![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have a new guilty pleasure: North Shore. It's in The O.C.'s timeslot so thank goodness the silly soapy rich/poor slot is filled. But last night I figured out I actually really
One thing that always interests me in shows it people doing their jobs well and working on their career. Like on ER, apparently there are people who care whether certain couples get together or have children. I much prefer watching them jockeying for position in the hospital, picking specialties, being ambitious. North Shore takes place at a resort in Hawaii, so some people are management and some are lower level--the lifeguard, the waitress, the bartender. There's only one woman on the show who's the typical bimbo: Nicole, who is played by somebody who used to be on Baywatch. She acts like you expect from women on these shows, by spending most episodes wondering if she's with the right guy or trying to keep her worlds from colliding. See, she's a hotel heiress herself, the daughter of a big hotel rival, and she used to go out with Jason, the General Manager here. Now she's got this fiancé who works for her dad. She's probably being used by said dad and said fiancé to take over this hotel, but of course she's too stupid to admit it because she thinks all anybody cares about is her "proving herself."
Meanwhile, the other girls just do their stuff. M.J., the local girl, deals with being a waitress. Then there's Tessa, the ex-con-artist who's just become the concierge. Tessa obviously feels she should have Nicole's job and she's right, because Tessa cares about what goes on at the hotel and cleverly avoids crises with customers. And this week she tricked her ex-partner-in-crime so that she not only didn't lose her job but got a lot of cash as well. And she did it with the help of a girlfriend who was just as clever and efficient! Meanwhile the show added another character, a secretary who was more capable than her ad agency boss who also won herself a job. Look at all these women being focused on their jobs as if that’s just normal instead of the sign she’s some kind of harpie!
It's weird to say this but, this is like one of the most pleasantly feminist shows I've ever seen. Because the women aren’t kicking butt or putting the men down they're just like actual employees first and romantic interests second. I guess that's why it's so nice seeing how none of them really like Nicole because she sticks out like a sore thumb. It's like if a character from a nighttime soap really came to work at your place of business and you wondered why all they did was lounge around and look pretty and fret while you were serving drinks, booking rooms and keeping after the caterers. But then, this is also a show where every time the lifeguard drops by the bar he's reminded to get his butt back into his chair before he gets fired--it's the first TV show in history where everyone isn't constantly on a break!
And besides that, of course, it's silly and trashy. I don't think it's meaning to make any sort of a statement, it's just like they figured out that careers can make for good storylines even if you're a girl!
Also, there was an interesting comment on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
malafede's "evil" thread.
Kate says: "I'm a little disturbed by the show of people claiming their moral superiority over Rowling--based entirely on her incomplete series of books and a few interviews where she names favorite characters....Calling JKR immoral and declaring oneself morally superior is a little...strange. I don't know if you're doing this, it's just what I've seen crawling about lately. Gives me the willies and encourages one to keep a long stick between myself and certain sections of fandom, anyways."
Things seem to hit the fandom in waves and this comment seemed interesting, coming as it did right after I'd been reading this this thread on demonizing the good guys in HP and agreeing with the bad guys. Now, the problem with the second thread is there's no actual posts for reference, so it's hard to know exactly what kind of defense of DEs the author is referring to, but still both threads seem to be about morals in general, and pointing to a general questioning of the morals of HP as laid out in the series. Of course the series has started to do this too, graying the good guys, etc. Plus, given that the bad guys not only stayed static in OotP but, frankly, seemed kind of laughable in the DoM (in the words of Mike Nelson, "It just seems like Lillian Gish could take this gang”) it's probably not surprising that readers have started filling in for themselves, trying to figure out what the "other" pov is.
What struck me about the first comment, though, was the side issue of declaring oneself morally superior, which is a good point. I mean, declaring myself, as a person, morally superior to anyone would be like suggesting moral superiority is a state of being. It would be like me saying that I had a better singing voice than someone else. It would mean when we sang, no matter what the song, my voice would be judged better, objectively. But morality doesn't work that way--I could do the right thing today and the wrong thing tomorrow, or act immorally in some situations and not others. The question here, though, I think, concerns the system of right and wrong that seem to be dramatized in the HP books, which are as yet incomplete. Because they are incomplete nobody can really say yet what the ultimate point is, but of course after 5 books certain things start to be suggested. All of those things could be overturned in the last two books, making that the point (and as everybody probably knows, that's what I hope happens).
Even if we can't make a judgment on the whole series yet, and so certainly can't make a judgment on its author, we probably can look at the way things seem to work in the series now and fashion some idea of the what’s right and wrong according to the story. To that I guess one might be tempted to add some of the author's words if she seems to be guiding us as to how we're supposed to react to certain things--it's not canon but it might predict what canon will be, or what the author thinks of canon. Or one could take something like the author saying she thinks courage is the highest virtue as a key to unlocking the value system of the story. Something like that.
So what struck me as interesting is...where do you draw the line between declaring yourself morally superior to another person and thus becoming smug and self-righteous and arrogant and just saying what you think is right and wrong? I mean, to me it seems like one of the biggest flaws in the good characters is that they often do seem to assume themselves morally superior. If that makes me nervous about the characters I wouldn't want to do it myself. But that wouldn't stop me from disagreeing with something if I thought it was wrong. For instance, I'm happy to say that a moral system with courage (whether or not this exists in the books) as its primary value is, imo, not a very sound moral system. Part of engaging with a story is to respond to what the story seems to be "saying" underneath it all, and some stories are more openly didactic than others (HP being one of them, whatever the author might say, it's unavoidable).
I feel moral relativism often gets a bad rap. It seems always taken to mean one has no morals, that it's all subjective and my views on right and wrong are no better or worse than the next guy's. But I always thought it was really just supposed to be an acknowledgement that it was *possible* for two people to honestly have different views on right and wrong, that there was a grey area depending on what values a system was based on. But two moral relativists could still believe their views are right as much as a moral absolutist does. If there's an advantage to moral relativism (as I've always understood it, which is how I'm using the term here) it's that you might be more likely to communicate and come to an understanding because you don't believe the other person secretly agrees you're right and is just arguing out of spite.
