![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had some thoughts reading the recent shipping manifestos, particularly the H/D one and this thread here, which has some great stuff in it. Anyway, it related back to some other recent discussions and got me thinking about relating to Slytherins and the fact that
The HP books aren't heavy on character-development in general--which isn't an insult. The books work with archetypes. But we obviously "know" the main characters better than other characters. They're more fully-fleshed out archetypes with the different sides those archetypes have. More importantly, we see them in lots of situations with lots of different people in lots of different moods. That's why, obviously, we can talk about them more. It's funny because I really can probably talk far more about flaws in the Gryffindor characters than the Slytherin ones, even though the Slytherins are more flawed, because we just don't know the Slytherins. There's very little to say about most of their flaws because we really don't get them. We can see them behaving badly but we don't know why they do it as individuals, really. Not everyone is a snob for the same reasons, or racist the same way. One boy defends his father from a different place than another boy does.
I try to piece together some hints about Malfoy from things like his opening scenes and the way his father speaks to him, but even with those things we don't in any way have a complete sense of this person. So the best you can do is figure out that he is hurt by Harry's rejection and things like that. The rest we have to fill in for ourselves because we don't have scenes where Malfoy explains himself or interacts with people in a very revealing way. Occasionally Malfoy will have flashes of personal revelation in dealing with Harry, but usually he's pretty well-covered. I guess that's why I find the flashes interesting. Still, it's not a lot and probably only seems like more because the rest of the Slytherins get nothing at all. It's not that there's never any reason given for their acting the way they act (although often there isn't, or the reason doesn't quite seem to cover it), it's just that it doesn't seem part of a larger personality. By personality I just mean...well, Ron's got a personality, for instance, and it's not defined by being the youngest son or jealous of Harry. It's just his Ron-ness. [insert other characters in place of Ron there, obviously] It seems particularly odd for Malfoy not to have any hints of this since he's supposed to be this recognizable face in Harry's year at school, yet he's a sort of bizarre creature instead. Even if Harry isn't his friend, you'd think there's be some sense of him.
But what of Snape? The thing is, I don't think Snape gets it much either. I mean, Snape is, I agree, one of the most interesting characters in canon, and perhaps the most complex. But he isn't a particularly developed character, where we see him change; we don't have many personal details about him that explain his actions. We know he hated Harry originally because of his history with James. We know he used to be a DE. It seems he was once close to Lucius. His parents fought.
But still, what we've got are blurry snapshots with no explanation of how he got where he is. We don't know exactly how he came to join the Death Eaters, or what he did there, or why he left. We only see him interacting with Harry, whom he doesn't like, and who doesn't like him, and who doesn't spend much time wondering why Snape is who he is. Really, I'd say we get more insight into Remus and Sirius, despite their having smaller parts. Harry knows what Sirius would do in many situations, sometimes Sirius and Remus both tell us how they feel or explain their own actions. We see them with each other, we know something about their families, and we see them with friends. I think sometimes it's easier to feel their flaws because they're set in a full personality.
And I think that's why maybe it's easier to talk passionately about their flaws. See, I don't know how people speak about the flaws of a lot of the bad characters, since they just seem to be defined by them. Snape and Draco we can a bit, but even there we don't have a wider context for it, and it's the wider context that makes it interesting. Even JKR, as we know, jokes about Snape being a "horrible person." It's kind of interesting, now I think about it, that I haven't read more of her responding to children who say Snape is a horrible teacher or whatever by agreeing BUT saying he has also saved Harry's life or whatever. Maybe I just haven't seen them.
Anyway, I think maybe that's why it's easy to get into a rut of seeming to always talk about the bad guys in a non-flawed type way, because it's the only way to give the personalities we see a wider context. I mean, I honestly don't really get why Malfoy dogs Harry's every step and is constantly harassing him. Yeah, I can point to things like Harry refusing his friendship, but come on, would that really explain what we get in a normal person? Does he really have no more to his personality? Is he always, at best, just boasting about his father, because that's hard for me to believe because it's not real. The trouble, it seems to me, is this lack of a wider character. Everything he does and says concerns Harry in that same relentlessly flat way. Occasionally you'll get something more promising--he's protective of his family, but even that we have little clue about. Why is he protective, exactly? It's just as flat. Oops-somebody said something about the Malfoys. Cue red spots on Malfoy's cheeks and begin harsh, whispered threats. I've no idea how he really feels there, as I would feel for Ron or the twins when Molly is insulted.
