reenka

This will definitely come as a shock to nobody, but the fact remains, I just don't -like- `evil'.

Stephen tells me I'm a "very moral person" and that's just kind of ridiculous, in a way, since I severely dislike most ethical systems and "rules" in general. But I just realized that I think I have a bone to pick with the glorification of evil in the HP universe in particular or any universe in general. Its fictionality is besides the point to me, because it's not the hypothetical story that concerns me but the reactions to that story. I am just concerned about the trend to subvert "the authority" (the Good Guys) to such an extent that all empathy is left behind as the spoils of this war. There are definitely healthy ways to aesthetically depict and appreciate pain and sadness and horror-- but the sheer mindless enjoyment of them... I dunno. It concerns me.

I've liked mean characters that I'd avoid even looking at in real life-- I've liked fictional assholes of the highest order-- loved, even. But there's a huge difference between meanness (which in real life pisses me the hell off) and this amorphous, vaguely religious concept called "evil".

I happen not to believe in evil, but it's not a calm, accepting non-belief the way my atheism is calm and accepting. I think "evil" is basically a destructive meme which does nothing positive for anyone I've ever seen espousing it, and certainly not for any philosophical system that includes it. Most people don't even question what they mean when they call someone "evil". And this is what bothers me-- the admiration and enjoyment of someone's "evil" as a state-of-being. An "evil action" may get a positive response and it wouldn't bother me because in terms of actions, evil would be defined by destructive power, and if the action brings pleasure then it's not really "evil" except in some metaphysical intractable sense as far as the individual in question.

Calling a person evil bothers the living daylights out of me, whether you mean you love or hate them for it. It bothers me because people don't question this, because they throw around these terms with no sense of thought apparent behind them. And yes, this comes down to Draco and people claiming to like or love Evil!Draco (or Evil!anyone, or Death Eaters being oh-so-cool-'cause-they're-evil). It's fiction, and evil doesn't exist in my mind, but it does in -theirs-, apparently, and here are all these people finding this concept which is real to them appealing. And it's appealing because this person likes to cause pain and misery and doesn't apologize, because this person doesn't deserve forgiveness or hand it out, because this person is the lowest of the low and somehow that makes them... what??! That makes them what, exactly??!

How in world can someone judge a person so negatively on their own moral scale and then like them for it??! It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate Satanism, but then you are basically saying that Satan Is Good. As long as you have a different definition of good (or evil), it's perfectly understandable. But how does it work, when someone buys into the whole semi-Christian moral system and then labels a character like Draco with the weight of centuries of hellfire and vicious condemnation and then (in what I consider one of the few real perversities) goes on to enjoy and bestow affection on what to them is basically a being of Sin (with a capital "S")??!

This has been brewing for a long time, too. Every time someone goes on about the beauty of evil!Lucius and the wonderfulness of the (Oh So Evil) Death Eaters and the gorgeous malice of Voldemort (or Riddle)-- not in an exploratory fictional thematic context, in a cultish appropriation context-- that's where it crosses the line for me.

Rowling created a very black-and-white world, at least before OoTP. For some people, this is an invitation to feel justified in their happily rigid Judeo-Christian moral system (Draco sucks, Umbridge sucks, Harry & Ron & Gryffindor rocks, but OoTP!Harry, not so much). For some people, this is an invitation to subvert these binaries and try to tease out the ambiguities in this universe, to work within the grey areas, to aim for some sort of liminal space where change and redemption is possible for all. And then there are the people who've internalized their disenfranchized sensibility to such an extent that they take this fairy-taleish moral system and cast their lost with the Wicked Witch and the Koschei the Deathless of this universe. It's basically a pointless, simple reversal of the blind Good/Evil binary (which a closer reading of the text doesn't even fully support), and it's taking things completely out of context to promote what is most likely a prior Evil=Good agenda.

I don't know why it drives me up the wall like this-- but anytime that I see someone glorifying what is basically a horrible abuse or a mishandling of justice, I just see red. This is funny because I'm really not a justice-centric person, not at all-- as far as personality-typing (this is a common question), I'm much more on the `mercy' rather than the `justice' end. By endorsing the evilness of a character like Draco, the discourse leaves the level of possible "sexual kink" far behind and goes into something that reflects people's views of the world. And this is where my outrage lies, I suppose. It's not a question of me disapproving of someone's pleasure-- it's a question of me disapproving of a certain mind-set.

