sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2004-04-29 01:23 pm
sistermagpie) wrote2004-04-29 01:23 pm
Morally centered gals
Meme
1. Go into your LJ's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Not just the passing flings, but the ones that stood the test of time.
That somehow seems oddly fitting to me...
Then I've also been thinking, for some reason, about
This actually isn't in response to anything I've seen recently, but it popped into my head that more than once I've heard Hermione referred to as this in some way, and Scully was referred to as this all the time in XF. In both cases, this confuses and disturbs me. First off, what on earth does that mean? How does one character function as the moral center? It seems like what it means is that that character acts as a check upon others, like a conscience. But still, it's a very odd term--especially when you consider that both XF and HP exist in morally murky waters. Tolkien, by contrast, has a world that is mostly good (since we're with the good guys all the time) and he had a very specific moral point to make. Frodo is the character that most clearly demonstrates this moral point by sparing Gollum's life and that leading to the destruction of the ring, but I've never heard anyone refer to Frodo as the moral center of the universe--which is good, because I don't think he is. All the characters are moral and face different moral challenges, and I'm comfortable with many of them as role models of good people.
It's not that I'm Scully and Hermione have never shown moral judgment themselves or are bad people, but when people refer to them as the moral center what they seem to be saying for both of them is that they are female, judgmental and focused on authority. I mean...they are, aren't they? Both are admitted over-achievers and teacher's pets in their respective canons. Both are reluctant to break rules, but nevertheless are primarily known for their rule breaking for their chosen man of action (Mulder and Harry). My point is not that they are so bad in terms of morals but that I see really nothing in them that makes them particularly good models of morality as opposed to others. In XF in particular I thought Mulder (flawed as he was himself) showed a much stronger example of a moral person than Scully, possibly because he faced moral temptations as such and so obviously thought about them. And also, of course, that he showed the kind of compassion I associate with the foundation of real morality (as Tolkien did). And I don't think Ron is any slouch either when it comes to this area, despite often starting out farther behind.
What Scully and Hermione mostly bring up when they're acting as a conscience are *rules.* Hermione has the school rules, Scully has the Bible and the FBI rules. Both have basic rules of good behavior or sometimes an ideology for something like SPEW. Knowledge of these rules does not always mean a great perception or compassion (Hermione's cakes for Kreacher, for instance, are correct but also misguided at the same time). There are times when both these characters are faced with a situation and show themselves to make the exact wrong moral choice. Yes, Hermione scolds the twins for their pranks, but she's being a prefect, following school rules, not to mention getting to be bossy. She *loves* doing the kind of thing she's doing in that scene-she was doing it from day 1. Her defense isn't even as morally grounded as Harry's defense of Neville in the Rememberall scene, imo. The scene with Dorian offers more of a challenge: she floats the possibility of doing something to help Dorian Montague's recovery, bringing up the accepted code of good behavior that urges help in this kind of situation, but lets it go easily enough as well, choosing house loyalty (or whatever it is) over compassion or the correct moral thing to do. (So please, enough with the idea that she's somehow more Perfected!Lupin because she scolds the twins and he doesn't interfere with James' torturing Snape).
Her spells with the DA also point up how shaky her reasoning can be: when the boys are surprised at her using DE spells as a model for the coins she neatly counters that her spells are not bad in that they don't mark a person's skin, but then later it turns out oops! Yes they do. Only the mark the skin of those who deserve it and they don't even know they're getting their skin marked. This is an interesting choice, really, because if the DA members knew betraying the group would get them permanently marked it would act as a deterrent, and Hermione could always add a second spell that would alert her to the betrayal as well. But punishing the betrayer is apparently more important than protecting the group, and would anyone have actually agreed to join the group if they knew they were agreeing to this kind of bond? Probably not, for the same reason Hermione originally cites as making her different from the DEs.
