![[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.
From:
no subject
And making the same mistakes at 37 as you he at 15 is not exactly a sign of maturity. Where someone like that got the reputation of being a nearly-perfect innocent victim of prejudice just baffles me. Then again, many fanon characterisations baffle me - I just don't see where they are coming from.
I think that's why I really can't identify with somebody like Hermione, the way she jumps on things right away and gets them done early...
Hermione is completely unlike me in that respect, too. I identified with her rather a lot in her pre-Trio days, but nowadays there is not much left in her that speaks to me.