Black leather, black leather, smash smash smash

[sistermagpie]

I saw a really fun double feature with petitesoeur the other day. These are the Damned was an oddball British rock-n-roll movie featuring a very young Oliver Reed emoting all over the place as King, the leader of a gang of Weymouth Teddy Boys. He had a strange fixation on his sister and didn't want her kissing older American tourists. The Teddy Boys had their own theme song, btw, which I have been singing for days (points to subject line). The movie really picked up when the radioactive children showed up, but then what movie isn't immediately improved by a bunch of radioactive children? Anyway, it was really fun. And ultimately, it got to you. The end was effecting.

The other movie was one of my absolute favorites, The Innocents. It's a wonderful adaptation of Turn of the Screw by Truman Capote starring Deborah Kerr and Martin Stephens. Who's Martin Stephens you ask? Well, Martin Stephens was my first celebrity crush. At the time I was 7 and he was about 27. He was in Village of the Damned (the original, of course, not the lame remake) which I saw on TV. He is phenomonenal in The Innocents as Miles and Pamela Franklin is quite good as Flora too. The movie actually manages to preserve the book's ambiguity--is the possession real or not? What happened at Miles' school? Are the ghosts really there? Is Miss Giddens just so repressed she's insane? What happened between Miles, Flora, Quint and Miss Jessel? It's a movie that gets more horrible the more you think about it and you should think about it often! The final scenes between Miles and Miss Giddens is one of the most deliciously tense things ever!

I had always wondered what happened to Martin Stephens, btw. I finally discovered he grew up and became an architect. I was so happy to hear this I wrote him the only fan letter I've ever written. I figured it might amuse him to know some little girl discovered his work decades after he did it. He wrote me back, which led to my going on a meditation retreat where I wasn't allowed to speak for 10 days but that's another story. He loved filming The Innocents, btw, though he was too young to see it when it came out. He finally snuck into it when he was 15 or so and for the first time understood it: "Oh, it's about sex!"

This was the second time I'd seen it on the big screen. The first time was at the MOMA and I must say that their audience was better than the one at the Walter Reade. The MOMA crowd was mostly older people and they really jumped the first time the ghosts of Miss Jessel and Quint appeared. But nothing compares to the collective gasp they gave when Miles gave Miss Giddens that kiss goodnight. It felt like the air was all sucked out of the room. Also, I love the theme song--more than the jazzy "Black Leather" number from TATD. (We lay my love and I, beneath a weeping a willow...)

On a totally unrelated note, I was reading this thread on Snape characterization in fanfic and it made me think about author's authority over their own characters and stories a little bit. Also I thought about how I love Snape.

blackfall feels Snape's main motivation is that Snape is a bastard and JKR says so. Her exact words are "It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person," "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea," and "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse is power." JKR, of course, also explains that Draco and Pansy are awful people based on people she's met throughout her life who do not go away. It's suggested on the thread that it is wrong to look for explanations for bad behavior because you lose sight of how bad it is.

On the question of looking for explanation, I think anybody who knows me by now knows where I stand on that: looking for explanation in no way means you are losing sight of how awful the behavior is. In fact, I think it's completely ridiculous to just identify the behavior as bad and refuse to go further. At least if you understand the why you can judge or reject the person honestly. Because otherwise you could use anything as a reason not to get to know the person better. There are plenty of religious people, for instance, who would say once you know somebody isn't a Christian you know all you need to know. Or once you know they're Jewish. Or once you know they're gay. Yes we all know the difference is that Snape is being judged for things he's done rather than what he is but people who hate these other groups would say the same thing, wouldn't they? They've rejected Christ. They do all the nasty things gay people do. In general it just always takes me a while to feel comfortable giving an opinion on a person. I might say the person annoyed me upon meeting them, but I won't say they're nice or awful until I feel like I understand them more.

But back to the author's authority here. It really surprised me at first to read an author talk about characters this way--not just her characters, but characters in general. I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard" (which is no motivation at all). But I suppose not all authors are drawn to the same areas. Neither Tolkien nor JRR are known for their characterization, despite creating memorable characters. So okay, she thinks some people are horrible and this makes them fundamentally different from non-horrible people.

