~~ pity & the hurt/comfort reader...?

[reenka]

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

I was just thinking about this in regards to ajhalluk's post where she mentioned being "naturally contrary and drawn to lost causes", thus motivating her to find 'good' in a character who's a victim of "authorial privilege". It's ironic, because I'm certainly very contrary (boy, am I) and very drawn to lost causes (...that's the understatement of the year), but as a reader, I don't -judge- the narrative if I'm at all enjoying it-- I suspend my disbelief and only want things to happen if they're best for the pov character(s).

If I perceive the author as some sort of tyrannical power over my mind who's -forcing- me to like some character (which seems absurd to me, since as I said, pretty much no one can make me do anything I don't want to do, being stubborn)... well, I'm going to hate that story, and all of its characters equally. No words could adequately describe how much I despise being manipulated (as a reader or as a person).

Sometimes I read a story, and I can really tell what the writer thinks of the characters, because the 'good' ones are loving and beautiful and hurt and the 'bad' ones are unrealistic caricatures of bastardly gittishness. I've read a lot of love stories where 'The Ex' is barely even human and the 'True yet Suffering Wife' has to realize she's Better Than That and escape his antifeminist clutches.

Conversely, sometimes I read a story where the two (beautiful, perfect) lovers have their Pure True Love, and Someone (the Evil Best Friend or the Abusive Selfish Father or the Evil Prejudiced Society) plots to tear them apart. Either the two make a stand and the Friend/Father/Society accepts & swallows, or they're 'let go' in the name of Purity and Love. Conversely, sometimes the bad evil people win and the lovers crumble, committing suicide or 'nobly' letting the other go, because it's 'just not meant to be, my love!!1'

Now, I really can't stand those sorts of (badly written) stories. I read them and groan, probably only continuing (if I do) 'cause I'm a junkie & need my fix. However, the idea of therefore being -drawn- to the discriminated-against 'bad guy' character as a reaction against the others' 'authorial privilege' is almost... funny to me.


I think perhaps that's a reflection on my personality if nothing else: I don't sympathize with people -because- they're being discriminated against, unless we're talking about immediate reactions to abuse-- where my instinct would be to protect, with people who cannot defend themselves. Therefore, I would try to kick some bad guy's ass-- those of you who know me, go ahead and laugh, 'cause Reena's fist is not exactly mighty. Still, I would try. Pity is... not my thing. I hate pity; I realize this sounds like me being stubborn (which I am) and immature (which I am) and also arrogant (yeah, about some things).

I empathize with people if (and usually only if) I see them as human beings whose motivations I intrinsically understand. Generally, this covers pretty much everybody. Since that sort of silly straw-man bad guy isn't given very complex motivations-- or often enough, -any- motivation beyond 'we are bad! we are prejudiced! we suck monkey balls-- in our spare time!'... why do I care, again?

I think this idea of rallying behind the authorial underdog, so to speak, sounds too much like pity to me, like the idea that some people (leaving children aside) can't take care of themselves and should be shielded (when assaulted by ideas vs. physically). Meh.

I'm not being prescriptive here, just exploring my own responses. I was wondering why I've never had any particular 'hot button' towards the victim with anything that might be seen as 'unfair' treatment unless I see that particular person as being emotionally needy. Instead, in cases of what I see as severe unfairness I usually get angry and possibly a bit Hermione-like in that I assume it as a 'cause' to 'fight' on a larger scale (which doesn't really work within the context of me reading a book, especially for fun). In personal terms, though, I respond to someone's intense need, desperation-- that's definitely a button. And then, I don't pity them or think of it as a hurt/comfort sort of scenario where I'm looking after the weak and defenseless-- I just see it as the desire to give someone what they need, simultaneously receiving the gift of their affection-- which isn't something to be ashamed of, ever.

Maybe there's a thin line I'm treading here-- since perhaps there's not much effective difference between 'healing' and 'comfort', but fact remains-- I hate comfort (in terms of having it given to me in most cases) and crave healing. Healing (of characters or real people) seems like more of a joint process, with one person helping the other to change, become stronger, rather than a situation where one becomes the other's crutch. Meh. Crutches.

Then again, all the tried and true, 'normal' ways authors use to get my sympathy don't work either-- that is, I'm indifferent to characters becoming mute, deaf, blind, mutilated or raped (though I do get squeamish at times). I was just reading a reference to some fic where apparently Draco becomes 'deaf and mute' and it made me laugh. I can't decide whether I have no soul or not. I do know that all the oodles of hurt/comfort fics where the pov character or their Immortal Beloved get tortured leave me with a bad taste in my mouth (though I read them if well-written). I don't care if this character is 'fairly' or 'unfairly' tortured, btw. I'm just like... waiting for it to end, generally. There's no feminine hormone rush, no 'omg MY POOR BABY', no 'I'LL GET YOU EVIL TORTURERS OF MY WOOBIE, IF IT'S THE LAST THING I DO!!1' Instead, I just cringe, unless it's a character I like seeing tortured-- though, honestly, I prefer emotional torture (angst, baby, sexy angst) any day. Blind/mute/crippled people aren't 'icky' or anything-- it just doesn't turn me on, y'know.