This is basically the Puritan mind-set, dressed up in pretty garters and spiked heels. Instead of obsessively venerating the Good and the Pure, this is venerating the Filthy and the Destructive and Wrong -because- it's seen that way. It would be -fine-, as I'd said, if all this -wasn't- seen as wrong (because I'm relativist like that). But the sheer mental acrobatics needed to admire in a character the very thing that disgusts one in a human being simply boggles me.

I don't admire Draco's mean streak, for instance-- I love him anyway, but I don't enjoy him because of it. Even if I did-- meanness is one thing, and sheer Evil is quite, quite another!

I won't even go into some preachy essay as to why Draco Isn't Evil In The Least, because the subject is also an emotional one for me and I don't think I can say anything useful when I feel like yelling GOD NO. Because what offends me even -more- is the idea of someone loving him for it. It's like shoving someone's face in the dirt and thinking you're giving them a hug!! It's not love! What is that? How can you like a character and have them be all wrong and twisted and psychotic in your mind-- not in an "ooh, madness + violence = sexy" sort of way, but in a "MINIONS OF ABSOLUTE(!!) EVIL ARE TEH BOMB" sort of way? Because madness can mean a number of enjoyable (dark) things-- delirium, loss of control, the fevered vertigo feeling of nightmares, one's own dark side.

The only difference here is that neither madness or darkness involve an element of moral judgement (like "Evil" does), thus they don't have much to do with any sort of ethical stance one way or the other. You can wallow in darkness & madness till your mind self-destructs and never touch any element of veneration towards Evil, which is at heart a monotheistic religious concept which offends the living fuck out of me (whereas Darkness itself definitely doesn't in any possible way).

I know getting this upset means I can't think and thus won't say anything useful, of course. Sigh. It's just... wanting Draco to be Evil basically goes against all my poor delicate sensibilities, I think. Wanting anyone to be Evil goes against everything dear to me. It's even more repugnant to me than -judging- someone evil (because well, everyone does -that-, don't they-- I'm used to it to some extent). Mind you, I'm not saying Riddle & Lucius Malfoy & Umbridge aren't dark and sadistic or whatever (though Draco-- just leave Draco out of this, okay??!?!)-- that just means they're dark to me, that they've made the wrong choices, that they have some inadequacy complex of some sort which means they get off on others' pain. Draco hasn't made all these choices. Labelling Draco evil is just a blatant misuse of the concept to "rub it in", so to speak, to appropriate him because Evil Is Better (as far as my small sample size goes). If Ron & Harry & Gryffindors Suck and Evil!Draco and Death Eaters and Pain And Torture Rule, then what other conclusion can I draw?

This whole post is basically just one long scream at the awful attack on my darling's character. I know I'm unreasonable and I don't even know all these Death Eater-venerating people and there's no reason to think they're much alike aside from my sudden burst of rage. But dammit!! My subject says it all.

DIE EVIL!DRACO DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE ALREADY!!!11!!1!!one! And take Good!Draco with you, 'cause he's just a wet noodle that reminds me of souled!Spike, except not crazy! Which isn't Good! Ahem. -.-

*breathes*. okay. um. yeah. i was a bit stressed today, why? :T

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

yourpoison.livejournal.com

Hmmm. Well... I suppose in canon, we don't see Draco not doing these -because- they're wrong and thus he shouldn't do them. I mean, he doesn't seem to -stop- at some set point (that we've seen), so I suppose one can theorize that he wouldn't stop at -any- point? I mean... what are his boundaries, exactly? What wouldn't he do? We don't know-- we only know what he -did- do, but not necessarily what he's capable of, because while we've seen the "Temptation of Harry Potter" in various guises, we haven't really seen Draco be tempted. He's just mean and ugly in his actions and is apparently self-involved and self-righteous and envious and given to anger, which has certainly driven a number of people to utter darkness.