But does that mean we all have to see the characters that way? Because I can't. I had awful teachers in school too but if I were to base a character on them--a character that was going to be a player in 7 books---you can be sure they would no longer just be "a deeply horrible person." In fact they were all different from each other. Except for Mrs. Ruhl (HATE HER!) who I was probably just too young to understand I usually ended up thinking I saw some of their motivation while I was in the class. Snape's motivation isn't that he is a bastard. He is a bastard because of whatever his motivation is. Whoever this teacher of JKR's was, whoever these awful people she's met who remind her of Draco and Pansy, I seriously doubt she knows them well enough to be the last word on their personality.

But if JKR says he's horrible, does that mean I'm wrong when he doesn't strike me that way? In canon Snape strikes me as someone with a lot of faults--he's childishly malicious, abuses his power in class, is cruel to Neville, made a seriously inappropriate remark to Hermione in GoF, and is bitter and vengeful. He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting. Presumably he does not wash his hair often and has oily skin. Most of the good characters in canon seem to owe him a hell of a lot and frankly, I can see often see why he can't stand them. He should not be teaching children. He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies, but should not be dealing with a random class of adolescents. He also doesn't seem to want to be a teacher and he takes this out on his students. However, I can easily see him having a friend. I can understand why Hermione irritates the hell out of him without approving of him insulting a 14-year-old girl's looks. Snape, to me, is not deeply horrible he is simply not nice. Nice, to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good. At this point he seems to be the most valuable member of the Order. There's more to life than nice.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

wah. hehehe i feel like saying, "well, i feel like i know you enough to tell that you are a splendid person". *laughs*
simply because this lack of knee-jerk judgement is such a needed trait in this world, and so few people cultivate it. i don't know if i'm great at never judging, but i feel i don't -believe- myself so -thoroughly- as all that. i -want- to know what makes people -tick-, as you say. at least i can say that! that i -want to know-!! my -god-! (*cue righteous anger*, heheh)

I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard"

tell me about it..!..!!
oh god, the amount of times people said this at the draco panel, and in draco discussions in lj and elsewhere, is enough to make me want to BITE THINGS.
what the hell is up with that? (okay, i know what, but it still enraaaaages me, heheh). this whole labeling thing sucks ass.

He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting.
awwwwww. heee. yeah. word. *coughs*
are we ever going to actually -disagree-? *laughs*

to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good.
hee. wah.
i think this is partly why i don't take it as much of a compliment when people call me nice >:D<
not that i want to be good, either.
it's enough to just be human >:D

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

wah. hehehe i feel like saying, "well, i feel like i know you enough to tell that you are a splendid person".

Well, there it's okay because I am a splendid person.:D

I tend to think my refraining from judgement has to do with my hating being wrong. So if somebody asks me what I think of someone when I've just met them I don't want to go on record with an opinion in case it turns out I change my mind!

this whole labeling thing sucks ass.

Exactly. It makes one wonder why one would GO to a Draco panel if it's as simple as that. What do you get from the character that way? I mean yeah, I can pat myself on the back knowing I'm definitely a better person than this kid but that's setting the bar pretty damn low. This is what the story seems to be telling me too. My reading of the books is so influenced by fandom though, too. Maybe if I just read them in a vacuum I would think everybody read the story and worried the good guys were more like the bad guys then they thought! Do I really need to read five books and thousands of pages to know that genocide is bad?

I think this is partly why i don't take it as much of a compliment when people call me nice

I know what you mean. In The Innocents there's even a line where the housekeeper says "You can't say the children haven't been good," and Miss Giddens replies, "But they haven't been good. Merely easy to live with." It really makes you think about what exactly it means to be "good." Snape is not easy to live with, but to me he seems like the he's probably the character with the most clear understanding of what is wrong about Voldemort because he had to make a conscious choice to reject him.

[anamirza.livejournal.com]

I wonder how honest JKR is with her anti-Snape and anti-Draco comments. I mean, maybe she is honest in that she feels the question being asked is, "Are they good people?", to which her answer is, "No. Don't they seem awful to you?" But she could easily have made them unequivocably awful - Sauron, say, is pretty unredeemable in the LotR (let us ignore the Silmarillion) - but she didn't. Draco garners sympathy because we see the conditioning he's been subjected to - his father on his case because he was beat in the school exams by a Mudblood - and we see, from the very beginning, depth to Snape that we see in almost no other character: he hates Harry, but he saves him; Dumbledore trusts him absolutely. This is even before Book 5 and the Pensieve. If she sees him as simply bad, why all this addition? If not on an analytical level then at least on an intuitional one she must see that this makes him more "realistic".

