~~ (an appalling lack of) defense

[reenka]

I want to defend movie!Harry here & here & elsewhere the same way I'd want to defend any Harry (except some of Maya's incarnations, heh-- 'cause duuuude) but I don't think it would ever really come out right. I don't think "defending" any character really works in the end. People like (or don't like) other people, whether or not they're fictional, for a variety of idiosyncratic reasons that often have to do with who -they- are rather than who the character is, though I think there's three major types of perceiving a character.

You can identify (empathize) with them, you can sympathize with them, or you can reject them as being severely deficient as human beings, whatever's important about human beings by your judgement.

I think I dislike the idea of judgement, even though naturally, I practice it just like everyone else does. I dislike the idea of holding a character up to some standard or other, even if it's some bright and shining, egalitarian standard of righteousness. Once you start organizing people according to a social ideal of whatever sort-- that is, seeing them as representations of a greater (either oppressed or oppressive) group, I feel you immediately lose sight of them as human beings-- both right and wrong, ugly and beautiful, likable and eminently hatable. Everyone's someone's antithesis-to-all-they-hold-dear, most probably.

Oh yes, subjectivism rules :> But! Even that is a socially-judgmental statement which could lead me to condemn someone if I'm not careful-- like, someone who pushes their pov as uber-objective for instance, and I hesitate to do that. Maybe I'm just ultimately waffly.

Harry often seems to be supported by "the System". If the system is bad, does it therefore follow that whatever opposes "the System" is good? That would seem to be a logical fallacy. And anyway, who's to really decide what's bad and good? Except for the realistic fact that if one group leaves power, another group with usually either more or different "issues" will rise to said power.

Hello, my name is Reena and I'm an optimistic fatalist :>

I do have my own opinions on what's bad and good, whatever I say about the subjectivity of all stances, of course. Ultimately, I think one's inner heart (and the presence or absence of "goodness" therein) is a matter of faith, nothing that can be proven or disproven by action or visible emotion alone. A good writer can show this inner heart through use of subtlety and some direct insight into a character's conscious & unconscious mind, and an even better movie can imply this inner heart through an actor's (easily misunderstood or unnoticed) expression, tone or body-language, coupled with others' reactions and possibly lighting & scenery.

Even so, one's understanding of another person, whether in movies or in books, depends on our own sensitivity & wisdom in judging people, and this, I feel, one can never be really confident about. So I just fall back on repeating my mantra: Harry = <3, Harry = <3 :D


I suppose he blew up at Aunt Marge (heh) over nothing, since yes, what does he know about his father/mother/etc, but... the point isn't that we blow up at people 'cause we -should- or because they're -wrong- (unless you're a very self-righteous person yourself). People usually blow up at people 'cause they rub them the wrong way, piss them off, are assholes and so on. Aunt Marge was being mean & hitting Harry where it hurt most, so of course Harry blew up. Harry doesn't really blow up unless you provoke him in very specific ways, and consistently at that. He had previous long-standing family issues which just came to a head in the beginning of PoA.

As far as him being mean & stealing Neville's candy & shoving people and whatever else-- he wasn't doing it on purpose, I don't think, he was just being wanky & acting out & being a boy. Most boys (who aren't meek) are kind of assholes because they -can- be, aren't they? Well, I thought so when I was their age :D

Anything that has a character acting emotionally but in a way that's not emotionally correct doesn't make sense to me as "bad". I mean, I can see "bad" as being unemotional, unfeeling, 'cause that's sort of psychopathic-- that's the sort of person who kills and feels nothing but a sort of distant satisfaction at a job well done. Anything short of that can be seen as something an average person would do in that situation, I feel. I mean, hey, people do kinda suck :D

The whole idea of disliking a character 'cause they're perceived as so great and saintly and wonderful and -aren't-, and then loving a character that acts bastardly & yet isn't loved seems like too much of an over-simplification to me. I can't love The Villain or The Fall-guy -because- that's what they are-- I mean, every person is a -person-, apart from their interactions with others, and it's their separate individuality that seems important to me. People interact in wildly different ways with different other people-- they become different in different company, a lot of times, so it's really hard to judge someone based on how they are around others.

