![[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
From:
no subject
But if people *are* going to react to them as if they are real people, it makes sense that, just like they would in real life, they're not all going to agree on who drives them up a wall. It would be great if people could do both--on one hand know that X character has traits that drive you crazy and you can't stand, but otoh X performs this function in the narrative and has done these important or positive things.
From:
no subject
Sometimes I think if we weren't in the fandom, we wouldn't be nearly as irritated by characters.
Many characters annoy me. Harry, Lupin, Hagrid, Ginny, Sirius...(I could go on for hours ;)
But I don't recall any of them annoying me quite so much until I realised how widespread their popularity is.
I don't think I'd mind them so much if there weren't so many people constantly saying 'You don't like So and So? But they're so perfect and nice and sweet!'
Including the author, who practically hits you over the head with it: YOU WILL LIKE GINNY, for example, or SLYTHERINS ARE EVIL.
I mean, I hated OotP, I thought almost every character in it was a selfish asshole, so I threw it away. Bam. Bothered me no more.
What bothered me was seeing other peoples' opinions of it which differed so drastically from mine, because until I joined the fandom and saw other people's opinions, I assumed everyone thought the same way as me.
Obviously, I tend towards a more subversive reading, which I'm aware of, and it's obvious in the text that JKR is going for a different impression than the one I'm getting.
But before, I assumed if the 'Don't you just looooooove So and So' vibe wasn't working on me, it was a flaw in the text.
But it obviously works on a fair amount of people, so either they're reading it 'wrong' or I am; is the vibe given by fandom.
And it's supported by Rowling - "Girls should like Harry, not Draco or Snape".
Why? Why is the author's or the majority's viewpoint anymore valid than anyone else?
I mean, people are so keen to say 'You're misinterpreting this because of your issues.'
Who's to say they're not?
I could say that if I don't like characters that JKR has worked so hard to get me to like, it's a failing in the text; and that people who like Sirius/Harry/Ginny/Lupin are just inexperienced readers who will accept and follow whatever the authors says.
I won't. But that's just as valid an opinion as 'OMG U JUST LIEK DRACO/FILCH/DUDLEY/MILLICENT because
a) The movie actors r kewl & hawt!!
b) I must have been a bully just like them, and recognise my own!
c) I'm a contrary bitch who's willfully misinterpreting fine literature
And the bully thing annoys, especially.
Of course how you are in life affects your choice of fictional characters!
So everyone who made Silence of The Lambs a hit was Sekritly a cannibal?
I hate it when people say:
'I'm a Harry fan because in RL, I'm sweet, and hate privilege'
Really? You hate privilege except when it's extended to you, then?
Or to use an example from the other side:
'I'm a Snape fan because I was bullied in school, just like him and I hate bullies!'
Except when it's Snape bullying children, then it's okay?
From:
no subject
Why is the author's or the majority's viewpoint anymore valid than anyone else?
I love this because it's so true. One of my friends loathed Seinfeld during its heyday -- didn't like the humor and never watched it. Everytime she would bring that up, people would look at her like she sprouted a third eye or something.
Sometimes I think if we weren't in the fandom, we wouldn't be nearly as irritated by characters.
Yes!!! The more fans try to convince me to like Sirius the more I hate him. It's actually starting to turn me off of reading RL/SB slash and I used to like that pairing. Although, alternatively Ron fans have worn me down. I finished GoF with a strong dislike of Ron and my feeling didn't improve much with OotP. Now, I've changed my mind. So who knows. Maybe I'm just confusing Ron for Rupurt Grint; )
From:
no subject
Of course you mean Rupert Grint! You're just a silly girl, and can't tell liveaction stars and book characters apart!
Don't you know Harry is the only character you're allowed to fangirl?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Warning: lengthy ramble ahead.
I don't think I'd mind them so much if there weren't so many people constantly saying 'You don't like So and So? But they're so perfect and nice and sweet!'
Including the author, who practically hits you over the head with it: YOU WILL LIKE GINNY, for example, or SLYTHERINS ARE EVIL.
Yes, exactly. It's not so much their character that is so objectionable - it plainly isn't, at least not more so than others in the books -, but the fact that the author so clearly favours them. And authorial bias is a frustrating thing in its own right if you don't happen to share it (as many fans obviously do), but it becomes worse because of JKR's sometimes very heavy hand in expressing it.
