![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI wish I could say something halfway coherent about a possible source for fannish issues (well, those of largely slash fen) with a number of spunky, at least partially "male hero"-type girl characters. I'm thinking of anything from the resentment of (movie?) Wendy Darling to Buffy to OoTP!Ginny.
I think this also relates interestingly to movie!Hermione being fitted into that mold. I mean, it seems she's not like that in canon, and yet... I think she must have potential, since she's a Gryffindor, isn't she?
My thoughts on this are presently scattered, by my instinct is that Gryffindorishness is supposed to be used as a textual shorthand for this stereotype (or achetype or what have you): indomitable, spunky, fearless, brash, good-hearted and true (and thus generally also selfish, self-righteous, overly favored, prone to temper and usually victims to some unhealthy amount of zeal). It's not "real life" heroism by any means-- it's a story convention, and it's worked in countless tales since the dawn of story, as far as I can tell.
So it's interesting to me (and slightly sad), seeing this (female-centered) rebellion against the (unrealistically, fairy-tale-style)-- female rebellion. I mean, I bet if you asked your average 13 year-old girl, she'd say movie!Hermione (and OoTP!Ginny... and Buffy) was kewl, man.
These days, most people often look at things so... pragmatically, I suppose; so realistically and sensibly. We're not living in a heroic age anymore, so it seems to me like the ridiculous visions of valor & sudden awakening from conflicted, contradictory roots (am thinking Buffy & Ginny) is frowned upon as... unrealistic and/or unhealthy. It's all about the "healthy attitude", which is basically at odds with the traditional style of perceiving fairy-tales and legends, which excuses most things with "a good heart is what counts" and "the end justifies the means" a lot of times. Being raised on these has kind of warped me, hasn't it? I just realized that these postmodern societal concerns have had nowhere near as large of an impact, all things considered.
I think I've always been hard-put to identify with Hermione -because- she's such a restrained, "modern" sort of girl. I've actually always intuited that Ginny would be a much better rebellious-hellfire candidate, what with her being clearly emotionally-centric, given to daydreams and easily driven to apparent extremes (in CoS). Morally wrong behavior kind of goes hand-in-hand with this sort of recklessness, I think (though of course that's not the only route to take). Buffy's dark, unheroic side which tends to put people off her is a direct result of the heroism package, as far as I can see. There's really no such thing as a well-balanced, truly selfless hero, anyway.
Actually, while I don't think JKR gave Ginny enough attention to make the transition believable, OoTP!Ginny as a concept is completely believable to me, and in fact I find her necessary. It may have been a somewhat ridiculous decision to make movie!Hermione out to be some sort of OoTP!Ginny predecessor, but a character like that was needed-- male-type "strong" females (in that their strength is in their fierce attitude rather than in their compassion) are considered necessary these days to "balance out" the strength of the males. While people laugh at the OOCness of this shift in Hermione, the idea of "girl power" makes sense to the 14 year-old girl I remember being.
I was a kind of reticent, shy, overly bookish 14 year-old girl not that long ago, and I loved the idea of putting aside my dreams and pens and pencils and going out and kicking arse. One gets sick of being reasonable (and the result is naturally less than pretty). So while movie!Hermione is less than believable, I think I identify with Emma's desire to have her be like that, canon be damned. It's like, well, it'd be -nice-; in canon, the role fell to Ginny because Hermione was needed to be the cool head in between Ron & Harry, but as her own person, Hermione could do with some butt-kicking attitude. I mean... dude. Remember being 14?... Yeah. It would drive a saint to violence.
Anyway, I think fairy-tale archetypes (translated into children's-book stereotypes) do have their root in real people's psychological needs. The number of teenager-written Mary Sue and secret-powers fics should tell you that at that age, what a lot of adolescents fixate on is power-- the power to strike back, to be the best, to be on top. So it saddens me to see it dressed up in adult terms of unfairness and unhealthyness and some sort of ideological/political paradigms that would mean little to the teenagers in question.
