![[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
Clearly it's all because we're OMG IN LUV with hawt blondes!1111
Seriously, though ;)
The BTVS fandom had it's problems like most - a lot of aggressive my-way-or-the-highway people, iirc; but there didn't seem to be this slavish devotion to the authors/text as there is here. Maybe because it as aimed at teens/adults as opposed to children?
But yes, I remember arguing over and over again with people who were like: OMG Spike did such and such, he is so evil!!
I don't mind people saying another character is evil. I think it's sad, if they write everyone off so easily, but hey, they might not do it in real life!
BUT I do like logical arguments. So if Spike is evil for say, killing someone, I want to know what excuses Buffy, or Angel, or Giles, or Willow.
Likewise in HP, if Draco is evil (hard to believe you can compare a two hundred year old vampire who's killed thousands and a 15 year old boy!) because he mocks people, I want to know what excuses Harry, or Sirius, or Ron, or Snape.
Otherwise you're argument is inherently flawed, because it relies on the basest hypocrisy - the rules are different when they concern someone you like.
And sadly, these rules came up fairly often in the texts for both BTVS and HP >:(
From:
no subject
...because heaven knows I've never seen blonds before, being from Scandinavia and all.;-)
but there didn't seem to be this slavish devotion to the authors/text as there is here. Maybe because it as aimed at teens/adults as opposed to children?
I would have guessed the difference is that BtVS is a TV show, and fans of TV shows are more used to the idea of their favourite show not being perfect, they know it can jump the shark, and that many people influence the result. In general, people have more respect for authors of published books, so that attitude probably carries over to fandom as well, even fandoms of TV shows. I don't think being aimed for children has anything to do with it. Aren't LotR-fans incredibly defensive of Tolkien as well?
BUT I do like logical arguments.
God yes. Preferably arguments which shows that the person giving them has done some thinking on his/her own, and is not only spewing stuff that other people on his/her side has said before them with the exact same phrasing.
(hard to believe you can compare a two hundred year old vampire who's killed thousands and a 15 year old boy!)
Well, you've already nailed that one. They're both blond, and that's ground for comparison.;-)
From:
no subject
I don't think being aimed for children has anything to do with it.
I don't mean to suggest HP fans are thicker or more child-like than BTVS, or any others!
Just that as the books are essentially children's stories, sometimes the fandom has a more simplistic attitude, imho: JKR is always right, Gryffindors are always right, blah blah.
It's hard to judge, I suppose, but we're only now in book 5/7 getting into moral complexities and shades of gray, whereas most fandoms deal with these a little sooner in their own timeline.
Aren't LotR-fans incredibly defensive of Tolkien as well?
Ask Teh Magpie! ;)
Preferably arguments which shows that the person giving them has done some thinking on his/her own, and is not only spewing stuff that other people on his/her side has said before them with the exact same phrasing.
I don't know, it'd be kinda nice sometimes to have a default argument written out...
I just say 'Go ask Magpie/Chief/Ishtar' but then, I'm lazy ;)
From:
no subject
Bwahahaha!
Allow me to quote John Stewart: "Tolkien fans make Trekkies look like dillettantes."
It's funny, because my roommate tried to read the books for the movies--she did one a year and I think finally gave up because she couldn't stand them. That's another thing where I would never say, "I don't understand how you could dislike this..." because oh yeah, I understand.
Thing is there are some Tolkien fans who are more objective about the books, I think, and it's tedious, imo, to see how anything that's even perceived as a criticism. Like saying the books aren't about character development--it's not even an insult, it's just a fact. But people get all, "That's not true the characters are well-developed!" when they're not. Characters don't have to be developed to be memorable.
From:
no subject
Yes. That's brilliant. (And Tolkien fans are ... well, "incredibly defensive" is way too mild a term. Insanely obsessive may be too mild. They aren't fans, they're FANS. And I say that, even though some are very good friends. They mostly have even forgiven me for being lukewarm about Tolkien and saying incredibly tackless things like "I don't *get* why people reread those books every year like religion -- I could barely get through them once. Talk about redefining *boring*." Foot, meet mouth. Mouth, open wide.)
Draco is Cordelia! It's my new mantra. *giggles*
From:
no subject
Heh. I've heard that too. Then there are people who think they're basically good, but not all that. Then there are the fans who are all like: "OMG, haven't you read them??!!"
I will have to read them one of these days, just to form my own opinion. I loved Peter Jackson's movies so I'm assuming I won't hate the books.;-)
Draco is Cordelia! It's my new mantra. *giggles*
Actually, I was thinking about Cordelia when I marveled over how ridiculously I thought the redemption-word can be used sometimes. If Draco needs "redemption", the way he is now, then "redemption" was what Cordy went through, when she suddenly became a nicer person. Truth be told, I see more similarities between Cordy and Draco, then Spike and Draco. They're both snobs, they both want to mingle only with "the right people", and they're not concerned with the feelings of people they deem "unworthy", they're selfish, sarcastic, mocking people they don't like, but are ultimately harmless. The difference I can see is that Draco comes off as more vulnerable (and am comparing him to "old-days-Cordy" here), and will probably not stay harmless in all the books...
From:
no subject
No, it's that overdone outlaw hero thing, except that in HP the outlaw hero happens to be Sirius.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Their argument actually is inherently flawed. It also seems to be driven by a hatred of Spike because "he took over and ruined my show!" which is such a mature and reasoned attitude.
What ticks me off is being told *why* I like Spike and Draco, since they're totally different character types and I like them for totally different reasons. I like Spike for reasons similar to why I like Snape and Giles (and even Ethan Rayne). I like Draco for similar reasons to why I like (wait for it) *Cordelia*.
Yes. That's exactly it! Harry/Draco is *so* Xander/Cordelia! And I am not joking. (much)