In particular, I'm remembering skimming a 'classic' Kirk/Spock fic where one of them (Spock, I think) had gotten a terrible awful disease (or something) and was struck blind. I was seriously skimming the thing waiting (oh, waiting) to see when/if he got his vision back. I was like, blah-blah-angst-blindness-blah-angst-blah-comfort!smut-blah. Next? ('Oh Jim, I cannot burden you with my awful uselessness!!' & 'Oh no, Spock, you're no burden! I want to take care of you-- er, I mean, it's as if nothing's changed! We can get through it together! I can't live without you, my love!!' & 'No Jim, I can never live with myself like this. It's... it's better this way. For everyone. What kind of Starfleet officer am I like this??! You must understand, Jim, you're a Starfleet Captain! You'd feel the same way!' & 'Oh SPOCK....!..!..!!!) Ahem. That entertained me way too much, btw.

Basically, I've never gotten angry at a character for hurting another character in a piece of fiction. Ever. Though in real life, I can get pretty righteously pissed off at rapists &tc (rarely), I'd never start feeling pity for the victims because of that. Unless they're really annoying. Slowly, I'm beginning to realize this sets me apart from... uh... most of humanity, there. Um. I'm not evil. No, honest.

I think it's a way of perceiving the world through a predominantly ethical/moral lens which is foreign to me. One divides people into 'those who hurt' & 'those hurting', and those hurting deserve (ethically?) more attention/protection/care. I don't think this is the same thing as compassion, which is the ability to commiserate & share in another's pain-- this seems more like a system of judging and rating pain. "He hurts more than you do" or "this pain is more important than the other pain, because it isn't 'sanctioned'".

I tend to love people who are more self-contained; I identify with them more, if anything because it's a cruel world out there, and one's essential aloneness is a basic fact of existence. I take it as a given that we are all alone, and in pain. I admire the survivors and am moved to protect those who would try to protect themselves, even with tiny little voices. Compassion, to me, is all of us helping each other; leaning for a bit and crying for a bit, and then getting up and moving on.

To be precise, Merriam-Webster online defines compassion as sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. It lists 'pity' as a synonym(!) but says it implies tender or sometimes slightly contemptuous sorrow for one in misery or distress whereas 'compassion' implies pity coupled with an urgent desire to aid or to spare. Commiseration, further, suggests pity expressed outwardly in exclamations, tears, or words of comfort, and as for sympathy, it often suggests a tender concern but can also imply a power to enter into another's emotional experience of any sort. Er... just in case y'all wanted to know :>

I prefer 'compassion' without any traces of 'pity' and only a heightened 'consciousness' coupled with a desire to help, because 'tender sorrow' sounds rather... uh... self-indulgent I guess. My experience has been, you can't help people if they won't help themselves; if they won't move themselves, you can't move them. If they won't save themselves, you can't save them. But if they have the will to survive, then nothing can break them, because as human beings, our hearts keep beating against all odds. The kind thing, to me, isn't an acceptance of weakness but a faith in everlasting strength.

...There is no defeat as long as you get up again; 'they' can't win if you refuse to to stop fighting. Death isn't a 'defeat', in this case, for to defeat the body is not to defeat the mind. That's what it comes down to, as far as my personal philosophy. Which clearly perhaps borrows a little something from the Stoics, but probably more heavily from the ancient Chinese ideas of the power of the Tao. I remember reading the Tao Te Ching when I was 16 or so, and it just really resonated in me. I might almost say it changed my life in the mannor of that tiny edition of Letters of Epicurus, but you cannot really compare. Honestly, nothing has ever affected me the same way, and reflected my own views on the ethical universe as deeply.

Um. I think I'll just stop there.
~~

EDIT - On reading ajhalluk's post on Potterverse bullies, I felt that perhaps it's relevant here that while I'd grown up 'freakish' (i.e., antisocial, geeky, chubby, overly introspective and largely made fun of by those who noticed), I never did feel 'victimized', and never automatically assume the victim's pov when I read unless I think they're cool for some other reason. I'm also not a person who accepts help easily, which I admit can often be a failing (of pride). It is not that I don't want to help or be helped, but that I don't feel inspired by the context of the haves helping the have nots, but rather like the idea of the 'have nots' -taking- what they want, by force if necessary. :> (....Issues, yeah.)