That said, I had a problem with movie!Lupin based on lack of sympatheticness, yes, but that's because he just made no sense to me on an emotional level, not that I thought he was an unkind person or whatever. If I -understand- a character, I tend to like them. I realize I'm in the minority, not in so far as other people disliking people that they understand, but in so far as most people wanting to understand the things/people they dislike, I suppose.

Comments

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. If I were to rebut the first one of those links, it would be more on the lines of the mistaken assumption that Harry somehow develops a bad personality here or that the fame goes to his head or whatever it is that drives people to think that OotP and CAPSLOCK!HARRY is out of character and an abrupt change. Because he was an angry, nasty little bastard to the people he didn't like at 11 (ie, the Dursleys and, to some extent, Snape and Hermione). He was an angry, nasty little bastard to the person who he thought killed his parents (and very honestly wanted to kill Sirius at 13). He wanted to cast Cruciatus on Snape at fourteen. He did cast Cruciatus at 15. People who seem to think OotP is the exception and not the rule make my head hurt.

I like the dark qualities to Harry. I liked the fact that for the first time I felt like I was watching Harry not an Everyman created by Steve Kloves to lure little children into buying Harry Potter toys. But maybe I'm just weird that way.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's really kind of wrong that I -like- angry, heedless, capslock!Harry at 11 and at 13 and at 15, somehow, isn't it? I loved him in the zoo scene with Dudley & how childishly mean he can be-- in fact, Harry's kind of rarely -kind- I suppose, being as judgemental & impulse-driven as he is (boy, does he need Hermione's rationalisms, heh).

So yeah. I mean, I know, I know, Harry's always been like that, and yet I can't help but go on details 'cause saying "Harry's always been this way" won't necessarily convince the people who see canon in a different way or whatever. Wah. And I just feel bad because I can't "justify" liking Harry -because of- his ridiculous anger issues, if anything. He's such an insane hothead sometimes, but like... his heart's in the right place, too. I think. He does forgive. Er. If the other person plays their cards right :> And also, I do think he means well, with his fierce ideals and his faith in some things/people that he chooses to believe in. He's just... er... over the top in his zeal, I think, like a rookie cop or something :>

And hey, y'know, remnants of True Darkness (TM), ehehe :D

So yeah. I like the darkness (and also the light) in Harry-- I'd say, more accurately, I like the ambiguity in Harry, but hehehe that's most definitely weird since "ambiguously sympathetic" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it :>

[cellia.livejournal.com]

The whole idea of disliking a character 'cause they're perceived as so great and saintly and wonderful and -aren't-, and then loving a character that acts bastardly & yet isn't loved seems like too much of an over-simplification to me.

word.
And I am much with the Harry-love.

In fact, to be even more "apologistic"... I think Harry's always had this sarcastic edge, but (of course) I wouldn't go so far as "insane hothead" even in CAPSLOCK OoTP. I mean, most of the time, isn't his anger and sarcasm kind of understandable?

he's sarcastic to the family that stuck him in a closet and gives him mockingly bad Xmas gifts to rub in his face that they consider him worthless

he's disrespectful to Snape because 50% of the time Snape is being petty to Harry for reasons that have nothing to do with him (and yeah, 50% of the time Snape's right about Harry, but do we expect a teen to rationally logic it out and think, "well he's bitch to me because of issues with my father and fame, but he does have a point at times")

he's mean to Slytherins because: 1.house rivalry, it seems all Slyths and Gryffs have pretty strong feelings of rivalry and 2.Malfoy regularly attacks him and his friends unprovoked, yeah, amusingly lamely (to the reader), but it's not like Harry goes seeking it out, and it's clear he'd rather just be left alone

he's short to Ron and Hermione in OoTP because he's being an insecure 16-year-old idiot whose feeling like he's being left out of the loop. And that his buds are doing something without him. Something, in fact, deadly serious that is supposed to be his thing to deal with. Not pretty, but... hasn't everyone done something like this at that age... when everything seems so important and unfair? And when, in this case, it is kind of important and unfair?

he yells at Dumbledore after the "mission" goes all to hell, his friends are injured and his one "family" member is killed in front of his eyes... and he learns about a whole bunch of info that could have potentially prevented him from doing what he did.

