Liking Characters

[sistermagpie]

I think this post comes from a couple of places...there was a discussion on ajhalluk's lj where the wonderful distinction was made between finding a character interesting and liking them. Then there was also that essay by someone defending Sirius Black from his detractors AND his defenders. Finally, there were these comments on my last entry, all circling around this same issue, which is, for me, the difference between finding a character interesting, admiring them and liking them. At the moment it's liking them that's intriguing me. So I've been trying to think about characters in HP

Many people seem to blur these distinctions when it comes to reacting to characters, and I think it accounts for a lot of wank. Even worse they add that fourth terrible thing, which is BEING THE CHARACTER. You know how that is--anything you say about a character the poster takes personally. Everybody's a Mary Sue. There's a certain poster I've seen on communities who likes Harry. Now, I realize many people dislike Harry, especially after OotP, but still one would think that being the hero he's been portrayed sympathetically enough in canon that he wouldn't need to be distorted in his own defense. But in the eyes of this person Harry becomes a sort of cross between Little Nell and Jesus, while other characters are either minions of Satan or blessed for being lucky enough to be in his presence.

But any character can get that sort of treatment, which is part of what makes The Prank such a compelling incident, inspiring the extreme fans on both sides to "make somebody Satan," as malafede put it so well. In canon, it seems to me, The Prank has been clearly portrayed as morally muddy. Sirius was wrong for trying to kill or hurt Snape, and for using Remus to do it. James was right to stop it, but wrong to encourage this sort of thing before (and am I the only one who wonders if Sirius' prank wasn't somehow done for James--I don't mean James necessarily suggested it, but James seems to have the real enemy for Snape...perhaps Sirius thought this would please or impress James?). Snape was wrong to be doing whatever he was trying to do that night.

Like I said, to me The Prank seems like the culmination of years of bad or destructive behavior on both sides, yet sometimes defenders of characters seem to be reading two different stories. In one Snape is so bad he somehow deserved being attacked by a werewolf. In the other Snape was a Billy No-Friends who didn't bother anybody except to try to defend himself from James. Neither of these things appears to be true in canon. While MWPP aren't the most objective source for Snape info, I believe them when they say Snape and James attacked each other. When Dumbledore says they remind him of Harry and Draco I did not take this to mean that James taunted innocent Snape and Draco taunts innocent Harry.

It seems like this comes from a desire to admire the character that we like--or maybe also look down on the character we don't like. But the two things really aren't the same, because when I thought of my own responses to HP characters I often found the characters I liked were not the ones I admired and vice versa. I mean, I must admire some things about them to like them, but in general I don't approve of their behavior. For instance, usually I am not somebody who likes bad boys. I think evil is petty and stupid...so why are Draco and Snape my favorites? After all, they are both often portrayed as exactly that--petty and stupid--in the way they treat Harry. Snape, at least, has other things to recommend him in his Potions mastery and efficiency as a spy against the Dark Lord but Draco and Pansy? Not so much to recommend them there. And yet, I like them both.

And whom don't I like, and what does liking or disliking mean? I suppose it means these are the characters I enjoy reading about. When they appear on the page, I smile. I probably do root for them even when I hate what they're doing. What characters don't I like? Well for one, Ginny. She's probably my most hated character, though only since OotP because she apparently didn't exist before then. I hate her tiresome coolness, her tough attitude, her swearing, her hexing and Quidditch skills and her boyfriends. When she appears on the page, I want her to leave. I roll my eyes at every stupid thing out of her mouth. I do not like her as a character, and would not like her as a person, I don't think. Hermione, by contrast, is someone I often find myself having problems with as a character, but I don't dislike her as a person the same way.

And then, there's Neville. Neville's more interesting to me because I don't dislike him the way I dislike Ginny, but I don't particularly like him either and I dislike him steadily more in each book. He's just so transparently good, he's like a frigging Sunday school story. After OotP so many people expressed surprise at how Neville had developed and grown and this confused me because to me we've been hit over the head with Neville the Hero since book one. If you didn't appreciate the bravery in dumpy Neville with the word bottom in his name you should feel a little badly about that because of course look at how great he is: he suffers in silence without parents, is under appreciated by his family, everybody thinks he's worthless, he's got a mean teacher he's scared of, he's saint like in his dealings with his catatonic mother, he stood up to the closest thing he had to friends, never complains and displays a quiet dignity when shaming others. Plus, he kicks ass, stands up to the bad kid, is chivalrous with girls, is scared of everything yet flings himself at Crabbe and Goyle and Death Eaters. I feel like the nutritional value of Neville has been highlighted to me for 5 books. He is, in the words of Saki, horribly good. Neville is the broccoli of the HP-verse.

And I don't know, maybe that's why I like Draco the little snot. If Neville's the good-for-you broccoli, then Draco is the dessert I’m constantly being nagged will ruin my appetite and rot my teeth-you don't want that nasty sweet stuff do you? Only it just so happens I am the kind of person who likes ice cream sundaes for lunch.

See, it's not just Neville, since he's been a minor character. His scenes wouldn't be enough to drive me over to the Slyth side. It's more, I think, that I just always feel slightly out of step with all the Gryffindor characters. I don't hate them--I like a lot of them. But I don't usually react like them. So I don't know, I think what I *like* about Draco is that he's energetic and funny. He's not the wit we see in fanon, but that just makes him sort of better to me, because it's not that he's so terribly witty and above it all, just that he's spirited and *wants* to be funny. And sometimes he is. My favorite scene in OotP is still the one where the Inquisitor Squad has just appeared and he's taking points away. First of all, he's just taking points, not hurting anybody. (It's the other students who start filling the Infirmary with Slyth casualties.) And he's taking it less seriously than the Gryffs are: can you believe they're letting me take points? Let's see, 5 from you because I DON'T LIKE YOU. He even makes fun of his own racism. He's a better case against prejudice than any righteous rant because he shows how ridiculous it is. It's like a detective saying, "And of course you're a suspect because you're a minority." It does, in its way, remind me of what's-his-face the Slytherin Headmaster Portrait, who makes fun of everything. I mean, yes, Draco does get serious when his parents are attacked but again, it just makes him more flawed to me. I guess I just like the type of character he often seems to be: the rich person so OTT spoiled they're a parody of their own awfulness. It's like Karen on Will & Grace who's horrible but vulnerable and funny.

