~~ collars. it's all about the collars.
Dec. 5th, 2004 02:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI'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.
I was thinking, particularly, of my recent frustration with how difficult it is to make Harry respect Draco post-OoTP-- and it occurs to me that maybe respect is really a form of seeing without prejudice, of acknowledging someone's worth without the constraints of Ego, which speaks with the voice of fear. The Id fears as well, of course, but its fears can be overcome with a process of waking up-- of seeing what is invisible to the eye-- what is essential. The threat of death is nothing when one loves with one's whole heart, for one's fear is no longer for oneself. I believe that.
I love the Beast who is not a monster-- who is only a manifestation of his own internal fears. And once the Beast learns to see himself with kindness (and to love as he is loved), well-- he transforms. It's not so much that I think the human form is purer (in the fairy-tale), as I think it's simply recombined. The darkness is still there beneath the pretty face, but as long as he is loved, the Beast can wear that face without true fear of himself. I think... I think that in loving the Beast, the Hero changes not so much the Beast's nature (because he was always himself) as his self-perception. And when we believe we are beautiful-- and loved-- we change how we act towards others. We change in the ways that matter.
I think... well, it's easy to make the parallel about just why it was so important for Remus to have friends that loved & accepted him. That's what someone who perceives himself as the Beast thrives on, after all-- that acceptance. It really would be interesting to write/read an AU trying to extrapolate Remus's development growing up if he'd never become part of the Marauders. I wonder if he would've been-- not different in a blatantly worse way, precisely... but-- completely untamed. Deeply distrustful-- not so much unkind as unwilling. I don't know.
It really does appear that Remus was tamed, doesn't it? Sort of. I'm thinking of it in the sense it's used in `The Little Prince', which, btw, teaches one everything one needs to know about life as far as I'm concerned (heh). The Fox tells the Little Prince that one becomes responsible for what one has tamed-- but without that taming, there can be no connection. He could not play with the Fox when it was a wild Beast, but likewise the Fox said he needed the boy to tame him.
And to tame is to belong.
"For me you're only a little boy like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you have no need of me, either. For you I'm only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, we'll need each other. You'll be the only boy in the world for me. I'll be the only fox in the world for you..."
"I'm beginning to understand," the little prince said. "There's a flower... I think she's tamed me..."
The fox became silent and gazed for a long time at the little prince.
"I beg of you…tame me!" he said.
"Willingly," the little prince replied, "but I haven’t got much time. I have friends to discover and a lot of things to understand."
"One can only understand the things one tames," said the fox, "Men have no more time to understand anything. They buy ready-made things in the shops. But since there are no shops where you can buy friends, men no longer have any friends. If you want a friend, tame me!"
--Antoine de Sainte-Exupéry
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.
I was thinking, particularly, of my recent frustration with how difficult it is to make Harry respect Draco post-OoTP-- and it occurs to me that maybe respect is really a form of seeing without prejudice, of acknowledging someone's worth without the constraints of Ego, which speaks with the voice of fear. The Id fears as well, of course, but its fears can be overcome with a process of waking up-- of seeing what is invisible to the eye-- what is essential. The threat of death is nothing when one loves with one's whole heart, for one's fear is no longer for oneself. I believe that.
I love the Beast who is not a monster-- who is only a manifestation of his own internal fears. And once the Beast learns to see himself with kindness (and to love as he is loved), well-- he transforms. It's not so much that I think the human form is purer (in the fairy-tale), as I think it's simply recombined. The darkness is still there beneath the pretty face, but as long as he is loved, the Beast can wear that face without true fear of himself. I think... I think that in loving the Beast, the Hero changes not so much the Beast's nature (because he was always himself) as his self-perception. And when we believe we are beautiful-- and loved-- we change how we act towards others. We change in the ways that matter.
I think... well, it's easy to make the parallel about just why it was so important for Remus to have friends that loved & accepted him. That's what someone who perceives himself as the Beast thrives on, after all-- that acceptance. It really would be interesting to write/read an AU trying to extrapolate Remus's development growing up if he'd never become part of the Marauders. I wonder if he would've been-- not different in a blatantly worse way, precisely... but-- completely untamed. Deeply distrustful-- not so much unkind as unwilling. I don't know.