So if you don't assume that most people are inherently unable to go "all out" and fuck someone's bleeding eyeball just because, so to speak-- I mean, why not, what's stopping him besides sheer humanity? I suppose with the "goody-goody" types, we see them restraining themselves, we assume they'd do it against greater "temptation" as well (leaving aside the idea of whether it'd be a temptation to start with). But since the "bad-boy" types seem to act on their darker impulses more (want? take!)-- then why not act on -all- darker impulses? We don't know if Draco's ever taken it easy on Potter, and I suppose one can assume he didn't. So unless one thinks there's some sort of intrinsic "limit" to these things, it's open season, isn't it.

For instance-- we'd have thought that Harry would have a sheer inborn limit against casting Crucio, but he didn't-- he tried to cast it, he proved capable. Of course, I consider it v. important that he -couldn't-, that he couldn't muster the "desire to hurt" or whatever Bellatrix said-- but he -wanted- to on some level, anyway, even if I don't think he did on the deepest level where magic comes from. I dunno if I buy into JKR's views on human morality in the first place, so :/

I definitely think that these evil!Draco and "Yeay! Death Eaters!" type of people -do- consider the non-Death-Eaters and the Gryffindors and such to be "non-evil" (though deeply uninteresting and worthy of mockery). They don't tend to write these characters, I think, but I don't get the impression than it's all the same-- that we've all got an equal capacity for evil (that'd actually go down easier with me).

I do think that your "we need God to be Good" reference was spot-on, but it's just conjecture of course. Most likely sticking God into this mental equation isn't necessary. I really get this feeling that this is about "coolness" or some sort of enjoyable debauchery where rape & murder & hate & superiority all come together into some sort of orgy of misdeed. Ahahaha I know I'm taking it too seriously but I definitely get this feeling from a number of Harry/Lucius & Snape/Lucius & Lucius/Draco & Death Eater orgy fics & so on. Like, I know it's not -all- of them or maybe most of them, but I this whole "mmmm, rape & pillage for kink & fun!" attitude often enough. Though perhaps I'm over-sensitive -.-

From:

sistermagpie.livejournal.com

No, I think you're right that it's probably a coolness factor...but then that itself really speaks more to naivite than anything else (much like Draco's own bragging about evil speaks to his innocence). Like kids wearing shirts with Charles Manson on them or something.

Or maybe just like any fanfiction. For instance, people write non-con and enjoy non-con without being turned on by actual rape etc. Fics like this might speak to something in a person other than a desire to really do these things. It's more stylized in a way. Most all violence in fanfic probably goes that way, really. I read a fic recently where Draco was killing himself (saved by Harry of course!) and first the suicide was the prettiest thing--nothing at all like reality. He just cut his nice white wrists and the blood drifted out prettily and pooled on the floor--none of the violent mess of really cutting an artery, plus it happened quickly. It was just like going to sleep. Oddly, Dumbledore then seriously congratulated Harry for saving Draco having found him lying in a pool of blood on the floor because after all, with all Draco's done it was amazing Harry would save him. In fact, according to Dumbledore, most students wouldn't have.

And I thought that was simply ridiculous. Pretty much all normal people would do something. Even Draco, in canon, would probably have run and gotten a teacher. So it shows how warped people's morality or their sense of the importance of things gets warped in these stories. If Draco's going to be bad he's like cartoon bad because none of it's real to them, maybe. A realistic portrayal of "evil" would not only benefit from less-is-more but it would reflect badly on Draco, imo. You really can't be realistically sadistic and cool, imo. I remember James Ellroy once saying about serial killers that the only time they're intimidating is when they're killing--the rest of the time they're pathetic by definition. I tend to agree.

I do think in canon there are probably little hints that Draco still lives squarely within the realms of acceptable human behavior. If he's not holding back on Harry then he doesn't have much to give. What's the worst thing he's done to him, really? Even his trying to get Buckbeak put down wasn't all that sadistic--it attacked him first. He never hurt Buckbeak himself. One other scene that seems significant to me is the one in the forest in GoF. I don't hold with the view that Draco was trying to secretly warn Hermione in that scene, but he also wasn't trying to trick her into going near the DEs and getting attacked even though he hated her--and she slapped him (something that also didn't move him to violence). That that wasn't in his mind says to me his mind isn't that dark. Even at the end of OotP he seems pretty at a loss with his anger. His first thought on seeing Harry is to talk to him, not hurt him.

