![[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.
From:
no subject
The post OotP reactions stunned me. A lot of people saying 'OMG the Inquisitorial Squad were so evil! They deserved everything they got (including brain damaged, presumably!) They actively aligned themselves with Umbridge!'
It really baffled me how many people said that Draco was pretty much irredeemable after OotP. (Though not as much as those people who said that Percy was on his way to becoming a Death Eater.) In fact, the "Inquisitorial Squad" was so completely harmless when compared to the things the supposed "good guys" did...
Frankly I have more sympathy for characters which are punished by and in the text, and loathed by the majority of characters and readers than the one's who commit precisely the same actions (and worse) but are rewarded and adored.
That's exactly it. In addition, I wouldn't resent the supposed heroes nearly as much if the text punished their faults, too. A bit of bias for the good guys I can deal with, but JKR has taken it to such extremes that I'm really not comfortable reading it any more.
The only time Harry's faults had serious consequences was his godfather's death - and I have this sneaking suspicion that Sirius's death, for which Harry is more than half responsible, will not lead to Harry (or the text) examining those flaws either. No one will learn a thing from it, Harry will remain as reckless and dense and self-righteous as ever, go on happily blaming Snape, and his own "character growth" will consist of him becoming even more of OMG Our Leader of the DA.
And I loathe the idea that we're not only supposed to see the above actions as completely acceptable, but actually funny. For instance, it's supposed to be hilarious that the Twins feed a sweet to a Muggle that makes him choke. Ho ho, good one! He probably thought he was going to die, what a laugh!
JKR's "humour," just like her morals, really makes me queasy at times. The Twins and the ferret scene are the worst of it - what the hell is supposed to be funny about physical abuse?
But then it's shown that the Trio/the Order/the DA feel they're right pretty much all the time
Funny, isn't it, how Slytherin is presented as the House of those who'll "use any means to achieve their ends" when what we actually see is the Gryffindors using their "but I'm the good guy, so I can do anything" attitude to justify means not all that much better than those we've seen the bad guys use.
I mean, the worst case of "Muggle-baiting" we've seen canonically isn't that scene at the World cup - it's the Twins giving Dudley Ton-Tongue Toffee. And it's worse precisely because it's presented as funny and harmless and deserved, and no one seems to see anything wrong with it. The worst kind of wrong isn't that which immediately is opposed, but that which no one sees reason to oppose at all.
'It's more important that people see me as in the right (and I play right into her hands!) than it is to not have a scarred hand.'
Harry has a martyr complex, I think. In addition to a superiority complex.
It's okay to kill people if you're a Scooby, silly!
Oh, I forgot. Just like it's okay to beat up your boyfriend, or to treat your girlfriend like crap. Once you're part of that "in" group you get forgiven for everything, right down to trying to end the world, whereas minor things are unforgivable when you're not. And people wonder why we don't like the Scoobies anymore?! - Really just like HP, isn't it, except without as much of the "disagreeing with Our Hero is a capital offence!" vibe. At least in some seasons...
From:
no subject
He had a fight with his family! He might as well have spent a lifetime raping and torturing Muggles! Or something...
Why, I bet Fudge is a DeathEater, too! And Umbridge! And Marietta! And Dudley! I know he is a Muggle, but he's mean to Harry, so he must be Evil.
That's exactly it. In addition, I wouldn't resent the supposed heroes nearly as much if the text punished their faults, too. A bit of bias for the good guys I can deal with, but JKR has taken it to such extremes that I'm really not comfortable reading it any more.
Well, yeah. The bad guys have to encapsulate every possible bad trait at once: they're stupid, ugly and untalented; but somehow the popular bullies.
They're a challenge to the trio, but also beneath their notice.
Umbridge, for all the talk of political metaphors surrounding her character, was both liberal and conservative at the same time (she approved for example, the 'old' method of punishment - corporal, like the conservative Dursleys; but also advocated updating teaching standards, like a liberal. The important thing, of course, is she represented the worst traits of both sides.)
Fudge is weak-willed, but the bone of contention in OotP is that he won't obey Dumbledore.
The Death Eaters can make a plot as intricate as GoF's (when Moody could have handed Harry a portkey any time during a year!) but can't beat a bunch of teenagers.