Anyway, my point isn't that Hermione or Scully are so very bad within their universes, but to me both these characters seem like very easy targets for corruption because they're so sure of themselves morally while really not having a reason to be. This, I think, gets back to the basic question of authority in morality. I have had many a long discussion with religious people who have claimed that without an authority (often called God) who tells us what is right and wrong and punishes us when we do wrong, there is no morality. This makes no sense to me, for several reasons. One, if God saying something is moral makes it so, then you're just talking about the arbitrary whims of a particular super being and not right and wrong. If it's right and wrong then God must conform to it and not the other way around if he's to be called right. Second it suggests that religious people are only holding themselves back from, say, murdering their neighbor because God says it's wrong and they fear punishment. In my experience, I've never met a religious person who felt they had to go against what they felt was right in order to be pious. On the contrary, I think most people associate religion with inspiring them to be good people and so they naturally interpret religious teachings in a way that reads to them as moral. If a person has a problem with homosexuality they'll have no problem with the idea it sends people to hell; if someone can't see anything wrong with it they're more likely to see it as an example of loving your neighbor.
So to me a morality based on rules or authority is incredibly shaky and easy to manipulate. There were times on XF where I was shocked at how callous Scully could be. More importantly there's Orison, which she puts herself in danger from a serial killer because, iirc, she argues against him being executed. Now, she doesn't argue this based on morality exactly, but on the fact that her clock radio was wonky when she woke up and plus she heard a song on the radio twice she hadn't heard in a long time. God, she thinks, is speaking to her. So in the end when she ends up killing the guy (not in self-defense but more in judgment) she's stuck with her Bible trying to figure who was responsible for what action, God or the Devil. Now, I know that in some ways one could say that asking oneself whether a particular impulse comes from God or the Devil is basically the same as asking oneself if it's right or wrong. But the problems with that system were illustrated by the episode. Scully spends far too much time wondering if everyday things should be interpreted by her in some way (because why speak plainly when its only eternal torment in question?) when she would probably have done better thinking about what she was really feeling.
So again, my point isn't that these characters are horrible people, but that it's very strange to look at them as being somehow elevated morally above other characters, even when they represent the author's views (after all, do we consider CC or JKR the moral center of our universe?). It's especially strange to mistake what these two characters are in terms of being teacher's pets (even without any teacher present, they are), with advanced moral understanding when often the opposite is true. (We should also not mistake something like courage or protectiveness for ones friends for advanced moral understanding.) A reliance on rules or punishment/reward is often a sign of a lack of moral development--most kids start off being rewarded and punished but the goal is to make them understand right and wrong. Wanting to follow school rules is not necessarily a sign of being a good person, anymore than writing long essays and doing well on scored tests is necessarily a sign of being an intellectual. For me both Scully and Hermione often demonstrate these differences, which is not a bad thing, unless you mistake it for something it's not.
Oh, and speaking of morality, I see Virginia has decided to opt out of it entirely.
1. Go into your LJ's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Not just the passing flings, but the ones that stood the test of time.
That somehow seems oddly fitting to me...
Then I've also been thinking, for some reason, about
This actually isn't in response to anything I've seen recently, but it popped into my head that more than once I've heard Hermione referred to as this in some way, and Scully was referred to as this all the time in XF. In both cases, this confuses and disturbs me. First off, what on earth does that mean? How does one character function as the moral center? It seems like what it means is that that character acts as a check upon others, like a conscience. But still, it's a very odd term--especially when you consider that both XF and HP exist in morally murky waters. Tolkien, by contrast, has a world that is mostly good (since we're with the good guys all the time) and he had a very specific moral point to make. Frodo is the character that most clearly demonstrates this moral point by sparing Gollum's life and that leading to the destruction of the ring, but I've never heard anyone refer to Frodo as the moral center of the universe--which is good, because I don't think he is. All the characters are moral and face different moral challenges, and I'm comfortable with many of them as role models of good people.
It's not that I'm Scully and Hermione have never shown moral judgment themselves or are bad people, but when people refer to them as the moral center what they seem to be saying for both of them is that they are female, judgmental and focused on authority. I mean...they are, aren't they? Both are admitted over-achievers and teacher's pets in their respective canons. Both are reluctant to break rules, but nevertheless are primarily known for their rule breaking for their chosen man of action (Mulder and Harry). My point is not that they are so bad in terms of morals but that I see really nothing in them that makes them particularly good models of morality as opposed to others. In XF in particular I thought Mulder (flawed as he was himself) showed a much stronger example of a moral person than Scully, possibly because he faced moral temptations as such and so obviously thought about them. And also, of course, that he showed the kind of compassion I associate with the foundation of real morality (as Tolkien did). And I don't think Ron is any slouch either when it comes to this area, despite often starting out farther behind.
