~~ so unpithy it hurts.

[reenka]

It is incredibly odd to realize that if I were 10 years younger, I'd be shipping Draco/Ginny right now. I know this with rather high certainty. I almost yearn for my never-to-be-written grand Draco/Ginny epic, ahahaha, naturally to be unfinished (I never finished -anything- at 16).
    That was random. I really was (still am...?) a ridiculous silly over-romantic doofus since before adolescence, even. Anything the least bit archetypal and grand gets my vote, in the end. If it seems likely & reasonable, I'm just going to die of boredom (though mind you, complete chaotic irrationality is boring too-- it's walking the border of possibility that's the thing). Which is probably why I'm not the best person to write a ship manifesto :D :D

The main problem with Draco/Ginny is the Draco characterization it seems to imply (though of course my Draco would still be the brat-- pairing Draco/Ginny is really about sulky brat/sunny brat). Lately I've been wondering how exactly people get the idea that Draco is (or could be) icily composed again.


It is just -so- weird to me that I can't stop questioning it. Like, I can see repressed in some ways (that is, insincere and mocking), I can see him pretending things (like with Buckbeak), and I can see him trying to be Slytherin-- and failing. But failing. He's just so bloody transparent, no matter what, isn't he? I mean... he's not transparent to -Harry- (so it does depend on who you ask), but that's because Harry's got corresponding blind-spots & issues, and he seems -determined- to interpret Draco to fit his prejudices, and, well, vice versa. That's why they're so beautiful together, blahblah.
    I suppose 'fake' and 'mean' translates to 'composed' in some people... but not all, right? Sometimes that just means you're an emotionally manipulative drama queen, i.e. Draco.

It's just really weird to keep reading fics where Draco 'flowers' into this stiff-upper-lip type person. I mean, he doesn't always have to whine (in canon, either) or anything-- not about being hexed by Harry, for instance-- but then, he just lets out his frustration by making fun of his tormentors, he doesn't get all distant. If he got 'distant' as part of growing up, where would all this frustration go...? If he didn't express his anger outwardly, what would be the outlet? I mean, he couldn't become introspective (and therefore inwardly focus frustration) from stress, could he? Like, that distancing at the end of OoTP is a sign of depression, in Harry at least, but Harry was always more introverted.

I mean, it's so simple for me-- Draco takes things out on other people. He feels bad about something (Potter getting attention, say), so he tries very light sabotage, but mostly just heckles and jeers-- he expresses himself through the most basic ploys for attention. I mean, he doesn't act -sincere- or anything-- he just lets the negative emotions out by, well, bullying and taunting. A truly arrogant, dismissive person would need to actually not care about the opinions of 'those plebes'-- whereas Draco clearly does, since he tries to get their goat over and over and get them down to his level (driving Harry to violence was probably unintentional, but he must have wanted Harry to blow up).

What really frustrates me is that I see 'icy' and 'superior' described as characteristics of in character Draco, which makes me feel decidedly delusional (then again, I only agree with sistermagpie on fanon/canon matters most of the time, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise). *sigh* But really the point of this ramble was to convince myself that I wasn't insane & that Draco wasn't sekritly giving signs of being icily composed while I wasn't looking. 'Cause sometimes the fanon plays tricks on one's mind, and one must have constant vigilance, man.

It's just. I don't think I'm a stickler for canon in terms of Draco... I just get confused about what exactly most people who write Draco (in H/D in particular) -think- of Draco and what sort of mental process leads them to the arrogant-jaded-and-icy-aristocrat archetype over and over again. Why? basically. My brain just freezes when I try to understand that leap of logic, so I guess I should stop. Though if any of you reading feel canon Draco is generally controlled and unemotional, I'd appreciate knowing why.
~~

Also, this tangent is only vaguely related to Lasair's post about `The Gift' Buffy episode.... But it got me to think about characters doing things which are 'understandable' (considering their history) but not 'right' considering some objective ideal of what people 'should' do in a given situation to satisfy the greater good (if that applies).

That is, Buffy was willing to destroy the world 'cause she couldn't bear to make her sister a sacrifice so it could continue-- she was definitely operating on a code that applied to her and only her. That is, you couldn't say that someone else 'should' have done what Buffy did, 'cause it was all tied up in her own pov (which is the definition of selfishness, I suppose).

The question for me is-- why does the societally-imposed ethical system intrinsically trump an individual's sense of personal 'rightness'?


Of course, the idea of a 'greater good' as opposed to survivalism is rather basic as far an ethical system-- though most people would choose the most instinctually self-preserving option if trapped, I'm guessing. I suppose it just seems unfair to expect people whose world view doesn't match a certain model to include any given 'law'-- like, the whole world of BtVS doesn't operate upon the concept of mercy, really-- it's all about eliminating threats and doing what has to be done and 'protecting the innocent' by the innocent (girl).