I'm not even talking about personal details, exactly, like knowing that Snape had a dog named Fluffy or Draco is close to his kindly grandmother. I mean more just seeing them interact in different situations, the way you get a sense of somebody IRL. I just don't feel like we have been given any clue about that for any Slytherins except maybe Tom Riddle--him I can sort of get a sense of, oddly enough. But I have a hard time believing, for instance, that Lucius spends all his dinner parties making comments about how blood counts for nothing. Surely wizarding society should have some great tales about Lucius the man and former Slytherin. Well, that's a lot of what was so great about N_A, really, was the way we got the characterizations from canon and glimpses into other sides, so we could imagine people in different areas of their lives.
The HP books aren't heavy on character-development in general--which isn't an insult. The books work with archetypes. But we obviously "know" the main characters better than other characters. They're more fully-fleshed out archetypes with the different sides those archetypes have. More importantly, we see them in lots of situations with lots of different people in lots of different moods. That's why, obviously, we can talk about them more. It's funny because I really can probably talk far more about flaws in the Gryffindor characters than the Slytherin ones, even though the Slytherins are more flawed, because we just don't know the Slytherins. There's very little to say about most of their flaws because we really don't get them. We can see them behaving badly but we don't know why they do it as individuals, really. Not everyone is a snob for the same reasons, or racist the same way. One boy defends his father from a different place than another boy does.
I try to piece together some hints about Malfoy from things like his opening scenes and the way his father speaks to him, but even with those things we don't in any way have a complete sense of this person. So the best you can do is figure out that he is hurt by Harry's rejection and things like that. The rest we have to fill in for ourselves because we don't have scenes where Malfoy explains himself or interacts with people in a very revealing way. Occasionally Malfoy will have flashes of personal revelation in dealing with Harry, but usually he's pretty well-covered. I guess that's why I find the flashes interesting. Still, it's not a lot and probably only seems like more because the rest of the Slytherins get nothing at all. It's not that there's never any reason given for their acting the way they act (although often there isn't, or the reason doesn't quite seem to cover it), it's just that it doesn't seem part of a larger personality. By personality I just mean...well, Ron's got a personality, for instance, and it's not defined by being the youngest son or jealous of Harry. It's just his Ron-ness. [insert other characters in place of Ron there, obviously] It seems particularly odd for Malfoy not to have any hints of this since he's supposed to be this recognizable face in Harry's year at school, yet he's a sort of bizarre creature instead. Even if Harry isn't his friend, you'd think there's be some sense of him.
But what of Snape? The thing is, I don't think Snape gets it much either. I mean, Snape is, I agree, one of the most interesting characters in canon, and perhaps the most complex. But he isn't a particularly developed character, where we see him change; we don't have many personal details about him that explain his actions. We know he hated Harry originally because of his history with James. We know he used to be a DE. It seems he was once close to Lucius. His parents fought.
But still, what we've got are blurry snapshots with no explanation of how he got where he is. We don't know exactly how he came to join the Death Eaters, or what he did there, or why he left. We only see him interacting with Harry, whom he doesn't like, and who doesn't like him, and who doesn't spend much time wondering why Snape is who he is. Really, I'd say we get more insight into Remus and Sirius, despite their having smaller parts. Harry knows what Sirius would do in many situations, sometimes Sirius and Remus both tell us how they feel or explain their own actions. We see them with each other, we know something about their families, and we see them with friends. I think sometimes it's easier to feel their flaws because they're set in a full personality.
And I think that's why maybe it's easier to talk passionately about their flaws. See, I don't know how people speak about the flaws of a lot of the bad characters, since they just seem to be defined by them. Snape and Draco we can a bit, but even there we don't have a wider context for it, and it's the wider context that makes it interesting. Even JKR, as we know, jokes about Snape being a "horrible person." It's kind of interesting, now I think about it, that I haven't read more of her responding to children who say Snape is a horrible teacher or whatever by agreeing BUT saying he has also saved Harry's life or whatever. Maybe I just haven't seen them.