It's like... teenagers have their own politics, their own skewed ethics. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there in grade-school-to-High-School land, and yeah, there's usually no "fair" to speak of. Attitude passes for heroism and cowardly submission passes for "evil" pathetic dorkiness-- you either bully or are bullied. Thus, in a way, Ginny became bully material-- because to be capable of self-defense because she -had- to.
I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that I myself am clearly way too immature and stuck in wish-fulfillment fantasies of my own to discuss this rationally :> Or perhaps one could make the argument that JKR is a feminist :D ahahah which actually really amuses me. Incidentally, I suppose I should make clear that my "issue" with the negative press some semi-controversial heroines get is a feminist one at core, probably moreso than whatever left over teenage angst I possess. I mean, I definitely see Buffy, for instance, as a feminist icon in many ways, and would overlook (if not justify) her more ethically iffy behavior by the central fact of her overall admirable attitude. Ahh, it's The Attitude again, yes.
Is it feminist or just immature to admire Buffy because she kicks ass, is funny doing it, and meanwhile, manages to look good in a short skirt at the same time? I do believe this is an unattainable ideal, if it's actually feminist in the first place, but I can't help but see fairy tales as often feminist texts as well, contrary to popular opinion.
I can definitely see a feminist, grrrl-power kind of Hermione in later years, once she gets more systematic in her rebellion against whatever "institution" she chooses. I mean, I think her "defense" of the house-elves is just the intellectual equivalent of holding Malfoy at wand-point, say: it's basically born of righteousness run amok, but with social concern (for herself as projected onto others) at the center. I've actually never seen Hermione in a feminist light before, but now I believe she's more of a modern type of pre-feminist figure while OoTP!Ginny is more of a traditional fairy-tale approach.
Yeah. The meta, man. It is thick enough to choke on, isn't it? :>
I think this also relates interestingly to movie!Hermione being fitted into that mold. I mean, it seems she's not like that in canon, and yet... I think she must have potential, since she's a Gryffindor, isn't she?
My thoughts on this are presently scattered, by my instinct is that Gryffindorishness is supposed to be used as a textual shorthand for this stereotype (or achetype or what have you): indomitable, spunky, fearless, brash, good-hearted and true (and thus generally also selfish, self-righteous, overly favored, prone to temper and usually victims to some unhealthy amount of zeal). It's not "real life" heroism by any means-- it's a story convention, and it's worked in countless tales since the dawn of story, as far as I can tell.
So it's interesting to me (and slightly sad), seeing this (female-centered) rebellion against the (unrealistically, fairy-tale-style)-- female rebellion. I mean, I bet if you asked your average 13 year-old girl, she'd say movie!Hermione (and OoTP!Ginny... and Buffy) was kewl, man.
These days, most people often look at things so... pragmatically, I suppose; so realistically and sensibly. We're not living in a heroic age anymore, so it seems to me like the ridiculous visions of valor & sudden awakening from conflicted, contradictory roots (am thinking Buffy & Ginny) is frowned upon as... unrealistic and/or unhealthy. It's all about the "healthy attitude", which is basically at odds with the traditional style of perceiving fairy-tales and legends, which excuses most things with "a good heart is what counts" and "the end justifies the means" a lot of times. Being raised on these has kind of warped me, hasn't it? I just realized that these postmodern societal concerns have had nowhere near as large of an impact, all things considered.
I think I've always been hard-put to identify with Hermione -because- she's such a restrained, "modern" sort of girl. I've actually always intuited that Ginny would be a much better rebellious-hellfire candidate, what with her being clearly emotionally-centric, given to daydreams and easily driven to apparent extremes (in CoS). Morally wrong behavior kind of goes hand-in-hand with this sort of recklessness, I think (though of course that's not the only route to take). Buffy's dark, unheroic side which tends to put people off her is a direct result of the heroism package, as far as I can see. There's really no such thing as a well-balanced, truly selfless hero, anyway.
