sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2004-08-31 12:13 am
sistermagpie) wrote2004-08-31 12:13 am
Understanding the Hatred
There's something I see it all the time, really, about every character--in fandom, and it seems like it probably makes people crazy unnecessarily. Basically, I just see a lot where people will say they don't understand the hatred of a particular character. This surprises me because honestly, there's not a single character I can think of where I can't understand people not liking him or her--even if they are my favorite character. Not only is there just the basic idea that nobody appeals to everyone, but when people are talking about fictional characters they're often very clear about why they don't like a character.
Sometimes the explanation of why people don't like the character is included in the confusion. For instance: "I don't understand how somebody can hate Hagrid. I can understand not liking Sirius because he's an asshole, but saying Hagrid is a childish oaf and incompetent and irresponsible as a teacher? WTF? I just can't understand it."
Err...what's not to understand? The person seems to have explained it: they don't like Hagrid because they think he's a childish oaf and an incompetent and irresponsible teacher. Even if you love Hagrid, wouldn't you know what this referred to? I mean, I think Snape's the most interesting character in canon, but if somebody said, "I hate Snape! He's a pathetic bully still obsessed with high school and a horrible teacher who picks on 11-year-olds!" that might not be the way I'd describe the character if somebody asked about him but I still recognize Snape in there. Whether one describes him as "A complex character struggling with demons from the past that's defined by a significant moral choice," or the aforementioned pathetic bully depends on where the reader is coming from. They're both accurate. What you've really just said is, “I just don't understand why people don't like this person I like. I can understand not liking the characters I don't like, but how could you dislike a character I like?” Well, just take that character you don't like and transfer it to the one you do and you go it.:-)
This works in reverse too--with somebody saying, let's say, "How can anybody like Hagrid?" It's just that I think people often spend less time actually writing posts about what they like about characters that are probably the hero anyway--when people write those nowadays it's more than likely in response to negative posts. Sort of a, "Hey, remember the way canon works again?" But still it does work the same--there aren't too many characters where I can't see why people like the character either. In fact, even without reading explanations I think I get why most characters I don't like much have fans.
When a character really gets under your skin and you get frustrated every time they appear, or you just love a character to death, that's even more subjective. Nobody gets along with everyone. There are times when people mischaracterize a character and that I think you can argue against. You can argue through canon that the characters themselves don't hate your hated character or feel angered by him/her the way you are by showing their reactions. You can challenge their versions of why someone is doing something. You can show that someon's claim that a character is acting out of kindness is incorrect based on canon. I know I've certainly had people convince me to feel a different way about a character by explaining things about him/her so I understand him/her differently. But other times we're all looking at the same character and reacting differently. There's probably only so much you can do if a character embodies something that another person really doesn't like. There's a reason people hate Sirius or Ron or Draco or Harry or Hagrid or Molly and sometimes they're better at explaining exactly why that is than they are at explaining why they like a character. Of course, sometimes the explanation I hear might not be the same one the person thinks they're giving--mwahahaha!--but still. As painful as it is, I even get why people hate Frodo. Believe me, this is hard for me to do. But having heard the explanations more than once, I get why people hate both Frodo and Sam.
I've just been finding lately that it seems like whenever somebody holds up the "hater's" view of a character, even if it's a character that I myself like, and says, "This is ridiculous! Where are they getting this stuff?" I always find myself thinking it's perfectly accurate, if negative. Sometimes I don't even think it's negative, it's just an accurate description of the person that's not particularly flattering. Or maybe I think it's inaccurate but I can see where they're getting it anyway. It's like that description of the Marauders and Lily that put them in terms like, "Then there's the girl you think is really cool for standing up to them until you find out she's fucking one of them." Unflattering? Yes. Something everyone would say? No. Inaccurate? Not really. It's the way Lily would honestly come across to plenty of people. That's a perfectly reasonable description of her from what we've seen, even if it's obviously biased. Or the twins: They play practical jokes, many of which involve making someone sick or bleed. One person sees this as just funny; another person thinks it's sadistic. But what's to not understand, really, about each pov? You might not ever be able to agree with one pov or the other, but surely it's been explained. It's a joke, which is why it's funny. It's physical distress for pleasure, which is why it's sadism. It seems like to say one doesn't understand the other pov more means one just doesn't share it and doesn't want to share it, not that you don't understand it intellectually. That's often how I mean that expression when I say it, that I think it's crazy to think that way or whatever.
