![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI haven't been online like, at all, 'cause I'm totally engrossed in GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire series. And since the books are all 800+ pages and the last before this one was a thousand or so, I really don't have time for much of anything -but- reading these days, ahahah. I dunno if it's positive or negative that I'm on my last book-- on the one hand, I'll finally get to some comments & emails I've been lagging behind on (SORRY!!) but on the other hand I've grown seriously addicted to these books. Omg, there are no words. Seriously. Well, actually, there are a lot of words, but I'd rather read :>
My big Thought for the Day that I wanted to write down enough to actually get to a computer was this: one thing that's v. obvious in the books, one running theme, is outcasts. If someone is dispossessed, alienated or widely shunned, you can just tell that character will be sympathetic and basically won't be killed, even if they suffer a whole lot. On the other hand, if someone comes from comfort and is easily accepted and wins a lot of battles and loyalty easily, it will always be -too- easily, and their fall will come, no matter how delayed. They will get theirs.
This theme of 'Winter is Coming' is the House slogan of the main characters and also a main theme of the books, I think. The 'winners' don't always win by a long-shot, but the point is seemingly that their losing is really what strengthens them and prepares them to eventually win for good, on a larger scale. So while the Kings of Summer (literally, the House of lions) seem to hold the day-- the week-- the year-- what they really hold is the (only partly metaphorical) summer. And winter-- winter is coming, and only the alienated, the dispossessed, the fierce and immovable and most of all the stubborn (yet honorable!!) will survive the ultimate trial where it's not a 'game of thrones', no summer's play-- it's not a game, not win or lose, it's live or die, and to quote one of the (honorably dead) main characters, 'only the pack survives'-- or dies a noble death, it seems.
It's just really notable in hindsight: literally every likable character out of a cast of more than a dozen is lamed or seemingly 'weakened' somehow: mocked by their peers, looked down on, disregarded even if (and often when) they mock right back. Every likable character, whether or not they're (usually temporarily) powerful is an outcast and a misfit and often an honorable bastard, and every powerful, popular character is too blessed, too beautiful or rich or both. In fact, one of the main pretty/rich ones had to literally become maimed (and therefore outcast as a warrior) before they became written as truly sympathetic. One of 'the pack', even if he doesn't know it yet.
The (eventual) losers in these books are both the cowardly and dishonorable (liars, flatterers, those proud beyond their real worth who value themselves above all) and the overly self-assured in their valor and strength. They value strength without knowing weakness, without recognizing their own weakness, and that is why the reader knows they will fail.
What I was thinking (to finally get to it) of any interest to any of you is this: I think a reader's reaction to Harry will very often depend on whether they can see Harry as being truly dispossessed and alienated (and therefore 'deserving' of victory, as per GRRM's laws and actually JKR's as well-- it's just GRRM actually shows it more convincingly). It generally seems that people who root for the Slyths or at least are indifferent or actively against Harry basically can't see him as being alienated, an outsider, and instead see the -Slytherins- as being truly in the role of 'the outsiders', even if the authorial voice seems to utterly contradict this. (And small wonder Snape is seen at least somewhat sympathetically across the board, because whether one sees the Slyths or the Gryffs as 'the underdog', it's hard not to notice what a dispossessed, alienated bastard Severus Snape is: clearly he deserves some righteous victory... though in the Potterverse, who the hell knows if he'll get it or what it even is that he wants.)
Of course, this is a question of writerly quality, as to whether the writer is successful in portraying one group as being more 'worthy' or as 'the underdog' (which spells righteous victory, right). But the whole issue of reader's judgment nevertheless revolves around this central question, one way or the other, I think: is-- or is not-- Harry actually 'the Outsider', the 'stranger in a strange land', regardless of all his gifts & connections? Are Harry's support his pack (in GRRM's terms) or his legacy? That is the central question (which is much more clearly put in 'Song of Ice & Fire' than the HP books).
~~
Also, I realized (again), reading George RR Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series, that I -always- go for the bastardiest of the bastards. As soon as someone becomes more of a bastard, I like them more than the last bastard. I want to be cured!!! BUT HOW??!
On the bright side, I don't like stupid bastards. If they're stupid, delusional or really mad/insane, all bets are off. I've also found I don't really like womanizing bastards v. much. In a sort of 'well, that's nice but stay away from me' sort of way, but not a swoony way. I mean, I like bastards that are actually honorable and full of self-restraint in the flesh even if they're berserkers in a rage or can't control their mouth & mock everyone. But in terms of sex, if they're unrestrained in that arena for some reason I can't respect them quite the same way. It's odd, isn't it?
My big Thought for the Day that I wanted to write down enough to actually get to a computer was this: one thing that's v. obvious in the books, one running theme, is outcasts. If someone is dispossessed, alienated or widely shunned, you can just tell that character will be sympathetic and basically won't be killed, even if they suffer a whole lot. On the other hand, if someone comes from comfort and is easily accepted and wins a lot of battles and loyalty easily, it will always be -too- easily, and their fall will come, no matter how delayed. They will get theirs.