That is to say, no matter if one's committing a 'good' or 'evil' act, one's acting out of the personal belief that one is justified or right on some level, even if it's an entirely emotionally-driven level. I think in a way, the whole world of BtVS conspired to produce Buffy and many of her flaws & strengths-- the Watcher Council was pretty corrupt, the vampires just kept coming and were proclaimed to have no souls, many of Buffy's patrols required split-second life-and-death decisions which were left up to her. She learned to go with what 'felt' right. She wasn't counseled in any sort of spiritual or larger system of thought-- she was basically a killing machine. So it should be no surprise that she chose selfishly when pushed to her limits-- she had no solid ethical foundation which to draw upon, therefore any 'law' (spoken by her Watcher or the viewer) would be extraneous and ultimately futile.

People kill because they think the other person 'deserves' to die (making it right) and other people condemn them for the same reason. And if one disregards one's personal code of ethics to adopt some imposed system which exist to tell its followers how to act, how does one ever -know- how to act if that system were to be threatened or even demolished by unprecedented circumstances...? If one lived one's whole life according to a 'holy' mercenary mind-set where violence and self-preservation went hand in hand, how does one know how to behave like a truly just being?

Because that's the basic precept of morality, isn't it? The idea that there are some things people -should- do (or even -be-), regardless of personal circumstance or feeling-- and that's precisely what I can't quite accept.

It reminds me of why I always thought I -had- no conventional sense of 'morality'. I only know what feels right to me, no more or less than that-- and I can't ever be sure that I'm capable of honestly prescribing behavior for others, though sometimes I think I'd be good at it because it's hard to resist thinking I -am- right in my 'hunches', even though I do my best to second-guess myself.

It's like... we have our ordinary lives, our circumstances-- and we only know what we know because we were so lucky (or unlucky). Our gut reactions aren't all drawn from circumstance, but our knowledge of ethics-- that's circumstantial, isn't it? And isn't the knowledge & awareness of 'the greater good' something that's not inborn? It seems like most politicians have no idea of it, certainly. Learning to value the -world- and not just one's own self & family (or clan)-- I would say that most of us haven't learned that, and in her behavior in privileging her sister over... everyone else Buffy was quite typically human, actually.

Man, now I know why I stay away from ethics classes. My head hurts.
~~

Btw, this is beautiful. Omg, Kirk Not For President!!1 No, you don't understand, it's BEAUTIFUL. heh. cellia, this link's for you <3 *DIES OF GEEKDOM* (Omg, mating ritual!!1)

Comments

[shaggirl.livejournal.com]

Am up way to late to make sense probably, but I think Stiff Upper Lip!Draco would require an absolute *breaking* of canon!Draco to achieve. Like, to the point he doesn't care about anyone's opinion anymore, doesn't have the energy to snipe over pretty shit, etc. But that's not the SUL!Draco that normally gets written. I think the authors are trying to give him credit for being young and impulsive in canon, but I can more easily see him continuing to be rather petty in his thinking, even if he does gain impulse control.

*crawls to bed*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, but it's a long winding road from basic 'impulse control' to... er... good and heavy (iced over!) control, no? What really makes me go "o_0" isn't that it's fanon, but that people think it's canon (that is, Draco is calculating & emotionally distant)... which....mraaaaaah.

But yeah, it's that introversion vs. extraversion conversion (heh) that really confuses me :> I can see the breaking though. Kinda scary if you think about it o_0 Poor Draco, his spirit taken from him. Eep.

[cellia.livejournal.com]

MY TICKET THIS YEAR IS KIRK/SPOCK!!!!
When will the Mudd-slinging end I ask? I just hope they don't start harping on Kirk's womanizing again: It has nothing to do with his politics unless he's seducung them into a peace treaty people!

As for all the ethical questions up there, man, I think you might actually love a philosophy survey course. Read and talk about that kind of stuff all day. I remember from mine that many of your questions are addressed by different thinkers--all with different answers o'course!


I think it was an unthinkable choice in "The Gift" and Buffy basically couldn't face it. I was a little sad, because it was the start of twisting some of the things I liked best about Buffy in the early seasons into the painful crappy limp towards death that the last seasons were. But-- at the time-- it didn't make me dislike her character.

As for the "it made Buffy human" argument... gah. I never doubted she was human before. It's also annoying to me that what is considered "humanizing" really seems to be all the worst and weakest things in us. Can't the things that make us *more* than selfish sociopaths or selfish children be "humanizing"? (Like striving for goals and trying to be our best and care for all other beings)


The question for me is-- why does the societally-imposed ethical system intrinsically trump an individual's sense of personal 'rightness'?

Foolishly, I take a stab at this question.

Because my personal sense of rightness might say that it's fine to pollute the river where the poor people live as long as it's legal, I make a load of $$ and me and my kind live an ocean away. Or maybe that it's fine to kill the guy who stole my wallet. Or that it's fine to beat my wife. Or other not nice things that seem reasonable or desirable at the time.

