~~ a fan in spite of, because of.
Jun. 13th, 2005 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaThinking about posts like this one sporking fanon!Lucius, I started to wonder just how much one could trust a canon interpretation that's based on a purely positive or negative reaction to a character to start with.
What I mean is, I could see people justify a Lucius that's really a concerned parent, a little overly-zealous and conservative, more than a little ruthless, dedicated and affectionate to his family, blahblah-- and I could definitely see people justify a Lucius who's a bumbling, sleazy politician, someone who works hard at manipulating people and isn't always successful, someone who has a nasty temper which he can't always control when he should and throws around his power and influence for whatever will get him or his family ahead fastest. The point isn't which Lucius is more 'real', but rather the difficulty I have in reconciling them, because both seem to have their true roots as much in the reader's gut response to the character as whatever one might term 'canon'.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is the idea of what's 'sympathetic' about a characterization; it seems to me that it's a quality of good, successful writing when you somehow draw a character so 'real' that even if the authorial voice clearly has bias one way or the other, lots of people judge the character according to their own moral code, even if it's at odds with how the pov characters react. Just like in real life, if you're someone's friend, you'll probably view the same actions that get other people to roll their eyes and sneer with tolerance or even affection, and you'll probably have an explanation handy as to why they're like that and what they're thinking that will make them sound much more sympathetic than whatever the strangers think is motivating them.
In the end, I'm not sure whether to privilege the opinion of people (readers) who understand someone because they like them or identify with them positively or because they dislike them or identify with them negatively (that is, they hate those traits about themselves).
In the past, I've always said that to understand someone truly you must care about them; but the sheer unilateral bias I see in people, the way they skew their views of a character in either a likable & forgivable or pathetic asshole light-- it makes me reconsider believing anyone's judgment sometimes.
It's not that I think one could escape bias, but I grow weary of never seeing people who like a character (or person) and yet admit their faults freely without always having to justify them or cast them into a sympathetic light. Sometimes lovable, good people aren't sympathetic. And sometimes we care about people who aren't really good, and they're understandable because of course everyone is, but that doesn't make them right.
And sometimes I wish people who were skewering characters also left room for their inner justifications, their humanity, their intrinsic goodness and the reasons why the people who care about them do so.
I wish as an H/D writer, most of all, that I myself could manage to portray them both as human, if not necessarily always sympathetic, because I don't insist or even fully believe they -are-, either of them. I think Draco's a pathetic twirp and Harry's an overblown self-blinded creep sometimes. I love them anyway. I don't want to be a fan, if being a fan blinds me to the full spectrum of someone's character and its range of implications; I don't want to ever become so blinded with love or pride or even simple dislike that I forget that we are all of us hinging on the often undeserved forgiveness of those that love us in spite and because of ourselves.
What I mean is, I could see people justify a Lucius that's really a concerned parent, a little overly-zealous and conservative, more than a little ruthless, dedicated and affectionate to his family, blahblah-- and I could definitely see people justify a Lucius who's a bumbling, sleazy politician, someone who works hard at manipulating people and isn't always successful, someone who has a nasty temper which he can't always control when he should and throws around his power and influence for whatever will get him or his family ahead fastest. The point isn't which Lucius is more 'real', but rather the difficulty I have in reconciling them, because both seem to have their true roots as much in the reader's gut response to the character as whatever one might term 'canon'.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is the idea of what's 'sympathetic' about a characterization; it seems to me that it's a quality of good, successful writing when you somehow draw a character so 'real' that even if the authorial voice clearly has bias one way or the other, lots of people judge the character according to their own moral code, even if it's at odds with how the pov characters react. Just like in real life, if you're someone's friend, you'll probably view the same actions that get other people to roll their eyes and sneer with tolerance or even affection, and you'll probably have an explanation handy as to why they're like that and what they're thinking that will make them sound much more sympathetic than whatever the strangers think is motivating them.
In the end, I'm not sure whether to privilege the opinion of people (readers) who understand someone because they like them or identify with them positively or because they dislike them or identify with them negatively (that is, they hate those traits about themselves).
