Hated Characters and the Fans Who Love Them

[sistermagpie]

My very first fandom was X-files. Well, we know how that show ended. ::sigh:: But last night a friend I met through that fandom came into NYC and she and another X-phile friend and I went out to dinner. I can now officially say that I really have discussed Wittgenstein over drinks. (Even if it was only briefly and only one of us really knew Wittgenstein and it wasn't me and I'm probably misspelling it.)

Here's the thing we were wondering about.

Chris is now in Buffy fandom, and I do LOTR and HP. Back in XF we spent a lot of our time defending Mulder against everyone who claimed he was a jerk, not to mention useless and totally incompetant without Scully. Both of us said the next time we were in a fandom we'd have to go for the character everybody liked. So here I am in LOTR and I sometimes find myself defending Frodo from folks who think he's useless and incompetant without Sam (who should really have been the ringbearer, you know!). I've never been called upon to defend Merry, Sam or Pippin, only Frodo seems to draw the occasional hatred. And of course he's my favorite character.

And then I somehow manage to look into the HP universe and out of all the dozens of characters I pick Draco Malfoy as a favorite. Chris, meanwhile, ended up being a fan of Spike. I don't watch Buffy at all but I know enough to know this has basically led her into the exact same place we're always at: arguing for the redemption (or in Draco's case the saving) of a character many many people want to see burn in hell. (She didn't know who Draco was at first, having only seen the first movie, but once she identified him as "the little blonde kid" she said, "Go you!!") She showed me a tape of the scene where Spike tells Buffy he's got his soul back and I have to say I think he'd be the character I went for on that show as well. (Great scene btw that made me wonder what I missed by not watching Buffy.)

So why is that? Why do we always go for the character that seems to need the most defending? Seriously, I don't think I just think they are the ones that draw the most bashing because I'm more sensitive about them. Because I tend to defend any character that gets too bashed and don't remember having to run to the aid of other characters as much as these, who are also my favorites. Scully got a lot of criticism towards the end of XF but for years it was just Mulder bashed all over the place. LOTR doesn't generate a lot of hate but honestly, if anyone it's usually Frodo who gets dissed. (People who dislike Sam seem to just say they can't stand him and leave it at that while Frodo is accused of being objectively horrible.) Draco and Spike are criticized for obvious reasons but it's not always as objective as people claim it to be.

Mulder, Frodo, Draco and Spike are very different characters in a lot of ways. But they still all seem to draw a guilty verdict from a lot of people who like characters judged good or bad--and whatever they are now can't ever ever change. Because people never change. And their motivations don't matter. If you think they matter you're just a fangirl of the actor or even worse a ::gasp!:: moral relativist. (As it happens I am a moral relativist but not in the way that term is commonly misused to mean a person who doesn't believe in right or wrong.)

I have no idea why I always seem to end up with these characters, the ones that draw the disapproving eye of conservative types who pass judgment. (Note: I realize there are plenty of regular people who just don't like these characters for valid reasons--I don't mean to imply that *not* liking them means you're too judgemental.) I guess maybe I just like the characters who live in the grey areas who have at least one foot in darkness. Or that seem to be in pain and pain usually implies darkness. Characters that are in pain and aren't dark are more the stuff of Lifetime Movies.

Comments

[praetorianguard.livejournal.com]

A couple random thoughts, but they won't be nearly so well thought-out as yours. Alas, I'm still on wonky meds from having my wisdom teeth pulled.

First, and this is mostly and age/maturity thing, a lot of people want to champion a character they can save. (I do not think this applies to you, but I think it's relevant.) I've seen it a ton of people, particularly in teenaged girls, who go for the bad boy because he's in need of saving. Obviously, saving per se rarely (never?) works, and there are a lot of other people who are willing to step in and say, "Hey, look at this character. They're already good. Why waste your time with Draco/Spike/Mulder?"

Which leads me to, second -- in two parts: Why do people like 'bad' characters (shorthand for characters in want of defending) if not than to save them romantically? And why do other people find them not worthy at all?

I tend to find the characters you've mentioned more...interesting, for lack of a better word. I think any choice they make to be 'good' is more powerful than that same choice by someone who has always been 'good.' Their traits are almost always shades of gray. And because we are, essentially, a 'good' society, we tend to read good qualities into 'bad' characters more easily than, say, making Harry follow in Voldemort's footsteps. I'm with you; I prefer my characters complex and gray and less-then-perfect. For example, I'm not a huge Canon!Draco fan, but I found Ron to be much more interesting following his GoF meltdown.

