(I embrace the negative & the positive. I am so zen.)

[reenka]

So because I had too much free time on my hands, I decided to make a list of qualities I love about my favorite HP characters, haha. It'd be so cool if like, other people did this as a meme, but I'm not holding my breath.... Still.

- Things I love: -

In Harry - I love all his contradictions-- his self-confidence and need for affirmation, his rebelliousness and thirst for mentorship & guardianship, how needy he is for love & acceptance yet how he won't let himself compromise any principles for it. I love him for his stubborn often blind but fierce ideals, and his quick sharp temper, and his often hidden vulnerability. I love him because I see myself in him and because I think he has so many universal qualities that I love-- he's curious and adventurous, witty yet often subdued, lost yet so brightly focused.

I love his awkwardness around some strangers and girls, and his bursts of inborn charisma; the quiet attention he pays to things; the way he blows up and surprises you. I love that he's a complex bundle of contradictions: questioning and fiercely believing, devoted yet distant, sensitive yet cruel, defensive and sometimes nearly introverted yet a born leader. I love his soft heart and his hard shell and his rage and protectiveness and... everything.

I love his indomitable, huge strength of will which can only be eclipsed by the untapped power of his heart. I love everything about him, even if I don't 'approve' of it.
~~


In Malfoy - it's not the meanness, or the iciness, or the supposed wit (though I like that in anyone). I love how he'll stand up to Harry even though Harry beats him at everything, and I love the way he -tries- all the time and is so ridiculous and silly and over-the-top (the Dementor thing and the strutting and the Weasley-is-our-King, etc).

I love how genuine he seems in his childish pettiness-- how he doesn't hide it and how he insists on getting what he wants. That desperation and rage and feeling of being wronged-- his -passion- is what I love. And I love what I think of as his untapped potential-- the strength of will and emotional resilience that could help him grow into someone I admired, maybe, if only he'd learn to channel it properly.

He's just so full of bile and trapped bubbling rage and futility and need and I can't help but feel connected to him through that.
~~

In Ron - I love his sincerity and sheer frankness most of all, I think. The way he just -is- the way he is, and feels what he feels, so honestly and directly. I love how he doesn't prevaricate or pretend-- what you see is what you get. I love how loyal and dedicated he is to his friends, though he's not afraid to say if he doesn't dig something about them to their face. I love how protective he is and cutely dorkish/boyish he is, how clueless about girls/a number of other things he is, how dense and stubborn and self-sacrificing he is, how flawed and insecure and determined and fierce and strong-willed he is. Weasley is my King, man.<3<3<3<3<3<3

I love how he wants to be better-- get more from life, be recognized, become somebody, but he doesn't have a clue. And he's not as good as he wishes he'd be, and he's not as good as Harry, either, but unlike Draco, say, he doesn't get bitter-- he just tries to do the best he can, 'cause he's Ron, not Harry and not Percy and not Fred or George or Bill. I don't know. The combination of vulnerable and tenacious-- gets me every time.

In Sirius - I love the passion in him, too-- the way he's so fierce about any emotion he seems to feel, the way he goes all out and doesn't hold back. I love the wild strength of his will; the sheer power of ego that got him through Azkaban. That's just impressive, I think. I love how devoted he is to his friends, even if it leads him astray rather often-- I still love it about him. I love just how bloody loyal and protective and dog-like he is, heheh. He's got all the random rage and the brilliant protectiveness and the affectionate nature and hey, he's even got the fleas. And of course I love his charming badass bad-boy self, woohoo! I admit it!

I love how he's -seething-, all ragged-edged and untamed and tamed at once (by his friends-- well, by Remus and Harry). He's got all this viciousness and all this kindness; is both very trusting and unable to let go; both brittle and fragile & undefeatable. How could one resist a charming asshole? So much pain... so much joy in life... so much capacity for love and rage and just sheer force of life.

In Remus - I'm growing to love all his subtle complexities, and how he challenges me to find a way to wrap my mind about what makes him tick, and the way the more I think about it, the more I see myself in him. I love the way he's so full of secrets and masks and layers, and how I think there's raw meat underneath all those different skins, vulnerable and vital and -human-. I love that sense of the fire beneath the deep-- so stealthy and but also so steadfast-- the way his loyalties remain steady no matter what he may say or do; the way his inner conflict has made him a better man, a more complex man, a kinder and a colder man at the same time.