This theme of 'Winter is Coming' is the House slogan of the main characters and also a main theme of the books, I think. The 'winners' don't always win by a long-shot, but the point is seemingly that their losing is really what strengthens them and prepares them to eventually win for good, on a larger scale. So while the Kings of Summer (literally, the House of lions) seem to hold the day-- the week-- the year-- what they really hold is the (only partly metaphorical) summer. And winter-- winter is coming, and only the alienated, the dispossessed, the fierce and immovable and most of all the stubborn (yet honorable!!) will survive the ultimate trial where it's not a 'game of thrones', no summer's play-- it's not a game, not win or lose, it's live or die, and to quote one of the (honorably dead) main characters, 'only the pack survives'-- or dies a noble death, it seems.
It's just really notable in hindsight: literally every likable character out of a cast of more than a dozen is lamed or seemingly 'weakened' somehow: mocked by their peers, looked down on, disregarded even if (and often when) they mock right back. Every likable character, whether or not they're (usually temporarily) powerful is an outcast and a misfit and often an honorable bastard, and every powerful, popular character is too blessed, too beautiful or rich or both. In fact, one of the main pretty/rich ones had to literally become maimed (and therefore outcast as a warrior) before they became written as truly sympathetic. One of 'the pack', even if he doesn't know it yet.
The (eventual) losers in these books are both the cowardly and dishonorable (liars, flatterers, those proud beyond their real worth who value themselves above all) and the overly self-assured in their valor and strength. They value strength without knowing weakness, without recognizing their own weakness, and that is why the reader knows they will fail.
What I was thinking (to finally get to it) of any interest to any of you is this: I think a reader's reaction to Harry will very often depend on whether they can see Harry as being truly dispossessed and alienated (and therefore 'deserving' of victory, as per GRRM's laws and actually JKR's as well-- it's just GRRM actually shows it more convincingly). It generally seems that people who root for the Slyths or at least are indifferent or actively against Harry basically can't see him as being alienated, an outsider, and instead see the -Slytherins- as being truly in the role of 'the outsiders', even if the authorial voice seems to utterly contradict this. (And small wonder Snape is seen at least somewhat sympathetically across the board, because whether one sees the Slyths or the Gryffs as 'the underdog', it's hard not to notice what a dispossessed, alienated bastard Severus Snape is: clearly he deserves some righteous victory... though in the Potterverse, who the hell knows if he'll get it or what it even is that he wants.)
Of course, this is a question of writerly quality, as to whether the writer is successful in portraying one group as being more 'worthy' or as 'the underdog' (which spells righteous victory, right). But the whole issue of reader's judgment nevertheless revolves around this central question, one way or the other, I think: is-- or is not-- Harry actually 'the Outsider', the 'stranger in a strange land', regardless of all his gifts & connections? Are Harry's support his pack (in GRRM's terms) or his legacy? That is the central question (which is much more clearly put in 'Song of Ice & Fire' than the HP books).
~~
Also, I realized (again), reading George RR Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series, that I -always- go for the bastardiest of the bastards. As soon as someone becomes more of a bastard, I like them more than the last bastard. I want to be cured!!! BUT HOW??!
On the bright side, I don't like stupid bastards. If they're stupid, delusional or really mad/insane, all bets are off. I've also found I don't really like womanizing bastards v. much. In a sort of 'well, that's nice but stay away from me' sort of way, but not a swoony way. I mean, I like bastards that are actually honorable and full of self-restraint in the flesh even if they're berserkers in a rage or can't control their mouth & mock everyone. But in terms of sex, if they're unrestrained in that arena for some reason I can't respect them quite the same way. It's odd, isn't it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 02:24 pm (UTC)How people see him as fundamentally privileged is beyond me. The boy was abused and conspired against even by his alleged allies (I'm convinced DD wanted the Dursleys to raise him so that he'd turn out to be a nasty, unpleasant person -- all the easier to then use him as a tool without feeling guilty about it.) He's emotionally damaged, has difficulty connecting with people except through the most childish filters, and is possibly doomed in the battle against Voldemort. So it seems to me that his struggle for normalcy, his sparks of health and energy, moments of likeability, should be cherished even if they're exceptions to his normal behavior.
As for the favoritism that's shown him -- some of it he's earned, some of it is in effect blood money, and some of it is at the bottom manipulative on the part of people who are "favoring" him; so people shouldn't go too far with that, I don't think. It's a reasonable thing to point it out in interpreting Harry's circumstances, but it disturbs me a little when people just constantly vent their resentment at him.
I'm kind of divided on the Slytherin question. I think the author's bias is annoying, but I have trouble seeing them as actually victimized or put-upon in her world. Where the Slytherin thing pushes buttons, I think, is this: for a lot of us who were particularly naive or socially awkward as children, adolescence and growing up were partly about a difficult coming-to-terms with the value of ambition, social calculation, healthy self-interest, etc, as essential life-skills. And the learning process is sometimes painful, even humiliating, if one retains for too long a vulnerability to people who don't make "niceness" a priority.
So people who've had that particular path toward maturity are maybe going to look at JKR's depiction of the Slytherins and see her implicit attitude toward them as something infantilizing, sentimental, and infuriating. They've paid to get past that kind of thinking, themselves. And by "they," I mean "me," I guess -- I plead guilty of having to learn that lesson in my teens. So I may be projecting motives here. But I think it's probably true of anyone who's had to consciously acquire more of an edge, who's had to get past a painful naivete, that they are impatient with messages that seem to blur the importance of that lesson.
