Geeks vs. Geeks

[sistermagpie]

Happy birthday, trazzie--an house early!:-D

I think I may have achieved ultimate geekness today. I went to see the the frogs finally and it was great! Blue frogs, red frogs, yellow frogs, huge frogs. Poison frogs, sticky frogs, Jabba-the-Hutt frogs. I saw an African bullfrog eat a mouse (yipes!) and did a virtual frog dissection. Then I swung by the North American birds exhibit to make sure they had a magpie (she's in the case with the bald eagle in case you're looking). I stared longingly at a Zuni crow fetish for a long time before admitting I couldn't afford it. Then I bought a calendar filled with quirky science facts, which I'll probably be blurting out throughout the year. I think the only way I could get geekier is if I moved into my parents' basement. Other than that I've got it all covered.

And speaking of geeky, that leads into recent discussions about why people are in fandom, which connects with Aja's idol_reflection essay. What I have to say is actually pretty obvious, but I'm saying it anyway.

Aja starts her essay with the sentence, "Draco Malfoy is the most controversial character in the Harry Potter canon," which is, of course, controversial in itself. I know somebody commented, "Wouldn't that be Snape?" But I think I know what she means. Snape is probably the most interesting character in canon, the most complex. I suppose he's controversial if you consider it controversial that he used to be a DE. But his controversy is all within the text. What I think Aja meant is that while not everyone likes Snape as much as anyone else he doesn't seem to inspire the same kind of anger regarding his interpretation. Oh, people can fight about his interpretation--I don't want to dismiss the Snape/Sirius fan wars, for instance, and after OotP there's the whole, "Was Snape perpetually picked on or did he deserve what was done to him in the Pensieve?" (A concept which disturbs me as well--I think he gave as good as he got, myself, and still didn't "deserve" it.)

But I think the reason I think of Draco as controversial is that, let's face it, even the author seems to focus in on this character's fans as in need of re-education or at least explanation. JKR's bad boy comments about Snape are usually in the context of questions about his love life. With Draco the mere existence of fans seems to be enough. In fandom what always strikes me isn't that not everybody has the same reaction to the character but that very often it seems like this character makes people very emotional. It's not just that you might disagree about what he will get in canon, it's that for some people (me) the idea that he's a hate object there to show us that "some people are just bad" and so must be punished is really disturbing while for other people (and here I'm speaking of specific posts I've read that have basically said this) the idea that Draco should inspire compassion is just as disturbing and must be stopped or at least explained away as being fangirl fantasy.

Anyway, how this relates back to the other recent discussion is that that thread asked, "Why do you stay in the fandom if you don't like the source material?" and "don't like the material" seemed to include not liking the way the author handled certain things, or not trusting her to handle them in a way you won't find disturbing. The "real reason" behind this attitude was suggested to be that people liked their interpretation of canon better than canon itself. So if one didn't like how the MoM scene was handled it was perhaps because one's idea of Lucius as being competent and cool was wrong, or because one wanted Sirius to marry Remus instead of going through a veil. Draco fans, well we know we're screwed. Anything that doesn't involve leather trousers, a change of heart and an Order of Merlin First Class is going to set us wanking, right guys?

Right. But what's funny--and I suspect cathexys just wrote about this but I'm doing it anyway--what's funny is the insinuation that not liking the way something that happens in canon means you were wrong in the way you read canon before that. This, of course, surprises me because of course what else is an interpretation based on but canon? I know I, personally, like to base everything on canon. It wouldn't be fun at all if it wasn't based there. I get annoyed when I mess something up, a quote or something, and have to rethink when it doesn't back up what I'm saying. So I know that no matter what happens, these things won't go away, unless canon specifically gives me another explanation that speaks to exactly what I see.

And then that brings it into the even wider idea that something going one way or another in canon *definitely* won't change the way things really are in life, which also seems to be a question. I mean, at this point I think the books could go either way on this issue and still be consistent. A lot of us are probably preparing ourselves for things to go in a way we're not going to like...perhaps this makes me secretly hope they do go in a way I'll enjoy, not even just because I would like it but because it would freak people out who are possibly even less prepared than I am on this. I mean, sometimes when people say people questioning the books moral position are claiming to be morally superior it does just seem like just a disagreement about moral values. After all, everybody considers their own moral judgment "superior" in terms of being correct. If we didn't think something was right we wouldn't consider it moral. I admit I have had some conversations where this was just laid out, where the very things I thought were ethically bad news were defended, and it usually left me disliking the books more than I did when I started because it scared me.:-)
Anyway, I think it just always comes down to this idea in fandom--all fandoms--that the ultimate thing everyone wants to have is objectivity. That's fandom gold. It's just more valid if you can say, "it's just canon" as opposed to, "this is something I want to see" or "this is what I believe." Everybody wants to remove themselves as much as possible that way. I'm not sure why. On one hand I guess it's part of the whole thing where fans call other fans geeks, you know? "Maybe you personally invest in ships or characters, but I just read what's there and appreciate it in an intellectual way." But maybe it's also about the relief of having something about your worldview validated, even if it's only fictionally: See, I told you these two were meant to be together. Of course I'm really better than those mean kids at school. Evil exists and it uses ethnic slurs...or whatever. Oversimplifying there, obviously. But you know what I mean? That's my big problem with the theory of fans being disappointed because they love their own speculations more than the real thing. Not that that doesn't ever happen, because it does, but because it can also be an easy and dishonest dismissal or real criticism. There's a lot of problems a reader can have that aren't the author's fault (for instance, it's not a flaw in the writing that the couple you like doesn't wind up together), but in general the author's going to have more responsibility about these things, like it or not. If you start blaming too many things on the readers...well, then you're Anne Rice writing insane things on Amazon.com where you claim everybody's reading wrong and the author can never make a mistake or handle anything badly.

