![[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: 2006-04-17 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)