It really does appear that Remus was tamed, doesn't it? Sort of. I'm thinking of it in the sense it's used in `The Little Prince', which, btw, teaches one everything one needs to know about life as far as I'm concerned (heh). The Fox tells the Little Prince that one becomes responsible for what one has tamed-- but without that taming, there can be no connection. He could not play with the Fox when it was a wild Beast, but likewise the Fox said he needed the boy to tame him.
And to tame is to belong.
"For me you're only a little boy like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you have no need of me, either. For you I'm only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, we'll need each other. You'll be the only boy in the world for me. I'll be the only fox in the world for you..."
"I'm beginning to understand," the little prince said. "There's a flower... I think she's tamed me..."
The fox became silent and gazed for a long time at the little prince.
"I beg of you…tame me!" he said.
"Willingly," the little prince replied, "but I haven’t got much time. I have friends to discover and a lot of things to understand."
"One can only understand the things one tames," said the fox, "Men have no more time to understand anything. They buy ready-made things in the shops. But since there are no shops where you can buy friends, men no longer have any friends. If you want a friend, tame me!"
--Antoine de Sainte-Exupéry
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:25 am (UTC)On the other hand, I find the current that runs through the story highly disturbing. Love your abuser and he'll change? Come on, please.
(This is perhaps why I like the story so much. The undertones are just so damn dysfunctional.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:40 am (UTC)I mean, I do think anyone can change their behavior with the correct therapy/circumstances/care, but.... that was why I was making the differentiation between the 'monstrous' & the 'beastly'-- I think the monstrous would truly have to be seen as malevolent, while the beastly is merely wild, untamed, unfathomable, terrible (... like the faery are terrible and cruel and inhuman).
The theme-- which is clearer in the Frog Prince, perhaps-- is that the beast is actually not so bad, and it's the 'beauty' or the Princess that's really got something to learn. In the Frog Prince especially, the Princess is spoiled rotten, unable to appreciate the frog except as a tool to help her get something. I don't like it as much because she never falls in love with him as a frog-- she just throws him against the wall and he becomes a Man. I never understood how that worked or broke the spell, actually, and it's especially on in the versions where the spell's broken 'cause she -kisses- him. She doesn't even kiss him of her own free will! He begs her to-- actually no, he demands to sleep in the same bed as her after making her father the King displeased with her lack of manners, and then he demands she kiss him. Most unsatisfying, but eh, I'm easy.
Anyway, I think the archetypal storyline doesn't seem to apply abuse as far as I can see. I mean, the point seems to be that Beauty is able to love the Beast because she realizes he's not a 'true' beast at heart, thus the theme of true seeing & all that. Though I'd like the disfunctional version also, if there was one >:D Though that makes me think of `Red Riding Hood' rather than Beauty & the Beast :D
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:44 am (UTC)(Again, I love the story, really, but even the fact that he imprisons her is abusive in nature. She learns to like it, yes, but so do victims of Stockholm's.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:49 am (UTC)It reminds me of the Faerie Queen demanding 'payment' of the 'first child for a boon'-- I mean, is the fairy cruel or is the father reckless...? It's both, anyway. And I think in his wild, unloved state, the Beast is part of Faery and what with the (also rather archetypical) Garden he guards... he is pretty much a magical Creature.
I think I'm just saying I judge it as a fairy-tale, not a modern romance :>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:07 am (UTC)It's the same with something like Rapunzel who is taken as a baby as payment for her father's trespassing to fulfill her pregnant mother's wishes.
The one time I can think of the transgressor actually paying for something themselves is in The Frog Prince, where the princess is punished by her father to keep the deal she made. And even after unwillingly living up to her own word, she gets pissed off and throws the poor nice frog against the wall. And, thus, after abusing him, ends up with a nice handsome prince.
I just see it as a common theme. Pain leads to redemption/freedom. But the thing with fairy tales, when this is the theme, is that it's rarely ever the pain of the transgressor.
Oh, lord, this is making me eager for Witching Hour next year. John Cech! XD
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 03:16 pm (UTC)So it wouldn't make sense for the transgressor to go through this journey, because for them to go through it would be for them to become heroic, if that makes sense. Sometimes the transgressor does suffer too, but it tends to be quick and easy-- like in the Handless Maiden, the father who'd made the deal with the devil dies while the innocent child goes wandering through the world, handless. Only in the end does regrowth occur and she becomes a 'real woman'. So perhaps the way to see the Frog Prince is as a story about the Princess & her transformation rather than the frog's. That's also where I was going with Beauty & the Beast.