Obviously this isn't me saying that this character is "better" than Neville. I admire Neville more because he's more admirable (except when he's throwing himself at Draco because he said something about crazy people, then he's just an annoying blowhard). If we were in the same school I'd probably avoid Draco's notice while being entertained by him from a distance while Neville and I would probably be friendly, at least. But obviously there are things that I *like* in Draco's personality that makes me enjoy spending time with him in fiction and that I might enjoy about him more in real life as well. Snape, too, might sometimes make me cringe when he roars at Harry, but I like what seems to be his no-nonsense approach to evil and the hell that is his life. I like potterstinks too. I like stories that take these characters seriously in fanon, like Maya’s Pansy companion-fic to UL, where she describes the Slytherins trading candy in direct contrast to Harry’s sharing. They’re different enough from me to be exotic. That means I *want* to admire them, I probably wish I could more, but I really shouldn't assume there's any reason to do so.

So there you have it, however it reflects on my character. Sometimes I like characters I don't admire, because I think liking is something that comes before one is able to judge someone morally. Sometimes it can just get in the way of that judgment.

Comments

[froda-baggins.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

What I think gets me here is how you define the differences between liking, admiring, and being interested in a character. It almost...surprises me that you can look at it so objectively. I generally pride myself on being able to do that (whether deserved or no), and even I find it difficult when it comes to HP characters.

For me, I'm pretty well interested in *most* of the characters, because they are all so different and varied, and they have their parallels in real life, which makes it fun to read, because I can relate to that. I've known people like that, I *do* know people like that, hell I *am* like that myself.

I still wish JKR would flesh out Draco and his gang a little more, but that's another story entirely.

Now, where it gets complicated, is when we get into admiring vs. liking a character. To be honest, I'm not sure there are many characters in JKR's world that I would particularly like if I were to put myself in that world. Neville, I would probably be friendly with. Maybe Ginny, though her "woman-of-the-world" attitude gets on my nerves sometimes. Certainly not Sirius, despite the fact that I'm one of those people who really wept buckets when he kicked it.

Harry, Hermione and Ron would all probably get on my nerves a lot. Harry is too angry (whether or not it's justified), Hermione is too much of a know-it-all, and Ron is too...Ron.

I would laugh at Fred and George from a distance, perhaps look up to them or think them "cool", but would never actually get...close.

Lily is...I may be wrong in this, but I see school-age Lily being a bit like Hermione...which would annoy me. James is like Sirius, I would hate his guts. Peter is too whiny, and Remus is just like me, so I wouldn't like him much either. Heh.

I think you bring up a good point with The Prank. I have experienced the same phenomenon you have, in terms of having to make someone the villain and someone the victim. I think it's just human nature, that we don't like moral muddiness as you put it.

Maybe I'm just seeing it from a different angle than most, being neither a Snape fangirl nor a Sirius fangirl, but a Lupin fangirl. And I don't think there's any denying Lupin was the one being victimised. Lupin ended up caught in the middle of a trap of his own devising, because he was too cowardly to stand up to his friends, when he could've at least tried to stop the mudslinging with Snape, and in the end it snuck up and bit him in the arse so to speak.

Now I'm rambling...but yeah. That's my take on it. I just have to conclude by saying, as someone who hasn't been in this fandom for very long, it's difficult to keep yourself from getting labeled as this or that, and it's even more difficult to dissent to the two reigning arbiters of opinion: the "Slytherins" and "Gryffindors". It's a shame, really, because one tends to forget that not everything is so cut-and-dry.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I'm not sure there are many characters in JKR's world that I would particularly like if I were to put myself in that world.

Good point. I can't really imagine being friends with most of the characters in canon. Argh! It's another distinction to make. Since it's a school story I think you natural put yourself in the school and look for the kids you would know and be friends with. Maybe that's one of the reasons I feel so free to prefer characters that are so different from me (the Slytherins) because there really aren't any characters I identify with or feel like these are the people I would be friends with.

But rather than really being in the school I'm seeing a it in a bird's eye view, being able to make judgments about people as well as just spend time with them.

I just have to conclude by saying, as someone who hasn't been in this fandom for very long, it's difficult to keep yourself from getting labeled as this or that, and it's even more difficult to dissent to the two reigning arbiters of opinion: the "Slytherins" and "Gryffindors". It's a shame, really, because one tends to forget that not everything is so cut-and-dry.

Yes, isn't that odd? It's weird that I spend so much time "defending" (for lack of a better word) Slytherins when any time I've taken one of those online quizzes that ranks what house you'd be in Slytherin comes in dead last. I'm always Ravenclaw first, and then it seems to go Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Slytherin. But it seems like a lot of people really do relate to incidents by judging who's right and wrong in them instead of trying to figure out what went on to make it happen. It's frustrating because of course that's what happened in canon too and it caused all this trouble! So I hope the series winds up by showing us a new way.

[froda-baggins.livejournal.com]

So I hope the series winds up by showing us a new way.

Oh I really hope so. I think she's leading up to something like that though, especially with the Sorting Hat's song in OotP, which I particularly like. ^_^

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Yay, I've been thinking about these matters recently myself.

Many people seem to blur these distinctions when it comes to reacting to characters, and I think it accounts for a lot of wank.