And of course, the bad guys have to be punished, over and over again. Brain damage, Crucio, attacks by animals and teachers and students? Not enough! We still have two books left! *shudders*
I mean, the worst case of "Muggle-baiting" we've seen canonically isn't that scene at the World cup - it's the Twins giving Dudley Ton-Tongue Toffee. And it's worse precisely because it's presented as funny and harmless and deserved, and no one seems to see anything wrong with it. The worst kind of wrong isn't that which immediately is opposed, but that which no one sees reason to oppose at all.
Dudley, Draco and Snape aren't likeable, thus they has no rights. Amnesty International can't say fairer than that!
Harry has a martyr complex, I think. In addition to a superiority complex.
Like Buffy! Jeez, the parallels are piling up...
Really just like HP, isn't it, except without as much of the "disagreeing with Our Hero is a capital offence!" vibe. At least in some seasons...
I don't know, Xander was presented as being in the wrong (and OMG JUST JELLUS) whenever he confronted Buffy over Angel, for example...
From:
no subject
It's Harry's mistake, taking "nice to Harry" to mean "good," but the books support that to a disturbing degree, especially with punishing people for not being nice to him.
The bad guys have to encapsulate every possible bad trait at once
You're spot on here with the contradictory kinds of badness the bad guys have to represent. If you're bad you're bad all the way, in every possible way, never mind that it doesn't make a bit of sense. And you're probably abusing your children and beating your wife and torturing your pets, too.
And of course, the bad guys have to be punished, over and over again. Brain damage, Crucio, attacks by animals and teachers and students? Not enough! We still have two books left! *shudders*
*joins your shuddering* I'll read the next two books, but I'm really rather apprehensive and not looking forward to it all that much.
Dudley, Draco and Snape aren't likeable, thus they has no rights. Amnesty International can't say fairer than that!
Unfortunately, that is exactly the vibe I'm picking up from the books. I keep watching with a kind of disturbed fascination and prepare myself mentally for the moment when it becomes unbearable and I have to throw the book out of the window.
I don't know, Xander was presented as being in the wrong (and OMG JUST JELLUS) whenever he confronted Buffy over Angel, for example...
You're right - I didn't mean the dynamics within the group so much as the way that Harry expects even random outsiders to agree with him, and if they don't and believe their mothers instead they surely must be evil. Of course, that doesn't really apply with Buffy because the Slayer wasn't supposed to be widely recognised.
From:
no subject
Of course! I was saying to Magpie the other day that interestingly, I saw an argument a couple of times regarding the Buckbeak thingummy in which someone was arguing that Malfoy was too stupid to listen to Hagrid's instructions and at the same time got injured on purpose in a malicious attempt to get Hagrid fired.
Maybe he had a timeturner?
Or Crabbe and Goyle, who are aggressive bullies, but also too slow/cowardly to ever fight anyone and run away from danger. *brow furrows*
Unfortunately, that is exactly the vibe I'm picking up from the books. I keep watching with a kind of disturbed fascination and prepare myself mentally for the moment when it becomes unbearable and I have to throw the book out of the window.
I threw OotP out of the window. Now it's all rotten and mouldy and lives in my garden.
I think it's become savage.
From:
no subject
*snort*
I threw OotP out of the window. Now it's all rotten and mouldy and lives in my garden.
I think it's become savage.
As if it wasn't anyway! "Savage" is exactly the way I would describe the HP universe, in terms of morals/ethics. And it wouldn't bother me at all if it didn't at the same time come with this Giant Baseball Bat of Righteousness, smiting anyone who dares disagree inside the books and belittling dissenting readers outside.
From:
no subject
Yeah, unfortunately it seemed like it just provided a handy justification for anything done to them, so we spent most of the book hearing about how one Slytherin and another wound up in the infirmary. Clearly they didn't have any real power or authority over anyone, they were just allowed to take points, took points, and brought the school down on their heads for it--again. I always also find it odd when they're accused of "siding with Umbridge" when they, or at least Draco, seem to think she's as daft as everyone else does. They just use it to their advantage.
One of the things I enjoyed about Draco in OotP is the way he seemed to be king of the chaos, seeing just how unfair and ridiculous things were but finding it funny and exhilerating. He knows Harry's not crazy, but enjoys other peoples' misconception. He knows Umbridge is a tool against Harry and enjoys letting Harry see it, imo. (We don't hear about him getting hexed either, and I wondered if that had to do with the fact that Draco saw what happened to people who truly tried to enforce Umbridge's rules, so didn't.) When push comes to shove, Umbridge knows not to trust her little squad.
