~~ (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.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Once again, you translate my rants into cohesive arguments!

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.

Exactly! The problem is with all of them. They all have faults. I'm not denying Draco's faults or the faults of Slytherin as a whole, I'm pointing out that Harry and Gryffindor are equally flawed, because everyone is. Nobody's better than anybody else.
I behave more acceptably than say, a mass murderer, but I've lead a different life, so it's not who's morally superior.
Draco isn't better than Harry, Harry isn't better than Draco. One behaves in a way more accepting by the WW society is all.

I'm not really convinced it's "the worst" to be Harry because there's lots of ways life can be bad.

Look at Neville for example. All the pain of having absent parents, except without the athletic skills or popularity or mentors ready to swing everything he's way.
Look at Cedric, for crying out loud!

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.

Word. He's never existed in the Wizarding World without his privilege for more than five minutes at a time. He has no idea and no self awareness of it, perhaps, because he's never known anything different, but he completely misses how often things are engineered to go his way - as often as not.

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.

Even at the Dursleys, the house revolves around him. It's negative attention, but it's attention. They fear him, and his world, and for good reason - Marge, Ton Tongue toffee, their fireplace exploding, the pigs tail, the 'mass murderering' godfather and the Order. The Dementors.

Ron and Draco are both struggling really hard to not be and seeing it come easily to Harry.

And then see him not only completely fail to realise it on top of that, but actively resent the privileges he unwittingly benefits from.

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.

He's great when he's thinking about Harry and making him the centre of the group, but should he consider his own life then let's jump all over him!Because it's All About Harry. (Ah, this is Buffy fandom all over again...)

Really, though, Ron is probably the one who gives more support than Harry does (not to mention providing Harry with a family).

Seriously.

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.

Jesus yes. He's hard work, and a less patient person would have got sick of it before GoF. In fact, I was shocked at how restrained Ron was in OotP, almost to the point of being OOC (dropping the Quaffle when Malfoy taunted him, as opposed to losing his temper as he might have done before.)

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 things like 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)

EXACTLY. Man, you can sum stuff up.
I loathe the apology Dumbledore gives.
Why? Why can't Harry just be the one who isn't given the special attention for once?
Never mind that I can think of several great reasons why Ron would make more sense in an authoritative position than Harry, or that Harry didn't even want the job particularly, he just resented not being asked and being the left one out.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Oh, you've nailed it. I think the double standard is at the core of any disagreement I may have with JKR and the main issue I have with certain sections of the fandom.

It is the only thing that I get personally offended at - because while I can spot many morally reprehensible attitudes playing out in the books, it is not something I get emotional about because usually they are condamned by authorial voice as well, thus making it hard for me to feel that righteous sense of infairness I instead feel at the marginalisation of the Slytherins.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

My issue is that while Harry's issues aren't necessarily more angsty or worse than anyone else's, this -is- his story, so of course they're going to be center-stage, especially since it's third-person-limited pov. Regardless, I just have issues with disliking Harry (which was my initial point) -because- of these moral favoritism concerns or whatever. Not only disliking Harry-- hating Harry because he's sometimes a self-centered, insensitive prat. Like I said-- "excuses" or reasons why Harry is the way he is don't work-- all that works for me is saying that this judgment is emotionally based and as unfair as the unfairness it supposedly fights.

I dislike defending Harry or anyone straight out, because yeah everything can be rationalized & relativized or whatever-- the point is that people -are- sympathetic for reasons other than their life b eing bad, and I don't know -why- anyone would insist that's the central fact & point of Harry's existence. Sure, he's kind of angsty in PoA but I don't think he ever reaches what I suspect to be Draco's heights of self-pity (not to mention Draco's level of frustrated self-righteous rage) anywhere either in the book or the movie. And I admit I feel overly defensive and that's never a good position from which to argue anything, so mostly I was saying (in the post and in general) that my "defense" is a knee-jerk reaction.

Even so, I think mention of Harry's lot in life & his social status just obscures rather than helps that sympatheticness issue.

I mean, people are or aren't sympathetic to other people for much more idiosyncratic reasons than whatever particular rationalization they use for whatever sets of behaviors. I just... feel that it's unfair to look at less than the holistic picture when judging a character. And by holistic I mean the sum of someone's actual personality & inner self, rather than how they're perceived (celebrity, outcast, beloved leader, friend, blah blah). This is just a larger issue of one being defined by society that bothers me.

I mean, if you personally like or don't like Harry, hey, that's fine. Not liking (or liking) Harry because of other people's thoughts, feelings or reactions doesn't seem quite as fine, but that's just my bias. Maybe I'm just... not the sort of person who cares about fairness...? I love Ron, I love Draco, and they inform who Harry is just as Harry informs who they are, but my feelings for either Ron or Draco should have -nothing- to do with my feelings for Harry, should they?