So, I dunno, I think there probably is a reason this series brings up discussions of morality and values. Part of it is probably the nature of the story, but I think maybe it's also a potentially huge difference of opinion between the author and therefore the story and wide sections of the audience. I know there's plenty of emotional knee-jerking going on as well, but I guess recent discussions have made me wonder just how okay it would be is some of us finished the series feeling uncomfortable? Would it be okay to feel, even if you were too polite to say it, that an author was putting across views you thought were wrong? Or maybe more accurately, would it be okay to wind up feeling like a particular author's head was not someplace you'd want to be, or that maybe you'd prefer someone with a different mindset for a friend? Because in my experience people's feelings about characters and plot developments often do reflect something of themselves as a person, I mean beyond just caring for one character and not another.
I guess I just find this whole aspect of fandom interesting. I get the feeling that different segments of fandom probably do gravitate to that place because they value similar things. My little corner seems to discuss compassion quite a bit. I can't put a finger on just what the DE fans center around, but I've yet to meet someone very interested in the DEs who was a DE in moral terms. I think the Snape fandom probably has some very well thought out ideas about right and wrong. As do MWPP and Trio fans, I'd bet (and breaking it down further, fans of Harry, Hermione or Ron).
Damn, now I'd really like to ask them what they are but it will probably be buried in my ramblings. Grrr. Well, if anyone has read this far and would like to respond, I'd love to know: If you're in a particular segment of the fandom, what values do you feel draw you together, perhaps using your favorite character as a symbol?
Finally (I swear I had no idea this would be so long),
One thing that always interests me in shows it people doing their jobs well and working on their career. Like on ER, apparently there are people who care whether certain couples get together or have children. I much prefer watching them jockeying for position in the hospital, picking specialties, being ambitious. North Shore takes place at a resort in Hawaii, so some people are management and some are lower level--the lifeguard, the waitress, the bartender. There's only one woman on the show who's the typical bimbo: Nicole, who is played by somebody who used to be on Baywatch. She acts like you expect from women on these shows, by spending most episodes wondering if she's with the right guy or trying to keep her worlds from colliding. See, she's a hotel heiress herself, the daughter of a big hotel rival, and she used to go out with Jason, the General Manager here. Now she's got this fiancé who works for her dad. She's probably being used by said dad and said fiancé to take over this hotel, but of course she's too stupid to admit it because she thinks all anybody cares about is her "proving herself."
Meanwhile, the other girls just do their stuff. M.J., the local girl, deals with being a waitress. Then there's Tessa, the ex-con-artist who's just become the concierge. Tessa obviously feels she should have Nicole's job and she's right, because Tessa cares about what goes on at the hotel and cleverly avoids crises with customers. And this week she tricked her ex-partner-in-crime so that she not only didn't lose her job but got a lot of cash as well. And she did it with the help of a girlfriend who was just as clever and efficient! Meanwhile the show added another character, a secretary who was more capable than her ad agency boss who also won herself a job. Look at all these women being focused on their jobs as if that’s just normal instead of the sign she’s some kind of harpie!
It's weird to say this but, this is like one of the most pleasantly feminist shows I've ever seen. Because the women aren’t kicking butt or putting the men down they're just like actual employees first and romantic interests second. I guess that's why it's so nice seeing how none of them really like Nicole because she sticks out like a sore thumb. It's like if a character from a nighttime soap really came to work at your place of business and you wondered why all they did was lounge around and look pretty and fret while you were serving drinks, booking rooms and keeping after the caterers. But then, this is also a show where every time the lifeguard drops by the bar he's reminded to get his butt back into his chair before he gets fired--it's the first TV show in history where everyone isn't constantly on a break!
And besides that, of course, it's silly and trashy. I don't think it's meaning to make any sort of a statement, it's just like they figured out that careers can make for good storylines even if you're a girl!
Also, there was an interesting comment on
malafede's "evil" thread. Kate says: "I'm a little disturbed by the show of people claiming their moral superiority over Rowling--based entirely on her incomplete series of books and a few interviews where she names favorite characters....Calling JKR immoral and declaring oneself morally superior is a little...strange. I don't know if you're doing this, it's just what I've seen crawling about lately. Gives me the willies and encourages one to keep a long stick between myself and certain sections of fandom, anyways."
Things seem to hit the fandom in waves and this comment seemed interesting, coming as it did right after I'd been reading this this thread on demonizing the good guys in HP and agreeing with the bad guys. Now, the problem with the second thread is there's no actual posts for reference, so it's hard to know exactly what kind of defense of DEs the author is referring to, but still both threads seem to be about morals in general, and pointing to a general questioning of the morals of HP as laid out in the series. Of course the series has started to do this too, graying the good guys, etc. Plus, given that the bad guys not only stayed static in OotP but, frankly, seemed kind of laughable in the DoM (in the words of Mike Nelson, "It just seems like Lillian Gish could take this gang”) it's probably not surprising that readers have started filling in for themselves, trying to figure out what the "other" pov is.
What struck me about the first comment, though, was the side issue of declaring oneself morally superior, which is a good point. I mean, declaring myself, as a person, morally superior to anyone would be like suggesting moral superiority is a state of being. It would be like me saying that I had a better singing voice than someone else. It would mean when we sang, no matter what the song, my voice would be judged better, objectively. But morality doesn't work that way--I could do the right thing today and the wrong thing tomorrow, or act immorally in some situations and not others. The question here, though, I think, concerns the system of right and wrong that seem to be dramatized in the HP books, which are as yet incomplete. Because they are incomplete nobody can really say yet what the ultimate point is, but of course after 5 books certain things start to be suggested. All of those things could be overturned in the last two books, making that the point (and as everybody probably knows, that's what I hope happens).
