![[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 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.