And of course, I love the wolf in Remus, always waiting, always watching. Who could not love the wolf, especially because of his struggle with it, often subtly futile and yet so utterly -human-? How could I not love the darkness and the light in him, always warring and never at rest? He just fascinates me.

Aaaand, I wrote a whole post about why I love/enjoy writing Ginny already :D
~~

Another day, another rant-type-thing. I think I should wean myself off... I'd drink chamomile but then, I hate chamomile....

Anyway. (Something else) I really kind of resent is the way people dismiss whole -types- of human pairing dynamics based purely on the superficial overall category of the relationship. I'm not talking about having a squick, or some personal reason for disliking a particular pairing on its own merits-- I mean judging the whole section or type of relationship basis (i.e.: purely adversarial, friendship, adversarial friendship, boss/employee or teacher/student, colleagues/teammates and more I'm sure).

It does seem like people gravititate to one 'type' and aren't very attracted to the others, which is fine. What bothers me is when they then dismiss the other types of relationship as 'overdone' and 'cliche' or otherwise of lesser intrinsic worth.

I see this all the time in the apparent cross-fandom feud between friendshippers and adversarial shippers.


It goes both ways, too-- both sides proclaim the other's whole aesthetic is inherently inferior, which gets to me particularly because I've shipped within almost all types of dynamics, but am especially into friendship-turned-love and anger/hate-turned-love. These preferences are -not- mutually exclusive (because to me, the important factor is -intensity- of whatever emotion there is) and I don't feel all that schizophrenic until I read yet another throw-away ranty comment on how a friendshipper just 'doesn't get' those dull/deluded people who insist on perpetuating the stupid fairy tale (or whatever) that 'bickering' (or hate) means 'luuuuurve' (and vice versa).

Jeez.
    What I myself always look for in terms of romance in fics is individual compatibility, not whether a pairing fits into some set-in-stone 'ideal dynamic type' of relationships. What matters (to me) is whether these two -people- fit together in some interesting way. The 'typology' is-- well-- incidental.
    Why must -everything- come with a prejudice available to be attached, anyway, like some necessary accessory to a complete memetic outfit or something? Why must -morphology- (what a thing actually -is-) have to keep following after typology (what a thing can be grouped as)?? Why god why???!? >:O

I do admit to having my own prejudice/bias here, of course: I judge the degree of 'fit' in any pairing based on whether I think these two people balance each other out. Naturally, balance can be achieved in many ways and in many combinations of different ingredients, which might be why I enjoy so many different 'types' of pairings. As long as the two people's quirks complement each other, I'm there. So basically, I'll always dislike a pairing where I think one has 'like' coupled with 'like' unless there are significant differences that click together, too.

Obviously, ideally there should be a balance (there's that word again) of sameness and difference between the two people in order for the relationship to work/last/be happy. And yes, my bias is also towards relationships that -can- be happy however difficult that might be. If it's unhappy or pure angst, I just feel like it's draining (of my own energy as a reader) and not constructive in terms of telling me something new & interesting.

I suppose that can be why some people summarily dismiss heavily adversarial pairings (i.e., they're too unlikely to achive happiness), but then, I think that's just plain incorrect, realistically speaking. Yes, argumentative relationships tend to self-destruct, but there are still many, many real stories about couples who're seemingly different as can be, sheer opposites, but find an eventual and life-long balance with each other. I mean, 'opposites attract' is a cliche, but cliches exist for a reason, usually, and it's not because they don't work in real life in any way.

Of course, hating each other's guts or arguing all the time is far from a definitive sign that the people are say, 'obviously perfect for/hot for each other'-- that's a crass, unhelpful over-simplification. There's chemistry there, and therefore -possibility-, which is all anyone can ask for.