He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies
No, I've had this teacher in post-graduate studies and he's pretty hopeless there, too. Give him a lab and just enough funding and don't let him partake in the learning process: he won't do it any good. But as you say,
There's more to life than nice. The awful teacher was still a decent scientist - just an awful teacher, and not very nice overall. It doesn't prevent one from being able to integrate complicated functions, apparently.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent point. I'm not at all ready to say that JKR doesn't see him as a fully 3-dimensional character because, as you say, he's more than that in canon. Not only do we have these scenes but he gives advice that is helpful even if it's ignored. I was going with the idea that he's horrible, period, mostly because this is what the premise of the post I was reacting to was. I swing back and forth about how I think JKR sees the characters. Snape's pensieve scene clearly invokes sympathy since Harry and Lily both react sympathetically. I wonder more about Draco's many humiliations since they're more often brushed off and have no fallout. But this could totally be a set-up for something later. I feel sympathetic in the ferret scene and the B&B scene and I feel I'm reacting to stuff that's there in the text for that reason, but not everyone reads those scenes the same way I do.

I figure also that a character like Snape has got to have grabbed her interest and once he has her interest he has to start to grow. More than one review, by contrast, pointed out how one-note (and therefore tiresome) Draco has become as a character which would indicate they feel that the author, too, isn't interested in him. But again that could easily be a set up and explained by Harry's limited pov.

No, I've had this teacher in post-graduate studies and he's pretty hopeless the

Heh. Yeah, I felt like I was really stretching even with that. I was like, "Well, at least get him away from children. Maybe college...no...okay post-graduate?" I was literally thinking he might attract the kind of masochistic students who like teachers who demean them, though maybe that's more of a dance teacher thing. In general, though, I don't think he's a teacher at all and definitely would be happier in the lab.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Like you, I object to flat characterizations ("he's bad because he's bad, 'nuff said"). It's boring and two-dimensional.

But regardless of what JKR says about Snape, in canon, as written, he is not that simple, is he? I presume that she is playing a game with the readers at this point: whatever there is to Snape beyond "he's just horrible," she isn't going to spill any beans just yet.

He strikes me as one of those teachers who teaches not because he loves students but because he loves his subject. All those academics who really just want to do their own research but are forced to teach are little Snapelets. In Snape's case, I suspect that he is teaching because Hogwarts is the only safe place for him to be. He is one of several rather crummy teachers at the school whom Dumbledore has given asylum and a sinecure.

Usually characters who are just plain horrible, bad, with no shadows or gray areas, are either badly written or, well, Sauron. One does not expect Sauron to have shades of meaning. One would dislike Sauron with nuances.

The exception to every rule is in Shakespeare, as usual. What are we to make of Iago? He's a fully three-dimensional character, believable, full of depth and persuasively written, yet motivated by inexplicable ill will and vileness.

I can imagine the perplexed first viewers of Othello cornering Shakespeare in the pub afterward. And Shakespeare saying, with a shrug, "Hey, it's fun to write about Iago because he's a deeply horrible person."

And Ben Jonson and Marlowe and Webster all nodding and writing on their cuffs, "note to self: horrible...fun to write" and then going home and composing Volpone and The Jew of Malta and The Duchess of Malfi.

And Shakespeare saying, "Yeesh, guys, don't go overboard or anything."

OK, am now rambling...

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes! I love that idea! As I said to anamirza, I think there's plenty of stuff in the text that indicates he isn't a flat character. JKR isn't always consistent about characterizations--sometimes I feel like character gets subordinated to plot--but I would never say Snape is just randomly mean all the time. This was something I really disagreed with about that premise. He's not cruel to all his students (though he's probably still snarky and cutting). It's specific students he clearly doesn't like personally and he reacts to them in a recognizeable way for him. It's like, in the original thread one poster used the pensieve scene to prove his bastardness because after that moment of sympathy Snape proves he's still a bastard by lashing out at Harry. To me, though, the pensieve just made it more clear why Snape would of course lash out at Harry.

Probably an even better Shakespeare example is Shylock--I mean, what's that about! Howard Bloom has written he was trying to out-Marlowe Marlowe by creating an even worse evil Jew character, but Shylock somehow became the most human, interesting, complex and sympathetic character in the play!

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

The comparison of Snape to Shylock is interesting because both are physically repellant, mean-spirited, and self-serving, but both have clearly suffered undeserved humiliations that command our sympathy and compassion. Snape, too, has done something inexpressibly brave--he has left the Dark Side and betrayed it. It shouldn't surprise us that the experience hasn't made him friendlier and nicer. (And it shouldn't surprise us that Harry doesn't yet understand that.)

