[speaking of the dispossessed... er, bastards...]

[reenka]

I 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?

Comments

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

it's not like (I think) Draco or Crabbe or Goyle are more introspective than Harry & Hermione & Ron. None of the characters seem introspective besides maybe Snape (maaaaybe), Dumbledore, Remus & Luna.

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!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

A thoughtful Slytherin might say, "well, is your goal self-expression through words and gestures or through results?"
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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the whole 'outsider' thing is subtle and varied-- like, many different things can make one have that status, and in GRRM it's not necessarily a question of economic priviledge; if anything, most of his main characters are the close kin of kings. Often it's appearance-- some deformity or maiming, like shattered legs or a lost sword-hand or a woman who looks more like a man 'cause she's so buff, or just a plain girl who'se a horrible tomboy and refuses to be a princess, or another princess that -is- a proper lady but is outcast because of her 'traitor' family and ends up with a fiance who abuses her and is surrounded by enemies, etc. I think it's sort of like... the insiders become outsiders when they no longer accept 'the system' unquestioningly, when they want to help 'the realm' rather than just serve their own ambition alone. That is enough to make one an outsider here-- it's enough to take up a noble cause; so in this way it's the opposite of selfish resentment, because in this case it's the insiders who're full of selfish resentment of the upstarts who're taking away what's theirs. The rebels have healthy self-interest but mostly chose not to pursue easy priviledge on purpose, by their own choice, because it's not honorable or on their terms. It's probably hard to explain without reading it, of course :>