~~ the dark Father.

[reenka]

Everyone knows that I hate Lucius Malfoy, right? Well, I thought I did. And then I saw jereeza's watercolor version of him and... *siiiiigh* Yes. Finally! Finally! Gah. I don't know where to begin. The short hair helps a lot, but it's really the expression-- this man is beautiful because he isn't pretty. Oh, how happy that makes me.
    Ahhh, the Trelawney portrait is also vivid like that to me, mmmmyes.

It's funny, because I'm actually obsessed with physical beauty, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone much more fixated on the pleasure to be found in the appearances of things. So I understand where the need to draw everything pretty comes from-- I draw everything as pretty as I can, myself, though I try not to. I just think that illustrating a character is something to take seriously in terms of the depiction of their personality as much as the technical aspect. Every picture is worth a thousand words, they say. Well, it -is-.

I think it's just that in my mind, Lucius is "The Terrible Father" archetype, and this almost Victorian-looking portrait really reminds me of that aesthetic. I don't mean 'terrible' as in ghastly, I mean as in formidable-- a towering force. To me, a parent like that is the stuff of childish nightmares, since I was something of a sensitive child, I think, and naturally exaggerated my own parents' terribleness. Even my rather loving mother became larger than life-- had a definite fearsome aspect. I can only imagine what it's like when your father -is- actually scary.


The painting reminds me of my childhood nightmares, I think, and of the fairy-tales I'd read where you had The Dark Father who punished the curious, adventurous child. You didn't really -know- The Father-- he was a huge, looming shadow and a vague memory of being bounced upon his knee next to a sunlit window when you were much younger. You looked up at him from your scrawny height and thought he was something other than human-- his severe, patrician features and his coldly set mouth and his stare that could pierce you through the heart and spread ice right down to your toes.

I think it's just that-- for me-- Lucius is very much a children's book character. He is most fascinating at his most inhuman, when one looks at him through Draco's terrified-yet-enthralled pov. He's quite a contrast to Mr. Dursley, who so many fic writers use as a simple plot device to terrorize Harry-- it seems to me that Mr. Dursley was easily overcome, especially by Harry. He's the one a child could trick because I'm pretty sure even at 7 years old Harry had more wits and spirit about him than Vernon Dursley knew how to deal with. So it's more than a bit ridiculous to have so many fics where he physically abuses Harry and Harry just -takes- it. If nothing else, I think Harry's magic would've flared if he was that terrified or angry.

Anyway, perhaps it's just that more people have parents like the Dursleys than like the Malfoys, so they write what's more familiar and easily understood or something. I have to admit, my own fantasies and fears ran more towards the Malfoy end of the spectrum: my parents were both indulgent and distant in different ways, and they were both rather powerful in my mind.

Looking at jereeza's Lucius from an adult pov, I just see a wretched, miserly man who's trapped in his own machinations-- a man who wears a veneer of disdain to cover up an inability to take any real joy in -anything-. I think what most people forget is that Lucius Malfoy is meant to be ugly. And I don't mean physically-- I mean this man's spirit is truly ugly. This isn't so much about bitterness (borne of anger & despair), even, as with Snape: I think this man is consumed with all-out hatred (borne of fear).

I don't mean to use 'ugliness' (or monstrousness) as a way to dehumanize him, really. Plenty of humans are like this-- they shrivelled up inside as they became ever more consumed with power as a means in itself. The more one craves control over others (especially those who cannot fight back as one's equals-- say, oh, Muggles), the more one tries to distance oneself from one's vulnerabilities. One cannot be controlling or cold without losing touch with one's inner child to the point where one forgets what it felt like in the first place. All one remembers is powerlessness, now replaced with power.

My bias is, of course, that I've always associated the need for control (over others) with moral degeneration. It's basically at the root of all degeneration of one's capacity for compassion (i.e., humanity) in general as far as I can tell. My idea of Lucius is almost completely centered around his use of those weaker than himself to gain power; therefore Lucius is rather antithetical to me.

I've always had this underlying horror of Harry/Lucius as a pairing partly because it makes me think of the sacrificial lamb. Harry is so needful of a good Father in his life, and Lucius is just the complete opposite. And I think Harry could 'take' him if you mean in a fight, but the idea of any sort of cohabitation makes me think of a pale, miserable 11-year old being shipped off to the awful dark Mansion in a long black limo, his wet face pressed to the car window as he's being driven away.

I think in the end, I myself am too much of a child, still, to tolerate the idea that this child could grow up and not escape. Growing up has to be about escape. This is what we're escaping! This man and everything he stands for. This is precisely the kind of adult that's the enemy of every child with any shred of creativity or imagination, I think. He mesmerizes me and repulses me and inspires me to write to exorcise that demon.

This picture keeps making me think of the kind of Mansion this portrait would fit on the wall of. It reminds me of Penelope's `Carnivorous House'. Wah.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I really wonder whether I project myself too much onto Harry-- 'cause, y'know, I was the kind of child that wasn't easily cowed by any adult I didn't have actual affection for. I was (am?) rebellious and stubborn and impossible to manage, y'know, 'the problem child', just like Harry. So I think any pairing where Harry's being dominated by someone older & more powerful just feels... deeply, deeply wrong. So wrong that I can't imagine someone fully understanding exactly what I mean unless they basically identified with Harry (or at least his spirit of resistance) too.

