![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
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. =;
From:
no subject
I just wanted to say that I don't find young Bush charming at all - he was not just stupid, he was also greedy and taking money from integralists which I don't find all that naively cute. I get the need to de-monster Bush because the (e)vilification is not only over-the-top and silly but also rabid and blinding, but I don't think I can ever get over the fact that he's so disgustingly hungry and not working for anyone except himself and his lobby and using mind-controlling censoring tactics and stupid-ass mass-appealing rethorics to cover it.
Right.
Actually what I wanted to say is that I agree with there -are- trends as to what kind of people will like certain kinds of characters, I just think that, as with character analysis, they don't get exposed for the pleasure of knowledge, you know? Usually someone will use a perceived/twisted trend to back up their stand that all Snape fans are bad boys lovers or all Molly haters don't get along with their moms or all Harry lovers are tools of the Man or whatnot.
From:
no subject
I think huge over-arching mega-memes do exist and influence society and so on, but there's no organized system that one can isolate, I guess is the thing. Saying 'the Man' implies there's something like 'anti-Man', and I don't think that's a real separation. I see everyone as potentially controlling/Mannish (therefore, 'used' by the 'spirit' of The Man), but no actual Man. Er. Anyway.
By liking/being able to smile at younger!Bush, I didn't mean I found his politics admirable/palatable. Mostly, I don't judge people by their morality/politics, so aside from that, I found him palatable when taken in relation to his wife, at least. Plus he smiled okay. Some people don't even smile okay, and that's when I know I will never like you :)) Anyway, I can de-monster-fy anyone, really. I am pure Zen :D :D :D :D I am almost zen about Her Excellency, or would be if she wasn't in my face. See how zen? I AM TEH MASTAH. :D :D!! FEAR MY NON-WRATH!!1
Er. Actually, I think it helps that at base level, I can just disconnect from caring about most people, so it's all 'eh' to me. Maybe that's scarier than not being able to let go-- letting go too easily. Unless I'm directly personally invested (ie, I KNOW you), I can let go very easily with the right impetus. If I do know you very well, however, it takes a lot more effort, and sometimes years. I work on it, though. It's always a quest, to force myself not to care if it's 'inconvenient', y'know. Issues, wha--? (See... Remus... I get Remus-Sirius from Remus' pov. I get rage and switching it off and being angry like the wolf and then like 'fine then. fine. fine. fine.' until you believe it. wheee, REPRESSION! FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!)
*clutches Frodo to chest protectively*
I have a thing for hero-types, can you tell???? :>
From:
no subject
That the Man only exists in spirit... well, I've always thought that. Of course I think the spirit of the Man has a great material influence on people's life and don't consider myself paranoid at all for it, so maybe me and S. were on different tracks. :)
From:
no subject
I tend to like... try to perceive the 'man' or 'woman' inside everyone, 'cause that's always my overriding interest in people-- I see them all as individuals, or I cannot truly -see- them. Anyway, this was related to a biographical-type program on a news channel, so I saw pictures and heard interviews and stuff. But generally, I just see people in a personal light. Possibly too personal...? But it's what I jump to, whether I know them or not. Even complete strangers-- I speculate & even react based on my intuitive sense of what they're like. I'm just not very rationalistic so it's easy to just be like, 'well, he gives off such-and-such vibe' :>
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
So everytime someone gets promoted as such a good family man I want to smash their face. (Bush lurves his family, Clinton was an adulterer! So what? He was a better politician for sure.)
From:
no subject
It's more that I take my own perception (rather than whatever the propaganda is) on whether the person (politician or not) seems sincere-- emotional-- what his emotional range/nature is. It's just a question of different focus~:)
From:
no subject
I hate the news these days & don't watch almost any tv, but. Maybe I'm just complacent 'cause I'm very hard to manipulate :>
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
Well, I understand your focusing on the man inside, I normally do that too, and you know how I detest the device of the monster... I was just pointing out that his politics are a part of him as a "man", too. Usually I don't trust much television on biographical stuff or portraits since they tend to be absurb/fake telenovela like patethic/sensationalists ploys for sympathy, and I especially get the impression he wouldn't mind posing to that effect at all... okay, I am maybe too militant/invested for this. But I really dislike television per se (the social concept of...?) I only watch fiction or the news, you know, stuff that don't imply I'm connecting to the world and other people wih an arbiter who thinks I don't see it when he's trying to manipulate me...
... rabidness.