See, I think *all characters* (and all people) can be seen in a good light and a bad light, but it's important to remember that they are both right. Molly Weasley can be both a smothering harpy AND a brave and loving mother tiger in the same book to different people. Sirius can be a tragic figure tortured by Azkaban yet strong enough to fight his way out to protect his best friend's son AND the alcoholic jerk how never took responsibility for his own actions. Ron can be a lazy loser who whines and also a regular kid who's even better than his more special friends because of it. Harry can be insufferable and long-suffering at once. There are facts from canon, where we can figure out exactly what a character is doing and why in any scene. Then there are just the ways we as individuals react to that character and that's just subjective. How do you really argue against it? It would be like talking about any real person--if it was always so clear who we should like nobody would be voting for G.W.Bush.
It's not that I think it's pointless to post about how one feels about a character one way or the other--I like reading those posts a lot. It's good to get out the different views of the characters so one doesn't dominate. I think it's important to argue for accuracy, whether you think a character's being whitewashed or villified...well, maybe just because that drives me crazy. It's really only annoying when people insist on including an explanation of why other people disagree, usually one that reflects badly on the person. Things like: "People who like the character I don't like were bullies in school." "People who don't like the character I like don't have artistic temperaments."
I know I have always had a problem sounding like I like or dislike characters without meaning to. A lot of times, see, I just get interested in some aspect of the character and focus on that. Then somebody will say, "But what about X,Y and Z," and I'm all, "Oh yeah, I agree with that too." I just have a lot of experience being mistaken for being either a big fan of a character I don't like or somebody who hates a character I do like because of something that to me seems completely neutral. Like, I don't even think I'm offering any opinion because I'm trying to be all objective and get around my own biases.
Sometimes the explanation of why people don't like the character is included in the confusion. For instance: "I don't understand how somebody can hate Hagrid. I can understand not liking Sirius because he's an asshole, but saying Hagrid is a childish oaf and incompetent and irresponsible as a teacher? WTF? I just can't understand it."
Err...what's not to understand? The person seems to have explained it: they don't like Hagrid because they think he's a childish oaf and an incompetent and irresponsible teacher. Even if you love Hagrid, wouldn't you know what this referred to? I mean, I think Snape's the most interesting character in canon, but if somebody said, "I hate Snape! He's a pathetic bully still obsessed with high school and a horrible teacher who picks on 11-year-olds!" that might not be the way I'd describe the character if somebody asked about him but I still recognize Snape in there. Whether one describes him as "A complex character struggling with demons from the past that's defined by a significant moral choice," or the aforementioned pathetic bully depends on where the reader is coming from. They're both accurate. What you've really just said is, “I just don't understand why people don't like this person I like. I can understand not liking the characters I don't like, but how could you dislike a character I like?” Well, just take that character you don't like and transfer it to the one you do and you go it.:-)
This works in reverse too--with somebody saying, let's say, "How can anybody like Hagrid?" It's just that I think people often spend less time actually writing posts about what they like about characters that are probably the hero anyway--when people write those nowadays it's more than likely in response to negative posts. Sort of a, "Hey, remember the way canon works again?" But still it does work the same--there aren't too many characters where I can't see why people like the character either. In fact, even without reading explanations I think I get why most characters I don't like much have fans.
