![[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 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.