Anyway, I think maybe that's why it's easy to get into a rut of seeming to always talk about the bad guys in a non-flawed type way, because it's the only way to give the personalities we see a wider context. I mean, I honestly don't really get why Malfoy dogs Harry's every step and is constantly harassing him. Yeah, I can point to things like Harry refusing his friendship, but come on, would that really explain what we get in a normal person? Does he really have no more to his personality? Is he always, at best, just boasting about his father, because that's hard for me to believe because it's not real. The trouble, it seems to me, is this lack of a wider character. Everything he does and says concerns Harry in that same relentlessly flat way. Occasionally you'll get something more promising--he's protective of his family, but even that we have little clue about. Why is he protective, exactly? It's just as flat. Oops-somebody said something about the Malfoys. Cue red spots on Malfoy's cheeks and begin harsh, whispered threats. I've no idea how he really feels there, as I would feel for Ron or the twins when Molly is insulted.
I'm not even talking about personal details, exactly, like knowing that Snape had a dog named Fluffy or Draco is close to his kindly grandmother. I mean more just seeing them interact in different situations, the way you get a sense of somebody IRL. I just don't feel like we have been given any clue about that for any Slytherins except maybe Tom Riddle--him I can sort of get a sense of, oddly enough. But I have a hard time believing, for instance, that Lucius spends all his dinner parties making comments about how blood counts for nothing. Surely wizarding society should have some great tales about Lucius the man and former Slytherin. Well, that's a lot of what was so great about N_A, really, was the way we got the characterizations from canon and glimpses into other sides, so we could imagine people in different areas of their lives.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
That's exactly what annoys me. I don't think I'd be irritated by bad stuff happening to characters I like (that's what happens when your favourites are the 'villains'!) but I loathe contrivance.
(The end scene of GoF, for example - where do Fred and George spring from? Wasn't the only purpose of their sudden coincidental arrival so that the Trio could overpower the um, Other Trio; yet look like the good guys because they didn't outnumber them on purpose? Isn't the only purpose of the mirrored one in OotP exactly the same? What was the point?)
I don't mind if Draco or Pansy or Millicent or Crabbe or Goyle are evil, if they're all heading for a momentous fall, if they all end up dead.
(Well, I do, but I'm not 'angered' by it. JKR's books, her rules, blah blah.)
What irritates me is the lack of internal logic.
If they're evil, show me it!
Show me a comparison between them and other children (Harry and the trio being the best example) and show them falling down: being pettier, crueller.
They don't have to be smarter, or more talented, or prettier, or nicer; but they do have to be better at being evil, and JKR has worked so hard at portraying them as less than the others that she's almost inadvertently portrayed the Trio as the best Slytherins, not only with the rare 'good' qualities of that house, but the negative ones too.
With Draco it's frustrating that it's usually very hard to get behind whatever his plan is, because it's so obviously doomed to failure from the start.
But that's such a depressing idea.
That he should stop the plans, the tricks, the getting in Harry's face; and just accept it:
You're never going to win. You can cheat, or you can do it honestly, it doesn't matter, someone will find some way to make it not count, because you're not good (or even 'evil') enough, and you never will be.
Brr.
From:
no subject
I remember somebody once said that the Big Bad with Draco, like what made him lower than Voldemort even while he wasn't so evil, was that he "could have" been Harry's friend but was mean to him instead. And I did think that was kind of sad given that Draco did, of course, attempt to be Harry's friend, only when Harry didn't like him they wound up both hating each other instead of Draco's hanging around, maybe, until Harry decided he was okay.
JKR has worked so hard at portraying them as less than the others that she's almost inadvertently portrayed the Trio as the best Slytherins, not only with the rare 'good' qualities of that house, but the negative ones too.
That is so funny because of how true it is--and getting truer. I mean, in the first Slytherin song we hear how those "cunning folk" will use any means to achieve their ends, but in fact Slytherin isn't shown that way. We see it in the way they'll fight dirty, sure, but they general seem to more jump on opportunities for advancement and then fade back away when it disappears. Whereas you've got these other kids picking up tips from the DEs, hexing people, mounting campaigns and using cunning plans to destroy villains, leaving a clear path of destruction in their wake. Seems to me there's actually lots of means Slytherins won't use to achieve their ends, while the other kids seem better at rationalizing.