Yes, I think I know what kind of discussions you're referring to here. Do you mean, for instance, when people overidentify with their favorite character they seem to both love, admire and find them interesting all at once, and they take everything that could be considered critism, whether it is to how the character has been written (i.e. not finding them interesting), the character's personality (disliking them) or something specific the character in question has done (critising their behavior instead of just blindly admiring it), personally, almost feeling like they tmeselves have been attacked and not just the character or the writer? I've seen those types of discussions too, and I find them quite frustrating. But on the other hand, I have also found posters being a little too apt in trying to make a distinction between liking a character and find him/her interesting, and I've found that that can be awfully limiting as well, because sometimes these two things go together, but only to a certain extent.

I remember one of these Draco-debates I participated in a couple of months ago, where a poster tried to make a clear distinction between "liking a character" and "finding him/her interesting". When I answered, I realised that I couldn't make that clear a distinction, when it came to Draco (or Snape, for that matter). When it comes to characters like Umbridge or Lockhart, I can, because while I think Umbridge is an extremely interesting character, and I think Lockhart is an incredibly entertaining character, and I certainly wouldn't want either of these character cut out of the books, because they're both well-written, and they serve their respective purpose well, I wouldn't say I like either of them (well except from a purely literary perspective) because I don't care about either of them. When they get theirs in the end of CoS and OotP, respectively, I'm completely coldhearted, I don't feel an ounce of pity for them, I don't care that their lives have been destroyed. (Well, OK, I might have felt a little sorry for Lockhart during his brief cameo in OotP, but that was three books later, and it was not much.) With Draco, Snape or my other favorite characters (Harry, Hermione, Ron), that wouldn't be the case at all. Yes, I think Draco and Snape are both very interesting characters, and that in itself is absolutely one reason for why I like them, it may even be the reason why I started liking them in the first place, but I think it's important to note that I also care about them.

However, the poster at FAP, seemed to liken "liking a character" with "admiring a character":

What is it about Draco that you LIKE? Besides that he might be found interesting. What traits of his do you honestly admire?

This question puzzled me greatly, because "admiring" and "liking" are two quite different things for me, especially when it comes to fictional characters. IRL, I've met people who I have admired, but not liked, and I don't think I would say that I "admire" everyone I like (maybe because I'm usually not that easy to impress:D), even though I suppose a case could possibly be made for me admiring certain aspects, qualities, traits or whatever, in everyone I like, but I'm not sure. Maybe it is because the word "admire" to me so strongly indicates putting someone on a piedestal, and that's not an entirely positive thing in my book? Anyway, one thing is certain, and that is that admiration has absolutely nothing to do with which characters I like or not. I like characters who feel real. Characters I can sympathise with and relate to, who have aspects I can recognise in myself, or at least people I know.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But on the other hand, I have also found posters being a little too apt in trying to make a distinction between liking a character and find him/her interesting, and I've found that that can be awfully limiting as well, because sometimes these two things go together, but only to a certain extent.

Yes, part of my problem is that I desperately *want* to be objective but of course nobody is that. There are characters that I like and I do want to see good things happen to them, and I can't really imagine myself thinking of a character as being really interesting and not liking him/her, because being interesting is probably one of the main things I like in people! I find Snape and Draco both interesting...and I've noticed that often people who don't like Draco insist that he's not interesting, that he's just 2-dimensional and stupid. But I can't help it--to me, in canon, he's an interesting case. There are times when I can like a character or find them really interesting and not mind if they come to a bad end. Sometimes the right ending for them is bad.

Anyway, one thing is certain, and that is that admiration has absolutely nothing to do with which characters I like or not. I like characters who feel real. Characters I can sympathise with and relate to, who have aspects I can recognise in myself, or at least people I know.

Yes, that's just the conclusion I come to. Liking, in some ways, is incredibly selfish and uncontrollable. A character makes you laugh or cry or think and you like them. I guess if I was forced to come up with something that I "admire" in Draco, meaning was there anything I saw in him that I would like to have more of myself, I'd say something about his energy. Also, he seems like a character that screams LOVE ME!!! all the time and that's something I could never do, so maybe it intrigues me. Like, what's it like to be somebody who could make that kind of fool of himself and keep coming back for more?

There's a lot of characters like that, that mirror something in ourselves that we might not even be able to identify. You probably don't even think about it. And when you don't think about it, that sometimes makes you think this is something that everyone must see, so it's not like you like character X because he strikes something in you, you insist you like him because he SHOULD be liked by everyone.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

and I can't really imagine myself thinking of a character as being really interesting and not liking him/her, because being interesting is probably one of the main things I like in people!

What I can't imagine is liking a character who I absolutely do not find interesting and/or entertaining (who I find boring, in other words). I don't know if I would say that I like Umbridge or Lockhart, actually maybe I would say that I do, only I'd make it very clear that it's as characters, and as characters only. Like, I love to hate Umbridge, and I love the way JKR makes fun of Lockhart. But when it comes to Draco and Snape, it's not just that, I mean, yes, I do definitely like them as characters, but it goes deeper than that. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that I like either one of them as persons, beacuse I'm pretty sure I would dislike them quite a lot, if I met them in real life. So, I guess it's something in between liking them as a character, and liking them as a person, or perhaps a third alternative, something I can't really put my finger on.

Coversely my least favorite character also happens to be Ginny. I certainly don't hate her, I'm just totally indifferent to her. If it's one thing that annoys me about her, it's the way JKR seem to be shoving her down her readers' throats: "Look, she stands up for Harry, and she knows that he is uncomfortable with his fame, wow, isn't she a big one with female intuition, and look, she's kind too, she doesn't let Harry and Ron make fun of Neville, and look, she's COOL, she's been secretely playing Quidditch for years and now she's better that everyone except Harry, and look she's diplomatic, she successfully goes between Hermione and Luna when they're about to fight, and she's funny too, don't believe me, well in that case, let me show you how many characters that laugh at her jokes, so obviously she is, and look, she's creative too, and way better than Cho to think up a fitting name for the defence group, and see there, she lies to her mother, but not because she's dishonest, but because sh'e cool. DO YOU GET IT? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE GINNY!"