What Scully and Hermione mostly bring up when they're acting as a conscience are *rules.* Hermione has the school rules, Scully has the Bible and the FBI rules. Both have basic rules of good behavior or sometimes an ideology for something like SPEW. Knowledge of these rules does not always mean a great perception or compassion (Hermione's cakes for Kreacher, for instance, are correct but also misguided at the same time). There are times when both these characters are faced with a situation and show themselves to make the exact wrong moral choice. Yes, Hermione scolds the twins for their pranks, but she's being a prefect, following school rules, not to mention getting to be bossy. She *loves* doing the kind of thing she's doing in that scene-she was doing it from day 1. Her defense isn't even as morally grounded as Harry's defense of Neville in the Rememberall scene, imo. The scene with Dorian offers more of a challenge: she floats the possibility of doing something to help Dorian Montague's recovery, bringing up the accepted code of good behavior that urges help in this kind of situation, but lets it go easily enough as well, choosing house loyalty (or whatever it is) over compassion or the correct moral thing to do. (So please, enough with the idea that she's somehow more Perfected!Lupin because she scolds the twins and he doesn't interfere with James' torturing Snape).
Her spells with the DA also point up how shaky her reasoning can be: when the boys are surprised at her using DE spells as a model for the coins she neatly counters that her spells are not bad in that they don't mark a person's skin, but then later it turns out oops! Yes they do. Only the mark the skin of those who deserve it and they don't even know they're getting their skin marked. This is an interesting choice, really, because if the DA members knew betraying the group would get them permanently marked it would act as a deterrent, and Hermione could always add a second spell that would alert her to the betrayal as well. But punishing the betrayer is apparently more important than protecting the group, and would anyone have actually agreed to join the group if they knew they were agreeing to this kind of bond? Probably not, for the same reason Hermione originally cites as making her different from the DEs.
Anyway, my point isn't that Hermione or Scully are so very bad within their universes, but to me both these characters seem like very easy targets for corruption because they're so sure of themselves morally while really not having a reason to be. This, I think, gets back to the basic question of authority in morality. I have had many a long discussion with religious people who have claimed that without an authority (often called God) who tells us what is right and wrong and punishes us when we do wrong, there is no morality. This makes no sense to me, for several reasons. One, if God saying something is moral makes it so, then you're just talking about the arbitrary whims of a particular super being and not right and wrong. If it's right and wrong then God must conform to it and not the other way around if he's to be called right. Second it suggests that religious people are only holding themselves back from, say, murdering their neighbor because God says it's wrong and they fear punishment. In my experience, I've never met a religious person who felt they had to go against what they felt was right in order to be pious. On the contrary, I think most people associate religion with inspiring them to be good people and so they naturally interpret religious teachings in a way that reads to them as moral. If a person has a problem with homosexuality they'll have no problem with the idea it sends people to hell; if someone can't see anything wrong with it they're more likely to see it as an example of loving your neighbor.
So to me a morality based on rules or authority is incredibly shaky and easy to manipulate. There were times on XF where I was shocked at how callous Scully could be. More importantly there's Orison, which she puts herself in danger from a serial killer because, iirc, she argues against him being executed. Now, she doesn't argue this based on morality exactly, but on the fact that her clock radio was wonky when she woke up and plus she heard a song on the radio twice she hadn't heard in a long time. God, she thinks, is speaking to her. So in the end when she ends up killing the guy (not in self-defense but more in judgment) she's stuck with her Bible trying to figure who was responsible for what action, God or the Devil. Now, I know that in some ways one could say that asking oneself whether a particular impulse comes from God or the Devil is basically the same as asking oneself if it's right or wrong. But the problems with that system were illustrated by the episode. Scully spends far too much time wondering if everyday things should be interpreted by her in some way (because why speak plainly when its only eternal torment in question?) when she would probably have done better thinking about what she was really feeling.
So again, my point isn't that these characters are horrible people, but that it's very strange to look at them as being somehow elevated morally above other characters, even when they represent the author's views (after all, do we consider CC or JKR the moral center of our universe?). It's especially strange to mistake what these two characters are in terms of being teacher's pets (even without any teacher present, they are), with advanced moral understanding when often the opposite is true. (We should also not mistake something like courage or protectiveness for ones friends for advanced moral understanding.) A reliance on rules or punishment/reward is often a sign of a lack of moral development--most kids start off being rewarded and punished but the goal is to make them understand right and wrong. Wanting to follow school rules is not necessarily a sign of being a good person, anymore than writing long essays and doing well on scored tests is necessarily a sign of being an intellectual. For me both Scully and Hermione often demonstrate these differences, which is not a bad thing, unless you mistake it for something it's not.