Harry's not a saint. He's not about turning the other cheek and forgiving people that have been shitty to him. He wants to hurt someone who killed his godfather. He's def not a "perfect hero" in that kindly feminine way... but I don't think that means that he has some inner core of darkness or cruelty.

And he has a few moments of kindness: Dobby, the robes for Ron, Nick's deathday party, Luna. I would say that saving Hermione fr troll and Ginny fr chamber and Fleur's sister and his attempt to save Sirius all spring from a kind of kindness. My own spin on his hero complex is that he wants to keep everyone around him safe, and with his big authority issues, he doesn't trust anyone else with that job.

Ok. Preaching to the converted here. ^^;; Stopping now.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Isn't everybody's anger understandable, though?
Isn't it understandable why Snape is so petty, or why Sirius is so childlike, or why Lupin is so spineless, or why Draco is so mean?
Isn't it understandable why Tom Riddle turned bad?
Why does Harry's actions being understandable excuse them, but not anyone else's?
Why is him being brattish in OotP equal him just being a teenager, but this excuse doesn't apply for James in the pensieve scene, or Draco in almost any scene, or Riddle in CoS?
How far would Harry's actions be excused? He's already tried to cast an Unforgiveable...

(I'm not attacking you, personally. Nice to meet, etc, by the way! Just like to hash out canon a bit!)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This is more the way your argument has always seemed to me, and this came up on the other thread, that the problem isn't that Harry is this awful person because he isn't. I found his arrogance in OotP one of the funniest things about him, the way he could be all, "Seamus is dead to me," because he was defensive of his mum, or when he can't stand how arrogant James looks in the Pensieve scene not realizing that to an outsider he could very well look just as arrogant, or when he does assume he should be Prefect (which leads to the first moment he actually considers he could be arrogant--gasp!--like Malfoy). Presumably Malfoy is just the same, steaming over Potter strutting around and thinking he's great while strutting around thinking he's great.

But I think what you're saying, and this is I think where I always fall too, is that the books then sometimes undercut this with all these excuses. Of COURSE Harry has reasons for being the way he is, but so does everyone. I have a great life compared to somebody who's dying of famine somewhere, but that doesn't make me less of a person or my troubles any less real than that person's. I'm not really convinced that it's "the worst" to be Harry because there's lots of ways life can be bad. There's a reason the WW always seems so ready to turn on Harry. It's the same way we turn on celebrities. They glorify them but are also jealous and like to see them get theirs. Yet it's still generally assumed most people dream of being a movie star.

Harry, I think, is a celebrity in every way. The idea that he's "everyboy" or doesn't realize it is, imo, his own misconception. He doesn't *know* what it's like to be ordinary and when he pretends to it just drives people crazy more, like when movie stars pretend their lives are just like ours. In fact, even at the Dursleys he was singled out as being exceptionally bad (not that anybody wants that kind of specialness). Then, in true fairy tale heroic form he was plucked from that obscurity, his feeilngs of persecution were validated and he was put on that pedestal the way most kids aren't. Sometimes it makes his life hard, but it is part of who he is. There are people who hold it against Ron for being angry at Harry and sure he's unfairly accusing Harry of something, but Ron's problems with being Harry's friend are also very real, as are probably Draco's own resentments. Nobody aspires to be ordinary, and Ron and Draco are both struggling really hard to not be and seeing it come easily to Harry.

Also, people tend to look at Ron and see him failing Harry in some ways--he's great when he's being loyal and standing by Harry's side, but other times he's being pissy or he's just not up to Harry's level. Really, though, Ron is probably the one who gives more support than Harry does (not to mention providing Harry with a family). In OotP Ron dealt with his humiliations all on his own--it wasn't just that Harry was preoccupied, it was that he couldn't really help him. How on earth could he, being the best Quidditch player ever--unless he was also blessed with a gift for this sort of thing, which he is not? So I do think it's, for instance, ridiculous to just say Harry's life is just worse than Ron's when most of us, had we experienced the kind of humiliation Ron did on the Quidditch pitch, would probably have nightmares about it forever. In fact, I'd guess most people would prefer to be the hero fighting dignified battles of life and death than the poor schlub who throws the game. Maybe people are wrong to think this way, but it's human nature. Ron doesn't have a Madman out to kill him who killed his family. That doesn't change the fact that being friends with Harry is very often a one-way street of support, even if Harry doesn't intend it.