I dunno, I wonder if that's related to the apparent trend that the people who write Harry/Slytherin or Harry/older-more-powerful-person identify either with Slytherin itself or project some sort of Hufflepuff/femme (and clearly, Hufflepuff is the 'female' House) mentality that submission is best. See, I think Gryffindors are misunderstood-- I think it's Harry's Gryffindor nature that allowed him to resist the Dursleys and that would make Harry/Lucius so laughable. Do these writers really understand what it's like to never give in?

People keep looking at Gryffindor from the outside, and from the outside, any characteristic looks intimidating and possibly obnoxious. But see... some of the flag-waving Slytherin-sympathizing-types have this persecution complex going, where the Big Bad Gryffindors have taken away their rights. The thing that's kind of funny is that they'd take away the Gryffindors' rights in a heartbeat-- it's just that the Gryffs would react differently. They wouldn't complain or become bitter or depressed or disenfranchised-- they'd fight. Harry would fight (though he'd mope too). And not in the picking-at-the-heels way Draco seems to-- Gryffindors wage full frontal battle, and there's something to be said for that. Don't get mad, get back! Or something. (I think this is the Aries in me speaking, btw, ahahahahah). But anyway, off track entirely.

Yeah. Especially 'cause Draco wasn't a rough-and-tough, dominant fiery boy, he really had no mental defense against such a humongous, terrifying father-figure. I don't want to overplay his effeminate nature or anything, but. He just seems more -open-; a child's emotions are always easy prey to messed up men like that. In real life Lucius would probably be some shark lawyer who stayed out of the house most of the time, and sometimes brought mistresses home-- smelled of weird perfume, at least. Maybe he'd get drunk and raise his voice at Draco a few times when Draco was little, and of course he'd never forget something like that, but he'd blame himself and yet he hasn't the self-control to act any differently. He's not -introspective- so all of this just sort of brews in the background.

In a way, I think there's like... no chance that one could write Draco/Lucius without breaking Draco. I dunno -what- would help him if something like that were true, since that would sort of seal in the last lock of control Lucius could have over him. Harry/Sirius would probably mess Sirius up more than Harry o_0
Harry's a survivor. People don't get that a lot of times. He'd probably end up with his mind somewhat whole through pretty much anything-- like say, Voldemort possession. Heh. It's a question of mental resistance more than physical, anyway. It doesn't matter if the body's weak, if the mind isn't. And if the mind is weak or vulnerable, no protection would be enough.

I've always wanted to give Draco some source of inner strength-- even if it was just rage. If he doesn't fight back, y'know, he's pretty much dead. His father can't protect him, really.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally think it's Harry's Gryff-ness that helps him resist the Dursleys too. As with all the houses, their qualities in some situations are the absolute best things to have. Not that there wouldn't have been other ways of coming through the Dursley experience, but Harry's way makes him who he is. I he's just like you--not submissive to any adult unless he loves them. I can easily see Harry getting into an situation where he could be betrayed, because we see him *wanting* the people he cares about to be good people. But I don't think Harry is attracted to power as such. He's not comfortable with submission. Not to Dumbledore, not to Sirius. Hardly the type of person who would last five minutes with Lucius who not only wants to dominate but often doesn't seem to have the charisma to do it. The more people try to dominate Harry the more rebellious he gets. It's totally the opposite of Draco, I think, who tests people and if they don't back down he respects them *more.*

Some of the flag-waving Slytherin-sympathizing-types have this persecution complex going, where the Big Bad Gryffindors have taken away their rights. The thing that's kind of funny is that they'd take away the Gryffindors' rights in a heartbeat-- it's just that the Gryffs would react differently. They wouldn't complain or become bitter or depressed or disenfranchised-- they'd fight. Harry would fight (though he'd mope too). And not in the picking-at-the-heels way Draco seems to-- Gryffindors wage full frontal battle....

Oh totally--they DO do that in OotP. That's part of why I don't get when people describe Umbridge's Hogwarts as this 1984 situation. Her Hogwarts is complete chaos because no one listens to her. She's a totally unsuccessful dictator. Personally, I don't do the full frontal battlell--when Harry's challenging Umbridge in class I'm all, "What are you doing?" And in OotP the twins' big exit, that everyone thinks is so fabulous, to me is stupid and self-destructive. But that's me. I just don't fight like that. But that doesn't mean that's always the wrong way to fight.

I also think it's hard to know just how Slytherins see things. Many Slyth fans are resentful and feel nothing is fair, and I'm sure there are times when the Slytherins feel that way. Draco certainly expresses that more than once-but then, so does Harry and Ron. What I like about the Slyths in canon is that they don't, to me, seem bitter or depressed or disenfranchised. (Malfoy can be bitter, but then so can everybody at times.) In canon they're often shown cackling and smirking and enjoying the show when things go badly for Harry. I guess this is why I get so frustrated they're so marginalized by the author, because I think people like the Slyths fit right into a world with Gryffs. They're the ones who are the counselors rather than the knights or the princes. They work from behind the scenes. That's what they do in every book and that's good too! It's not better than the roles the Gryffs have, it's just different. So, just as you said, it's not that they wouldn't take power from the Gryffs the same way the Gryffs would take power from them. And it's not like if the Gryffs disappeared everything would be great. The Slyths just make for an interesting contrast to the Gryffs. They aren't really leaders, they're powers behind the throne.