Even if we can't make a judgment on the whole series yet, and so certainly can't make a judgment on its author, we probably can look at the way things seem to work in the series now and fashion some idea of the what’s right and wrong according to the story. To that I guess one might be tempted to add some of the author's words if she seems to be guiding us as to how we're supposed to react to certain things--it's not canon but it might predict what canon will be, or what the author thinks of canon. Or one could take something like the author saying she thinks courage is the highest virtue as a key to unlocking the value system of the story. Something like that.
So what struck me as interesting is...where do you draw the line between declaring yourself morally superior to another person and thus becoming smug and self-righteous and arrogant and just saying what you think is right and wrong? I mean, to me it seems like one of the biggest flaws in the good characters is that they often do seem to assume themselves morally superior. If that makes me nervous about the characters I wouldn't want to do it myself. But that wouldn't stop me from disagreeing with something if I thought it was wrong. For instance, I'm happy to say that a moral system with courage (whether or not this exists in the books) as its primary value is, imo, not a very sound moral system. Part of engaging with a story is to respond to what the story seems to be "saying" underneath it all, and some stories are more openly didactic than others (HP being one of them, whatever the author might say, it's unavoidable).
I feel moral relativism often gets a bad rap. It seems always taken to mean one has no morals, that it's all subjective and my views on right and wrong are no better or worse than the next guy's. But I always thought it was really just supposed to be an acknowledgement that it was *possible* for two people to honestly have different views on right and wrong, that there was a grey area depending on what values a system was based on. But two moral relativists could still believe their views are right as much as a moral absolutist does. If there's an advantage to moral relativism (as I've always understood it, which is how I'm using the term here) it's that you might be more likely to communicate and come to an understanding because you don't believe the other person secretly agrees you're right and is just arguing out of spite.
So, I dunno, I think there probably is a reason this series brings up discussions of morality and values. Part of it is probably the nature of the story, but I think maybe it's also a potentially huge difference of opinion between the author and therefore the story and wide sections of the audience. I know there's plenty of emotional knee-jerking going on as well, but I guess recent discussions have made me wonder just how okay it would be is some of us finished the series feeling uncomfortable? Would it be okay to feel, even if you were too polite to say it, that an author was putting across views you thought were wrong? Or maybe more accurately, would it be okay to wind up feeling like a particular author's head was not someplace you'd want to be, or that maybe you'd prefer someone with a different mindset for a friend? Because in my experience people's feelings about characters and plot developments often do reflect something of themselves as a person, I mean beyond just caring for one character and not another.
I guess I just find this whole aspect of fandom interesting. I get the feeling that different segments of fandom probably do gravitate to that place because they value similar things. My little corner seems to discuss compassion quite a bit. I can't put a finger on just what the DE fans center around, but I've yet to meet someone very interested in the DEs who was a DE in moral terms. I think the Snape fandom probably has some very well thought out ideas about right and wrong. As do MWPP and Trio fans, I'd bet (and breaking it down further, fans of Harry, Hermione or Ron).
Damn, now I'd really like to ask them what they are but it will probably be buried in my ramblings. Grrr. Well, if anyone has read this far and would like to respond, I'd love to know: If you're in a particular segment of the fandom, what values do you feel draw you together, perhaps using your favorite character as a symbol?
Finally (I swear I had no idea this would be so long),
 | My sphere is Soldier (Unity in Strength and Action), and my class is Rogue (Precise and Unhindered). I am a Dark Artist. If you were in the Republican Convention during Nixon's term of office, you would have been the one they sent to spy on and infiltrate Democratic Headquarters at Watergate. This isn't to say that you're a man of black operations or ill repute, but more to say that you have the efficiency and swift approach to carry out these tenuous, sometimes questionable, goals when most of your comrades might balk. |
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Oh no!!!!
What values draws me, using my favourite characters as a symbol?
Well, it's a bit complicated because I have five: Trio, Draco and Snape. I think they're all very well written of course; they feel real (even though exagerrated). With Draco and Snape there's another part of it as well which makes me like them so much; the fact that I can relate them to others.
Take Snape for example. I can have a tendency to hold grugdes in certain situations. Snape is like a terrifying example of what could happen to me, if I never let go of them. He becomes a tragic character; though I see him as a warning, he's still so real as such (I even had a teacher who reminds me strongly of him), and I can't help feel fondness of him as well, not only reject him as someone I could have been, but embrace him as someone who I could have been. Does that make sense or is it just a load of sappy crap?
AS for Draco, I think there's similar mechanics at work. There are plenty of reasons for why I like him, of course, (many of which I'm sure I've talked about, repeatedly :D), but to be perfectly honest, Draco has always, on a instinct level, because of certain aspects of his personality, reminded me very much of an early class-mate of mine. Let's say my feelings for this guy, when we were in the same class, were... intense. The first three years, I was in love with him, than the fourth, he started to bully me to impress his friends, and my feelings switched 180 degrees, to say the least. I painted him as a monster in my head, like Draco is Harry's measure-ment of what he doesn't want to be, this guy was mine, and yeah, I definitely took on the "morally-superior" attitude when it came to him. Of course, I reconciled with him way before the HP-books were even published (we sort of made a truce in sixth grade ;-)), but, I don't know how to explain it, but the wounds from when he hurt me were still there. Anyway, reading the HP-books, and finding Draco (who in my head actually resembles this guy quite a bit even physically), I'm sort of seeing him with "objective" eyes. And it's so clear that he's just a boy, who is a jerk, but in a way any kid can turn into one, and I just had to love him. Because it was like the fictional character Draco, could help me to once and for all reconcile with this guy (and anyone I had met after, who reminded me of him). I mean, I can see that Draco is not a monster, that he clearly has his own problems and battles, and since he reminds me of this guy, I'm forced to consider how this guy must have had it too.