From:

yourpoison.livejournal.com

Oooh, thank you. I am now stronger in my faith in Normal-Boy-Who's-Not-Evil!Draco, eheheh, via the ever-handy "look at the evidence that's there instead of theorizing" argument :D :D
I think the most telling thing is that if he -has- been doing all he could, just how wimpy is he? Too wimpy to be evil~:)
He's the Neville of Evil, ahahahah. Although in that particular story he was just seemingly devoid of any sort of moral orientation beyond a simple "oh, this feels good", which is sort of like a 2 year-old except with a penis o_0

Well, it would be "only the usual fanfiction fun-with-violence" except people actually seem to -like- this character they see. It's not so much what he does as the person doing it that interests all these people, it seems to me. Like, I dunno if the non-con-in-fiction comparison applies because there -is- blatant identification with Draco/Lucius/etc going on, or at least a lack of any perspective. Like, okay it might be hot but one hopes it's still despicable and so is Draco-- and that -being- despicable actually makes one dislike the character in question instead of the opposite.

There is a slightly separate more general glorification of -the violent act itself- going on in fanfiction too... they probably work together with the cult of personality. The only problem is knowing that the writer views the character or the action as attractive in any way shape or form. I mean, having any sort of discourse about fictional characters is dealing with the imaginary and the not-real by necessity, so any reactions would have to be dealing with fantasy. But to some extent, these have to be "real" in order to have anything valid to say about them. So, I mean, if you can't treat one's reactions to fiction as "valid" in a real-life sort of way, then lit-crit becomes seriously hobbled, it seems to me. I mean, my belief has always been that literature is a deep and truthful reflection of the human spirit-- as a writer and a reader-- perhaps not -direct- and linear, but nonetheless -true-. So the whole "just fanfiction" thing seems iffy to me as an explanation.

When it comes to kinks one wouldn't enjoy in real life... this is narrowing it all down to one aspect of one "type" of literature. I think enjoyment is enjoyment and it reflects on you somehow whether you'd do it in real life or not, man. It's not just about "would you rape or want to be raped"-- that's so simplistic. Something about the idea appeals to you, and it doesn't appeal to everybody and that would make you different, as a reader and as an individual. Not "bad" different, but different nonetheless. Fiction isn't -separate- from reality, just not directly correlated in all aspects. People are so simplistic and dismissive of things if they don't match up exactly. I do think that people who enjoy certain things can be said in terms of psychoanalysis to have the potential (that is, the possibility for eventual diagnosis) for certain neuroses. That seems to be obvious. Everyone has neuroses, but it's no use to say, "well, it's fictional so it's not actual and thus irrelevat to psychological profiling". I've lived most of my life away from the actual, so I should know that the actual isn't all that shapes you by far. I'm tired of the disclaimers and the justifications. Aside from the fact that yes, it's not going to be directly correlated with reality most of the time (by choice or circumstance), the fact remains that one's fantasies and closed-off desires are quite indicative of one's nature as much as one's actions & reactions in real situations.

So while it doesn't mean I want to rape someone or if I write non-con, it does mean something -else-, I think, though what that something else is varies by case~:))

From:

sistermagpie.livejournal.com

Ooh, yes I totally agree on one's preferences in fiction saying something about you--it's not just cut off from reality. If you like a character to be "evil" meaning that they kill people with no empathy then clearly you are getting something out of that. Like, maybe a person feels hemmed in by empathy they're supposed to feel in real life. Like they hate somebody and wish they could do something bad to them but are stopped by their own sense of right and wrong and so really do like to imagine themselves being free of that.

I guess to me it seems weird because that's so not a personality, just being wicked. It's as boring as a Mary Sue who is perfect at everything. Especially since, as was pointed out below, there's very little of that kind of thing in HP. The characters who are the most evil are so because they believe they are good, like Umbridge and Voldemort. Lucius I'm not as sure about but I would think he too had his reasons for doing what he does. I can get behind the idea that he really does see his world as being destroyed by these interlopers, or feels humiliated by the way he's supposed to live.