Comments

me, on the other hand

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I don't really think pity is offensive or demeaning in any way. If I see someone dying of starvation, I feel pity - I don't think they are subhuman, but I think they were violated, and I think they need aid, and I can't understand how they can be held guilty for not standing up and helping themselves.

Compassion I guess lists pity as a synonym because of the Latin word "Pietas" which actually means compassion.

I don't think people sympathize with the authorial underdog because they're being discriminated against. They sympathize with the authorial underdog because they think their Author sucks, too. They think the Man sucks, and the Man has a lot of power on them, and the Man is preaching at them, and trying to feed them trite rethorics about righteous heroes fighting evil, and that's what a lot of people around them does in RL too, so they are a bit of an underdog too. Who's not oppressed by the majority's comfort zone? The majority.

I was just reading a reference to some fic where the main character is an orphan and his step-family oppresses him and his smelly teacher hates him and it made me laugh.

Re: me, on the other hand

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

If I see someone dying, of starvation or otherwise, I usually feel bad-- depressed, sad, uncomforble, awkward, frustrated. I don't attach an ethical value to it-- it's not a concept of 'fairness' or 'justice' or 'violation' or any of that, as I was trying (I think) to explain, it's more that they're just like any other human being and I'd help them if I could. I actually don't know if this whole attitude makes me heartless or what; I just think the element of judgment is missing in me.

If the author sucks... don't read. There is no reason to read. None. Zero. Absolutely.

That's what happened when I first picked up `Philosopher's Stone'-- I didn't like the Dursleys, didn't like the morality/overt moralizing/social satire, and chucked it across the room. I categorically refused to read the books-- on principle-- until I started getting involved through H/D fanfic & started to feel I should know canon to write fic. I just don't get it about reading things you don't enjoy. Maybe I can't stand being angry at a book; whatever it is, it feels weird to me, though. Also, the Man doesn't exist to me. It's that quote: No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Therefore, the Man (men, women, children, etc) has no power over me. I am not oppressed, and most of my life I've been a minority (immigrant, female, Jewish, intellectual, dark-haired in a Slavic country, weird, etc). It's all in the attitude.

Then again, I'm... a bit militant ^^;;;

me, on the other hand

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Nobody can make me feel inferior. I don't feel inferior to anyone, social-wise. But they can marginalise me, and whoever they decide is different, and they do, and where does the world go? To a place where there's no fairness, no thought, just people getting more and more power simply because they outnumber you.

(Actually, I don't hate either JKR either her books. I just tend to laugh a lot. I am angry at people telling me I have to like them. Sort of like with the Bible.)

Re: me, on the other hand

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, there is always power, and people who (want to) wield it, whatever sort of power they have. The presence of it in one sector will automatically disenfranchise the other; even in the democracy of ancient Greece, there were slaves & women had little real power. Whenever you have a human settlement larger than a village (and even then-- even in families), you're going to have a struggle for dominance, with some people (according to temperament and physical ability) being able to-- and thus acting-- dominate others.

This is a macrocosm/microcosm that goes as deep as our most basic animal instincts, as far as I can tell. It's not necessarily about -difference-, so of course the rhetoric often used. Difference shifts in definition all the time, since there was a time when the Jews had their own empire and the Americans (now everyone's supposed Evil Overlord) were fighting for mere survival (meanwhile of course dominating the Indians-- because they could).

American Indians-- and other purely tribal cultures-- seem to have a more 'peaceful', 'yin'-style existence (in tune with the Tao, you might say), but this is -because- of the tribal style which allowed it. If you put those same Indians in cities (ahoy, the Aztecs/Mayas/Incas), watch what happens. Blood and death and empires. Meh. Yet, I'm a social optimist; wouldn't you know it :>

I also get angry at people (fandom) telling me I -have- to like something; I tend to stay away from uber-popular things. I'm contrary and also rather cantankerous-- not a promising combination for a fangirl. So I dig. Plus, I'm a semi-militant atheist, so I also dig re: the Bible/Christianity. But. I still wouldn't -be- in fandom if I didn't enjoy the books, y'know? One has one's nerves to consider :>

Re: me, on the other hand

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Yes, but see, of course historical context is changing, everyone watching social dynamics knows. I wasn't really brushing it off, rather implying it. Difference is literally not represented by the same category through history and space, but it's always the target of violence (whether emotional or verbal or physical). Dude, Nietzche totally had it! Who establishes what's moral? It's not rationality, it's majority. It's true that there's the biological drive to supremacy exists and will always exists, but it's too deterministic to think it's unavoidable *thus* acceptable.

