~~ bad to the -bone-, baby.
Feb. 4th, 2004 10:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaWomen are supposed to like "Bad Boys", right? And, just so you know, I'm saying this after hearing "Bad to the Bone" on the radio, which is a Spike vid waiting to happen if I ever heard one. Of course, there are already Spike vids to that song, but if there weren't, I'd learn to vid right now just to do it myself, eheheh. Oh well. Anyway.
Yeah. So I'm living proof of that maxim, myself, if anyone is. Gimme a `bad boy' in almost any story, and I'm there. It's one of my all-time favorite archetypes, and if forced, I would probably choose some aspect of it over any other. I generally like a bit of "bad" in any archetype, but... pure Bad is also good. It's very rare that I don't like one... only happens if they're inconvenient somehow.... Like, I really really didn't like Krycek when he came on X-Files (it really didn't help that he was a spy), but then, I don't think he's a Bad Boy, really. Sometimes I think the appeal of Lucius (or even more remotely, Snape) is somewhat related to the Bad Boy appeal, but this doesn't really make sense. Well, in Snape's case especially, since Snape is your perfect Brooding Angry Anti-Hero type (well, especially fanon!Snape). The Bad Boy (or Girl! they exist too... mmmm, Faith) -can- be the Anti-Hero, but in a way, that's just muddling the issue of basic appeal.
Come to think of it, the closest parallel to a "Big Bad" in HP is Sirius. Heh. He doesn't really do it for me, though, 'cause he was never really bad. I mean... the hair... the attitude... that's not enough. They actually have to -be- "bad" in -some- way.
Which leads me to (naturally) a list of What Makes A Bad Boy Bad.
So yeah, I guess this explains why I have this niggling discomfort with some characters who seem to fill the role of "bad boy" in relation to the protagonist in some fandom, but they're missing some crucial -something- that makes them appealing to me. I was a bit confused by my own dislike of Lucius, for instance. He's "bad", isn't he? Well?
But see, no. He's... a two-bit glammed up evil minion, as far as his function in the main story. "Bad" isn't about evil, though it can include evil behavior as easily as good-- as long as it's unpredictable. Lucius doesn't have that ambiguity that makes a character something -more-. And being "bad" really does seem to include that -twist-. That... potential for change or redemption by the love of a good woman or -something-. I can see how Lucius' relationship to his wife, Narcissa, is parallel to Spike's relationship to Drusilla, and this probably explains why I have a distaste for both couples. Both women are mere reflections of their partner's affiliation. There's no drama there, no interest, no conflict. So it puzzles me why people would like it-- though I forget not everyone is as obsessed with dramatic conflict in relationships as I am, but drama's necessary for a good story, isn't it? Though I know that interpersonal clashes don't have to be the element that's providing that.
Plus, now I realize the source of my instinctive dislike and disinterest in certain pairings-- in almost every case, it's because their main archetypes don't go together, don't complement each other. Certain archetypes... like, to be simplistic, the Princess and the Hero-- or the Woman Warrior and the Magician (okay, this prolly only makes sense in my head, but go with me here)-- they just -fit- together. Like... they make some sort of cosmic sense. I don't know why I'm so obsessed with things making cosmic sense, but there you go.
Take a pairing like Lucius/Severus. It doesn't -work- in my head because it's not at all complementary. Their archetypal relationship would indicate a sort of nagging, barely-leashed conflict or competitiveness... it's like... they're close enough in nature/temperament that I think eventually, there'll be a kind of "there can only be one of us" situation. They're not -alike-, exactly, but their -function- and alignment in relation to the "good guys" is rather similar even if their choices and history widely differ. They both define themselves by their relationship to the "good guys" so this becomes more important than if they were entirely existing in their evil little world. Their only difference is the extent of their loyalty and a certain moral orientation, plus Snape seems much more sensitive and delicate (thus all the grudge-keeping and the repression and the construction of defense mechanisms and so on).
I think you can obviously take this obsession with complementary halves way too far. I mean... sometimes I think I overdo it with the "a place for everybody and everybody in their place" philosophy-- I know that. I really like the idea of people discovering their -role- or function and finding out what their "real nature" is. Clearly, people are more complex than their nearest archetypal equivalent-- and most real people fit more than one at a time-- but there's still no denying that people put themselves into boxes-- like they -want- to do it. Like they find it necessary for comfortable living. So I figure, they might as well put themselves into the -right- boxes, into the boxes most conducive to their future development as people. Or something. This is starting to sound rather sad, isn't it.
