![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI think what bothers me the most about the ship wank is the argument "but this isn't what I see as love" and going further, 'what I do see as love is Twue Wuv, while JKR and whoever likes that other stuff must be a bunch of idiots who don't know what Twue Wuv (and/or a workable relationship) is'. It doesn't even matter whether I agree about the quality of JKR's writing or not, it still bothers me because I am much more invested in the question of what love is than I will ever be in HP or, indeed, most other subjects. So when people are edging into purely subjective, philosophical territory and acting as if it's all obvious and objective and why the hell doesn't JKR agree-- well, I get argumentative.
On the one hand... I do understand where most people are coming from in terms of sheer analysis, but on the other hand, people thinking that only -their- favorite love ideal would work for fictional characters bothers me, because.... People are different, right? They want different things from relationships depending on who they are; they have a higher or lower tolerance to certain kinds of "unhealthy" behavior, like for example cheating. There are some people (say... me) who would pretty much literally string their SO up by their tie if they were discovered cheating, and there are people who'd go 'oh, well... tell me next time-- or better yet, let me tag along'.
I mean, I see lots of different things as love-- lots of unhealthy and destructive and creative and beautiful things, because love has many facets, and there are many ideals to choose from. Just because you-the-reader disagrees with a particular book's vision of love is in no way a bad thing, naturally-- it's just that I feel that in speaking of future canon developments, it's unproductive to project your own ideal onto the text, especially when the relationships in said text are already very archetypal and/or idealized rather than simply realistically rendered.
(And naturally, where you have archetypal love, you have moi, in my natural habitat.)
I will, at this point, admit that I instinctively enjoyed and noticed JKR's nods at a certain type of opposites-attract relationship with many of her couples (Molly/Arthur, James/Lily, and yeah, I definitely saw hints of it with Ron/Hermione even in book 1... she even provides subtext in that same direction with Sirius/Remus, just because she seems to construct relationships-- even friendships-- with that dynamic in mind a lot of times). It worked more in terms of the implied (and possible) chemistry than actual execution, but what was there was still cute to me. And it's fine to judge that's a realistically unworkable dynamic (though I never knew 'workable longterm' was now the major determining factor in romance-- I always thought people said things like 'romance itself is fleeting' and so on). I'm just saying that archetype (love/hate, opposites-attract, the sparkly light-hearted romantic comedy trope) is pretty much everywhere in HP. That's partly why H/D seems to fit so well in my head, as the Gryffindor/Slytherin thing feels like an extension rather than a subversion of JKR's modus operandi so far.
It's just... what's really driven me up the wall with fandom recently isn't that we all disagree rabidly (I always knew that), but that everyone seemed to continuously project their own values and reactions onto the characters. Like, if -they- wouldn't like Ron's awkward idiotic fumblings, of course Hermione wouldn't, because Hermione's not that kind of girl; she has to take it the same way you the reader do. This is the same type of heavily biased thinking that often leads people to say a character is OOC in canon-- meaning, you can only get away with saying that if your complaint isn't 'but they're not acting how I wanted and expected them to act'-- because if it's merely circumstances, then, you know, people show different sides of themselves that weren't obvious before.
This ties into the whole 'projection onto the text' issue that I'm always grappling with (it's nearly impossible to avoid, but I believe it remains possible to be self-aware when doing it). In other words, if you want or don't want something to happen in a book not because it wouldn't fit, but because it doesn't fit your preferences or interest, then you're projecting and most likely wrong, yeah, though you could just get lucky.
I still don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. I'm not calling anyone names, obviously, I am just thinking that this is an issue of different types of readings, perhaps, and a certain kind being more conducive to understanding JKR's intent (which seems to be the clincher in this case).
I'm thinking, specifically, that a 'realistic' reading is much less suitable to overall understanding of the direction of the HP books than an archetypal reading that looks less at minor clues and more at overarching themes (and the typical fantasy arcs like the Hero's Journey), especially when it comes to characterization issues. I mean, she's sort of writing a social parody in many ways and using broad strokes with a lot of the minor characters, like say, the Dursleys or Fleur or Mrs. Weasley, and even Snape is very much a variation on a (Gothic) type. So if you're talking about what to expect in general terms, it probably helps to look at the character's most general characteristics; though a plot development may require them to act one way or another, I don't think this would apply to romance development, since the focus in on Ron, Hermione & Harry, and their friendship (which is largely why none of them are really paired up at the end of HBP).