Comments

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

LOL..no, i didn't write on it..i've written so many posts and comments..i'm getting exhausted addressing the same 5 ideas again and again in new guises...yes, RPF has canon..shitloads of it; no, your interpretation of the canon is *not* objective truth; no, slash is not in and of itself subversive...

but yes, i totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. as i said in the comments over there...what else do we do when reading, interpreting, and analyzing literature? i feel like i need to stuff every one of these JKR is god people in the back of my survey classes...then again, that's what you get from debating with people younger than your students (yes, that's nasty and arrogant, but frankly, i'm really, really tired of simplistic universalizing and unreflected judgments that lead to fannish fights!)

your essay, otoh, is balm on my soul. isn't the beauty of going deeper and deeper (get your mind our of the gutter, hon:) that you can and do change your mind? isn't the power of great fanfic that it allows you to see the characters in a way that differs from your personal canon reading but that somehow is not incommensurate with the text...

so, yes, a huge big word, and sorry for the grumpiness :-)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's just really frustrating because of course there's a level where "the author is god" makes sense because what else does an author do but create people and make them do what she says they do. And the author does know more things about the characters--the reader can be wrong about their interpretation of a character. If somebody continued to insist that Peter was innocent and Sirius was the betrayer, for instance, that would be incorrect.

But still, part of the challenge of being a writer, I would think, is to get what's in your head onto the page. You can't go along with the books as a coach and tell people how they're supposed to be reacting--there are some writers who have just had to give up their original intention completely because however they wrote it it didn't come across. Places like that if fans disagree I don't think the author's opinion matters that much. It's like a joke--if you have to explain it, it's not funny. In fiction, if you have to tell me why it makes sense it might not work. If you can explain it to me in a way that makes it so it does make sense then that's great, of course. I'd rather have it work. But telling me it makes sense because the author says it does...not so much.

[mirabella]

I went to see the the frogs finally

I totally thought you were talking about Aristophanes.

And yeah, I get kind of bewildered when people can't distinguish between an author's writing ability and their worldbuilding ability, which it seems to me is at the base of a lot of those criticisms. I think Rowling built a great world, I just don't think she's making as much of it as she could, and I think there are a hell of a lot of missteps and wasted opportunities in that series. I'm not sure I'm obliged to concede someone's right to question my presence in the fandom just because I look at the text on a different level than they do.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

I totally thought you were talking about Aristophanes.

So did I, actually! Ha! Then, I thought, "Hmmm, what? A multicolored production?" -_-

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh--I was wondering if people would think of Aristophanes too.:-)

Really, the whole idea of questioning anyone's right to be in the fandom is so ridiculous to me. It's a hobby. It's an interest. All you need to be in the fandom is to have the inclination to speak up in the fandom. I mean, I don't think either of us, in particular, ever set out to become part of the HP fandom specifically. You become part of the fandom by saying something, so obviously what we say is fandom-worthy. It just seems like in every fandom there's always going to be people on both extremes--some people are always going to be talking about how the series went downhill after the first episode or whatever, and people who want to purge the fandom of those people. But really, if the second group got their way, fandom would be a lot more boring.

[cesperanza.livejournal.com]

WAH!! I wanted to see the frogs! I live right near the frogs! I've got a line on TWO HOT TICKETS to the frogs! You wouldn't want to go again, would you? Sigh. I love the NHM. I pop in to stand under the whale a couple times a month. It calms me the fuck down.

Come up again and go with me over break!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

You must see the frogs! It's there until January--I would definitely be up for seeing them again. I think I might be able to again at the end of December!

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

I don't want to dismiss the Snape/Sirius fan wars

Haha, that sounds so epic! :D "Back in the times of Snape/Sirius fan wars, we huddled together in a lone corner of the galaxy..."

Hmmm, I find this post a little bit confusing, but I know from days of yore about your pro-Draco anti-JKR-morality thing which I didn't really understand at first, but am growing to, I think. I guess it all depends on where you draw the line. I have problems with the HP books but the 'depiction of Slytherins' (to use an example) isn't necessarily one of them, at least not in an 'ethical' sense. I don't expect a super-complex treatment of the Slytherins, although that would be very nice. But then, on the other hand, if the books & JKR through interviews gave me some kind of impression like, "domestic abuse is fun!" then I might get upset.

I like the point that Snape's controversy is all in the text, while Draco's is without.

Hmmm...again I feel like saying, what if you are, say, a Wormtail fan? Surely you wouldn't expect any acknowledgement or anything for the character, or to get anything more than an "ew! icky!" reaction out of most fans. IMO that's a pretty deliberate decision to warp how the author wants you to perceive something (esp if movie!Peter is any indication - he was so three-dimensional, right?). So I wouldn't fault anyone who ranted on about how Peter was ev0l and deserved to die messily, nor would I consider it an implicitly moral judgement as opposed to a fictional one - what you think should happen, vs what you think will happen, perhaps?