I think one of the things that frustrates me, personally, is not so much that so many people share JKR's bias, but that they also share her annoyhing habit of accusing people who don't happen to agree of shallowness. Who's being shallow here, the person who tells me one fourth of all children is apparently born evil, or the one who sees those supposedly "evil" children as interesting characters?
This sort of ties in with the Weasley debate - they may not be described as perfect by any stretch of interpretation, but what bugs me is that very clearly we are supposed to overlook their faults or see them as endearing because ... well, in the end, just because JKR says so. (Or perhaps she doesn't, and I'm overreading things; but her interviews seem to suggest that I'm at least not completely wrong here, and that JKR doesn't only write from Harry's POV, but also takes his perspective herself to a disturbing degree.) Being told to overlook someone's faults makes me only focus on them all the more. Dwelling on said faults makes me want to cut them some slack. Which, for reasons entirely separate from the characters themselves, already predisposes me towards taking Slytherin's side in the whole fandom split. (Not that I actually fully do; I'm a Snape/Black shipper and as such something of a fence-sitter.)
But before, I assumed if the 'Don't you just looooooove So and So' vibe wasn't working on me, it was a flaw in the text.
But it obviously works on a fair amount of people, so either they're reading it 'wrong' or I am; is the vibe given by fandom.
Exactly again - we all have a tendency to suppose everyone else reads in the same way we do. Except that they don't, and to a degree which can be mind-boggling sometimes. Not to mention it all ties in with other things, such as the kinds of things we come looking for in fandom, the types of character who tend to draw us, the kinds of relationships that fascinate us. All of that becomes muddled in "liking (or hating) Character X", until we don't know anymore whether Fan A likes (or hates) them because they simply never questioned the surface of the text, because they happen to agree with the reasons the text presents for liking (hating) them, because they like (hate) something about the way the character is written, or if they like (hate) them for some completely separate reason.
So it's not surprising that the sweeping generalisations as to why we like Draco/Snape/Black/Harry or whomever rarely fit, and they wouldn't bother me nearly as much if JKR wasn't doing exactly the same thing as so many fangirls. (I wonder if I would still be as sensitive if I hadn't gone through this entire business in BtVS with Spike already.)
Erm, sorry for spamming your journal,
From:
no subject
Yes, exactly. It's not so much their character that is so objectionable - it plainly isn't, at least not more so than others in the books -, but the fact that the author so clearly favours them.
To the point of it not making logical sense. The text criticises behaviour from the bad guys, then praises the exact same behaviour from the good.
There are no set 'rules' or morality in the books, just 'whatever Harry/the Trio/Gryffindor/the DA/the Order do is correct'.
I think one of the things that frustrates me, personally, is not so much that so many people share JKR's bias, but that they also share her annoyhing habit of accusing people who don't happen to agree of shallowness.
The age old 'You silly little fangirls, you must all be blinded by hormones and confusing say, the movie adaptation actor with the book character!'
No-one would say that to men, is what bugs me. It's ridiculing someone's fictional preferences precisely because they're female, so they must have superficial reasons to admire a masculine character who's actions aren't constantly excused by the texts/majority of fans.
This sort of ties in with the Weasley debate - they may not be described as perfect by any stretch of interpretation, but what bugs me is that very clearly we are supposed to overlook their faults or see them as endearing because ... well, in the end, just because JKR says so.
The twins, for example. If they were in Slytherin, they would be bullies. As Weasleys, they just have a good sense of humour!
Or Arthur, the man who's own children admit 'If he raided our house, he'd have to arrest himself.'
No hypocrisy there, then...
Or perhaps she doesn't, and I'm overreading things; but her interviews seem to suggest that I'm at least not completely wrong here, and that JKR doesn't only write from Harry's POV, but also takes his perspective herself to a disturbing degree.) Being told to overlook someone's faults makes me only focus on them all the more.
She described Harry, or rather Daniel Radcliffe's interpretation of Harry as 'the perfect boyfriend', which seems, to me anyway, to be wildly simplifying.
Dwelling on said faults makes me want to cut them some slack. Which, for reasons entirely separate from the characters themselves, already predisposes me towards taking Slytherin's side in the whole fandom split. (Not that I actually fully do; I'm a Snape/Black shipper and as such something of a fence-sitter.)
I think JKR misses exactly the point she made in on of her books: if you constantly 'ban' people from enjoying something, all you do is make them more keen to defy you.