It's even sadder to realize that this whole "complementary archetypes" gig prolly goes a long way towards excusing a lot of co-dependent relationships in my mind.
See, even as I say that, I think-- well, what's so bad about being mutually dependent? Isn't that how love -works-, at least in the infatuation early stages? And I like the early stages. Mmmm, obsession and mild psychosis. I like that in a couple.
Okay, I'm losing any credibility I might once have had, aren't I?
I adore independent women-- and men. I love independence, and in fact if it's lacking in either character, I will most likely not support the relationship. And yet... and yet, there's something about my idea of love that seems to easily lend itself to the two people pretty much -breaking- each other. I mean, sure, they will hopefully remake each other and go on to live healthy lives independent of whether they're together or not... but a part of me thinks that if you -can- live without the other person, you don't want/need them enough. Though I think stories where lovers die for each other are kind of lame and stupid. Then again, I hate most tragedies 'cause I have this thing for happy endings... but I also just think that dying over love is more depressing than romantic.
But anyway... I know that's -need- rather than -love- that's the operative word here. And perhaps what I'm looking for in couples is really a need/want (with need being dominant) rather than really -love-, which actually grows best in situations of mutual understanding and probably some significant amount of commonality.
I was mostly thinking of Max & Liz from `Roswell' ('cause Buffy/Spike on the show was never actually healthy & requited at any point, unless you count the end of Chosen, but that's just me being desperate). I mean, sure, they're unhealthy (whenever they're forced to be apart, thus upping the angst) and obsessed with each other and all that. I think a part of me just doesn't see what's wrong with two people who want to and -can- function as one person. This probably goes back to my thing for mind-melds and mind-bonds in general, from Elfquest and Star Trek. Love would be so easy if it was -impossible- to split without your whole world ending, so to speak. Free will goes out the window and there you have it-- the fantasy of endless love that kind of uses you, takes you over and makes you its bitch.
It takes a certain kind of person to get into that sort of fictional scenario, I think. But... I think the fact that I'm really not into that in real life may have something to do with it. While I'm obsessed with this kind of relationship, it would literally drive me insane if I was in one, 'cause I'm really stubborn and independent and probably even flighty by nature. I do fall in love truly-madly-deeply like that, yeah, but it wreaks havoc on my mental well-being. Then again, a certain amount of self-destructiveness is certainly involved here, and is actually part of the attraction. Love The Destroyer, and that whole aspect of things.
Okay, now I'm just rambling on. And I was this whole time, yes, I know. My head hurts, though, so I'll just be going now.
Yeah. So I'm living proof of that maxim, myself, if anyone is. Gimme a `bad boy' in almost any story, and I'm there. It's one of my all-time favorite archetypes, and if forced, I would probably choose some aspect of it over any other. I generally like a bit of "bad" in any archetype, but... pure Bad is also good. It's very rare that I don't like one... only happens if they're inconvenient somehow.... Like, I really really didn't like Krycek when he came on X-Files (it really didn't help that he was a spy), but then, I don't think he's a Bad Boy, really. Sometimes I think the appeal of Lucius (or even more remotely, Snape) is somewhat related to the Bad Boy appeal, but this doesn't really make sense. Well, in Snape's case especially, since Snape is your perfect Brooding Angry Anti-Hero type (well, especially fanon!Snape). The Bad Boy (or Girl! they exist too... mmmm, Faith) -can- be the Anti-Hero, but in a way, that's just muddling the issue of basic appeal.
Come to think of it, the closest parallel to a "Big Bad" in HP is Sirius. Heh. He doesn't really do it for me, though, 'cause he was never really bad. I mean... the hair... the attitude... that's not enough. They actually have to -be- "bad" in -some- way.
Which leads me to (naturally) a list of What Makes A Bad Boy Bad.
- They have to enjoy their attitude toward life & not care about the consequences.
- They have style and charm that's undeniable - everyone notices, everyone reacts.
- They have to have something that sets them apart from the pack.
- They're morally ambiguous or at least their true thoughts/feelings are slightly mysterious.
- Whatever they are, they're always unpredictable and wild, out to please themselves and no one else, unless it's that Certain Someone, but that's always the only exception.
- They're witty and have got a mouth on them. Mostly use it to mock things and pick-up lines.