I've also sometimes been interested in the idea of Purebloods having a different morality. For instance, the whole "Dark Arts" thing has always bothered me--what arts are dark? Does the magic come from a different place? The students are constantly hexing the Slytherins in violent ways...how is that not the Dark Arts? Why does Durmstrang teach them? I always tend to associate it with a sort of Christian/Pagan thing. Like the modern view is to look at older practices and label them evil in some forms but maybe years ago it was just all magic and the dark part was the same as anything else. Used with a risk but still used. Light and Dark vs. Good and Evil. So I'd be fine, I think, with a Draco who was dark in that he was part of a different culture that didn't define good and evil the same way as other characters do...but then you're back to the character being a different kind of good, not evil.

If Draco were to join Voldemort I can't see him being much different than Regulus Black (the character who still seems most tragic to me in all of OotP).

From:

yourpoison.livejournal.com

Yeah, I guess it's that I'm offended that someone would have Draco be a Death Eater and have that not be a Horrible Awful Thing. Like... it's not so much about any particular fic (after all, a fic is that one fic, no more), and more about the mind-set of the audience/writer. I dunno why I'm so obsessed with the memes surrounding a piece of fiction rather than the piece of fiction itself, but there you go. To me it's so tragic and painful, the very idea of Draco in particular being beyond the pale, someone who's lost every shred of a divergent personality and become One Of Them. The celebration of this cultish evil just freaks me the hell out, man. I know I'm overreacting, but still o_0

It's like... some people don't see the tragedy in it-- they just seem to see a sort of pleasantly twisted "alternative lifestyle". In a way, I guess you could say that everyone in the Potterverse who's dabbled in the Dark Arts or killed/raped/pillaged has had what basically amounts to a pathetic horrible life. I mean, the good guys suffer too, but it seems like the bad guys suffer more from their own natures always catching up to them-- like Crouch Jr. & Riddle & the Blacks. We don't know much about Lucius' life, but you can bet he's going to suffer a lot too. It's just kinda ridiculous to me to twist that dynamic without concern for some of the basic tendencies in this universe. And also, you know, people not seeing the utter horror and tragedy and instead seeing it as desirable and enjoyable in any way shape or form.... I dunno. There's just something demented about that, I'm sorry.

Um. Yeah... I haven't thought about the `Dark Arts' much, mostly because I think it's a sloppy concept on JKR's part (there I go analyzing the author again, heh). I don't think she meant it to be broken down too much, though of course I could be wrong. I think "Dark" = "used -solely- to hurt and dominate others"-- so it's more a question of "most common use". Like, with the Unforgivables, there -is- no other use than to hurt & destroy, so they're the "classic" Dark Arts spells. I'm sure there are others which are merely "usually" used to hurt & destroy. So the differentiation in magic then comes about after the fact, through a sort of hind-sight-- what spell is most commonly used in which way. Sort of a bureaucracy, I guess. But yeah, I know what you mean about the pagan vs Christian thing, though I don't think JKR intends the Dark Arts to be any more ancient or powerful-- just grouped together under the aegis of purpose. I could always be wrong, of course :>

From:

sistermagpie.livejournal.com

Yup, I think the whole "Dark Arts" idea is sloppy--it's really a shorthand to say THIS IS BAD without looking at it, much like "this character is evil." That's probably why it bugs me.:-) It also makes me wonder how much of an education Draco gets in that class. I mean, it's interesting, isn't it, that we have no idea? The Slytherins wouldn't have gotten a boggart, I don't think. Then he'd have Fake!Moody for a teacher fourth year, which probably wasn't fun. Then they get Umbridge and no DA for fifth year.

That's a totally good definition btw, with the "alternate lifestyle" that's twisted. Because it's not really a life at all. There's no real thinking through of the consequences and maybe that's the point. If someone feels put upon violent fantasies can be pleasant...maybe by making Draco inhuman they feel they're making him stronger? In canon he's just so easily hurt because he wants so much. If he has no other feelings besides taking pleasure in the torture of others it's hard to hurt him...? Or not. I don't know what to make of Evil!Draco because he just seems to have so little to do with the character in canon or normal human behavior.