So yeah, I don't think it's always a question of holding it against Harry that the world often works in his favor. It's more like the way the story sometimes undercuts these thingslike when Dumbledore apologizes for making Ron Prefect, thus validating Harry's arrogance in the beginning. Of COURSE Harry should have been Prefect (don't ask why). Neither Ron (nor Draco) earned something Harry didn't. Ron got thrown a leftover, Draco got the inferior Slytherin version.

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Whoa, this discussion has grown to a thing of beauty. Am late to party.

(I'm not attacking you, personally. Nice to meet, etc, by the way! Just like to hash out canon a bit!)

:D Pleasure to meet you as well, and no worries. It's good for people to smack me down on my Harry love from time to time so I don't go too far into self-righteous land and can see other perspectives. And I'm probably one of the people at high risk for succumbing to JKR's "force-feeding" that you and darklites discuss below. (wait, no, what am I saying? everyone should agree with me all the time, no matter what.^^;;)

But definitely, I'll agree that every character's anger/nastiness is understandable... or at least it should be in a reasonably-written story. Hopefully, we can see even the "villain's" motivations, although we might not agree with 'em.

Mostly I wanted to put my quick 2 cents in, that if others' behavior is not inexcusable, then Harry's behavior is not so inexcusable either (even if he is the author's pet and she wants to force his excusably in our faces). The argument that I counter in a knee-jerk way--before it's even raised--(I think we all have 'em) is the double standard argument, i.e. that Draco's and Slytherin's anger/bigotry/nastiness toward Gryffindors is understandable and ok because the Gryffindors are so favored and self-righteous, but that Harry being arrogant and thoughtless makes him the most evil, unsympathetic bastard ever etc etc.

And, to be consistent, I also believe that the double standard argument shouldn't be turned on its head to favor Harry and the Gryffindors.

Although, yeah, even trying to have a "fair & objective" discussion/argument, things can get sticky. Because, (as many people have noted here) JKR has unfortunately rigged her text crudely, and often she'll have a Harry-Gryffindor-favoring double-standard presented as Truth...

But anything I would have had to add about that and judging characters based on meta readings, reenka and others have already said below (and probably more clearly than I would have).

*wonders if primarily-Harry fans are less inclined to meta, since I'd much rather hash out the text's reality than the metatext*

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

He does forgive. Er. If the other person plays their cards right :>

If the other person crawls on their hands and knees?
Look at Seamus - he managed to blank him for a year, and Seamus was the one who had to apologise first.

I do think he means well, with his fierce ideals and his faith in some things/people that he chooses to believe in.

I think he means well. I think he truly believes in himself and his instincts and in his friends and their 'goodness'.
I also think he needs to stop believing that anyone who opposes his way of thinking is Evil, or that instincts and first impressions are the only things worth trusting.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think he means well. I think he truly believes in himself and his instincts and in his friends and their 'goodness'.

(premise: I'm not arguing against you because I know you didn't mean what I'm going to argument against here... it's just that I just stumbled on an old f_w post about DE "apologists" who presumably think all DE writers are letting out the message that DE are poor misunderstood little darlings <- how's that for a straw-men? why can't people answer to other people's actual points? what's the point to argue against the little voices in your head? anyway.)

Everybody actually means well and truly believes in the ultimate goodness of their actions. Our mind is a logical place: as soon as the "evil" alarm sets off, we don't pursuit a course of action. Example: Lucius torments Muggles. This is not because he likes to strike a poses before a mirror and laugh at his own devilish evilness, but because he ultimately thinks Muggles are unworthy of the respect as people (the same way we kill animals to eat them) and/or dangerous for his ideal of order, and/or he's a power-hugry and delusional.

I think many people also get very confused about what pov implies and can't detach the character's morals from the author's. And before this is used as an argument to defend JKR against accusations of unfairness, let us remember that she doesn't just back up Harry's worse deeds, she also is the one writing the WW as adapting to said pov and her intended moral voices validating it.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Everybody actually means well and truly believes in the ultimate goodness of their actions.

Oh totally. The DeathEaters don't think they're being evil, unless they're 3D and unrealistic...;)http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp100/335357.html this is an excellent drabble exploring this POV.