I clearly am interested in some aspects of the book (say, her imagery, the adventure, the Slytherins materially, ie separated from authorial voice) but I think a lot of stuff sucks, too. And I just think telling someone they must either (sort of mindlessly) worship the whole either stay away is... kind of violent. It should be just silly, but it makes too much noise.

Re: me, on the other hand

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Dude. Now I totally want to finish my shaking-fist!Harry sketch & have it say 'who establishes what's moral?''cause I really love that line :D (Harry: my fist does, Malfoy.)

Sometimes, it does seem, I fall into Determinism... I'm glad you called me on it, 'cause I don't exactly -want- to, but it's a trap I constantly approach, it seems, 'cause I see so much cyclicalness & repetition & patterns in everything. Seeing so many patterns all the time, it's hard not to get jaded. Things repeat & repeat & repeat & repeat &..... I just, I hope it's not unavoidable, but I see no evidence it's not. However, I don't often think in terms of 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable'; I largely see morality as a grey area which shifts depending on pov, unless you're talking about Story where you have a Goal. In real life, there is no goal, and nothing to use as a divining rod except my few commandments of Thou Shalt Not Dominate Another's Will & Thou Shalt Not Hurt Another Human Being & Thou Shalt Not Be A Stupid Arsehole. Heh. Yeah, that covers pretty much everything, though it doesn't help that I feel awkward calling things 'unacceptable' when I don't think most people are up to changing. Even though I do. It gets complicated.

What does it mean for something to be 'unacceptable'? What am I going to do to punish the violent & over-dominant & sociopathic? Who can I trust to punish (answer: no one). Whose judgment do I trust? Answer: unless I know their beliefs backwards & forwards, no one's. Politics isn't exactly anything I trust, and I consider nearly every side to be 'wrong'. There are no true 'victims' because nearly everyone victimizes someone -else-. A three year-old, for instance, can easy terrorize a kitten; I know I did. I put a kitten into a plastic bag (to carry them better) when I was like, 3. They were always scared of me after that, and I didn't know why. My parents never got me any pets. I'd have been kind to them, though. I thought.

My answer is, I establish what's moral for myself. Everyone else is also free to establish it for themselves. No one system can be valid.

I guess, for me, it's not a question of -worshipping- vs. hating the whole, but rather... a sort of question of gestalt, I guess...? Like, if things were in balance, hopefully the good outweighs the bad. I wouldn't really be in a fandom for something which pinged a few of my meters but not a lot; and even then, you don't need to be in fandom -for- canon (I'm not, I'm here for teh H/D pr0n), but then... one could just -ignore- canon discussion (most people do). I never thought the HP books were the best arena for lit-crit, anyway-- I mean, they're not that deep, man. I don't really do canon-crit as much as fanon-crit -because- I don't dig analyzing every stupid little thing, y'know?

I do get the idea that some things, one likes -too- much to be in a fandom for (I'm like that, I think). On the other hand, 'concentrate on the positive' is probably just more pleasant, as far as I could tell :>

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

regarding the uncut part of your post: for the last years, and nearly always in slash fics, i have encountered the opposite to the good/bad cliché you mention - the writer only liking the underdog, the weirdo, the extreme person or the outcast. then again, maybe i don't watch enough mainstream movies or read the wrong things.

agreeage on victimisation doing nothing to me. i agree most strongly on the aversion to comfort and the need for healing.


the quote - hm. it is basically the same as saying you chose if you are the victim. i see the point, i admire that you are able to be like that, but living with other people in a society, only other people can make me feel inferior.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think, realistically, the big reason I was able to 'handle' being picked on and bullied and what have you is because I'm a rather emotionally distant, antisocial person. I don't automatically connect with people and I'd grown up kinda trapped in my own little world. I have to remember to think, 'oh, most people actually care about other people'. Heh. I spent most of my life looking down on people in a vague sort of way because they were kind of dumb, though tolerable if I didn't get too close. When I said I was arrogant, I mean... *coughs* But I'm better now. Or something.

And yah... the 'Good Wife' is always the underdog, though. The direction of the saintifying may change, but the saintifying remains.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

heh. i am/was friends with a number of people like that, and could emulate them.

i had not thought of the good wife back there, guess there is really no way around the saintifying. i did remember two stories of "victims", both females, that tear me apart, even on re-reading (i carefully tried and wished i had not). and i usually don't read stories that do that to me, nor do i cry, but the very last page of "the shape of snakes" by minette walters really kills me (i guess there is a bigger social issue and lots of anger involved, though).
and there was *enter vague mode* a short story about a ragged girl who was friends with stray cats, told from the pov of her school friend. she is thrown out of the window by the abusive bf of her mother.

i just noticed that they both had tried - in vain - to protect cats *serious pondering*.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

not! i meant could not! *ack*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think these two things go neatly together actually...