Alas, don't know if I'm even making any sense! So will run away. *runs*

Oh, but this?

Books that are perfect generally don't, imo, create big fandoms because there's nothing for fans to do but nod and say, "Well done."

Fandom gets interesting when there's tension between the work and the reader.

Is so true, and a very nice summation. :D

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I find this post a little bit confusing, but I know from days of yore about your pro-Draco anti-JKR-morality thing which I didn't really understand at first, but am growing to, I think.

It is a confusing post--I felt confused when writing it and went back over it, but never got rid of it completely.:-)

So I wouldn't fault anyone who ranted on about how Peter was ev0l and deserved to die messily, nor would I consider it an implicitly moral judgement as opposed to a fictional one - what you think should happen, vs what you think will happen, perhaps?

I guess it would depend on what the argument was, for me. I mean, I do like Peter as a character, but I doubt I see him very differently than someone else. I like him for being an effective villain and sort of speaking to my own not-so-nice impulses. So I wouldn't have a problem with his dying a horrible death in canon; I might argue with somebody who said he was just evil because I think it's probably more complicated. And I probably wouldn't say he "deserved it" because for some reason that kind of thing just disturbs me even if I don't like the person. I assume Peter will die, and he'll pretty much be responsible for it, but I probably won't consider it justice; it'll just be the outcome of things.

I do think it's a fictional judgment--that is, I would never assume that somebody saying something like that about Peter meant they were some kind of murderer or even supported the Death Penalty or whatever. They're talking about a fictional character so that's totally different. I definitely think people should be able to say what they want about fictional characters without somebody acting like they've just hurt a real person. But there are parts of it that might be a moral judgment in terms of just how you look at things in canon--that, I think, is more the type of thing you get into with the Slytherins, where some people say, "It's great that X characters did this! It was a satisfying, happy scene," and others say, "That was awful what X characters did. I didn't enjoy reading that scene." Both sides are making fictional judgments, but it's probably getting into something about what they react to and why. It's not like making a moral judgment on a real person, but it can still come from having different ideas about real life things.

What can get frustrating is the assumption that if you have two people with different interpretations one of them is intentionally subverting the canon. Like where people assume that their interpretation was honest and immediate and came from just reading the text while somebody else who didn't like it as much was intentionally reading it wrong or rejecting canon. Really people can just have different reactions to scenes. Now, sometimes people *do* intentionally subvert things or have interpretations that really can't be backed up by canon, sure--and I've seen that happen even with people who think canon's got it right. People make assumptions like that all the time; you can't tell they're doing it just by their coming to an uncontroversial conclusion. Not all interpretations are equally valid and we don't have to pretend they are, but to figure out which is which you have to look at canon and what the person is really saying about it.

In fact, that reminds me of the one time I actually predicted something in canon--only it wasn't a prediction. It was the Pensieve scene. Some people were completely shocked that MWPP turned out to be capable of being such jerks. But on FAP before Book V I remember suggesting just that and it being considered a subversive reading. But I wasn't being subversive--I was basing it on what we learned about MWPP in PoA and from the map. So in that case my more controversial reading turned out to be correct, but I don't think anybody who missed those signs was clinging to a fandom version of MWPP or just weren't really dealing with canon. We both just read the map scenes and reacted. I just read if differently than they did.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's so funny that I'm one of those 'what are you doing here if you don't like it??' knee-jerk reaction people these days when 1) I still don't really like all of canon; 2) I used to have this said to -me- ^^;;

I think it's because I always had specific reasons, as in, "well, I like fanon" or "well, I like my idea of the character, forget canon"-- so this whole questioning thing only seems to make sense if one seems both obsessed with/interested in and really sick of or annoyed with canon. I can easily understand that sort of thing from an intellectual/geeky pov-- that is, one often obsesses over ideas that particularly get under one's skin, trying to refute them-- but from a fannish viewpoint, where fan = emotionally caught up, a lack of positive emotion seems like the antithesis of happy shiny bonding between fans.

I've often loved my perception or some fanon interpretation of canon moreso than the actual 'objective truth'-- that usually applied to fandoms where I started with fanon, and found it more interesting, though. The process of starting off with canon, growing disappointed but sticking with because-- what?-- I'm not sure. I stop reading/participating when I'm disappointed; so basically, what people don't understand is a) there's a different sort of obsession involved; b) the unhappy fans are 'trapped' with their emotional investment no matter whta the text does to them, just as the happy fans are. Perhaps.

The whole conjunction of the personal issues (investment) & the 'objective' issues (canon interpretation) in arguments just really annoys me, and it just highlights that fandom is just... not my thing, because I actually believe this conjunction of the personal and intellectual is the nature of fannish discourse. It's not this way with criticism in any other venue, but in a fannish situation, one is assumed to criticise out of love-- just as one is assumed to be there at all because one wants to be. I mean, so the question arises, why would one want to be an unhappy fan?

This all gets complicated, pitting 'canon' fans against 'character' fans. Of course you can be a canon fan without being a character fan (though it's rare) and vice versa (probably more common). Particular character fans are probably much more likely to step away from the rest of canon, emotionally, and judge it based on how it reflects or uses that character. Canon fans are always going to just go with the flow and accept the canon take on whatever character-- because they're there for the narrative, and in fantasy (YA) fiction characters are pretty much allowed to be cardboard villains in terms of popular perception, I believe.