But there are people who prefer their characters black and white, and the simplicity that comes with them. There are people who prefer to keep plot and characters in handy 'good' and 'bad' boxes. And a lot of that can be attributed to the author. For example, many of JKR's events can be spun to make Draco or someone else sympathetic. Certainly the scene in B&B can be reworked that way. Also, the scene at the end of SS. But it's easier to read what the author gives you and let her take you where she will.

I joined the fandom after GoF, and for the longest time I was confused about the anti-Ron sentiment. I didn't realize until about a month ago that it didn't come until after he reacted the way he did in GoF -- and bucked the totally loyal sidekick role in the process. *shrug* I like him much better this way, and I can see how I could spend a lot of time defending him. It's also interesting to me that the fandom seems to obsess much more over Redeemed!Draco than EquallyComplexRon. I think, again, that's the tendancy to want to make characters 'good.' And to look with disdain upon characters that were 'good' that might now be 'bad.' (Reference your archetype post and how betrayal is just as much a part of Ron as redemption is a part of Draco.)

I think it's a matter of 1) taking things out of the box in which they were given to you, and 2) preferring complex, gray characters. There will always be people unwilling/unable/uninterested in doing one or the other. So the people who do prefer such characters spend a lot of time in their defense.

[/rambling] I hope that made some sort of sense. It just sort of came out. Would you mind if I friended you?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

First--ugh on wisdom teeth. I still remember that unpleasant experience.

Definitely good call regarding you people liking the bad boy who needs saving. (One of the things that surprises me about liking Draco is that I usually don't like that character. I usually go for the haunted good guy.) It's odd how so many people--and this is probably something you do see in younger writers--like Draco for being bad, then characterize every bad thing he's ever done as being either beyond his control or in the service of some hidden good. I guess that way they get the bad boy image but don't have to deal with any of the issues he would really bring up. It keeps him in one box after all: he seemed bad but he's really good. This makes really no sense from a character standpoint. In reality, of course, no character does anything just because he is "bad" or "good" (this is something my friend said the Buffy writers did with Spike btw; to show he was "evil" he did a series of bad things with no real motivation).

I definitely think it's worth defending these kinds of characters, though. To me it's often where the most interesting things in a story come from. I'm so glad somebody agrees with me about Ron in GoF--he's great! He's a complex character that acts out of his own motivations--and those don't really include just being good or being a supportive sidekick. I guess that's why it surprises me when people are surprised by him in GoF. When you look at it from Ron's limited pov it's very logical for him to think what he does about Harry and for that to get on his last nerve.

Hmm...this is inspiring to write something that's been percolating in my head for a while now about the two different models of friendship demonstrated in the two Trios of friends (Gryffindor and Slytherin) work. Just because that led me to think about Ron's role and I could see even more why his position is sometimes difficult.

You're right about people being much more obsessed with Redeemed!Draco over EquallyComplexRon. Look at Peter Pettigrew. Here's the one character in canon that we're pretty much told was a good guy who went bad and most stories barely have him existing. Remus and Sirius never seem to tell stories that include him. I've heard more than one person claim Peter must have been in Slytherin--and although I guess we technically don't know his house I see no reason to imagine he wasn't a Gryffindor. He just seems to confuse people--surely he couldn't ever have been good if he turned out bad. To me, though, Peter seems an easily understandable character from the little we know. I don't know exactly what his motivations were for going bad, but there are plenty of possibilities.

I hope that made some sort of sense. It just sort of came out. Would you mind if I friended you?

It made a lot of sense, thanks! I would love to be friended by you!

Late reply (and long)

[vesania-aeterno.livejournal.com]

This is very late (10 days or so) as a reply but I had something to note about Peter. Peter, pre-betrayal, is described as chubby, short, a tagalong, and bad at duelling. Now, it's developed in fanon that duelling = brilliant (as in good, not necessarily intelligence wise, though the case can be made) so you can't really blame Rowling for that, but overall, she's created a very unsympathetic character. I mean, even his teachers thought he was sort of pathetic. On the other hand Sirius is described as intelligent (by the same teacher -- McGonagall -- that described Peter as hero-worshipping Sirius and James) and good looking (as well as likely monetarily well-off) and James is described as popular and rich. Honestly, from every thing we've heard about/seen of Peter, he's an annoying, sniveling little fat kid who, for some reason that certainly is never stated/shown in the books, Potter and Black both trusted with their lives (as well as, obviously, befriended). There's absolutely nothing positive to work with there. Despite being told he was a good guy, we never see how. It's never even hinted (in comparison to, say, Neville Longbottom who's chubby and untalented but also braver and stronger than everyone gives him credit for). Therefore, justifying him being friends with Potter and Black is... difficult at best and extremely awkward at worse. So, in my opinion, that's why he's so often left out of MWPP-era fanfiction.