With Rapunzel-- while she is innocent & used by people unkindly and unfairly, the fairness comes in with the eventual 'payback' to the witch and the whole happy ending deal. It's just that there's a journey to that ending which involves Rapunzel getting more out of life than she ordinarily would have, and also learning more about herself and what she's capable of. I think the abuse angle just gets really shady for me 'cause it's a complex web of what one does after being asked, provoked, and as a way of setting up a subsequent reward. The reward/punishment duality is simplistic, but then these are fairy-tales :>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 05:25 pm (UTC)(Which in all makes me think that if fairy tales are supposed to be didactic, it's no wonder society is "collapsing.")
Anyway, to bring it back to the subject that you related it to, Remus, I don't think his "Beast" can be tamed. He'll never let it be. He's not tamed at all in the sense Draco is, domesticated to the point where Draco really can't cause any harm to anyone but with his mouth (even the detention he gets them into is from tattling). Draco adapts to his situation -- when he can -- and Remus, on the other hand, adapts his situation to him. It's in his self-interest to do so.
I have no idea if that makes any sense at all. My eyes are still blurry from sleep so I can't tell if I'm explaining enough. :D
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:30 pm (UTC)I suspect that a lot of the twisted porny versions of these stories were made because they're... um, fun. Ahahahaha omg, early porn >:D You -know- that's what that was >:D Ahaha oh, that's cracking me up right now, but think of it-- doesn't it sound like some sort of fannish kinkfic...? These sorts of plot-lines (non-con, pregnancy, forcible seduction, etc) keep reappearing because people like them for... erm... different reasons :D Which is to say, to get off, haha.
So yeah... I realize it's not always like that, and also that I was specifically looking at certain versions/types of stories because those were most useful to my overall favored archetypal theme, rather than being representative, I guess...? I didn't mean to claim they were representative, if any fairy-tale -can- be. Just that those sorts of variants were what I focused on, y'know?
With Rumpelstiltskin-- I know she -avoids- payment, but at least she doesn't push it off onto an innocent. Sure, she pushes it off on the actual Dark Creature (...though I'm not so sure he's that dark), but it's till a different solution, though obviously there's a million and one kinds of solutions 'cause there are so many variants. I do share your issues with the Frog Prince-- heheh, though I like the story, the whole impossible ease of the payoff and unfairness of the princess' lack of kindness bothered me. *sigh* But I'm just a sucker for the overall storyline it fits into :>
I was using the 'taming' in a completely interpersonal two-person-dynamic sense, though-- I didn't mean to imply it was a wide-ranging phenomenon that made one's whole behavior change. I was only referring to `The Little Prince' with my use of the term-- where 'tamed' just meant 'loved', and thusly belonging to the people/person who loves. And Remus certainly made enough concessions to Sirius and the Marauders that you could say he 'belonged' to them :>
But I didn't mean to imply he's domesticated-- or can be. It's a question of shifts of self-perception, not actual being. So yes-- I agree, Draco adapts himself while Remus adapts the situation-- though I'd claim he also adapted to some degree (I love the contrast there, though). It's not his 'Beast' that was tamed-- it was only his heart, which made him remain the Beast in a literal sense once a month, but shaped his development as a person quite definitively in the socialized direction, I think.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 05:07 am (UTC)*melts back in the crowd*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 05:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:32 pm (UTC)...I was also thinking of 'taming' Draco but I don't think it works very well. There's a lot of fics where Draco 'belongs' to Harry (likewise Harry belongs to him), but the dynamic is pretty different because there's no real 'beastliness' or 'wildness' this would overcome. Draco is a nasty little boy who's no danger to anyone but himself, plus he's already tame.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:41 pm (UTC)Good then. Still working for me, because of this:
"There's a flower... I think she's tamed me..."
