~~ (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

[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 :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think, too, you have to factor fandom into it becuase i know that seriously effects how I think about any canon. So people probably aren't just reacting to Harry but the "Harry people" or perhaps the "anti-Ron" or "anti-Draco" hero. That can probably also make a character into more of a message, because it's so connected to the people that bug us.

[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. :)

[malafede.livejournal.com]

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

Oh, and I don't blame Harry for this, not precisely. I mean, he's 15, he's allowed to have primitive morals. It's just, when it combines with the author's favour that I lose my cool. :D Evrybody has their buttons, don't they?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Meh, I know everyone has their buttons, heheh, and apparently one of my buttons is being upset when people hate people/characters for "political reasons", especially if they'd otherwise like (or love) said character. I think the crux is that Harry is -real- to me & it's -hard-, imagining how one could be distant enough from him to see him politically. Seeing any person politically is probably beyond me, however :/

I find this whole jump of "if not X then Y" in character identification really kind of... both confusing & interesting. I've never really done it like that, so it's... hard to get a grip on how that works, y'know? I'm there for-richer-for-poorer, y'know? There's almost -nothing- a beloved character can do to turn me off seriously, if I perceive him as "close enough" to themselves in that I believe this is that character in some way. I'm like this with people too, though-- it's kind of hard to get me to censure you permanently-- for the length of the "story" or relationship or what have you. I get upset & then I get over it or... well, I get over it... eventually, even if the other person just becomes -more- of an asshole to me.

What I mean is, I see both people & characters through an empathic (emotional-type) lens, primarily, which is probably why the rationalism of a "political" or otherwise judgmental way of perception keeps boggling me. So to me, there's no "I love him but then he did something wrong so I can't stand him now". Like when you love someone, right, they piss you off but you are always on their side (political, emotional, any kind of side) anyway, right? And if you don't love this person, then most likely you never really knew them anyway, I figure.

Basically... I think I'm often way forgiving of way too many things in people, but this leads me to project my approach onto others (which is a bad thing). One day... one day I can maybe get over seeing politics as a dirty word, but. Today is not that day :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ah-you know, I thought after I wrote that of how I could possibly have had that completely the wrong way around. If you're feeling like Harry's coming across that way of course you're going to start nodding along with Malfoy!

Sort of like me saying, "Me too," when Draco said he thought Granger would be killed in CoS!

[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. :>

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

[malafede.livejournal.com]

No, this icon, this icon!

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

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, that. I just kind of stare at it and go "............."

*is disturbed*

And y'know, my H/D keeps on getting more homicidal by the moment :>

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

[malafede.livejournal.com]

You ship Harry/Dementors too?

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

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

heheh, no, but there's something metaphorically interesting going on there that relates to rage and hopelessness and power, I just can't put my finger on it. I also did mean that my Harry&Draco are both kind of obsessed with death; Harry more than Draco of course :>

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

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

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

hehehe You know I'm totally with you there even though I -do- notice structure and/or style-- it's just, I want -not- to notice it consciously-- that would mean it's Good Enough :D If I notice, it's generally either meant as an exercise in style (ie, is symbolic, poetic, abstract writing) or the writer is an amateur.

I like the idea of meta-text vs. text, btw. I think I like to not think while I read too, which is really annoying when I realize I have all this -capacity- to analyze English lit that I actually prefer not to use. My future as an English major is clearly in doubt, here ^^;

I read for pleasure, basically; I think that's what it is. Pleasure means emotions and identification with the pov character and a sort of background hum of appreciation for language and structure (if it's done right)-- but I think there are people who're mystery fans or overall plot-arc fans or whatever, who are way more reason-centric than I am :>

I mean, I doubt it's a question of intellectual capacity so much as preference :>

[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.