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

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

True--though I think what malafede meant (correct me if I'm wrong, M!) was that whether or not the character is a shadow has nothing to do with him being likable or a jerk. You have to look at his role, not his personality.

I think the point of the OP in that other thread was just that this was a character who had been introduced early and clearly, and given the mystery structure of the books that meant he probably shouldn't fade away to nothing because Harry lost interest, but fade away only to be important. I think she compared him that way to Peter who disappeared for Book V but will probably have some part to play--not in terms of becoming a major, complex character, but just that he's positioned to do something.

I think the beauty of most of the supporting characters in this universe is that they are simple but give you a lot to think about. Peter, for instance, isn't a complex character, but his story is affecting.

My own take on things like the GoF cup, for instance, is that I never bought the idea that Malfoy was trying to warn the trio, but it did seem like part of a pattern of Malfoy unintentionally helping them or giving them information because his motivations weren't quite what people tended to think. Iow, he's not a Death Eater whose goal is serving Voldemort. To me that's the potential of the character. I've no idea what this would mean in terms of what he will do, but I think he's been given a little more room to maneuver and surprise than he's given credit for. I think his more natural function in the books so far has not been as duelling opponent to Harry (which is the way a lot of people remember him in GoF) but the Trip-jinxer in OotP. Who he might trip up in his small way and why I don't know, but I think JKR's laid more groundwork than we might have noticed.

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, post-workout egg-drop soup....

Okay--I see that first assertion, and agree with it. Personal likes and dislikes about characters have nothing to do with arguments about structural roles and function (as everyone in the endless Snape vs. Sirius arguments could stand to learn).

Let me disagree about Peter, in one aspect; I think Draco is a far more transparent character than Peter. We've seen Draco for five years, albeit through a lens, but we've still seen him, and he's evinced a certain consistency of behavior. Peter, in many ways, is a big honkin' wildcard. I'm one to be wary of taking the Pensieve scene as the model for all the schooldays relationships, to begin with. (The entire scene feels like a bit of a setup in a number of ways, although should that be wrong, I will of course gracefully concede.) Then there are the questions about how did he fool everyone, how did he blow up 12 Muggles, what the hell is he doing now. Mind you, I think it's more that Peter is unknown than complex. And I'd make the same argument for Snape.

To get at the last point through a slightly different angle; I never bought the assertion that Lucius Malfoy was not an ideologue. I think it's telling that Rowling uses him as an example of 'how a DE thinks' on her website, although yes, that's external-to-book. I think that OotP weakened the arguments against Lucius-as-true-believer, to some degree.

Given that, Draco's main narrative importance has always struck me as showing how someone raised by believers in the DE ideology behaves. He's our introduction to the term "Mudblood" and keeps that theme up through the books, he's clearly upset about his father in jail, and not because of what he was doing, but because of the indignity of it all. He's also got something of a sadistic streak building, given his eagerness to see Umbridge use the nasty curses.

Now, Draco could be on the ideological path to DE-dom and get a nasty little shock and go 'eh, not for me', and there are tons of possible scenarios--and it's certainly a possibility. But I'll go 70/30 on DE-in-Training!Draco.

I think we tend to perceive things as hints that perhaps aren't. There's a classic conspiracy theory on HPfGU based on the idea that Snape was actually acting in the Shrieking Shack, and there's 'tons' of evidence in little notes of behavior to support it. Same with the idea that Lupin is Ever-So-Evil. So hard to tell what little things are meaningful and what aren't. But at least I won't be surprised if Draco *does* have a different role to play.

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Let me disagree about Peter, in one aspect; I think Draco is a far more transparent character than Peter. We've seen Draco for five years, albeit through a lens, but we've still seen him, and he's evinced a certain consistency of behavior.