Anyway, besides what I see as JKR's blatent begging us to like her, the real reason why I don't is that she just doesn't feel real to me. You say you avoided persons like that in school, but I don't even think I've met persons like that. It seems to me, that if Ginny were a realistic character, she would be very different. Some fanfic writers manages to make her incredibly realistic in their fics, ivyblossom most notably, and I love Ginny in those fics.

and I've noticed that often people who don't like Draco insist that he's not interesting, that he's just 2-dimensional and stupid.

See what I find utterly confusing, is when people who claim they like DRaco, say he's 2-dimensional. Because I can't understand liking a character, if you truly find him/her 2D. I really can't.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

That was a great post. You made an interesting distinction between the characters that we dislike, like but aren't really interested in, and the characters that we really admire. *g*

I can't really think of a character that I seriously dislike in the books. Like but aren't really interested in - a lot of them, like the Weasleys, Draco, Hagrid, and so on. And then there are characters that I love - Harry, Hermione, Lupin, Snape. It'll be difficult to explain what attracted me to these characters in the first place, but the attraction happened from their very first appearance, and it's still there. Reading about your likes and dislikes made me realise once more how differently people tend to see the characters. I've seen this before, in this fandom as well as in my other fandom, but somehow it never fails to amaze me. *g*

In the other Snape was a Billy No-Friends who didn't bother anybody except to try to defend himself from James.

Oh, I totally agree with this point that you make here. What most people tend to forget while judging that all of them were boys. Boys fight. They can get quite ruthless and malicious at times while confronting their opponents. That doesn't mean they'll grow up to be Evil!Killers. Same with Harry and Draco. They're just two boys who hate each other for reasons that aren't very clear even to the two of them - but that's the way it happens with boys. One thing that I truly enjoy about the books is the realistic portrayal of adolescents.

And Innocent!Snape who was as harmless as a rabbit? Frankly, as a Snape fan, I find that particular fanon quite insulting to the character Snape. ;)

First of all, he's just taking points, not hurting anybody. (It's the other students who start filling the Infirmary with Slyth casualties.) And he's taking it less seriously than the Gryffs are: can you believe they're letting me take points? Let's see, 5 from you because I DON'T LIKE YOU.

I'll disagree here, because Draco is hurting them - in a place where it hurts most. Points are big thing in Hogwarts, and because I come from a school where there were house points (although the system was slightly different), I can understand what it must mean to the students. All of them. Draco is hurting them because he's smart, and he knows that it'll hurt them. It would hurt him too if someone took away points from Slytherin, especially if that certain someone was Harry. The Gryffindors hit back the only way they can - by physical violence. Stupid, but that's what boys do.

Swatkat

I hope you don't me jumping in. You make interesting posts, and this one was too good to resist.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Reading about your likes and dislikes made me realise once more how differently people tend to see the characters. I've seen this before, in this fandom as well as in my other fandom, but somehow it never fails to amaze me. *g*

Isn't it? I mean, I knew as I was writing it other people would read it and say, "What book is SHE reading?" Sometimes that's when you get people who get offended when people say they don't like a fictional character. But I probably had the same experience you did--with many characters I just liked them from the first and still do (this is probably why I love the Madam Malkin's robe scene). Probably once you like the character you're already disposed to read their scenes in a way that makes them look good. I know that the way I react to Ginny (immediately connecting her with girls who probably bullied me as a kid) other people react to Draco and Pansy and Snape (connecting them with people who bullied them).

I'll disagree here, because Draco is hurting them - in a place where it hurts most. Points are big thing in Hogwarts, and because I come from a school where there were house points (although the system was slightly different), I can understand what it must mean to the students.

This is why different povs are good.:-) This has literally never occurred to me. I mean, to me...well, first it's just a personality thing. I've just never cared about contests like this so I'm sure if I were at the school my attitude would be that I couldn't care less about House Points. As soon as they showed me the scale with the housepoints I'd just say, "Right, never look at that again." (Yet another reason I would never be put in Slytherin.)Then within the books it seems like once Dumbledore snatches the cup from Slytherin at the banquet in that dramatic way I figured everybody would lose respect for it and consider the whole thing fixed and rebel against it. Most importantly, in the books it seems like the Trio has far more important things to think about, and that once Umbridge allows the Slyths to take points obviously there is not house point contest because she's destroyed any meaning of it. And when I try to compare it to actually hurting someone and putting them in the Infirmary it gets even sillier.

But there again it just says something about me, probably. I don't react to things the way someone else might because we had different school experiences and were different kinds of kids etc.

I hope you don't me jumping in.

No no--thank you for jumping in!!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

Oh hon, I was cheering while reading your ginny-bashing passage, just brilliant. There's clearly no mistaking your disliking her, as all the 'faults' you've pointed about her are not traits that are considered negative by common standard. JKR would be at a loss reading your post: Bu... but these are all GOOD traits! But she's PERFECT! You're *supposed* to be in love with Ginny! *cackles*

I can't stand Ginny more as a fictional character than a real person- because she's simply too frigging *fake* and I've yet to encounter (thanks god) a person like her in real life. While Draco, to me all his nastiness is believable, sometimes even relatable, so even though I would've hated to have him as an enemy back in school, I often find him rather endearing. Maybe it was after all a good idea for Harry to have gone berserk in OOTP, as now readers such as myself wouldn't have problems with him like how I have problems with Ginny- in another words, Harry is no longer *great* in a stereotypical way like Ginny is.