If you constantly flatter and excuse the Gryffs/the DA/the Order; and criticise the 'baddies' for similiar actions, you're taking on the very role you're attacking: the hypocritical 'bully'.
(I wonder if I would still be as sensitive if I hadn't gone through this entire business in BtVS with Spike already.)
Heh, likewise. And in the BTVS fandom, it was just as prevalent: Oh, you must just be in loooove with the actor.
Um, no, I don't think James Marsters could act his way out of a paper bag.
Doesn't mean I didn't find the character funny, or interesting.
From:
no subject
And that is exactly Harry's attitude in the books - my way or the highway, agree with me or you're Eeeevil. Which I could understand from a teenager twisted by the upbringing he's received and the effects Dumbledore's policy has had on top of that, but that JKR seems to agree with it really, really baffles and angers me. I mean, it's clear that Harry thinks he always knows best because growing up with the Dursleys he only had himself to rely on, and that Dumbledore has fostered that attitude instead of teaching him that there are adults he can rely on. So Harry doesn't respect anyone, doesn't accept anyone's authority as justified, and is supported in this by his environment. I can see where he's coming from, but what excuse does JKR have?
The age old 'You silly little fangirls, you must all be blinded by hormones and confusing say, the movie adaptation actor with the book character!'
No-one would say that to men, is what bugs me.
There's a reason, I suppose, why JKR is writing a universe so dominated by male characters, the females mostly being relegated to the sidelines. And why all the "girly" girls seem to get nothing but contempt from her. She doesn't seem to have all that much respect for girls/women...
(And I don't even find Tom Felton attractive at all, and the only thing Alan Rickmore has in common with the Snape in my head is his voice.)
She described Harry, or rather Daniel Radcliffe's interpretation of Harry as 'the perfect boyfriend', which seems, to me anyway, to be wildly simplifying.
Harry seems constitutionally unable to see any other viewpoint but his own, or to trust anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him. And that's the perfect boyfriend, whereas people need to be warned away from Draco?! There aren't any double standards involved here, I'm sure...
I think JKR misses exactly the point she made in on of her books: if you constantly 'ban' people from enjoying something, all you do is make them more keen to defy you.
That happens so often - some insight in the books apparently not making it into JKR's brain apart from very special circumstances. The same with shades of grey - James Potter is allowed to be a former bully and all-around bastard, but still a hero and a Good Guy, whereas all of Slytherin House is apparently born evil.
Um, no, I don't think James Marsters could act his way out of a paper bag.
Doesn't mean I didn't find the character funny, or interesting.
Even if I hadn't been interested in Spike at all, those comments (especially the "serial killer" one) would have raised my hackles. I'll never be able to understand how someone can create such a complex and interesting character and yet completely fail to see his complexity. Much of the problems I had with BtVS in later seasons resulted from the attempt to reduce what had become a very "grey" universe to a simple morality of black and white, where no soul=evil, slayer=good, never mind what they've actually been doing. I see the same problem in HP, and I'm not exactly thrilled.
From:
no subject
(And I don't even find Tom Felton attractive at all, and the only thing Alan Rickmore has in common with the Snape in my head is his voice.)
Indeed, look at the female 'baddies' - Millicent, who's masculine, ugly and fat; Pansy, Umbridge and Petunia who are overtly feminine, but also ugly.
The female 'goodies' all seem to shun female company (McGonagall, Ginny and Hermione, to name a few) and loathe any kind of 'girlish' behaviour.
Harry seems constitutionally unable to see any other viewpoint but his own, or to trust anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him. And that's the perfect boyfriend, whereas people need to be warned away from Draco?!
Of course. I love how Draco is the 'bad' boyfriend, despite Harry being the one who's shown no hesitation about hitting people who disagree with him. I know how safe I'd feel in a bloke like that's arms!
And hey, if I ever agreed with a friend over him, I know he'd react well, just as Harry did when Cho didn't immediately cast Marietta out.
What an unappreciative bitch Cho was, not appreciating her 'perfect' boyfriend!
Even if I hadn't been interested in Spike at all, those comments (especially the "serial killer" one) would have raised my hackles. I'll never be able to understand how someone can create such a complex and interesting character and yet completely fail to see his complexity. Much of the problems I had with BtVS in later seasons resulted from the attempt to reduce what had become a very "grey" universe to a simple morality of black and white, where no soul=evil, slayer=good, never mind what they've actually been doing. I see the same problem in HP, and I'm not exactly thrilled.
