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

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Well, I would think any character that's portrayed as an antagonist, which Draco inarguably is; is likely to be less popular than a protagonist, even if on paper they seem fairly similiar.
And of course, online fandom is a tiny chunk of all fandom, so in HP for example, there are both adults and children who would never dream of discussing the books in depth on the internet, but happily buy each one and see the films.
And any alternative readings from the canonical POV (in this case, Harry's) are in a smaller minority, which wipes out a large amount of characters' possible fans.
Looking at it from that perspective, Draco is actually fairly popular, and interestingly I think JKR's comments fuel that, which is perhaps the opposite of her intentions - as she put it, the best way to get people discussing something is to ban it.
Her dislike of people speculating over Draco seems to have increased it - certainly she mentions him much more frequently than she used to, which seems to contribute to the impression he has a larger role to fulfil.
There are people who have a worse time of it than us - I've only seen about five Dursley fans ever. No Umbridge. One Fudge.
Which is a shame, because alternative views fascinate me, whether I agree with them or not. As long as they're well-thought out.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

What kind of fights do people have about Snape, exactly?

Basically anything you can think of. Most heated ones definitely concern his behaviors and ability as a teacher (go to jail for abusing students vs an effective teacher), like the infamous "I see no difference" (totally sadistic cruel unforgivable vs funny no permanant damage), his motivations at the night of sheirking shack (murderous? petty revenge? saving Harry courageously? somehow people think it has to be one or another) and is his tantrum justified (sympathetic or deserving). The prank (Snape too knowsy too stupid thus deserves what he got vs Sirius's cruel carefully plan attempt murder), Sirius vs Snape (who's worse/better), should he be blamed for Crouch Sr and Jr's death (ESE!Snape sneaky schemes). Is he bias against Harry justified or totally out of line. Post Ootp the most heated one definitely is should Snape or Harry be held responsible for the occlumency lesson failure, which of course lead to whether Snape should be blame for Sirius death. This usually lead to nasty debate between Snape fans and Harry fans, as everyone tries to make sure it's more of the other characer's fault. (Snape being the adult so he should take all the blame vs Harry is being bratty and not trying to learn himself so it's useless anyways), is Snape's penseive deserves to be invaded by Harry (too stupid to leave the thing out, Harry has right to suspect Snape), Is Harry making Snape the scapegoat justified. How should Harry (and Neville) deals with Snape in the next two books (put Snape back to his place vs swollow his pride and show respect), who should apologize first, who should be the one to change first (this always get into what's morally right or wrong), how should be he be punished/not punish at the end of the series for a satisfactory ending, is he "redeemable"....and of course, the whole penseive bully/victim thing. The funny thing is, these debates comes in cycle, they die down then resurface every two weeks. The underscore is that, people get so caught up into the whole blaming thing, what's right moral and what's wrong, whose fault is it, who should held responsible, who should be blame and be punished, who is worst who is better...etc. Just too much that I end up gotten so sick of any type of these kind of arguments (ex: Hagrid as teacher, DD's actions toward Slytherin/sirius/Harry, Hermione's toward Rita/Umbridge/centeur) that I don't bash or defend any character anymore.

It just seems like Snape has so many different sides already it would be hard to polarize into: he's great! and he sucks!

You'd be surprised that it's not the case. In fact, the more we know about Snape the more controversy more argument more polar opinions he gets.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

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.