And then I just want to agree with everything you said about Draco/Lucius. I feel like that's practically what we see on the page-Harry's childhood, as bad as it was, has obviously made him stronger while Draco's made him lost. At the same time, though, I guess I feel it would be interesting to see how Draco would survive. He's not strong like Harry so it wouldn't be the same way, but I find people like Peter fascinating too. Peter doesn't stand on his own, but he's a wonderfully adept rat fleeing the sinking ship. I feel like Draco already embodies Phineas' line about Slytherins--they're brave, but they always choose to save themselves.

gippy gip

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

"Peter doesn't stand on his own, but he's a wonderfully adept rat fleeing the sinking ship."

Ooh, I love Peter. Favourite Marauder, hands down. And that's pretty much why, in one sentence.
Peter's a survivor.
Sirius, Remus and James can represent Gryffindor, from it's extremes of good (bravery and loyalty - James dying for Harry, Sirius protecting Harry) to the extremes of bad (arrogance, aggression; nicely summed up in the pensieve scene) and live life in a drama of 'righteous' fury and anger; but look where it gets them - two are dead, one a outcast cripple.
And there's cowardly old Peter, who keeps on going!
I don't know, it probably doesn't say much more my morals, but there's something admirable there...

Re: gippy gip

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It surprises me--or maybe I'm just missing it--that there wasn't a surge of Peter fans after we saw the Marauders being jerks. Sure JKR painted Peter as being a suck up, but come on, he's the one guy who actually sticks it the Marauders in a major way. And he did it by using their own arrogance against them--how great is that? I'd be surprised if he doesn't do the same thing with Voldemort actually, and sometimes I wonder if the idea of a really smart villain doesn't really float JKR's boat--like the idea of Peter being resentful of Voldemort the way he was of MWPP won't come up. It's like Gollum, who is sullen and resentful and only cares about himself.

I mean, my favorite Musketeer? Aramis, hands down. The one who lives--not because he's the best fighter but because he's the smart one who keeps his cards close to his chest and is flexible.:-)

Re: gippy gip

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I'd be surprised if he doesn't do the same thing with Voldemort actually, and sometimes I wonder if the idea of a really smart villain doesn't really float JKR's boat--like the idea of Peter being resentful of Voldemort the way he was of MWPP won't come up.

JKR doesn't seem to prize intelligence, as a quality. I mean, look at Harry... *ducks from the multitude of Harry fans angrily converging*
But there are some 'alternative' ways of viewing Peter's choices which are fairly interesting (and plausible?...)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pauraque/118331.html
http://www.skyehawke.com/archive/story.php?no=1882

I mean, my favorite Musketeer? Aramis, hands down. The one who lives--not because he's the best fighter but because he's the smart one who keeps his cards close to his chest and is flexible.:-)

Heh, my experience of the Musketeers stretches only to the Leonardo DiCaprio film, and the cartoon in which they were all dogs (and there was Dogtanian, which made me and my sister laugh like the little nerds we are ;)
Aramis was the priest who was playing both sides, though, yeah? ;)

Re: gippy gip

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yup, he's the priest! But don't feel bad about those versions. I saw the Charlie Sheen-as-Aramis version and I worked on the Wishbone version--"Muttketeer!" Dogs and musketeers are a natural fit!I never saw Leo's movie, but I did want to. I admit it. I like Leo. (The books are a trip though.)

Re: gippy gip

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Heh, I was about 13 when all the Leo-mania was rife. Draw your own conclusions. *facepalms*

Re: gippy gip

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the reason people don't dig Peter is because the issue of betraying your friends counterbalances any positive aspect of 'survival'. Betraying one's closest friends is different than betraying a 'system' or whatever-- plus he allowed James and Lily to -die- by surviving. Bleh. So there's that.

I don't mind people who only care about themselves if they're honest about it on a base level, and I like Aramis-- the difference between Aramis & Peter, though, is that Aramis would never betray his friends. He was a Musketeer above all, when it counted, just like any of the rest of them. In a way, the four Musketeers represent a sort of mini House system of complementary values-- with Athos the Ravenclaw and D'Artagnan the Gryffindor and Porthos the Hufflepuff. I suppose that makes Aramis the very laid back Slytherin, though I don't think the label really fits. Hmm.

The one I identified with was D'Artagnan. The one I'd fall in love with was Athos, hands down. Ahhhhhhh ATHOS <33333333333333333333333

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...It's vaguely possible I'm wrong about Aramis because I just read the first book and skimmed the others :> :>

Re: gippy gip

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Well, that's assuming they were his friends from his pov. I mean, I don't like people who betray their friends, but I'm surprised people don't see him as somebody who hangs around people who treat him badly and don't respect him and then he shows them by being smarter and all that. I'm surprised people don't see him as a good outlet for those kinds of feelings, because I always imagine him actively hating Marauders, not just allowing them to die because he's afraid, because if you're afraid you don't hook up with Voldemort. JKR may not see it this way, of course, but I'd imagine other people could see it that way.

