~~ 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.

[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.

[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.

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