I think only some particular course of events can 'prove' (so to speak), on its own merits, whether a romantic character combination is 'workable'. This is why, even though I obviously ship Harry/Draco, they often don't 'fit' for me in a number of fics, just because they weren't written into a relationship I could support, really. And same goes for a friendship-made-love-- sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But oops, look, you can't have sweeping generalizations this way-- must be why that point of view is unpopular. *sigh*

At least I've vented now.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose often enough it can be a thin line-- you can try to say 'but I'm just stating my preference/opinion' to a lot of things that other people might take offense at 'cause they think you're implying their personal kink/preference/way of thinking is inferior. For instance, a lot of people sometimes (wrongly) assume that when I say 'I really can't stand X' that means I'm dissing them personally if they like X. That doesn't work that way in my head, but. Sometimes I'm definitely prey to the concept myself, 'cause when I see someone bashing, say, adversarial pairings (or 'romance') as overdone and cliche, I see them as saying that to their best judgement, it sucks, which makes me bristle-- 'cause people don't often delineate where their personal kinks/squicks leave off and judgement begins-- and in fact, I think for most people the line isn't all that defined, 'cause they're not all that rational to start with, anyway, so they're not used to -drawing- lines like that all that seriously.

Plus, the idea of applying 'over-explored' to romance just-- bothers me because usually it's the people who're not that into romance (or are just not sentimental or romantic by nature) that are saying it. This is related to the rationalists looking down at the romantics in general, or at least misunderstanding/dismissing their fixation on fantasy/love and so on to the exclusion of other things. Being a daydreamer & romantic at heart who still has the capacity for analytic thought, I often have to struggle not to feel like a bit of a second-rate citizen among a lot of intellectuals, 'cause, y'know... my values are different. So a bit of this is resentment on my part that has nothing to do with lit-crit & a lot with my own self-image-- and I realize that rationalist/intellectual types often feel equally marginalized in society at large. I'm just in a weird position-- quite like Luna in Ravenclaw :>

You're right-- some things are more explored than others, of course. I myself am a sucker for a lot of those things, 'cause I see them as the most universal/archetypal of themes, and am attracted to their various guises. I've always been into fairy-tales & fairy-tale retellings, and I just-- enjoy the central, basic tales humanity's always telling itself. That's a question of temperament-- I'm less looking for intellectual stimulation & excitement and more looking for... what I want, I suppose, which is... enlightenment? Happiness? Titillation? The familiar-made-slightly-unfamiliar-and-sexy?? Something like that. It's just a somewhat different approach to reading, perhaps.

I myself dislike cliched 'formulaic' writing (which isn't the same as archetypal/cliche-using writing, necessarily). Formulaic writing is just plain bad writing, and that's less to do with theme and more to do with the writer's lack of talent or ability to really explore their theme. This inability to write shouldn't be attributed to -what- they're writing, though. Y'know? They just suck :>

Mrrrr, bad writing drives me up the wall, trust me, and anyone who reads this lj for awhile notices that I often rant about how 95% of all fic sucks. I mean it! I blame it squarely on most people's lack of skills/experience/talent, though~:))

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Formulaic writing is just plain bad writing, and that's less to do with theme and more to do with the writer's lack of talent or ability to really explore their theme. This inability to write shouldn't be attributed to -what- they're writing, though. Y'know? They just suck :>

Hey, no arguments there! :D Don't blame the idea for the idea for the writer's inability to pull it through, or something.

Well, I suppose often enough it can be a thin line-- you can try to say 'but I'm just stating my preference/opinion' to a lot of things that other people might take offense at 'cause they think you're implying their personal kink/preference/way of thinking is inferior.

Oh God, yes. Hence we have the big "counter-reaction" whenever someone is stating that they don't like a particular character, or whatever. And sometimes it's not that strange, because stating things you don't like in a certain character -for instance if you think he/she is badly written- might strike a chord with the people who DO like that -like if you like the way he/she is written, what does it mean that other people think he/she is badly written then? What does it say about you that you see a well-depicted character, where other people just see a cliché? Then of course there are instances where people actually flames fans of a character, rather than the character themselves. (Like, oh, say Draco!)

Plus, the idea of applying 'over-explored' to romance just-- bothers me because usually it's the people who're not that into romance (or are just not sentimental or romantic by nature) that are saying it.