Hee. Athos was cool! And D'Artagnan was such a loveable goof in the beginning.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heheheh I think I shipped D'Artagnan/Athos, I really did. Y'know, I mean, I was 8 or something (so details are fuzzy), but I was always fascinated with close male friendships. There's just something so -intense- about them which no don't see (in fiction much, anyway) with female relationships. If anything, the boys don't show it as much-- like, they don't hug & kiss or whatever, so it's like, OMG UST!!! ahahah. I know I was like, WHY DID HE HAVE TO GET MARRIED? >:O and it was prolly strange to be so upset 'cause I just wanted to have him 'stay' with D'Artagnan-- but I dunno, I didn't care about Aramis or Porthos staying. Heh. I was such a little weirdo :> :>

My guess is that there's nothing attractive about Peter as a character in so far as-- he has no real talent or 'spark' about him, plus we don't really -know- him the way we know Sirius or Remus or Snape. Y'know? There's that... need for actual presence again~:)

Re: gippy gip

[malafede.livejournal.com]

*The one I identified with was D'Artagnan.*

The one I identified with was the Iron Mask! Or whatever it was called.

Re: gippy gip

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

eheheh. we're both so predictable :> :> Me with my pov-obsession & you with your monsters >:D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's sort of freaky the way you describe Harry and I'm like... man, and I used to think me & him had like, nothing in common :> It's hard for me to really -imagine- respecting someone for successfully dominating me. I can imagine being a donkey more easily ^^; This sort of obsessive clinging to one's individuality... it's a very core characteristic (if you have it) it seems.
And I don't have any particular theoretical preference for the 'Gryffindor Way', but you just don't see it around much in H/D parts, y'know-- it's all the R/Hr & H/G people with that mentality or whatever. I feel lonely :>

Heheheh I must be like one of the only HuffleGryff Slytherin sympathizers in existence. ^^; Or maybe I'm not a sympathizer, I dunno. As far as my way of fighting-- I just don't fight, period. I'm very passive, most of the time. When you'd force me to fight, I'm likely to either resistresistresist and finally snap and do something extreme. Hehehe I'm a weird hybrid :> But... well, I'm a fantasy reader :D I think battle and smartass hero-rogues who flip The Authority the bird & then get the hell out are... cool :> :> But then, I like Spiderman. Like, a lot ^^;;;

Anyway, I think this is the only scenario (full-out fighting) that I can see in a YA fantasy adventure novel, man. It would seem weird and wrong if anything else happened.

But anyway, I was definitely saying it's a number of fans with the persecution complex, not the Slytherins themselves. I think most people are a bit off base when they strongly identify with being Slytherin :> My beef is with the people I see, not any fictional people. Though I must admit I don't actually -like- the canon Slytherins, I don't have issues with -them-, just their philosophy. Bleargh. And this mostly applies to the dumber ones, though. I mean, I'm no JKR in that I don't resent & stereotype people years later, but I knew Slytherin type bullies too and they'd pick on me more than any Gryffindor-type bullies would 'cause Slytherins pick on the shy, weak-seeming ones while the Gryffindor jocks wouldn't exactly go around harassing geeks whom they'd hardly notice :/

So yeah, I prefer people who have some sense of honor or something. And also not manipulative. Bleh. Personal preference in as far as association-- though while I wouldn't be friends with them, I might fall in love with them, 'cause that conflict translates into romantic tension easily enough in my head ^^; Um, off track again. Heh.

I totally think Gryffs and Slyths fit into the same groove-- that's why I ship their Houses in an archetypal way, of course. They're two sides of the same coin. I just don't like the fannish practice of bringing down Gryffindor mentality to celebrate Slytherin-- because they're so united. It's silly to me.

I don't know if they're the counselors. Well, there are all sorts of counselors, but Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs are also 'counselors'. I think Slytherins are more... in some administrative position of counsel that gives them room to maneuver without consulting anyone. But yes, behind the scenes-- though I think of them as 'the right hand man' sort of deal. *dons shippy hat*

Hmmm. Draco as fleeing rat. I can see that. Though I must say, Peter's 'survival' isn't any sort of life I'd want for Draco :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I don't get the domination thing either--but it's very common, especially with boys, I think, who live in harsh environments. Like when you see little boys who just adore having a man to look up to, or being in gangs or whatever. I'm just the opposite. I don't ever want to have power over others, but I also am totally oversensitive to anybody trying to have power over me. It's funny because I can see myself being in either Harry's position or Draco's and I'd be different from both of them but I'd have much more Harry's lack of love for the Dursleys. I don't think I'd feel that attached to Lucius and Narcissa either.