And if he wasn't a monster in Harry's eyes, I don't think it would be so hard to respect him. Not wanking to get in a discussion of monsters now though, since I have my idea, you have yours, they are not mutually exclusive and just differently focused, blah blah blah. Plus, Draco's not tame. That's kind of funny.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:56 pm (UTC)It's hard for Harry to respect him in a whole complex of ways, it seems like. A bouquet, even. And it's all tied up with Harry seeing the name Malfoy as being equivalent to freak/bully/slimeball. Ahh, maybe it's just beyond me, but note that I've never seen anyone else do it 100% believably (in post-OoTP fic) in all this time. It's even harder while still in Hogwarts, without a 'break' first and without either of them growing up first. So it's not... I mean, the way one overcomes a false image is by seeing something in someone that contradicts it. Something beautiful and shining and real, something admirable.
So I wasn't denying Draco was a monster in Harry's eyes, just that he wasn't a beast-- that was my point. If he was a beast, he'd be a tame one, not a wild one. Harry's the wild one who'd need to be tamed more, actually-- and he was, kinda, by Hagrid & Ron & Hermione & such, but not all the way.
I meant he was tame in the socialized sense of him already loving people and being loved-- of feeling like he belongs. His father tamed him. He might not be nice and kind, but that's not how I meant 'tame'.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:07 pm (UTC)the way one overcomes a false image is by seeing something in someone that contradicts it. Something beautiful and shining and real, something admirable.
You mean Draco's not "beautiful and shining and real, something admirable" or he is? Sorry, I don't understand. But um. I don't think that's a monster you're talking about? More like, the victime of prejudice omg. (Like, I have a prejudice against this kind of storyline and always link it back to Snape for some reason. Maybe it's just I can't think of Remus of a monster... I am like, yeah, okay, so he's a werewold... yeah. But he's like, a good guy. So not monstruous. Maybe the metaphor is just too explicit to be real for me? Dunno.)
Draco's tamed to his Dad but not to like, Gryffindors (our norm?). BUT I agree both H and D are beasts in this scenario... funny because I was thinking about Miki and Kozue from SKU and how they can be seen as the Bride to each other alternatively, and how also the distribution of archetypes (...okay, that was a funny way to put it) is not perfectly symmetrical about H/D either. They are sort of mirrors in this also; Harry be the truly dangerous beast hidden beneath a tamed facade, and Draco the opposite? Though this definition leaves me dissatisfied.
Anyway. I was thinking about the way you always say H/D is about redemption of Draco for you, and I was thinking hey, this concept of "taming" could be the attraction for me to H/D when talking about how it influences the um, superego level? Or just the outside world.
/words
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:23 pm (UTC)You keep mixing up terms, it seems like. I was consciously separating 'beastly' and 'monstrous' and talking only about the Beast. I know Remus isn't monstrous. I know. That's why I said he wasn't! And also connected him with the Beast which is not the same as the Monster, because (as I said) the monster had to be seen as fully alien/malevolent and not just dangerous and wild.
I don't know who's afraid of Draco or would believe he's a 'truly dangerous beast'. I mean. Harry? Ha! None of the Gryffindors think he's scary. And besides, the 'beastliness'-- that's a question of self-perception, which, was actually my point about how it's different from the Monstrous.
Another thing about this archetype as I see it-- Harry can't be a real Beast hidden behind a tamed surface. Taming isn't surface-- that would defeat the purpose of this deliberate act of love. Taming a change of self-perception within the Beast and the one who loves him, after which point the Beast and the Hero(ine) belong to each other. So someone could be seen as 'monstrous' beneath the 'normal' surface-- but we are -all- Beastly deep within (that is, we all have the wild Id)-- the whole point is not that the Beast becomes hidden but that's loved and thus transformed into no longer really being wild/dangerous to the one who loves.
And H/D isn't about redeeming Draco... I mean, I want to redeem/make Draco grow up/mess with Draco's arc, but that's not what H/D is all about or anything. The whole mutual belonging which so many people include in the H/D dynamic-- the possessiveness-- that doesn't really fit the archetype because in that dynamic, someone would have to be not the Beast (in other words, the Hero), and I meant that Harry would be more likely to fit that role of Beast than Draco where Draco would probably never quite be the Hero (though it'd be nice). The whole thing is a mess of terminology gone wild. That's why I said to start with that it doesn't fit with H/D.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:31 pm (UTC)*aside, invents archetype where the monster is embraced by the beast by taming the beast and the beast's rage*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:11 pm (UTC)I love myself.