I think many people also get very confused about what pov implies and can't detach the character's morals from the author's. And before this is used as an argument to defend JKR against accusations of unfairness, let us remember that she doesn't just back up Harry's worse deeds, she also is the one writing the WW as adapting to said pov and her intended moral voices validating it.

Word, word, word.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Because I am the first link you refer to, I am now genuinely curious to know what in my review lead you to think I think OOTP Harry was OOC. This is not an attack in any way (I realise the wording may sound ambiguous, especially in a fandom like this) I just am honestly curious because I don’t want to end up somehow promoting this stance, since I feel very strongly about the rage and vindictivness and general darkness being present in Harry’s character since PS.

Which is why I love him.

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's anything specific, at least not when I reread it, but you do give off this general impression that Harry's some sort of heroic prissy princess with a big fat head who believes his own publicity simply because the world around him believes that.

Actually, I think I may have caught it:

That had been the first time I have liked Harry in the books before OotP, btw, and it always felt a bit jarring being so consistently "whatever" about him except for that one slip,

That sort of implied, especially the "one slip," that you didn't believe Harry's anger (ie, that him being angry was a slip). It's all about the context!

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Oh, I get it. I should probably have worded myself better, but the thing was more of a pisstake than anything else. Also the slip was mine, not Harry's, ie my betrayal of my own "whatever" stance on Harry.

Harry's some sort of heroic prissy princess with a big fat head who believes his own publicity simply because the world around him believes that

Oh, I think mostly I am reacting to what I feel Kloves is trying to push on me, which funnily enough overlaps with the wide-spread fanon idea of Harry as some sort of victimised little angel. It's like... it's Kloves who writes Harry as an heroic prissy princess, or at least that's my take on it, and then I am expected to believe his publicity simply because the world around him believes it.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Not rebutting the second? *preens*

People who seem to think OotP is the exception and not the rule make my head hurt

You read saeva's essay, yeah? Under the venus_viblahblah (*smites bad memory*) account?
I love that.

"I like the dark qualities to Harry. I liked the fact that for the first time I felt like I was watching Harry not an Everyman created by Steve Kloves to lure little children into buying Harry Potter toys."

I like that Movie!Harry was darker, and thus closer to Book!Harry.
I don't like Harry's darker qualities while we're being beaten around the head with what a hero he is, and how much better than say, the Dursleys or the Slytherins, he is.
I loathe the end of CoS, when it's so carefully explained that I loathe the end of CoS in which Harry's choice to go into Gryffindor is explained as the reason he's not like Tom Riddle.
If that's truly, when all the books are written and done, the message behind that; then I have no respect for Rowling's knowledge of realistic human characterisation.
A choice as what personality characteristic to value above another has absolutely nothing to do with moral strength or weakness.
A Harry in Slytherin would be a Harry anywhere, imho; unless his true character is so weak and malleable that being surrounded by Slytherins could make him 'evil'.
Harry's weakest point, imho, is his not confronting his own behaviour and that of other around him, not his similarities with Riddle.

I mean, they portray him as moody, bratty teenager, but also as the hero and one who isn't usually wrong in his instincts; so there seems to be a mixed message that Harry is right, for example, in mouthing off to Snape or hitting Draco, because they 'deserve it' somehow.
I mean, Harry never feels guilty about these actions, there's no authorial scorn or commentary poured on him as there is for other characters, no handy exposition from Hermione Sue as to why it might be wrong...

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

Well, no, simply because I hadn't read it at the moment. I might later tonight. :)

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Heh, I knew that would be a pretty short lived victory lap.
Rebutt away, if you want!

[darklites.livejournal.com]

Haven't seen the movie yet (not yet out in Australia *cries bitter tears*) but have utterly spoiled myself about it to the point of depravity, hee. And I agree, but not surprising because I love Harry, but eh. :D

I think it's hard to fault Harry for idolising his parents past realism. He's a teenage orphan who's had a shitty home life, of *course* he's going to idolise his parents in his mind. When a parent dies young, it's pretty common. I think it's part of where he finds his strength: he's so proud to be compared to James (before he learns the 'truth' at least). I do not think this is an ugly aspect of his character at all, but just a perfectly natural one. And it's not as if anyone has done anything (up to PoA, at least) to dispel him of the idea -- he's told that James Was So Good and Lily Was So Clever. As far as he knows, his parents *were* just that good. I don't think that after OotP he'd insist that his dad 'didn't strut', etc.