Even in RL, I seldom both admire and like a person. I mean obviously I respect all my friends, but when I actually *admire* a person, most often there'll be a huge distance between me and the admiree, as the person must have certain qualities that I currently lack but would love to possess or at least improve on. I dunno, maybe if one day I 'upgrade' myself to the person's level I would be liking him/her as then we'll be on.. equal footing? Argh I digress. By the way, the Karen example was jolly good X-D!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I can't stand Ginny more as a fictional character than a real person- because she's simply too frigging *fake* and I've yet to encounter (thanks god) a person like her in real life.

Yeah, that's what drives me crazy about her. It's like, I knew girls who thought they were perfect at everything, so it infuriates me that the book makes it so she is perfect. Draco, as you say, is much more real, I agree. He reminds me of a lot of sort of pipsqueak boys, sometimes really wealthy, who had a big mouth and were sometimes funny and sometimes just stupid. But it's the stupid part that makes him realistic--he doesn't always win, his remarks don't always hit. You always know that not everybody likes him, and those who don't like him can not like him for normal reasons. They're not just jealous or evil.

Even in RL, I seldom both admire and like a person. I mean obviously I respect all my friends, but when I actually *admire* a person, most often there'll be a huge distance between me and the admiree, as the person must have certain qualities that I currently lack but would love to possess or at least improve on.

Yeah, you don't usually think of your friends as people you admire--imagine how awkward that would be. But sometimes you do seek out people who compliment you and have strengths that you lack and vice versa. So we probably all admire *something* about our friends, we just don't sit around admiring them all the time.:-)

food analogies

[shusu.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I tend to like the Ginnys and Tonks because I like my chocolate bunny ears and Draco because he is very much like the Dairy Queen chocolate sundae I had yesterday -- all that for $3. It's striking that Rowling doesn't tend to mix flavours. No Chinese dishes there.

Part of it too is I sometimes like to windowshop. Actually no, I always like to windowshop. I like staring at the rows and rows of confections, the sugar swans, the marzipan fruit, the flowerbasket cakes. I love reading the stuff that's cool without necessarily biting into it. I think of them as characters and not as people. It's only when I sit down to write a fic or an LJ entry that I take the dish out and start slicing.

And I like my broccoli with seasoned vinegar. Because vinegar has no calories but it's not taste-less.

Re: food analogies

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL!

And the good thing about windowshopping is that a lot of things look better than they taste. I would include marzipan in that lot!

I tried to eat broccoli recently. I have to make a horrible face while I do it, as I try to chew and swallow without having it touch my tongue. Usually if I'm eating anything in green, chances are it's a lime-flavoured Chuckle.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Great stuff! Makes me want to make my own list. Probably will do in my lj when I have some time.

I usually make the distinction between an emotional response to a character and an intellectual one. I mean, I love Draco but when discussing him I try to stay objective about his shortcomings - whereas I hate Neville with the fiery passion of a thousands burning suns (okay, that's an hyperbole) but honestly I can't find any fault in his personality.

The funny thing is that after some time, you become so practiced at spotting the hidden agenda behind people's discussion of their favourite characters. The Harry girl - I don't know if it's the same I always see around, but mine couldn't even admit Harry was wrong to resent Ron for being chosen as a Prefect. And she had all this convoluted explanation for it, I'm sure she was 100% in good faith about it.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I mean, I love Draco but when discussing him I try to stay objective about his shortcomings - whereas I hate Neville with the fiery passion of a thousands burning suns (okay, that's an hyperbole) but honestly I can't find any fault in his personality.

That's *exactly* what I feel myself doing. I try to be brutally realistic about his faults--there aren't many times (if any) that I have ever defended his actions as being "right." With Neville I've complimented him and defended him as a good person; I just don't like him.

The Harry girl - I don't know if it's the same I always see around, but mine couldn't even admit Harry was wrong to resent Ron for being chosen as a Prefect.

Yes, that's the type of thing that drives me crazy because even if the person isn't purposefully trying to drive you crazy it's just impossible to have a conversation. This person, the little I've seen, had long explanations for many things that often involved him/her making up things not in canon, yet s/he argued them as if they were known facts. And if somebody argued too much then not only was s/he Harry, they became Draco and got accused of being a bully. Sadly, it was the Harry person that *sounded* the most like Draco with the name calling and the blaming everybody else for everything.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Muahahaha. I was reading this and going 'wow, seriously, Sister M is the coolest person EVAIR,' and then you mentioned me and I did a happy bounce because I was in the cool crowd.
ahem. Dreadful dork that I am.
I don't think we do like the characters we admire. I think liking generally comes first, and then admiration. Because if they're fully, totally admirable to start with, then there are very few... chinks to get the affections to twine around. And then once affections are duly twined, one wishes to build up admirable structure around both affection and the loved one.
it is the imperfect who needs love.
Like, okay, for example, because we love him, take Will. Had I simply read Greenwitch, I would probably have been annoyed by him. (although I might just have liked him because the Famous Three did not.) He's lofty and mysterious and always right. Whereas in TDIR he's spazzing and panicky and taken off balance, as well as being an Old One. We see his journey, and being with him at the start of the journey made me love him.
I may not, of course, be making any sense, but that is not new.
I also admire Neville more than Draco, but I want him to exchange to Beauxbatons. Now. Or possibly, sooner than now. And I'd agree with you that he's been consistently the same (and duuuuull) for all the books, but I was slightly surprised (and very upset) at the added screen time, and the PotentialSaviourofThemAll!Cakes of it all.
Still, one may count one's lucky stars for consistency of character of any sort, TM Ginny. I mean - wah! The sudden tower of perfection even made the small (tiny tiny) inconsistencies in her annoying. Because, like, I've always thought her Tom Riddle experience might help her connect with Harry. Shy mentions. Victims. Anger or fear. Something like that. (damn it, I *shipped* Harry/Ginny, I *wrote* it, before OotP! why do they have to do this to me?)
But her 'oh I was possessed by Voldemort TOO' was just another ITEM on the LIST of why Ginny is the PERFECT GIRL. She plays QUIDDITCH as a SEEKER, Harry. (*grumble* perfectly good seekers on the other damn teams if that's your thing, Harry) She is part of the WEASLEY family, NAY, the COOLEST part of the family, COOLER than Fred and George and UP TO THEIR TRICKS, the MINX. From Neville's RELUCTANT DATE she has become a FLIRTY, SASSY LITTLE SWINGER. come on, MICHAEL CORNER and DEAN, both OLDER BOYS. you know you want the WEASLEY ACTION. also she can make BAT WINGS erupt from NASTY BULLY'S FACES. (And, like. Excuse me? I for one, given the canonical evidence that Draco does not like to hurt the girls, think that was overkill.)
I don't know why I had that rant, since I was just agreeing with you, but... yes. Ginny Mary Sue Weasley annoys me horribly because she's so *very* admirable (a potential girlfriend for Harry, yes thanks, JKR, we get it.)
In conclusion, sod moral judgement. The endless pages of admirable Neville and admirable Ginny left me with an endless love for the chapter Snape's Worst Memory, and a romantic pairing that involved furious flushed nasty boys saying 'I'll have you, Potter.'