When a character really gets under your skin and you get frustrated every time they appear, or you just love a character to death, that's even more subjective. Nobody gets along with everyone. There are times when people mischaracterize a character and that I think you can argue against. You can argue through canon that the characters themselves don't hate your hated character or feel angered by him/her the way you are by showing their reactions. You can challenge their versions of why someone is doing something. You can show that someon's claim that a character is acting out of kindness is incorrect based on canon. I know I've certainly had people convince me to feel a different way about a character by explaining things about him/her so I understand him/her differently. But other times we're all looking at the same character and reacting differently. There's probably only so much you can do if a character embodies something that another person really doesn't like. There's a reason people hate Sirius or Ron or Draco or Harry or Hagrid or Molly and sometimes they're better at explaining exactly why that is than they are at explaining why they like a character. Of course, sometimes the explanation I hear might not be the same one the person thinks they're giving--mwahahaha!--but still. As painful as it is, I even get why people hate Frodo. Believe me, this is hard for me to do. But having heard the explanations more than once, I get why people hate both Frodo and Sam.
I've just been finding lately that it seems like whenever somebody holds up the "hater's" view of a character, even if it's a character that I myself like, and says, "This is ridiculous! Where are they getting this stuff?" I always find myself thinking it's perfectly accurate, if negative. Sometimes I don't even think it's negative, it's just an accurate description of the person that's not particularly flattering. Or maybe I think it's inaccurate but I can see where they're getting it anyway. It's like that description of the Marauders and Lily that put them in terms like, "Then there's the girl you think is really cool for standing up to them until you find out she's fucking one of them." Unflattering? Yes. Something everyone would say? No. Inaccurate? Not really. It's the way Lily would honestly come across to plenty of people. That's a perfectly reasonable description of her from what we've seen, even if it's obviously biased. Or the twins: They play practical jokes, many of which involve making someone sick or bleed. One person sees this as just funny; another person thinks it's sadistic. But what's to not understand, really, about each pov? You might not ever be able to agree with one pov or the other, but surely it's been explained. It's a joke, which is why it's funny. It's physical distress for pleasure, which is why it's sadism. It seems like to say one doesn't understand the other pov more means one just doesn't share it and doesn't want to share it, not that you don't understand it intellectually. That's often how I mean that expression when I say it, that I think it's crazy to think that way or whatever.
See, I think *all characters* (and all people) can be seen in a good light and a bad light, but it's important to remember that they are both right. Molly Weasley can be both a smothering harpy AND a brave and loving mother tiger in the same book to different people. Sirius can be a tragic figure tortured by Azkaban yet strong enough to fight his way out to protect his best friend's son AND the alcoholic jerk how never took responsibility for his own actions. Ron can be a lazy loser who whines and also a regular kid who's even better than his more special friends because of it. Harry can be insufferable and long-suffering at once. There are facts from canon, where we can figure out exactly what a character is doing and why in any scene. Then there are just the ways we as individuals react to that character and that's just subjective. How do you really argue against it? It would be like talking about any real person--if it was always so clear who we should like nobody would be voting for G.W.Bush.
It's not that I think it's pointless to post about how one feels about a character one way or the other--I like reading those posts a lot. It's good to get out the different views of the characters so one doesn't dominate. I think it's important to argue for accuracy, whether you think a character's being whitewashed or villified...well, maybe just because that drives me crazy. It's really only annoying when people insist on including an explanation of why other people disagree, usually one that reflects badly on the person. Things like: "People who like the character I don't like were bullies in school." "People who don't like the character I like don't have artistic temperaments."
I know I have always had a problem sounding like I like or dislike characters without meaning to. A lot of times, see, I just get interested in some aspect of the character and focus on that. Then somebody will say, "But what about X,Y and Z," and I'm all, "Oh yeah, I agree with that too." I just have a lot of experience being mistaken for being either a big fan of a character I don't like or somebody who hates a character I do like because of something that to me seems completely neutral. Like, I don't even think I'm offering any opinion because I'm trying to be all objective and get around my own biases.
no subject
That's always what interests me too--why do I like/hate this character so much? It's not just that they're bad or good because lots of characters are that way without really catching my interest. The Lucius thing particularly interests me because I don't have very strong feelings about him, even though some of his behavior, like the way he treats Draco in the B&B scene, is a total pet peeve of mine.
In a way, I don't really relate to a lot of the interest in him. I'm interested in his relationship with Draco which I think is incredibly unhealthy, but I am more surprised by interest in him and Harry. I just don't really feel much about their relationship in canon at all. There's no chemistry there for me.
