Understanding the Hatred

[sistermagpie]

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.

Comments

[djinanna.livejournal.com]

What you said. Especially the bit about when it's a springboard for slagging the people who hold the opposing view. Double what you said for that part.

Me, I love Harry (I am, in fact, a borderline shameless-Harry-pamperer). But I can see where he's not perfect. And I'm not very fond of Molly -- except when I am. And one of the ways/times I'm fond of Molly is when I'm looking at her through Harry's (biased) eyes. And I know why Harry has such a bias and it makes me go all "woobie!" about him. But I can generally see the other POV. (The only one so far I haven't been able to see the other POV about is Lucius; I just hate Lucius. I'm really curious about *why* I hate him with such singlemindedness, and I know many disagree with me and I get why they do. I just disagree.)

In another fandom of mine, I'm about ready to bust a seam over the number of times I've been "inadvertently" insulted and had my intelligence and aesthetic tastes called into question for liking the character of Spike. And, in several cases, being told (indirectly) that the reason I like Draco is that "he's just Spike in a different fandom". And ... *grrrrr*

Excuse my rant. I'll go "ohm" in a corner for a while until I'm calm again.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

....People hate Frodo....???? *lip wobbles* .............I have a hard time with that, man. *sniff* I'd have to steel myself & shut off some major emotional valves to fully get that, I think. Then again, Harry-hate makes me want to hide too, and Harry's not even really 'heroic' (yet) or all that nice/noble/etc.... Wah.

Anyway, your ability to see people in an even light is one of the (many) things that make me proud to know you, man. I'm just sort of like, reassured by your sanity, if that makes sense~:) I can always see both views too, though the ability to do that is rare in people, I think, 'cause it's a more rationalist than emotionally based (vs. empathy-based) pov. ....It's frustrating, but one of the continuing tragedies of the human race is how little we allow ourselves to understand where other people are coming from without projecting ourselves or what we're used to in our own world onto them & their experiences.

Hehehe recently, I've been allowing myself to see the likability of George Bush :D :D :D :D *beams madly* You have to understand, my hate for him is long-standing and fierce, to the point where I will have slagged him off worse than any other person, living or dead. Now, after several months of just not following politics or tv or the news and deciding I don't care (...prolly not a good tactic, but anyway-- key here is 'gaining distance')-- I was watching this CNN program on his (well, his wife's) younger years, and I was like-- hey, he was cute/dorky as a young guy. And I really kind of find his relationship to his family sweet, and he's just kind of... uh... not too deep, but he can't help that, can he? At least he's a humble(??) 'normal' sort of guy. Hey, I can dig it. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHH.

Anyway, we obviously are in complete agreement when it comes to this whole business, but then you know that. I think possibly I get more pissed off/frustrated than you(?) at all this in-fighting and refusal to understand or -think-, but yeah. Perhaps this -is- related to the ability to think critically (ahahaha HOW POMPOUS DO I SOUND).

Though honestly, there -are- trends as to what kind of people will like certain kinds of characters-- about as much as there are what sorts of people we gravitate to for friendship, though looser since you don't have to be able to tolerate a character in real life. However, there's a rift between people who do and do not perceive characters the way they would real life people. Heheh I've actually never seen you be angry (well-- in an obvious way, I think I can kind of tell how you feel these days but it's not-- uh-- well anyway usually not prominent in meta posts one way or the other). Ahahah the idea makes me laugh. Man, judgmental people. =;

[malafede.livejournal.com]

You probably already know how much I agree with every single word, but I'm glad you used your superpowers (for good and not evil) to code this reasonably and specifically.

I'm completely disillusioned re=people's explanations for their reactions to characters. What I mean is: I don't think people can or actually want to separate themselves from their emotions, because it's just another marker of self, this investment they (we?) have in some catalysts of themes (characters) which they want to see asserted.

Okay, dropping convoluted language: I think people react this badly and illogically to others not sharing their love/hate because they aren't thinking in terms of characters thus curious (or honest enough) to see the other side. Their love/hate is just Right, you know? Because their own issues projected on the characters ought to be right. So cue to all sort of false arguments and coping mechanisms to reassure yourself the other's explanation is faulty, no matter how much sincere or thought out.

I mean, it's the kind of mechanism I've seen recently used in re=Molly (although it's been done to just about every character, from Sirius to Snape to Draco to Harry to Hermione yadda yadda yadda). "Molly is a good person." "Her heart is in the right." "She's a good mother who loves her children and it's out of love that sometimes she makes mistakes." The problem is that these reasonings are not only so vague and general they don't actually say anything about the character ("he/she/it means well is such a manipulative travesty of a debate tactic, it could only applied to, you know, every character), but they came after more specific and especially not contradictory reasons were given. I agree that Molly makes mistakes out of love and means well etc. etc., but that's not what people were saying at all.