So yeah, it's tempting to take JKR and shake her and tell her that these Slytherins are on to something that's essential to living well, and that Gryffindor "virtue" is uglier, not prettier, for refusing introspection and reflection. You find yourself wanting to denounce the lie.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 03:11 pm (UTC)I find the idea of outcasts growing up more calculating and thus the identification link really interesting psychologically, anyway. I grew up win a loving family & with lots of encouragement and always had plenty of healthy self-interest (which didn't make me v. calculating at all-- but then I take that sort of thing too much for granted, I know). When people are deprived, I suppose they must scheme more for their minimum survival levels-- and it seems ridiculous to say 'scheme honorably', but I think it's possible. One need not become false; that would be giving in to the mockers, the elite. If one could attain some priviledge while retaining one's selfhood, now that would be an achievement. And I suppose it's that stubborn belief that makes me value truth-of-self over manipulation-of-self; I prefer nothing over something that isn't -real-. I dunno whether that's my stubbornness, my semi-priviledge or my antisocialness (to hell with them all anyway! I don't need the losers that don't need me! etc) and therefore social underdevelopment talking :>
But yes. I was just thinking that this calculatingness... the real talent GRRM has is making the 'good guys' (or the 'grey' guys, but whatever) just as calculating as the 'bad' guys-- making it just another trait (which I -think- is what's supposed to fuel the House system in the first place, but GRRM is better at demonstrating this idea, as I tried to say); it's just that the good guys use calculation for different ends and have different ideals (or purposes) and more honor and... fairness? Decency? Something like that. It's one thing to be calculating & be good at strategy, tactics and such-- Dumbledore was, and he's a Gryff through and through. I suck ass at tactics, but know it's an invaluable skill; it's another thing to be a manipulative shrew like Pansy seems to be, y'know? Just saying.
Yeah, I really have no sympathy for those who see Slytherin (or, specifically, any Slytherin but Snape) as a poor put-upon lamb... and even Snape is definitely not the best target for pity, awful little man that he is; he pities himself enough for a dozen men. I think people are quite unreasonable about Harry across the board: like him or hate him, almost no one likes to just see him as he is without that pesky fact of him being the focus of the series overwhelming any 'normal' judgment of him. Now -that- really annoys me; he's not allowed to be a boy, he's got to be JKR's obvious buttmonkey. :/
...Though I do think Dumbledore was doing the best he could & really did care for Harry... maybe because I think giving him too much cunning is giving him too much inhumanity, perhaps? He wasn't sociopathic, and it makes sense that he made mistakes (a lot of mistakes, with Tom and Harry both). But yeah, Harry's easy to mock... hehehe I love how you add the 'underlying sympathy'-- that's so well-put :D Yes :D Someone just needs to knock him down a notch, but now how they -have- been.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 07:16 pm (UTC)Well, of course you put your finger on the difficulty with JKR, in that since she's not really interested in the Slytherins, they aren't actually three-dimensional-enough to illustrate what the Sorting Hat said about them. Which is frustrating! But I think we see some evidence of calculation in the way Draco used Rita Skeeter in GoF (though it's also possible, of course, that he was only too happy to have Rita use him), or ingratiating himself with Umbridge, etc., and of course all of HBP. And while calculation and introspection are two totally different things, it suggests a sort of self-consciousness that might link them . . . I don't know, as I say, it's a reach, but if we're talking about Slytherin traits I guess we have to take the Hat as major evidence. So it's about "ambition," "cunning," a willingness to do anything to get what one wants. Even if you look at Crabbe and Goyle in light of that definition and have to laugh.
The contrast between calculation and "truth and honesty" is a tricky one, I think. A thoughtful Slytherin might say, "well, is your goal self-expression through words and gestures or through results?" Either might be a way of being true to yourself, and is it cynical or just "not naive" to think that part of expressing yourself authentically is expressing yourself with a view to the impact that that expression will have on other people? Can there be such a thing as totally self-referential "expression?" It's true that a Gryffindor-type might do something so spectacularly noble that it transforms the way other people think and act; but if he's thinking about that impact rather than just about how he himself looks in the mirror, isn't that a bit Slytherin of him?
I think you're right about JKR, as usual, not being consistent. I really do miss Slytherin!Harry and chess-player!Ron from PS/SS. I don't know why she's let that side of each of them fade away as the series goes on.
I haven't read GRRM, which of course liberates me to babble off on tangents rather than closely engage what you say about him. :) Two thoughts: you seem to be saying that GRRM's "good guys" are as calculating as the "bad guys," they just calculate for nobler purposes. Which is fine; I can definitely respect that more than Dumbeldore's insidious mockery of intelligence, or Hermione's conflictedness about books and cleverness.