From:
Butting in with a *teeny* (and off-topic) point/opinion
I do -- to me 'The Man' is the status quo. Definitely an over-arching political/societal/economic entity of mass control. How evil it is relative, and highly dependent upon where you personally rank within it. For example, if you're one of the infinitesimal percentage of rich Americans who's benefitting from Bush's tax cuts and economic policy, The Man seems pretty benevolent. If you're one of the disproportionately large percentage of young, uneducated black men rotting in the bloated American prison system, The Man doesn't look so good.
From:
Re: Butting in with a *teeny* (and off-topic) point/opinion
From:
Re: Butting in with a *teeny* (and off-topic) point/opinion
From:
Re: Butting in with a *teeny* (and off-topic) point/opinion
From:
no subject
Phew! ;-)
From:
no subject
But I love Frodo now. Unsurprisingly, my favourite of his relationship is the one with Gollum. God, I am so transparent.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I know. Frodo-hate hurts! There's that one letter, I think, that somebody wrote to Tolkien all about how he should be executed! Tolkien was like, "Errr...meep!" I think. With Harry I think I feel like, well, he's been hated a lot in his life so he can take it. He'll just hate right back, at least. But when it comes to Frodo I really can understand how people feel hurt themselves when people don't like a character. Or get really angry when you hear some idiot completely misunderstanding the character and daring to insult him because of it!>:-O
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~:)
Hee.:-D Well, of course in my own lj I always sound sane. It's those other people who have these problems, not me! Um, well, maybe it's sometimes me too. I've been known to go on a tear about characters too. It's just usually when some intelligent person argues with me they always make sense and then I have to see where they're coming from! It's easier to hold onto your own biases when you're arguing with somebody's who's just...wrong, you know? Like, when somebody defends the character to the point where it's absurd then you can just feel like you were right after all, because you have to change the character to defend him.
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.
Oh, totally--I remember in XF it was like a farce the way Mulderists had one sort of personality and Scullyists had another and we drove each other crazy. We completely pushed each other's buttons a lot of the time. And then there was also the thing with people who see characters like real people and those who don't, definitely. Fictional characters are just so much more complicated! Sometimes they're like real people, sometimes they're not.
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. =;
LOL! Now I'm totally intrigued with my subtle anger.:-D
From:
no subject
Heh, I have to say, the few times you've ever come across as "ranty" to me, always seem to have been in my journal, or that of other people, never in yours. Maybe some of us just have... well rant-inspiring journals.;-)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
*undresses*
From:
no subject
Just barging in from another fandom. Sorry for vagueness.
I've had the opposite problem recently, where someone else declared her hatred of a certain character, and I was all bewildered and going, "He's a jerk, but not that bad!" She felt that, apparently, the character was a bad father for wanting his son (the hero of the series) to grow up to be a champion like him, and basically taunting said son daily about how he's not the best yet. Er, wow, now I've made him look bad after all.
I don't dispute the lousy parenting in that sense, but I really didn't think that this was good reason for wanting to hang the father upside down over a pit of crocodiles, or such like. My own interpretation was slightly different, and then (I may be damning myself) I mentioned that given the situation--snarky, talented, competitive son who seems used to the behaviour of his father--perhaps we shouldn't expect a nice, supportive parent. My point was that the father acted in the way he thought best, and it wasn't nice, but it wasn't damaging the son (much). Certainly no reason to crucify the father!
I was taken aback to be accused of being illogical. I still don't know if I am, I think I'm right, and she's wrong, but I can't give a good argument why. I guess it goes back to what you said about seeing fictional people as real people. The problem with that is seeing fictional people as real people, then comparing them with the real people you've encountered. I don't think that's the best way of understanding the characters, but okay, I'm not inclined to lose too much sleep over it, either.
Thought-provoking essay, by the way. I hope I haven't confused you, but it felt good to let that out.
From:
no subject
Actually, it sounds like you were making perfect sense. And I see things like that a lot. I mean, there are times when a character is doing something incredibly painful to watch, but they usually aren't doing it because they're intentionally trying to be a jerk, particularly if there are parents involved. In fact, a while ago I remember asking, because I've been trying to write this character that's hard for me, about parents like that, the type that put their children down in ways that seem really painful to me, or pressuring them like the father you describe. I'd seen people like that but it was hard for me to really undrstand it. And people basically suggested that I needed to know exactly how the father saw the kid so that he thought his behavior was justified or correct. So you have to be able to on the one hand say, "This is a bad way to parent your child," but also understand the logic of the character, imo.
But sometimes people get just as angry over reasonable arguments as unreasonable ones, it's true. Like I mentioned somewhere else on this thread, there are some anonymice (or one anonymouse) on F_W who is apparently completely angered by imo reasonable arguments about a certain HP character being anything but a piece of dirt. It's very strange.
I'm glad you decided to let that out!