What am I even saying??

I think I'm saying this whole fan vs. fan thing makes my head hurt. I used to be not-a-fan (of canon) while being a fan of fanon, now I am a fan of canon in theory and not so much of fanon -through- being a character fan. It's all very strange~:))

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ahhh! Yes, you totally nailed it, especially this:

I'm not sure. I stop reading/participating when I'm disappointed; so basically, what people don't understand is a) there's a different sort of obsession involved; b) the unhappy fans are 'trapped' with their emotional investment no matter whta the text does to them, just as the happy fans are. Perhaps.

This could not be more true--and it especially surprises me in HP because it's the first fandom I've ever been in where I didn't start with the usual easy happy enjoyment I usually do. I sort of came into it interested in one thing more than anything else, and then fandom discussions got me more invested in the rest of the canon. People tend to say about HP, "You give this way more thought than it deserves" to be dismissive, but it's true. I mean, not that it doesn't deserve the thought but that every aspect of this story seems to give you lots of space for discussion.

I think that's why to me the people who just love canon and love JKR and her interviews just seem completely foreign. I've always been somewhat like that...I mean, I've never been that involved with whatever part of the fandom was concentrated on the personalities, even if I like the people involved. I mean, I love stories about making LOTR and love all those actors, and I love David Duchovny, but I've never been into identifying myself as "the fans." I'm pretty much always more into the characters and in HP I really do feel like people are missing out by shutting themselves off from different fandom views because it just makes everything much deeper. At the same time, though, it does point out holes. You have to be able to jump back and forth.

I don't think I really have that problem so much that I can't deal with real canon--that's why I get frustrated when people assume I do. I mean, if you're only associated with, "Hermione's so smart! Harry's so brave!" you're probably more protected against people saying, "Oh, you're just mad because your character got screwed." But so far I don't even really feel like my characters have gotten screwed--just as I don't think one needs to be in love with Sirius in order to honestly find his death scene anti-climactic, unemotional and confusing. It's more just that when I read the books I am seeing a particular story that's got a limited number of potential endings. If it ends with, "Yay! The Weasleys got all the Malfoy's money and Slytherin is re-populated by Muggleborns and all the Slytherins we know who hated Harry are dead or humiliated!" that's not going to be a happy ending for me--and not because I have a crush on Draco but because for me everything that the story was about just got tossed. It would be like if LOTR ended with Aragorn claiming the ring and becoming the new ruler of Middle Earth with it--not a happy ending.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

What I think Aja meant is that while not everyone likes Snape as much as anyone else he doesn't seem to inspire the same kind of anger regarding his interpretation.

But that also depends where you hang out at in the fandom right? You must not have hang out in HP4GU or alt.fan.harry-potter, two of the largest discussion groups in the fandom where Snape by far is the most "controversial" (based on your definition), and not to mention others huge forums like SQ or mugglenet. Bashers and apologists battle in heat debates on daily bases with lots of nasty name callings, generalizations, angers...dominating most of threads. So much so that I ended up gotten tired of any sort of Snape discussions now even being a Snape fan myself. While on the other hand, I hadn't see as much "controversial" for Draco (in fact there's very minimal mention of him in those forums), it's only mostly at FAP, since its one place where most Draco fans dwell, but that's only one part of fandom. So I really not sure how true Aja's quote is, it might be true within the area you and Aja hang out at, but from what I experience in multiple parts of the fandom all these years so far, I disagree. In fact, Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Hermione all got their sheer amount of "controversy" as well, even more so than Draco in many parts of the fandom.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Really? That's interesting--you're right, when Aja wrote that I was of course thinking of my own experience, but at the same time, like I said, I knew that of course it was a controversial statement in itself. People argue about absolutely every character. I've personally participated in heated discussions about lots of characters, so I would never suggest that Draco generated more disagreement--I was also more thinking of author interviews and the way Draco seems to oddly keep coming up in them recently when he didn't before. It makes more sense to me that he just wouldn't be spoken about.

I did try out HP4GU but to be honest I was annoyed at the first discussions I came across. Not the opinions but the way people were backing up arguments, using things that I just didn't think held up. So I kept my membership but went to web only. I do remember Snape more of a subject there--in general that's what I was thinking when I said I thought his character had more controversy in canon because let's face it, he's raised a lot more questions than most other characters. That's the thing, it seems like with most other characters they're more shaded.

What kind of fights do people have about Snape, exactly? Are there, like, specific differences in the way people want to see him or interpret him? It seems like one of the main difference between him and a character like Draco is Draco has been pretty one-note throughout while with Snape we've learned more and more about him. There's just not as much to sink your teeth into with Draco, whereas with Snape I'd expect he'd generate much more complex discussions, so it seems like people should be able to discuss him more rationally. Of course, "should be able to" hardly ever translates to "do" in fandom! It just seems like Snape has so many different sides already it would be hard to polarize into: he's great! and he sucks!