I mean, I think I'm very much the same way in realizing you have to identify yourself as the victim. I was occasionally picked on, but usually retained a sense of the bullies being idiots. If I took something they said to heart because it was true, I was more likely to sort of deal with that squarely and not be too upset over it if it was something I couldn't change, you know?

And I think when it comes to fictional characters it's probably the same way. Like, it's not just that the author seems to be telling you to hate them or like them so you don't, it's that the author seems to be telling you to hate them or like them and you think s/he is wrong. Like, with Draco, the obvious character I like whom the author seems to think I shouldn't, it's not that I just feel sorry for him, it's that I am pulling for him for whatever reason. That's kind of why I obsess over him--why do I pull for him despite him being who he is and despite knowing he's the loser so I'm setting myself up here? He must stand for something that I like or admire in some way.

Sometimes in talking to people in fandom who do identify with him, I get more of a sense as to why that is. Like they don't identify with the Slytherins as victims and felt sorry for them, they identify with things about them they think are good and weren't valued. Because really, one of the main things about the Slytherins is the way they get knocked down and come back meaner than ever.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I mean, I think I'm very much the same way in realizing you have to identify yourself as the victim. I was occasionally picked on, but usually retained a sense of the bullies being idiots.

But you have to identify yourself as a victim! The power your aggressor has on you is precisely to steal your right to call what's being done to you "aggression". They create a reality when there is no violence, because reality is defined by word.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, well I would agree with that. I think we're just using the term "victim" differently--and probably I'm using it the same way Reena is, but we're really all agreeing. I mean, I certainly saw myself as the one wronged in the situation, and saw them as doing something not right to me. But when I say I didn't identify myself as a victim it was more...maybe this is an American thing. Calling yourself a victim goes beyond just properly identifying what's going on in the situation. Identifying yourself as the victim, at least here, carries the suggestion that you exist to be picked on, because that is what a victim is. You're a victim, and therefore you are victimized. Saying you're not the victim is sort of like saying, "I do not except the bully's definition of me. He may victimize me, but I am not his victim."

So I didn't think of myself as "a victim" in school, but yes if somebody was picking on me I would know I was the victim the way you're describing it. It's like just a more roundabout way of saying what I think you're saying here, of saying that what the other person is doing isn't right.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Oh, then yes, I completely understand! I think I read something about the identification of the victim, how, not being recognized by the mainstream as victim, there were (there are) many attempts to demonise/ridiculize/empty of meaning the identity the word describes.

Also (at least this happens here) the word victim can be ambiguous also because "symphaty for the victim" has become such a modern not moral but rather social imperative, cynics have become wary of the ones proclaiming themselves as such - and many in fact use the word to manipulate. But the irony is, one that truly is a victim, can't use the word for manipulation! They can't use the word at all! The victim is defined by *not being able* to name him/herself as a victim.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Saying you're not the victim is sort of like saying, "I do not except the bully's definition of me. He may victimize me, but I am not his victim."

Yes, exactly. I am very hesitant to call myself a "victim" as well, and it sort of has very negative connotations to me. Like, a victim is a person something happens to with no controll whatsoever over the situation. Which is of course true, and that's nothing anyone can help, but I think what you can always help, is how you react to it. You have a choice there. Like, do you just accept it, or do you refuse to accept it, or do you accept it and use it to your advantage, that's a choice right there. But when I say the term victim has negative connotations, what I'm really thinking about is that I somehow assume that the people using the terms, take away that choice from "the victim", like they're saying he/she has no choice whatsoever. And I guess that that is something I just can't get behind.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

But some times the choice is taken away from them! Think of Stockholm Syndrom. It explains so much. Do Muslim women know they have a choice? They don't. Does a child being abused know? Does a wife, who's so in love with her husband she doesn't want to accept what he's doing to her is wrong? And how does a victim of rape avoid being a victim? They can't.

It's not just about being aware that you're being abused and being too weak to react - it's about not being aware because that's what's being taken away from you, the awareness. That's the power your abuser has over you. That makes you a victim.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Eh, this is a very sensitive topic, and I don't really know how to express myself without coming off as some kind fascist here, so I hope you'll bare with me when I try to explain my view.