I keep meaning to post about this, because I'm fascinated with how people's fandom opinions apply to their real life views and interactions.
This fandom especially has an author who clearly applies her own experiences to her texts (Pansy/Draco are just like those mean kids in high school - *pages fandom_wank and their law list* ;) and constantly has fans arguing over issues while using their lives as back up (I remember someone really creeping me out on the loooong hatelist thread by saying that they'd been bullied and standing up to people is the only way they learn, because they're like animals or something.
And of course there's the constant 'Oh, you're a Slytherin fan? You must have been a bully yourself/never known TRUE PAIN OMG"!111/be a racist!') although of course, many writers draw on their own experiences. (I remember BTVS having a hugely controversial storyline about attempted rape in which one of the female authors was desperately defending her decision by saying 'Girls, go for the good guy, or else look at what happens!' - Some things never change, eh? ;)
I don't think reactions to characters can be chalked up to anything as simple as 'I hate Slytherins because I'm nice and sweet and totally liberal and non-prejudiced' (although I saw something very close to those lines recently and was seriously considering defriending the poster, it irritated me so ;) or 'I hate Harry/Hermione/Ron because they r totally evil WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT?!!1 *twitch* and the poor others are liek me when I was a high school goth - WOE.'
But it does appear that people consistently identify with particular archetypes (lot of ex-BTVS fen here who were Spike fans and now like Draco. As I mentioned, I've never warmed to heroic protagonists much, whereas someone like say, reenka adores them.) and it's interesting to work out why.
Or like real life ethics - if applied to the real world, would people defend Hagrid's teaching? Dumbledore? Snape? McGonagall? Would Draco fans disregard things like the Quidditch song or the Dementor trick? Do twins fans carry out tricks of their own, or would they like to? What about Harry's tendency for violence in a realistic context - do fans of his have worse or better tempers than others?
Are Gryffindor fans liberal or conservative? Do they think the books are liberal or conservative, and does this differ from how Slytherin fans view politics, both their own and JKR's?
Oh well. Lots of boring questions I suppose, but people's own ideals tend to enter fandom sooner or later (certainly after the aforementioned BTVS episode, there were some fascinating discussions on sexism, gender responsibilities, self defense...) and it'd be nice if there was some kind of pattern!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ah! I see--yeah, I've definitely seen a lot of that. I mean, that those are discussions about things in canon and how to react to it, and the usual (and sort of pointless), "Who's more to blame?" That wasn't exactly the kind of controversy I was thinking of--but that's just where my head was at the time.

It's funny...I can think of very few things in canon where I feel like one person is completely to blame...most the things I feel that way about are a few isolated incidents with a kid where the kid doesn't know the other person. Like, I think Snape's immediately disliking Harry before meeting him is all about Snape and his issues and not Harry. Also Harry can't really be blamed in any way, imo, for the Dursleys hatred of him...in fact, that was one of the discussions I read that drove me off of HP4GU. It was a discussion of Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys, and in an effort to make that decision all good (imo) and so absolve Dumbledore of blame, people seemed to be saying Harry was just exaggerating things. But even with Snape and the Dursleys I can see why they hate Harry.

Anyway, yeah I do totally believe all those discussions about Snape and other characters--they're exactly the type of things I like to discuss myself.:-) Only it's annoying when the whole discussion becomes about defending whatever character against any criticism, or absolving them for responsibility of anything they do, or making them the Biggest Victim in the universe.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

If I had a book series I think I'd really like the idea that minor characters each had their own little following of people who were just looking out for them and liked them the both. Naturally no author can write for all those different groups but still, it's nice that they're there.

[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]

Oh, this is such a good topic and I think there's absolutely no straight answers. For instance, I remember the real anti-Draco person you mentioned and she was, imo, pretty nutty. I read several of her posts and well, first she was incapable of understanding the difference between canon and her fantasy--she'd make up whole ideas that were never even touched on in canon and her Harry bore about as much resemblance to canon as Leatherpants!Draco. In her case, as much as you hate to try to psychoanalyze, she seemed to really invite you to assume that she was an annoying person who saw herself as a victim who was better than everyone and that's why she had to beat them down. She couldn't even have an lj conversation without insulting the other person, trying to be obnoxious and accusing them of being bullies even when she was the one obviously bullying.

But obviously not everybody likes Harry for that reason. Similarly, I'm always really interested in people who like Slytherins because they do identify with them, and say that they were that in high school--racist, bullying, mean, angry, whatever, but grew up better. For myself I don't really identify with them that way, but I don't immediately see them as the kind of people who would have picked on my either. They don't make me angry and want to see them put down. What I probably do identify with is more the way they react to other characters that I'd be less likely to like in high school.

Still, those might be things that came later. Usually I *don't* think I just usually like characters like Draco in stories. That is, I rarely just go for the somebody because they're the villain. But I do think there seems to be things that draw together fans of different characters. That was definitely true in XF--Mulderists really did seem to have a totally different style than Scullyists that was reflected in their writing.

