~~ wherein Reena is clearly so Slytherin it hurts.

[reenka]

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

Yeah, okay, I know it is.


I'm thinking about the Snape essay on idol_reflection, where arionrhod said that "no one is neutral about Several Snape". Which might actually be close to how I feel about dear old Snapey. I find him interesting, and I find Draco interesting, and they both annoy me, though Snape annoys me less and mystifies me more.

I like writing about Draco 'cause he's easy. He's a piece of cake to write, really, because he's so driven by his emotions, so singular in his mind-set, so predictable in his behavior. And yet there are all these challenges for him-- so it's fun to watch how he reacts to new and unexpected things like "omg, I like Harry Potter!!1 whatever shall I do??! and omg my father will kill me!! and, and--" (except with a drawl). Also, he's fun to torture and watch squirm-- he always fails, and always flails when he fails (whenever he's not being oddly stoic), but maybe even more enjoyable to watch when against all odds, he gets what he wants (angst!)

It's odd but possibly true that after all this time, and as much as I say he's awfully predictable, I still don't know how I feel about Draco Malfoy. Maybe that's why I talk about him so much, too. It's not that I'm neutral but that I change my mind all the time. It really depends on what mood he's in, what writer's doing him, what sort of dynamic he has with Harry (and to a lesser extent, other people). For instance, a Draco who thinks of Crabbe & Goyle as 'Gregory and Vince' just really really annoys me. A lot.

After all this time, I still haven't figured out why some fic-writers make him out to be smooth, controlled and dashing. Why??! I don't understand. *weeps* And it's not even that I never enjoy stories like that-- it's that it mystifies me no matter how often I hear it explained. It's not that I need my Draco characterization static and canon-to-the-teeth-- it's that I'd like to see where the writer's coming from, and the emotionally-controlled!Draco gets me going 'huh' every time. I've heard people say 'but maybe he could be like that', to which I say, 'BUT WHY???!' and... I don't think it's helpful. (And see, I could see the 'in-control' thing being a delusion he has-- like, he could think he is and be totally bonkers, I can buy that. But to have him actually be like that exceeds all reason and makes me gibber even though, y'know, it's not like I love his freakish ways or anything. Though they're cute. He's a cute little nutcase (especially when he's trying to be funny and isn't but sort of is anyway). Well. He can be!

Like, I'm really enjoying zahra5's `Modulations', where Draco's... rather self-enclosed, I guess, but it's definitely a thin veneer, so I can handle it, especially 'cause we see his reasoning from his own pov and can observe its utter... er... delusion. Mostly because all it takes is a little prodding from Harry doing something unexpected (...which he does often) and Draco freaks and forgets to act 'normal'. It's great.

Um. Did I have a point...? No, not really. I was just reading a fic (I know, I know, I swore off them... I have no will-power) which had one of those dreadful Dracos of Doom and I was like... why do people like this character? I don't get it o_0 I mean, I know the writer of that fic likes Draco, but that Draco and my Draco... man, two different universes. Like... 'my' Draco isn't even canon!Draco (since I don't actually compare most things I read to canon-- only common sense) and it's two different universes. So yeah.

Sometimes I think when people were coming up with this characterization, they decided to just... think about everything Draco isn't by any stretch:

- mature;
- reasonable;
- impulse-controlling;
- dominant;
- sophisticated;
- rational around Harry, at least;
- intellectual;
- apparently experienced in the ways of the world;
- tasteful.

...And then they decided, 'omg, sounds great!!1 I'll just write a fic with those qualities!! OMG EVERYONE WILL LOVE DRACO NOW JUST LIKE I DO!!1'

I think the reason I babble about Draco so much is that while I don't like him so much (except maybe how he is in my own head and in Silvia's, Maya's, Breed's & Aspen's, blah-blah-fics-I-like-blah), the way people present him makes me want to beat my head against the wall. And I do make sacrifices for porn!! But this sophisticated, controlled, humorless, elegant person drives me insane (as in: "I'm not an arsehole! That's such a common, plebeian term no doubt coined by Potter! How dare you interrupt my meal with this nonsense? Go away at once, or I shall be forced to... discipline you.") Does that sound familiar? Yeah? *sigh* I can be so good at this whole fanon!Draco stuff if I wanted, couldn't I? Ha.

I so weep for my untapped genius; perhaps I shall have to do more parody-fic. It's gotta include lots of manicures, expensive robes, hair products and drawling. And also a bunch of trademarks-- Draco collects those, you know. He's like Pansy, except he's a guy-- which means he buggers and is never buggered back because that is for girls and also Harry!!-- and he's also good at Potions. It's great.

Eh. Goodbye and good riddance to the whole shebang, I say. Hopefully I've finally got this subject out of my system (as I do so hate repeating myself like this, but gahhhhh).
~~

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

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


Of course, one of my main initial quibbles with `Philosopher's Stone' was always its painfully blunt approach to the idea of 'normality' and the way it so blatantly supported its subversion in the form of Harry's separateness from and rebellion against the Dursleys-- so it's kind of funny to then view Harry, Dumbledore & the Gryffindor 'way' as normative. Naturally, anything becomes normative once it attains some sort of control over various factors in its environment-- but this control is inherently temporary and limited in scope. There are many powers at work in the books, and the idea that Harry's given some sort of special dispensation to pretty much define his world seems ridiculous.