I knew Slytherin type bullies too and they'd pick on me more than any Gryffindor-type bullies would 'cause Slytherins pick on the shy, weak-seeming ones while the Gryffindor jocks wouldn't exactly go around harassing geeks whom they'd hardly notice :/

I'm trying to think about my own experiences here. I was usually pretty invisible, but I think I imagine Slytherins as Draco and Pansy and when I was in school those were the types I was usually more likely to eventually be able to deal with. The people who actually picked on me occasionally were more like some Gryffindors. I think I got on that type's nerves more. People like Pansy and Draco didn't seem to have that problem as much. But then, we know more Gryffindors so there is no one Gryffindor personality. It's not like Lavender would pick on me, or Hermione, or Harry. Meanwhile with Luna we're to believe all the Ravenclaws go after her--nice. Real intelligent there. However, if the twins ever pulled one of their jokes on me I would hate them forever and avoid them and if one of them died I'd think that was great. I'd equally hate Pansy or Draco for making fun of me, but like I said those types of people seemed to eventually stop making fun of me.

I totally think Gryffs and Slyths fit into the same groove-- that's why I ship their Houses in an archetypal way, of course. They're two sides of the same coin. I just don't like the fannish practice of bringing down Gryffindor mentality to celebrate Slytherin-- because they're so united. It's silly to me.

Yes, definitely.

But yes, behind the scenes-- though I think of them as 'the right hand man' sort of deal. *dons shippy hat*

Yeah-that's what I should have said. Behind the scenes. The other two houses are more people you'd go to openly. You wouldn't exactly go to a Slytherin for advice. They'd just be there beside the throne whispering in the king's ear.

Hmmm. Draco as fleeing rat. I can see that. Though I must say, Peter's 'survival' isn't any sort of life I'd want for Draco :>

Me neither, but then if he was this generation's Peter he'd be more like Snape because he'd be running to the other side. Not that I'd want Snape's life for him either.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think of Gryffindor-type (if they bully) as being more preppy-outgoing-- like... girls like Lavender -would- pick on me, come to think of it, 'cause I was like a cross between Millicent & Luna in some ways (during my worst years), so I was like an offense to bubbly femininity. Girly girls are vicious, man :/

So I don't know about Slytherins, actually. I think I was invisible to most people, too, but I was just thinking that Gryffindor types would be higher up on the social strata-- out there with the uber-popular people who didn't know I existed. It's not that I knew any Slytherin types, it's that I assume they'd be the ones by default since they seem more likely to go after geeks or something. It depends if Slytherin-type bullies are-- what-- gothier or punker or whatever. If they are, then I didn't know any. If they were supposed to be more like the people in innercity gangs, though-- yeah, those noticed me more than any preppy types. Er. I went to a scary innercity school for a bit, and I'm still bitter :D Mostly, the people who picked on me weren't really all that mean to me anyway. I was just kinda sensitive ^^;

Overall, I don't have enough experience with social groups and/or cliques in school to judge, since I wasn't part of any group since grade school. *sigh* I was usually excluded-- hey I still am, except it's never been because I'm disliked. I'm just not the popular type. Well, being really shy and reclusive (not to mention antisocial) prolly had something to do with that ;)

So basically, I'd just observed and picked things up from TV. I don't actually know if there was a 'type' of person who'd pick on me. I think anyone who wasn't a geek would pick on me, and I knew virtually no geeks. heh. Mostly I was somewhat looked down upon yet respected. If that makes sense. Some of the more introverted popular girls tended to feel... what... benevolent towards me. Like if I was a bit more shiny they'd take me under their wing. That happened more in grade school-- I just hung around, a bit like Peter almost, though I felt no resentment 'cause I was always solitary. Um. Totally not relevant, but :>

That reference to gangs definitely made something click in my head. I think it's the boyishness & the gang mentality that escapes me-- and in fact, one of the major differences between Harry & Draco is that Draco has a gang mentality while Harry doesn't, even though Harry's not really a loner or anything. My father was in a gang. That's a weird thing to realize. He wasn't all that unlike Draco, I think, AHAHAHAHAH OMG I'M CRACKING UP. Well, he was more like fanon Draco, 'cause he was charming & uber-intelligent & smooth :>

This whole notion of extraverted!Draco makes me quail-- 'cause this whole notion seems to depend on extraversion-- 'cause that means I haven't been writing him correctly, all this time. I mean, I do write really tightly-focused stuff about Harry & Draco, but now it just doesn't make sense that he'd focus so much on this one person he doesn't even spend most of his time with :/ I thought I'd made my Draco much less introspective-- I was so happy to get over that initial characterization (gah!)-- but I think that if he's not extraverted, he's introverted by default. Bleh.

Y'know, this is making me question just how important Harry is to Draco on a personal level. I mean, apparently he talked about Harry all the time to his father at one point, but. He has a gang he's a part of. He has a life. How much time does he have for obsessing? Is obsessing like that really something outgoing gang-having boys do? I mean, probably unconsciously if at all. He prolly just -reacts- without thinking about-- just says things that come to him. Mer.