Presumably so had Peter--and James would have seen more of him being his friend. But still I do agree that we've seen nothing in Draco to lead us to believe he has any greater power to reveal, like Peter being able to kill 12 Muggles. I don't want to say that Draco=Peter, exactly, though I am willing to take the Pensieve scene as being fairly standard in terms of their dynamic even if this incident wasn't normal.

He's also got something of a sadistic streak building, given his eagerness to see Umbridge use the nasty curses.

Actually-ever since I noticed this I can't help but flag it every time it comes up, we don't actually see Draco's reaction to Umbridge using a nasty curse. He just looks hungry at the idea of Harry being punished. Which isn't to say he doesn't have a sadistic streak building or already there. Personally, I find most characters in this series to have a sadistic streak including Malfoy, it just shows up in different people in different ways.

I wonder with Lucius it may be a case of what I think an ideologue should be like is just different from what the author thinks he's like. Events in GoF do, imo, suggest that Lucius would be ready to abandon Voldemort for his own well-being, and perhaps Phineas' line about Slytherins always choosing to save their own skin goes along with that too. Though I think he can feel that way and also truly believe in Pureblood superiority and wanting to get rid of Muggleborns, and I assume his son believes that too. That kind of thinking also seems very well-represented in different forms throughout the series--not anti-Muggleborn prejudice but confident ideas about different groups etc. So I think I agree that suggestions that Lucius doesn't really believe this Pureblood superiority idea are unfounded.

Now, Draco could be on the ideological path to DE-dom and get a nasty little shock and go 'eh, not for me', and there are tons of possible scenarios--and it's certainly a possibility. But I'll go 70/30 on DE-in-Training!Draco.

But "in training" covers just about anything, is just how I see it. This should actually probably be another post maybe I'll write now, but to me it's not so much "Wethink Draco's just nasty but he's not" or "We think Draco supports his father's thinking and he doesn't" but that the role we slot open for Draco while believing his father's thinking or being nasty may not be what we expect it to be.

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

though I am willing to take the Pensieve scene as being fairly standard in terms of their dynamic even if this incident wasn't normal.

To stick on Peter a little bit, though--the problem with the clean extrapolations of the Pensieve dynamic is that that dynamic is also made to cover the post-school days, when people are in the OotP. It makes the group relationship static, and that doesn't make sense. What's eminently possible is all kinds of stuff happened then that we currently have no idea about, in those 3-5 years. Too many holes to deal with.

I think Lucius had possible ideas of ditching the boss, but that's all gone now that he's back. But then I generally think our ideas about Lucius massively inflate his importance and skill. I think Lucius joined up in the first place because he believed in the ideas and saw it as a route to power, and I don't see any evidence that he's stopped believing in the ideas. Seems to be a classic Slytherin conflict: we're told Slytherin was not averse to bending the rules (thinking flexibly), but he ended up leaving the school (and leaving a deadly snake behind) over not getting his complete way in student admissions. Salazar is a big question mark. I think it was a bit of a nasty surprise to some of the fandom to find out that some variation of the blood ideology was always at the root of Slytherin House.

There may yet be something surprising planned for Draco--but I'll go, again, 70/30 against anything but Draco following in Daddy's footsteps and looking to join up with Voldemort. That way, should I be wrong, it will be very nice and I will be pleasantly surprised. :)

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It makes the group relationship static, and that doesn't make sense. What's eminently possible is all kinds of stuff happened then that we currently have no idea about, in those 3-5 years. Too many holes to deal with.

But should we assume it couldn't be static? I mean, it could be that as unsatisfying an explanation as it is, we're supposed to believe that Peter simply gravitated to powerful people and thought Voldemort could protect him more than James could without ever changes the way he interacted with them at all. Obviously there's got to be some more interesting story in Peter, but I'm not sure we're supposed to see him as complex as we do. I'm more confident we're get an understanding of Snape's change of heart more than Peter's. But I could be wrong.

