~~ war. what are we fighting for.
May. 16th, 2003 09:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkait somewhat bothers me, my lack of interest in thinking about people making hugely wrong choices that kill people, people's lives controlling the lives of others, the sense that nothing you do anymore is of your own making. many, many people write about the angst and frustration inherent in someone choosing to be "on the wrong side". how the hero would feel knowing that he wants a villain, someone he finds morally disgusting. how would a hero cope, etc.
the problem is, if you set up a world where there -is- an obvious "wrong side", where everyone who joins is wrong and dark and morally decrepit, you're automatically sliding right into the worst sort of fantasy world. i mean, who'd argue that voldemort is evil? no one. this is why it's a children's book. but even so-- just because you follow voldemort doesn't -make- you voldemort. just because you're a nazi doesn't mean you're morally vacant. there are so many lies both sides tell themselves, there isn't anyone contemporaneous with them who could judge them fairly.
what about all those axioms? there is no right or wrong, only power and so on. all those cliches about war must hold -some- truth to them.
free will doesn't enter into it-- it's a questionable concept, if anything. certainly, the hero could hold these views, but story after story from the hero's pov gets old. everyone who writes warfic seems to write it from either the perspective of-- everyone loses, everyone is evil, everyone is morally corrupt-- or, there is right and there's wrong and love is pretty much doomed if it escalates the conflict.
i'm tired of seeing the doom inherent in being a nazi-- excuse me, death eater. this us/them mentality just never gets really challenged very thoroughly, it seems. obviously, it's present in the potterverse itself, but you would think you could maybe shake it up a little sometimes, or something. oh sure, there is slytherin-positive fic, but that's just the flip-side of the coin. all you're doing is making the slytherins (or the death eaters) be the "right" side.
there is a simple concept that i don't see very much: war itself is corrupt. it is not that your ideals make you corrupt, or your calling muggle-borns `mudblood' that makes you corrupt. it is when you actively persecute and hurt any group of people for any reason whatsoever-- that makes you corrupt. i'm tired of seeing this dichotomy played out over and over, as if the gryffindor's persecution of the slytherins is somehow "okay", as if killing people just because they kill others is "okay". in war, there is no moral high ground. harry has no intrinsic moral right to be disgusted with draco. draco isn't voldemort. draco is following the path in front of him just as harry is.
so maybe it's not that i dislike warfic. maybe it's just that i'm tired of seeing this same old simplistic moral dilemma played out over and over and over and over.
can draco be "okay" for harry to love even though he's a death eater?
and it's not the answer that matters here, because it does vary, it's the question itself. is -harry- okay for -draco- to love because he's a moralistically narrow-minded self-righteous gryffindor?
obviously, in the "real world", we are all just people. there are no "bad people" and "good people" in war. just because you're in the iraqi army doesn't make you saddam, and neither does being in the american army make you mother theresa, and vice versa. it's the person's personal conscience that determines their character, not the things they do when following orders. can we move on, please?
so i guess my issue with all these fics is-- all sorts of people who haven't really thought through these issues enough just -write- this sort of scenario because -obviously- draco will be a death eater unless he's "redeemed" and so harry & draco's love has Doom and Angst.
harry is the auror, draco is the anti-auror. yes, we get it.
and throughout, this duality is kept up. draco is "bad", harry tolerates it or snaps or they have an unhealthy, brutal relationship. and sure, there are lots of reasons for them to have one. but why write about this simple dilemma so often?
personally, i like their personal dynamic-- i think their reaction to each other is instinctive and personal (as shown by the scene in madame malkin's, where harry immediately has issues with malfoy and malfoy immediately acts like a spoiled brat, which is probably the worst offense as far as harry is concerned, slytherin nothing), or at least i like to think so. they are in fact, on opposite sides, but i think that's just a natural consequence of them being so different as far as personality (which is related to their similarities-- which kind of drive them apart too). i think that by making it all a question of choice and consequence and duty and ideals you're only incidentally writing about harry & draco. you're really making them even more symbolic than they already are.
goddamn. gimme disillusioned!harry & draco, just once. not so much with the brothers-in-arms or enemies-attract, and more with the just harry and just draco and a war raging all around them if it has to be. and this, without apologizing for them, or making them nicer or making draco more "good". `artful facade' was sort of like that.
people are people, that's all. they're not more inhuman or inherently more frightening whether they follow dumbledore or voldemort. it's all about choices, yes-- but that's one choice out of many. i suppose you could write about opposing sides, and that's fine, i just want to sometimes get a sense that this is all a house of cards. just once, even.
i'm not trying to be uber morally relativistic (though maybe, i don't know). i guess i want to see more flaws in the aurors, more darkness in the "good" guys, more mistakes on either side, more hope everywhere, more of a foundation for how these people are basically fighting a civil war, and these are their friends, their neighbors, these are the people they'll have to coexist peacefully with once it's all over. so voldemort started an insane cult-- so did david koresh. he amassed weapons too.
you just can't write every death eater as personally represenative of the actions of them all. there are always traitors on either side-- hello, wormtail. there is always bleed-through, always mixed loyalties. a harry and draco who are completely representative of these ideals which have no place in real war just bore me after a point.
and man. ramble much?
the problem is, if you set up a world where there -is- an obvious "wrong side", where everyone who joins is wrong and dark and morally decrepit, you're automatically sliding right into the worst sort of fantasy world. i mean, who'd argue that voldemort is evil? no one. this is why it's a children's book. but even so-- just because you follow voldemort doesn't -make- you voldemort. just because you're a nazi doesn't mean you're morally vacant. there are so many lies both sides tell themselves, there isn't anyone contemporaneous with them who could judge them fairly.