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

when I said 'inconsistencies' talking about Ginny, I meant consistencies. Yes indeed. I am studying. What?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! Oh Maya, the day I become the cool crowd is the day Geeks rule the earth.:-D

But you are totally right on this--you get that spark of liking for the character and you're just lost, probably just the way it is in real life. It's *hard* switching the character you like, too, which is probably why it's so frustrating when the author doesn't write one's favorite character in a way you enjoy.

Had I simply read Greenwitch, I would probably have been annoyed by him. (although I might just have liked him because the Famous Three did not.) He's lofty and mysterious and always right.

Hee! What a good point I'd never thought of. I read TDiR first so of course I had that perspective too. I've been re-reading the books and last night did the second chapter of Greenwitch and I'm just loving how Will plays dumb all the time. He's got his pleasant round face and he'll go all vacant and silly and Barney can't figure out why he's such an idiot. To me it's just funny because I know he's playing dumb but I wonder if somebody who'd just read Greenwitch or who'd read OSUS and then this would feel about him. Even with the little intro that tells you he's something magical you might just see him the way the Drews do in the beginning, somebody who's getting in the way and is annoying. I, of course, just enjoy watching the Drews slowly figure out that they are totally out of the loop.

I wonder if there are people who don't like Bran at first for the same reason, particularly if they just read SotT. I mean, I never remember disliking Bran for his kingly arrogance or anything, even when he was angry at Will, because I understood why. But the Drews are sort of jealous of him as well when they first meet him.

And, like. Excuse me? I for one, given the canonical evidence that Draco does not like to hurt the girls, think that was overkill.)

I swear the one gift I felt like JKR gave me in OotP was not making me watch Ginny easily beat Draco at Quidditch as well. I totally thought she was going to do that, thus making Draco completely unnecessary and Ginny the ultimate supergirl. (Not because Draco always has to win--obviously Harry beats him--but yes, Harry needs to have a true rival at Quidditch and at school and if you keep knocking Draco around you lose that!!) And of course she zaps him with her famous bat bogey hex (she's always been the best at hexes--even though she's younger, she's JUST THAT GREAT!). It really is annoying that not only does Draco fit the pattern of somebody who just don't hit girls (nor taunt them sexually, in fact), but he's always used as the convenient punching bag for the feisty ladies when they need one. And honestly, I think Millicent and Pansy could take Hermione and Ginny given the way they're written.:-) They need to defend his honor.

And I'd agree with you that he's been consistently the same (and duuuuull) for all the books, but I was slightly surprised (and very upset) at the added screen time, and the PotentialSaviourofThemAll!Cakes of it all.

Exactly--I think this is what pushed me over into disliking him. He was fine when he was just there, but the added screentime, new powers(he sucks at charms...until he doesn't because he tries really hard and Harry is patient where every teacher is not) and chivalrous routine really got on my nerves. Especially knowing that there are so many people who will insist that Draco has bullied him throughout school because when they were 11 Draco threw leg-locking curses at him.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Can you guess what I'm gonna say? Huh, huh?
I agree, of course.

"I hate her tiresome coolness, her tough attitude, her swearing, her hexing and Quidditch skills and her boyfriends."

Word. And JKR's defensive, "Oh, she was like that all along!" Well, then maybe you should have written her that way!

Of course she's been taking the boys brooms all those years. All those years when she'd cry if they jumped out at her, or if her poetry was mocked, or if a hat fell.

Of course she's great with hexes! She's proactive. Not the girl who did nothing for a whole year while she suspected she was writing to a murderer!

Of course she's confident with blokes! That's why she couldn't speak to Harry for years! (Because, OMG, he's her TWU LUV!11 Her hair is the same colour as his mum's and they're both in Gryffindor!)

She irritated me pre OotP, as the quiet useless little mouse (god, JKR just sucks on writing female characters. Seriously.)
But SuperSassy!Ginny was even worse. She can hex anyone! (Which of course, is the mark of a heroine! Hermione Sue Authorial Insert Granger says so!) She's popular with the guys! (All a woman can ask for!) She's gutsy and determined, and a good Seeker!

I want to quote your Neville stuff, but I'd just be c&p'ing the whole paragraph.
So I'll just do a little...

"After OotP so many people expressed surprise at how Neville had developed and grown and this confused me because to me we've been hit over the head with Neville the Hero since book one."

Thank you! Neville the House Cup winner, the 'I'm worth twelve of you!' (what a lovely Gryffindor-ish sentiment), the "hidden depths". Except they're not hidden at all.

"except when he's throwing himself at Draco because he said something about crazy people, then he's just an annoying blowhard"

;)

Interesting that the Gryffindor form of moral courage is being willing to fight physically - Harry and Ron are described as being 'brave' for being willing to fight on the train, Neville is rewarded points for standing up to his friends and being willing to fight them, Neville's 'I'm worth twelve' moment is immediately followed by fighting Crabbe and Goyle, his rage in OotP at the St Mungoes comment...

