~~ collars. it's all about the collars.

I've had an odd realization-- which is probably only interesting to me, seeing as it's a bit of quibbling on my internal terminology, but ah well. That's what I'm here for, right. Right.

I've thought that one of my archetypal interests was the journey & transformation of 'The Monster'-- whatever/whoever is feared and loathed and made into a symbol of the Dark within a particular story/legend. This kind of archetype could manifest as a vampire or a murderer or even someone 'alien' like the present day prejudice against the queer, for instance. And while it's true that's an interesting subject, I think what I'm really fascinated with is 'The Beast'-- or rather, everything beastly and dark and dangerous (for it is untamed) within any and all characters.

I don't know if I'm particularly happy with dwelling on characters that are already labelled 'dark' or frightening, which is probably one reason I've never been particularly attracted to villains in fiction. I'm much more drawn to ambiguity and the inner struggle with one's darkness than the outer struggle with others' perception of that darkness. So 'the Beast' seems a more apt metaphor-- because, indeed, we all have the shadow of the Beast within us, since it's basically the Id. It's a difference of direction.

Really, I'm obsessed with the workings of the Id in every which way, but it's especially delicious when that unknown Dark within has an outer manifestation-- as in Remus, for instance, because it's especially stark when one's 'other' self is subdued, closed-in, maybe even kind in a way. That's why, perhaps, I've always loved The Beast (in Beauty and the Beast) and it's been a favorite type of fairy-tale for as long as I remember, along with The Frog Prince (which has a similar theme, actually) and The Snow Queen (yet again, with the redemption of the beastly little boy by pure devotion, though none of these boys were truly monstrous).

When I was little, the idea of love making the impossible possible was what most fascinated me about the romances in in the stories I read. That transformation, perhaps, is the very definition of the sublime-- to convert, to render finer, to elevate. And in making the transformation literal, the story acquires a sort of mythic resonance-- in making the Beast into a Man, of course Beauty learns to love truly, where love isn't blindness unless blindness is forgetting to see and learning to see past.

( Oh my god, I'm a sap. )

~~ wherein Reena is clearly so Slytherin it hurts.

It's odd to realize that I don't know -why- I talk about Draco so much. I mean... I don't think it's 'cause 'omg I love him so' or anything. The off-the-cuff immediate answer that came to me is 'because he's a thorn in my side', which makes me laugh, though it's not precisely true. I just seem to identify with different aspects of him than like, anyone else I've ever met. Mostly 'cause his emotional responses are pretty darn hypothetical anyway, and it seems like people are more interested in someone's behavior or surface demeanor-- and it's not like I'm disinterested in those aspects of a person-- if I like them. But I don't like Draco's behavior or his demeanor. I don't even like his emotions-- I just know where he's coming from. He's in my head, so I talk about it. Is that weird?

Yeah, okay, I know it is.

( I should just stop reading... stuff. Yeah, it's the same-old-same-old, move along plz. )

~~

So (when not ranting about the bloody obvious and beating up dead stinky horses), I've been thinking about the way the readers picking sides in the books translates into different definition of what is 'normal'.
    Now, 'normal' is already a messed-up concept, but it's just plain odd to introduce the whole question of the 'normative experience' angle into literary discussion, though I keep seeing it happen. You take an interpretation, decide that it defines 'canon pov', and then not only does it become canon, but it's injected to become objectively normative within canon.... Which is actually amusing to me because everyone admits HP canon is written in a biased third-person-limited pov without a consistently clear authority, especially given these are mystery novels (so the narration can't be fully 'normative' by definition), but this is conveniently forgotten when it comes time to define terms as to what's within the bounds of 'canon' and what's outside them. Actually, it's also amusing when you remember the series is an unfinished one so you technically can't say anything's outside the bounds of canon until it's over. Ah well.

In particular, I don't think you could get away with saying "Slytherins are abnormal" because then you'd be using the near-arbitrary definition of the House system (which seems to be based on where the student feels most drawn to when they're 11) and some supposedly 'opposite' set of traits, namely 'Gryffindor', to define normality. Normal people are a myth the so-called abnormal people help perpetuate, anyway. I'm trying not to start going on about 'no more Affirmative Action for Slytherins!' but it's hard.

( I worry me, I really do. )