This, btw, is yet another reason I feel like Draco just shouldn't be destined to be a DE or even a junior DE. He's just never shown the ability to persue anything but his own very limited personal agenda. Hmm. Maybe there's a post there.
That's exactly it. In addition, I wouldn't resent the supposed heroes nearly as much if the text punished their faults, too. A bit of bias for the good guys I can deal with, but JKR has taken it to such extremes that I'm really not comfortable reading it any more.
Word.
From:
no subject
And clearly taking points from Gryffindor is a capital offence in Harry's POV. See Montague, whose possibly permanent brain damage is shrugged off because - again - "he deserved it."
Draco didn't "side with Umbridge" any more than Harry did; he just knew how to get on her good side instead of pointlessly and repeatedly antagonising her. He seemed to see her far more clearly than Harry did, at any rate - the ridiculousness and the easily exploitable biases, not just the "Evilness."
One of the things I enjoyed about Draco in OotP is the way he seemed to be king of the chaos, seeing just how unfair and ridiculous things were but finding it funny and exhilerating.
I really like this view of Draco! It's one of the rare occasions where we see him acting as a Slytherin should - seeing what is truly going on but using everyone's biases to his advantage.
Draco just shouldn't be destined to be a DE or even a junior DE. He's just never shown the ability to persue anything but his own very limited personal agenda.
Draco is so much the class clown I have a hard time buying him as "evil" in any circumstances. If he were initiated as a Death Eater, he'd very soon find himself in over his head, and with nowhere to retreat, too. I'm sure he'd sooner chew off a limb than go to Potter for help, and Harry gives the impression he wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, anyway.
Still, apart from having a father who is one, and the occasional "Mudblood" comment, I don't see anything about Draco that predestines him to being a Death Eater. He's a brat, yes, but going around killing people when he's even afraid of blood? Not likely. Also there is, as you say, his very definite personal agenda, which doesn't seem to allow for any other priorities. I mean, he can't manage to make nice with Potter even when his father asks him to...
Hmm. Maybe there's a post there.
Yes, please! Your essays are always so insightful; I've learned a lot about characters I hadn't thought that deeply about from you. These kinds of discussion have given me a much firmer grasp on what makes many of these characters tick.
From:
no subject
Reminded me of Rita Skeeter in GoF. She didn't particularly like him, he didn't particularly like her, but they worked together for a common goal: in this case, pissing off Harry! ;)
If Snape, Sirius and Harry had followed that example, perhaps Sirius wouldn't have died...
From:
no subject
Me too. GoF ended with Draco gloating over Voldemorts return and making a chillingly insensitive remark of the recent death of a school-mate of his, and yet people see OotP as the "proof of Draco's 'irredeemability'"? The book in which he's done no worse than writing a ridiculous song and sucking up to his new headmistress? And yet, the overwhelming reaction regarding Draco in OotP seemed to be "look how evil he is! Surely you Draco fangirls must realise now, that he'll never get redeemed?" Even many Draco-fans seemed to take OotP as a proof that there was no hope for him to get any other development than going straight to hell, after OotP, and that surprised me even more, because really, did anyone expect him to get "redeemed" álready in the fifth book? Before he'd even done anything that he could be "redeemed" for?
And as for the Slytherins all joining the IS, I saw that as a consequence of Slytherins always having been excluded from the unity of Hogwarts, by Dumbledore, the other houses and most teachers. Why wouldn't they welcome a new headmistress? I mean what did the old headmaster ever do to win their sympathies or loyalties?
From:
no subject
It does seem that people expected the fifth book to suddenly resolve his character.
But then, I hated almost every reaction to OotP that I read, so...
I mean what did the old headmaster ever do to win their sympathies or loyalties?
To quote ataniell93 -
"Dumbledore reminds me of some fundamentalist versions of Jesus. If you aren't already giving him the kind of egoboo he likes and spouting his party line by age 11, you're a lost cause, and it's up to you to admit your sins and come to him for help."