And to quote frodo

"Harry, Hermione and Ron would all probably get on my nerves a lot. Harry is too angry (whether or not it's justified), Hermione is too much of a know-it-all, and Ron is too...Ron.
Lily is...I may be wrong in this, but I see school-age Lily being a bit like Hermione...which would annoy me. James is like Sirius, I would hate his guts. Peter is too whiny, and Remus is just like me, so I wouldn't like him much either. Heh.
Lupin ended up caught in the middle of a trap of his own devising, because he was too cowardly to stand up to his friends, when he could've at least tried to stop the mudslinging with Snape, and in the end it snuck up and bit him in the arse so to speak."

Wordy McWord!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Word word on everything with Ginny--the poster child for what every girl would supposedly be like if they asserted themselves. Yeah, right.

Thank you! Neville the House Cup winner, the 'I'm worth twelve of you!' (what a lovely Gryffindor-ish sentiment), the "hidden depths". Except they're not hidden at all.

Ugh, yes. And again, it's like it seems like it's such a noble moral sentiment (the overlooked boy is the best!) but of course what's more difficult is to look at the kid who's dammaged and see something in that. I can just imagine the interpretations of a scene where Neville made some comment about people rotting in Azkaban and Draco went for him. Something tells me he wouldn't be seen as heroic.

Lily is...I may be wrong in this, but I see school-age Lily being a bit like Hermione...

I do too. Lily didn't come off well to me in OotP either. I didn't hate her, but she seemed like she was just enjoying playing the part of being righteous and also playing some weird mating game with James. I could see her and James being King and Queen of the Prom or whatever and me just finding them insufferable.

[ashesinthewind.livejournal.com]

Here's Adelina (adela711) - I'm too tired and lazy to log off my recs journal.

I love you. You put so eloquently the things I've always wanted to say. To find someone endearing isn't the same thing as to admire them. Yes, in a way, Neville is admire-worthy - without parents, under-appreciated, forgetful boy with golden heart. I've never disliked him, but he's just too good and too faultless for my taste. Because even his faults - just like aforementioned forgetfulness - are described from JKR in such a way that every normal reader would say: "But he's so sweet and good! We can forgive him that he left the passwords lying around!" I can imagine what the reaction would be, had Draco been the one to involuntarily let Sirius in the tower.

Word about Ginny. I'm feeling nauseous just by the mere thought that JKR intends putting her with Harry in the end. Just like you said - whenever she appears in the books, I want her to go away, to disappear. The girl annoys the hell out of me and I can't help it. I used to dislike her earlier, but now I've realised that her version from the first four books was a lot better. Yes, she was whiny and pathetic, but at least she was human and normal, not some super female version of her brothers.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I can imagine what the reaction would be, had Draco been the one to involuntarily let Sirius in the tower.

Presumably detention or something would be demanded, given the harsh judgment on his not paying attention in Hagrid's class!:-)


Yes, she was whiny and pathetic, but at least she was human and normal, not some super female version of her brothers.

Yeah, I didn't care about her one way or the other in the previous books. Her crush on Harry didn't bother me. Her behavior with the diary was probably typical of a lot of dreamy-girls like her. I always thought of him as a lot like an Internet stalker who played on her gullibility. But now, why on earth would she have been that gullible, even at 11? Why would this girl ever need to pour out her feelings to some stranger who told her what she wanted to hear?

And her "niceness" is kind of suspicious--here she is looking down her nose at Cho for being weepy when at least Cho didn't pour out her feelings to a ghost and get herself possessed!

The one thing about Ginny, I think, is that after her I'm sorry, nobody can really get snooty about the idea of fanon Draco ever again. If we just didn't notice Ginny was super cool until Book V, Draco could easily be witty and handsome and cultured in Book VI the exact same way.

[sleeplessmarea.livejournal.com]

You know... I've read ALL the books (some more than once). I've seen and own both movies. Rowling's a great storyteller... whenever a new book comes out I must get it the first week and then my daughter and I fight over it cause neither of us can put it down... they are all really page turners.

But... the characters... with certain exceptions, I just don't believe them. Just don't. They mind as well be Cinderella and the Wicked Witch of the West for all the real life cred they exude. They're too "slippery" as characters, but which I mean that Rowling makes them too maleable, perhaps to servce the needs of the story. Or rather, the plotting of the story. That's why after all these books we don't have characters with.. um... CHARACTER. We have card board cut outs of goodness and accomplishment, like Neville and Ginny, or of evil and darkness, like Lucius Malfoy and Prof. Umbridge. Do these characters surprise? Fascinate? Are we willing to explore their intruiging depths? Not me, cause I don't SEE any.

The people I see as exceptions (especially now that OoTP is out)? Well, my list includes:

Snape (now given some shading and a backstory that REALLY elicited empathy from me for him for the the first time). Now I really can FEEL what a friend has long said - Snape... Rotten, but not EVIL.

Mrs. Weasley (because of the intruiging mix of Earth Mother and Wizard that her personality is balanced between... also because as a mother myself I like reading about unconventional, benevolent involved mothers in literature... there are TOO many examples of such imho)

Lupin - probably mostly cause I have a thing about werewolves... and because he's such a great example of that archtype of a wild and dangerous force wrapped inside a gentle skin. Now THAT's intruiging!

And as for Houses and how they play into character and all that point stuff... well, I went to a private high school, but it was the most THROUGHLY UNCOMPETITIVE place I've ever known, so there's no help there!