Plus, when Draco does things that reminds me of him, like the badges, faked fainting, embarrassing trio in front of school, I just have to laugh, because I'm reminded of events that horrified me at the time, but looking back on them with perspective, it all just seem so silly! (And this goes for Snape and the teacher as well, btw.)
So yes, when it comes to Snape and Draco, compassion, forgiveness, letting go, moving on and grow, instead of wallowing in self-pity and grudges, seem like the characterising values. But when it comes to the trio? Well, as I said, I identify with them, not because I think they're always right (no more than I think Draco and Snape are), but because they're flawed and they make mistakes I can relate to. When it comes to Hermione, I like her arrogance. I like arrogant characters period, but especially female ones (points at icon). It's because they don't apologise for themselves, they take what's theirs without fussing around, never ask persmission to do what they want, or to do it well, or heck, to exist. As someone who spent a lot of her childhood and youth apologising left and right, I find that refreshing. Uh, I didn't really answer your question there, did I?
From:
Re: Oh no!!!!
Especially because I just love your story about your Draco--he reminds me of several boys I went to school with as well, actually, and some mean boys I just met in my life. I never thought about them much before, but maybe this really is my way of thinking about them more seriously. That's exactly the type of thing I was thinking about, though. Like, it's not that I think this character is right where other characters are wrong (maybe there are isolated incidents where I agree with him over another character, but it's not like I think he's fundamentally "right" in ways others are "wrong"). It's more just that I think this character is worthy of being liked and after "defending" him in places what that is has become more clear to me. And it's really nice that other people who like the character seem to come to the same conclusion.
And I would hope there's things like that going on all over fandom. Like some people hate Sirius. If they are trashing him to somebody who really likes him they can waste a response by trying to claim Sirius is just perfect and never did anything wrong that was his fault, which is lame. Or they could really consider it seriously and say why this character deserves respect--and I suspect other Sirius fans would probably agree and say yeah, this is what's at the heart of this character. And they'd enjoy discussing whatever this was and how important this was in the scheme of things, if that makes sense. It's like the same thing with Snape--not only is he about forgiveness and letting go in a cautionary way he shows how hard it can *be* to do that.
From:
no subject
I would dislike Draco's 'values' if I thought he consciously had any of his own, and I would admit to disliking Slytherin 'values' but that doesn't stop me from being interested in almost all Slytherins and writing them sympathetically without trying to apologize for them. If anything the apologizing implies some sort of pity or moral superiority that offends me even though I myself dislike 'the Slytherin Way'.
I'm a person with few conscious 'rules' as far as morality-- I don't have a system. I go by instinct & intuition. I believe in compassion over justice, I suppose, but in the end I don't care what moral system a set of books have unless it's personally limiting some character 'cause they're consciously censoring themselves according to some clearly laid-out series of rules. That pisses me off, but then I wouldn't read.
I suppose I empathize with Harry because even if he's influenced by others, in the end he goes by his gut-- he makes up his own responses and sticks to them. Whether he's right or wrong isn't as important to me as the fact that he listens to himself without consciously limiting himself in his reactions. He makes judgements of whatever sort, but his reactions remain fresh. Harry's in flux, and he's not a 'system'-- which is why I like the approach. I dislike any particular moral system, period.
I dislike mean people, too, but I like them as characters, so it doesn't matter. I don't like projecting my own preferences onto a book if I can help it. I don't want to self-insert, y'know-- I want to pretend I'm the pov character, most times, and adopt their world-view while I read. I discard my own biases while I read if it's at all possible-- and if it's not, I tend to dislike the work.
There are, in fact, people who seem to waaaay over-identify with the Slytherins/Death Eaters and hate on the Gryffindors. I wouldn't say -they- are fit to be either, of course, but they have this persecution complex, it seems. It's... frustrating to me, but then they're not in my 'circle' anyway.
Mer. I don't think I'm in a particular segment of fandom. I like a lot of peole, cross-clique, and disagree or agree depending on their particular argument at the time :>
I disagree with a lot of my 'H/D segment', for instance, but... sometimes I don't. I love that whole 'power of love' romanticism idealistic nonsense, but I don't know if there's a 'segment' large enough to point to that'd share those 'values' (values?)
I mean, you'd think I'd 'fit in' with the Harry-lovers, but I doubt I do-- since I have no particular attachment to 'woobiness' (well, I think he's woobie but that's my insane amount of affection talking). I actually dislike the value-set that says Harry's adorable and sweet and loving and brave-- or whatever-- just as I really dislike the value-set that says he's a selfish bastard who should stop whining or whatever, in the more Slytherin-friendly part of fandom. I dislike the value-set that says Draco's just a whiny brat with a daddy complex just as I dislike the value-set that says Draco's a misunderstood boy with great potential who's also rather hot.
Meh. I fit nowhere. Ahahaha I'm relativism incarnate! Not.
From:
no subject
So, like, to use the DE example, it would make sense if there were a group of people who were drawn to the DEs because of something that seems like a persecution complex. Like, especially with those kinds of characters (and even Draco) there's not much to recommend the character himself, necessarily. So it's more like, "Yeah, I hate the way the WW is all about this because I hate this kind of opression/annoyance in real life. Let's write about the DEs or talk about them from this angle because of it. You know what I mean? So it's not something you'd be consciously aware of--there would be some people who would eventually talk themselves into being aware of it by really thinking about things. But for most people it's probably not something they could express but it would still be something they all agreed on, you know?
Like, in order to really focus on Snape I'd think you'd have to feel there was something interesting about his story in canon, so you'd probably feel it represented something that interested you. Like with me with Draco a lot of what I feel like I do all the time is that I don't really identify with the Slytherins or identify with him, it's just more like, "Ooh, it bothers me when I feel like this is happening I wow, it turns out when I talk about this character I talk about that too."
From:
no subject
My unifying draw to H/D (that Ivy & Aja often touched on) is Draco's chance for redemption through love, and forgiveness of the Other, and how against all odds, against all impossibilities, your world could change. To me, this fanon-realized (though canon-based) relationship is ultimately more important than anything in canon. I've always been obsessed with the impossible-- passion overcoming any constraint of circumstance. The transfigurative quality of need & desire. The way things can -fit together- against all odds.