But not having read those books, I'm not entirely clear about how good/bad corresponds with insider/outsider in GRRM. There are a lot of different ways to play the insider/outsider game, and you can certainly set up a world where the corrupt insiders are the villains and the heroic outsiders are the deserving underdogs. But I've always been wary of rooting for underdogs just because they're underdogs. :) That way lies a glorification of resentment, a kind of moral Mary-Sue-ism, maybe. I'd rather see the two dimensions cut across each other, so that you have competent good guys and competent bad guys, and "nice guys" who finish last and "nasty guys" who are just inept and get pounded. Hufflepuff!Zach and Ravenclaw!Marietta? *runs away!* But the more types, the more dissasociated the traits, the merrier!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 01:20 am (UTC)That is a really interesting point, and actually a lot of the 'grey outsider' good guys in GRRM act through honesty/honor-in-results, because in words they just mock a lot or they just aren't v. communicative. Um. I didn't mean to connect words with honesty so directly; I think 'self-expression through results' is basically a question of honor whereas we don't even see a lot of 'self-expression through words' in the true/sincere artistic way in JKR -or- GRRM. So I don't want to make that a necessity by any means; people are free to say what they think needs to be said -or- what they can't help saying (I can admire and enjoy both approaches, because thoughtlessness can be amusing and endearing while premeditated mockery & trickery is its own reward-- though premeditated flattery annoys me as well as GRRM).
I don't think GRRM at least, combines the value 'truth' or honor with something so simple as just 'saying what you mean', though there -are- characters who always do that who are noble/true in his world, and some that are honest and valiant but hobbled by their own rigidity in that matter, too (so one sympathizes with their staunchness while realizing they're too stuck in their stubborn, ossified 'honor' and 'justice'). You're right in that sometimes you need different tools for different tasks-- obviously any person who's going to be successful should be aware of as much context and consequences as possible, to make the best choices. However... ideally (in GRRM's world and probably in mine), this flexibility is cloaked around an inner solid 'core' of something like hard metal-- a deep conviction, a moral center, something that you always depend on to guide you, something that keeps you honest with yourself most of all. If there's one thing GRRM shows as important it's 'always know what you're fighting for'.
I think I see GRRM's more sympathetic characters as 'honest' less because they just say whatever's on their mind and more because they don't compromise themselves (where it counts) outright in word or deed, whatever they say otherwise. Often he writes a treacherous bastard-type character whose loyalties seem uncertain and who cheats and schemes and lies when he has to, but his central sense of justice and basic unflinching self-awareness is what allows him to do the right thing in the end. Or... something like that.
That way lies a glorification of resentment, a kind of moral Mary-Sue-ism, maybe.
You're quite right in this, I think, though I don't see a glorification of resentment or much of anything in GRRM's world. Umm... though a lot of the outsider characters have a lot of resentment, naturally, it's not glorified but rather dissected and shown-- and their journey is really to grow past it, to 'serve the realm' with their best ability. This is all part of the emphasis on 'the pack' and not being a lone wolf and helping others in GRRM; this is the 'cure' to the resentment and self-aggrandizing that an outsider could fall into. 'Cause once one finds people to fight for-- a brotherhood, literally or analogously-- that's when one becomes useful, an adult, aware of their place in the world and capable of making things better.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 04:15 pm (UTC)The resentment that some people feel toward Harry has always bewildered me a little bit. I do think he's easy to mock: he's surly, judgmental, often oblivious, takes special treatment for granted, etc. etc. But I think he should be mocked with some restraint, with some underlying sympathy.
That's a great place to start to look at it, especially coupled with the infantalizing feeling of the Slytherins. Harry's just in a really interesting position in his world, because he really seems to straddle the line--perhaps so does Snape. I think you sort of get both of them wrong when you try to make them one or the other. They can both be assholes but...is that all they are? Does that even really matter in every context? We see Snape classically picked on and bullied, but we also see him doing that to others. We see Harry given special treatment, but we also see that treatment as transparently manipulative. I tend to be vocal about saying that no, Harry is not just simply embarassed by special treatment, that he does take it for granted. At the same time, I don't consider this a flaw of Harry's. It seems just real--he knows he's been treated like dirt and then treated like a celebrity and he's rolled with both things and incorporated them into his personality, sometimes in a defiant way.
In terms of the Slytherins, as I've said before, the moment I had actual canonical hope for Draco was in Slughorn's class when Harry said he'd have to get by on his talent now, because there again I think both sides of the issue are true. Draco is perfectly right to think that Harry gets special treatment as a celebrity. The problem isn't, I don't think, simply that Draco thinks he's the one who should be getting that treatment or that he's always gotten that kind of treatment himself before now. I think it's more complicated, that this is just something that Draco, like any other kid, has to learn to deal with. Life isn't fair; sometimes the other kid gets the special treatment. Draco's upbringing makes this a particularly hard lesson for him to learn, but Ron deals with similar jealousy himself throughout the books. Only Ron, as the youngest, most average boy in a family of 7, has learned to expect this sort of thing and make it part of his personality. It's not even just special treatment but special talent--Harry and Hermione have special gifts while Ron and Draco are more like ordinary kids who have to search for their own worth and talent.
The "solution" for Draco and so maybe for Slytherin, seems connected to what happens in HBP. Draco has to just put himself to the test. He's cut off from all special treatment--except the negative kind. Can he make a plan work or not? And when he does make it work, does he want to go through with it or not? That's the only place self-worth really exists is within yourself and your own abilities. That seems the real thing at the heart of the outcast question. An outcast, perhaps, is someone we can assume stands on his own abilities. It's a shortcut because they've had to sink or swim, but it's not all there is.