Bottom line, it doesn't make sense to me to project an ideal relationship onto characters that appear to have their own minds, as good characters should; this is the same brain-strain that occurs when I try to understand why the Brian/Michael shippers are so insistent that Brian doesn't really want Justin or that they're not good for each other on QaF. I mean, you may disagree with it all you like, but, y'know, Brian does want Justin and not Michael; I don't really know what else one can say, except 'go write some fanfic, you'll feel better'.
It's in a similar fashion that the ship wars boggle my mind in HP. You can go on and on about how Hermione shouldn't want Ron 'cause he abuses her (leaving aside my personal feeling that he doesn't), and you won't change that Hermione doesn't feel that way, and there was never really any clue that she did. She wanted him to wake up and smell the coffee (like in GoF and the Yule Ball), sure, but she was never like, 'oh Ron, you loser' even when she got angry with him (in a way she never did with Harry, sure, but then you forgive more when you're not romantically invested... or maybe that's just me *whistles*). That was all reader projection, pure and simple.
I don't really know what my 'point' is, in the end. I'm feel a little offended by the idea that I don't know what love is just because I see many possible facets of it, many of which wouldn't be right for me personally. I also don't think there's such a thing as a 'cliche' or overdone relationship type (unless you mean to point at them all), but then I don't want to get into a debate about the value of originality vs. cliche (which seems to be common argument against opposites-attract type pairings).
I do feel this is all a losing battle; most people will never really care about at least trying to see characters they don't empathize with semi-objectively, merely out of respect for the character's self-validity.
Also, people have always projected their own desires onto fiction-- that's part of the fun of reading, really. It's only when people try to mix personal pleasure as a reader and analysis that things appear to go wrong. This all leads me to believe the wise thing to do would be to avoid much current fandom discourse, and so I will do.
On the one hand... I do understand where most people are coming from in terms of sheer analysis, but on the other hand, people thinking that only -their- favorite love ideal would work for fictional characters bothers me, because.... People are different, right? They want different things from relationships depending on who they are; they have a higher or lower tolerance to certain kinds of "unhealthy" behavior, like for example cheating. There are some people (say... me) who would pretty much literally string their SO up by their tie if they were discovered cheating, and there are people who'd go 'oh, well... tell me next time-- or better yet, let me tag along'.
I mean, I see lots of different things as love-- lots of unhealthy and destructive and creative and beautiful things, because love has many facets, and there are many ideals to choose from. Just because you-the-reader disagrees with a particular book's vision of love is in no way a bad thing, naturally-- it's just that I feel that in speaking of future canon developments, it's unproductive to project your own ideal onto the text, especially when the relationships in said text are already very archetypal and/or idealized rather than simply realistically rendered.
(And naturally, where you have archetypal love, you have moi, in my natural habitat.)
I will, at this point, admit that I instinctively enjoyed and noticed JKR's nods at a certain type of opposites-attract relationship with many of her couples (Molly/Arthur, James/Lily, and yeah, I definitely saw hints of it with Ron/Hermione even in book 1... she even provides subtext in that same direction with Sirius/Remus, just because she seems to construct relationships-- even friendships-- with that dynamic in mind a lot of times). It worked more in terms of the implied (and possible) chemistry than actual execution, but what was there was still cute to me. And it's fine to judge that's a realistically unworkable dynamic (though I never knew 'workable longterm' was now the major determining factor in romance-- I always thought people said things like 'romance itself is fleeting' and so on). I'm just saying that archetype (love/hate, opposites-attract, the sparkly light-hearted romantic comedy trope) is pretty much everywhere in HP. That's partly why H/D seems to fit so well in my head, as the Gryffindor/Slytherin thing feels like an extension rather than a subversion of JKR's modus operandi so far.