It's funny--somebody mentioned their friend saying that the Sorting Hat in OotP basically outed Slytherin as a racist bastard and so put the nail in the coffin of Slytherin there...I always assumed a Pureblood bias was part of the house since the founding, somehow. I loved the introduction of Pureblood feuds and family ties--it's great!

Now, about Draco joining the DEs, the thing is it's not that I expect any big surprise about where his loyalties lie (though I think Snape could realistically be some kind of influence). OotP gave Draco reason to want to join Voldemort now that with Lucius is imprisoned--though I admit with this character I find that hard to imagine because he's so childish and, well, afraid of Voldemort. By the time he graduates, presumably there will be no DEs. He could always try to help Voldemort in his own way that's separate from the overaching Harry vs. Voldemort conflict.

We'll have to see the end and then see what it means. But I'm just saying that as of now I think just as he could become a DE and people could say, "See, he's been announcing he's a little DE since his first scene!" we could just as easily come to the end and say, "See, he was never actually been involved in the Voldemort storyline in any book." So far one of Draco's main uses has been to provide secondary conflict that tided us over until Voldemort showed up or provided distraction. OotP also gave us the Pureblood loyalty to family that believed in Pureblood superiority but didn't have to be marked. So in a way, now that I've thought about it, I think part of the thing is that DEs may be vibrant characters in fanfic but in canon they so far aren't so much. Perhaps in the next book a massive recruitment will start, but the Order at least seemed to see seventh years as kids. I assume Draco's storyline will have something to do with the dark side that Harry's fighting, I just don't know if the standard, "He's going to join Voldemort as a DE," is necessarily the way canon will play it out. Because even that only says he has a tattoo on his arm. It doesn't tell us exactly what he'll do that Harry will have to deal with.

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

But should we assume it couldn't be static? I mean, it could be that as unsatisfying an explanation as it is, we're supposed to believe that Peter simply gravitated to powerful people and thought Voldemort could protect him more than James could without ever changes the way he interacted with them at all.

It's hard to completely replicate the patterns of behavior that we see in the Pensieve scene when you're not in boarding school, I think. If the four of them have all 'moved out' in a sense, even though all are Order members, they are necessarily going to be interacting in different ways, and probably enough different that the larger dynamic changes, as well. I'm being a little nitpicky, but functional changes in environment can change things enough that I don't want to be reductionist and say "Oh, their relationships were just the same", when they may be similar, but similar is not same (and there was a great religious war over that argument).

Not enough information to tell, really...

I always saw some of the theme of OotP was that one could be an assistant to Voldemort without being officially signed up; confirmation that Voldemort is, in many ways, not an anomalous creation of the prejudices of wizarding society, but a natural extension and embodiment of the attitudes of certain pureblood families. He's a blend of about half Kantian radical evil (and the ethic of force, the basis of the Dark Arts) and half the extensive ideological societal support that he has. So I'm willing to tag Mrs. Black, who believed in the ideology but didn't support Voldemort directly, as complicit in enabling his rise--it's a little like saying "Well, I taught my children to hate those filthy Mudbloods, but I never thought they'd go out and DO anything about it!" But that's my own hang-up (hence the fascism essay), and I can see Draco easily going the 'help Voldemort any way I can' route.

Re: "HP Structure Demands More Draco"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's hard to completely replicate the patterns of behavior that we see in the Pensieve scene when you're not in boarding school, I think.

I agree-and I do like thinking about that in-between time after Hogwarts and before James was killed. I do think a lot must have gone on then, and MWPP had already broken down at that point with James getting married. I think there's tons of stuff in there--I'm just not sure that's something Harry's ever going to focus on himself.

I can see Draco easily going the 'help Voldemort any way I can' route.

I could see that too. I mean, he is obviously the face of Pureblood prejudice within the school...though of course Snape was as well at that age. His story would definitely be interesting because of course he's lived the thing many people do in fanfic with Draco, having him join up and then presumably decide he'd made a mistake. I can't see how Draco could ever play out that story in canon because he just doesn't have the time Snape had.