I'm sort of trying to write something about this so I should think about...but to me it seems like this is part of what fanon teaches us. That a fan of Draco, for instance, would turn him into someone who is vulnerable underneath a cool snarky exterior both says something about how they see canon and says what they see in Draco. Fanon!Harry, by contrast, usually seems to be compassionate and forthright and endearingly socially inept and that again I think says something about what people like to see in Harry.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Me too. I'd want to read all the idol_reflection-esque essays and see if they'd picked up on something I hadn't noticed/intended; and see what ships there were. I mean, a lot of time fans of a particular character predict accurately, especially when the author, as more modern ones tend to, interacts with their audience. Kind of gives me hope.
I mean, if one were to look at Neville in say, CoS, it would be difficult to predict that he'd feature as majorly as he did in OotP.
Likewise Ginny in say, PoA.
But fans of them have been saying for a long while that they'd have larger roles to play.
Similiarly, it doesn't take a genius to predict that characters like Lupin or Luna will probably increase page-time in the next few books, despite their relatively low-profile at present or previously.
Which is why I don't know why it frustrates people so much when people think the same thing about the Slytherins, especially Draco - they feature the same amount, if not more; they've been present throughout the entire series which only increases chances... And while there are lots of hardcore fans of all characters who mischaracterise them (Crazy!Harry!Fan for one ;) often people who've thought about things a lot do have more insight than those who haven't. As we mentioned, look at the people who loathe X character and yet can't even recall basic book events, whereas fans who are constantly accused on liking fanon/ooc fic/actors can recite screeds of canon.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

Then you should check out HP4GU sometimes, Snape, Sirius, Harry, Dumbledore, the twins, Hermione, Molly, Ron, Hagrid, Lupin all got their fair/unfair share amount of bashing, long analysis of their flaws and ESE (ever so evil) theories devoted to them. So it's quite funny for me to see that some of you Draco fans seems to think the whole fandom is against him, how Draco is the only character who got unfair bashing and no one realise the flaws of the good characters. That's just not true at all. So many of those "good" characters got much more harsh critisms and bashing than Draco ever get. So I don't quite get where all these frustrations of everyone hates Draco unfairly while worship all the good characters like they're saints comes from. Yes there are very few Draco discussions there, so you don't see much Draco bashing there either. In fact I think it will be interesting if Sistermapie would post some of her Draco essay there to see what people say, may be it'll ignited unending wars, who knows...:)

And I'm sorry it's too time consuming for me to find links, there are way too many of them anyways. Their search and archieve system are horrible too so it's difficult to find posts. But recently there are many on Sirius, Snape, James, Twins last month (title: bullie? twins, padfoot and prongs, Trusting characters). and if you just scheme through the list for the past year, it's no trouble to find lots on Dumbledore, Harry, Snape, Hermione, Molly, Lupin...basically no one escape from harsh critisms there. They have an old (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/) archieve , but it's pre-ootp so it's not conclusive. Hope that helps.

[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.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Which is why I don't know why it frustrates people so much when people think the same thing about the Slytherins, especially Draco - they feature the same amount, if not more;

Yes! I mean, I have no idea if he'll appear more or not. I have to predictions for what will happen with him--I do have vague feelings about where his best potential lies based on what we've seen of him so far, but I don't have any outcome in my head for him. But it surprises me when interest in him translates to JKR having to write the DT. Neville is a perfect example--well, so's Ginny in that Ginny's a character who just randomly changed and then was advertised on every page as a character you must love. After that anything's possible. (Yuck.)

But with Neville, his increased importance wasn't surprising at all--nor did it mean a sudden big focus on Neville. It was just about 3 scenes here and there, and then he happened to be there in the group fight at the end. But the real importance of Neville had nothing to do with character development, it was just the revelation about his parents and things.

Draco's not the focus of the books but he's clearly *capable* of doing something significant. In five books there has been a lot of groundwork laid in terms of knowing who his parents are and, more importantly, showing us that he's close with Snape. He doesn't have to be used, but it wouldn't take much to use him so that's why it surprises me. Like, when Neville and Ginny fans were sure their characters would become more important were there this many people ready to adamantly explain why they wouldn't or couldn't be more important?