It's just... what's really driven me up the wall with fandom recently isn't that we all disagree rabidly (I always knew that), but that everyone seemed to continuously project their own values and reactions onto the characters. Like, if -they- wouldn't like Ron's awkward idiotic fumblings, of course Hermione wouldn't, because Hermione's not that kind of girl; she has to take it the same way you the reader do. This is the same type of heavily biased thinking that often leads people to say a character is OOC in canon-- meaning, you can only get away with saying that if your complaint isn't 'but they're not acting how I wanted and expected them to act'-- because if it's merely circumstances, then, you know, people show different sides of themselves that weren't obvious before.
This ties into the whole 'projection onto the text' issue that I'm always grappling with (it's nearly impossible to avoid, but I believe it remains possible to be self-aware when doing it). In other words, if you want or don't want something to happen in a book not because it wouldn't fit, but because it doesn't fit your preferences or interest, then you're projecting and most likely wrong, yeah, though you could just get lucky.
I still don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. I'm not calling anyone names, obviously, I am just thinking that this is an issue of different types of readings, perhaps, and a certain kind being more conducive to understanding JKR's intent (which seems to be the clincher in this case).
I'm thinking, specifically, that a 'realistic' reading is much less suitable to overall understanding of the direction of the HP books than an archetypal reading that looks less at minor clues and more at overarching themes (and the typical fantasy arcs like the Hero's Journey), especially when it comes to characterization issues. I mean, she's sort of writing a social parody in many ways and using broad strokes with a lot of the minor characters, like say, the Dursleys or Fleur or Mrs. Weasley, and even Snape is very much a variation on a (Gothic) type. So if you're talking about what to expect in general terms, it probably helps to look at the character's most general characteristics; though a plot development may require them to act one way or another, I don't think this would apply to romance development, since the focus in on Ron, Hermione & Harry, and their friendship (which is largely why none of them are really paired up at the end of HBP).
Bottom line, it doesn't make sense to me to project an ideal relationship onto characters that appear to have their own minds, as good characters should; this is the same brain-strain that occurs when I try to understand why the Brian/Michael shippers are so insistent that Brian doesn't really want Justin or that they're not good for each other on QaF. I mean, you may disagree with it all you like, but, y'know, Brian does want Justin and not Michael; I don't really know what else one can say, except 'go write some fanfic, you'll feel better'.
It's in a similar fashion that the ship wars boggle my mind in HP. You can go on and on about how Hermione shouldn't want Ron 'cause he abuses her (leaving aside my personal feeling that he doesn't), and you won't change that Hermione doesn't feel that way, and there was never really any clue that she did. She wanted him to wake up and smell the coffee (like in GoF and the Yule Ball), sure, but she was never like, 'oh Ron, you loser' even when she got angry with him (in a way she never did with Harry, sure, but then you forgive more when you're not romantically invested... or maybe that's just me *whistles*). That was all reader projection, pure and simple.
I don't really know what my 'point' is, in the end. I'm feel a little offended by the idea that I don't know what love is just because I see many possible facets of it, many of which wouldn't be right for me personally. I also don't think there's such a thing as a 'cliche' or overdone relationship type (unless you mean to point at them all), but then I don't want to get into a debate about the value of originality vs. cliche (which seems to be common argument against opposites-attract type pairings).
I do feel this is all a losing battle; most people will never really care about at least trying to see characters they don't empathize with semi-objectively, merely out of respect for the character's self-validity.
Also, people have always projected their own desires onto fiction-- that's part of the fun of reading, really. It's only when people try to mix personal pleasure as a reader and analysis that things appear to go wrong. This all leads me to believe the wise thing to do would be to avoid much current fandom discourse, and so I will do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 08:57 pm (UTC):D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:03 pm (UTC)I -am- writing a Remus/Tonks Remus/Sirius and an H/D post-GoF AU :) Slowly, hehe.
Y'know, I don't think R/T is 'really' love, but guess what, I can see it as a valid relationship for Remus at this point in his life. Whoah. ^^; *is slightly bitter, yes*
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:15 pm (UTC)So, yeah agreed. And the projection people do really irritates the hell out of me.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:16 pm (UTC)see? this is what I'm waiting for. :D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 09:36 pm (UTC):D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 02:58 am (UTC)That was... weird. Also also scary & wrong.