*wanks*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 03:57 pm (UTC)Can I say this is so what I like about him?:-D I mean, he is so tame. He's such a domestic animal--he's just really not housebroken. That's why I love him as a ferret, tame but not the kind of pet that everybody thinks of first. What's so tragic about him as how badly he's tamed, you know? That's why I love that moment when Lucius appears in the CoS movie, because Draco's yapping at Harry and when Lucius touches him with his cane and he jumps makes me think of a person who's trained their dog to be nasty to everyone except its master.
I think that's partially why I often get so involved in fics where Draco has to survive on his own, like a tame animal thrown into the wild (whether it's "Welcome to the Real World" or that new story...damn, what's it called...it's very good...The Long and Winding Road? I think the author is Lucinda Malfoy). Or Adela's story too. Because dealing with Draco really does seem somewhat like dealing with a badly trained animal.
Of course, the fact that he's a domestic animal doesn't mean that one can't get bitten by him. He's still an animal. We can't really judge animals and put some down because they're not cool and wild.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:00 pm (UTC)Yes, that's exactly what I (didn't quite know I was) getting at-- he is a domestic-- but poorly trained-- animal, ahahahah. 'Nasty to everyone except its master', yeay!!1 HEEEEEEE!! Omg, he's so adorable. The yippy little boy >:D Getting tangled between Harry's legs~:)) And making messes~:)) And entirely too much noise~:)))!! And biting ankles >:D And insisting on sleeping in one's bed >:D The impossible boy!ferret <3<3<3 Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
That's where I was going with the Apache!ferret!Draco, too-- wanting to see him in the wild, 'cause it's interesting to see how Draco deals when he's overwhelmed and faced with the completely unexpected. I mean, in a way, it's just that I like to torture him (eheheh) but also 'cause I think he's quite adaptable. Or at least flexible. Y'know. One of those :> *wildly nods*
Heheh I think his bad training is more amusing than say, Sirius's type of wildness >:D Though I know what you mean about coolness. He's just cool in an entirely different way, ahaaha. Though very few people make Draco wild/cool in that way in fic, actually-- they just make him overly precise & sophisticated & with the stupid shiny veneer of tameness rather than the real thing. *sigh*
Ahhh, he's a domestic animal that still has wild rages-- best of both worlds, hehehe >:D Awwww.
answering here? can't reply to comments below
Date: 2004-12-06 12:31 am (UTC)Drama aside, I thought about the Beast tonight and I am still bored as hell by and uninvested in overt beasts like Lupin, BUT I also thought you were right when you said Harry is the Beast, not Draco. Draco's obviously Beauty, what was I thinking?
(see? this is what i mean with you disagreeing with me out of a reflex... or not, that was you saying that. anyway. why is it that when I say 'Nasty to everyone except its master' you make faces at me? >:O)
can unscreen drama if you like ^^
Date: 2004-12-06 12:45 am (UTC)Hahah, did you say those exact words? I think that when SM says it, she's kind of um... not 100% serious~:)) Or at least I take it in a light-hearted way where I need not invest full analysis into it. With you, I'd probably be like, 'what does she mean, Master?', whereas with SM, I'm like, AHAHAH SM MADE A FUNNY AHAHAHAH. Or something. SM also gets to say anything 'cause she's Yoda. And I'm like... what am I? I think I'm Obi-Wan. >:D And you're Anakin AHAHAHAHA sorry couldn't resist.
Re: can unscreen drama if you like ^^
Date: 2004-12-06 12:53 am (UTC)Draco's the monstrous flipside of the Beast. (Was thinking yesterday how Kozue is the monstrous flipside of the Rose Bride. OH THE KOZUE LOVE (http://ohtori.nu/gallery/book2/FilmBook2-77.jpg).)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 12:58 am (UTC)Besides, what do you mean 'flipside'? Is the Beast's flipside the Monster....? I think they're just different, or rather-- opposite poles perhaps, but not reflections. The monstrous is alien & malevolent & dark-- how is wildness a flipside?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 01:03 am (UTC)He can be both Draco and the Monster. In fact, if I didn't think he was Draco first and foremost, I wouldn't be interested in his role as a monster also, ie how fucking wrong Harry is about him.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 01:08 am (UTC)hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:11 am (UTC)Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:20 am (UTC)/nods wisely
Nya nya.
Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:25 am (UTC)I always said that I meant a very specific kind of 'tame' and... stuff. Which, er... may or may not be what either of you meant ^^;
Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:42 am (UTC)Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:43 am (UTC)Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 01:48 am (UTC)There should be an "ATTACHE" cap on that pic. There is in my artbook. (http://ohtori.nu/gallery/maison/Alone30.jpg)
Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 11:32 am (UTC)Re: hee
Date: 2004-12-06 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:57 am (UTC)I think most people have/have had a fascination with that concept, because 'the Monster' is all about psychology and the unknown. We're fascinated with what frightens us or by what we don't understand exactly for those reasons. Also, it's indicative of the possibility one has for evil to reside within them (metaphorically speaking, cause clearly I don't really think all people are evil). I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde type thing...? So then, I see your idea of 'the Beast' because it's that same sort of idea, but somehow it's less...harmful, or something? We don't want to admit that we might have the capacity to understand evil but we'll more readily admit that we have the capacity to understand what's different/etc. Because we truly do have that inside us, don't we - aspects we don't/can't/won't understand & so on. The quest to understand & all that.
...I think that's what I was trying to say. Um. Haha. :)
I was thinking, particularly, of my recent frustration with how difficult it is to make Harry respect Draco post-OoTP
AUGH! *spazzes out* I'm writing an essay (sort-of) about that. Man, the analysis makes me want to tear out my hair. Except not. I just...need it to be proven to me...I want someone to write something that proves it, & clearly it's not going to be me. Anyway.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 02:04 pm (UTC)But yeah-- my idea of 'the Beast' is the same sort of idea, except it takes away that layer of being truly frightening that kind of annoys me. I like reading about vampires who're not 'evil' so much as... y'know, stupid. Spike. He makes stupid mistakes and is driven by his Id and loves fiercely and is a person. He's not a monster. The quest to understand is always the quest to understand yourself, and contact with the unknown/dark creature just makes it more imperative for the understanding to happen-- more dramatic, y'know.
Hahahah, I don't think post-OoTP H/D -can- be proven in an essay, only in fiction, within certain circumstances~:)) People do either overestimate or underestimate the difficulties though, it seems (people who identify with Harry are the ones who overestimate, I admit). I think one has to develop both Harry & Draco's characters for it to work :>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 02:34 pm (UTC)The quest to understand is always the quest to understand yourself
Oh, totally. I really like this idea that you have of 'the beast', cause I definitely agree that it takes away the 'frightening' aspect that some people might have qualms with & makes it more relatable, in terms of psychology & human action.
Yeah, I'm not, like, trying to prove it in the essay but I'm using it as the outline for my fic-thingy. I just like to have things sort of...spelled out for me, I suppose, even though clearly I'm not going to use it all. But I'm just that much of a nerd, y'know. I mean, I'm totally overestimating & all that, I'm sure, but it is taking over my life! AUGH! Haha :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:27 pm (UTC)I completely agree. I think that in the beast-to-man archetypes the outer transformation is merely a metaphor for/manifestation of an inner transformation. And it is all about self-perception etc. In the original BatB French story (in the movie) the beast was kind and gentle and was ashamed so of his 'ugliness' (interestingly, in French 'beastly' and 'ugly' can be the same word). Upon realization of the love of Belle, he transforms, la dee da yes.
However, I'm much more interested in stories of the realization of the lack of 'the beast' altogether (not in BatB, as that fits the storyline^ there), of the recognition of humanity in what was beastly. Of recognizing the beast in oneself. I like the reinterpretation of villains - not the redemption (though in other contexts, that is fabulous and beautiful) but an elucidation. I don't believe, really, in in-human humans and yet stories (of course) do and use them as foils and character types and plot devices. They become the givers of morality. And, as I don't believe in morality as a universal construct, I've always been very attracted to the transformation-that-isn't-transformation between perceived beast and man. I think there's something very frightening about that, which is fascinating.
::shrug:: But I'm not disagreeing with your Remus/Draco (o.O haha) beast stuff. I do think that archetype works - especially with Remus (absolutely with Remus). With Draco... who knows. He'd fit just as well with my whole beast-is-man thing, as there is always the possibility that he loves himself just fine. That he's just as human in his self-acceptance as anyone is (not that that's a concrete thing, but...). Mm. :) It's so fun, reinterpretation.