In fact, unlike Neville or Ginny, like it or not he's a character that for some reason the author has given some kind of storyline to throughout the series (which could just as easily mean he won't become more important). That is, we keep tabs on him throughout the year. OotP is the book where he's usually said to have disappeared, but when I think about it now it seems like he had almost more of a story there just by being connected to Umbridge and the IS.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

she seemed to really invite you to assume that she was an annoying person who saw herself as a victim who was better than everyone and that's why she had to beat them down.

Oh yes. I do remember her mentioning several times how she'd been bullied - it's like, you probably weren't bullied by this particular fictional character though, unless JKR has powers beyond any ordinary mortal.

Likewise, I don't really identify with the Slytherin's bullying (although I don't think that's due to any great moral courage of mine - I was always keen to keep my head down in school etc and bullying would have earned me too much attention! And I've no stomach for physical violence. Perhaps why the Gryffindor style of bullying always offends me more.
Don't think anyone gets through school without being bullied and bullying at least once though, just perhaps not in such stark black and white situations as HP.)
I imagine I would have hugely looked up to a Slytherin style figure, (how lame is that? Colin Creevey to a Draco Malfoy/Pansy Parkinson - can't get much lower!) for having the balls to say what I was thinking to the Gryffindor types (who to me fit the 'popular kid' role as much as the wealthy 'court'. Of course in the UK, I think lines like that are more blurred. Never been to the US, but there's always about six movies a year in which a high school is introduced to new comer by walking past the tables of various cliques!) and didn't dare. Of course, I wouldn't have relaxed around them particularly myself, and I doubt I'd have hung around while they were getting punished for it (heh, now I sound more of a Pettigrew type, I suppose ;)

That a fan of Draco, for instance, would turn him into someone who is vulnerable underneath a cool snarky exterior both says something about how they see canon and says what they see in Draco. Fanon!Harry, by contrast, usually seems to be compassionate and forthright and endearingly socially inept and that again I think says something about what people like to see in Harry.

I will make a huge generalization now and say that a lot, not all, but a lot of the Harry fans I've met seem to idolise themselves (I would never have done this and that cause I'm a natural Gryffindor, I hate Nazis/Racists/Bullies because I simply don't understand prejudice, I'm a simple kind type) whereas a lot of Draco fans are honest with themselves to the point of perhaps reinforcing the myth we're all really horrible! ;)
I should ask a Harry fan what their impressions are, but I don't wish to associate with any. *looks snotty* ;)

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Well exactly. Saying 'I think Lupin/Luna will appear more' or 'Neville/Ginny seem to have something to offer' doesn't mean 'OMG they should b Teh Starz and wear sexy clothes and date Harry who criez and says he's not worthy.'
I mean, it's hard for JKR not to mention any characters when she wraps up. Even Filch and Peeves will probably be in there somewhere! Sometimes I think people are hoping for the Big-Box-to-Antartica solution and forget that just like every other character, Draco will be in the plot. I mean, there's this 'Hallowed be Jo's name, how durst thou question her' attitude, which people sometimes take so far they forget that Draco is created by her, hence if they have such mammoth faith that 'Everything in HP happens for a reason', surely he, like everyone else, is there because the story requires it.

Ginny's a character who just randomly changed and then was advertised on every page as a character you must love.

Ginny became Fanon!Ginny which suggests either Fanon!Ginny shippers are smarter than they look, or else JKR is influenced by bad OBHWF fic. Neither is very edifying though. *shudders*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think we're saying that *no* character has the whole fandom against him or her, especially in this fandom that's so big that nobody even has to come in contact with people who think about their character. Personally, somebody claiming "everybody" hates a character always makes me assume that the person is probably the type of person who likes to pretend they're under attack before they even say anything. The type who says, "I know I'll be flamed for this but...I think Ron's a good friend!" or, "I know I'll be flamed for this but...I thought Harry was a jerk in OotP!"