But moving onwards, I think I said I'm glad this post seemed like a positive thing to you. Maybe-possibly I'm not contibuting to the gradual descent of fandom into like, hitting each other with sticks, pulling down people's pants and laughing. Not that I'm never tempted to pull down pants. But I'm just full of self-restraint like that :D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 03:00 am (UTC)Hehehe, today, the fandom, TOMORROW, THE WORLD...!..!!
♥!!1one
no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 03:32 am (UTC)Still. I'm glad you admit that some people in fandom desperately need their pants pulled down and a good laughing. I applaud you for not instigating such behavior :D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 11:16 pm (UTC)(...Sometimes I really wonder, heh.)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-03 05:16 am (UTC)But... isn't that what humans do? I mean, I've had this argument with Hermione fans about whether she's too OOC in HBP, and they project their own values onto Hermione as much as the next person. There's no such thing as objectivity - we're all just biased projecting bastards. Why do people think Ginny's a Mary Sue? Cos they project their knowledge (of Sues) and desires (of a decent piece of writing) onto her character.
I think the quality of the writer's text does matter a lot, because when the quality lags, those who are most invested have their biases revealed most painfully. I mean, I have trouble with H/G shippers doing their little victory dances when the entire relationship was so goddamn awfully written that it was only outstripped in painfulness by Remus/Tonks. What the hell have they got to celebrate, exactly, when the execution was like mediocre fanfiction?
There's also the issue of when ships become massive, painful cliches. I mean, there are cliches, full stop. But cliches can be executed in ways that make them good. Ron/Hermione, unfortunately for me, wasn't executed well enough for it to go beyond the realm of bad cliche. But R/Hr shippers strongly disagree, obviously, because they're biased as all hell on the issue. But because someone's biased - whether it's myself or someone on the opposite side of the discussion - we fit the logic in our heads around what we think is "common sense" (which as everyone knows, is the most biased form of thinking ever).
I guess, in the end, the only way you could avoid bias is never expressing an opinion on the books or characters ever. And that would just be boring.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 12:03 am (UTC)I don't care what you believe, in other words, if you can build a convincing argument that doesn't read like rhetoric or seem emotionally driven. If it -is- emotionally driven or a product of pure projection/desire/belief, I'd prefer no claim to being 'right' was made and people were self-aware enough to say 'this is just my spew' or whatever. I always assume that about anything I say, even if I do'nt make it clear-- I'm never really claiming I'm OMG OMNISCIENT, I just try to think as much as I can and don't stop thinking just because I feel comfortable with some conclusion that suits my agenda. Then again, agendas are 'only human', yeah, but that doesn't stop them from reeeeally annoying me in other people and especially groups/societies/political parties/churches/parents/etc. It's a... thing.
I feel about mischaracterization of any character or person is sort of... a strike against the sanctity of identity-related truth (allowing something to BE to what it IS., uncolored by anything but itself). which is always paramount to me-- that's where I'm always coming from with this stuff. The sheer sanctity of the true nature of things, which I admit is in human nature to distort-- which is why seeing things as truly as possible, with as much self-awareness of one's starting bias and projection as possible, is so vital to me. I dunno if i'm explaining it well. but that's why projection-type bias gets to me the most, 'cause it's like, imposing false identity from oneself onto the world. That's kind of why I sometimes hate the world & am asocial-- the idea of being projected upon and presumed upon by people just gives me the shakes. I'm very... this is ME and this is YOU and this is THEM, even if there are connections between us. but that's a total tangent, I'm not saying I'm being objective with this. It just really freaks me out on a visceral level.
So it's less about The One Stone Truth as the search for truth & also self-awareness of one's projection/bias. Own your bias! That's the first step.
I think... JKR's execution of -most- things is pretty bad, unless you mean her precious mystery plot elements I personally don't care much about. She -always- seemed anvilicious and transparent to me, but I enjoy her stuff 'cause I love her characters (and especially her Harry & Draco at times, and Ron... also Snape). So it depends what you're looking for, I guess; as for enjoying H/G... I thought it was very awkwardly/stiffly/iffily/incompletely done, but enjoyed it for several moments like the Common Room kiss and her standing up to Hermione for Harry 'cause I'm a sucker for whatever pleaseth Harry. Plus I like the meta concept of H/G in my head, kinda. But yeah, people doing the victory dance are lame... though I too did the victory dance for H/D & R/Hr, so I too am lame... it's a fannish-dork thing ^^;; Of course, there's a difference, also, between 'victory dance' and 'being an obnoxious asshole' ^^;;;
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 12:04 am (UTC)So yeah, I was never saying quality didn't matter...