Not that the "societally-imposed ethical system" will always be better, but at least you'll have more than just one person who thought the system was a good idea. There's also history behind it--so people have been pondering the system and picking at it for awhile. Most people will not have the spare time to reinvent 100s of years of philosophical thought to come to the conclusion they would've come to, had they had the time and various experiences. So there's a better chance of it being a kinder mechanism for everybody.

And why it's "better": basically, I think it's because we live among other people. So our sense of rightness affects them as well. And, unless you hold that others, or subsets of 'em, are unimportant/valueless (which some people might)... well, golden rule.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...Y'know, I've actually seen Kirk/Spock-for-President buttons & press-ons for years. Next time, I'll get one for you, ahahahah :D :D

*sigh* Yeah, I'm attracted to lots of philosophy courses, but then I take them & they require loads of actual -reading- which makes my head hurt from the procrastination & weightiness. I'm rather skittish when it comes to poring over difficult texts, ahahah. Er. *coughs* But yeah, that was all written when I was half-asleep so I realized it wasn't anything groundbreaking but blathered on as I always do regardless ^^;;;

Oooh, I *heart* you for indulging me with it, though, 'cause like... er... it's just you and SM at this point (and actually, in general 2-3 people is about the size of my pool, here)~:))
I guess I mostly meant that not in a sense of 'is it possible to judge actions objectively' but rather, how do you -know- on a more meta sense, rather than the specific sense...? Like, the people on a jihad or crusade are completely convinced they're doing the Right Thing, and so are the Communists and such-- so I guess the questions are more interesting when it's less black & white than just "kill the guy who stole your wallet", y'know?

Like, Communism, Nazism, Catholicism (*coughcoughcough*)-- all these are socially-imposed systems which are pretty delusional, right. I mean, yeah, clearly there are better odds, but even so-- there's always going to be another system (for Communists, there are Capitalists) who'll radically disagree. Like... I've never seriously seen a society that operated based on the Golden Rule. Sure, it's a great precept, but who abides by it, really? In reality, it's much more dog-eat-dog than that, and especially in Buffy's reality (I think I tried to say/mumble).

But of course I agree with you that in -practice-, it's often clear what to do whether you go by individual judgement or what's 'legal' or whatever-- that is, especially in clear-cut cases like the ones you mentioned (pollution, eye-for-an-eye, etc). But what about when it's less clear, when you have the Golden Rule break down...? How was Buffy supposed to use that rule, y'know? How are we supposed to use that rule in dealing with Communists who may or may not be Out To Get Us, etc.

I didn't really mean to make the "it made Buffy human" argument-- I meant that to judge her negatively-- that is to say, to hold an ethical superiority over her-- would be to imply that one can expect human beings to behave differently in some sort of normalized order, which I don't know if they would, I guess...?

blah blah blah...

[cellia.livejournal.com]

...Y'know, I've actually seen Kirk/Spock-for-President buttons & press-ons for years. Next time, I'll get one for you, ahahahah :D :D

OMG please! I love how it's "Kirk-slash-Spock," as well. :D

I like to comment here (if, um, I ever have anything to say) 'cuz I feel like I can just say whatever. ^^

I remember philosophy course reading... ugh. yeah. Much slogging through difficult/dense texts.

Hmmm, but actually, I recommend you read some Kirkegaard. I think he's very readable and understandable and pretty words. Vague memory here, but I think he also gets points for good internal logic (ie his opinions don't actually all contradict each other) even though I disagree with some stuff. One of the things he muses on is Abraham's binding of Isaac and what differentiates a saint from a madman. (Which kinda relates to the Buffy and Dawn thing... if you squint, but also gets at the question of fanatics doing what they believe is right.)


I guess I mostly meant that not in a sense of 'is it possible to judge actions objectively' but rather, how do you -know- on a more meta sense, rather than the specific sense...?

Man, you are making me reach into my vague phil class memories. I think (ag, don't take my word on this) Kant has this idea that eventually you get down to 1st principles--like "truths that you hold to be self-evident" but that couldn't be proven. Then you rationally build from those gut truths. Like... there's no real "proof" I can give that human life is valuable, and a shark (or sociopath) would probably disagree, but if I go with that idea I can decide on the badness of murder and stuff from there.

Most of the philosophers I read agreed that humans have certain gut morals, and I agree to an uncertain extent. The hard trick is always being willing to investigate every step from your 1st principle to your conclusion, and then if all your conclusions seem to be a little wonky, reexamining your 1st principle to see if that's really what you believe.

But that's the basis for a personal moral/ethical system, which I think is a very different one from a social construct like communism, nazism... Actually, I think in it's purest theory form, communism was very golden-rule-ish--which is probably why it often fails (though I don't think russia had anything really like pure communism). It just doesn't work as a social organizational system if everybody isn't 100% sincere and has fewer fail safes for corruption etc.

It's one thing to try to be all golden-rule yourself, it's another to assume that everyone else will be. But that doesn't mean you (and your society) can't hold it up as something worth being, even if reality will always fall short and there need to be legal failsafes.