I can see why people think Slytherin is both the priviledged set and the outcast. I find it very irritating that in the movie, apparently, Hagrid tries to paint Harry, Ron and Hermione as outcasts instead of just three regular kids in their class when none of them are that steretoype. What's important isn't the popularity quotient but that they have some isolated moments where they're really tested. Pre-HBP I'd say Harry was usually the character who got that story. Draco's story was much like that in HBP. Snape has quite possibly had his own story like that. So that's Gryffindor and Slytherin represented by perhaps Harry, Draco, Snape, Peter and Regulus. All these characters have support systems but they've also all been outcasts from those systems in some way or have chosen to isolate themselves.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 07:45 pm (UTC)I love it! And I think you're really on to something when you point out that he doesn't so much take things for granted as take them in stride. He's been abused and he's been favored. He's had to deal with the pluses and minuses of his celebrity, with being valued but not necessariy respected. He's had to reconcile the contradictions of being the center of attention but also an object casually manipulated by others. And he just works with it, works with whatever comes down. It's only in OOTP that he seems truly balked by this, that his self-possession seems to break down, and I'm still not totally sure what to make of that exception. The rest of the time, the flip side of his obliviousness is that he is very reality-oriented when it comes to things that do break into his awareness -- he just deals.
I think in a way your argument about Harry supplements and modifies your argument about outsiders. Because you talk about Ron and Draco, as "ordinary" people resenting the specialness of Harry and Hermione, and having to find their own center in an unfair world. And that's a good thing, that's a developmental challenge that Draco, at least, is equal to in HBP and benefits from, at least in the sense of becoming a stronger person. (He may still end up as Nagini-chow, of course, but he'll have had his moment of integrity!) But I think your point about Harry suggests that the fundamental issue is very similar for him, too. Only instead of having to find a sense of self-worth when other people are denying his worth, he has to find a source of authentic self-worth when other people are offering him all kinds of shoddy and distracting substitutes.
That's one reason I'm reluctant to privilege "outsider" status, as I said to Reena above. Outsiders may be good or bad, deserving or undeserving, for reasons entirely unrelated to their outsider status. I don't want to sentimentalize them.
I like the way you've expanded the argument to the Twins and the Weasleys. Again I find the idea of outsider!Weasleys just bizarre. Actually I think JKR is already coding the twins as successful thugs -- look at them hanging out in their flashy jackets at Dumbledore's funeral -- and of course they're war profiteers in HBP as well. The thing about the Weasleys as "outsiders" is that they're like a lot of, say, old-WASP families where a particular nuclear family may have fallen on hard times, opted out of the fast track, but if the kids really want to climb back up the pole, there are plenty of rich and connected uncles and aunts and cousins they can work with. The Weasley's pureblood status opens doors for them, I'm sure, across the WW. So, Bill has had no problem getting into "finance," (i.e. tomb-raiding), and Percy's career is taking off like a rocket, and Ron just needs to wake up and see that Molly and Arthur don't have to define his horizons. So yeah, the Weasleys are the last people I would consider outsiders. Even if I were willing to grant points to outsiders. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 11:16 pm (UTC)Yes--and I think we see that a lot just in the world. Everyone gets their victim act down, so you can even have people who are in charge of everything claiming that it's them that are being ostracized and kept down or treated unfairly. You've got some people who think it's great to present themselves as wholesome, all-American cheerleader who was in 4-H and the church group because that makes you part of the small "good" minority standing up against the godless weirdo liberal society. Meanwhile another person might now be a famous actor/model who always claims to have been one of the nerds and rejects because that's the outsider myth in their world.
Just last week in the Snarkery we had Molly hearing Slughorn's name and immediately telling Harry how he froze Arthur out, but that Arthur proved him wrong by being promoted while so many favorites of Slughorn's got jobs in the Ministry. This despite Arthur obviously being a favorite of Dumbledore's, a far more powerful man. Ron and Harry both have something invested in their outsider status when they meet. Ron presents himself as the perennial loser and Harry, fresh out of the cupboard, warms to him immediately. They're the losers--even while both of them know to steer clear of Neville and Hermione. Draco isn't only frozen out for insulting Ron, but for taking exactly the opposite tack and presenting himself as an "insider" when Harry and Ron have just bonded, subtly, over being outsiders. Once Draco's been rejected he himself adopts the rhetoric of the outsider (all the teachers have favorites, everyone thinks Potter's so special with his stupid scar...) even while the Slytherins also take the "there's no one besides us worth knowing" approach in HBP.