I'm a romantic :>
So yeah, when I talk about Harry & Draco, I talk about how I think about love~:)
From:
no subject
Lol, tell me about it; I've been in fandom for over a year and a half, yet still can't quite grasp the whole concept of it. Everyone has their own little clique, and I guess it's harder for me personally because I value similar things from a lot of different corners of the fandom. For example, I'm a huge Trio and a Weasley, and to some very small extent even a Dumbledore fan (very small extent ^^*); so I sometimes spend time on the Sugarquill; and most people there seem to value the same things that JKR does when it comes to some of the characters and their portrayal in the story...unfortunately, that also includes the Malfoy=evil-git-who-desrves-to-die (though I still can't bring myself to believe JKR truly wants this) view in large numbers, and this is where I get SO uncomfortable, because I absolutely can't accept that at all. Then there is this corner of the fanon, where I love watching yours and Malafede's posts on Draco and Pansy and Slytherin in general (seriously, it's given me a completely new perspective over the past couple of months), and I enjoy that too. Then there's the conflict over the Marauders, and the side that thinks they were Teh Eeevvviill, and the side that thinks they were really just kids, and I tend to get torn between the two because I find both viewpoints to be utterly, completely true. Ack, I haven't even ventured into the Snape region of the fandom yet -_-* (though that's mostly because I have yet to find it).
If you're in a particular segment of the fandom, what values do you feel draw you together, perhaps using your favorite character as a symbol?
So this is where it gets really complicated, because the things I value seem to conflict a lot (both with myself and with the different regions of fandom). See, like I said I'm a huge Trio fan; I guess a slightly more accurate statement would be a Harry fan. But I don't necessarily think that means, well in my personal experience anyway, having different ideas about right and wrong, and such. I mean, I feel that in a moral perspective, it was wrong for Harry to pull a wand on Draco and fire in GoF, that it was wrong for him to gain pleasure from the bouncing ferret experience and it was wrong of him to gloat over Malfoy's fury for his father being gone, and believe me I could continue like this forever. I think it was just about the wrongest thing in the world for Hermione to somewhat manipulate the other members of DA into joining the club, without even warning them of the consequence of "betraying" it. It was wrong of all three of them to not care about Montague's situation. On the other hand, I think it's right to "stick-up" for and protect the people you care about. I even think it's okay to love people so blindly that it becomes a fault, and you refuse to acknowledge their flaws. I don't think it's healthy, exactly, but I guess I don't label it as "wrong". And I suppose this comes down to what I value about the Trio/Weasleys/etc.: that it is sheer emotion of what I think is love that seems to drive all of their actions, whether to right and (in very many cases) wrong. I have gotten the vibe that JKR feels that it will be the emotion of love that will be Harry's ultimate weapon, and I suppose I value that to some extent. It makes me wonder if I could do such a thing if placed in such a situation.
From:
no subject
Did I answer the question? I guess what I'm trying to say (because I think that if I could, I might like being a part of many segments of fandom; only this place is so BIG ><) is that I basically value the same thing, only I enjoy observing the different ways it's played out. So I think that to me, the HP series is less about my personal morals than it is about what I value.(Because I try hard to ignore the things I don't quite see as right that appear in the books).
On a completely unrelated note; I friended you, is it okay?
From:
no subject
I mean really, I suspect that within every group of fans for any part of the story or character there are different types within that. I love Ron, though I'm not at all familiar with the Ron part of the fandom. I suspect if I was I might disagree with the way they saw a lot of things. And I love Harry too, I think I've just never even sought out his fandom because I figure it should all be that.
But I think it's just like you say, you're drawn to characters for different reasons but it's almost like within this fandom because there's so many different factions etc. you wind up not just liking your character but seeing how that effects other characters, or seeing how fans of other characters view your character. Then that, for me, almost becomes part of canon. As I've said in the past if I wasn't in fandom and didn't see the SQ-type Malfoy-hate or hear interviews dissected it would probably never occur to me to think Draco wasn't there to ultimately help Harry learn about the difficult side of compassion. But being in the fandom I not only have to articulate why I think that's important but I find other people who feel the same way and also see the character that way.
The only time it gets annoying is when people take this to mean whatever character you like must be defended at all costs-that's just tedious. So you get MWPP people who have to make Snape the total bad guy who deserved the prank, and then Snape people who have to assume Snape was driven to any bad thing he ever did by the relentless torment of others. Or people who hate any member of the Trio in a way where they basically want them out of it completely and feel s/he is harming the others. I guess that in its own way is saying something about values.
But I guess the sort of thing I'm thinking about is the kind of thing you realize you really like about a character in the face of people hating him *without* whitewashing them completely. Like for me if somebody says Draco's obnoxious I can't pretend he isn't, so I have to think well yeah, he is, but why do I think he's valuable anyway? It's similar with Snape or Ron or whoever. It just interests me that when I do try to look at the character objectively what I find I like about him is the same as other people who have made the same analysis.
From:
no subject
I'm so sorry about the spamming! I just wanted to clarify this as a typo: *all should be some, because not every single one of the "good guys'" actions are done out of love for their friends.
From:
no subject
Oh boy. I am the anti-ambitious and actually competition in a working context creeps me, I think any kind of competition barren maybe athletic one - more like the mindframe of competition and ambition creep me, or maybe scare me, because either I don't understand it either I see the drive in myself and I repress it either because I mentally associate it to power-hunger or ladder climbing and hieracies and aaargh. I think we should chat!
Look at all these women being focused on their jobs as if that’s just normal instead of the sign she’s some kind of harpie!