To the contrary, Harry is defined by others from the very beginning-- as the Dursleys' Whipping Boy, as The Boy Who Lived, as Dumbledore's Protege, as Hagrid's Favorite, as Voldemort's Target, as the Gryffindor Seeker-- etc. Very little has been really Harry's choice within the books so far except some bits in OoTP, and there's also very little the other Gryffindors have actually done besides win the House Cup a lot (oh noes!!1...?).

Gryffindors aren't 'normal'-- though the term is almost completely subjective in any case. It's not that 'normal' doesn't exist-- it's that one couldn't arrive at a universal definition and it's therefore pretty much useless as a valid marker of people.

'Normality' seems to work more as a way to gage of a given point of view-- that is, what some person or a group perceives as 'normal' would largely define them-- and their interactions with people who are 'different'-- but it wouldn't actually define the substance of those others unless they allowed their minds to be so brainwashed. Which I admit, wouldn't be all that unusual, considering how susceptible to outside contact most people are.

Anyway, my point is that everyone believes they're 'normal' on some level, simply because they're defined by their own subjectivity. The Slytherins must also feel they're the normal ones-- and conservatively so at that, being the 'Pureblood House'-- while thinking it's those stupid Gryffindors that are the freaks. Which, you know, they might be... but of course the prejudice works both ways. You can't say, 'but this prejudice is more normal than this other prejudice' simply because the people with it going in one direction have currently attained the upper hand over the rest, and tentatively at that.

I'm not saying that -I- believe I'm normal, but that's because the rest of the world are freaks.

...What? It's true.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hey, to the Slytherins, the Gryffindors are the 'demonised difference' to, and whenever the balance of 'power' shifts in Hogwarts (which it clearly does often enough!), I'm sure it's the Gryffindors that become 'oppressed'. If you happen to equate opression with number of House points won.

I don't think the ethic of the narrator has to be the norm. If anything, Harry/Dumbledore/the Order doesn't control all wizarding society. Don't Pureblood ethics count for something within their universe? What about the Ministry's ethics-- doesn't that hold some sway? Just because JKR (and the text) agrees with the Gryffindors a lot of the time doesn't mean that's the way things actually work in their society. The books can be seen as about a resistance movement within that society, and in fact I think they are.

As far as the Gryffindors making noise-- I'm pretty sure the Slytherins-- or at least one particular Slytherin-- makes quite as much noise, even to his father. It's a mutual rivalry. So that makes the Slytherins just as cute. And brainwashed. :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

... how aren't the ethics of the narrator the norm?? Of course they are, she establishes them as the norm. Or at least, JKR's the kind of writer that does.

When have Gryffindors been oppressed except that in our own speculation? Pureblood ethics count but they are presented as ludicrous (ie, the author regards the ethics of this group she introduces as ludicrous and it's quite obvious her intent is for the reader to think so, too... and given that she reduces these ethics as "OMG MUGGLES SUCK VOLDEMORT RULEZ!!!!!" it's not that hard) and clearly set up to being wiped off the face of the earth by the mighty righteous Gryffindors. Who are set up as a norm.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the main difference we have is that I talk about the canon as a universe with its own integrity, not a story that's defined by its meta & its author's intent. That's what I thought you referred to by its 'universe'-- because to me, well, the Author (or narrator, even) isn't so much dead as... well, he's not not God. The view of Author as God is dead to me, heh. So the author could 'establish' whatever she likes and it'd still have to be judged as to how it fits within the pattern of the text 'as is', and that text as a number of interpretations, all possibly valid.

Eh. This is a different way of approaching literary criticism, methinks.

As for when the Gryffindors have been oppressed-- I think there's some aside in `Philosophers Stone' about how Slytherin has held the Cup for like, a decade or something, I'm not sure. Something like that. And there have been non-Gryffindor Headmasters (Phineas, anyone?) and so on.

Just because Pureblood ethics are thought to be ludicrous by the people Harry hangs out with doesn't mean the whole society thinks so, or the Death Eaters would have never had enough recruits to be much danger. I'm not talking about the reader, I'm talking about the characters. I guess in this case I don't much care for the reader ^^;; And sure, they may be being set up to be wiped off, but it's not actually there until it happens in the text :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think my problem with JKR is that I would love to consider her dead as a Author, but she's all over her fucking Text.

If the pureblood ethics were anything other than ludicrous she would have put some sane, intelligent pureblood to illustrate the sanity and intelligence of pureblood ethics. Which is what I mean by saying: "If the pureblood ethics were supposed to be regarded as anything other than ludicrous she would have put some sane, intelligent pureblood to illustrate the sanity and intelligence of pureblood ethics." Ie, not only she as the author chooses to have her villains's motivation consisting in them being The Stoopid, but their being The Stoopid is there in the Text.

*thinks the morals of HP are funny*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, just because they were rabidly followed doesn't mean they were sane or intelligent-- just as Communism and Nazism aren't necessarily sane or intelligent and yet were widely adapted. Anyway, um... I do think it's possible to ignore the author-intent angle if one tries.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Communist and nazis morals were wrong, but they also weren't The Stoopid. I mean, especially with Communism. Real Communism degenerated in doctrine and persecution, but it based on an ideal that was hardly The Stupid. What Marx said was not only respectable as a theory, it was also, how to say this, sympathetic.

... okay, I'm going to stop there. I was supposed to write this morning, hor!