I think it's just too temptingly safe in some mindsets to ignore one's expressed issues because they're not your issues in favour of a general assumption that they're "not seeing your truth" (because they have a wrong moral/social platform, typically, like "not getting along with their mothers, or just being different which still seems so hard to accept). So in the end it's just like you said, the same old "I don't get it" non-argument, because if you don't get it, chances are, you're not trying to.

... This just wanted to be convoluted clearly.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Me too, agree with every single word - again! But I was thinking one of these days that perhaps we are expecting people to react intellectually to things, when generally they react emotionally. And perhaps El-Jay is mostly a place for people to express their feelings - their most irrational feelings, sometimes. And you and most of your friends are exceptions.

[ralphspudlanyon.livejournal.com]

Agree, as always.

What makes me most annoyed is that I think there's a tendency to not only think that your point of view is the correct one (and no, not everybody does that) but then to admit that yeah, you hate Snape because he's a bully, unpleasant - whatever - but not see that your view is just as subjective as the ones who think he can do no wrong.

I tend to avoid the people who detest Snape, not so much because I can't see where they're coming from, but because it drives me crazy that they have so little awareness that their own bias colours their view of the character. If we didn't bring our own subjective reading to the text then I guess everyone would love Harry, hate Snape, love Hagrid, hate the Malfoys etc etc. I like Snape and I'm not sure why. I detest Remus Lupin and I do know why. He embodies characteristics that I despise, poor bastard, so he'll never get a fair crack of the whip from me. And I know that. I know that most people admire the qualities I despise in him and I really, really understand why he appears to be so widely loved - both by the author and pretty much all of fandom. My dislike of him is because of me, because of who I am, not really because of who he is, because who he is means something different to most of fandom than it does to me. And yeah I'm very much a Snape fan, but that's not why I don't like Remus and Sirius. And again that's another assumption that really gets my goat; that I'm bound not to like Potter Major et al because of what they did to poor 'Snapey-poo'. Well surprisingly enough that has very little to do with it. Bullying Snape didn't endear them to me, but it's the qualities they represent that I don't like. Had they never bullied Snape I still wouldn't have liked them. I. Just. Don't. Like. Them.

Funnily enough I can articulate the reasons why I don't like a character far more clearly than I can the reasons I do like them. I think it's because there are no characters I identify with on a personal level, but the ones I don't like remind me of or embody certain qualities found in people in real life or fiction that I just don't like. It's immediate and obvious. Which is why I can understand why people don't like Snape. And even though these same people may think the Marauders are the bees knees this doesn't make me despise them or conclude that they're seriously deluded. I just wish, probably vainly, that they'd offer me the same courtesy...

[pariforma.livejournal.com]

Um, hate to be the odd one out, here, but I disagree. Not because I can't see why Hagrid/Snape/Draco/Molly/whoever wouldn't be dislikable if they were real people, but, you know, they're not real people. Every character serves a function in a well-written piece of fiction. Hagrid's stupidity, Snape's cutting sarcasm, Molly's smothering, Draco's futile insults all have their purpose. I can like a character that's well drawn and enjoy seeing them do their thing whether or not I would actually like that kind of person in real life. I find Voldemort disappointing because as a bad guy, he's a lot less scary to me than the sweetly righteous Umbridge, and bureaucracy scares me more then Death Eaters do. But I don't hate him; I just don't think he serves his function in the story very well.

slightly off the subject

[sieda.livejournal.com]

I recently startled my Brit Lit Instructor by sharing my unflattering view that Beowulf was a self-important egotist and that I didn't really care much for him. The result was having to listen to Mr. Instructor wax on for at least ten minutes about Beowulf's virtues and why he was a hero so it was okay for him to be an egotist.

It was slightly annoying and very amusing. I am not sure whether he was trying to make me like Beowulf or if he was trying to keep my opinion from spreading to the rest of the class.

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

Followed you here from daily_snitch

I agree that most of the like/dislike for characters is more or less just "different strokes for different folks." I don't like brussels sprouts or Colin Creevey, but it stands to reason there are folks out there who would adore Colin and sprouts, or Colin eating Brussels Sprouts.

On the other hand...I do find a few instances of character-hatred to be silly and childish. I am speaking specifically of people who disliked Tonks and to a lesser extent Luna simply because they were new characters. (I'm not talking about people who disliked one or the other for their personality, etc.) What's wrong with new characters? Other authors I've read have many more characters than HP, and introduce them at any time during the series. For instance, Dorothy Dunnett (who died, alas, before she could finish her House of Niccolo series, waah!) had so many new characters in each book of the Niccolo series that she had a big character list in front of names and who was related to whom.