Though this slant applied to female characters is hopeful, in which it lets you see fiction is starting to paint women as people, not just focusing on their anima or female identity. And you know, in the "people" cathegory also fall bimbos - and it reassures me that a character like this exists in this universe because it seems it's not the kind of feminism that really means "I fight for worthy female" but a feminism that wants to promote all of our group. Also, as you probably already know, I am irresistibly attracted by archetypes people find repulsive (bimbos for female viewers being one) possibly because in our time they have become a kind of othered monster, and I am the one with the hard-on for monsters and the compulsive need to fight against their oppression!
It's like if a character from a nighttime soap really came to work at your place of business and you wondered why all they did was lounge around and look pretty and fret while you were serving drinks, booking rooms and keeping after the caterers.
Now I am all interested to watch this show for its commentary on pop-culture! Because you know, this could actually be the writers doing meta on these kinds of characters in other shows, parody or what you have, stated subversion. Although I don't know how Nicole's story will go, I have a Japanese mangaka that I cherish (Ai Yazawa) who's always inserting the so called "bimbos" to prove the stereotype wrong and willingly blind to the character's complexity (as all stereotypes are). If you read manga I'd suggest "Nana".
And besides that, of course, it's silly and trashy. I don't think it's meaning to make any sort of a statement, it's just like they figured out that careers can make for good storylines even if you're a girl!
Ahaha, I love silly and trashy and CAMP especially (hello, I watch BTVS) and I enjoy it tremendously because intentional camp takes genious and it's often a commentary on other fiction and it's always fantastic to see some genres that tend to get painfully over-the-top having the piss taken off them. Also, when trash isn't intentional, you can always laugh at the writers. I think, btw, that intention to make a statement doesn't matter in term of this statement being done, I mean: fiction is a story with a commentary from above (authors) which means slant, and any slant sort of it's a statement. Stuff that becomes popular end up making heavier or maybe just more permanent statements because of the influx on the collective. I tend to think we're always making statements anyway, all of us, with everything we do or say, because everybody has a philosophy, even the ones who don't know.
From:
no subject
I think it's relativism applied to yourself: I understand moral relativism is about understanding that different cultural platforms produce different values and because of that no action is really right or wrong unless you take context into consideration. But my personal reflection starting from the acknowledgment of cultural differences (=influxes =conventions =authority derived morals) would free judgment of doctrine and simply make it about the individual: you decide what's right and wrong, not your culture. And so on personal level, moral relativism means the acknowledgment that the judgment of the individuals debating would naturally be different, because the individuals are different themselves. This of course doesn't imply total chaos as debate is about confrontation of arguments to back up opposing stances, and one truth can emerge in the end - or the truth argued by each individual is true for him (although truth is something that, for me, is always - almost pathologically - changing). But difference is valued in a dialectic system like this: difference, not the superior/inferior dichotomy. Valuing difference, I think, avoids the smugness and self-righteousness and arrogance by default.
For instance, I'm happy to say that a moral system with courage (whether or not this exists in the books) as its primary value is, imo, not a very sound moral system.
You know those Hufflepuffs? I really hope they get more attention in the last two books (although that's kinda like hoping that Harry's perspective is going to be questioned as a plot point). Among the four House-archetypes they are the ones I associate to compassion and yeah, this is biased and emotional, but I ship Hufflepuff/Slytherins in symbolic terms. You know I see the Slyths as the ones maybe not deserving but needing compassion more. They're marginalised and demonised - and well, the "good guys" (I am actually allergic to that term though!) already get plenty of love and understanding by the supporting cast, the 90% of the readership, and the author! Ahaha, slant is beautiful.
Part of it is probably the nature of the story, but I think maybe it's also a potentially huge difference of opinion between the author and therefore the story and wide sections of the audience.
You know I think in the specific case of JKR is because her authorial voice is very strong ad that does give texts a didactic imprint, but generally, when an universe is created, it's a new reality that's created, and not only reality invites judgment (two thousands years of thought on ethics!) but fictional ones are designed specifically for us to read and judge, so I think the process of reading and the process of elaborating what one reads in syntesis with their own morals is kinda unavoidable.
Would it be okay to feel, even if you were too polite to say it, that an author was putting across views you thought were wrong?
You know, this kinda struck me as a very paradoxical question, because for me it's a truism that of a reader can (I mean, it's morally right) disagree with an author. I know I am breaking some corollary of Godwin's law here, but it's not the opposite stance kinda integralist? It just makes me realise how deeply-ingrained some fandom conventions are. Readers are critics by nature, anyway. Or it's just me? Because even universes I love and have become icons for me I question and criticise. I mean, is perfection possible? Is total agreement possible? I guess that's the stuff of ideologies.
If you're in a particular segment of the fandom, what values do you feel draw you together, perhaps using your favorite character as a symbol?
I don't have to answer, do I? Oh well, because I like the sound of it: Draco, monsters, compassion. Subversion? "Compassion" encompasses all of it pretty well.
From:
no subject
Ah! Yes, that's what I hope is true. I mean, I am interested in understanding exactly how someone else is coming to the conclusions they've come to. Sometimes, of course, a person's stated reasoning isn't the real thing. I think that when it comes to the characters in the HP verse every single one of them is guilty of this because they haven't really thought through why they think what they do, they just know what sounds good. It's unfortunate when you get fans doing the same thing.
Among the four House-archetypes they are the ones I associate to compassion and yeah, this is biased and emotional, but I ship Hufflepuff/Slytherins in symbolic terms.
LOL! And I ship Ravenclaw/Slytherin! I've always gotten the feeling the two were a little closer in the author's head, just as she seemed to vaguely link Gryff/Huff--and when Marietta turned out to be the bad guy in OotP I felt vindicated.:-) Not so much because I associate Ravenclaws with compassion--I always more hoped they were too logical to go with knee-jerk hatred and I thought they might question the myth of the evil Slytherin. But I also don't see how Hufflepuffs couldn't question that too from their own angle. I mean, in Draco's first scene (Draco being the Typical Slytherin) he says he'd leave if he was put in Hufflepuff but wouldn't mind Ravenclaw, which is where I got the idea that these two houses might not hate each other quite so much. BUT at the same time, Draco's saying that is probably more reason than it's Hufflepuff he should come to appreciate and vice versa, because they're the ones he wants to see as so different.