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Butting in here, but really? Wow!
I obviously can't speak for Magpie, but my fandom time is mainly dominated by livejournal and discussion of the characters mentioned tends to be very mixed, (in fact, I would say in the corner of fandom I tend to hang out in, opinion is so favourable to Snape that it's actually a little irritating at times.)
I've seen HP4GU and was a little disappointed in their lack of Draco discussion since I find him interesting, and somewhat overwhelmed at the sheer size of the place, but there seems to be intelligent discourse on the whole.
I'd be fascinated if you could possibly link me to any discussions of Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Hermione or Snape in which their more negative characteristics are dealt with.
I'm afraid I rather wrote off the HP4GU, despite my initial high opinion of it, as being the kind of place where any discussion of 'positive' characters' flaws was verboten.

So I really not sure how true Aja's quote is, it might be true within the area you and Aja hang out at, but from what I experience in multiple parts of the fandom all these years so far, I disagree.

Interesting, isn't it, how varied opinions can be from one area of fandom to the next?
That's why posts such as the one originally discussed about why people stay in fandoms if they don't like that particular author's opinions/a particular character (usually the title one) and how there are too many, for example, Gryffindor/Slytherin "bashers"; baffle me.
If people don't like what appears to be the prevalent opinion in a fandom, why stay, especially in a fandom as large as HP?
There's usually somewhere else where people agree (you mentioned Wormtail fans, but certainly I've encountered and have friended several); and there tend to be fen of all stripes - I've met Vernon Dursley apologists, Umbridge and Fudge defenders, Stan Shunpike fans... Just takes some looking.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

Books that are perfect generally don't, imo, create big fandoms because there's nothing for fans to do but nod and say, "Well done."

Likewise, your posts often leave me with nothing to do but nod and say,"Well done." At least that would be my knee-jerk reaction, though I always try to say *something*, even when it's something silly :P

Like I've already said in another thread everyone simply has their own reading habit. While it makes sense for you to drop a book once hints that you might be in serious disagreement with the author on certain important issues begin to show, I think for other people books do more than either 'validating' their views 'or else'. Sometimes books just raise interesting stuffs for people to talk about- Draco being one good example- and that's why the fandom is such a great place.

I also really don't think readers who often criticize the canon are necessary 'bad' fans. Most of the Draco/Slyth fans who are sometimes labeled as 'anti-JKR' that I talk with are more familiar with canon facts than a lot of the readers who claim to *love* the books. How can being so interested in a series that you can frigging *cite* bits of it in discussions, negative or no, be a "bad" fan behavior :P?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That's a really good point--I think I said something like that somewhere up there, about how sometimes it's the person with the more obvious conclusion that doesn't know canon. There's that one rabid Harry fan who's constantly backing herself by saying things that aren't quite canon-like sweeping statements about how Harry is bff with Neville or something like that, when that's actually not canon. It's more subtle.

But then, of course, sometimes being more familiar with things leads people to accuse you of over-reading to find what you want...and sometimes people do that, like if you read a scene once and somebody is crying and somebody else is hurt and you link the two things together. Then later you go back and give it a reading that fits with a theory you have like, "If he's secretly his father maybe he's crying because he never got to comfort him as a child!" or something like that. But in general yeah, I've been in plenty of discussions where the "obvious" conclusion seems to involve ignoring half the things the author wrote--and that's supposed to suggest that you respect the author more, that you assume she didn't mean what she wrote.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Most of the Draco/Slyth fans who are sometimes labeled as 'anti-JKR' that I talk with are more familiar with canon facts than a lot of the readers who claim to *love* the books.

That's what's fascinating to me. I've met die-hard "canon fans" who couldn't tolerate any kind of discussion of the books at all and relied on either JKR's interviews or their own opinions constantly.
One loathed Draco madly (she liked Snape, though, and theorised that Lily, who Harry is EXACTLY like and in no way resembles icky James who was just liek those bullies in high school!, saved him from suicide. Nuff said.) and yet couldn't recall the most basic canon.
For another example, the poster who wrote about people questioning the source material and JKR was incredibly hostile to any kind of discourse over writing techniques, literature, or even her specific argument (just parroted 'You misunderstood, you're being purposely contrary, you're mean' - it was like reading an Anne Rice interview! ;) and openly admitted to not liking to think too much about anything (hee!) including the books.
I mean, if I were self-elected Fandom Police, I might say that that attitude doesn't constitute my idea of a "true" fan. But really, why should someone else seeing things differently to me affect my enjoyment? (That was one of the arguments within: apart from the old 'You're just jellus!!11 Why don't you write a better book?' ((I guess all film critics and sport pundits should OMG BE FIRED since they haven't trained to 'do better')) and 'People just want to make the characters Teh Gay and are bitter that Snape/Sirius/Filch didn't have mad monkey sex' there was 'They just want to ruin it for all of us!')
Actually, the argument techniques the person was using (applying assumed motives to an "opponent" as a reason why they think the way they do other than the ones they've explained) were exactly the ones that cause JKR to recieve criticism, and which tend to irritate people.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

The frogs sound fun!
Your magpie icons look new, also. *scrutinises* Neville Magpie?
I like the rant one!

JKR's bad boy comments about Snape are usually in the context of questions about his love life. With Draco the mere existence of fans seems to be enough.

What I find really odd is that on at least one occasion, a question about Snape drew the reply on Draco. Funny association, considering she'd likely be horrified at any Snape-Draco/James-Harry parallel essays.

The "real reason" behind this attitude was suggested to be that people liked their interpretation of canon better than canon itself.