Well, maybe this is true. Lord knows I'm not overly romantic or sentimental -though I do enjoy a good romance, just as much as the next person- but I don't think I look down on Romantics, the way you're implying. But I will stand by my opinion that romantic love is over-explored, it's usually the main theme in stories, in song lyrics, in poems and it's always a big theme in in other kind of media - in talkshows or whatever- as well, much more so than any other kinds of love.

Neither will I deny that this disproportion annoys me on a profound level, because to me, all this fixation on romance, combined with a disinterest for other types of love (usually when you use the word "love", it is just assumed to mean "romantic love", which I think says something about its dominance as a theme, itself), sends a highly disturbing message. The message in question is that "romantic love" is MORE important and worth MORE than any other types of love, be they Parent-Children love (this is what I find most annoying, actually, that stories often seem to value the love between the parents higher, than the love from the parents to the child), friendship-love or just general love for humanity. Seen in that light, I will say that romantic love is over-rated, not because I don't think it's valuable, but because I hate the idea that it would somehow be better than other kinds of love, or be the be all, end all. (I also think the idea of "romantic love" being the "meaning of life" is utterly depressing -what about all those people who don't find it?)

And, speaking of genres and romance, one genre I usually dislike with a passion is "romantic comedies". Not, of course, because I don't think they can be well-done, just because I find it extremely hard to find one which is. I simply don't find most romantic comedies romantic, but I often find their values deeply annoying. I do like romanticism, I just think I have a very different idea of what's "romantic" than most people have (definitely different from people who are writing the scripts for those movies!). I find it romantic when, as in The Crying Game or -dare I mention it- Boys Don't Cry, someone's love looks beyond gender, and I find it romantic to go against peer pressure and prejudices for the one you're in love with, like in Show me Love. I don't find it the least bit romantic when Christian Slater breaks into his girl's apartment to overshower it with flowers.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I've always found it interesting, that whole bit where people get offended at someone saying a character is 'badly written' if they don't think so. Because clearly there are no completely objective ways to judge literature anyway, and plenty of people think some -classics- are cliche-ridden junk, so if one really can't stand criticism, one's really projecting their own personal issues/self-worth onto what they read a bit much, methinks.... But oh well.

Personally, I'm interested in all sorts of human emotion (and enjoy reading about friendship nearly as much as romantic love), but... seeing romantic love as 'more important' is just part of the mythology of romantic love itself. The maddened selfishness is part of it. I think I read somewhere-- and I do believe this-- that a huge part of the actual experience of romantic love is a leap of imagination-- you -imagine- the other person fits into this Romantic Story of the two of you. You and -they- become one, become Us. It's a myth one tells oneself-- and not everyone is the type of person to buy into it. It's not necessarily -positive-, but it is obsessive and often destructive and the ruination of nearly all else that stands in its path, unless it's ruthlessly supressed. Romantic love isn't fair or pretty or plays well with others :> It is, by nature, more important (unless it's not there). For it is called a form of divine lunacy for a reason, etcetc :>

Heheh yeah, romantic comedies are often badly done, just like loads of other (all other) genres, I guess. I like the older ones much more, before Hollywood stopped trying very hard. `Princess Bride' can be seen as a romantic comedy, for instance, as can `The Graduate' (did you see it?), `Romancing the Stone', `Breakfast at Tiffany's', `My Fair Lady', `Taming of the Shrew'.... heh. Romance & comedy are natural partners-- love is hilarious, people are ridiculous, and the things people do for love are just dying to be mocked :D I especially like Katharine Hepburn, Woody Allen (romantic comedies!), Barbara Streisand, Ally Sheedy... man, I'm bad with names. Not much in the 90s though, yeah. Then again, most movies have sucked lately, y'know?

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I remember when I first came into fandom, I got annoyed at how everyone, everywhere would always state that Draco was such a 2-D character. It wasn't like I got seriously mad when I saw it, but it annoyed me. I don't think he's particulary 2-D, and seeing everybody always stating that he was, is if it were fact rather than their personal opinion, annoyed me. (Maybe it's a bit the same thing as your beef with people calling things overdone/clichés?) I wouldn't have minded if they had defined exactly what they meant, because if they had, I could either have seen where they were coming from, or argued with them, but it was just that word "2-D" thrown around everywhere, and no-one ever bothering to get deeper into what they meant, because they just assumed everbody knew what they were talking about and would agree with them. So I can definitely understand when people get upset by those kind of things, even if it's a character I happen to think is 2-D.