I have a friend who is a Spike fan and I'll never forget the first time we talked about it and realized we had such similar experiences--they're different characters, but we could completely understand each other anyway.
no subject
Yes, that IS interesting. On several levels. First thing is, that who you love/hate and what reasons you have for feeling that way probably says something about you and it's interesting to ponder what exactly that might be. Second, it's interesting from a writer's (and readers!) POV as well, because you figure out what works for you with a character and what doesn't, and that in itself can probably help you along in your own writing. It's like figuring out why you love/hate a certain story -you realise what to avoid and what can help you out.
But that's very different from making sweeping and condescending generalisations about readers with opposing loves/hates.
I have a friend who is a Spike fan and I'll never forget the first time we talked about it and realized we had such similar experiences--they're different characters, but we could completely understand each other anyway
Which is not surprising at all. I was a spike-fan too in BtVS-fandom, and that's where I first got immensily tired of the words "redemption" and "redeemed". But at least, when it came to Spike, I could acknowledge that the words were accurate and suiting, no matter what interpretation you had of his character.
I belonged to the section of fans who tended to view everything supernatural, like vampirism, as symbollic of problems we face in the real world, and thus I found it a bit absurd when Spike was constantly compared to a serial killer, because I couldn't see vampires as symbols of serial killers (in that case the whole storyline with Angel -the vampire with a "soul"- would not have made sense to me), but rather as drug addicts, or other human beings with a destructive life-style. But still, I realised that other people might regard the show more literary, and in that case, yes, Spike had killed thousands of people, so at least there were serious crimes to discuss, and the word-choice "redemption" didn't seem unfit for the discussion, even though I got tired of it.
Then I moved on to HP-fandom, and imagine my complete mind-boggle when I see the exact same redemption-discussion here -complete with the argument that his fans are just shallow and stupid and in love with the actor- for Draco, a character who's worst crime is, well mocking. I think the word "redemption" has lost all meaning in online fandom, and wonder who it will be applied to next.
no subject
Clearly it's all because we're OMG IN LUV with hawt blondes!1111
Seriously, though ;)
The BTVS fandom had it's problems like most - a lot of aggressive my-way-or-the-highway people, iirc; but there didn't seem to be this slavish devotion to the authors/text as there is here. Maybe because it as aimed at teens/adults as opposed to children?
But yes, I remember arguing over and over again with people who were like: OMG Spike did such and such, he is so evil!!
I don't mind people saying another character is evil. I think it's sad, if they write everyone off so easily, but hey, they might not do it in real life!
BUT I do like logical arguments. So if Spike is evil for say, killing someone, I want to know what excuses Buffy, or Angel, or Giles, or Willow.
Likewise in HP, if Draco is evil (hard to believe you can compare a two hundred year old vampire who's killed thousands and a 15 year old boy!) because he mocks people, I want to know what excuses Harry, or Sirius, or Ron, or Snape.
Otherwise you're argument is inherently flawed, because it relies on the basest hypocrisy - the rules are different when they concern someone you like.
And sadly, these rules came up fairly often in the texts for both BTVS and HP >:(
no subject
...because heaven knows I've never seen blonds before, being from Scandinavia and all.;-)
but there didn't seem to be this slavish devotion to the authors/text as there is here. Maybe because it as aimed at teens/adults as opposed to children?
I would have guessed the difference is that BtVS is a TV show, and fans of TV shows are more used to the idea of their favourite show not being perfect, they know it can jump the shark, and that many people influence the result. In general, people have more respect for authors of published books, so that attitude probably carries over to fandom as well, even fandoms of TV shows. I don't think being aimed for children has anything to do with it. Aren't LotR-fans incredibly defensive of Tolkien as well?
BUT I do like logical arguments.
God yes. Preferably arguments which shows that the person giving them has done some thinking on his/her own, and is not only spewing stuff that other people on his/her side has said before them with the exact same phrasing.
