~~ (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 07:45 am (UTC)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.