Yes, it's true that there's a big mythology around romantic love, and that seeing it as more important than everything else is part of it, and it's an interesting perspective that I didn't consider in my last comment. But I still don't see why almost every single song lyric, poem, book, movie, theatre play, fic, needs to treat that subject. I mean, I agree that obsessing and self-centredness is part of "being/falling in love", and thus, it makes sense if the characters in the story, give it more importance than anything else, but it's not a reason that explains why the authors, directors, Hollywood producers, music writers, etc do. Their motivation is selling, and reaching a big audience or artistic creativity, not to spread to great myth of love as propaganda, I think. Also, I don't really understand why anyone feels compelled to "spread the big myth of love", so to speak, considering how well we tend to feed ourselves with it anyway, when we're in love (the "leap of imagination", as you said). And, while I agree with you, that the kind of love that sees itself as more important than anything else, can be very negative in many aspects, I think that very many of these stories happily gives out the message that Romantic Love IS all positive, and the meaning of life, and you can't live without it, and it's always worth it, no matter how destructive or ruing for others, etc. I'm painting with a very broad brush here, but it IS very often exactly what I get out of a Hollywood-produced movie, or soap opera, or whatever.

Finally, even though I (think I) understand what you mean by "it's by nature more important", I don't think that's always true. For instace, many parents would place their children before their romantic love, and I don't think it's fair to say that their love "wasn't real or true" when they do this.

It's true that all genres are often badly done, but I guess it bothers me more with romantic comedies, because they often try to feed their audience with values (about love, gender-roles, "the meaning of life"), that I just can't support, sometimes even find highly offensive.

I think Princess Bride and The Graduate are great movies, as far as I remember (it's been a while), because they were well-done, and I enjoyed them as I saw them. But, erh, if I went to analyse them, there are probably values in them that I could find disturbing as well, only they might not be as "in your face" as many more recent romantic comedies. For instance, in The Graduate the guy stalks the girl until he gets her. "Stalking" is one of the main peeves of mine in these movies, because it's always shown as being a proof of "how much he loves her" (because it's only shown as romantic when a MAN stalks a WOMAN, if it's the other way around you have a thriller featuring Glenn Close, instead of a romantic comedy), when in real life, it only shows you how obstinate someone is.

I very much agree that romance and comedy are two things that goes -or should go- hand in hand. That's why it's really frustrating that I hate most of those I see. :D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's interesting... I'm trying to think of a movie/book I've ever judged based on the values it perpetuated.... I suppose I could start what I traditionally see as my 'favorite movie'-- `Neverending Story' (we won't get into my undying love for some Star Trek movies). Um. Hmmm... well, I suppose I've always identified with the protagonist-- a boy who gets lost in the world of a book, literally. I mean... that's my dream come true, so to speak. Everything it said about stories being primary and the imagination & friendship being something like the saving grace of mankind-- I agree with. I -feel- like that, so it's not that I -approve-, exactly, so much as see myself there. Since I don't consider myself & my personality/preferences/ideals objectively superior, I can't pretend the ideals in the movie are actually 'superior' to any others; I just love them and not others.

I can't easily think of a lot of books/movies I actually -approve- of as such, though I suppose if I thought about it, all those would have a heavy dose of myth-centeredness as part of the story (`The Last Unicorn', `Peter Pan', `The Princess Bride', `Willow'). These are the movies that mean the most to me, but that's because they match my own interior landscape, which is often amoral (though I don't think of myself as immoral, quite), and basically more concerned with emotion & imagination than with facts or judgements.