I've come across certain *people* who hate Draco with a passion, but I don't think there are as many of them as people who hate, say, Ron with the same passion because I think canon takes care of most hate somebody might feel. I'm not really up on exactly how Ron is hated or anything, but I just feel like he probably inspires a lot more of that sort of thing than Draco does.

Where Draco does step into the limelight as Mr. Controversial, though, is when JKR for some reason starts bringing him up in interviews for whatever reason she does. I don't know how aware of the more negative interpretations of Hermione, but the one time she seemed to want to reject a fan interpretation of her it was to say that of course she would never date Draco...which made it seem like that idea was more widespread than I thought!

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

It's kind of like--to quote Elkins again :-D--everyone in this universe is really a Gryffindor underneath, full stop. That is, everybody really wants to be courageous and reckless. So Slytherins are screwed because they're not so much bad guys as failed good guys. They might be known for cunning, but they don't seem to take any pride in that at all. On the contrary, they wish they could be courageous. Peter seems to hate himself for everything he's done. So there maybe it is a case of the author not being able to really step outside her own thoughts on these things and conceive of somebody who isn't sickened by the same things she is, so that to create somebody who isn't is just creating a monster.

That's precisely it.
I can't imagine an eloquent Death Eater, for example (not that I'm wildly fascinated with them, but even so) because I don't think JKR can.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

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."

Well, exactly. In real life people get diarrhea and nits and acne; or spend hours watching TV or in the bath, doesn't mean we want to read about it.
It's a fallacious argument, especially in fantasy.
I mean, Sirius' death didn't leave me with any impressions one way or another as to the writing except that the scene was too "busy"; but to say it's good because it's realistic is crazy.
I mean, nobody wants to see Harry get hit by a bus or die from measles, even if it's realistic.
It's like one of my pet peeves, to go off on one briefly - Abusive!Lucius being discounted because of Draco's personality.
I mean, I'm not wedded to Abusive!Lucius, personally - it's cliche, if it were physical or sexual it's too dark for a children's book, and certainly there's a million reasons against it.
But the one that irritates me is 'Draco doesn't act like a child who's been abused.'
I mean, this is a fandom in which it's a child who from the ages of 1.5-11 was emotionally neglected and abused and who seems to have severe mental health difficulties is viewed as having a power the Dark Lord doesn't know, presumably love. He picks perfect presents, he has little problems making friends despite having never done it before, he instantly develops skills in new areas, he finds out he's famous and wealthy and instead of a mundane car crash, his parents died for him by an evil wizard.
And we're concerned about psychological realism?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

And we're concerned about psychological realism?

LOL! And not to mention, I am not a psychologist and am the last person to say what a person who was abused "acts like" since I'm sure they're not all exactly the same...but I tend to be very unconvinced by all these things that are supposedly markers of never having been touched in anger. The idea seems to be, frankly, that, "Draco is very unpleasant and if he was abused he'd be nice because he'd be afraid being unpleasant would get him more abuse." Huh? Or, "He's spoiled and a child can't be both spoiled and abused!" Um, yes they can. Of course they can!

I'm not pushing the Abused!Draco theory either but if I just met all these characters and somebody said that one of them was abused Draco would be the one I would assume they were talking about--you know, the kid that's angry and keeps encouraging others to abuse him and then doing it again? And keeps claiming his parents adore him and all that? It just seems to me that abuse is probably very likely to create an unlikable person or a bully.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

All the major characters has passion hate from somebody. Snape has a lot, Sirius has loads, Dumbledore has tons, Hagrid, twins...everyone. It's all the same.

when JKR for some reason starts bringing him up in interviews for whatever reason she does. I don't know how aware of the more negative interpretations of Hermione,but the one time she seemed to want to reject a fan interpretation of her it was to say that of course she would never date Draco

So answering a fan's simple question becomes "rejecting fan's interpretation of Hermione"? Then can the women (or any author) ever reveal anything without being label as such? Of course you're entitle to read her words in as negatively as you want, but I just don't see how not pairing Hermaion with Draco in the next two books is some nasty agenda of hers to go against Draco or Draco fans.

which made it seem like that idea was more widespread than I thought!