- They often have a Dark Past, but they don't brood or dwell on it-- it's sort of left for their SO to use to figure them out.
- They do have a moral code of -some- sort from the beginning, which prevents them from certain behaviors -they- and only they, consider "wrong", like... I dunno... hurting children or swearing near a lady or wearing purple or something.
- They're almost always secretly romantics.
- They're brave in a kind of jaded, self-centered way, when it suits them.
- They tend to have little regard for their own life.
- They really -are- bad-- that is to say, they damage property, hurt/maim/injure/kill people, break hearts (very important) and generally wreak havoc whenever they can for the slimmest possible reason.
- They're pretty loyal to whoever they choose to give their loyalty to, and once it's given, it's never revoked. This also applies to love-- once they regard someone as "beloved", whether romantically or not, a "Bad Boy" will focus all their rage outward at anyone who'd dare to harm or steal the person from them.
- Generally, there's a sense of... playfulness about them. And if they do get sincere, you know they Mean Business, and this is probably right before they hurt you or something. Possibly it's because (romantic) love would make them have to be sincere (however much they would resist) that there are so many stories about love "bringing down" a Big Bad.
- Most often, a relationship with them doesn't work out. They're bad for you, they break your heart, they give you the best sex of your life and then Something Happens to ruin everything. That's generally how it goes. 'Cause if it didn't, they wouldn't be Bad, would they? Bad, as in, Bad For You. As in, "you're there because you like the pain". No pain no gain, right?
So yeah, I guess this explains why I have this niggling discomfort with some characters who seem to fill the role of "bad boy" in relation to the protagonist in some fandom, but they're missing some crucial -something- that makes them appealing to me. I was a bit confused by my own dislike of Lucius, for instance. He's "bad", isn't he? Well?
But see, no. He's... a two-bit glammed up evil minion, as far as his function in the main story. "Bad" isn't about evil, though it can include evil behavior as easily as good-- as long as it's unpredictable. Lucius doesn't have that ambiguity that makes a character something -more-. And being "bad" really does seem to include that -twist-. That... potential for change or redemption by the love of a good woman or -something-. I can see how Lucius' relationship to his wife, Narcissa, is parallel to Spike's relationship to Drusilla, and this probably explains why I have a distaste for both couples. Both women are mere reflections of their partner's affiliation. There's no drama there, no interest, no conflict. So it puzzles me why people would like it-- though I forget not everyone is as obsessed with dramatic conflict in relationships as I am, but drama's necessary for a good story, isn't it? Though I know that interpersonal clashes don't have to be the element that's providing that.
Plus, now I realize the source of my instinctive dislike and disinterest in certain pairings-- in almost every case, it's because their main archetypes don't go together, don't complement each other. Certain archetypes... like, to be simplistic, the Princess and the Hero-- or the Woman Warrior and the Magician (okay, this prolly only makes sense in my head, but go with me here)-- they just -fit- together. Like... they make some sort of cosmic sense. I don't know why I'm so obsessed with things making cosmic sense, but there you go.
Take a pairing like Lucius/Severus. It doesn't -work- in my head because it's not at all complementary. Their archetypal relationship would indicate a sort of nagging, barely-leashed conflict or competitiveness... it's like... they're close enough in nature/temperament that I think eventually, there'll be a kind of "there can only be one of us" situation. They're not -alike-, exactly, but their -function- and alignment in relation to the "good guys" is rather similar even if their choices and history widely differ. They both define themselves by their relationship to the "good guys" so this becomes more important than if they were entirely existing in their evil little world. Their only difference is the extent of their loyalty and a certain moral orientation, plus Snape seems much more sensitive and delicate (thus all the grudge-keeping and the repression and the construction of defense mechanisms and so on).
I think you can obviously take this obsession with complementary halves way too far. I mean... sometimes I think I overdo it with the "a place for everybody and everybody in their place" philosophy-- I know that. I really like the idea of people discovering their -role- or function and finding out what their "real nature" is. Clearly, people are more complex than their nearest archetypal equivalent-- and most real people fit more than one at a time-- but there's still no denying that people put themselves into boxes-- like they -want- to do it. Like they find it necessary for comfortable living. So I figure, they might as well put themselves into the -right- boxes, into the boxes most conducive to their future development as people. Or something. This is starting to sound rather sad, isn't it.
It's even sadder to realize that this whole "complementary archetypes" gig prolly goes a long way towards excusing a lot of co-dependent relationships in my mind.
