, but in my personal opinion, unless you have brilliant plots and subject matter, as Doyle wrote in his novels, a lack of character progression is almost insulting. I don't like characters who remain static for as long as Emily has in mystery-world. I want to see her world shaken a bit. (Honestly, if it is true that Holmes does not develop as a character, I probably wouldn't enjoy the Sherlock Holmes novels. I need characters to pique my interest as people before I can connect to them.)

I would assume that Holmes was at least presented some mystery that was particularly challenging to him. Have we seen that from Emily? I don't know if I've heard all the J&P mysteries (maybe, maybe not), but I don't recall a mystery where a little bit of her UBER-AMAZING LOGICAL SKILLS and a dash of snarky remarks at her Watsonian partner didn't tie everything together perfectly.

character development of major recurring characters is more a special treat than something that should be done often. Otherwise, obviously, the characters would be changing all the time at an unrealistic pace until they were a different person every few albums.

"Character development" and "complete 180 in personality" are two different things. I'm not saying that they need to be constantly changing, I'm saying that they need to progress. And I'm not saying that it needs to be constant; with the longevity of the show, that is simply impractical. What I'm saying is that in Emily's case, it's time she finally got some.

so arguably as much or even more than she needs.

So you're saying that she has no more room for personal growth? She's peaked out at, what, eleven?

You're comparing her development against a character whom you claim to have had no development and yet you use this as a basis to claim that Emily is developed enough. If you think Holmes hasn't developed at all, aren't you setting the bar a bit low for character development if you claim that to be more developed than a static character is sufficient?

Mandy had to go on a very complicated and emotionally tumultuous personal journey to properly develop as a person, and she came out much better for it. Compared to that, Emily isn't a very strong character. I'm not saying she has to go through this massive emotional overhaul, but she needs something more than a couple of allusions to her massive amounts of insecurities to compel me.

I'm not saying she hasn't developed at all; quite the contrary. "Great Expectations" and "Emily the Genius" prove that she is no flat character. I'm saying that she needs a mystery where she doesn't know all the answers, where she isn't completely perfect at solving it. I'm saying that maybe Matthew or someone else needs to upstage her, thus revealing an inferiority-superiority complex that she needs to deal with. Giving her actual depth makes her far more compelling than the Boring Invincible Heroine she inevitably comes off as during her "detective work". This is, after all, the very thing in which she prides herself, and to see it challenged would provide a very interesting story if done correctly.

[Gaberk]

Emily is stupid. No need for further discussion.

[Wakko]

Erm did you seriously just say that Emily is a better developed/better over all character then Sherlock Holmes. I think not.

[John Henry]

Emily is better than her boring brother Barrett. Olivia another boring character stinks. I don't know about Priscilla. Matthew is the only one who I prefer to Emily. Vance King's the WORST! Ryan Cummings is also boring. Basically, I put Emily in 2nd place among kid characters in AIO (2009-Present).

[Pound Foolish]

Before we begin, you did not rebuff the point that Holmes does not develop within his cases, and yet they are not for children. Do you then concede the point? Incidentally, also consider, I adore the Enyclopedia Brown stories, as do other adults, so keep in mind that something made for children does not necessarily lack excellence. (Well, we Odyssians kinda know that.)

No. Emily has more room to grow, and that makes sense. She's a kid. She's has not peaked out, but arguablyu she's grown enough to warrant being an AIO character. Especially when you consider many AIO kids, like Jared Trent or Robyn, receive relatively little or no character development of any significance.

That's an entirely different train track of thinking. The point was, Emily is a detective, just like Holmes. The mystery genre doesn't call for character development.

Mandy got a nasty knock over the head, she didn't really develop much during it. People sometimes equate development with knocking a character over the head with a shovel. It's not the same thing at all. Character development isn't going through changes in your life, it's developing lasting change yourself.

Again, that never happened to Encyclopedia Brown. Mystery solves don't find mysteries they can't solve. Whether it's Odyssey, or Agatha Christie, or a Dorathy Sayers. It's just conceit of the genre. Yet people insist on knocking Emily for it. Why should Emily run into a case she cant solve? And why does some magic gold standard of development when they don't? Judge Emily by her own niche, not your personal preferences.

Wakko, Sherlock is a more complex character than Emily, but we do not see him develop within his individual cases, that's the point.

[Wakko]

Quick question, what development have we seen in Emily?

[TigerShadow]

Mandy got a nasty knock over the head, she didn't really develop much during it. People sometimes equate development with knocking a character over the head with a shovel. It's not the same thing at all. Character development isn't going through changes in your life, it's developing lasting change yourself.

I wasn't talking about being involved in a car crash. I was talking about the fact that she learned over the course of her parents' separation that she couldn't just pray and expect God to fix everything. Listen to her conversation with David, when she tells him that she isn't going to ask God to fix their marriage. She explains that she gave in to her emotions...and now she's going to trust. Not "trust" as in "trust that God will wave a magic wand and make everything good again"; trust as in "have faith that God's will is His will". And a few weeks later, she tells Connie that she's now okay with what's happening no matter what, because God will provide—so that lesson clearly stuck. That is character development, and very deep character development for someone her age—that's what I'm talking about.