Um. what was I talking about again? *ramble ramble ramble*

How was Buffy supposed to use that rule, y'know?

Well, she could have asked herself: if this were some other girl and her sister, would I want that girl to save her sister's life if it meant the whole world (this now including me, my sis, my buds) falling into a hellpit? Like, imagine herself being one of the people she condemned to hellpit for her sis.

I think the thing this asks of someone is to stand outside themselves--the imagination at the heart of empathy and sympathy. *Of course* Buffy wants to let the whole world burn to save her sis. I'm sure if I ever have a kid I'll feel the same. But all those millions of other people whose lives'd be traded have sisters and loved ones too, and should "count" in some way.

And because that was so deep I must now balance that out with tv sharing. I just watched Shatner on Boston Legal and HE ROCKS (as does Spader). These are slick, quirky baddies that are entertaining to watch (and I root for 'em too ^^;;) Also, I saw an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger: so lame and bad, but it still made me tear up /shame.

Re: blah blah blah...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You could totally say whatever! <3 In fact... anyone can totally say whatever (BUT SHHHH IT'S A STATE SEKRIT, DON'T WANT THE HORDES TO COME KNOCKING, OMG!!1)

The saint vs. madman thing sounds really interesting, ahahhah, and that's where I was going by saying, but what should -Buffy- do-- considering that she's a holy-mercenary/fanatic type of a certain sort, really. She's got her Holy Mission, right, but that kinda sets her apart from humanity, too-- she'd already made that 'unthinkable choice' and thought about the world (and killed Angel) and so on, and these barriers & morals had slowly been crumbling under the weight of her just not being about to -handle- them. Like, I guess what I mean is, she's not 'normal', and doesn't do normal 'ethical' things day-to-day-- she kills things based on her own personal judgment, no one to really answer to, man. That's got to warp one's head. Does my worldview/ethics even -apply- to her situation unfiltered...? I mean, I'm not sure.

I get what you're saying about the "gut principle"-- and in this case, Buffy's gotten rather good at trusting her gut, 'cause it's what saved the day so many times, if nothing else-- and I think in the end, that's what drove her to say she'd just choose Dawn over everyone. That was her gut, and her gut was twisted with grief and despair and desperation and such. In such a situation, where the whole world is basically acting wonky & Buffy herself is unstable, what could you really trust anymore...? If that 'gut' basic knowledge wobbles, what's left? Only the outside imposed ethical system, which Buffy never really listened to anyway, by virtue of her calling if nothing else (saint vs. madman...).

Stepping away from oneself is vital, yes, but.... Is it really always possible...? Can you say she -should- have, as if anyone could have in her place...? And if she's supposed to be 'better' than everyone else, that goes back to the "but she's not" refrain. HEHEHEH. MAN, WE'RE SO DEEP & INTIMIDATING >:D *coughs*

...SHATNER WAS ON BOSTON LEGAL??? WITH JAMES SPADER??? I... I... I can only imagine :D :D Oh god, James Spader. One of my few actor crushes. Mannnnnn, he's fine :O
Slick, quirky baddies, you say /:)
THE IDEA OF SHATNER AS SLICK/QUIRKY BADDIE MAKES ME LAUGH AND LAUGH :))

Re: blah blah blah...

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Stepping away from oneself is vital, yes, but.... Is it really always possible...? Can you say she -should- have, as if anyone could have in her place...? And if she's supposed to be 'better' than everyone else, that goes back to the "but she's not" refrain. HEHEHEH. MAN, WE'RE SO DEEP & INTIMIDATING >:D *coughs*

Well, yeah it's not easy. The point is not measuring if 68% of people would do the "right thing" in the same situation. The point is watching our heroine struggle with the dilema. There was a horrible choice, but with one option that was pretty clear-cut the better for humanity as a whole.

Buffy, in the context of the story, is presented to us as the hero--on a daily basis being better than most of us just be risking her life to protect people. The general flow and pov of the show presents her as hero. Flawed and human, okay, but the story makes me want to see her at least *striving* for the best thing, pain and horribleness aside. The thing that was so disappointing is that she didn't struggle with the choice. She just said "no" and went into denial mode. "sorry, little people no longer count." Perhaps realistic and human frailty etc etc, but in the context of the themes/symbols underlying the basic storytelling of the series--not very moving or interesting. Just kind of aggravating and annoying.

I can't really bring Kirkegaard's thoughts on madmen and saints into it in Buffy's defense, because I don't have that extra necessary element of faith that reaches beyond reason, that allows someone to see the difference (if it exists). I don't really know where it's place in a discussion would be anyway. "This is right and I will not budge?" A knowingly irrational 1st principle... seems more likely to be dumb than divine to me.

I think Abraham was doing a Bad Thing in the binding of Isaac. I don't have the faith necessary to think that an 11th hour random save will come. (I know faith is supposed to be wonderful and all, but it always seems like one person's faith almost always endangers *others*, and they'll also be the ones paying if that faith turns out to be untrue.)