My other favorite movies are `Ferris Bueller's Day Off', `The Breakfast Club', `Stand by Me', `E.T.', `Star Wars', etc. None of these are romances (except maybe `The Princess Bride'). I love romances like `Mad Love'-- about the madness and obsessive darkness of love. I also love a lot of romantic comedies, even eating up stuff that has Tom Cruise in it, say, 'cause I stop thinking when I watch-- but I don't -love- these movies. I suppose I did love `Four Weddings and a Funeral' & `Bridget Jones', for their Britishness if nothing else. But those first bunch of movies-- they're often about (teenage or childhood) rebellion against authority, friendship and heroism in some sense. Again, this is what I identify with rather than what I think should be some sort of ethical stand for society at large. I'm a rebellious miscreant (or, was)-- so naturally I love movies about people like me ;))) I just don't relate to things on a moral level very often, I guess. *sigh* In fact, if I think a movie is actually amoral or is pro anarchy, I'm more likely to love it :>

Yeah, it pisses me off when people slag off characters for shallow/stupid reasons too. Grrr, bad logic & false arguments. Grrr. However, uh... people are stupid ^^;;;;;

I kind of accept that American movies are generally made by sell-out shallow faux-liberal lowest-common-denominator-pandering sex-obsessed capitalist pigs, and always were. :D There's some good stuff, though. That's pretty amazing, all things considered :D I'm so zen. Just ask malafede, ahahahah.

I do think lots of people choose things over what they think of as their romantic love. People's temperaments are different, which is basically what defines how they act on whatever emotion they feel; I wouldn't say their love is less real-- just that it's less 'classic'.

Stalking, btw, is an old old -old- sign of 'love'. That obsessiveness thing again ;)) Love is creepy, man. Mmmm, love ;)) (Heh, my amorality is showing again ^^;;;)

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

It's not that I judge a story on basis of the values it pertains, so much as it is about how if it's values I absolutely cannot get behind, it destroys -or at the very least disturbs- my enjoyment of the story. To use the Nanira-chronicles as an example, I have a passionate Love/Hate relationship with those. When I was a child I simply love them, and even as I read them as adult I completely get why I did, because the books are well-written and the magical world Lewis present -especially in the books The Magician's Nephew and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is simply amazing. Even as adult I'm drawn to this world where you throw something on the ground and a tree grows up from it, and what child wouldn't dream of finding Narnia, instead of the wardrobe-wall, when playing hide and seek? But still, the values Lewis feeds his readers with, are so extremely conservatist, sexist and racist, that it really bugs me when reading the books, that he expects me, the reader, to just share them or buy into them. And I'm not talking about the religious message here, which I don't really have a problem with, even though I'm not your token Christian; I'm talking about things he says straight-out in the text -that bullying is allowed to go on in a school, because it's a school led by lefties women, and that anyone who disagrees with the heroes in the books, like Caspian for instance, is condemned to live the rest of his life in misery, no matter how good reasons he had for disagreeing in the first place. Lewis is not exactly subtle about his ideas of right and wrong, either.

Otoh, I never like a story because it has values that I can get behind. If the story is poorly executed, and the values I happen to agree with, are clumsily thrown in my face, I'll shudder and dislike the story too, only it won't upset me, it'll just be a matter of me cringing at poor writing/execution.

Neverending Story, love that book, have you read it? I guess to me, identification and "approving" can often be the same thing -not always of course, but when it comes to jugding which stories I like, it often is. That is, a story can have an ambiguous message, meaning that I don't necessarily see the protagonist making the right decision, but as long as I feel that the author is letting me make up my own mind, and not trying to force me to swallow a message I can't get behind, I have no problem with it. I see some of my favourite stories like that, in fact. Like Life is Beautiful. The protagonist there makes a life choice that I see a morally ambiguous, and I think it could be questioned, but I don't see the message of it as being that you have to approve of it; rather I think the director is just showing us one praticular life-choice, without passing judgment himself, he lets the audience do that. And so it becomes very interesting to me.

Since I don't consider myself & my personality/preferences/ideals objectively superior,

Well, I don't see mine as objectively superior, either, I just see them as subjectively superior.;-) Honestly, until this discussion, I thought everyone saw their own as such.:D

'cause I stop thinking when I watch

I don't think I can do that anymore. Not completely. There's always an emotional and an intellectual part of me watching a movie. I'm a bit envious of you I think. But only a bit.;-)

Stalking, btw, is an old old -old- sign of 'love'.

Noooo!;D It's an old myth that it's a sign of 'love'. But in reality it's a sign of pigheadedness, and what's worse, not respecting the other person's free will. Sorry, feeling very strongly about this, having had the misfortune of meeting assholes who think they know me wants better than I do. I don't believe in love without respect.