Now, in regards to the other stuff. First, as you don't watch Buffy this might not make the most sense to you, but, well, Spike attempted to rape Buffy. The scene from Seeing Red in season six is enough to make you feel ill. A lot of the Spike sympathetizers jumped ship at that point. Personally, I prefered Spike as 'dark' because he was an interesting character then insomuch as he was undeniably a bad guy, he killed puppies and babies and liked it, and then he was this man (or unman) who was so completely, utterly, undeniably in love with his, well, creator (Drusilla). Spike is a character who's obsessed with love which is what ultimately leads him into getting his own soul restored but he's also a horrendously bad judge of character (Drusilla essentially treated him as a lapdog, while she was more interested in Angel and destroying the world, which is -- non-ironically -- exactly how Buffy treats Spike in relation to slaying and her 'real' friends/lovers). So, I find Spike an interesting and complex character myself but he didn't do bad things without motivation in my opinion. The Buffy-writers are making a point, yes, that having a soul does not automatically make you a good person, but it's well within Spike's entire character to do the things he did. So, I find myself debating both sides of the Spike characterisation, against those that make him 'evil' and against those who make him 'good'. He's neither.

Now, Draco doesn't interest me in the same way. I don't think he's done anything that needs to be redeemed. What he needs to be smacked (figuratively) into realising that idolizing his father as he does is a path that's going to get him into much more trouble than it's worth. [Though I agree with your other post that Draco is attracted to power and that, given the examples he has of power: his parents, Snape, Dumbledore, Harry; his parents (especially Lucius just given that Lucius is male and Draco is also therefore making the want-to-be-him desire more attainable in Draco's mind) are the best choice for idolization from his particular point-of-view. However, I do defend him in the same way, because he's neither good nor bad at this point in any recognizable way. He does bad things on occasion for reasons that are perfectly justifiable.

[continued]

Re: Late reply (and long)

[vesania-aeterno.livejournal.com]

The character that *does* interest me in that way is Harry actually. Most people paint Harry as The Hero and, in a way, he is. That's his archetype in the books I suppose. On the other hand, there's the flipside of that entire aspect in so much as Harry is decidedly self-centered. Personally I think that it'd be just as much in character for Harry to meander off to relative obscurity tomorrow if Voldemort decided 'I'm not going to try and kill him anymore' today. He's very reactionary, but [as you pointed out also in your Draco post] he's inspired by certain things: Draco reminding him of Dudley, Snape reminding him of Vernon, wanting to please Dumbledore and Ron, etc. Nearly all his actions are motivated selfishly or by self-perversation. If he wasn't curious by nature, he wouldn't have done 90% of the things he has done. If he wasn't determined to succeed at any cost (despite his friends getting hurt/being in peril, nearly dying himself, and accidentally/on purpose killing someone) he wouldn't have accomplished many of the things he did after he wandering across them by being curious. He's obviously getting help and motivation from Dumbledore (in fact, the way it's set up, Harry doing what he does seems connected to his being allowed at Hogwarts. Dumbledore never lets Harry forget that he controls where Harry ultimately ends up) but the very things that make him a Hero are his darker, more selfish impulses.

Which is why this (as posted by epicyclical on praetorianguard's journal) "As for fallen!Harry, I just asked Alison why there weren't more fallen Harry fics and she said succintly, 'Because it would be hard to do well, and is ultimately a stupid idea.'" baffles me. Harry has all the characteristics needed to be a villian written into the books. He is not a good kid, he is not altruistic, he hasn't particularly moved past his trials and tribulations (he's survives them, shoves them down inside, and moves on to the new one as if nothing happened), and nearly every thing he does can be explained by a selfish motivation. Ron's a much better Hero-type than Harry if only because he honestly believes in this entire cause and purpose. Harry just doesn't want to die.

Wow, that was a large digression. The point however is that I tend to do the opposite, instead of defending the 'bad' guy I, well, almost villianize the 'good' and in that I find myself defending my favourite characters (such as Willow who I predicted for years before it happened was on a downspiral of self-indulgence on Buffy and Harry, Snape (you also apparently don't read Snape fic but a quick-run down of fanon!Snape: snarky bastard who really should have been in Ravenclaw were it not for his father/Lucius/the world's bad influence, and all he did was make potions for Voldemort [Man, if you think *Draco* fans make excuses for his behaviour just look at Snape list]), and Remus (Remus is actually a rather dark character in my opinion, who works very hard to make himself appear as harmless as possible despite, or because of, the fact that he -- as is shown -- can be very manipulative and effective when necessary. However, in fanon, he's often characterised by his surface behaviour: sweet and polite and a victim of the world et al) for that exact reason. People want to see the characters in black and white and most of them, even inside their basic character constructs, just aren't.

- Andrea (wow, this is long. and rambling. sorry.)