~~ the dark Father.
Jul. 14th, 2004 11:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaEveryone knows that I hate Lucius Malfoy, right? Well, I thought I did. And then I saw ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 atjereeza'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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
part three, in which reenka bans roxanne for spam
Date: 2004-07-17 04:54 am (UTC)He doesn't seem to want social power, but he seems easily irritated by anyone else getting attention for very long.
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.
No, but perhaps because of his childhood, he's extremely quick to judge himself as being 'provoked' - "someone mouthed off to me? I'm provoked! Someone questions my actions? I'm provoked!"
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.
Seriously? You think Harry is the least arrogant character of all? Could you go into this, please, I'm a little confused?
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 :>
Don't we all - Look at us, debating away, both convinced we're right ;)
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.
Malfoy doesn't start things physically because he's cowardly, yeah? Except for when he does, and isn't.
(GRR! I wish that JKR would just say 'I'm the expert, I think about his characterization like everyone else's, pipe down!' rather than 'Ew, giggle, he's so icky!' which just makes me think that she's using all the other characters as tools to make Harry and The Gryffindors look good.)
Harry isn't using undue force (i.e., he's not 100 times stronger -- or even twice stronger-- than Draco).
Harry's strength is such an annoying issue in fanon, and canon, I guess. And extending that, Draco's strength, and the strength of anyone who 'fights' Harry, physically and emotionally.
Draco equals him in flying, except he doesn't.
Draco equals him in duelling, except he doesn't.
Draco equals him physically (Harry's small, Draco's small, yeah?), except he doesn't.
I think this is going back to the discussion we had before about the Slytherins being the characters we're supposed to fear, but actually, the Trio seem to out-do them on every level.
*beats JKR with SHOW DON'T TELL over and over*
At this point, Harry's such a SuperSue, one could make an argument that he's not subject to the same rules as others while fighting students, but I'm not going to. So.
Any approval is given to him by fans, not implied by the fact of his behavior alone.
Maybe. I guess we have to wait until the end to see.
I think approval is implied by the text, so far, and I'm pessimistic enough to say that after five books, it's a little late for JKR to start imbueing him books with any kind of morals worth following.
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.
I guess Draco doesn't think either, then?
I mean, Harry's always going on gut instincts, and luckily enough they serve him well, but obviously he gets tripped up by his own prejudices and y'know, being *wrong* sometimes.
Draco hasn't considered whether Mudbloods/Muggleborns actually are dangerous to the WW, he's used his gut instinct to say, like Harry, 'But Daddy thinks it! It must be right!'
Silly boys; *clouts over heads* they'll learn.
A lot of boys bully 'cause they can-- it's a fast & easy way to feel superior & good about yourself. It's...fun to...manipulate and abuse those weaker than oneself, for some people.
That's why I'm glad I was born a girl! ;)
Re: part three, in which reenka bans roxanne for spam
Date: 2004-07-17 09:07 pm (UTC)I don't think Harry takes long to trust -or- distrust, and it's not just Sirius. It's those gut reactions again. You keep trying to judge him by how reasonably he thinks, where I don't think he really -thinks-, reasonably or not. That's not his 'job', so to speak-- that's what Hermione's for, ahahah. Harry's supposed to be a 'normal boy', I think, and normal boys don't precisely ponder things much.
I can see how he'd seem 'too good to be true' (ie, 'Super Sue'), but um... he has plenty of faults. It's just-- I think some qualities of his are a matter of personal taste, whether you're willing to look past them or not, but that's how it is with every person or character. He's not reasonable, but so are a lot of people. In fact, very few people (even thinking ones) are truly -reasonable- in the world. Everyone's deluded, man. Even me. Shocking, I know.
Believing oneself to be superior without realizing it is basically what they call 'having a big ego'-- or, to put it another way, being selfish. This is only a negative thing if your actions are exploitative-- that is, you think not only that you're -better- but that other people are -worse- because they're not -you-. The people Harry doesn't 'approve' of are often quite arbitrary-- he doesn't have a 'policy'-- I mean, he was like 'not Slytherin' because Slytherins became associated with that-mean-aggravating-boy-who's-so-full-of-himself. He wasn't like 'Slytherins are beneath me'. He was like, 'ack, must get away!!'
I agree he's been selfish & self-pitying, but that's just him being a normal boy-- so I don't view it as a flaw. I view it as a part of being human.
He -does- have a quick temper, so he's easily provoked. However, Draco & Snape & even Zacharias (though I'm not sure) -were- trying to provoke him, so they just succeeded. A temper isn't something I see as an intrinsic flaw, only as a potentially negative quality-- its negativity or positivity seems defined by circumstance.