What cracks me up there is the idea that people are so detached and analytical that they immediately view their own emotional reactions to texts as not being to canon but some reinterpretation or subversion.
I don't think I'm a subversive reader. To me, like most people, I'm reading it the correct way and everyone who doesn't is wrong ;)
You mentioned 'loving your speculations more than canon' and until they're disproved, mine are, to me. I recognise logically that not all of them can/will feature, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing them.
I mean, I don't think you can read something wrongly. You read it the way you read it.
There are experienced readers and unexperienced ones, there are ones that predict wrongly and there are ones who are almost prescient. There are ones the author would likely agree with and ones that they'd be horrified at. And lots of times people pick up an interpretation that differs wildly from what the authors trying to put out there. But I don't think that that's an indication that they've failed somehow.

That particular post about JKR irritated me, not in the least because of the cop-out deletion which really weakens whatever point the poster originally had (which obviously everyone missed because they were wilfully 'contrary') - love that she kept up her own argument but no-one elses rebuttals; the whiny refusal to debate intelligently (everyone was trying to 'shame' or 'stomp' her, all replies that weren't in agreement were 'passive aggressive', 'rude' or 'misunderstood' ((we were interrogating her text from the wrong perspective!)) and 'now I might have to get a rename token to avoid Teh Harrassment!!1'; the crazy overidentification with JKR ('you'll have the last laugh when the selling numbers of Book Six come out.' 'As though they're allowed to say whatever they want about JKR, but I'm not allowed to say whatever I like about them?' -
Which so brilliantly misses the point that she's allowed to say whatever she likes about fans, but they're not about her/JKR.)
Also there's a part about 'one poster in particular' which made me bristle ;) Course that could be anyone, but I have my suspicions based on some interaction with her before it got deleted. (POSTER: Shut up shut up shut up!111 Rox: *beats head against brick wall*)
And the part about having been wanked before. Gosh, I wonder why? Could it be that whole woeful stupidity issue?
Actually, much as I disagree with f_w enough, they are always spouting about idiots using the 'DON'T OPPRESS ME AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, I DO WHAT I WANT' card but fail to recognise that it also applies to everyone else.
*looks up* Wow, that was quite a rant. Bad Rox. *slaps own wrist*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hee! Yes, I found new icons. I love the rant one. I used to call the Neville one "Magpie on a rock" but he just looks like Neville to me, if Neville were a magpie.

You mentioned 'loving your speculations more than canon' and until they're disproved, mine are, to me. I recognise logically that not all of them can/will feature, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing them.
I mean, I don't think you can read something wrongly. You read it the way you read it.

The longer I'm in fandom the more clear it is that people have real trouble sometimes following what a person is actually saying too, and seperating it from emotional things. For instance, there was that thread on FAP called "HP Structure Demands More Draco" and all the person was doing was pointing out how much page time he had, how he was introduced as the first magical kid Harry met--a lot of the things that Chief has said in the past. But of course people started talking about how he couldn't change, how he wasn't the hero, how people like that are just bad. It was totally not what the person was saying. Or similarly in that thread about Sirius' death, people kept saying that "real life didn't have character arcs" or "in real life people didn't always have good death scenes" when the whole point was, "Yes, but this isn't real life, is it. This is fiction." The point was just that the way the death was written didn't do it for this person and maybe there were structural reasons for that, not that they couldn't deal with Sirius' death or they wanted him to marry Remus first. (That, btw, was why I loved it when in the other thread somebody said something about how Sirius just died as part of the hero's journey and the person could say they'd studied that and that wasn't his role anyway.)

Yeah, the thing that is sort of amazing in that other discussion is anyone not understanding (or claiming not to) understand why people wouldn't want to be misrepresented by them. Like, "Gee, why would you be annoyed by my saying that anyone who holds the opinion you do about a fictional character is conceited and jealous and is doing it to spite me and btw you can't read?" One could just as easily turn it around and say, "Oh, anybody who likes the books just thinks they're cool if they like JKR and must have some strange attachment to the books" or whatever. There's lots of reasons for people to think whatever they do. If their arguments don't hold up then they don't. Pretending to know their secret motivations doesn't really help you. It's kind of funny, really, that someone would need a nefarious motive for...not liking adverbs. Maybe the person just doesn't like adverbs. Maybe an adverb killed their grandmother; that doesn't mean the writing couldn't possibly be improved by fewer adverbs or not.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

what's funny is the insinuation that not liking the way something that happens in canon means you were wrong in the way you read canon before that. This, of course, surprises me because of course what else is an interpretation based on but canon?

It's more like...interpretation of canon is something that will be continually in flux until the work-in-progress is no longer in progress. We're continually having to re-evaluate what we thought in light of what we know now. And if your interpretation of Lucius was that he was cool and smooth (I do believe I gave that example, after all), and it was one out of a number that was possible at the time--but then new information comes along that makes it untenable, then it needs to be revised. It's that unwillingness to revise, to say "Oops, that doesn't work any more", that is, at times, mocked.

I generally find, across a number of fields, that completeness is a good criteria for interpretation. How many things can be explained, with as few things not making sense, while still trying to anchor everything back down to the text? Evidentiary standards matter, and eventually there's going to be, on at least some things, more evidence towards one interpretation than another.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's that unwillingness to revise, to say "Oops, that doesn't work any more", that is, at times, mocked.