Oh, and speaking of morality, I see Virginia has decided to opt out of it entirely.
no subject
I think many times females are associated with being more "moral" than men because they are more finely attuned to group stability and overal social harmony.
On a side note, anyone who references a Judeo Christian God as a moral authority should go and actually read the Old Testament. More often than not, God doesn't actually prohibit something until after its been done, eg. it wasn't against any rules to commit murder until Cain killed Abel. Only after the fact did God see is was bad.
no subject
I think many times females are associated with being more "moral" than men because they are more finely attuned to group stability and overal social harmony.
Ah--that's very interesting. I had never thought about it from that angle at all before!
On a side note, anyone who references a Judeo Christian God as a moral authority should go and actually read the Old Testament. More often than not, God doesn't actually prohibit something until after its been done, eg. it wasn't against any rules to commit murder until Cain killed Abel. Only after the fact did God see is was bad.
Interesting! I mean, there's just so much in the Bible that gets crazy if you try to use it as a literal rulebook, particularly when it comes to God's behavior in different circumstances.
no subject
I am a HP fan, but not in that fandom (if that makes any sense), so I will not comment on Hermione other than to say that I find her no or less more moral than the other main characters. They all face choices and make the best decisions that they can, and they all want to do the right thing. I don't think Hermione is bestowed with any special moral understanding or wisdom that sets her apart.
I have heard this said about Scully before, and have always found it curious. I think what fans are trying to express is that Scully is a center of proper human behavior for Mulder to check himself against. Mulder admittably has a shaky grasp of what is acceptable behavior in society, but I think he's quite clear on what's right and what's wrong. In fact, his overwhelming sense to do what is right quite often leads him on destructive rampages that hew down all who blunder into his path. (I'm thinking of the hapless FBI agent in Talitha Cumi who gets offed by the Bounty Hunter, only to have Mulder say that those are the risks we take for the cause. Too bad Mr. Dead FBI Agent didn't know that.)
Scully, on the other hand, has the reverse problem: her adherence of rules and proper conduct sometimes stand in the way of her making the right choice. She gets better at this as the years go on, and when it comes down to it, I think Scully generally makes the right choices. (And here I'm thinking of her going to jail for contempt of Congress in Terma because she won't give Mulder up.)
But overall, I would not say that either one of them has the upper hand in morality -- they are good people, doing their best, but they are flawed, as we all are.
no subject
Oh, it makes a lot of sense! :-)
And yes again on the balances that Scully and Mulder give each other. I've always been drawn to pairs that balance each other and seem to form a sort of completed system. Scully and Mulder are one--Frodo and Sam are obviously another. I wonder if it's the fact that they are male and female that leads people to want to play down the balance and make Scully more of a simple touchstone for Mulder who needs none herself, while also making Mulder always active instead of being able to just inspire someone. What I love about Frodo and Sam is the way the two of them represent both sides that are needed for real compassion: Frodo is sacrificing everything for everyone. His goal is destroying the ring, because everything is lost if that isn't done. He obviously sacrifices himself, Sam's life is risked as well. But then there's Sam who is focused completely on this one person, holding Frodo's welfare above the entire world when he makes his choice.
So between the two of them you have this wonderful lesson for compassion. Frodo provides the needs of the man angle, but is kept from becoming too cold by Sam's love of the one. And Sam devotes himself to this one person but is kept from becoming just soft and indulgent by Frodo's focus on the ring.
It's strange, but in my experience the moment either character (Scully, Mulder,Frodo or Sam) starts becoming dangerous is when people decide they are the most moral, the one whose way is the only way.
no subject
Isn't this when everyone starts being dangerous? It starts as the path to what is right and becomes the path to self-righteousness and ends in hate.
no subject
no subject
Sooooo my point. Based on past encounters with the phrase "moral center" I've gathered that it is most frequently applied to women, and is not expressive of the woman's morality or actions, but of the morality and actions of those around her as inspired by her.