(hard to believe you can compare a two hundred year old vampire who's killed thousands and a 15 year old boy!)
Well, you've already nailed that one. They're both blond, and that's ground for comparison.;-)
no subject
I don't think being aimed for children has anything to do with it.
I don't mean to suggest HP fans are thicker or more child-like than BTVS, or any others!
Just that as the books are essentially children's stories, sometimes the fandom has a more simplistic attitude, imho: JKR is always right, Gryffindors are always right, blah blah.
It's hard to judge, I suppose, but we're only now in book 5/7 getting into moral complexities and shades of gray, whereas most fandoms deal with these a little sooner in their own timeline.
Aren't LotR-fans incredibly defensive of Tolkien as well?
Ask Teh Magpie! ;)
Preferably arguments which shows that the person giving them has done some thinking on his/her own, and is not only spewing stuff that other people on his/her side has said before them with the exact same phrasing.
I don't know, it'd be kinda nice sometimes to have a default argument written out...
I just say 'Go ask Magpie/Chief/Ishtar' but then, I'm lazy ;)
no subject
Bwahahaha!
Allow me to quote John Stewart: "Tolkien fans make Trekkies look like dillettantes."
It's funny, because my roommate tried to read the books for the movies--she did one a year and I think finally gave up because she couldn't stand them. That's another thing where I would never say, "I don't understand how you could dislike this..." because oh yeah, I understand.
Thing is there are some Tolkien fans who are more objective about the books, I think, and it's tedious, imo, to see how anything that's even perceived as a criticism. Like saying the books aren't about character development--it's not even an insult, it's just a fact. But people get all, "That's not true the characters are well-developed!" when they're not. Characters don't have to be developed to be memorable.
no subject
Yes. That's brilliant. (And Tolkien fans are ... well, "incredibly defensive" is way too mild a term. Insanely obsessive may be too mild. They aren't fans, they're FANS. And I say that, even though some are very good friends. They mostly have even forgiven me for being lukewarm about Tolkien and saying incredibly tackless things like "I don't *get* why people reread those books every year like religion -- I could barely get through them once. Talk about redefining *boring*." Foot, meet mouth. Mouth, open wide.)
Draco is Cordelia! It's my new mantra. *giggles*
no subject
Heh. I've heard that too. Then there are people who think they're basically good, but not all that. Then there are the fans who are all like: "OMG, haven't you read them??!!"
I will have to read them one of these days, just to form my own opinion. I loved Peter Jackson's movies so I'm assuming I won't hate the books.;-)
Draco is Cordelia! It's my new mantra. *giggles*
Actually, I was thinking about Cordelia when I marveled over how ridiculously I thought the redemption-word can be used sometimes. If Draco needs "redemption", the way he is now, then "redemption" was what Cordy went through, when she suddenly became a nicer person. Truth be told, I see more similarities between Cordy and Draco, then Spike and Draco. They're both snobs, they both want to mingle only with "the right people", and they're not concerned with the feelings of people they deem "unworthy", they're selfish, sarcastic, mocking people they don't like, but are ultimately harmless. The difference I can see is that Draco comes off as more vulnerable (and am comparing him to "old-days-Cordy" here), and will probably not stay harmless in all the books...
no subject
No, it's that overdone outlaw hero thing, except that in HP the outlaw hero happens to be Sirius.
no subject
no subject
Their argument actually is inherently flawed. It also seems to be driven by a hatred of Spike because "he took over and ruined my show!" which is such a mature and reasoned attitude.
What ticks me off is being told *why* I like Spike and Draco, since they're totally different character types and I like them for totally different reasons. I like Spike for reasons similar to why I like Snape and Giles (and even Ethan Rayne). I like Draco for similar reasons to why I like (wait for it) *Cordelia*.
Yes. That's exactly it! Harry/Draco is *so* Xander/Cordelia! And I am not joking. (much)
no subject
The argument is, in part, being made by the exact same people, using the exact same language, and linking the two. Including "if you're a Draco fan, I bet you were a Spike fan -- or would've been if you were in BtVS fandom".