That's true--and you're right, as we get new information we have to either revise our ideas or just be in denial. In this series at its best the new information make you go back and see things before it differently. Though at the same time, sometimes new information can be given badly or not really work. Like, the reason I used the Lucius example was that was one that sort of worked both ways for me. I think the idea that Lucius was always really smooth and competent could be shown to not really hold up early on in canon, or at least you could see that there were really no examples of him being all that great. But I know in OotP, for instance, in the MoM scenes there were times where I thought he was acting artificially incompetent in order to make the scene work. Given the information we had--that this guy was supposed to have been an important DE, that he'd stayed out of prison the first time, that he should be deadly and the plain fact that he was an adult, I felt like in that scene he seemed like an actor trying to make a go of lines that didn't really work.

So I wouldn't want one confused for the other. Like, I didn't have a problem with his winding up in prison because that made sense--and there's certainly even a precedent for it when he's beaten in CoS. But there were times when I wasn't buying him in the MoM anyway. Similarly, I didn't buy New!Ginny in OotP no matter how many times the author or the narration told me she'd always been this way. It seems like that's part of the challenge of being an author and giving out any new information, really, that you make people see it the way you do. JKR's got plenty of good points to her name on that score--more than once she's given us new information that was a surprise but in retrospect seems like it was always there.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

I’m getting into this late commenting habit. It’s very impolite. ;)

it's that for some people (me) the idea that he's a hate object there to show us that "some people are just bad" and so must be punished is really disturbing

Right ,this, this is a large part of the reason I like Draco. Beyond the character traits that make him attractive to me (like his habit of saying what everyone’s thinking, but doesn’t dare voice), and the potential for growth the character has (in fanfic at least), a great part of it is me rebelling against his one-dimentionnal portrayal, and the way people are so quick to dismiss him.

The "real reason" behind this attitude was suggested to be that people liked their interpretation of canon better than canon itself.

And this just assumes there is such a thing as an objective, ‘definitive’ interpretation of canon, which is just absurd. Leaving issues of personnal interpretation aside (which of course color everyone’s perception of the text), the fact remains that we as readers perceive everything from Harry’s POV (with Harry’s opinions and biases), and are not subject to other characters’ thoughts, or any info Harry doesn’t know. So, prior to OotP, saying Harry secretely loves the Dursleys would contradict canon; saying Lucius was smooth and efficient in battle wouldn’t.

Anyway, excellent post.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

and the potential for growth the character has (in fanfic at least), a great part of it is me rebelling against his one-dimentionnal portrayal, and the way people are so quick to dismiss him.


It does actually surprise people when act like there couldn't be anything there. I mean, I don't think everybody should necessarily be interested in the character, but it surprises me that anyone could claim that a kid set up the way he is with the parents and upbringinghe has, has no potential for anything interesting. Obviously most fanfic authors zero right in on it.

Now that I think about it, it really makes an interesting contrast to Snape that I don't know if people have focused on that much. I love Snape/Draco (not talking slash here but just as a relationship, slash or not) and it's interesting how the one's poised to make the same mistake, and I suspect has many of the same repulsive qualities, yet is so different. Snape seems like he was nobody before the DEs, and they have such different personalities, yet I love the two of them as friends or just teacher and favorite pet.

And this just assumes there is such a thing as an objective, ‘definitive’ interpretation of canon, which is just absurd.

Right--and, I mean, any author can make a mistake and put something across the wrong way.

"HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[(Anonymous)]

I must confess to getting a bit giggly at some of the discussion above, but what I really would like to ask is, have you still got a link to the FAP post "HP Structure Demands More Draco"? I'd really like to read that one, and having spent over ten minutes to even remember what FAP stands for, I don't quite trust myself to be able to find it...

BTW, I'm quite with you on the "controversy" issue. Somebody summarized it very nicely above in that Snape is already controversial within the text itself, whereas Draco is more controversial in a meta-setting.

- Clara

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Glad to oblige! And happy I actually can. The thread is on FictionAlley Park:

Here you go! (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71422)

Hopefully I didn't totally mis-remember the way it went!

[trazzie.livejournal.com]

sneaks in, briefly interupting this interesting discussion to say

Thanks for the birthday wishes, and that frog site is really cool!

sneaks back out...

:)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Nonsense, the birthday was the most important part!

And I think you would love the frogs. Really, how could anybody not love the frogs? The frogs rule.

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

::delurks shyly::

A lot of us are probably preparing ourselves for things to go in a way we're not going to like...perhaps this makes me secretly hope they do go in a way I'll enjoy, not even just because I would like it but because it would freak people out who are possibly even less prepared than I am on this.

::sigh::

Yeah. And you know, in some ways, that dynamic really did reduce my enjoyment of reading OotP? Rather than just being able to feel pleased over the Sorting Hat song--to take just one example--instead there was this awful gloating part of my mind doing the Simpsons "hah hah!" at people who I knew would be made unhappy by that outcome. These were people who had spent an awful lot of verbiage telling me all about what a bad reader I was, and how my feelings about the House System were "inappropriate" and "reading the wrong books" and other such nonsense, so on some level I did feel that they had started it, but...well...