AtS seemed to deal with this problem much more maturely...
For me, the double standards annoyed. I think I got sick of Buffy fandom around 'Seeing Red' where not immediately taking poor victim Buffy's side was seen as sympathising with real life rapists, by members of the writing staff as well as the fandom.
From:
no subject
It's the same with Snape and Sirius, of course - JKR feels the need to warn us away from Snape, and wonder publicly how anyone could possibly want to go out with him, when it's her own apparent crush Sirius who fits the image of the "bad boy" so completely - the roguish but charming ex-con who is prone to violence and irresponsible actions, right with the tattoos and the motorbike.
And hey, if I ever agreed with a friend over him, I know he'd react well, just as Harry did when Cho didn't immediately cast Marietta out.
What an unappreciative bitch Cho was, not appreciating her 'perfect' boyfriend!
People you can't argue rationally with are the worst kind of characters for me, and JKR favours them all over the books. The only rational adult seems Snape, despite his fits of hissing and screaming, and we know how much she appreciates that. With Hermione, I find it daunting how much her own rationality is denigrated in favour of the Harry-and-Ron Show of rushing in. She's useful when they need some piece of information, but they don't appreciate her way of thinking at all. She is the only one who thinks teachers should be respected, and rules should be followed, but of course that's an attitude she really needs to lose if she wants to be a Good Guy, and in OotP I think we're seeing her on that slippery slope. (Incidentally, I loathed her "change" in PS/SS after the Troll Incident - what the fuck was wrong with the way she was before, apart perhaps from the overeagerness?! Become more rule-breaking, and you become the hero's friend. Thank you, but no, thank you.)
AtS seemed to deal with this problem much more maturely...
You're so right! One of the major differences between BtVS and AtS was how they dealt with shades of grey. They were supposed to be set in the same universe, but the cosmology/morality didn't really tally up at all.
And don't let me get started on the AR, or on super-strong heroes who nevertheless get to be the poor widdle victim if they want to, or how Buffy beating Spike to a pulp is excusable, but Spike's one truly violent act towards her isn't.
From:
no subject
I think me and Magpie were discussing this on this lj *digs*
Ah here - http://www.livejournal.com/users/sistermagpie/60909.html?thread=1290989#t1290989
And there's her idea for those DA coins 'I got the idea from the DeathEaters!', and subsequently the hexing of Marietta, and leading Umbridge into the forest...
And interestingly, a little excerpt from the DADA class in OotP:
Professor Umbridge blinked but recovered her poise almost instantly.
'Well, then, you should be able to tell me what Slinkhard says about counter-jinxes in Chapter Fifteen.'
'He says that counter-jinxes are improperly named,' said Hermione promptly. 'He says "counter-jinx" is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable.'
Professor Umbridge raised her eyebrows and Harry knew she was impressed, against her will.
'But I disagree,' Hermione continued.
Professor Umbridge's eyebrows rose a little higher and her gaze became distinctly colder.
'You disagree?' she repeated.
'Yes, I do,' said Hermione, who, unlike Umbridge, was not whispering, but speaking in a clear, carrying voice that had by now attracted the attention of the rest of the class. 'Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be very useful when they're used defensively.'
She is the only one who thinks teachers should be respected, and rules should be followed, but of course that's an attitude she really needs to lose if she wants to be a Good Guy, and in OotP I think we're seeing her on that slippery slope. (Incidentally, I loathed her "change" in PS/SS after the Troll Incident - what the fuck was wrong with the way she was before, apart perhaps from the overeagerness?! Become more rule-breaking, and you become the hero's friend. Thank you, but no, thank you.)
Yeah, I noticed that. Seems a fairly common pattern with Harry's relationships though - a person has to ally themself with his moral view, or else suffer the consequences.
And Ron's come to think of it...Perhaps it's on the Gryffindor crest, along with Loyalty, Bravery and Being Better than Everyone Else.
Interestingly, it's usually Harry's friends, not him who make the first move in apologizing.
I think there was a discussion about it, here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/go_back_chief/12838.html?thread=160038#t160038
And don't let me get started on the AR, or on super-strong heroes who nevertheless get to be the poor widdle victim if they want to, or how Buffy beating Spike to a pulp is excusable, but Spike's one truly violent act towards her isn't.