At least I'm not alone. Every good H/D writer I can think of seems to write introverted!Draco, even the ones like Augustus & Silvia & Miss Breed who write him as a boy. :/ Though Potterstinks was pretty extraverted. BLEARGH. :/

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

"the Gryffs would react differently. They wouldn't complain or become bitter or depressed or disenfranchised-- they'd fight. Harry would fight (though he'd mope too)...Gryffindors wage full frontal battle, and there's something to be said for that. Don't get mad, get back!"

There's something to be said also for picking your battles, though, imho. (Heh, I'm an Aquarian myself, we're much more hippy dippy than Aries. *lights up doobie, flashes peace sign*)

I mean, McGonagall's the head of Gryffindor, presumably an archetypal Gryff if ever there was one; and she gets as irritated as Snape does with Harry at times (OotP for example)
Presumably since she's older than many of the other characters, she's learnt that it's not necessarily 'brave' to continously bridle against opposing viewpoints of any kind. After a while, it just makes you arrogant, aggressive and a bit of an asshole, in my opinion.
I mean, being 'righteously' angry is no way to go through life - look at Sirius.
Look at OotP!Harry - did never giving in actually make him happy in anyway?
Did being righteously angry with his friends/Dumbledore/Slytherin/the world actually fulfil anything apart from making outsiders view him as an aggressive loon?

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I don't think Harry goes through life righteously angry-- only when someone pushes him...
People kept pushing Sirius.

You have a point. They do a certain amount of pushing themselves though, and both their fans and the characters (and by this, I don't mean anyone in specific, but more of a fandom trend) have a tendency to say 'What? I/He didn't do anything!'
Like a kid poking at their sibling over and over again and then looking all shocked face and cherubic at Mom and saying 'What?'

(Just like we Slytherins defenders have a tendency to accept behaviour from Slytherins that we would deem 'bullying' or 'cruel' from Gryffindors, just because OMG Slytherin is so liek oppressed!!1 ;)

I don't like manipulative liars 'cause uh... insincerity offends me even though I grew up lying to all and sundry as a child. I was a fantasist liar, though. Lying for fun & lying to protect yourself is ok.
I was always dislike lying to get ahead. I dislike people who want power for selfish reasons. Bleh. Personal preference :>

See, to me, lying is lying (and god knows, I lied enough as a child, and still do *blushes* - hopefully just in the interest of making life more interesting rather than for malicious reasons, but your own view of your own actions is always kinder than a strangers, isn't it?)

I think; and I'm just trying to flesh out an idea, here; but I think the argument we seem to be having is about 'the ends justifies the means'.
I'm fairly black and white. I don't think that one can really justify certain actions by saying 'but my motivation was good!'
A lot of people would say that that's naive, or too rigid, and that life is more about shades of gray; but it's just a personal opinion - I can't understand how someone can defend a negative action by saying 'But so and so did it for the greater good!'
Big deal. Everybody thinks they're doing things for the greater good.
Voldemort thinks he's saving the WW from the Mudbloods, presumably.
Dumbledore thinks he's saving the WW from Voldemort.
Both of them are commiting actions that are hypocritical, and then finger pointing at the other side and saying 'But it's not the same as when *he* does it!'
And both of them are rearing generations of hypocrites who think that they can do whatever they want to people as long as they're on the 'right' side: James, Sirius, Remus, Peter, Snape, Harry, Draco.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe. Yeah I can dig the self-absorption. What, other people exist? Really? Ahahahah. *coughs* I can see what you mean. Though, I mean, Gryffindors are supposed to be the champions of the oppressed, I think, it's just that-- this rubs the Slytherins wrong because they don't want to be championed-- this takes away power from them. And the Gryffindor is like, but, but! We're helping you out! Why don't you love us!! Heh. (I'm not like this, btw. But then, I don't think Harry is, either.)

Yeah, I'm pretty relativist though I do have a moral code of sorts. Which makes me less Gryffindor than I could be, 'cause it's pretty Gryffindor-like to be judgemental & justice-oriented-- I'm more 'and it harm none' and stuff like that. Basically, there are no easy answers but the ultimate goal is to avoid hurting others.

I don't pick sides, generally, just for that reason: I tend to think everyone is wrong, often including me, ahahah. But I'm feel more 'right' (to myself) than most people 'cause I question myself, or something like that ^^;;

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

'And the Gryffindor is like, but, but! We're helping you out! Why don't you love us!! Heh. (I'm not like this, btw. But then, I don't think Harry is, either.)

Heh. I don't think Harry is like this, either; but then I have a lower opinion of him than you do...
He's more like 'We're helping you out! Just as long as you align with us, don't question me, my friends, or ever offer a dissenting opinion!'
But that's just my interpretation.

Which makes me less Gryffindor than I could be, 'cause it's pretty Gryffindor-like to be judgemental & justice-oriented-- I'm more 'and it harm none' and stuff like that.

Heh, you write lots = you're a Ravenclaw, surely?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think he's consciously trying to help 'people' out, unless they're his friends, anyway. I mean, I don't think I idealize Harry, y'know; I just don't... er... have issues with him. I can't think of an instance where Harry refused to listen to some 'dissenting opinion'-- usually the dissentors tried to offer him more than their opinion-- it's usually more like people trying to control him/Hogwarts/the Wizarding World. He didn't hate Zachary Smith on sight or anything, did he? But there aren't a lot of characters like that-- you try to debate with Harry on some intellectual level. It's all about gut reactions & liking & disliking people. Sometimes he changes his mind there, too.