I think Snape and Draco and Hermione are more arrogant because they consciously think they know better than everyone else. Harry doesn't-- he just doesn't care what anyone else thinks; it doesn't matter if they're right or not, they're wrong 'cause he says so. It's a simpler and less hypocritical way to be :D
Yeah, Draco doesn't think either. Harry thinks more than Draco, which admittedly isn't saying much ('cause we don't see -Draco- changing his mind about -anything-, but clearly it's hard to tell-- still, Draco's brainwashed by his father and Harry's not really brainwashed by anyone, 100%, anyway).
I just don't judge people very harshly if I understand where they're coming from emotionally. With Harry, that's clear, whereas with Draco, you have to work at it & interpret canon actively if you were to figure it out. And anyway, I'm lazy :>
reenka bans roxanne for spam
Date: 2004-07-18 05:37 am (UTC)I guess Hermione and McGonagall aren't good examples for me to use; since I have issues with the way gender interaction and female characters are presented in JKR's work...
You keep trying to judge him by how reasonably he thinks, where I don't think he really -thinks-, reasonably or not. That's not his 'job', so to speak-- that's what Hermione's for, ahahah. Harry's supposed to be a 'normal boy', I think, and normal boys don't precisely ponder things much.
That's likely his view of things as well! (Are you sure *you're* not a boy in disguise? *eyes suspiciously*)
But it's a view that trips him up, and will continue to, imho.
I certainly have issues with Hermione as a character as well as Harry (I'm a little contrary, I'm afraid. I tend to argue with people who defend and/or are particular Harry fans. But if someone was looking at only his negative points, I'd likely be using the same arguments you are!); but Hermione is the authorial avatar, not Harry, and a huge part of this is because she questions things that Ron and Harry are more apathetic about; imho.
She isn't always right, but I have some respect for her at least caring. (Doesn't she say something along the lines of 'It's people like you who prop up unfair systems!' to Ron and/or Harry?)
I can see how he'd seem 'too good to be true' (ie, 'Super Sue'), but um... he has plenty of faults.
Oh, definitely. I could like Harry a lot more, I do like Harry, as a character. I think what I don't like is the constant excusing of his actions by his fans, and as implied by the text.
The people Harry doesn't 'approve' of are often quite arbitrary-- he doesn't have a 'policy'--
Maybe one day we'll write down everyone he hates, and see if there are any similarities.
Right now, I'm crippled by my own laziness, though, and will take your word for it.
He wasn't like 'Slytherins are beneath me'.
What about his reassuring Neville that, since Neville was selected to be in Gryffindor, he was a better person than Malfoy?
Or the silence (implied agreement?) with Lee Jordan, etc. in the common room (CoS):
...the Gryffindors began talking immediately.
"That's two Gryffindors down, not counting a Gryffindor ghost, one Ravenclaw, and one Hufflepuff, " said the Weasley twins' friend Lee Jordan, counting on his fingers. "Haven't any of the teachers noticed that the Slytherins are all safe? Isn't it obvious all this stuff's comingfrom Slytherin? The Heir of Slytherin, the monster of Slytherin - why don't they just chuck all the Slytherins out?" he roared, to nods and scattered applause.
I agree he's been selfish & self-pitying, but that's just him being a normal boy-- so I don't view it as a flaw. I view it as a part of being human.
Yes, but being human means you should attempt to improve yourself!
In this particular case, or in a similiar RL one, I would definitely agree that for a 15 year old boy, he's doing pretty well - who wasn't a nightmare at 15?
But that doesn't mean that his negative actions and flaws can be excused by 'he's just human!' Well, yeah. We're all just human. We all make mistakes, we all have bad points mixed in with the good. But just because we can't stop ourselves fucking up and being selfish or whatever, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Otherwise you have a world filled with people hurting other people and not taking responsibility for it because: 'they're only human!'
A temper isn't something I see as an intrinsic flaw, only as a potentially negative quality-- its negativity or positivity seems defined by circumstance.
I think Snape and Draco and Hermione are more arrogant because they consciously think they know better than everyone else.
I guess this is where we differ (again! Wah! :(
I have more respect for Snape, Draco and Hermione's arrogance (and I can definitely see it!) because at least they think.
Often with bias/prejudice and often they think things more emotively than their arrogance in their own reasoning would imply, but:
"Harry...doesn't care what anyone else thinks; it doesn't matter if they're right or not, they're wrong 'cause he says so."
Ugh. Gives me hives. To me that's much more hypocritical.