From:
no subject
Ha! Don't you know that being Sorted into Slytherin is a Moral Choice and/or Judgement that in itself needs atonement in the form of blood sacrifice, self-abasement and excessive humiliation? And that the same goes for being born a Death Eater's son? Don't you know that being angry your father is thrown into prison because you happen to love him automatically makes you a Death Eater? Unless of course you're Percy Weasley, in which case it's contradicting your parents that makes you a Death Eater. (And sometimes it's just not immediately believing anything Harry says, never mind the fact that he is canonically known to have lied whenever it was convenient to him.)
And as for the Slytherins all joining the IS, I saw that as a consequence of Slytherins always having been excluded from the unity of Hogwarts, by Dumbledore, the other houses and most teachers.
Need I say DA? It's the perfect example of Slytherin Exclusion. Not even a single token "good Slytherin," which will make the appearance of that mythical creature very, very hard to pull off in the next two books.
Why wouldn't they welcome a new headmistress? I mean what did the old headmaster ever do to win their sympathies or loyalties?
I'm sure the end of PS/SS was enough to teach Slytherin House what they had to expect from Dumbledore for at least as long as Harry Potter was in school.
And it's not as though they seemed to particularly agree with Umbridge - they saw her exactly for what she was, and used it to their own advantage. Which of course is a Slytherin trait and punishable by permanent brain damage, or so Our Heroes seem to think. Whereas the proper Gryffindor response is to permanently antagonise her, and then complain about unfair punishments for which they themselves have given her ample excuse. Common sense is not a Gryffindor trait, and anyone possessing it probably is Evil anyway...
From:
no subject
Meaning Ernie McMillan (CoS), Zacharias Smith and Seamus Finnegan are all lining up to be DEs as well. But I supposed they've all went through the Redemption already, by believing Harry in the end.
Need I say DA? It's the perfect example of Slytherin Exclusion.
Well exactly. So Draco and his pals form their own club damnit!
From:
no subject
Yes, indeed, come to think of it, you are right. They were on that slippery slope leading straight to Evil, but were redeemed by Believing - by having faith in Harry. (Excuse me while I retch.)
I don't even want to think about Percy. I suppose he'll be made to grovel something awful before being allowed "back", and I know that's the point where the book will hit the wall.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The only time Harry's faults had serious consequences was his godfather's death - and I have this sneaking suspicion that Sirius's death, for which Harry is more than half responsible, will not lead to Harry (or the text) examining those flaws either. No one will learn a thing from it, Harry will remain as reckless and dense and self-righteous as ever, go on happily blaming Snape, and his own "character growth" will consist of him becoming even more of OMG Our Leader of the DA.
Admittedly, the evidence for JKR handling such potentially hopeful situations in canon prior to this hasn't been the greatest, but I've always felt that the circumstances of Sirius's death are probably Harry's best chance for self-awareness and growing up. Hermione told him clearly that he was willingly jumping headlong into a trap Voldemort was setting for him. A four-year-old could see that Hermione would be more than entirely justified in verbalizing the implied "I TOLD YOU SO" here, I am desperately crossing my fingers that JKR can see this too. And before the notion of blaming Snape was introduced, Harry did seem to be more or less aware that Sirius' death was his fault.
Then again, it could turn out exactly like the ripe potential of the twins going "Dark" to get money (ending up nowhere by the end of GoF, when Harry gave them money), but I still have hope.
From:
no subject
I'm rather new to LJ, so I still get excited about every comment that floats my way! Butt in any time.
You said: the circumstances of Sirius's death are probably Harry's best chance for self-awareness and growing up...
Oh, you don't know how much I want to believe that that will happen! It's what I would want, what I've always wanted for these characters - to actually grow up. (And I wanted that for Sirius, too, so I'm rather miffed she denied him that...) I'm just trying really, really hard not to get my hopes up, and I guess my "preparing for the worst" came across a bit more forceful than I meant. But each time one of the characters did something truly appalling (the twins' money schemes, for example, or the whole Montague issue, or the hexing on the train), I always expected cosmic payback to come to them, and for them to learn from it, and yet that ever actually happened.
The potential is there, but I don't expect it to be used anymore - no more than I expect JKR to actually appreciate the complexities of the characters she has created (or to respect her readers' intelligence).
I am desperately crossing my fingers that JKR can see this too.
Since, as you say, the evidence for JKR handling such potentially hopeful situations in canon prior to this hasn't been the greatest, I don't have much faith in her anymore, and her attitude in interviews isn't exactly helping. Somehow I doubt she'll suddenly miraculously improve with the next two books.