Actually, while I don't think JKR gave Ginny enough attention to make the transition believable, OoTP!Ginny as a concept is completely believable to me, and in fact I find her necessary. It may have been a somewhat ridiculous decision to make movie!Hermione out to be some sort of OoTP!Ginny predecessor, but a character like that was needed-- male-type "strong" females (in that their strength is in their fierce attitude rather than in their compassion) are considered necessary these days to "balance out" the strength of the males. While people laugh at the OOCness of this shift in Hermione, the idea of "girl power" makes sense to the 14 year-old girl I remember being.
I was a kind of reticent, shy, overly bookish 14 year-old girl not that long ago, and I loved the idea of putting aside my dreams and pens and pencils and going out and kicking arse. One gets sick of being reasonable (and the result is naturally less than pretty). So while movie!Hermione is less than believable, I think I identify with Emma's desire to have her be like that, canon be damned. It's like, well, it'd be -nice-; in canon, the role fell to Ginny because Hermione was needed to be the cool head in between Ron & Harry, but as her own person, Hermione could do with some butt-kicking attitude. I mean... dude. Remember being 14?... Yeah. It would drive a saint to violence.
Anyway, I think fairy-tale archetypes (translated into children's-book stereotypes) do have their root in real people's psychological needs. The number of teenager-written Mary Sue and secret-powers fics should tell you that at that age, what a lot of adolescents fixate on is power-- the power to strike back, to be the best, to be on top. So it saddens me to see it dressed up in adult terms of unfairness and unhealthyness and some sort of ideological/political paradigms that would mean little to the teenagers in question.
It's like... teenagers have their own politics, their own skewed ethics. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there in grade-school-to-High-School land, and yeah, there's usually no "fair" to speak of. Attitude passes for heroism and cowardly submission passes for "evil" pathetic dorkiness-- you either bully or are bullied. Thus, in a way, Ginny became bully material-- because to be capable of self-defense because she -had- to.
I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that I myself am clearly way too immature and stuck in wish-fulfillment fantasies of my own to discuss this rationally :> Or perhaps one could make the argument that JKR is a feminist :D ahahah which actually really amuses me. Incidentally, I suppose I should make clear that my "issue" with the negative press some semi-controversial heroines get is a feminist one at core, probably moreso than whatever left over teenage angst I possess. I mean, I definitely see Buffy, for instance, as a feminist icon in many ways, and would overlook (if not justify) her more ethically iffy behavior by the central fact of her overall admirable attitude. Ahh, it's The Attitude again, yes.
Is it feminist or just immature to admire Buffy because she kicks ass, is funny doing it, and meanwhile, manages to look good in a short skirt at the same time? I do believe this is an unattainable ideal, if it's actually feminist in the first place, but I can't help but see fairy tales as often feminist texts as well, contrary to popular opinion.
I can definitely see a feminist, grrrl-power kind of Hermione in later years, once she gets more systematic in her rebellion against whatever "institution" she chooses. I mean, I think her "defense" of the house-elves is just the intellectual equivalent of holding Malfoy at wand-point, say: it's basically born of righteousness run amok, but with social concern (for herself as projected onto others) at the center. I've actually never seen Hermione in a feminist light before, but now I believe she's more of a modern type of pre-feminist figure while OoTP!Ginny is more of a traditional fairy-tale approach.
Yeah. The meta, man. It is thick enough to choke on, isn't it? :>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 03:18 am (UTC)I dunno if I think it was supposed to be "okay" so much as "understandable". I mean, it didn't -really- hurt him... I guess? The scene kind of boggles me, but I think Hermione was just supposed to have lost it (at least Ron seemed to think so). Or something.
I don't think she was punishing a subhuman "creature" there, though she did call Draco a cockroach. If anything, how could Hermione, house-elf champion, lash out at someone she thought was subhuman creature? It's kind of ridiculous. I think it was supposed to be in the same vein as OoTP!Harry's beating up of Malfoy after Quidditch. Not that that was a Good Thing, but.
I wasn't defending her, just sort of going, well, kick-ass!Hermione isn't a bad idea necessarily, even though canonically, it's more than a bit ridiculous. Or something. Did I even -have- a point? -.-