I do agree with the recent fandom dissatisfaction over the treatment of the Slytherins in canon. I *do* also think they are marginalised, the poor devils. ;) But I am uncomfortable with the idea (and not saying that everyone is saying this, but it's implied sometimes) that just because the Slytherins are marginalised, it means Harry (& the Gryffindors) is just a terribly irritating character who gets Everything He Wants. I mean, I think you can argue the unfairness of the self-righteous ways of the Gryffindors and the way they are favoured but can't see it until you turn blue, but wouldn't the Slytherins do the exact same if they were in the same situation? If they actually *were* favoured, would they suddenly be like, "We're so *favoured*! This is terribly unfair to the others! How shall we remedy this?"? Heh.

Yeah, Slytherins and Gryffindors are essentially no better than each other, and it's unfair that the Gryffindors seem to often be allowed to get away with so much more. But I don't think you can dislike the Gryffindors for it, at least not any more you should the Slytherins. Just because the Slytherins would be the *exact* same given the chance, and so the only difference, then, is the force of circumstance. I don't think you can dislike someone just because the chips are in their favour, not if the people you ostensibly like would act the exact same way if fortunes changed.

The Slytherins would relish things being catered to their whim and getting away with murder if they could just have it. They'd take advantage of it just like the Gryffindors do (and perhaps even be much more aware of it). So if they'd both react the same, does it mean that the Gryffindors, just because they have the favour, are any *worse* than the Slytherins? I don't think so. I mean, I think a lot of people are just reacting against the unfairness, which I do agree with definitely, and possibly I'm just reading some of the venting about this unfairness as a slight against the Gryffindors and their likeability. And it's perfectly natural to react emotionally against people being unfairly favoured. But I think rationally, you should only react as far as the fact that they *have* the favour -- and not make it out that the fact that they have the favour mean they are any *worse* than the Slytherins just because the Slyths *don't* have it.

The whole idea of disliking a character 'cause they're perceived as so great and saintly and wonderful and -aren't-, and then loving a character that acts bastardly & yet isn't loved seems like too much of an over-simplification to me
Basically just that, yeah. :D I mean, don't hate people just 'cause they've got it good, man. Blame the system!! Heh, I didn't think I'd ever defend the Gryffindors, but perhaps the fact that the Slytherins are marginalised can make one forget what little shits they are, too. :) And dude, I love the Slytherins. :D

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

"I don't think you can dislike someone just because the chips are in their favour"

I think the only problem is when the author and narrative try to force down your throat that 'Hey! Look! The Trio got a detention! There is no bias! They're the 'underdogs!'
Because they're not. And trying to make us believe they are just makes JKR look inconsistent.

Plus, if the chips are always in one person/house's favour, they grow to expect it. Then they're all 'Gasp! I got kicked off the Quidditch time! This is so unfair! My house head, who brought me the broom, even though I loathe privilege and people 'buying' their way onto teams; would totally not have done that, and it has nothing to do with her own investment with the team!'
I mean, I can see how from Harry's pov, behaving how he's always behaved is suddenly not Ok in OotP; and it's a shock. But hey, the free ride had to end sometime, join the real world, Harry!

[darklites.livejournal.com]

I think the only problem is when the author and narrative try to force down your throat
Oh man, yeah, I definitely have Issues with this too, which is why Ginny in OotP ("I am spunky, cool, and likeable!") and Neville generally ("I'm the underdog, FEEL SORRY FOR ME!") sometimes drive me around the bend. And I get the unfairness too. The really eerie thing is that JKR seems to be extremely adept at this force-feeding, and most people don't even notice that she is doing it! Eek. *fears greatly for world*