I'm firmly of the belief of choice. That is of course I don't think that anyone chooses to be raped or abused, or grow up in a minority, or whatever, but, on one level or another, I believe there are always choices. That is, sometimes all choices you have, are so utterly unappealing, that it feels like you have no choice, but you always do. Like, say, if you're a white, upperclass male from US, your range of choices is very big. By contrast, if you're very poor and from a development country and belong to an underprivileged group, you're range of choices get severely cut. That makes you a victim, in that sense of the word, and fighting for your human rights, is basically fighting for your rights to have as many choices as other human beings. But, the thing is, you do still have some choices. Your choices in this case may be, working in a factory that takes your health away prematurely, prostituting yourself, or begging at the street. All of these choices are awful, and of course it's not right that anyone should have only these options. But. They are still options. So that's pretty much what I mean by "there always being choices".

And yes, in that sense of the word, there are always some choices for victims, no matter what they're victims of. Yes, aggressors take away the majority of the choices. Like your example of the woman being raped, she has no choice but to be raped, she can't run away or do anything to stop it. But she can still choose her reaction. Even the rapist threatens her with a gun, about not making a sound, she can choose to scream and be shot, or she can choose to keep silent and hope to live. Bad choices, sure. But still choices. And if she survives, she can choose what she does afterwards. Does she report it, or does she try to forget it, or does she live in fear of the rapist coming after her again?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's just... I do feel like the way some people single out Draco and/or other 'bad guys' or whatever is rather apologist at times. Like, they not only need to be explained and analyzed, but also somehow given some sort of readerly 'affirmative action' while we boo & hiss at the authorial/main-pov 'good guys'.

Have you read nothingbutfic's recent Draco&tc essay? He totally had this sense of understanding Draco without sympathizing that I like. I sometimes sympathize with him, but generally think he's a prick, because I have a personal relationship with characters I feel I 'know', ahahah. My ex-boyfriend being a lot like that doesn't help, but. Yeah, it's just-- I totally don't admire him & don't feel I need to just to enjoy writing/reading him as a character & a human being.

I totally identify with Draco insofar as the 'getting back up again' and obsessiveness and rage, etc-- but it's not about things which are 'good and weren't valued', that's the thing. I'm a bit put off if people don't value what I value, but I get that a lot in lots of different ways, heh. It really depends whose pov you wanna focus on, as far as value-- when you see things from the perspective of 'you' and 'people like you', then you're going to be valued. If you take the pov of people who're not like you, then you're going to wind up not being valued much. So it's an equal balance-- Draco doesn't value Harry just as Harry doesn't value Draco. Depending whose pov I take (and I can take pretty much anyone's pov if I wanted to), it balances out. To me, it's all the same.

I mean, I suppose the power-balance shifts since the books are from Harry's pov (so Draco gets devalued), but-- reality remains, even if we don't see it, and their respective actions remain the same even if we don't know the motivations. I don't really see why I'd -need- an excuse or a reason for liking Draco, but then, it's easy for me to see things from his perspective-- that's how I understand everyone, basically. I suppose this 'underdog' thing doesn't make sense to me because I just tend to like people as -people-, not in relation to other people. He's only a 'loser' in relation to others-- as himself, he just has qualities that may or may not serve him well. I think it's my lack of desire to judge people in social terms that trips me up.

Mind you... this is all muddled in my head, anyway. In terms of the HP books, I already liked Draco -and- Harry before I read them. In terms of other books-- I've never been in a fandom for them, and have no -clue- whether I like someone I'm not 'supposed' to like-- what the hell kind of insane concept is that, anyway? Say... uh... mind you, I don't read a lot of 'normal' literature, so examples are hard, but... I think John Ney Reiber thought Tim Hunter (from `Books of Magic') was kind of a jerk, and he didn't deserve Molly (his girlfriend). I thought that was hilarious, since I adored both Molly & Tim. Sort of like I adore both Harry & Draco. This concept of -choosing- seems just-- funny to me. I just like who I like; the text (given there's no fanfic) entirely determines who I like based on how the characters are written. I only (generally) like a character if I identify or enjoy an aspect of their personality, as written, regardless of what any other character thinks. It is just that simple! The whole-- looking out for the unloved & the authorially underprivileged seems... like a whole different process of reading, to me.

I suspect that's what it is, really; a question of how we read. I'm contrary as a -person-, but not contrary as a reader, if I like the book. I can't like a book and hate what it stands for. Just. Not possible. For some people, I imagine it is. Do I even -care- what the HP books 'stand' for? No, I just read for Harry (because omgilovehimsomuchomg). Arguing with 'authorial intent' and butting heads with things that seem inevitably bound to end up going sour seems... like a recipe for frustration. So like... fandom and my love for Draco is over -here- and my enjoyment of canon (such as it is) is over -here-, where it's All About Harry.

