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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-08-23 09:33 pm (UTC)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?