~~ (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: 2004-06-07 01:55 am (UTC)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?)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 02:09 am (UTC)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~:)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 06:43 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 11:49 am (UTC)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.