Especially when you consider many AIO kids, like Jared Trent or Robyn, receive relatively little or no character development of any significance.

I agree on Jared (and I don't know much about Robyn, so I can't say either way); I've always considered him to be too static for my liking. As a sidebar, though, I would like to point out that Trent does progress; we're shown a very realistic progression of facing one's fears over the course of "Called On In Class", "Tales of a Small-Town Thug" (it's not spotlighted, but it's nodded to when he says that he's still not comfortable with public speaking), "Blood, Sweat, and Fears", "Something Significant", and "A Class Reenactment". He started out with crippling glossophobia and slowly gained more confidence to be able to perform in plays. And what's interesting to note is that in "Called On In Class", he doesn't mention calling on God for help and he still has problems; after "Blood, Sweat, and Fears", which is when he's reminded that God is his strength in tough times, he's able to overcome his fear. If that's not character development, I don't know what is.

you did not rebuff the point that Holmes does not develop within his cases, and yet they are not for children. Do you then concede the point?

If you had read my post, what you would have noticed was that I said that this was faulty wording on my part and that subject matter, among other things, must also be considered aside from character development to determine whether or not a book is for children.

Why should Emily run into a case she cant solve?

Because AIO is not exclusively mysteries. We have seen time and time again that the Jones and Parker Detective Agency does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in the context of the world around it. And in the world around it, Emily Jones does not exist as an Encyclopedia Brown wannabe or exclusively as a detective; she exists as a person. I want a mystery she can't solve and where she is upstaged because we're somehow expected to believe that she's a character in her own right and yet she is never challenged at what she loves.

That aside, a mystery that the Oh-So-Wonderful Emily cannot solve would make for nothing if not a unique plotline for J&P. Because the thing is, if they're going to continue to make the J&P Detective Agency a recurring thing for Matthew and Emily, it's going to get really boring to hear Emily solve it all perfectly and constantly sass Matthew every single episode. :/

No. Emily has more room to grow, and that makes sense. She's a kid. She's has not peaked out, but arguablyu she's grown enough to warrant being an AIO character.

Has she really, though? She's got an insecurity that was resolved in one episode. She found out she doesn't know what she wants to be when she grows up. That's...basically it, as near as I can tell.

Judge Emily by her own niche, not your personal preferences.

My judgment on whether or not I appreciate a fictional character is going to be about my personal preferences, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be. I understand why someone could conceivably think that Emily being in the mystery genre of episodes means that she never gets challenged in them, but that doesn't mean that my understanding of this will somehow make me miraculously appreciate her character. I will judge Emily by my personal preferences—as far as to say that I don't like her because I don't like stagnant characters who do everything right.

And yes, that means that I would dislike these other "mystery stories" that apparently can never have the main character progress at all—because according to your logic, the thought process is "why make your main character intriguing and actually feel like a real person when they can just be perfect at what they do?" And I can't appreciate stories like that, not when I know that characters can be so much more.

I adore the Enyclopedia Brown stories, as do other adults, so keep in mind that something made for children does not necessarily lack excellence.

Just because a lot of people like it doesn't make it "excellent". A lot of adult women liked Twilight, but that doesn't make it a good book. Also, apparently we have met completely different kinds of adults in our different lifetimes, because the adults I know who would read books like Encyclopedia Brown are reading them to their kids, not necessarily because they like them or because they think they're a standard of excellence for mystery novels.

[John Henry]

Emily's better than Mr. Doyle, Officer Harley, or Curt Stevens in investigation. I don't know who Detective Polehause is yet.

[HomeschoolCowgirl]

Hmmm.

(not a on word post)

[Mickey]

I personly don't care for her, even though I like some of her episodes.

[John Henry]

My like of Emily is decreasing...why is she so strong and nasty? - a girl.

[TigerShadow]

Are you seriously trying to say that a girl needs to be weak-willed and sweet-natured all the time? That's one thing I like about Emily—she's never afraid to speak her mind and stand up for herself.

[SirWhit]

My like of Emily is decreasing...why is she so strong and nasty? - a girl.

*slow headdesking*

Que Dios nos ayude.

[John Henry]

Yes, good point, Tiger. But, why is she always nasty and mean? Is it her character? Or, is it because I've listened to only three episodes.

Also, Mr. Whits End. What is that quote mean?

[TigerShadow]

It's probably because you've only listened to three out of the twenty-seven episodes in which she appears—you've only heard one-ninth of all of her episodes. Emily isn't my favorite character—none of the relaunch kids are, though that's not their fault—but I wouldn't call her "nasty and mean" by nature.

[John Henry]

Yes, so far I've only heard "Stage Fright," "Square One," and "The Malted Milkball Faction" - and that was yesterday.

To me, she's beginning to stink. Still, she's better than Nelson Swansen, Camilla Parker, Olivia Parker, Vance King, and Ryan Cummings.

[TigerShadow]

And yet you haven't heard all or even many of her episodes, so you can't really make a well-rounded judgment on her.

[John Henry]

But, why is she so nasty?