I'm curious - in the face of all the evidence, how do you manage to remain hopeful? And would you continue to read the books if you had to give up hope? I'm going to keep reading, but I'm not particularly looking forward to it.
Of course, my fearing the worst may be partly influenced by too many fics bringing Sirius back where apparently if someone dies because you were stupid and reckless, the thing to do is be stupid and reckless again, and then you'll be rewarded by them coming back to life.
I want Sirius back as much as the next person, but I don't want the consequences of his death to be negated - mostly because there's been a decided lack of consequences of any kind for the good guys in the books.
From:
no subject
I guess what mostly holds in my mind is that the series isn't over yet. Heck, I hardly count it as "almost over", just 'cause a lot of stuff usually happens in a single book. Harry and his friends' story isn't over yet; but in the story that IS over (which we've seen -- Marauder/Snape era), we've seen that cosmic payback comes (even if not direct retribution for enmity); only they don't always get a chance to learn from it. I mean, there is always potential in arrogance being a cause of death: in James's case, it was. Sirius never, ever learned from the mistakes caused by his rashness --> and from the Prank to Azkaban to death, he paid for it too. (Unless JKR plans to have Harry replay Sirius's life, then I think somethning should change.) Remus, so eager to be liked by his friends that he'd overlook harrasment to a Slytherin student, is now alone and not exactly in the most secure and pleasant position. I honestly can't imagine anyone not seeing a connection between Remus's silence during the Pensieve scene and the Trio's silence on Montague's injuries (except perhaps that Harry and Ron don't see it as a terrible thing, while Remus at least looked a little disapproving. But even so, Hermione did suggested the notion that telling was the right thing to do; even if she was instantly silenced and pacified, the notion was still brought up. Why would JKR even bring up such a notion if she were honestly trying to convince everyone that Harry and Ron's thought process is the right one? Why instill the doubt that it isn't, especially when the best defence to it was "More trouble for Umbridge", which not even that many kids would be pacified by? This leads me to doubt that the authorial voice is in fact NOT condoning the boys' apathy as the right reaction. Which of course gives me a bit more hope that JKR may see the connection and ... well, do something.)
So I suppose I would keep reading, probably just for the fact that I wouldn't allow myself to give up hope until tnhe epilogue at the very least. There would always be that feeling of "Just because nothing's happened yet, doesn't mean it won't!" I even feel a little guilty for sometimes feeling that since the Fred/George debt storyline was supposedly dealt with at the end of GoF, it means that JKR has just written off that storyline for good; because to be fair, we've only had one book pass between the end of GoF, a book in which (for the most part) F&G were at school where they really couldn't do much of consequence that we haven't seen them do before. And we know that JKR has the tendency to carry early storylines into later books.
From:
no subject
Still, here's what I think:
in the story that IS over (which we've seen -- Marauder/Snape era), we've seen that cosmic payback comes (even if not direct retribution for enmity); only they don't always get a chance to learn from it. I mean, there is always potential in arrogance being a cause of death: in James's case, it was.
Really? James died because Voldemort went after his son; what did that have to do with his arrogance? Unless you mean the Secret Keeper switch, but is it arrogant to trust one of your closest friends?
It seems no one ever learns from their mistakes in this universe; at least I haven't seen a single example in five books. It could still happen, but I don't have confidence it will.
And for those who suffered and/or died, their "punishment" wasn't for their actual "crimes," but almost completely unrelated.
I honestly can't imagine anyone not seeing a connection between Remus's silence during the Pensieve scene and the Trio's silence on Montague's injuries (except perhaps that Harry and Ron don't see it as a terrible thing, while Remus at least looked a little disapproving.
Why would JKR even bring up such a notion if she were honestly trying to convince everyone that Harry and Ron's thought process is the right one?
No, I don't think she wants us to think they are right. But even if the authorial voice isn't exactly approving their behaviour, I still get the impression it's supposed to be fundamentally harmless, not the descent into darkness it could be a symptom of. Just like we are supposed to find the twins funny, even when they're torturing Muggles, experimenting on first years or blackmailing people. Just like it seems hexing Slytherins until they're unconscious and don't even look human anymore isn't supposed to be serious.
And as for why JKR would do anything - why create interesting, complex characters and then be surprised when your readers like them? I don't understand JKR's thought processes at all.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I really want to be.