Actually, I'm a fan of redemption storylines. In canon or fanfic. Methos (Highlander), Krycek (X-Files - even if it's fanon, dammit), Spike (BtVS), Snape (HP), Ares (Hercules & Xena), Xena (Hercules & Xena), Smallville (Lex - even if it's fanon, dammit) ... and that's just the characters I read fanfic about.
Oddly enough, it's not why I like Draco. Draco hasn't done anything (yet, that we know of) to need actual *redemption*. He's still a little boy (15 is a little boy from the perspective of 46) whose worse evil deeds are, as you say, mocking -- and believing in/loving his (evil) father. The boy is misguided, not evil. Not yet.
no subject
Hee! Why am I not surprised?
Actually, I'm a fan of redemption storylines.
I like well-written redemption-storylines, too, but I think it takes a good writer to pull it off (so that it doesn't become cheesy). When it came to Spike, I liked Evil!Spike, I loved Ambiguous-but-ultimately-no-good!Spike, and when it seemed that the authors wanted to pull a redemption-storyline I was wary, thinking "yes, this could be really interesting, but are the writers really able to pull it off without destroying the character?" But the thing is, the discussion on "Spike's redemption" never seemed to be focused on "will it destroy the character or not", which would have been a discussion I could have had so much more understanding of. Instead it was all about "morals" and "he's irredeemable, because 'Canon say vampires are inherently evil'", which just ended up firmly placing me in the "redemptionista-camp", even though I wasn't really sure that that was the development I thought would be the best for him, story-wise.
no subject
Exactly--it's a totally different story than anything that's really like redemption. I mean, the spoilt child who became nicer is very popular in kids' books, but I don't think anybody has ever compared Mary Lennox from Secret Garden to Spike.
no subject
no subject
Eh. What about people who were Draco fans before they were Spike fans? Some of us were late to the party. (So with you on Cordelia/Draco, btw. And did Cordelia need redemption? For what? Can't people be unpleasant without having to do a blood sacrifice to atone afterwards?)
no subject
He doesn't annoy me like a lot of characters do, but then he doesn't endear himself either.
He'll probably end up a fairly bad father in the end, and then I'll loathe him, but for now...*looks both ways for Lucius fans*, he's a fairly minor character...
no subject
But mostly, it's because the bastard picked on a little girl. And because he's a racist scumbag (acknowledging the debate/discussion re whether the Death Eaters actually are racist or something else). And because, unlike his son who is a child trying to emulate his adored (bastard) father, he's a grown adult who had time to reconsider his actions and his alliances during Voldemort's "death" and *still* supports the bastard.
And he seems to be making a new career out of trying to destroy another child (Harry).
And he's determined to drag his own child down this same path with him.
"Hangin's too good for 'em. Burnin's too good for 'em." (I'd give you the attribution for that quote, but it's so obscure and so long-buried in my past I just have no idea anymore.)
And then there's -- I really do believe that even "evil villains" usually think that they're "the good guy" and the more popularly acknowledged good guy they're in opposition to is "the bad guy". But I just get this feeling that this doesn't describe Lucius, that he knows he's doing evil (for the right reasons) and that's the worst/scariest of all -- doing evil for the right reasons.
He's just a bad bad man. And a smug supercilious bastard.
And I think there's even more behind my antipathy that I haven't even figured out yet....
no subject
Because yeah, to me, Lucius isn't even about being a DE because he's really bad at that anyway, it's the way he's the adult who specifically targets children all the time. Harry and Ginny seem safer from him to me because they have people who love them and it's more like Lucius is just the monster lurking trying to get them and failing. With Draco it's just like he has this kid that to me seems like underneath all the junk had the potential to be a really great kid, and instead he seems to have systematically tried to twist everything good there.
no subject
Though just reading your second paragraph, suddenly I'm seeing Lucius Malfoy turning into a metaphor for, um, "stranger danger" and the worst kind of charming manipulative scheming child abuser...
(Really hate the idea of Lucius/Harry, too. Hate. It. *shudders* And I thrive on Snape/Harry, so it's not the age thing at all.)