what about all those axioms? there is no right or wrong, only power and so on. all those cliches about war must hold -some- truth to them.
free will doesn't enter into it-- it's a questionable concept, if anything. certainly, the hero could hold these views, but story after story from the hero's pov gets old. everyone who writes warfic seems to write it from either the perspective of-- everyone loses, everyone is evil, everyone is morally corrupt-- or, there is right and there's wrong and love is pretty much doomed if it escalates the conflict.
i'm tired of seeing the doom inherent in being a nazi-- excuse me, death eater. this us/them mentality just never gets really challenged very thoroughly, it seems. obviously, it's present in the potterverse itself, but you would think you could maybe shake it up a little sometimes, or something. oh sure, there is slytherin-positive fic, but that's just the flip-side of the coin. all you're doing is making the slytherins (or the death eaters) be the "right" side.
there is a simple concept that i don't see very much: war itself is corrupt. it is not that your ideals make you corrupt, or your calling muggle-borns `mudblood' that makes you corrupt. it is when you actively persecute and hurt any group of people for any reason whatsoever-- that makes you corrupt. i'm tired of seeing this dichotomy played out over and over, as if the gryffindor's persecution of the slytherins is somehow "okay", as if killing people just because they kill others is "okay". in war, there is no moral high ground. harry has no intrinsic moral right to be disgusted with draco. draco isn't voldemort. draco is following the path in front of him just as harry is.
so maybe it's not that i dislike warfic. maybe it's just that i'm tired of seeing this same old simplistic moral dilemma played out over and over and over and over.
can draco be "okay" for harry to love even though he's a death eater?
and it's not the answer that matters here, because it does vary, it's the question itself. is -harry- okay for -draco- to love because he's a moralistically narrow-minded self-righteous gryffindor?
obviously, in the "real world", we are all just people. there are no "bad people" and "good people" in war. just because you're in the iraqi army doesn't make you saddam, and neither does being in the american army make you mother theresa, and vice versa. it's the person's personal conscience that determines their character, not the things they do when following orders. can we move on, please?
so i guess my issue with all these fics is-- all sorts of people who haven't really thought through these issues enough just -write- this sort of scenario because -obviously- draco will be a death eater unless he's "redeemed" and so harry & draco's love has Doom and Angst.
harry is the auror, draco is the anti-auror. yes, we get it.
and throughout, this duality is kept up. draco is "bad", harry tolerates it or snaps or they have an unhealthy, brutal relationship. and sure, there are lots of reasons for them to have one. but why write about this simple dilemma so often?
personally, i like their personal dynamic-- i think their reaction to each other is instinctive and personal (as shown by the scene in madame malkin's, where harry immediately has issues with malfoy and malfoy immediately acts like a spoiled brat, which is probably the worst offense as far as harry is concerned, slytherin nothing), or at least i like to think so. they are in fact, on opposite sides, but i think that's just a natural consequence of them being so different as far as personality (which is related to their similarities-- which kind of drive them apart too). i think that by making it all a question of choice and consequence and duty and ideals you're only incidentally writing about harry & draco. you're really making them even more symbolic than they already are.
goddamn. gimme disillusioned!harry & draco, just once. not so much with the brothers-in-arms or enemies-attract, and more with the just harry and just draco and a war raging all around them if it has to be. and this, without apologizing for them, or making them nicer or making draco more "good". `artful facade' was sort of like that.
people are people, that's all. they're not more inhuman or inherently more frightening whether they follow dumbledore or voldemort. it's all about choices, yes-- but that's one choice out of many. i suppose you could write about opposing sides, and that's fine, i just want to sometimes get a sense that this is all a house of cards. just once, even.
i'm not trying to be uber morally relativistic (though maybe, i don't know). i guess i want to see more flaws in the aurors, more darkness in the "good" guys, more mistakes on either side, more hope everywhere, more of a foundation for how these people are basically fighting a civil war, and these are their friends, their neighbors, these are the people they'll have to coexist peacefully with once it's all over. so voldemort started an insane cult-- so did david koresh. he amassed weapons too.
you just can't write every death eater as personally represenative of the actions of them all. there are always traitors on either side-- hello, wormtail. there is always bleed-through, always mixed loyalties. a harry and draco who are completely representative of these ideals which have no place in real war just bore me after a point.
and man. ramble much?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-05-17 04:04 am (UTC)I agree completely. I see that way too much, the whole angst!angst!angst debate, oh bleeding Christ how can I love Malfoy because he's a death eater twists knickers? I guess I'll love him anyway.
/happily ever after
While I'm not saying that's not cool, I've seen too many variations of it. Give me something original, you know?
can draco be "okay" for harry to love even though he's a death eater?
Sure he can. :p Everyone loves Draco, 'nstuff.
/stupid
no subject
Date: 2003-05-17 01:14 pm (UTC)oh, i'll be glad when the war is canon so people will have more to limit them.
you know, the truth is, i don't know how to avoid the cliche aspect of warfic either (which is, you know, why i don't try). but using it for the plot elements only without dealing with The Issues seems to be worse than just using detention for the plot element. *laughs*
but then, my not-so-secret bias is that i don't like war in fic or reality, so i mean. i must be harder to please than most people~:)