~~ (an appalling lack of) defense
Jun. 6th, 2004 11:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 10:47 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 06:04 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 08:43 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 08:45 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 08:51 am (UTC)Er, yeah, it is late and I am crazy.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 08:54 am (UTC)It's 5pm here, but I should be revising for an exam tomorrow. Instead I choose to be contrary and argue over fictional characters. Could this be my I'm retaking said exam? *light dawns*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 08:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 12:42 pm (UTC)It's this judgement of Harry-- or of Draco-- that bothers me. Sure, the authorial voice does that in whatever way, but who cares? I don't. I have the Harry in my head-- the character who's real enough to exist completely apart from authorial voice or JKR or whatever else, now, to me. It's not that I don't care what JKR says, especially if it's about -him-, but I don't feel the need to give -all- canon equal amounts of concern. I don't care about the social ramifications or Harry-as-he-appears-to-others-- but then, I'm asocial personally & not very interested in the books apart from Harry, Harry, Harry.
This makes me somewhat of an aberration among HP fen, I realize this :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:09 am (UTC)Eeeeeh, you're my new best friend! *shows off icon*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:15 am (UTC)I think the fandom Neville love makes me dislike him! I sit there, and think "Nooooo! You're falling into the trap of JKR's manipulations!"
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:29 am (UTC)I think if Neville gets any more credit in the next books I'll have to kill something. Possibly I'll find a way to write myself in the HPverse and kill him, and then make sure nobody cares.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 12:45 pm (UTC)People are just people, and if they annoy me, I like it to be because they're stupid assholes (grr, Lucius, grrr) and not because someone-said-something-and-someone-else-said-something-else-and-then... :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:07 pm (UTC)I think I find it hard to see characters as people, and don't often do so. In fiction I don't get annoyed by stupid assholes because I am too busy being amused by them, ha! I remember thinking James Potter an utter bore, and then after OotP, I adored him. I clearly have some internal problems I need to sort out. :D Anyway assholes usually either bring out my amusement or my murderous hate (Umbridge), but not really annoyance. I save my annoyance for poor innocent characters who just happen to rub me the wrong way (Neville, Ginny). :P
Fiction just makes me judge differently, I think... I totally admit that my Neville dislike is rather irrational, but it's just one of those things that I can't help, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:26 pm (UTC)In fact, yes, I have trouble see most other HP characters as people (mostly 'cause I don't consider the books to be "well characterized"). I can barely relate to Hermione as a person, forget Draco, who has a handful of lines per book. I mean, I love Draco, but I've mostly made Draco real by virtue of my imagination & inspiration from fanfic-- with basis in canon. Like a (mental) movie that's "based on" a book, y'know :>
Harry's assholish moments amuse me as well as hurt me 'cause he's in pain, I suppose-- but they definitely endear him to me, yes. It just bothers me that people contradict themselves, disliking him for being too perfect (in others' eyes)-- which isn't even true & not perfect enough (too assholish & mean) at the same time! It's like he can't win! He's either too human or not human enough. Agh.
To me, he'll always be "just Harry", but I realize I'm a mad Harry-fancying ho :>
*teases*
Date: 2004-06-08 06:26 am (UTC)Someone could say that this is just as pointless a reason for disliking someone, because you're confusing morals with emphaty. *grin*
Anyway, I don't think the concepts of "correct character to dislike" or "correct reason to dislike a character" has a leg to stand on. I mean, half of our response to characters is emotional, and you can't apply the concepts of "right" or "wrong" to emotions. Every one has a right to feel whatever they feel without being called "wrong" for it. I mean, this discussion is great because we're just sort of comparing issues and idosincrasies, but half the character discussions that I witnessed in this fandom came down to a party declaring the other's likes/dislikes "wrong", and viceversa, and I find that rather pointless.
(For example someone said on the wank I was telling Roxy that Malfoys and DE aren't "correct" villains to like, people should pick up Voldemort or his young self, and how silly is that? People have a right to get whatever they can get from characters, even when different people don't "get it". It's not it obvious different people won't get it? Because they're different?)