I think it's mostly a rift between analyzing the text (what does the text say, blah-blah) which wasn't what I was going after-- and analyzing reader response & the meta of why the reader feels blah-blah about the text :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I wonder if it goes back to the whole liking/admiring the character thing. Like, in malafede's entry I think she said that this was the first time she *identified* with Draco--in the PoA movie (not the book). And if you're identifying with Draco than by definition you hate Harry because of exactly these things. Even without being like Draco yourself, you're likely to latch on to him as the character that's a channel for your own feelings, or maybe identifying with him also makes you feel even more strongly on this issue.

Like for me in OotP I didn't dislike Harry but I found myself sort of being "with" Draco in the text more than I ever had been before just because I found his tone relief. Harry was so relentlessly angry and then Draco would fly in like a spastic bird and flap around doing a chicken dance and I would laugh and often he'd say things that I'd want to say or whatever.

So there Draco became more "my character" maybe in ways he hadn't been before but he still wasn't really being an outlet for my feelings about the main character. But some people maybe do just naturally react badly to certain things about Harry--as they do about Hermione and Ron as well--and those things might line up with the type of things Draco sees: Harry thinks he's so special and everybody agrees with him. It's not even necessarily a question of disliking Harry maybe, so much as Harry standing for something they don't like so he makes them angry. It's just easier to talk about it as if it's a person who's made them angry rather than a fictional construct that mirrors something in the real world...?

And it just works so neatly, really, when you've JKR there pulling strings and giving him brooms and making sure Gryffindor wins at Quidditch instead of Dumbledore doing it. For me it's not so much the unfairness that gets me in the HP universe cause I usually don't really care about fair. It's more other things for me. When I see those things in the text I'll be all, "But see that's bad that the author does that in her story and seems to say it's good!" because I'm reading about a concept I don't like and there's nobody to complain to--if there's a character that's saying something along the same lines or symbolizes this for me I'll latch onto that character. So I think people can come to dislike the characters not just as people, like they think Harry's an asshole, but as the "message" or whatever they think they stand for. Does that make sense? I'm not sure what I just said...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe, once again, Sister Magpie Explains It All :D :D

I can definitely empathize with this as far as I definitely resent Lucius' "message" or possibly "function", in the fandom & within the books (to Draco especially). I HATE the sex-worship of Lucius. HATE, HATE, HATE because it represents the sexual worship of everything dark & twisted & cruel and that just makes me angry apparently. But he's not characterized near deeply enough for it to be really "personal". My dislike of Neville was the whole "brave woobie" thing and the "contender for Harry" thing, which lessened when I got into his head and stopped concentrating on Neville's "message" I suppose, yeah.

I guess it's weird to me 'cause Harry is -the- most "real" person in the books, so it's hard to imagine seeing him as just a "message"-- I mean, he's -Harry-! I feel his pain! I feel his rage! I feel his lust (*cough*)! ...It's just hard to totally divorce myself and imagine hey, I suppose he's just another "voice" in the books. Also, I don't resent arrogant characters (unless they're stupid/evil, like Lucius), I suppose-- they're like... amusing or endearing or frustrating, but that piques my interest. Blandness is boring, all that. I think I'm just boggled at the idea of losing sight of Harry-as-a-person, but like, I suppose people do that with -real- people, even, so :>

Also, I dislike the whole way people jump to conclusions with these new visions of Harry, like they were waiting for an excuse or something. The judgmental thing, like I'd said, it just-- seems scary...? Wrong...? Something like that.

But yes. I loved OoTP Harry because I felt what he felt, saw what he saw-- and identified with him because I knew these things, not because I could project -myself- onto him. Like, it doesn't matter to me (as a reader) whether I could see myself in a character, if I can feel the universality of their major emotions (anger, fear, lust, joy, pain)-- in fact, I thought it's this universality that was what made reading work. But. Readers-- just like people-- are clearly different :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Like, in malafede's entry I think she said that this was the first time she *identified* with Draco--in the PoA movie (not the book). And if you're identifying with Draco than by definition you hate Harry because of exactly these things. Even without being like Draco yourself, you're likely to latch on to him as the character that's a channel for your own feelings, or maybe identifying with him also makes you feel even more strongly on this issue.

Just butting in briefly to clarify that, while I think that of course there's emotions in play here, it actually sort of went the opposite way. I didn't hate Harry because I identified with Draco. I hated Harry (mostly for political reasons and because I honestly think he's an hypocrite about the favouritism he gets, whether he's aware of this or not) and because of this I identified with Draco. :)

[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*

why isn't any harry fan commenting my icon?