Which brings me sort of back to Harry again and the way that honestly the main thing that seems to draw people to him is his self-sufficiency. HBP was the first time Harry has ever been actively interested in another student's life--even with Cho and Ginny he's only interested in how they feel about him. In HBP he has to try to find out what's actually going on in Slytherin on their own terms. He's aware of himself as an outsider, of course, because he's not a Slytherin, but it's far less loaded. He's not seeing it in terms of Slytherins being allowed to get away with stuff or looking for ways this proves they're evil. Maybe that's another reason why Ron and Hermione don't follow into his investigations (besides plot reasons). Those two remain firmly fixed in Gryffindor just as they've been the past 6 years. (The DA used other students but there was no real desire to get to know and be friends with them.) Harry is perhaps the one to genuinely begin to look beyond house rivalries not for any conscious reason but because this is the way his real purpose pulls him. By this point he's the King of Gryffindor, dishy, tall, heroic, the Quidditch captain who draws first years and Hufflepuffs to his try-outs. He's taking special classes with Dumbledore. The new Potions teacher and Slug Club guy practically genuflects when he comes into class. There's all this intrigue going on in Gryffindor and he just doesn't care. He'd like Ginny for himself, but his focus is on Draco (who's involved in adult world intrigue) and his new, interesting and exciting friend, the Half-Blood Prince.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 02:18 am (UTC)I think it's true that Harry & Ron rejected Draco for being too obviously an 'insider', which is why I laugh scornfully at the people who say it could've been that Harry would have been friends with Draco if not for coincidental circumstances. I think no matter what, Draco would've pumped up his insiderness and Harry would've sneered at him. Harry really hates insiders whether or not it's reasonable or the outsiders are secretly insiders; he seems to just hate people who claim to be insiders and rub it in his face. Which just sort of makes me think that's his own insecurity and resentment talking. But even so, it's laughable to think he could've gotten over it way back then.
I really wonder about your (great!) point about Harry's 'real purpose', and wish you'd expand on that more, too :D Heh. I think maybe that's related, though: that Harry refuses to be a Gryffindor insider even if he is, because it bores him and just isn't what he wants as part of his identity. It's like, he 'looks beyond house rivalries' to validate his own self-image as 'apart', as needing to find his own purpose and his own niche and his own questions. Although really, he's just obsessed with all things Slytherin, it's just that simple; more than anyone else in Gryffindor (and they're really -all- obsessed) he can't let it go 'cause of his obvious multiple blood-ties and all that. And Draco... that's a personal thing, too.
But-- yes! He 'just doesn't care' about Gryffindor, the concerns of his supposed 'pack', and I wish people who went on about how Harry likes his priviledge or is consciously 'King' would realize this. He may be elected by others but has no desire to deal with those others, either as a leader or a manipulator or prince Draco-style. He just wants to do his own thing with his friends to back him up, but since he doesn't trust many people-- not even Ginny-- that basically amounts to Ron & Hermione. So all that stuff about him being on top is just somehow irrelevant from -Harry's- pov. And I can't decide just how important Harry's own pov is in understanding Harry, but I do know many people just disregard it when judging him harshly.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 04:17 am (UTC)Actually...I think it's almost the same issue. Because it's like people who want an outlet for their own victimized feelings maybe tend to make whatever character they like more victimized. Harry really isn't resentful in that way--I mean, he's resentful of some things, but not in quite this way. His "Poor Me" stuff in OotP comes out more like, FUCK OFF! Or as he says at one point, "Gee, having hard life. I wonder what that's like." It's not about being an outsider so much as having people fucking with him.
Which just sort of makes me think that's his own insecurity and resentment talking. But even so, it's laughable to think he could've gotten over it way back then.
Oh yeah--they're just total opposites that way. Harry needs to be one and Draco needs to be the other, even when they're switched. I mean, Harry will complain about the responsibilies or attention he gets and Draco will complain about Harry being the one to get those responsibilities and attention, but they'll still both want to see themselves as insider (Draco) and outsider (Harry) because that's what they think is the good thing to be. For Harry "insider" is the Dursleys and for Draco "outsider" is Mudbloods. Neither of them gets that it's all illusion.
So all that stuff about him being on top is just somehow irrelevant from -Harry's- pov.
Yes! Pre-OotP I always thought that was important in terms of trio-dynamics too because Ron's such a beta male and Harry freaked him out by not being an Alpha. I mean, he is one in individual situations, but he's not interested in dominating in general. When he leads it's because he has stuff he needs to get done, not because he needs to be the leader, exactly. Like, I suspect he's much more interested in making sure he's not dominating than dominating himself.
So yeah, it's like...in HBP especially the house issue is just irrelevent. He's maybe obsessed with Slytherin because even if he doesn't know it it's kind of his shadow and he's attracted to stuff that scares him about himself. He's not interested in uniting the houses really, like the Sorting Hat says and Hermione therefore wants to do in OotP. With the DA he just has this yen to teach Defense once it's brought up. In HBP he just knows where the action is, and it's not in Gryffindor, it's in Slytherin. Plus in that book it reminds me of the one time Draco and Harry are on the same page in PoA, when Draco's saying if it were his family Sirius had killed he'd want revenge. He just recognizes these are the people he clicks with this year, even if he hates both of them. And in the end the house just doesn't matter to him. Yeah, he hates Slytherins on principle, but he also still seems to know it's part of him. He's not trespassing there or anything. *Darth Vader voice* It is his destiny.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 08:50 pm (UTC)Sorry, that should read that Harry's much more interested in making sure he's not dominated not dominating.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:09 am (UTC)Hee! So much for top!Ron :D :D But yeah-- though I really wonder precisely what you mean (since I haven't thought enough about old Trio dynamics, I guess). Do you mean that if he was more assertive, Ron would feel more reassured of his place & wouldn't have had those jealous moments?? heh. But watching the GoF movie, I thought Ron's looking out for Harry even though they were fighting & Ron was all 'I don't need you!!' was so... genuinely submissive of him. And Harry didn't even register it, I don't think. ^^;
And, ahaha, yeah, it's totally the 'people he clicks with' thing-- though I imagine he wouldn't admit to that even under torture. He's just curious about 'dark' stuff & 'Slytherin' stuff in a way he -couldn't- be with Gryffindor 'cause it seems like Gryffindor has no mysteries or shady past or mysterious objects attached to it. I mean, the Sorting Hat and the sword? That's not that exciting. It really seems as if Slytherin's where it's at in general-- not sure if this is Harry's filter or the other Houses really are milque-toast. I imagine he just goes where the suspicious 'action' is, whereas the other students are happy 'just' being students. Harry was never really happy with doing homework and going to class if that's all that was going on :> It's a sort of self-fulfilling destiny :D
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:41 am (UTC)would feel more reassured of his place & wouldn't have had those jealous
moments?? heh.