<3 (and whee, i get to use my good-and-evil kitten icon! rock)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:43 pm (UTC)So to me, the traditional archetype -does- talk about the realization of the lack of 'the Beast' altogether-- or at least I see that as the underlying theme. That's why the transformation is merely (heh) metaphorical. So it's like, he doesn't change, precisely, so much as become attached. It's love that makes things different, because now the Beast has a name, and his name is Beloved <3
Anyway, though I mentioned H/D off-handedly, I didn't mean to imply I see Draco as 'the Beast', though he's 'beastly', but that's in a rather plebeian sense. I mean, even in the Snow Queen, Kai is much more 'beastly'-- he's actually an icy, heartless little boy-- who never loses his humanity as much as has it suppressed. So yeah, I'm sure he loves himself just fine (more than fine). I just used H/D 'cause I was thinking about the process of re-vision as an analogue to transformation.
Hee! Icon! <3
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:55 pm (UTC)I think what I'm liking, then, is more 'monster-is-man'. Like, the total lack of that moral segregation. The realization that if s/he's human biologically (ignoring those little green men XD), so to speak, than s/he is human. I think a lot of the time villains are compressed and fitted to the monster role, a role that is one-sided and ultimately unchanging (unlike the beast role). Because if there was a similar transformation (monster into man), there would have to be a transformation (unlike with the 'beast', like you were saying, when it'd be more realization/attachment/peace-of-a-sort) b/c the monster can't be human for the morality to work. I like it when that assumption is reinterpreted/messed with, when one has to realize that there are no such things as monsters (or morality, then). :)
And heeee, I adore anti-heroes to. Absolutely. I just see villains as so greatly taken-for-granted (though they are irritating along with their counterparts, the one-sided heroes) that I feel the need to elaborate upon them, to make people re-envision the world or something. I think it's easier to reinterpret the simple, traditional heroes, because we make them us so much easier. It's harder to allow ourselves to relate to the monster because of the morality. Heeee.
And haha, yeah, sorry about yanking in Draco needlessly there :>. I see what you mean. I think I integrated him in as you love him so <3 (or at least, write about him often :D).
And I think transformations of any kind are so, so interesting. I think it's because they force depth onto a character as they give differing versions, a stage 1 and 2. They necessitate thought and change, which implies that things aren't static (as with the monsters in traditional stories).
Whee! <3 <3 <3
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 02:52 pm (UTC)But yeah... one of the reasons I realized I can't use 'monster' for my love of the Beast archetype is because the transformation I so crave would have to be so... over-the-top, I guess? I don't really have any sort of universal morality either (which is probably why we're on the same wavelength here, at least partly, ahahah). I'm just bored by 'monstrous' villains unless the story is from their own pov and they've got some sort inner struggle going on. So I am interested in Tom Riddle, say, but before he became Voldemort. I'm interested in the descent (while he was still beastly) but not in the... supposed eradication of humanity. Though sometimes one mistakes Beasts for Monsters-- like with Anakin Skywalker, ahahah.
So yes, no such things as monsters!! >:D That's always been one of my big-- er-- things, especially in terms of people setting up H/D as some sort of battle between dark & light (it's more like the rivalry between pissy vain obsessive!boy & raging asocial possessive!boy... or something). *bonds* :D
And yes! Villains are irritating 'cause most of them are boring. Heroes are... also often boring, but at least they're in a lot of action movies and are hot >:D But yes, they're also much easier to reinterpret thus I can sort of... appropriate heroes because they all have their Shadows and dark sides and such.
Argh, stasis. My enemy of old!! Hate! Hate! :> It's why I feel the need to mess with/obsess with Draco, partly. Aaaaargh, stasis!boy!! Noooooooo :(( He must be redeemed! From his stasis!! >:D By giving him a stage 2!! YES!!1 >:D (..Though fanon!Draco usually is a laugh... and in the case of Tom Riddle, I'm not so impressed with Voldie either.) Ahhh, transformation is one of my all-time most obsessed-over themes... probably why I love stories that involve love & the journey to self-awareness (hopefully both)-- 'cause these are the two obvious ways for positive transformation to occur.