JKR isn't 100% in control of her characters, though she's getting better at it. Umbridge is a Mere Plot Device; her two-dimensionality is boring but has the advantage of making Snape look Complex.

I chose Iago rather than Shylock because I do think we are asked by Shakespeare to feel compassion and even guilt toward Shylock ("Hath not a Jew eyes?... If you prick us, do we not bleed?"). Iago, OTOH, is completely inexplicable. He arranges the destruction of several worthy and virtuous people out of--apparently--spite and boredom. And when asked what his motive was (not personal gain; he is going to die under torture), he refuses to answer.

So Iago, like Sauron, is a cipher, a marker of pure evil. That Shakespeare manages to make him interesting rather than a dead bore (Umbridge, Voldemort) is pretty impressive.

I think Tolkien had the right idea about Sauron--the less we know about him the more he works as a villain--or not even a villain, but a Presence.

[(Anonymous)]

Cheerfully heading off-topic…

Iago, like Richard III, is fun to watch because he tells us how he is going to take the place apart, and then we watch him do it. Then we get to watch as destruction falls out of his control.

I don’t think Iago is a cipher, though. He is upset, iirc because this interloper is getting the respect and the prestige that he thinks he ought to be entitled to, and thinks the interloper doesn’t deserve, so he is going to show everyone he is right by taking Othello down.

Shylock is someone about whom we can feel both sympathy (because of the society that rejects and abuses him) and horror (because he chooses to take a piece out of a virtuous and worthy person).

The “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech is very clever because it has us reacting with both sympathy and horror at once. He has just found out his daughter has eloped with a friend of Antonio (who owes him that pound of flesh), under conditions that suggest Antionio could be complicit. Having just railed against Antonio’s hatred of him for being a Jew, he argues that he is just as human as the Christians he is talking to and finishes by saying, “And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that….The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

Sauron works without having a great deal of characterization because he is a mythic evil; and, in JRRT’s canon, the last one. Mythic evil we can point at and say, “I’m not with him, so I must be on the good guy’s side.” Then JRRT messes with us, and shows the world is changing, by making Good weak, divided, and not reliably good; not mythically and absolutely good. In a human, mundane world, you don’t get to assume you are one of the good guys just because you are not with the bad guys.

Leshii

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hey, you can take me off-topic anytime. I love where you guys are taking it.

I wonder if one of the other differences between Shylock and Iago is what they represent in some way. Like, Shylock is full of hatred. It's been thrown at him, it fills him, he lashes out with it. People can relate to that. Iago is more fueled by envy; he brings Othello low because he can. Even when it destroys him, he doesn't care because at least he's ruined things for Othello. For that kind of bad impulse you need a good planner.

As awful as Shylock is you have to respect his passion. As awful as Iago is you have to respect how effective he is. He's quite the puppet master for a while there.

Tolkien was totally against this type of thing in principle, I think. I remember hearing that he disapproved of things like Lewis' Screwtape Letters, for instance, because he was on the side of thinking that to study evil, to try to understand it, was to get closer to it. So you never identify with his super villain. But you do identify with his less-than perfect good guys. I guess he's really showing the same human weaknesses as Shakespeare, just presenting them in a different way.

Oh, and btw Leshii, if you want a code just let me know!:-)

[(Anonymous)]

I suppose it depends on whether you see evil as Manichean (Good and Evil are two opposing forces, with separate identities) or define evil as one's distance from good.
I am sorry that I can't recall the name of the Byzantine priest who discussed this latter idea.

Leshii

ps. I like one-time pads.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

ps. I like one-time pads.

Okay, it's been days and I'm still not confident about what this means, exactly. Help?

[(Anonymous)]

That's ok. You said you would give me a code if I asked, and I had no idea where *that* came from, so I just suggested a code (properly speaking, it's actually a cipher...).

Leshii

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! Oh good, I thought I was going crazy! I meant if you would like your own lj I could give you a code to start one without having to get a paid account.

"Would you like a code?" is something you hear so often on lj's I never even thought of how odd it sounded the first time.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, its a compliment! Thank you!

I confess I have neither the discipline nor the confidence to start an lj. And it's not like I'd want the whole world to be reading it, even if I did.

And it's so much more fun reading other people's lj's!

Leshii