I agree that Harry is no better than Draco (or any one else), and the constant text insistence that he is can be grating. But I also don't think that Harry is any *worse* than Draco (or any one else) because of this annoying text insistence. And so no argument here really. I get the 'Argh, get over it and get into the real world like the rest of us!' annoyance that is exacerbated by JKR's 'validating' of Harry's intermittent superiority complex. But I just don't think this is a reason to make people who don't get the attention (the Slytherins or even the other Gryffindors depending on the argument) into martyrs of a sort or anything. Sometimes it seems like by trying to subvert the text, people are making Harry out to be teh ebil, and the Other Party out to teh wronged, which is reinforcing the view of the WW in glasses tinted with bias--just the other way around! I don't think this is what most people are saying though, just a handful, and most of the time it might even just be because people don't feel Harry needs any more defending since defending Harry too much is what they are arguing against! Heh. Which I totally get--but it just sometimes seems... like, maybe the Harry/author POV is 0deg, the unbiased view is 90deg., and by arguing against the former view it often seems like vacillating too far, to 180deg. rather than 90deg., often without even meaning to...?

Did that make any sense there, or am I just talking out of my ass? I frequently am just doing the latter, haha. :D

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me.
I argue against Harry because most people don't. If liking Draco was a majority, I'd probably get sick of him. I'm contrary like that.

[darklites.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the contriety has built up to a point where arguing against the contrary is also being contrary! Am just trying to be more contrary than you are. ;)

Er, yeah, it is late and I am crazy.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Oh man, yeah, I definitely have Issues with this too, which is why Ginny in OotP ("I am spunky, cool, and likeable!") and Neville generally ("I'm the underdog, FEEL SORRY FOR ME!")

Eeeeeh, you're my new best friend! *shows off icon*

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I feel like you are misconstructing my argument against me, because I think you know I don’t condone Slytherin behaviour while pointing out Gryffindors’s moral deficiencies… which I actually wasn’t doing, because if anything, it’s the general feel of unreal righteousness that put me off Harry in this movie. I mean, I don’t think criticism of Slytherin and criticism of Gryffindor are mutually exclusive – certainly you don’t need to vilify one to defend the other and in the same way, you aren’t necessarily trying to implicitally endorse one when you censure the the other. The world is not black and white, and all that stuff. Also, I realise this is not necessarily a straw-man but rather a generalization due to a tendency that exists in Slytherin fandom – put down the Gryffindor to defend your own – but I’m not going to address it any further than I already did, because I don’t feel I promote this idea. I never denied Draco's awfulness with you so it feels now strange to see this used as an argument against me. If you think my review did, please point it to me, because I’d hate being misunderstood. Oh, and jokes about the Slytherinne revolution don’t count. :) Don’t take them too seriously.

This said, I feel there are two matters that are getting confused here: the matter of characterization as in good writing and the sympathy it may/may not induce, and the matter of morals per se.

What I am saying isn’t that Harry is an asshole thus I despise him thus I dislike him. His assolish moments PS – GOF where what kept my interest in him alive, and I loved his characterization in OOTP. My problem with movie Harry was precisely the opposite: Harry is written as a somewhat super-human figure, and that’s what remove the sympathetic part for me, which would be the humanity I am always talking about.

Then there’s the issue of morals on a macro-level, the ethics of the Hogwarts social system, which I perceive as skewed at best. There is a system in Hogwarts, and it is Gryffindor-centric and it does marginalises other Houses. This wouldn’t be Harry’s problem if he didn’t constantly profit of it and especially if he didn’t end up getting the upper end costantly on the expenses of other people (not only Slytherin, I’d even quote Ron here) because of it, while at the same time authorial voice often through Harry preaches self-righteously at the evil of his enemies.

In short: I agree with valuing subjectivity over politics, though I don’t dismiss politics as an issue and will comment on it when I feel like. Which means just that: that I’m talking about politics, not humanity. :) I am perfectly able to love all the Gryffindors as individuals (I do). It’s just the House that I find lame.

I also wanted to add that I actually agree with you that replacing the “Gryffindor system” with a Slytherin one wouldn’t change anything. In fact, the Slytherins would likely establish something like a fascist regime. Which is were the SLA is already going, aaaaah. Poor Nott, executed already.