Yeah, sort of like that. Because Ron thinks Harry put his name in the Goblet without telling him so it's like...he's fine being his sidekick but Harry doesn't seem to understand that that means Ron's supposed to be in on this stuff. That's the perk, so everyone knows he and Harry are a team. And then they're fighting and Harry's just like, "Okay, fine. I'll just be all on my own!" And then he hits him below the belt with his wanting to have a scar. I feel like Ron's kind of thrown by that whole fight because it's not like he ever actually challenges Harry for being the leader--he's the freakin' boy who lived. But Harry doesn't give back the way a natural leader would--he's more of an Omega than an Alpha.
Like, since this was post-OotP I used to think look at the Slytherin group by contrast. Draco gives Orders and seems to give rewards as well. There's no inter-Trio dating, Draco just gets a girl who takes the position of the boss' girlfriend. Crabbe and Goyle pretty much know how to treat her with respect without it coming between the guys in any way. It's not the kind of friendship everyone would want but it's a very clear male hierarchy--even Harry gets that at the end of HBP.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 01:50 am (UTC)Yeah... that is definitely the central 'bonus' of outsiderdom in GRRM's world, anyway-- it -is- a shortcut to make the characters 'grow up' and look around and start swimming for real. They don't even get a stable support system of other outsiders (like the Weasleys? or Harry and the Weasleys?), which is what breeds resentment as b_d was saying. I think resentment is too soft a sentiment for one who's always having to survive, sink or swim, deal with the facts as they are ('cause 'winter is coming', ahahah). And I think Harry is just such a survivor-- he takes what he can get, good or bad, and tries to work with it. So when he gets priviledge, he accepts it, and when he got the Dursleys, he worked with that too, yeah.
The only thing that separates Harry from the sympathetic outsiders in GRRM's world is that he hasn't necessarily found that 'iron center', that realization that to survive, one has to hunt with the pack, 'serve the realm', all that stuff. He's -too- self-centered, too much out for himself, and he views his pack as being there to help him moreso than him wanting to help them. That's his main issue, I think.
With the twins-- yes! I definitely think they're too complacent or naive and self-assured, as per GRRM's 'bad guy' stereotype (though they've got potential and aren't ossified like 'true' bad guys); it's true that Draco finally got the necessary kick in the butt and swam (while huffing and puffing and crying for mommy, I'm sure) in HBP. I think we need to see the next book to see how he -deals- with it, 'cause just this one trial isn't enough-- you'd need to see what he learns from it. What's more important than merely having a trial by fire (I think) is having that hardship actually transform into strength; I think it's the equivalent of limping along with boils on one's feet from endlessly walking and then having them burst and transform into calluses. And -then- figuring out where one should -go- in the first place. Some strength, intelligence/cunning and abiilty to survive alone isn't enough, I don't think-- that way lies eventual over-self-assurance and ossification if you somehow fail to see your weaknesses clearly and your duties honorably.
I suspect we don't have room to deal with all this in the one book that's left to us, though... JKR always did focus more on plot than character development, anyway...
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 04:21 am (UTC)Just wanted to say--oh yes, totally. HBP definitely doesn't leave Draco at the callus stage. If anything he sees at his most vulnerable at the moment the book ends. He's come to the moment of truth and then...we don't know what he'd do. Given that DD dies at that point he could completely regress and give up. But then, had DD lived he might have done that as well, sort of just get to the point where he was protected by DD and relax forever. I feel like taking DD away and leaving Draco with potentially only Harry on the opposite side, is another kick in the butt. He'd have to work for it again, which would be good for him. He can't stop swimming now, and if Harry's watching he can't cry for mommy.:)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 02:49 am (UTC)With Harry, it seems more conflicted or double-edged or something, as in he's got aspects of both-- so it's totally up to the reader to pick which aspect they think is dominant or more important. I just like him or understand him or... I just don't feel the others are as 'vibrant' or real to me in the books, so Harry works for me and I think -he- sees himself as an outsider (which is half the issue anyway, since self-perception is so paramount in these things-- how we're seen by others is closely tied with how we see ourselves). But with JKR, things are just so... ham-handed, or something? The lines seem too clearly drawn so one rebels and tries to rethink things. But in GRRM's world, it just-- makes sense. Plus the (very few) actual villains are just delusional and annoying. I do think you can accuse Harry of being delusional and annoying too, though. Sigh :>
no subject
Date: 2006-04-15 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 02:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 08:19 am (UTC)It's funny 'cause the only central character I really dislike is Cersei. Seriously, I want to slap her like, ALL THE TIME. >:O I wonder if there are really people that... annoying & stupid & shrill & weak, but I know there are. I feel sorry for her, though, a little. But even so, she really annoys me. She can't even love Jaime properly, and she's just -obsessed- with her children. *rolls eyes*
But yes. I just needed to babble at you 'cause I was reading Brienne's bit and was like OMG JAIME/BRIENNE. HEE. It will so happen. But it's really taking forever :/
...Also I wanna know who Dany ends up with, like, for real, 'cause Khal Drogo wasn't really for real. Also, I really disliked Jon's girl, whatever her name was. 'You know nothing, Jon Snow'-- HOW ANNOYING IS THAT? If someone kept telling me 'you know nothing, Reena' I would NOT kiss them but I might strangle them -.-;; =;
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 03:15 am (UTC)I don't know, really! And I'm sorry to say this, because I get the feeling you disagree, but I CANNOT TAKE JON SNOW. I am really bored by him, I think. Or something. I don't know. I haven't read these books in at least two years (still haven't read A Feast For Crows, so this might be slightly outdated) but I always got impatient when a chapter of his (AND THERE WERE SO MANY) would come up.