♥ ...My only kitten icon is an in-joke about an obscure H/D RPG, ahahah.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 04:53 pm (UTC)You are inspiring me to go back and work on my novel-kinda-sorta-in-progress cos it's 100% about this. Y'know what it was inspired by? Shrek. I watched the first movie, and I remembered the old St George story when they got to rescue Fiona and the dragon-chick came out after them, and I felt so sad for the dragon when they ran off. And so I thought "What about if the princess was the monster?", and I tried to write it as a short story, but it didn't work. So now it's uber-complicated, and has many variations on the theme, and is probably going to haunt me until the day I die, LIKE THE MONSTER IT IS!
I never liked Beauty & the Beast much though. Strange, eh?
But yes, this is probably why I like tortured characters so much. And why I am such a Tom-Riddle apologist. Because he's a monster, undoubtably, but he was made a monster partly by his environment, which is always a powerful theme for me. Ahh yes, I am obsessed. These are mostly the kinds of monsters I like best - the scapegoated social minority/individual who is hated/feared for what they are, and so becomes the monster that everyone says they are (shit, wearing my psychological complexes on my sleeve again, aren't I?). I mean, let's face it, X-men is so HP just dressed up in superhero costumes (or HP is so X-men dressed down in wizarding gettup), they're both about a minority that is/has been persecuted and are regarded as freaks and monsters. And let's face it, I'd probably end up on Magneto/Salazaar's side if ever given the choice between getting along with stupid humans and killing them off. So yes, er, I can't remember exactly where I was going with this, but I know it has something to do with psychological monsters, and you're a smart enough cookie to see what I'm getting at *cough*. I'll just go over here now and stop acting like an idiot...
Oh, no, wait, I have more to add: I don't like the idea of taming. It seems so... I dunno. Homocentric? Antithesis to the system? Victorian? One of the reasons I loved Princess Mononoke was that in the end, San didn't go off and join the tribe and become the tamed girl. She remained wild within her (severely lessened) environment, even though humanity would probably encroach on it eventually. I feel like we always need that untamed monster somewhere, somehow, if only to feel better about ourselves. So er, how does this tie in? Well, I think the Monster is as much a social-psychological manifestation of the fears of the culture and the conflicts it has with things around it as much as it is the inner personal manifestation or a person's fears and issues.
And I am so totally going to go work on that story today...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 10:39 pm (UTC)I don't think HP is as focused on the freaks vs. normals theme as the X-men is-- I think it has several different threads, at least one of which is merely a story of a boy growing up and discovering himself. I think HP is very different because of that focus on 'just Harry'-- and that's both a limitation and a strength. It really is largely about Harry and not the wizarding world vs. Muggles, I think. Though of course there's that plot-thread there.
Anyway, I think you, like
In a way, in Shrek, the princess -is- the Monster. And while I find that interesting, I'm with
Y'know, it's rather odd-- one of the things I love most in people-- and the world-- is the wild. The wild places, wild spirits, wild creatures-- because that corresponds to just plain freedom and creativity, the nature of dreams and Nature itself. So yes... I wouldn't want a tamed person-- that sounds like some sort of... lessening of self-- enslavement, even.
That's not the sort of taming I was talking about, though, because this is specifically in the context of the relationship between two individuals, and allowing oneself to change through love-- to become one's true self, to allow oneself to be vulnerable. It's not the same thing as society oppressing you and telling you what to be at all. This has nothing to do with culture... and in fact, I kind of resist bringing 'culture' into discussion of fairy-tales and archetypes at all, because they muddle the universal themes by making them too specific. In a particular story, it works just fine to 'update' a fairy-tale, but it seems stifling in terms of discussion.
The 'taming' is only as it's meant in `The Little Prince'-- it's the way in which the rose tamed the little prince. He didn't exactly become 'tame'-- he just belonged with someone-- to someone. And that's a basic human drive, I think-- to belong and have someone belong to you in turn. It's a personal connection rather than a group one-- and in this case, 'taming' is merely the opening of one's heart, allowing touch. And the monstrous has no place in one's heart.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 05:18 pm (UTC)True true. It's not focused on it, but it's kind of like a constant background static.
I kind of resist bringing 'culture' into discussion of fairy-tales and archetypes at all, because they muddle the universal themes by making them too specific.
Ahh, I see where you're coming from now. Heh, I am totally the opposite, since I believe everything has a context that has to be understood, and nothing is universal. Sorry.
But I agree with you on most of the other stuff ^^.