YOU MUST WATCH BOSTON LEGAL. 10PM SUN. SHATNER AND SPADER ARE REGULAR CHARACTERS. They are so... morally challenged, not evil... amoral, but they don't pretend like they aren't and it is very amusing to see them hang out with each other and slither brilliantly around all the other people around them.

and my 2 cents on Draco

[cellia.livejournal.com]

I comment again.

I think the icilycomposed!Draco is a result of one stereotype bleeding into another.

Take:
Blond+Rich+AristocraticFeel+KindaWitty+Baddie

And you'll get different fanon results depending on your trope.

For many, I think they need to strenghten Draco to make him a cool romantic lead. Not make him nicer or more moral, just... less embarassing to hang out with. Which, um, I totally get. ^^;;

Though, I'm kinda fond of the bitch!Draco found in many ff.net fics, but there's also a high crossover with veela!Draco, so I don't know if you'd be down with those...

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe "less embarrassing to hang out with" = *dead*
Too true. But like, if you take away his rage (STILL A RAT IN A CAGE!!) er... where was I... anyway, if you take that away, what remains to make him, y'know, interesting? Every character must have their 'driving force', yes? In canon, Draco's driving force is... the need to prove himself, jealousy, the need for attention, resentment & the inability to face defeat. I dunno, all his deeper motivating factors seem to incite him to fits of... something or other. It's not like Hermione, where she wants justice & knowledge & attention (and to prove herself-- actually, a lot of people want that but go about it differently)-- but Hermione's actually competent. Draco's not-so-competent, so... it seems more like if you gave Draco confidence based on some accomplishment or other it'd work out much much better than just giving him more of a facade, which doesn't address anything and instead takes away his... central force of personality to some extent.

I totally dig veela!Draco (...when written remotely well), though the very thought of ff.net makes me gibber and twitch~:))

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[cellia.livejournal.com]

I totally dig veela!Draco (...when written remotely well)

haha define "remotely well"

But I love the ff.net fics. They still seem so sincere and earnest and having fun. Hee. One I read recently had just discovered the word "sexily." Suddenly, Draco was doing everything "sexily"... laughing, walking, smirking. And the word was often underlined for reasons unknown to me.

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahahah!! Well. By 'remotely well' I mean... I like Michael Serpent's Veela fic, and didn't Lady Vader write one...? And then there's that hot PWP I keep running across (not ff.net, clearly) where Draco goes into heat & just... runs into Harry... well, there's no plot, but it's hot 'cause he just can't help himself (YES) and Harry's like 'heyyyyy' and it's like, he can't even stand to be -too near- Harry but Harry's oblivious and basically Draco jumps him. It's great. Love the out-of-control thing. Have major issues with bad writing, so I need to be really desperate. And also tentative about making said sacrifice unless porn is involved :>

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[cellia.livejournal.com]

I NEED LINKS

I have love for badfic

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heheh `Whole (http://www.geocities.com/owrai_fics1/hd/whole.htm)' is the pr0n Veelafic, Lady Vader's fic is here (http://www.livejournal.com/community/seekertoseeker/28784.html#cutid1) & here (http://www.livejournal.com/community/seekertoseeker/29059.html#cutid1), and um, `Milk Is My Sugar (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1428955/1/)' is the one on ff.net ~:)) heeee

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Reading "Whole" suggests an answer to the calm/collected Draco--he's obviously just smoking a ton o' pot.

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...Draco just needs to relax, clearly ~:))!
...And does Harry.
See, there's all these fics where they do acid, but really they just need some good old weed :D :D :D :D

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[malafede.livejournal.com]

where they do acid

WTF? REALLY? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S GOTH AND UNDERGROUND? But... pot... want to read pot fic. Can you imagine the trips wizards have? "Herbology". Our H/D smoked proper Belladonna at least. <3

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Another shake of the raven head as tears spilled over the verdant depths and Draco gathered him close to speak directly against his temple.

Harry cries *4* times in the Lady Vader one. 4.

So, now that I see where the bar is set, I think I can give you some veela recs. Hm. I think I'll make a comprehensive list. I don't think fandom has one, and god knows we need it desperately.

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Go for it, man! The fandom will love you!! :D :D
...Honestly, usually I HATE purple prose. I really only tolerate it so well with Lady Vader, and I DON'T KNOW WHY. I like her smut, though~:))!! ...But yeah, there's a lot of crying (on all sides) in her fics. There's just... a lot of of crying. You kinda have to accept that. And the fact that she doesn't know where to put a period. And the fact that she's clearly read WAY too many romance novels~:))!