Jaime/Loras, fldkjfsa. 'bri got me into that pairing, so. She also made me deeply intrigued by her fixation on Jaime/Bran, haha, so, yes. I think I wrote her a drabble for it once.
I love Dany, but I don't know who she should be with? I remember so little about these books now but I want to re-read them. I love GRRM to an intense degree.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 02:54 pm (UTC)I was just guessing, since I'm imagining she'll be with one of the current main characters-- more prediction than desire, I guess? Usually, I go with 'likely canon couple' when I ship. How un-fanonish of me :>
....Jaime/Bran is just insane, though. I'm sorry, it just is :> Vaguely interesting for its insanity, but still. I can see Jon/Jaime and I can see Loras/Jaime for REALZ, but Bran? Well, he might have admired Jaime while he still had a hand 'cause he was a knight and all, but now? They could bond as cripples?? Hahahah. You should reread!! :D
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 05:21 pm (UTC)Sometimes he wakes up in the night with a phantom ache in his hand and he rotates his wrist thoughtfully, flexes his cramped fingers. It feels like a brush with someone else's history; after a moment, the pain will fade as if it never existed, and the night will settle quietly again. He, too, settles down, back to dreams of burning cities and lost girls, unless he wakes Bran by accident. Then, the boy will whisper, 'your hand?' and Jaime will say, 'it's nothing, go back to sleep.'
Bran has the same nightmares he does; sometimes he calls out Robb's name, or his mother's, and Jaime wakes instinctually and muffles the shouts before someone hears and finds them together. When the boy sleeps again, Jaime looks down at him, at the fall of his hair in the dark and the crease of his eyelids, the still boyish set of his jaw, and thinks, what did we escape? and, more importantly, when is it going to catch up with us?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 08:56 pm (UTC)I think I read a fic where they traveled together. I don't remember anything else, though.
WHEN ARE YOU GONNA WATCH 'ROME,' HUH?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-19 08:50 am (UTC)Actually, I keep meaning to watch the few TV shows in my queue (Rome & Veronica Mars & Firefly, maybe even SGA), but I always find something to read instead (...I think I have a problem. Maybe. Yes.) So I was thinking it'd be a nice change of pace after these humongous books to maybe watch stuff for a bit :> :>
no subject
Date: 2006-04-19 04:13 pm (UTC)WATCH ROME. FALL IN LOVE WITH TITUS PULLO/LUCIUS VORENUS. TELL ME ABOUT IT.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 08:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 08:34 am (UTC)...I've also realized that while I like bastards, I don't like sociopaths, per se. AHAHAH GOOD TO KNOW ISN'T IT :D
no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 08:43 am (UTC)I just can't wrap my head about people who can't see the small/dorky/unselfconscious quality of these characters. Like Chase. They just won't accept he's mentally 16!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 08:59 am (UTC)Also, this pic (http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i58/YaoiGoodness/cover.jpg) reminds me of a cute!bratty!Draco :D
no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 09:19 am (UTC)I do write cute bratty Draco. *brags* Mightily zapping butterflies and all that. Ahaha I may be a bit too pleased.
You know I just realised I have another evil type I like. The evil uke (http://kasumitodo.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/4aprile2006/12.gif) a la Kamui in Tsubasa. OMG. Am I lame?
http://kasumitodo.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/4aprile2006/10.gif
http://kasumitodo.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/4aprile2006/10.gif
http://kasumitodo.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/4aprile2006/06.gif
Gggggooood.
But that aside, just how fucking hot (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=it&lr=&rls=GBSA%2CGBSA%3A2006-03%2CGBSA%3Aen&q=kamui+fuuma) are Fuuma and Kamui? Why do people obsess over K/S and S/S when they could have THIS? Way lamer than me.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-20 09:51 am (UTC)Like, wtf: http://www.sitepros.net/kenshin/obsession/shitajiki/x01.jpg
I LOVE CLAMP: http://shounensugar.sphosting.com/kamui_fuuma.jpg
Non-evil Kamui can be supercute, too: http://www.sitepros.net/kenshin/obsession/shitajiki/x15th-01.jpg