As for cliches... yeah, can be executed well... and I probably wouldn't like it nearly as much if 1) I didn't already love Ron & Hermione to start with, partly 'cause of
Anyway, I don't want people to avoid bias, as I admitted in the post that'd be impossible. The point was always to keep one's opinions as opinions and not to make 'serious' points based on uber-shaky and pretty much stark-raving-mad reasoning like 'omg Harry/Hermione SHOULD'VE BEEN THERE BECAUSE OMG IT'S THE ONLY IDEAL OF LOVE THAT MATTERS AND OMG WHY IS JKR NOT PRIVY TO THAT FACT, BITCH!!!1'
Bias is one thing... taking that bias to its most rabid, unchecked extreme is another.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 06:26 am (UTC)I want to be polemic and jump on this!!! What's wrong with me, I see the name Ginny and then I can never stop.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 06:43 am (UTC)I know you think it's stupid, offensive, lame, whatever. My emotional response isn't really tied to how sophisticated or 'well-done' it is, so any point is therefore 100% moot; any kiss Harry enjoyed, I'd enjoy, bottom line.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 02:11 pm (UTC)Anyway,
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 05:50 pm (UTC)It's just... what's really driven me up the wall with fandom recently isn't that we all disagree rabidly (I always knew that), but that everyone seemed to continuously project their own values and reactions onto the characters. Like, if -they- wouldn't like Ron's awkward idiotic fumblings, of course Hermione wouldn't, because Hermione's not that kind of girl; she has to take it the same way you the reader do.
I've been in other fandoms where I've seen this, so really it shouldn't come as a surprise to me here, but the sheer amount of people doing it is mindboggling. I guess I forget how many people don't read the characters as "characters" but as "me".
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 01:37 am (UTC)I don't think that Ron & Hermione's relationship began in HBP anyway-- it began in book 1, on the train, and grew kind of steadily and slowly, in fits and starts, since then.
Anyway, while Ron & Hermione were definitely dysfunctional and fighting big-time in book 6, neither was it supposed to be a portrait of true love (yet). They're still fumbling and denying and quarrelling on their way there-- the love hasn't had a chance to actually come forth & exist freely, 'cause Ron's insecure and clueless and Hermione's fed up with putting up with him. So they can-- and will-- change, and this isn't really how their -relationship- is so much as the strain of putting it off and seeing Ron flaunting Lavender in her face showing on Hermione. I don't think that one incident is really enough to show Hermione as some sort of abusive harpy, I guess? She's just a pissed off teenage girl at her limit; usually she's quite composed and reasonable and rational, to say the least.
And, well, there are almost infinite ways that true love can begin, I think, some are just a lot less likely than others~:)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 01:44 am (UTC)Yeah, I mean, Juliet is a bit too perfect, isn't she-- and she's so stealing Romeo's gay, too >:D
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 03:16 pm (UTC)She is? Where? Cause what I saw was gettin'-together from the point of view of the characters at the time when it's happening, which is when you don't know if you're going to be together forever or if it's going to just be a crush & peter out (or the great mass of possibility in the middle.) Even Harry (rather maturely) meditates at one point about how the people you hang out with in school aren't necessarily your Best Friends Forevah! for the rest of your life.
Not that I think those characters *couldn't* be together forever, y'know, I'll wait & see what happens in the story... I'm just not seeing the romance treated as Predestination in the way that the Harry/Voldemort conflict is, with prophecy & all.
Romeo & Juliet wasn't written in modern times, and isn't a moral story about good vs. evil wherein one of the supposed "good guys" physically attacks their love match.
Rowling is clearly not interested in writing a story about good vs. evil in which one side does nothing but good and the other does nothing but evil, though. Harry lies constantly, Fred & George can be total jerks, Snape is an abusive petty tyrant of a teacher, etc. Which, duh, because if this were a Victorian throwback children's book (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006476.html), no one would read it.