[malafede.livejournal.com]

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

Ooooooooh, this question always intrigues me. We should spam Reena some more discussing the meta-tendencies of fans and how they overlap with their sympathies and what causes what (the Harry sympathies makes you more interested in the text, or is your interest in the text that makes you Harry-sympathetic?

This said, I don't think an actual text separated from subtext exists. *g*

Re: why isn't any harry fan commenting my icon?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Teehee, y'mean the Viva la Revolucion? Or something? Heh. Well then. *boos and throws red&gold confetti* :D

Anyway, uh. Now that that's out of the way... :>
Nothing ever made me interested in the text enough to read it other than... uh... well, I felt guilty. I mean, peer-pressure, y'know, and also, whee! Shiny new book! :>

But! My pre-existing Harry sympathies were what made me interested in the text, yes-- I was like, OMG THE BOUNTY OF THE HARRY!!1 Though I think that's not applicable to normal people who actually read the books first :> I think, however, that for cellia it's the opposite-- her interest in the text & in hero-types translated into an interest in Harry. I'm actually like that too, generally-- I am more of a non-subversive reader that way as I often say, but that just wasn't the case with HP since I was subverted by fanon back when canon sort of made me shudder. :>

OMG!! Ds TOTALLY wanted to smooch him in PoA!!~ ..but also Sirius. wannabe playahs :(((

[cellia.livejournal.com]

(reposted to fix ital ^^;;)

Hm. Me personally: I'm usually a character reader; that's what I'm mainly interested in (as opposed to people whose first love is plot or structure or well-used language). I'll forgive a lot from a story if it satisfies me on making me care. So, the HP books--despite whatever stylistic and logical flaws they have--managed to make me care about Harry, to feel the "realness" of him. Some associated characters, as well, but Harry is the one we obviously get to know the best. Thus I keep reading the books to follow his continuing adventures, with varying interest in other characters as well.

I'm not completely blind to other parts of good writing (I hope ^^;;) and I'd certainly prefer that the story be well-told on all levels--from meta to word choice. It makes the emotional resonance much more powerful, and my brain can be happy and whir along with my dumb emotions. But, have to satisfy my savage gut-emotions first. If not, then it starts to tilt into being an extended exercise in metaphors and signifiers and symbolism, which doesn't turn my crank unless you do it with blazing brilliance (like 1984).

I rarely get caught up in the mechanics of the story. Usually I don't want to (unless the style is something amazing). I don't want to see the scaffolding or be distracted by a clever turn of phrase. I want the text as transparent as possible, and only acting as the thin film between me and the "reality" I'm getting.

Later, after I put the book down and digest things, or talk/write about them, then it can be fun and interesting and illuminating to go over structure and meta and metaphor and political/social message. But what I really want out of a book is for it to make me believe as I read, so that any meta (if it's unavoidable) is at least in the back of my mind. If I start noticing meta-textual things while I'm reading, usually it means that the writer has shown way too much of their hand, and I'm pulled out of the reality of the text to start wondering about the author. Like... Card's Speaker for the Dead : I realized halfway through that the writer was most likely Mormon, and was then actively annoyed by now-very-noticeable-ideology for rest of book. I'm guessing JKR did something like that to you with her simplistic favoritism, but we have different hot buttons, so I went along worry free.

(blah blah blah boring talk all about me, but all in the interest of researching readers and meta)

I have this theory though, that most of fandom reads in a more meta way though. Because most of fandom writes/has a writer mindset if they're "vocal." I assume this makes it near-impossible for them to not to notice what's on the back of the tapestry and how the tapestry was constructed. Kind of a "professional" eye, so to speak. I think for many of the arguments in this LJ entry, it's less a matter of "an actual text separated from subtext" doesn't exist, than that an actual text separated from meta-text doesn't. Which might be true for some readers, but they are just not oblivious enough to the process ^^.

...or maybe I am just splitting things (that are mushy concepts anyway) too fine and arguing semantics. You decide! :D

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

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

*hands out streamers and airhorn*

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.

Likewise with my Draco love, I'm sure!

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).

Oh, totally. I think if it wasn't rammed down our throats by the authorial voice that Gryffindor = Good, Harry's behaviour would bother me much less. It's not the behaviour that's so objectional (I often say that Draco hasn't committed any act that's, imho, morally much more 'wrong' than the Trio, but it can be argued the other way that he's not much better) it's the favouring and excusing from authority figures, fans, Harry himself and the narrative alike. (Not aimed at any fan specifically, however, just as a whole.)

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

Could be. I think a lot of Slytherin fans are interested in literary analysis because to be a Slytherin fan, you have to be reading on a 'deviant' level, imo.

[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!