You know I think in the specific case of JKR is because her authorial voice is very strong ad that does give texts a didactic imprint, but generally, when an universe is created, it's a new reality that's created, and not only reality invites judgment (two thousands years of thought on ethics!) but fictional ones are designed specifically for us to read and judge, so I think the process of reading and the process of elaborating what one reads in syntesis with their own morals is kinda unavoidable.
Yeah--I mean, how does one tell a story without putting that into it? And a book like this is, imo, even more obvious about it given the way the villains and heroes are presented. It's ilke...there's no doubt that Dudley is supposed to be a bad guy beginning with book one, but why is he bad, exactly? It seems obvious--he beats up on Harry--but what does that mean, exactly, in a wider sense? Why aren't the twins bad because they hurt people?
Because even universes I love and have become icons for me I question and criticise. I mean, is perfection possible?
Yeah, I'm the same way. Though I guess in a fandom you usually do expect that most people are basically in agreement with the basic ideas of the author. X-Files, I felt, really betrayed itself ultimately but it became such a mess it was probably hard to get too insightful about how. Like CC seemed to be saying nothing at the end, so there was nothing to disagree with vehemently the way there had been stuff to agree with before.
I don't have to answer, do I? Oh well, because I like the sound of it: Draco, monsters, compassion. Subversion? "Compassion" encompasses all of it pretty well.
Of course I love your answer so I just like to hear it.:-)
From:
no subject
LOL! We should! I don't like backstabbing and things like that--that sort of thing, to me, is just like the romantic stuff in the workplace. But I genuinely like watching people building their careers, handling challenges well, deciding on their next position, things like that. So it's not about being in competition with each other but advancing themselves. On this show, for instance, this concierge girl's ex-boyfriend was trying to blackmail her and ruin her chances at this career, but she played everything so that she kept her job, told her boss about her past, and got the guy to stop coming after her (for now). Or on something like ER I get into storylines where a character is worried about their job not going the way they like or trying to figure out how they can make it better. So I like feeling like people have been successful at their job, including the politics of their job. Whereas for me the character who is hyper-competitive with others is the opposite of that. They just waste their time making enemies or grab the spot at the top of the ladder. I like the climbing of the ladder part better.
That's the way I am at my own job too. Like, I'm happy if I do something well or get recognition for something, but I'm not in competition with other people.
Also, as you probably already know, I am irresistibly attracted by archetypes people find repulsive (bimbos for female viewers being one) possibly because in our time they have become a kind of othered monster, and I am the one with the hard-on for monsters and the compulsive need to fight against their oppression!
Oh definitely. Actually, if we're talking archetypes the "bimbo" character is the concierge girl. The other one is supposed to be the romantic object or the goddess or something like that. And it's true you need her in the mix as well, but it's just nice that the other girls aren't seen as being less than she is, which seems to often happen. When the women don't get along it's not because of jealousy it's because of actual personality clashes. And it's not that they don't all get along either-there's some specific friction in some places but they're not all cat-fighting.
Now I am all interested to watch this show for its commentary on pop-culture!
I think the way the story's is now is that Tessa, the concierge girl, is more interesting because she's the trashy bimbo. But really both of them are supposed to ultimately be ambitious--it's just Tessa is starting with less respect and advantages. Nicole's storyline, I think, is that she comes from a sheltered world so she's got an innocence Nicole doesn't have. But what's interesting is, like I said above, I think it will work out to be two very different people clashing rather than the good girl (Nicole) and the bad girl (Tessa). Like, you can see why Tessa wouldn't like Nicole and it's got more to do with who Tessa is than just, "Ooh, I'm jealous because you're the princess!"
I tend to think we're always making statements anyway, all of us, with everything we do or say, because everybody has a philosophy, even the ones who don't know.
ITA. I think part of what I'm liking about this show is I'm surprised at how pleasant I find the headspace it exists in, or something like that. Like there are times when the show makes an obvious statement about right and wrong, but I don't usually find myself rolling my eyes at it. That in itself is kind of surprising!
From:
no subject
I really don't know what values my segment of a fandom (usually small, as I often like characters for relatively unusual reasons even when they are popular), but I know what I value the most- truth, honesty, and at *least* an attempt to be impartial. I don't get a kick from feeling 'morally superior', but I'm very bitchy about who gets to stand on the moral highground. Like if a character is set out by the author to represent what's right/good/moral in her story, they tend not to be able to pass my scrutiny.. *cough*Dumbledore/Arthur Weasley/Hermione Granger*cough*
But since most of the stories that I like do not focus on morality, I seldom feel the need to chase 'characters' off their undeserved moral highground (I do this with real people much more often). So back to the elements I value.. I think Snape would be a good symbol to use and I vaguely remember talking about him in similar context before. I like characters who might or might not be naturally 'good', to do good things because they choose to, not because they feel or have been taught that that is the right thing to do. Because I believe being able to rise above one's nature and upbringing and hold onto your own belief, the coolest thing human beings can do.
But that, of course requires a lot of independent thinking, which some of my favorite characters do not show an interest/ability in doing.. Draco being one obvious example. However, even though Draco does not seem the type who strives to be impartial, at least he is honest! As for why I was never drawn to other very honest villains in the Potterverse, such as Voldemort, Lucius and Bellatrix.. that's really another rant :D
From:
no subject
But yes, I totally agree on Snape. I think that's part of what I respect and find fascinating about him too, that he may be an example of someone rationally choosing to do the right thing because it's practical. To me, this always seemed obvious about morality in general. I mean, so many people describe morality as something that's so hard for people, like it's all about curbing all your natural desires and not doing what you want. But to me it's much more logical--it's not *that* hard to keep from stealing money since I know that if everyone went around stealing we'd all be miserable. It's not hard to put myself in the other person's place and say I wouldn't want someone stealing from me, etc.