I'll try to use one of your examples to illustrate, because like I said, I haven't captured in my memory the actual examples I ran across before. Scully may not be more moral than others, but Mulder at some point got to where he allowed her to check and balance him, to sway his actions and opinions. Not because of her intelligence or morality, but because of her skepticsm (naivete to him) and her eventual victimhood. She became, in effect, his Madonna, someone he had to protect and sacrifice himself for, the only person whose welfare he would take into account when taking action or dealing with the conspiracy (i.e. he'd have been more reckless et al without her around). She is the moral center not because of who or what she is, but because of how Mulder acts because of her/focuses on her when arranging his own morality.
The fact that it has nothing to do with the kind of person Scully is would stem from the fact that she is a woman, and women are historically held to be somehow more pure - or, at least, are expected to be, or, more to the point, are put on that pedestal through idealization. It doesn't have to be a woman; if there are no women around, or no women who are not obscenely amoral, a man will do, so long as he is a victim, or oppressed in some way. To be a moral center, the character has to inspire heroism.
I can see also how Hermione would fit that. Of Harry's closest friends, Hermione is 1) Muggle-born, therefore a Mudblood, therefore of the particular group targeted by Voldemort and other racist wizards; 2) a victim, in Chamber of Secrets, and the attack on her affects Harry more strongly than the others; 3) the one of Harry's friends who, in context of his youth and unsettled morality, *seems* most moral, what with her focus on rules and her *seeming* iron grip on Right and Wrong (whatever it looks like to us, to Harry it looks like she has a better understanding of good and right than he does). So she could be Harry's moral center, the person (female, natch) in his life against whom he judges his own morality and the morality of his actions. Could be. Theoretically. But only, imho, because she fits the superficial bill; I can't recall anything particularly standing out to me that would make me think Harry reacts as if Hermione is the moral center.
At any rate, I dislike that term, because I dislike the context in which I've encountered it. I'm offended by the thought that women can be turned into idealizations, can be plugged into a false role as examples of Good and Right regardless of who and what they are, their worth thereby determined not by their own merits but by the men they inspire. Pfui. ;P
no subject
And that really helps me, the description you've given about the women inspiring the men to behave better-that does seem to be what it is. DD himself said Scully was Mulder's "human credential," though that quote was, imo, often misused by fans. What disturbs me I think is when people do try to push these characters as being more moral when they really are more symbolic, as if they embody morality rather than practice it as a man would. With Scully, as you say, she became a Madonna figure. Many female fans maybe identified with her and liked the idea of themselves as a Madonna, and many men maybe liked relating to her that way as well, but in the end it's the same old sexism. Somehow Scully wasn't just a person confronting her own issues.
I guess it's also sort of interesting to turn it around and say if Scully provides this kind of check for Mulder by being a person he considers when he acts, then what does Mulder provide for Scully? Perhaps Scully and Hermione both yearn for a figure who seems to embody something himself...I seem to remember sometimes getting into trouble for trying to get into that, because some people really didn't like the idea that Scully was getting anything out of her relationship with Mulder. To me this made her a more dynamic character that was his equal, to others I think it took her down off that pedestal where they wanted her to stay.
no subject
Now, see, that's exactly as I see both of them. Scully got a *lot* from her connection with Mulder - he inspired her to question everything she thought she knew, to encounter spirituality more aggressively, to think outside the bounds of science and casual religion...god, consider how much she grew and changed from the beginning of the series to the end. She wasn't even the same person. That's why to me it's such a crock to try to pidgeon-hole her as anyone's moral center, because it implies a one-way street which is so emphatically not the case. She was Mulder's Madonna; but Mulder was her Schroedinger's Cat.
But yes, I saw that too, that desire to idealize her. I saw it in the writing in the show itself, which was part of the reason I sort of lost interest in one of the later seasons (and because of that completely missed the last couple of seasons). She was left on the pedestal; her complexity was washed out by what she was supposed to be for Mulder.
I think Hermione also is pulled to Harry for what he could be for her. I think to her Harry gives her an opportunity to both break rules (go against the strictures drummed into her by her upbringing/society/whatever the source) and get away with it; and also someone to validate her. If she's the best friend of The Boy Who Lived, then she must be on the right track - she's automatically one of the good guys; there's her best example for why she's always right; and Harry needs someone who knows all the spells and all the answers and who better to provide that than the smartest girl in all Hogwarts? So, yes, I do think a good argument could be made to support the idea that Hermione gets something from her relationship with Harry...
no subject
no subject
There were times on XF where I was shocked at how callous Scully could be.