I especially have a fondness for her spank-teh-Draco fic. Oh yes :D :D

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[malafede.livejournal.com]

*reads quote*

omg.

ahaha <3

Re: and my 2 cents on Draco

[malafede.livejournal.com]

... that is... seekertoseeker the super duper elite comm? omg. *trips*

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

i still cannot get over the shock of our local version of the "village voice" seriously recommending william shatner's new cd! they made fun of his earlier attempts, but somehow shatner's attitude and kirk-status attracted other real musicians and all of a sudden he went from laughable-crap-to-disregard to mentioned-in-the-same-breath-as-nancy-sinatra.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

HAHAHA HE SINGS, TOO??? OH THAT'S PRICELESS. I WANT THAT CD, MAN :D :D :D!!

the singing kirk

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

*lol* you really didn't know? yeah, while nimoy waved between "i'm not spock" and "i'm spock", shatner recorded an album, which was the laughingstock for a few decades. and now he did another one, with a cool producer and famous musicians *shakes head*

I'm.... DennyCrane

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Shatner has a new cd??!! I must buy! Thanks for the heads up!

Ok, as a "musician"... not what one would expect. But. Shatner is endlessly entertaining. His "Mr. Tambourine Man" cover can cheer me up like nothing else.

*recommends "Spaced Out"--the best of Shatner and Nimoy*

Re: I'm.... DennyCrane

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

*giggles* tambourine man as well?! now i really really want to hear it, baaad cellia!

Cast your dancing spell my way...

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Mr Tambourine Man! :D

Re: Cast your dancing spell my way...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

fadj,hlkhkj hSO DEAD!!1

the indominable mr. shatner

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

*lol* you are too late - i actually downloaded it and could not stop laughing! the only other one i now have is "i am canadian" :D

Re: Cast your dancing spell my way...

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

booh, can't open either of them, and the singalong/kirk is also gone *wobbly lower lip*

[anaid-rabbit.livejournal.com]

Canon! Draco is a very emotional person, so emotional he comes off as almost childish in his actions. Lucius seems more of a Stiff Upper Lip!person and I can se him being impatient with Draco because of his inability to control himself in certain situations that would require a more... Slytherin subletly. So I don`t get where this characterizacion of fanon!Draco that you`re talking about comes from either... Maybe it`s really a way to idealize him as a villain/antagonist/bad boy? Ideal anti-hero = suave, cool, witty, good looking, etc... *shrugs* If there`s one Malfoy that I would consider being "icy" and "distant" it would be Narcissa, for the little we know of her.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's funny to me that all these stories refer to the reason for Draco's uber-controlled behavior as being a result of Lucius' teachings or Draco's being "a Malfoy, and Malfoys..." when, y'know, he's such a sucky Malfoy & his father seems to be so disappointed in him. Draco's a disappointment, man. Har har (I take way too much pleasure in that). So if he -did- learn control, it would have to be something -besides- Lucius that'd push him.... Though I dunno if Draco's emotional or only emotional when he's upset (like a baby screaming when his candy's taken away)... but then, I can't imagine Draco just... stopping to be pissed off/upset at things o_0 Like in this one story where he realized that Potter was "just an irritant", ahahahahahah. Oh man, that's a laugh even thinking back on it.


*sigh* Good to know I'm not alone, at least~:)

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

The "I'm a Malfoy", and "Malfoys don't do that/do that" things that seem to prop up in every single Draco-fic, is Fanon, too, as far as I can tell. I mean, in all the five books we've never heard Draco say "I'm a Malfoy, and thus I'm like this". We hear him say "I'm Malfoy", with pride, when introducing himself, but that's different. And I suppose the "I'm a Slytherin", "I'm a Gryffindor" thing is Fanon, as well. The reason why these things bothers me, I guess, unless it's a humour fic that actually makes a little fun of these fanon tendencies, is because I don't think anyone labels themselves like that. I mean, most people label others, but find it harder to label themselves. So it's one thing for Harry to think "yeah, Slytherins are like this/Malfoys are like this", but it's another to have the Slytherins and the Malfoys to think that way about themselves. I mean, yes, obviously, they have traditions and expectations of themselves and all that stuff, but I very much doubt that Lucius gave Draco "information" about how Malfoys were, in the same breath as he told him how the Weasleys could get distinguished.

As far as Cold!Detatched!CalculatinglyManipulative!Draco is concerned, man, sooo Fanon! And it's definitely a pet peeve of mine, especially as people seem to think that they can write this kind of Leatherpants!Draco, and keep him IC, as long as they just make him evil, instead of good. Canon!Draco can be a bit calculating, yes, and a bit manipulative at times, but he's usually not very good at it. I mean the "Headmistress, I think a few of the squad should follow" is a bit of both, but Umbridge sees right through him, doesn't she? Most people seem to do, most of the time. And Draco is not one bit detatched and he seems to have quite a lot of feelings, even if they're usually negative and destructive. I bet he wishes he could be more like Fanon!Draco that way, because he wouldn't get hurt so much if he didn't feel, and he wouldn't have that nagging frustration that eats him away. If you're looking for a truly detatched character, you have Luna, and she's probably the closest you can come to Draco's direct opposite.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahahahaha Luna! Oh man, I'm not sure whether to be flattered (since Luna is so like me/my Mary Sue) or what :> :> This brings us to the hypothesis that perhaps you can't be detached unless you're introverted/asocial, which I don't think -anyone- claims Draco is. :D Though, I mean, I think Luna has lots of feelings-- just not related to other people :>

I was actually mostly confused 'cause there was this icon telling people what Draco Malfoy is not (how he's cold, calculating & the only part of Potter he wants is his head on a plate, thankyou), and I was like... er..... heh. When people start saying that's in character, I start going, "um... am I just... living in some alternate universe...?"