Well, it wasn't a very nice feeling. I don't approve of Just Deserts gloating in the least, and "he started it!" is a totally pathetic excuse for ill feeling, and it just all felt, oh, nasty and unpleasant. And also somewhat ideologically inconsistent. After all, I've always been the one arguing that reader response to the text as it currently exists are not and should not be contingent upon what might or might not happen later on in the canon, right? So where did I get off feeling all gloaty when the author happened to agree with some of my readings? How hypocritical could I get?

And, well...then I started thinking far too much about all that sort of thing, and while I wouldn't say that it ruined the book for me, it did seriously detract from my reader enjoyment.

It's late, and this is sort of incoherent, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes even when the author does end up supporting much of your reading, fandom's pathological emphasis on authorial intent can still end up getting up your nose and in the way of your fun.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I have a book for you, Elkins. It's entitled "When Bad Things Happen to Other People". It's a funny yet sensitive philosophical study of Schadenfreude. It may help you feel a little better.

Half the fandom may be pathologically intent upon authorial intent, but at times the other half doesn't even seem aware of what a good portion of the text even is.

[(Anonymous)]

Admittedly, I am way late in replying to this, but I was late checking out appleviking's post, too. Hence, I didn't get to read the different comments, since they were already deleted before I even got the chance to get involved, but:

"Why do you stay in the fandom if you don't like the source material?" and "don't like the material" seemed to include not liking the way the author handled certain things, or not trusting her to handle them in a way you won't find disturbing.

Which is actually a suitable interpretation of the phrase "not liking the material"; I mean, the material DOES include the situations and decisions that characters made, iow situations that shape the storyline; not just various characters. And while I agree that "certain things" is a sort of vague statement, if those "certain things" that one doesn't approve of include fundamental aspects of the series which have yet to remain unchanged, such as the way Slytherins are treated unfairly or the story's idea of morality and love, then yes, it's safe to say that they don't like the material, isn't it? That said, I personally felt that Appleviking's question was a legitimate one, which is why I was surprised to hear that the thread turned into a wank. I suppose it depends on what exactly one doesn't like about the series. But if for instance, it's something like the way the whole universe caters to Harry's flaws and strenghs alike. Or that the idea that Draco should inspire compassion IS in fact disturbing to the author herself (never mind the multitude of fans). Well, these are obviously foundational aspects of the series. Disapproving of such views (not just disagreeing with them, but actually disapproving of and/or mocking them) is "pissing on Rowling's books" and, why join the books'/author's fanbase, which by definition is supposed to be a large group of ardent, devoted enthusiasts who admire the series, and by extension these particular viewpoints? (Supposed to be, not IS.)

Again, I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread, but in the original statement, I don't see where Appleviking implied that an idea of people liking their interpretation of canon better than actual canon had any bearing on her original question. I was under the impression that she was asking why people would read books whose fundamental aspects/moral logic/characterization/etc. so disgust them in general, not because they think they can do better (I totally agree that you can do one without doing the other, but I never saw where Appleviking implied that you couldn't). Or would furthermore put themselves under the label of "fan" in HP's fandom while critiquing JKR's work, or even condemning her moral values (to the point where I've even seen it almost become personal).

Still my opinion, but I think this is where the definition of "fan" has become skewed -- I mean, one could be able to recite the whole of OotP verbally off the top of their head, but if they're only ever going to use such knowledge of the books to criticize JKR's characters or whatever else, that doesn't make them a fan. It makes them a critic, true, but that's in no way the same thing. A film critic could give a movie a 'D' or 'F' rating. His job indicates that he's a fan of movies. His grade indicates that he's definitely NOT a fan of that movie, no matter how knowledgeable and in-depth his understanding of said movie happens to be. And no, he doesn't have to be able to direct a movie of his own for his view to be legitimate.

And objectivity is great, but it's definitely not expected from JKR. Not only because she has the cop-out "HP is my baby, I don't HAVE to be objective" line, but certain things in her storyline may not call for objectivity to handle a situation to everyone's liking, as far as she's concerned.

I do agree with Appleviking's original question, but not because I'm questioning anyone's right to be in this thing called fandom; more because I'm honestly confused as to why anyone would want to be a part of a fandom where over 80 percent of the fans, not to mention the author and the source material to boot, reflect ideas or values that are disturbing to them.

Sammy

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

You seem to be using a somewhat peculiar definition of "fan." I don't think that what makes someone a "fan" is an uncritical adoration or acceptance of the foundations of the original material. What makes someone a fan is their participation in fan culture, a culture which has always been characterized by resistant reading practice and acts of subversion -- the writing of fanfic, for example, which is inherently subversive of authorial hegemony.

Material which accrues a fandom is usually material that inspires strong ambivalence in its audience. Fannish engagement is by its very nature active, not passive. Material which is simply enjoyed or approved does not tend to inspire fannish interaction; material which both appeals and disturbs does.

Disapproving of such views (not just disagreeing with them, but actually disapproving of and/or mocking them) is "pissing on Rowling's books" and, why join the books'/author's fanbase, which by definition is supposed to be a large group of ardent, devoted enthusiasts who admire the series, and by extension these particular viewpoints? (Supposed to be, not IS.)

Where on earth did you come by this definition of what fandom is "supposed to be?" I suppose that it does adhere to a strict etymological derivation of the word "fan," but it doesn't have very much at all to do with fandom as it actually exists, fandom as a real world social phenomenon.