Absolutely, and Orison was the episode that killed any interest I had in Scully as a character. Actually, I lie. The Beginning, in which she refused to support the experiences she and Mulder had had, out of what I can only perceive as cowardice, did it. And yes, I know it was due to crappy continuity on CC's part, but the scary thing is by that point it was in character for her to act that way.
In my world, morality isn't a blind adherence to rules. Rules are necessary for children yes, because they need that guidance. Rules are necessary to help society run smoothly on a basic level (e.g. traffic rules are there for a reason), and punishment is sometimes necessary to enforce those rules, or some of us would run roughshod over our neighbours.
But when it comes to morality, we should be using our self-awareness, coupled with an understanding of and empathy with others to determine our conduct. If you don't see yourself as part of the greater whole, how can you have the compassion to treat others well? If you don't acknowledge that those around you are living, breathing human beings, how can you respect them? Mulder was always written as the empath - the character who felt too much sometimes, while Scully was the rationalist. Yet far too often on XF, Scully treated others as separate, and far removed from her own personal sphere. As time went on, she closed in on herself, became judgemental, and even seemed to lose her curiosity and joy of learning that were so prevalent in the first few years. For someone who prided herself as a scientist, she seemed to spend precious little time actually exploring the world around her - because she'd already judged it and found it wanting.
I'm at a real loss to understand people who still loved and admired Scully at the end. One could argue that events had changed her, and god knows she was entitled to be cynical and suffer from post-traumatic stress, but she'd also appointed herself judge, jury and executioner far too often for my liking. And far too often she played the religion card - that she had faith and Mulder didn't, and somehow that gave her an edge in the morality sweepstakes.
Mulder certainly underwent more than his fair share of suffering and torture, and there were times when he dropped the ball when it came to putting himself in others' shoes, but on the whole he retained the ability to feel compassion for others - so much so that when he didn't, we were shocked. No one seemed to question it when Scully did it, because she had reasons. Like he didn't. *rolls eyes*
One message that was constantly pushed home on XF was that Mulder didn't have the right to judge, or think solely in terms of black and white. He often did, but was called on it by his family, peers, bosses, enemies and friends. And why? Because sometimes he was only seeing part of the picture. Scully, on the other hand, had blinders that grew progressively bigger, and no one dared point that out except Mulder, and look how he ended up. She remained sacrosanct to the end, the pure Madonna figure (hell, even the birth of her son was awash in religious imagery), who had a special relationship with god that her atheist partner couldn't hope to understand.
Over time, Mulder grew. Scully shrank. He continued to question authority - recognizing the fact that those in power didn't always act in the best interests of others. Scully continued to toe the party line, because that was safer than actually thinking for herself. And somewhere along the way, she lost that self. You can't be a moral centre if you don't recognize and understand what's around you. Mulder, for all his so-called isolation, was still very much part of his world. Scully had retreated to that lonely mountaintop.
For me, the bottom line is - if I was in trouble and needed help - and compassion - who would I most trust to do it without sentencing me first? Mulder every time. Because he understood all the frailties of being human.
no subject
I guess maybe that's doubly interested given Scully's later development. She became such a perpetual victim who didn't deserve what she'd suffered (unlike a lot of other people who probably did!) and became so focused on the supposed life that had been stolen from her when nobody has a life guaranteed for them. That was what was especially annoying about all the baby focus. I mean, Scully hadn't lived her life in any way that would have led to her having a baby even if she hadn't been abducted, but regardless lots of people who would have liked to have children end up not having them without somebody having to explain why. She just became nonsensical with everything she wanted.
It was just very strange how everything became about her--I remember realizing that the main thing you needed to do to get Scully to believe you at the end was not offer her proof but tell her she was special, that *she* was the one who understood things, who had faith. It was just like the way a lot of her more extreme fans saw the show--Mulder was there only to keep Scully in his shadow and true answer to the show was that she was better than everyone. It's just such a sad change from the original character, turning her into a petty egotist who's mostly worried about whether she's getting enough attention and recognition, always assuming that Mulder's getting more. (This also applied to abilities, as I recall--I remember once asking why it was that people were always calling for Scully to get an "intuitive leap" the way Mulder did while of course one would never suggest Mulder should do an autopsy. Scully's intelligence was assumed to be earned while Mulder's was just something that was gifted to him by luck.)