And you know how I feel about the subjectivity of subtext and how it goes hand in hand with projection. I feel what a reader says about a text says just as much about him. In fact, I am always hugry for signs of ugliness in people, which make me love them more, which could explain while sometimes I confuse you. (Do I?)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think I was confused because people (not you) -did- say that movie!Harry was more of an asshole in PoA, and linked that to hating Harry in the movie. He was also a happy hero in movies 1 & 2, so actually the only difference was that he was -less- black&white heroic in this one, what with the rage issues & so on. Plus look, he stole candy from Neville! Or whatever. I'm not saying you said that, but I dropped you in just because you had a thing against Harry for whatever reason in the movie & so of course I felt like I had to defend :>

I wouldn't accuse you of disliking someone 'cause they're an asshole, eheheheh :D And politics don't bother me as long as they're not used to justify the need to -feel- something about someone or a group of someones. Then again, I feel no guilt or interest in third-world countries "just because" either. I'm a bad, bad Slytherin-type person >:D

Anyway, I have issues with blaming Harry for anything at the level of him being 13-- he's on his way, I think, but he prolly won't become responsible or a good citizen to the Slytherin neighbor until at least seventh book. In PoA, one makes allowances and pats him and tells him to take time out & smell the broomstick oil. He's a growing boy, y'know :>

Well, I find all Houses (the very -idea-) lame, but I think I come closer to liking Slytherins as individuals but finding the House tres lame (I mean... yeah, the wonder & glory of cunning, heh). Also, I dislike Gryffindor (Muggle) fangirls but find them naive & harmless, while I find Slytherin (Muggle) fangirls naive & slightly disturbing yet harmless :> I mean, I wear my Slytherin tie 'cause I like to support Slytherin, actually, but I don't like the whole favoritism thing thus I stay away from favoring any House. Um. But yes, that's my own little issue, there :>

Hehehe, nah, you don't confuse me >:D Do I confuse you? I'm always looking for signs of beauty amid the ugliness, which makes it all the more painfully beautiful to me. I think partly 'cause I'm an artist, there is no "ugliness" if you look at something the right way-- like-- anything can be made beautiful. It's my perversity, in a way~:)

[malafede.livejournal.com]

And politics don't bother me as long as they're not used to justify the need to -feel- something about someone or a group of someones.

Many times an explanation gets confused with a justification, though. Sometimes people political stances just provokes their reaction to a text, and when they explain it to you, it doesn't mean they think their political stances make the reaction "right". :D

Poppy Z Brite who is a Wanker 90% of the time and admittely not the best writer around is however the mother of one of my absolutely favourite quotes:

"I don't need an excuse, only a reason."

So very unapologetic. I like that.

You don't confuse me either! Once I get in your pov, it's easy to see where you come from. :)

I think partly 'cause I'm an artist, there is no "ugliness" if you look at something the right way-- like-- anything can be made beautiful. It's my perversity, in a way~:)

Eeeh, possibly the same thing I do discovering the beauty in ugliness (am thinking to write Luna fic centering around magical creatures that feed on ugly things), it's just that I feel very strongly about calling the rediscovered "ugliness" ugly all the same.

... Does that make sense?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, so what you're saying is, we might be doing to same thing (when subverting whatever paradigm, though that's not always what I do), it's just I like to focus on the "beauty" ideal while you do the opposite 'cause of our respective attachment to said ideal. Or something ^^;
I love beauty, man, but like... to me, that's a way of seeing and not a visual/intrinsic aspect of anything-- therefore revisualizing and reconceptualizing something can make it beautiful. It's always that striving upward towards the sublime, I think, for me, and the love for the sublime.

I think early on, before I'd read much fanon or any canon, my Draco was beautiful, see, but not in a "hot" sexy-arse sort of way: he was beautiful. His hair shone in the moonlight and his eyes were opaque and sharp like moonstones or biting like frost or liquid like dark water. I'd focus on his feyness, y'know, the milky skin and the burning-up-from-within, the way he'd always flush horribly when he was angry or embarrassed (in my mind); the way his mouth was soft & pink and vulnerable, like a gash on too-pale, too-sharp features. See, he was never "pretty", exactly, in my mind, all the same-- he was still freaky-looking, some wacky albino, but he was beautiful because that's how my then-romantic in love Harry saw him.

The ugliness transforms, so it's like, all is beauty-- the dichotomy goes away in my mind. It's probably related to my drive for peace & balance and so on. Eventually, somehow, there is stillness.