D/Hr has always been one of the most popular ship in the fandom, you'll have to blind to miss it. Also, being the author she also has the "previliege" of receive thousands of fan mails every single day. Don't think she can afford to read all of them but I'm sure someone help her read the fan mails and probably summarize them to her once in awhile. She has other ways to know her fans' reactions that we don't.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

So answering a fan's simple question becomes "rejecting fan's interpretation of Hermione"?

Actually, now that I think about it, I think she's also come close to also rejecting the interpretation that leads to H/Hr. I don't know why my use of the words "rejecting an interpretation" in either case is so awful. In the case of D/Hr I got the impression she was also making it clear this was not an idea she liked, and it was obviously more outright than H/Hr. What's the big deal about considering that a rejection of one interpretation?

Then can the women (or any author) ever reveal anything without being label as such?

I think they can. I also don't think their doing something that could be labelled as rejecting an idea means they have a nasty agenda.

Of course you're entitle to read her words in as negatively as you want, but I just don't see how not pairing Hermaion with Draco in the next two books is some nasty agenda of hers to go against Draco or Draco fans.

It seems more like *I'm* the one who's thought to have a nasty agenda here and it's as much of a mystery to me as the one that's supposedly going on against Draco fans or the one supposedly going on against JKR. I didn't think I read her words in an overly negative way and I didn't say or think she had a nasty agenda against Draco fans. I mentioned that she has begun to regularly bring up the popularity of this character and make jokes about it being disturbing which as far as I can see is simply true. I didn't claim to know the reason behind it or see any conspiracy in it. It's just there.

[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.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

I don't know why my use of the words "rejecting an interpretation" in either case is so awful.

Because it's consider a negative thing by many (not me). People get so offended by JKR whenever she voice her opinions on anything as they take it as her "rejecting their interpretations", like she forced readers to read characters in certain ways or like/dislike certain characters. If I remember correctly and did not misunderstood you, I've seen you express similar thoughts before.

It seems more like *I'm* the one who's thought to have a nasty agenda here

??? errr...I don't understand where that's from?? I was saying lots of Draco fans seem to think JKR has some sort of agenda against Draco and his fans whenever she opens her mouth in the interviews (i.e. rejecting fan's interpretation), especially in her dismissal of D/hr.

[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.

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

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.

This makes me wonder if there are, in fact, fans of Grawp out there somewhere? :D

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

Butting in here...

All the major characters has passion hate from somebody. Snape has a lot, Sirius has loads, Dumbledore has tons, Hagrid, twins...everyone. It's all the same.

This is very true. Tonks is another one who gets loads of fan-hate as well as fan-love. In Tonks' case, at least, I believe much of the hate comes from fannish issues with her gender and Metamorphmagus abilities - IOW, it says less about Tonks' character per se than fannish agendas about what should or should not be canon "content."

In many of the other cases - let's take the Twins for an example - I believe that fandom functions as something of a mirror. One person might think F&G are cute, adorable, high-spirited redheads, another might think of them as bullies lacking in empathy. I believe that different personalities, values, life experiences, etc. of the different fans make for different reactions to, say, F&G, Sirius, Draco and so on.

For example, I adore Luna Lovegood. She reminds me a lot of me. I can relate to being the spacey, dreamy "weirdo" who believed in Crumple-Horned Snorkacks. Another person might find her dreaminess and eccentricity annoying. (Which is different from saying, "Luna ought not to exist because she's NEW and we don't want no stinkin' newbies 'this late' in the series!" The latter kind of criticism gives character debate a bad name.)

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

The real reason I hate the Abusive!Lucius idea is that it's become a cliche that has launched a thousand badfics. Mean Old Lucius + Cowering, Weepy Narcissa + Poor Abused Draco = Loads and Loads of Waaangst!

While we don't have any definite canon statement that Lucius is NOT abusive, we don't have any that he is, either...At this point, both interpretations can be "right."

I wonder if the launching of a thousand badfics contributes to dislike of a particular character or interpretation? I would say so in my case...I've come to heartily loathe Harry/Ginny, not just because OOtP has turned me into a diehard Harry/Luna and Ginny/Dean shipper but because of the flood tide of dreck the H/G pairing has spawned.