And none of these things should be bad for a character--as you said, it was good when Mulder was called on seeing things only through his own viewpoint etc. But since Scully was never called on it it became very hard to relate to her unless, I suppose, you identified with her and wanted her perfect in that Mary Sue way. I remember once arguing with a Scullyist (who of course called herself a Bothist, even there being unable to distinguish what Scully wants and What the world should want) about how she seemed to have this scorecard for Mulder that he was constantly being judged against, so he was always failing to provide whatever it was he was supposed to be providing for Scully personally and I just didn't get that. And yet I got the feeling this was the way the show began to view him too, especially GA. Sadly (or happily, for me) once Mulder was finally out of the way we saw how the character had been too destroyed to carry the show and Doggett had to step in. Of course Scully had always been intended as a foil so it would always have been necessary to adjust her to be a lead, but by then there was just nothing there. And it's really sad because the character as originally conceived was really great.
no subject
Heh. Well put.
As for moral center -- I like the way you work out the implications of the term, though I don't know enough about the X-files or HP to be able to speak to your examples. But the term is tricky because it's usually deployed as a form of disparagement in disguise; the moral center of a narrative is distinctly a second prize compared to, say, the center of readers' attention. If there's a moral center that implies there's also a moral periphery, and that's the space inhabited by the interesting characters, the exciting ones, the ones who are curious and who break and test the rules. The moral periphery is where people have adventures, and when you're out to have adventures it's awfully convenient to have your moral center located elsewhere, where she can do little more than give wholesome advice.
Perhaps this accounts for why women are so often characterized as moral centers, but female characters aren't the only ones subjected to this insidious form of marginalization. As it happens the last time I saw the term used, it was being applied to Jim in Huckleberry Finn. He's the moral center, Huck is the exciting periphery. It's true that Huck learns from Jim, but when Twain is all done with the morally challenging bits of the story and trying to end the damn book somehow, a narrative logic that makes moral centers disposable takes over, and all of a sudden it's okay to subject Jim to a series of baroquely silly adventures dreamed up by Tom Sawyer.
Don't get me wrong; I love the book, but some parts of it are troubling, including this attribution of moral excellence to a character who for various reasons isn't thought of as quite a moral agent in the same way that the young white hero is. If you can't vote, you can be a moral center (boatloads of sentimental novels written in the same period pull this same trick on female characters; Hermione and Scully seem to be the descendents of these heroines).
Erm, sorry if that got OT; the concept fascinates me, but I can only dream about knowing HP in enough detail to respond to this post as it deserves.
no subject
The moral periphery is where people have adventures, and when you're out to have adventures it's awfully convenient to have your moral center located elsewhere, where she can do little more than give wholesome advice.
LOL! Yes, that's exactly what I think of whenever I hear the term. It's like those stories where the troll hides his soul in an egg or something-he can't be killed as long as it's way off hidden in the egg somewhere.
no subject
Oh, I just completely disagree with this on so many levels... what does moral center mean anyway? That there's only one right way to act? That's so absolutist I get depressed just typing it. I am AMAZED people think this about XFiles because I just wrote an entry last week about how I liked that it was a text based on multiple voices - here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/malafede/72849.html#cutid3).
(I admit I read this post very quickly so true to form I could come back and add more later but I just can't get over this moral center mentality.)
And also, of course, that he showed the kind of compassion I associate with the foundation of real morality
Yes! The lack of compassion not just some HP characters show but the fandom as well is very peculiar to me.
no subject
Ooh! Shall read that, thanks for the link! But yes, exactly--the idea that there is only one way to act, particularly in universes as murky as XF or HP is just ridiculous. Almost any severe code is going to eventually turn on you. And really, who could possibly like a character who was just always right? It's like insulting to the character who's supposed to be the moral center and all the characters who aren't at the same time.
Yes! The lack of compassion not just some HP characters show but the fandom as well is very peculiar to me.
Doesn't it? I guess it's part of that judgmental swing from one end to the other: this character's good! This character's bad! They just are what they are.