Though that bit about not being good at it implies that maybe he could be bumbling yet cold & calculating...?? Though those things really don't go together. At all. ^^;;
Yeah, it's that -transparency- that um... I find so... Draco, that I just don't see in the cold-ass!Draco. I mean, Harry's the only one who really doesn't 'get' the obvious things Draco does, it seems :>

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

This brings us to the hypothesis that perhaps you can't be detached unless you're introverted/asocial,

Oh, I do think you can be (isn't Remus quite a bit detatched, as well? And though he's introverted, and not perhaps always seeking contact, I wouldn't call him asocial...), but it may be less common.

Though, I mean, I think Luna has lots of feelings-- just not related to other people :>

Oh yes, about Crumble-horned snorkacks, for instance.;-) I think she has strong feelings regarding her parents too, the only time we see her get worked up is if someone derided what her father do, or the things she believes in.

I was actually mostly confused 'cause there was this icon telling people what Draco Malfoy is not (how he's cold, calculating & the only part of Potter he wants is his head on a plate, thankyou), and I was like... er..... heh. When people start saying that's in character, I start going, "um... am I just... living in some alternate universe...?"

Yes, one begins to wonder. But then there are those who will claim that any portrait of an unredeemed Draco is IC (the more EVIL, the more IC), as if every unpleasant person was just the same. No wonder the fics get crappy; anyone who thinks that writing a believable character is done by deciding that character X is Evil!, character Y is Good, character Z is a nut-case, etc, isn't very likely to be able to bring any sort of depth into the characters.

Though that bit about not being good at it implies that maybe he could be bumbling yet cold & calculating...??

Well, you can try to manipulate and not succeeding, aren't you at least a little bit manipulating in tha case? And if you try to calculate but aren't very successful, you would be more calculating than someone who doesn't even try coughlikeHarrycough, wouldn't you?

Heh, in my own fic Draco, himself, thinks he's so good at masking thoughts and feelings, and wonders if everybody else can read minds when they see though him.

You think Draco's transparency would be obvious, wouldn't you? But then, if you follow the discussions in this fandom, it seems that there's a whole lot of readers who aren't able to see through him...

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

What might be interesting maybe is a Draco from many years in the future where he has learned to control himself more, but then we see it's just that--something he's learned.

But the main thing about him, for me, is this overwhelming emotion. He's an incredibly emotional character. I guess people see that he *tries* to play it cool, like when Harry first rejects him he gets insulting, but those red spots are just standing out on his cheeks. I would have been able to cover my emotions far better at 11, and he can't. I agree with the above post about stereotypes--I think people honestly do just connect blond=icy and want to make him cooler.

But that's a shame because part of what's so great about him in canon is it's not that he's emotional like, say, Vernon. I mean, he doesn't just have a hot temper like Ron or even Neville when he flies at Draco. He doesn't haul off and hit people. It's more that he *is* standing still and taunting the other person in response, but instead of doing that with an icy, detached air (which is what he effects when he's feeling okay with the bored drawl and all) you have to be able to see that just underneath the surface he's all over the place. Hence the red spots on his cheeks and eyes that glitter.

Isn't it weird that a character that seems to most often be described as looking literally feverish becomes an ice king in canon? How does that work? Well, I guess it works the same way a character most often described as barely controlling his sadistic impulses (Harry) becomes a slave to his compassion!

Re: ethics, well, that's what so great about LOTR, imo. You've got Frodo AND Sam as heroes, and they represent those two sides of the equation. Frodo sacrifices everything for the all--if he had to, he'd have sacrificed Sam to destroy the ring. He sacrifices himself, certainly. He doesn't sacrifice Gollum, but he's not placing him over destroying the ring. Sam, otoh, chooses to save Frodo's dead body over destroying the ring. He makes what is exactly the wrong decision, but it winds up being the right one because he couldn't have made it on his own. So throughout the Quest there is no real set rule of morality, but the characters are shown to literally be *trying* to do what's right and probably ultimately going by instinct. Sam feels he should stay with Frodo, Frodo feels he shouldn't kill Gollum. Both of them are potentially making selfish decision.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Now I'm wondering if that "icy, detached air" when he's "feeling okay" is what people are jumping at-- that is, if he's only shown overreacting/acting out against Harry & people he's connected with, then if you take away his bitterness/bile/etc towards Harry, you've got someone who drawls and sneers and has more affectation than emotion...? It's like, all right, does he show emotion other than rage/irritation/frustration...? Maybe that's why all those fics show him as also cooler towards Harry-- 'cause if he make him not care about that, then... I mean, well, what's the point, but on the other hand it gives him a sort of power/leverage or something...? Except it also takes away the main reason to -pair- him with Harry (that is, their mutual obsession/animosity).