Just my own coping strategies, though :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I did read that essay and I loved it! But then, I think there's two different things to look at and that essay was a great way of showing it. Because if you're going to examine the ethics of the universe, or what it's saying, which I seem to remember thinking that essay was doing (maybe it's getting mixed up with something else in my head, though!) it's important to me that you shouldn't have to like Draco at all. That gets frustrating sometimes, I think, because people get sidetracked in defending the character personally. You know what I mean--like Snape has good reason for behaving as he does to Sirius or vice versa, and the same with Draco and Harry.

But to me it's like...if I'm looking at how Harry treats Draco I don't really have any complaints--no more than I have about how Draco treats Harry. I mean, I can say that Harry is the first person to actually reject Draco and that I, personally, might not have done that. But given Harry's personality I get where he's coming from, just as I can say that I, personally, would not respond to the rejection the way Draco does but given who he is I get that too. But if I'm trying to figure out what Harry and his friends are doing in any particular scene it shouldn't matter how I feel about Draco because who Draco is doesn't change what Harry is doing. Or vice versa.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. It was totally focusing on the ethics, but Abaddon's 'take' on Draco was kind of a subtext, I think, just as far as the sorts of things he said about him, and the way in which he conceived of him~:) Yeah, I totally get frustrated with people going off on tangents defending or attacking characters, which should just be banned as a Bad Debate Tactic. Like, it gets difficult for me to read people's comments at all 'cause I get pissed off both at the people railing at Sirius & the people railing/downplaying Snape's dignity/role/humanity/etc. I'm like STOP IT WITH THE OPPOSITIONAL THINKING, PEOPLE, GET A BLOODY GRIP. Ahem. (*needs a time-out, clearly*)

I came -this- close (very close) to ranting at everyone saying something like, EVERYBODY IS AN ASSHOLE TO SOMEBODY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE GET TO FEEL ALL SUPERIOR AND JUDGMENTAL AS READERS, OKAY??!?

Um. Not that I get rabid. Ever. At all -.-
The people alternatively bashing Sirius or Snape (because clearly the lines have to be drawn and it's Sirius or Snape who's the victim/understandable one, and the other is the bully/one who got what he deserved). God. People. Annoy. Me. Fandom. Not good. For. Mental. Balance -.- (er, sorry, off topic, way off topic.... had to get it off my chest, though.)

Anyway, I just felt like Abaddon's attitude toward Draco was more internal than external-- that is, he didn't excuse him or privilege his actions or paint him as admirable in any way-- though he did internalize Draco's attitude (though I say this probably 'cause I know Abaddon somewhat) in terms of how he saw the Gryffindors. Therefore, I don't necessarily trust his judgment on the non-Slytherin characters ('cause he's so uniformly critical, something that is false by default), while I really find his take on the Slytherins (as the Slytherins/Draco would most likely see themselves) quite useful.

It's that thing where I find the character's own vision of -themselves- to be quite interesting, whereas I find an outsider's view of people or groups to be often useful but imperative to take with a grain of salt. One is always going to lie about oneself to some degree unless one is -really- self-aware (and even then, one's bias is likely transferred to other people even if one can be honest about oneself), and one is always going to be skewed in one's perceptions of people who're unlike oneself. It's both funny & frustrating to me that people identify with these characters so strongly that debate becomes a question of actual marginalization of 'one's own' constituency (i.e., specific group/person one roots for & excuses and/or finds more 'understandable' than the 'others'). Meh.

Yeah, I know what you mean about judging 'action' without judging character, or finding a -character- 'inexcusable' -because- of said action. I think I just get -so- tired of people connecting these two things that I snap and want to say 'stay away from overt sympathy for the 'underprivileged' altogether, lest it turn into pity & blindness'. To me, all human actions are understandable (though not necessarily excusable)-- and I think one can see that in the text, in HP anyway. The problem comes from the text then not following up in the 'right' (ethical) manner on its own precepts/situations, right. Personally, since it's fiction, that doesn't bother me-- the plot determines what happens, and there's a very clear arc with obvious necessity built in-- certain things -have- to happen (to Harry, through Harry, around Harry) for the end result to occur. Since Rowling writes in a manner where plot trumps character, really none of it is very... uh... relevant to me, I guess? I just read it for what it is 'cause out of that intended (as I see it) context, it loses cohesiveness to me and becomes completely nonsensical. As in... it doesn't make sense, necessarily, in human terms, but as long as it (in the end) makes sense in archetypical terms, I'd consider it a success at what the text was trying to achieve. Does that make sense?

[malafede.livejournal.com]

'stay away from overt sympathy for the 'underprivileged' altogether, lest it turn into pity & blindness'

Man, the funny thing is that "pity" shouldn't be connected with "blindness". For example: the underprivileged in discussion (Draco) can be commiserated for being JKR's whipping boy, which I do, in which I really sort of feel the biological need to point out the inconsistencies cause by his author's double standard and effort to dishumanize him and rather immature attempts at getting revenge over the "bullies" of her own life. This is one thing. But it's not like the other!