Not wanting new characters introduced strikes me as being clannish and unreasonable. But then I think that the Three-year-Summer and the abundance of fanfic while we were waiting for OOtP made people have such fixed agendas and high expectations for OOtP that no author could have fulfilled them (not to mention so many conflicting agendas - someone was bound to be disappointed).

[tasogare-n-hime.livejournal.com]

here from D_S
The esay is wonderful. I agree totaly in all the fandoms I've had I've hade a hard time finding characters i don't like it seemes like once again in HP all the chacarters for one reason or another have wormed there way into my heart. I get angry with them and am more fornd of some than others but I can't bring my self to HATE.
What I can't understand is People who feel they need to insult my inteligence because I like a certaint character. It hasn't happend in Harry Potter yet but I was horribly flamed in the Fushigi Yuugi fandom by a Miaka hater. I have pretty much avoided the fandom since.
All I can really say is "Hey I understand if you hate that persion and I can see why, but don't take it out on me because I don't share your opinion."

[sabrinanymph.livejournal.com]

Here via daily_snitch

Hmm. This is an interesting post. I would have to admit that I'm probably, at times guilty of saying, I don't understand why people hate ____. I'd say in some ways, that I'm not saying exactly what I mean either.

What I don't understand about fanon is not usually why people can dislike a certain character. I love Snape, but I'm quite aware that he has a number of very distasteful qualities and people who dislike him have very good reason to do so. (I also like Sirius, Remus, a good majority of the Weasleys, and Lucius Malfoy for being a lovely bastard, so sue me.) Hand me any character in Harry Potter and I'm fairly certain I could come up with a list of negative characteristics and positive characteristics, but thank goodness for that. If every character had only negative characteristics or only positive characteristics we would have an entire series full of one dimensional characters and I can pretty much guarantee that the books would not have spent years on the best-seller list.

I try to waste very little time disliking actual real living people, and I certainly won't purposefully focus negative energy into a fictional character. Which doesn't mean I'm not interested in essays or opinions looking at positive or negative characteristics-if they are open for discussion.

I think what baffles me is people who put so much time and energy into not only rabidly posting negative and truly incendiary comments about characters, but then taking the time to personally flame people who feel positively about that character. Yes, the characters you like does say something about your personality, but it doesn't mean that because someone else dislikes that character you need to take it personally or as a personal afront. (Or vice versa because someone else thinks that character is the coolest thing ever and doesn't look objectively at them that it's up to you to change their mind).

So, I suppose in a way I'm agreeing with you. None of us are objective regarding our likes or dislikes and all of us bring some personal history to the table. And perhaps I need to rethink the way I say 'I don't understand why someone dislikes _____', as it's not so much that as 'I don't understand why people put so much energy into making people who like ____ feel miserable, look like arses, etc.'

[imation23.livejournal.com]

*raises hand* I plead guilty to saying 'I don't understand why people hate...' too.

The only thing I would say in my defense is that this is a knee-jerk reaction to (a) constant bashing of my favourite characters in fandom and more importantly, (b) hate which *isn't* as reasonably and clearly justified as in the example you posted. A lot of character hate is unreasonable, e.g. 'I hate so-and-so because they get in the way of my ship!'. I think, a lot of the time when people say that they can't understand character hate, this is the kind of hate they mean.

surfed in from daily_snitch

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree, but I also think that most character-hatred is actually fandom-induced (or that's my personal experience). You see it in the polarization between Weasley-fans/Malfoy-fan, Black-fans/Snape-fans and so on, and I think that it's the product of these conversation which probably *initially* start as "omg, that argument between x and x was so intense, but I kinda think x went to far" "blasphemer! x was being too kind!" Non-fandoms fans never seem to have the intensity of hatred/love that fandom ones do, and I think a lot of that is the byproduct of mere discussion.

And, of course, it leaves me wondering what the place is for someone who fundamentally disagrees with the fans of a character on interpretation (enough to hate the fanon version of the character) but actually likes said character. Not to be too vague or general, I'm actually talking about Hermione here, but I've experienced it in nearly every fandom I've been in.

It sometimes seems that factions are very single-minded in interpretation -- not to mention stereotyping the other side. You bring up the example of a person regarding Snape as a bitter man who bullies eleven year old as the *anti*-Snape position. I think that's absolutely true, and really don't feel any need to sugar coat it or mitigate it, but I also love Snape (obviously because I think there are more angles to him than that of a mere bully).

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

What about Umbridge?