I mean, Draco's not so 'feverish' around his friends (in CoS) or his father (when we've seen them)... so maybe it's like... it's not so much that he's icy but that he's someone who 'blows up' but is otherwise likely to put on a show depending on the audience...? That's not 'icy' either but on the other hand that sort of playing for effect is a quality that could lead to eventual cover-up rather than suppression... like... he learn to overcompensate somehow...? This comes back to that 'what would adult!Draco be like' discussion we had all that time ago, which basically had no conclusion, of course. :>

The thing about LoTR made me wonder if it's less about individuals' ethics and more about the balance between them within a group or society-- like, everyone has their role to play. Like, you know, Gollum's ultimate selfishness was what eventually led to victory, though Frodo's self-sacrifice was also necessary. It's an equation, then, yeah-- so maybe it's like... a decision of that magnitude should never rest on the shoulders of just one person, because like, whenever it's just one point of view, it's bound to be corrupted, maybe...? No balance, right. And if there are multiple forces acting upon a situation, then, like... you create a stable enough system to succeed...? Am I even making sense...? :>

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

I tend to read mostly post-Hogwarts stuff, and generally post-Voldemort's-fall stuff, so icy!Draco makes sense there.

I always assumed that Lucius was disappointed in Draco's complete inability to not whine, and started "beating it out him" around age 13 or 14. (I have to say that I have a very hard time accepting the canon characters as being 16 in the fifth book, because they don't really act all that much differently from the way they did when they were 11, and that just seems bizarre to me. Of course, my mom died when I was 12, so maybe I have a screwed-up sense of how much people "should" mature over those years.) If Lucius went on a serious campaign to make Draco act more like the heir apparent to Voldemort's 2IC should (or Narcissa decided to start in on some serious etiquette training, since I've got to believe that Narcissa really *is* cool, composed, and competent all the time), then icy!Draco could very well be the result.

I agree with you that if someone's not moving more than a year or two away from canon, and they're not willing to explain their AU-upbringing for Draco, then icy!Draco doesn't really make sense, but it is a possible defensive mechanism for someone who's been exposed to too much Dark trauma at too young an age. (I know *lots* of people who use "good manners" as a way of dealing with situations they can't handle, including myself.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, you're right about icy!Draco maybe making more sense in the future, which is prolly why I avoid future-fics like the plague generally (besides the fact that they're not fumbly cute teenagers anymore). I'd actually made a post (http://www.livejournal.com/community/metapotter/4635.html) on the possibilities for adult!Draco awhile ago, and I've never actually come to any definitive direction he'd be most likely to take. Too many factors would totally change the direction of things-- like what happen with Lucius, how Draco gets treated, what Narcissa does, and whether Draco ever learns to actually think for himself (unlikely but possible). I've never really read a future-fic that fully sold me that the future Draco is really -Draco-, mostly because it's so difficult to refer to all the necessary backstory in a subtle enough manner and then there's the need to show at least something of how -this- grew from -that- and so on. It's just... even more of a challenge than writing canon!Draco, really, as far as I can tell, and most people can't even manage -that-. Heh, but I'm not bitter at all, as you can see :>

But yes, that does seem to be the justification I usually see-- that is, that Lucius' training would eventually 'get through' to Draco. Well, it's kinda too late now, though-- Draco doesn't seem very mature as of book 5, and Lucius is no longer in any position to waste time on parenting Draco (from Azkaban or if he escapes illegally). Draco always acted much younger than his age (which may or may not simply be a case of lazy characterization or whatever by his author), so for him, the jump would have to be sudden and extreme-- and I agree with shaggirl above that it would involve 'breaking' Draco to do it, especially now that the war is on and the gloves are off. Basically, there's no room left for a 'serious campaign' on Lucius' part anymore that I can see, which is partly why the whole thing makes so little sense to me-- and besides, is it not unusual for teenagers to -start- listening to their parents when they hit 16? It's more like the opposite, usually, isn't it? Well, it was for me, anyway. I mean, I've always held high hopes for Draco's potential rebellion-- it's the only thing likely to keep him from Azkaban, methinks, since otherwise he'll just be another Death Eater in the line of fire.

Plus, Draco already -has- a defense mechanism-- oblivion & transferrence of blame onto others (that is, it's -always- Potter's Fault). So it's not really about how he -could- be, but how he -is already- as far as I can see in canon. *sigh* Besides all this, I don't see -why- someone would want him icy since his main appeal in terms of personality (that I can see) is his very emotional nature-- if you take that away, what's so interesting about him, y'know? Just a clone of his nasty father.

Hahah though all this shows that perhaps I don't -want- to understand some of this reasoning 'cause I just reject it. *sigh*