Blindness towards Draco would be... make him an overt victim (even in material instances in which he is not?) in an obvious and annoying (because it works, yeah I know) play for sympathy similar to the ones JKR herself (ab)uses as the basis of most of her characterization choice. Starting with Harry and ending with Snape. But the reason why I am irritated with this isn't that there is a victim which I don't want to consider a victim, it's that it's just... bad writing, fake as fake could be, and yet everybody falls for it because everybody likes a martyr.

But I think it's rather dangerous to avoid naming the victim altogether because you're aware there's a fringe of fanatics which will strumentalise your arguments. For example, both Sirius and Snape are victims. Full stop. They are also both self-righteous pricks. One is delusional about the concidence of his god-son and his best friend and still incredibly smugly moralist to the mistakes made by one in the past and his own convinction to be a good boy. The other is Snape. Should I elaborate? Bullies children. Think "fair" means "fair to me". Can't let go of wrongs made to him in his adolescence by other adolescents who have clearly become decent men.

Still, they are both victims. The fact that some people can't be objective because all in all it's not debate they care about but the triumph of their puppy (Snape/Sirius is like Christ in a way?) over the other and would say any (mass-appealing) thing and use any torturous logic because there's always the right bandwagon if you look for it shouldn't matter. I mean, people kill innocent in the name of freedom. Does this mean freedom has no meaning?

(But... the whole... "he was a decent man! he was fucked up, but human, give him a break!"... really really cracked me up because it only could be applied to, you know, ALL THE CHARACTERS.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I suppose my head just starts to feel bloated when a major aspect of how I perceive a character starts being how their author perceives them within the story, and their meta-function as some Anti-Sue of the author. If I like the character, they just -exist-, completely outside of their author & to some degree their actual story/plot. Dwelling too much on their 'function' within the narrative seems to interfere with my ability to suspend my disbelief in some way-- like, Draco becomes a device; I can't both see him as a 'person' and see him as a coping strategy method of some sort by his author. To me, it's one or the other; if he's a 'strategy', he's not human; if he's human, he's not a strategy. I realize maybe this is my own limitation, but there is that split in my mind, regardless.

I mean, there is meta where you analyze the characters and their context & subtext within the narrative, and I really enjoy that. Then there is meta where the narrative is 'naked', so to speak, and you look at it not as a reader -or- a writer, but as some sort of outside entity that is there to monitor its adherence to the 'rules of fair engagement' or something. There is always going to be 'the bad guy' or 'the whipping boy' in a certain type of (simplistic) story, I think-- if it's not Draco, it's someone else. I think in every narrative I can think of, some character gets to wear the 'dunce' cap. Some stories (more sophisticated ones, which HP is not one of) don't have dunces, but so what? It's not like this is a serious text by any means; the fact that Draco is an abused, silly little dunce means little or nothing (to me personally) in the larger scheme of things, and I really like the bugger, unlike JKR. But I don't know what my point is anymore.

I think a certain type (social??) of lit-crit will never be natural to me, and clearly I'm not cut out to be an English major 'cause I like -my- lit-crit and not some others. When the story gets too 'naked' and obvious and transparently shown to be a tool of the author, I lose my interest. None of it means anything when you can see the cogs and wheels too clearly; it's like-- just one woman's little fantasy, who cares? I know I don't. So Draco-- what? who? Why does anyone care again?
I only care when it's 'Draco Malfoy, Pureblood wizard and Potter's self-proclaimed nemesis' and not, 'Draco Malfoy, JKR's whipping boy'-- does that make sense?

I know... people often sully the thing they argue in the 'name' of; I just get pissed. I can't help but think they have Issues, anyway. Then it becomes less like lit-crit and more like some pointless ethical quagmire where no one's ever going to budge and no one really listens. Did I mention that people suck today? :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Eh. But even nothingbutfic acknowledged authorial bias and I wouldn't go as far as to say he thought it sucked, but... what he thought of JKR's ethics seemed very clear to me.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I have my issues with him, and some of his fics, but his recent essay on the topic was excellent.

you are not alone

[amber-the-fool.livejournal.com]

whilst you may be separating yourself from most of humanity there, i don't think you're evil (weell maybe a little bit) because i tend to find fics where true love must suffer through physical ways (as you gave examples of) etc etc endlessly amusing, and all my friends think i am weird when i can't sympathise with the fact that "so-and-so is going through so much pain in such-and-such a TV show" and i just start giggling...

amber x