Heheh it's weird thinking of him as some wannabe dictator o_0 He didn't even want to head the DA, man :>

Heheh. I'm Luna-ish, sure. But generally I'm a failure as a 'serious scholar'. People who know me appear to think I'm a Hufflepuff -.- I think I'm a hybrid, though like. No Slytherin in me :> Or very little.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I can't think of an instance where Harry refused to listen to some 'dissenting opinion'-- usually the dissentors tried to offer him more than their opinion-- it's usually more like people trying to control him/Hogwarts/the Wizarding World.

Really? Harry's incredibly rigid, imho.
He makes up his mind quickly based on how the person treats him/his friends; then they're ostracised.
Zacharias Smith questions him, he gets insulted and threatened by the twins, but more annoyingly he gets Harry's martyr act.
Seamus questions him (again back to family loyalty vs other loyalty - Sirius is a Good Person for questioning his family but Percy is a Bad Person for questioning *his.*
Marietta and Draco are Sheep, following their parents political views; whereas Ron, for example, following his dad's ideals or Harry, for that matter are somehow better people); and is cut off - look at who makes the first move to repair that friendship.
Or who makes the first move to repair any of Harry's friendships? It's usually not him!

Sometimes he changes his mind there, too.

Really? You're more of a Harry expert than me, can you remind me of when he's admitted he's wrong?

Heheh it's weird thinking of him as some wannabe dictator o_0 He didn't even want to head the DA, man :>

That is the exact question I seem to hashing out again and again with Harry fans, and to extend that general 'goodies'/Gryffindor fans (heh, you should chat to tinderblast, we have lovely long arguments ;) :
Can somebody be arrogant without knowing it?
Me and her are always at odds over this - she says that Harry isn't arrogant (at all? I dunno, I'm paraphrasing her, and badly at that ! :(
I say he is, or rather can be.
And then she says 'But Harry doesn't think of himself as arrogant!'
It's the same when we discuss his tactics for dealing with people - 'But Harry doesn't think of himself as a bully!'
And then I get ranty and say 'Oh well, then I guess he isn't! Because it isn't like James didn't think of himself as in the right. Or that Draco doesn't.'
That's exactly the worse kind of arrogance/bullying - thinking that what you're doing is right because you're doing it to someone who's 'bad'!
It's accepted that the 'baddies' do this - their views on Muggleborn folk reflecting this; but Dumbledore et al then go on to mimic it and it's okay, because after all, it doesn't matter as much whether a Lucius Malfoy is mistreated as it does when a Sirius Black is!
(Not that I'm a Lucius defender - I can see a bloody ending for him, and I have no qualms about it. I found it interesting in CoS, though, for example, his home is being raided by Aurors twelve years after he'd been acquitted of his crimes...)

Interestingly, I think the only bully in the books who seems to have absolutely no motivation is Dudley, but then he's a bit of a cardboard cut-out anyway (I look forward to JKR deepening him, as she said she would...)

People who know me appear to think I'm a Hufflepuff -.-

I like the Helga part of the song in OotP. Respect for the Hufflpuffs!

I think I'm a hybrid, though like.

I don't believe in House systems. But I suppose I'd be a Slytherclaw ;)

No Slytherin, though.

Ah, explains why we disagree! ;)

oh, and...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, Harry's 'rigid' (....hee.... damn, there goes my serious tone) but I just meant no one's tried to talk to him reasonably; certainly not Snape or Draco. Most people make up their minds quickly about people-- not just Harry. There's Snape-- and Draco-- and 'most anyone in terms of his peers. I'm just saying it's not any more developed in him, except that he makes gut-level judgements rather than rational ones like Hermione or socially-based ones (i.e., more often related to other people he's close to rather his individual reactions) like Ron. Harry just reacts.

He's changed his mind about Hermione after seeing her in a situation which showed she -was- vulnerable & she became more of a 'real person' to him, with the troll. He accepted Sirius after he was presented with overwhelming new evidence (and this was a man supposedly out to kill him). He questioned his father & his previously held beliefs after the Pensieve, to an extent (not completely, but he began to budge).

I don't think someone can truly be arrogant without knowing it, because arrogance implies belief-- a belief about oneself as superior or 'above' others. I don't think Harry has that belief, if anything because he doesn't really want that power-- he's not that much of a social person.

I don't think there's any evidence Harry 'acts' a certain way to manipulate anyone's emotions (get pity, as with a 'martyr act')-- he just has a hard time understanding how he's seen from the outside; a lot of people do. He's not one for consulting people or working to convince them-- he just likes to do things as soon as he thinks of them, whether or not others follow is up to them. Emotionally solipsistic, yes; martyr-like, not really.

He had a childhood without any real friends, so he's pretty inexperienced with people, too. In his experience, people don't care what his opinion of them is, anyway. He fights the people that oppress him 'cause if he didn't, in his experience he'd be walked all over. He doesn't pick fights with people who don't provoke him, but he does defend himself-- that's how he's been able to survive, I think.