I loathe how everything had to be engineered so that Buffy was injured and helpless in her grey robe of Victimization.
And how beating someone up pre and post sex is ok - if you're a girl!
Or how you can you initiate a sexual relationship based on the premise that 'No' means 'Yes' and then complain when 'this time, I actually meant no!'
From:
no subject
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.
Hermione creeps me out for a different reason than Ron and Harry - she's the moral voice, and issues occur to her that the boys are frighteningly close-minded to, but she's placated extremely easily.
Again, I wouldn't mind all this at all if it were dealt with as a problem - 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.
Hermione is no sort of moral voice to me; there doesn't seem to be any ethical conviction behind her words. She brings up moral issues in the same way she brings up minor infractions of rules and doesn't seem to see a difference between not helping Montague, turning someone into a ferret, and being out after curfew. I completely agree with
And with regard to Umbridge, the jinx-and-counter-jinx discussion was one of the places where Umbridge was definitely right, but the text applauds the opposite simply for "standing up to her." Just like Harry's monumental stupidity (or should I say masochism) that drove him to antagonise her again and again, even knowing what he'd get for it. I can sympathise much more readily with Draco's way of dealing with the Umbridge situation.
I loathe how everything had to be engineered so that Buffy was injured and helpless in her grey robe of Victimization.
And how beating someone up pre and post sex is ok - if you're a girl!
Or how you can you initiate a sexual relationship based on the premise that 'No' means 'Yes' and then complain when 'this time, I actually meant no!'
Or how Xander, for example, gets away scot-free with the consequences of his idiotic second love-spell in "OMWF", despite the fact that he actually killed people here, whereas Spike is The Devil even for things he didn't actually go through with.
From:
no subject
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sistermagpie/61476.html?thread=1374244#t1374244
From:
no subject
In general that type of feeling about conflict seems held up over others. It just seems, for instance, that "spies" of any kind are held in contempt. Marietta's a sneak, Peter's a rat, Snape isn't trusted by his own side ("Why do you call him the Dark Lord?"). That's a pretty common attitude, though, where people think spies, even valuable ones, are still a sort of necessary evil. Obviously Marietta and Peter are working against the good guys, but honestly, I think if both of them had openly challenged the DA or the Marauders they would get more respect. It seems to be considered cowardly to use subterfuge. I, otoh, can't help but admire good spies. As far as I can see the most effective characters are the spies--Snape and Peter.
What I've always noticed with Hermione is that the moment she decides to break the rules is where everything's about to get better from then on. I really do see her exactly as you've described--she knows rules by rote and doesn't seem to really understand the why behind them. It's funny because I'm not a big stickler for rules myself, and I've been known to break some on principle because I didn't agree with them, but basically a follow them because I see the point of them. Rules in this universe don't usually seem to extend to anything beyond what's good for you--like, when Hermione gives Harry's broom to Dumbledore she's not following the rules or obeying the teacher, she's acting in her own self-interest. She thinks the broom is hexed and it's for Harry's safety. That appears to me to often be as far as rules can be understood--sometimes they are for your benefit even if they interfere with what you want at that moment. But that's not much of an understanding, really. People will sometimes claim that Harry follows authority that he respects, and only rebels against bad authority, but this isn't true. He doesn't listen to anyone unless they're saying what he wants to hear, really. He's not particularly obedient to Dumbledore or Lupin or Sirius or the Weasleys.
I wrote a thing once about this sort of thing My Homepage (http://www.livejournal.com/users/sistermagpie/17697.html). It compares the view of authority in HP to LOTR, but I don't think you have to know LOTR very well for it (and maybe you do know it well!).
I am waiting for it to become clear that if Hermione continues along this way she's in big trouble, I'm just not sure that's what the books have in mind!
From:
no subject
Which of course explains why Slytherins are evil! They're all sneaks! So they deserve being hexed into unconsciousness or brain damage!
I'm not a big stickler for rules myself, and I've been known to break some on principle because I didn't agree with them, but basically a follow them because I see the point of them.
That appears to me to often be as far as rules can be understood--sometimes they are for your benefit even if they interfere with what you want at that moment.
Yes! Despite Hermione's lectures, this universe seems to completely lack any understanding that rules are there for a purpose, even when they're (*gasp*) not to your advantage. Disagreeing on principle I can respect; breaking rules for an important reason I can accept. Having no sort of respect for any kinds of rules at all is what makes me furious with the books who promote such utter anarchy.
