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

[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.

[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]

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]

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* ;)