What's weird is that they don't even go for the revenge idea, like where Draco is righteously hunting down the people who killed his family or whatever. It's like it's important that he has no connections to anyone whatsoever...?

I also liked what you said below about him having a chance to do evil. I see the other poster's point in asking whether he would join Voldemort if given the chance, but then one can join Voldemort without really understanding what you're doing, particularly if you've been raised to believe certain things. (His instinct about Voldemort we do know: he's scared to death of him.) He has, as you said, been given as much chance as anyone to do evil in his life and for the most part he doesn't. He takes pleasure in nasty jokes but those seem almost like a consolation prize for not getting what he really wants. Like, the song about Ron is a good way to stack the deck in Quidditch, but he'd much rather catch the Snitch than make Ron angry again. Even his Harry impressions have the positive result of amusing his friends as well as annoying Harry.

Tom Riddle, by contrast, is a sociopath, it seems. From what I know from watching Law & Order (the source of true knowledge), sociopaths are cut off from emotions and people. Things we see in Draco like the red spots on his cheeks and the impotent anger, are signs he's not one.

From:

unstasis.livejournal.com

I'm pretty sure that Dumbledore had said to Harry somewhere, I think maybe in reference to the mirror of Erised or maybe it was in the Goblet or some other place that starts mentioning them, that Voldemort came up with the unforgivables. Almost liek they have to be new and more potent magic like nuclear missiles or something. Also the impression that one gets from the centaurs is that things are looking towards much worse (and they've been seeing it coming for sometime) than historically recorded catostrophes. I guess it's just it seems there is not necessarily a lot of evidence that ancient magic is more powerful, just perhaps more forgotten and thus less expected. I imagine that there is probably some Big prophesy that is keeping the other races in check somehow (I mean it seems pretty evident from Dobby's few wandless outbursts, and everyone's grumblings about the goblins being restrained (in some way that isn't at all evident to the youngsters at least and maybe you have to be in the Know to get it). I think that Voldemort probably honed some things that were "better left alone" into terrible weapons that hi fanatics could use... But I guess waht I'm getting at is that there does seem to be an important line of what the "dark arts" mean in the Potterverse, but like people with experience enough to want to whisper Voldemort's name are the one's who know it's ambiguous at times.

I think its when magic in general becomes destructive, that it starts controlling the user rather than being predicatable. And yeah there tends to be a lot of howling of those books in the restricted section, but I think that in the older forms of the word that many of the Dark arts are most likely dealing with obscured darkness as in the source is not obvious or more murkily understood. I think in a way that the unforgivables are powered off of the user deciding to destroy parts of themselves to fuel it. I think that might be part of what is hidden behind the comment about needing to mean it. I think that Harry's mother probably also used a similar kind of magic except in this case it was good (though I think if one were a demented fanatic maybe you'd be willing to cast your life away in earnest to help a cause.. In a way that's what one does when they join the deatheaters, it's just not as immediate, but it's the same kind of thing. I think that this type of magic where one is in general having to trade one thing for anotehr especially mental or life qualities is something that is not hinted at being an important part of the Hogwarts standard curriculum. I mean the closest spell we even know of are the patronus charm (force yourself to think about your happiest memory while in danger to make the danger go away) or the toll one has in Harry's occlumency lessons (or even the implied toll we see in Snape, having to repress true emotion, I'm guessing not to allow his mark to be activated enough for Voldemort to know that something is up), the mirror of Erised (it gives you happy "memories" and addicts you, to keep you there, and probably eventually suggests things to you as Dumbledore suggested to Harry that that is what happened with Voldemort, the Unicorn blood where you will cured of anything but you become cursed (though that is Hagrid, so it might be not as authoritative).

Anyway.. I guess I'm just saying that I think that "dark magic" even in a canonical sense could be used for good (as hermione said that counter curses were in fact curses used to stop other curses (but thus still curses as she was pointing out against our source of antitheory the bogus dada handbook umbridge was using)), but they make most people uncomfortable because they tap more uncontrollable (probably emotional?) power (the subconscious (what you would miss most as the second challenge said (I would say definitely a mild use of this type of magic)).

Anyway. I tend to ramble on too much. Sory. Hope I ddidn't waste the space for nothing.