People will sometimes claim that Harry follows authority that he respects, and only rebels against bad authority, but this isn't true. He doesn't listen to anyone unless they're saying what he wants to hear, really.
Another thing to be irritated by: this infuriating inability to see the validity of any viewpoint other than his own. This ties in with what I said earlier about people you can't argue rationally with. They drive me up the walls in RL, and as characters I constantly want to smack some sense into them. Harry, as the supposed promoter of tolerance (standing against the prejudiced Muggle-hating Death Eaters) is in fact one of the most intolerant and self-absorbed fictional "heroes" I've ever come across.
I wrote a thing once about this sort of thing. It compares the view of authority in HP to LOTR, but I don't think you have to know LOTR very well for it (and maybe you do know it well!).
I remember reading that essay a while back; I may reread it later. And I do know LOTR reasonably well, even if I never was much of a fan.
I am waiting for it to become clear that if Hermione continues along this way she's in big trouble, I'm just not sure that's what the books have in mind!
As I said earlier, if this were portrayed as Hermione's Descent into Darkness I wouldn't be disturbed by it - I would consider it good character development and an interesting storyline. I might expect something like that, if JKR's interviews didn't speak a completely different language that supports the most insidious subtext in the books while ignoring all the complexities she herself introduced into the characters. I really can't hold much faith in JKR's ethics, especially not after OotP, so I'd rather not get my hopes up.
From:
no subject
Which often spills over into RL too--I'm always surprised by people who find it scary that people can argue the DE's case for them on the subject of Muggleborns or Muggles. Like if you're not just completely horrified by the word Mudblood you must be a Klansman or something. Really the fact that the Muggleborns suffer so little prejudice in canon is just kind of weird--as is the fact that they never do anything to inspire prejudice, which would also happen.
This ties in with what I said earlier about people you can't argue rationally with. They drive me up the walls in RL, and as characters I constantly want to smack some sense into them. Harry, as the supposed promoter of tolerance (standing against the prejudiced Muggle-hating Death Eaters) is in fact one of the most intolerant and self-absorbed fictional "heroes" I've ever come across.
LOL! This is what always strikes me too--which could be funny if it weren't often taken seriously. Mira recently put it perfectly by saying Harry honestly seems to think all good people should start whistling spaghetti western themes when he enters a room.
From:
no subject
The ability to look at an issue from all sides (or at least more than one) is sadly undervalued in vast areas of life, and in the HP books it doesn't seem to exist even as a concept. Sometimes, when I'm in one of my "try to make sense of it all" moods, I wonder if that inability is down to the kind of education wizards and witches receive, with apparently none of the liberal arts. All that Hogwarts seems to teach are practical courses. It almost seems deliberately geared towards suppressing anything that actually could make you question the dominant system, or just to think. There's no geography at all (which would teach them that not every place is like their own home); the History lessons are so boring everyone sleeps in them (because the past is a different country); literature and languages aren't taught at all; no music or arts; and so on. No wonder something is wrong with that society!
(I liked it very much that in the "Psychic Serpent" Trilogy, Moody made them read Shakespeare in DADA, in order to understand what made characters tick and what made them "go bad.")
Really the fact that the Muggleborns suffer so little prejudice in canon is just kind of weird--as is the fact that they never do anything to inspire prejudice, which would also happen.
As you've said before, and I happen to completely agree, the Mudblood thing doesn't actually make all that much sense. There isn't any sense that being a Muggle-born makes any difference for these people apart from random "evil" characters running around calling them "Mudbloods," and apparently trying to kill them (though we haven't seen much of that). There's no sense of the cultural clash that should be there, no cohesion among the Muggle-born as a group, no repression against them, no suspicion, nothing at all by way of real, meaningful differences. Which is very strange to me.
Mira recently put it perfectly by saying Harry honestly seems to think all good people should start whistling spaghetti western themes when he enters a room.
Yes, this sums it up perfectly - and it made me giggle for a few minutes like an idiot, imagining that happening in the books. Excuse me while I go off to giggle some more.
From:
no subject
I was re-reading a strange and obscure sf novel recently, The Rainbow Cadenza by J. Neil Schulman. I realized that while I thought all of the world-building was really, really cool, I basically did not like the protagonist; I thought she was too manipulative and vengeful. And that was an odd reaction for me, worth wondering about.