Like, for some reason it always sticks in my mind how when Hermione says she got the idea for the coins from the Dark Mark and Ron or Harry says that's kind of creepy and Hermione brisky says, "Well, these down mark people's SKIN!" as if this is the barbaric thing. And yet then we find out that in fact Hermione has charmed something else to mark the skin of anyone who breaks a rule. And the major difference I notice in that is that the DEs willing receive their mark and the consequences of it whereas the kids in the DA aren't told what kind of loyalty is expected. Seems to me the DA is rather dishonestly sold as a place to learn DADA when it's really an army--the name isn't really ironic at all. There's really no school club that couldn't be right to tell about under any circumstances, but Hermione makes that decision without telling anyone.
From:
no subject
That phrasing fascinates me - "lower than". Odd. It seems most people think there's honour to behaving badly if there's a motive behind it, and likewise, there's something disgusting about someone following the rules for the 'wrong' reasons.
There's often more respect for Tom Riddle, for example, than Draco Malfoy. We don't see Tom Riddle curled up snivelling, and we don't see him wheedling his way out of trouble.
People may hate him, but there's not this visceral reaction.
It kind of leads back to another issue I seem to be constantly carping on about in the HP!Verse - the ends justifies the means.
Draco doesn't hit people or cast Crucio or even perform 'harmless' tricks like Fred and George (can't say I'd adore recieving the treatment he gives the trio, but then like him, they bring some of that on their own heads. I'd certainly prefer nicknames and badges to brain damage!) but even these qualities are contemptible - he doesn't do them because he's a coward, he's untalented, he's childish.
Harry is (self)righteous, so even when he's technically in the wrong, the text and fandom clamour to defend him.
I guess I'm in the minority, but 'the ends justifies the means' has very little weight with me, and likewise, I'm unconcerned as to motives. Don't get me wrong, I care, about fictional (and real ;) people's motives, but I don't think they justify much. (And if they're realistic characters, I'm sure they do all have motives, even *gasp* ones that have nothing to do with Harry!)
If you're Marietta Edgecombe being memory charmed, I don't think it would be a comfort to know that the Order are controlling your thoughts for rilly rilly good reasons, or that they weighed up themselves against you and guess what? You lose!
Or to use another example, if you're being beaten up for being Muggleborn, it likely wouldn't matter that the Slytherins are marginalised in the school, and have murdering parents, and get hexed at the end of every year.
The difference of course, is that we haven't seen the last example.
We can extrapolate that JKR probably means for us to see it, that she probably means for us to see Crabbe and Goyle as boys who will punch you as soon as look at you (despite them being pure-bloods, and physical fighting seen being referred to as 'Muggle'...), that she probably means for us to realise that Draco spread the Remedial Potions thing over the school, and tipped off Filch about Harry's dungbombs, and that had he'd 'clearly been waiting all week for the opportunity to strike without teacher witnesses', or for that matter, she meant for us to see Ginny as loud and sassy
and Sue-likebut she's relying on telling, not showing.Seems to me the DA is rather dishonestly sold as a place to learn DADA when it's really an army--the name isn't really ironic at all.
Didn't Cho suggest it should be 'The Defence Association?', and Sassy Ginny say 'Nah, an army's more like it!'
(I looked that up, heroically! ;)
Starting as you mean to go on and all that...anyone not in Gryffindor doesn't really get their opinions listened to!
There's Hermione's "We should take votes on everything", but she doesn't ask the group about the possibility of hexing all of them...
(And the really pathetic thing about the DA? They probably would have voted for it, anyway! After all, no-one who's so intelligent could possibly steer them wrong!
Which kind of reminds me of what I hate about the DA - there's this whole vibe of Anarchy, Resist the Man, Break the Rules, Think for Yourself, and all they're really doing is saying 'Wow, Dumbledore thought for us! Now he's gone, do you mind subbing, Harry?'
There's Zacharias' token protests, but the 'rising as one' at the end is pretty clear, to me, anyway.)