~~ (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: 2004-06-08 12:32 am (UTC)(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
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?
Date: 2004-06-08 06:35 am (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:08 pm (UTC)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
Re: why isn't any harry fan commenting my icon?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:20 pm (UTC)Re: why isn't any harry fan commenting my icon?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:26 pm (UTC)*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?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:43 pm (UTC)Re: why isn't any harry fan commenting my icon?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:49 pm (UTC)OMG!! Ds TOTALLY wanted to smooch him in PoA!!~ ..but also Sirius. wannabe playahs :(((
Date: 2004-06-10 01:51 am (UTC)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 :(((
Date: 2004-06-10 09:42 pm (UTC)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 :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 08:34 am (UTC)*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.