In the past, I've always said that to understand someone truly you must care about them; but the sheer unilateral bias I see in people, the way they skew their views of a character in either a likable & forgivable or pathetic asshole light-- it makes me reconsider believing anyone's judgment sometimes.
It's not that I think one could escape bias, but I grow weary of never seeing people who like a character (or person) and yet admit their faults freely without always having to justify them or cast them into a sympathetic light. Sometimes lovable, good people aren't sympathetic. And sometimes we care about people who aren't really good, and they're understandable because of course everyone is, but that doesn't make them right.
And sometimes I wish people who were skewering characters also left room for their inner justifications, their humanity, their intrinsic goodness and the reasons why the people who care about them do so.
I wish as an H/D writer, most of all, that I myself could manage to portray them both as human, if not necessarily always sympathetic, because I don't insist or even fully believe they -are-, either of them. I think Draco's a pathetic twirp and Harry's an overblown self-blinded creep sometimes. I love them anyway. I don't want to be a fan, if being a fan blinds me to the full spectrum of someone's character and its range of implications; I don't want to ever become so blinded with love or pride or even simple dislike that I forget that we are all of us hinging on the often undeserved forgiveness of those that love us in spite and because of ourselves.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 05:32 pm (UTC)I guess as a writer of fic, not a critic, we end up with a certain perspective (as you say bias is inevitable, perspective is never objective) - and probably will privilege one character over another. Try not to, but end up doing. Just speculating from how I like Draco more than Harry. So he gets the better lines. But they still demand to be a bit stupid.
It's all a subtle move - you don't completely sympathize and turn a 180 for the "bad guys" but the fic is more interesting if their not tarred with a such a broad character brush. Where you can despise and pity at the same time. Or like and dislike.
:D
:D
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:20 pm (UTC)I mean, I'm fully aware I privilege Harry over Draco, but I'm still aware of Draco & where he's coming from, and that means I tend to write him sympathetically almost in spite of myself. I can never really dislike any character I write, also, which is why I often write characters I can't understand or empathize with v. easily just as a writing exercise, and avoid writing characters I over-identify with (like basically Luna) 'cause I feel it would be wanky, really. I try not to wank -too- much in my fic, though of course some wank is inescapeable.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:26 pm (UTC):D
Yeah, about the awareness thing. The wanks I avoid usually have someone self-righteously equating her personal tastes in characterization with moral right. Also makes for boring characters. If the characters one liked were just perfect, uh, yuck.
Snape, poor Snape. I like him best in canon, but he never gets any true fanon interest from me. Except when he loves my boy.
hee hee.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:35 pm (UTC)I could write about my suppressed emotions, but writing about what seems like my outer self (ie, Luna) is just way, way too much like a self-insert Mary Sue. I could write the best friggin' Luna fic in existence, I -know- it, but it might as well be original fic if I'm gonna go through the trouble, y'know? *sigh* I dunno.
And yeah, I see this idealization of favored characters ALL THE TIME. It's v. v. very rare that I don't see it. Bitter? Oh yes :>
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:29 pm (UTC)I hear you. Well, except for Voldemort, everyone gets their turn. I was quite surprised how into Lucius Malfoy and even Marietta Edgecomb I got. For a bit.
Luna was a fun canon character. I kick myself over my silly inability to write any fic that doesn't talk about the boys. Sigh. Am bad feminist ficcer.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:39 pm (UTC)I write 'bout girls, but it's not a chore 'cause I likes my femslash, oh yis. Especially proud of my Pansy/Ginny epic, moreso than any other of my fics for a long time. I think it's 'cause I would probably go nuts only talking about boys & their cocks & their issues without a break. NEED SOME SANITY NOW KTHNXBAI :>
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 08:42 pm (UTC)Oh yeah... oh YEAH. hahaha. The boys have their screwed up romance while the girls have real issues. Hermione and Ginny and Cho and Pansy. They get dumped with my problems while the boys are being stupid. haha. Women's issues wrapped up in slash. Am so sneaky, hahaha.