Regardless, yeah, there are different kinds of arrogance, and virtually every character in HP has it in one way or another-- Dumbledore, Snape, Draco, Hermione, the Weasley twins, Lucius, even Luna-- all more than Harry-- or say, Neville or Ron. Believing you are right and going with your gut is a sort of arrogance, but if it is, I also possess it in a large enough degree that people accuse me of it :>

I'm not saying Harry's -right- for what he does to Malfoy (hexing, etc). They just have different ways of responding to each other, but Malfoy provokes him first-- he taunts and makes fun and tries to get Harry in trouble and generally is a pain in the ass. Harry isn't the verbal sort, so he 'gets back' at Malfoy like any boy would. Harry isn't 'nice', but neither is Malfoy. They're both impulsive, angry, emotional boys-- but Harry isn't using undue force (i.e., he's not 100 times stronger -- or even twice stronger-- than Draco).

So, he's not 'right', but neither is Malfoy-- and they're both boys. Harry isn't assuming any kind of god-given right to be a stupid teenager-- he just -is-. Any approval is given to him by fans, not implied by the fact of his behavior alone.

Harry doesn't -think-, period. He doesn't -think- he's right, he just -acts-. Draco thinks he's right because his father says this-and-this-- Harry just -does- things. Harry isn't a 'goodie'-- he's just a boy.

A lot of boys bully 'cause they can-- it's a fast & easy way to feel superior & good about yourself. It's often seen as fun to dominate and manipulate and abuse those weaker than oneself, for some people, I think.

meh. more fixing.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Everyone can look foolish & misuse their driving quality or whatever, heheh. I don't think Harry goes through life righteously angry-- only when someone pushes him. People kept pushing Sirius. I think generally, they both just like to have fun-- doing whatever. I'm sure Harry would rather play Quidditch than resist 'evil' or whatever.

I like agressive loons, ahahaha. I like all kinds of people. I don't like manipulative liars 'cause uh... insincerity offends me even though I grew up lying to all and sundry as a child. I was a fantasist liar, though. Lying for fun & lying to protect yourself is ok. I dislike lying to get ahead. I dislike people who want power for selfish reasons. Bleh. Personal preference :>

Aries is only my Ascendant. This means it's the face I present to the world, but doesn't define my inner self. I was born in late June, so I'm a Cancer, actually. And my emotional self (well, my moon sign) is ruled by Aquarius-- so my heart is ruled by Ravenclaw ('cause Aquarius is an air sign), my ego by Hufflepuff (well, Cancer is prolly pretty Hufflepuff, and one's 'sun sign' is one's core self) and my superego by Gryffindor (since my Ascendant, Aries-the-warrior is a fire sign & it's supposed to affect daily judgement a lot). Mer. This is prolly way more astrology than you wanted to know :>

- Hufflepuff signs would prolly be water and some earth for the work ethic-- Taurus, Cancer, Pisces
- Gryffs would just be the fire signs-- Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
- Ravenclaws would be the air signs and some earth-- Aquarius, Gemini, Virgo, Libra
- Slytherin would prolly be some cross between air and water, but the signs don't match up, so-- Scorpio (dark water), Capricorn (obsessive work).... ack, difficulties....

astrology

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Heh, my mum's into Astrology. She has a computer programme for it and everything.
I'm an Aquarian and using the system you used -
my moon/emotions are ruled by Aries (nooo! I'm a Gryff at heart! ;), my ego by Ravenclaw and my superego by Gryffindor (since my Ascendant is Leo)
Oh god, I didn't want to know all of that! ;)
Actually, I have a lot of Capricorn and Scorpio in my chart though - you should put all of this HP!Astrology into a separate post, you may be on to something!

[malafede.livejournal.com]

They wouldn't complain or become bitter or depressed or disenfranchised-- they'd fight.

That's because they always do. I mean, it's like total pavlovian dogs, OMG A KITTEN STUCK ON A TREE, LET'S FIGHT THE EVIL THAT PUT IT THERE. Like, they're a bit schizophrenic, aren't they? Sometimes it's like masturbating, fighting by yourself with no enemy in sight.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I don't think they fight all the time, really. Most of the Gryffindors just have fun and recreational mischief most of the time, which isn't fighting. Fred & George are pretty Gryffindor, I think.

Though I like loony warriors, like Don Quixote-- mmm, windmills :> Hermione isn't very much like that, though, even with the house-elves. Harry definitely isn't. I think Harry wants to be left alone & play Quidditch and have Voldemort dead and Malfoy far far away. People always go on about how selfish this whole philosophy/lifestyle is, but then you can't have it both ways.

But I know what you mean. Constant vigilance! Constant resistance! Drives other people mad, I know. Ahahah I know -I- drive people mad :> And I'm not even very Gryffindor :>

I don't like any of the Houses, really, but I feel like there's a lot of segregation where people like one so that means they bash the other, which just gets to me :/

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Gryffindor stinks.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

wanna wear a badge???

*laughs and laughs*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

wah. this isn't as fun in comments as in chat, man :> :>