You know in all post about character hatred people go on about poor Ron, Harry, Draco, Sirius, Hagrid or even the Death Eaters, but no one sees anything wrong with hating Umbridge. Maybe we can all peacefully hate Umbridge, because no one likes her and can rain on our parade hatred. No one will ever be labeled as "hater" over their dislike for Umbridge - instead everyone will nod and say: "Well done, mate, she's such a bitch."

If character hatred is so bad, hard-to-understand or irrational, why does no one says anything about the Umbridge hate ever? It's so in your face and everywhere and anywhere, that if one talks about character hatred, she should be the first character to talk about - long before Sirius, Hagrid or Ron.

I suspect the answer is simple: Umbridge-hate is absolutely acceptable in fandom. Hagrid, Sirius, Draco-hate is not, is far from it, actually.

However it reeks hypocrisy to hate Umbridge and then complain about people hating Hermione or Draco or Ginny or whoever. Anti-hate discussion should deal with the hate that is acceptable first, before dealing with unacceptable. Because it's the acceptable that gives way for the not-so-acceptable, because once you learn that you can freely hate Umbridge, Vernon Dursley and Peter Pettigrew, the next logical question is: "Can I Lucius, too? And Snape? And Draco?" The question whether it is right or wrong to hate a HP character is no longer asked, because it has been answered already by this fandom.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

The way they can just dismiss someone being seriously injured like that because he is a Slytherin, and tried to take points is very, very creepy, but not nearly as much as the fact that they get away with this, that the book doesn't seem to see this as particularly serious.

The post OotP reactions stunned me. A lot of people saying 'OMG the Inquisitorial Squad were so evil! They deserved everything they got (including brain damaged, presumably!) They actively aligned themselves with Umbridge!'
Well, yeah. Why wouldn't they?
How is that any different from Dumbledore's Army?
(Except that the Inquisitorial Squad didn't beat up the other students, of course!)
Dumbledore helps his favoured students, and ignores/actively disadvantages the others, just like Umbridge. One corrupt regime or another.
(I find it fascinating that Fake!Moody, for instance, or Hagrid, is never reprimanded for endangering students.
Or that James became Head Boy after assaulting another student.
Or that the text asks us to pity Harry and the Twins for being punished after they outnumber and assualt someone (frankly, if you'd done that at my old school, you'd thank your lucky stars if you got banned from the sport you were participating, because most British schools, boarding or not, tend towards expulsion/suspension, nowadays.)
Or that the train, for example, is exempt from the rules regarding underage magic, but also exempt (presumably) from the rules about hexing fellow students unconscious.

I was very disturbed by this, partly of course because of the Harry's and Ron's mindset, but even more so because of JKR's. If I'm not misreading this, JKR doesn't see anything fundamentally wrong with the way the Trio is acting here. Certainly they're never called on their behaviour/attitude.

I don't know which freaks me out more.
Ron's 'Standing in the way of Gryffindor is totally punishable by permanent injury! Feel sorry for me, I'm having awful trouble balancing this teacup!' or Harry's 'I'm so glad Montague is in hospital, thanks to those wacky jokers, the Twins; it makes Umbridge look bad!' (How is this different from Draco's glee at Hagrid's looking bad in POA; which apparently makes him 'foul', 'loathsome' and deserving of physical violence?)

Again, I wouldn't mind all this...if this were Hermione's Descent into Darkness. But the books seem to see all of this as perfectly acceptable, right down to the Montague issue, the treatment of Marietta (the hexing, and the memory charms), the hexing of Draco & Co. on the train, and leading Umbridge to the centaurs.

It seems OotP didn't make anyone look particularly moral, which is why I resent the 'OMG don't you hate Marietta/Draco/Umbridge?' message being banged over the audience's head.
Frankly I have more sympathy for characters which are punished by and in the text, and loathed by the majority of characters and readers than the one's who commit precisely the same actions (and worse) but are rewarded and adored.
And I loathe the idea that we're not only supposed to see the above actions as completely acceptable, but actually funny.
For instance, it's supposed to be hilarious that the Twins feed a sweet to a Muggle that makes him choke. Ho ho, good one! He probably thought he was going to die, what a laugh!

She...doesn't seem to see a difference between not helping Montague, turning someone into a ferret, and being out after curfew.

Word. The emphasis in the books seems to be on a 'higher' law - that authority figures/rules are made to be questioned, as long as you feel you're doing right, in your heart.
But then it's shown that the Trio/the Order/the DA feel they're right pretty much all the time, even when:
trying to cast Crucio
using a memory charm on a fifteen year old girl outnumbering and hexing opponents beyond the point of unconsciousness and until they
a) are physically incapable of unassisted movement
b) physically unrecognizable as human beings or
c) brain damaged.