Actually, I'd like to throw out a pet peeve here... which is WHY such an absense of strong or major character(s) from the Houses which are NOT Griffindor or Slytherin? Especially as I think that the Sorting Hat would have put me into Ravenclaw... why is there no one from that house among our mix of junior wizards? We eventually even got an admirable heroic character from HUFFLEPUFF, for heaven's sakes, in poor departed Cedric... but only small potatoes secondary characters from Ravenclaw thus far. I'd like to see a Ravenclaw woman appear as a competition - and a foil - for both Hermione AND Ginny and not have her cast as a nemesis... whaddaya think?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm definitely in Ravenclaw too. We supposedly got a representative in Luna, but somehow she's picked on by the people in her house and only appreciated by the Gryffindors. Which btw, makes absolutely no sense to me, because Gryffindor is a house that's kind of based on a friendly joshing around/bullying dynamic. Why would the class brains be doing that to Luna? Not that I'm saying the house based on intelligence can't have just as many immature and mean people etc., but for the entire house to be picking on her? If you place intelligence above all else why is *this house* tormenting Luna Lovegood en masse? Some people, sure. But the whole house? Why would they care? Surely there are other people in the house who are also odd and say strange things? It makes sense that she's in Ravenclaw but then she says nothing about the house in general. The other Ravenclaw girls are like standard high school girls who seem to be there to contrast with the spunky girls in Gryffindor. Luna was kind of a lame duck pet for Hermione and Ginny that made Ginny, in particular, look good because she's the one that brought her in as a stray.

They're too "slippery" as characters, but which I mean that Rowling makes them too maleable, perhaps to servce the needs of the story.

This is just something that I was hugely aware of in OotP as never before. Often what the characters need to do in canon builds a character in a consistent way, at least. But other times it's exactly what you've described, for me. It makes it very hard for me to imagine the characters having lives when they're off the page. This, I guess, is where fanfic writers come in. Many HP writers have made the characters far more fully-formed for me than canon, which is not to say I don't still respect that they were created in canon. But they often seem more like real kids in fandom things to me even just in the way they interact with each other.

[ralphspudlanyon.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I'd just like to say a general bravo to your essays. It helps that I generally agree with just about everything you say, but in any case, I appreciate the fact that you post your opinion in - what to me, at least - is a very un-opinionated manner.

I just wanted to pose a question about characterisation as opposed to characters - liking or not liking. How far should we as readers buy the characterisation an author chooses to make in an original work of fiction? I mean if an author chooses to form a character based on an amalgam of disparate characteristics - based perhaps on people with whom he has come in contact in real life - how far should we just accept that yes, that's a real character even though we may feel that no, that doesn't really make sense in terms of our understanding of how people behave? It's hard to put what I'm trying to say into words. It seems to me that in fanfic we are -or some of us are at least - pretty quick to cry bad characterisation when we feel that person A would really not do that based on what we know of his character, but how about an author or t.v screenwriter? Do we buy characterisations just because they are canon? If I wrote an original fic and had my character display both the traits of Snape and Dumbledore in one mad package, would I be pilloried for it even though my work was brilliant in every other way? I mean would this be bad characterisation and if so why? And who has the authority to say this? Does the fact that I conceived this character exempt me from this? When do we decide to label a characterisation bad? Is it when it deviates from what we can comfortably recognise in our own experience? When the character starts behaving like Dumbledore when he's been Snape-like till now, but reverts to being Snape-like for much of the remainder of the fic, except when he's behaving like Dumbledore, of course?

I like reading fanfic around Harry Potter, like reading essays around Harry Potter, but the books themselves sometimes give me a huge problem. I'm eager to see the final book in the series so that we can have a full and frank discourse without feeling that all the ideas and theories might be turned on their heads by the next big revelation. I bite my tongue a lot when it comes to this series, because though I'm in the camp who doesn't exactly 'trust' the author to take these books to the place I think they should go, I'm also aware that I don't know, so can't pontificate. I will be happy to pontificate when it's all done and dusted. I'm not optimistic, but ready to be pleasantly surprised.

In case I didn't say it before, I'm very grateful to you for these essays. I was ready to leave HP far behind when I came across your lj and breathed a huge sigh of relief when I saw that there were other people who felt as I did and articulated it so damn well. I still don't know how much longer I can stay in this fandom, but I've certainly enjoyed your essays. The ones about LOTR too.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Wow! Thanks so much! As you know, I very much agree with all the questions you're raising. I remember somewhere else someone asking how an author could be wrong about their own character and I really feel they can be. If they can't then the whole premise of fiction falls apart. I mean, yes, the characters all come out of the author's head, but s/he still has to stay coherent otherwise the characters aren't real--they couldn't be.

That's often a problem I have in HP because sometimes plot seems to dictate character instead of the other way around. When characters work well I think it's when they were created with a specific conflict and drive in mind so their actions are always consistent. But other times things really seemed skimmed over, like people give up on something that seemed important to them because it's not necessary for the plot anymore.

Then there's things like, imo, the introduction of a totally new character in OotP and telling us she's always been there in disguise-meaning Ginny. I mean, if that can happen how can I trust any character not to transform just for his new role in the plot?

With fanfic, you're right, it's funny how we can so easily point to something and say it's OOC, yet sometimes when the same thing happens in canon people act like you can't say the same thing. But I think of course you should be able to say the same thing. Authors can make mistakes or they can not explain a character adequately. They can also get a new idea about a character and want to change him/her when they shouldn't and the reader can notice. The last season of The X-Files was amazing in this way--it was like the whole thing fell apart and the only constant, for me, seemed to be the creator's relationship to his own creation. There was no emotional coherency whatsoever in the way the characters behaved.

I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't trust the author on HP too. I don't know how I'd feel if I wasn't in the fandom--maybe I'd trust her more then. But when I see how other people don't see things the way I do, and when I hear snippets of interviews with the author it just seems like this might be a series I'm not going to enjoy when all is said and done. I guess I can't say, "That's wrong!" when it's over because that will be the story, but the whole thing might end up seeming fake to me, or like the real story wasn't told.

And thanks again for the nice compliments about the stuff in here!!!