See, even as I say that, I think-- well, what's so bad about being mutually dependent? Isn't that how love -works-, at least in the infatuation early stages? And I like the early stages. Mmmm, obsession and mild psychosis. I like that in a couple.
Okay, I'm losing any credibility I might once have had, aren't I?
I adore independent women-- and men. I love independence, and in fact if it's lacking in either character, I will most likely not support the relationship. And yet... and yet, there's something about my idea of love that seems to easily lend itself to the two people pretty much -breaking- each other. I mean, sure, they will hopefully remake each other and go on to live healthy lives independent of whether they're together or not... but a part of me thinks that if you -can- live without the other person, you don't want/need them enough. Though I think stories where lovers die for each other are kind of lame and stupid. Then again, I hate most tragedies 'cause I have this thing for happy endings... but I also just think that dying over love is more depressing than romantic.
But anyway... I know that's -need- rather than -love- that's the operative word here. And perhaps what I'm looking for in couples is really a need/want (with need being dominant) rather than really -love-, which actually grows best in situations of mutual understanding and probably some significant amount of commonality.
I was mostly thinking of Max & Liz from `Roswell' ('cause Buffy/Spike on the show was never actually healthy & requited at any point, unless you count the end of Chosen, but that's just me being desperate). I mean, sure, they're unhealthy (whenever they're forced to be apart, thus upping the angst) and obsessed with each other and all that. I think a part of me just doesn't see what's wrong with two people who want to and -can- function as one person. This probably goes back to my thing for mind-melds and mind-bonds in general, from Elfquest and Star Trek. Love would be so easy if it was -impossible- to split without your whole world ending, so to speak. Free will goes out the window and there you have it-- the fantasy of endless love that kind of uses you, takes you over and makes you its bitch.
It takes a certain kind of person to get into that sort of fictional scenario, I think. But... I think the fact that I'm really not into that in real life may have something to do with it. While I'm obsessed with this kind of relationship, it would literally drive me insane if I was in one, 'cause I'm really stubborn and independent and probably even flighty by nature. I do fall in love truly-madly-deeply like that, yeah, but it wreaks havoc on my mental well-being. Then again, a certain amount of self-destructiveness is certainly involved here, and is actually part of the attraction. Love The Destroyer, and that whole aspect of things.
Okay, now I'm just rambling on. And I was this whole time, yes, I know. My head hurts, though, so I'll just be going now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-04 08:34 pm (UTC)I mean, is Harry a bad boy? Not exactly--not like Sirius. But he's got a lot of those elements.
It's funny...I have *never* been into bad boys. Everytime I think of that type I remember the weekend when Jimmy Stewart and Robert Mitchum died. I was talking about it with a friend and at the same time she said, "I love Robert Mitchum" and I said, "I love Jimmy Stewart." Then we both looked at each other and at the same time I said, "I knew you'd love Robert Mitchum," and she said, "I knew you'd love Jimmy Stewart."
Anyway, err, so the idea was that RM was a bad boy and JS was the ultimate good guy (though he too often had a huge darkness in him). This is why my Draco obsession confuses me so much. When I think about it I realize I don't really see him as the bad boy, exactly. I'll have to think about what I see him as.
That said, there's a lot of elements of the bad boy that I do like--like my post on thieves indicated.:-)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-05 06:55 pm (UTC)I love that about Harry/Sirius... it's been niggling at the back of my mind, but I couldn't quite pin down what bothered me about it. And I think it -is- that... the fact that not -only- is Sirius the father-figure, it's also incestuous 'cause of the similarities between them. I think I'm much more sensitive to the power imbalance and/or incest issues if the people themselves naturally fall into some sort of "big X/little X" scenario. Like, H/S doesn't really ring those bells for me, 'cause they're not at all that similar.
Not that similarity is the death-knell of love in my head or anything. I mean, there's similarity and then there's similarity. I mean, you could say there are definite parallels and/or similarities between Harry & Draco, even. Like, you often have opposites saying to each other, "we're the same, you and I". And, I mean, there's a deep truth to that. I think it just depends whether you're filling in a piece of the same puzzle or you're just taking up space and cluttering things up.
I love heroes, too. Just as long as they're ambiguous and torn, ehehe. I think it's just that I like attitude above anything, rather than moral orientation. Sometimes I just think I'm immoral, but then, truly evil characters just kind of piss me off 'cause they're boring~:)