That tends to be where I am with Snape--or even Regulus, possibly. That this was someone who may have come to the understanding that what Voldemort proposes is stupid and will get him killed. That doesn't make his change of heart completely self-serving, imo. Some people, I think, don't think much of that kind of thinking. Like, if there's an element of self-preservation in it it's not truly being good. I don't agree, and that's maybe why I like that character. I respect "feeling" something is wrong too, it just doesn't interest me as much, usually. He seems like a character who's been forced to be more self-aware. This is the opposite of Draco, of course, but the fact that Draco likes Snape makes me feel like there's such great potential there for Draco to come to the same conclusions, perhaps earlier in life than Snape did. It's probably far too much to hope that losing Lucius would make Draco less emotional, but I have hope it will make him turn more to Snape for a role model.
From:
no subject
What struck me about the first comment, though, was the side issue of declaring oneself morally superior, which is a good point.
I've heard people claim that their sense of morality is much, much different from JKR's, which is fair enough. Everyone's bringing their own temperament and experience to these arguments. Some people argue that Snape is mostly a petty-minded sadist, while I'm so used to Snape-like people that Snape just make me laugh, although I understand why people’s opinions will vary on this point.
The problem with bringing up so many controversial topics, and providing such a one-sided view of them, as JKR as done, is that everyone who reads these books is going to be touched in one area that they consider to be their particular area of expertise. It might be racial or class prejudice, slavery, bullying, whatever; but I think it's impossible to read these books without at least one button being pressed. If it's bullying, for example, and the reader has spent years thinking and dealing with the subject, s/he might not be thrilled about the way JKR has dealt with it, and may reasonably think that s/he might have a better understanding of the nature of this particular problem than JKR. JKR can't know everything. In this case of extensive knowledge and experience I don't think it’s unreasonable for someone to claim moral superiority (subject to a lot of caveats) in a very specific, limited area. My hot button is memory disorders: this is my academic specialty and I've spent years thinking about memory problems and their implications, far longer than most people have, including JKR, and in far more depth. So I loathe memory charms, and I truly think anyone who finds them funny has a hole in the head. This is a very arrogant moral position to take, but I can back it up with experience and research superior to JKR's. One the other hand, although I may expel a lot of foul hot air on this subject, I’m not going to set the Dementors on anyone because of it, a la Umbridge.
So what struck me as interesting is...where do you draw the line between declaring yourself morally superior to another person and thus becoming smug and self-righteous and arrogant and just saying what you think is right and wrong?
Probably in the eye of the beholder. When people back their positions with arguments taken from personal experience they will feel personally rejected when someone disagrees with them. At the same time, on the internet it's very easy to forget how little we know about the people we are disagreeing with. People can't dump their whole life experience on the net everytime they make a post about a character.
I mean, to me it seems like one of the biggest flaws in the good characters is that they often do seem to assume themselves morally superior.
That's it. It’s not so much that they say they are morally superior – everyone does now and then about some things – it's that they act on it. And when they appear to have authorial approval, as in the case of James the Head Boy hexing loser Snape, or Harry hexing Draco, to me it's even more unnerving.
The recent comments on various threads and LJs have made me decide that one day I’m going to start a list of useless generalizations that are occasionally made in this debate about people who take one side or another. Number one is: “Apologists for Snape or Tom Riddle or Lucius or Draco are confused by the fact that the actors who play them are hot.” Number two, which works for either side: “Unlike some people I could mention, I prefer to see the characters as three-dimensional, rather than black and white.” Because it’s always helpful to start a discussion on the assumption that your opponent is a shallow idiot. *headthunks*
From:
no subject
I should have added about this particular point only. Someone whom I think is a twit about memory charms may have good insight into some other aspect of the books.
From:
no subject
Now I'm all interested to hear about memory disorders because it sounds like a fascinating topic. And I agree--it's not always a question of having a different emotional reaction to something. Sometimes you've just thought or studied something to the point where certain things are a given so you're not just going to accept the way things are presented in the story, or the way an author feels about it. As you said, nobody can know everything about everything, and these books in particular bring up a lot of issues. Some of them are put in pretty superficially too, so it's only logical that while some readers might move on quickly to the next thing a lot of readers are going to be stuck back at the first thing saying, "Uh, wait, what??"
And when they appear to have authorial approval, as in the case of James the Head Boy hexing loser Snape, or Harry hexing Draco, to me it's even more unnerving.
Yes! I mean, it's just like life. You can't help but just react to what seems to be going on. Some people feel we can't know the author's intent and I guess that's often true--the author's intent doesn't really matter anyway. What matters is what's on the page. But in fandom I've seen plenty of people who seem to approve of some things in canon that I don't like, and we both seem to feel that their view goes along with canon when mine doesn't.
Number two, which works for either side: “Unlike some people I could mention, I prefer to see the characters as three-dimensional, rather than black and white.” Because it’s always helpful to start a discussion on the assumption that your opponent is a shallow idiot. *headthunks*
LOL! I love this! I know there are times when I've felt like an idea someone gives sounds too black and white, but there's probably very few people who actually see all the characters in a black and white way. And even if they do, declaring yourself the more sophisticated reader at the start of the discussion probably isn't going to make things go smoothly. I think the whole, "I don't see things in black and white," is probably becoming the thing everyone in fandom knows they should say, whether or not one or the other person is really being two absolute.
Some people argue that Snape is mostly a petty-minded sadist, while I'm so used to Snape-like people that Snape just make me laugh, although I understand why people’s opinions will vary on this point.
Oh yeah--and people just react differently to different types in general. I might have gotten along with a Snape-type teacher more than JKR did. I usually did get along with the snarky ones. Similarly I don't think I have the same reaction to Draco and Pansy she might have, which only matters if I feel that I'm being told that all these characters are supposed to represent what Bad People are like in the world.