More on midnitemaraud_r's recent post re: HP women and fandom standards of judging them
Hi, flist and others:
Recently,
midnitemaraud_r posted a very interesting discussion of fandom responses to the fictional women in HP. Here it is: http://midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com/54308.html
That thread is extremely active in her journal, I see, and has even generated responses in the journals of others. I was inspired to rant a bit on her journal myself, and she, along with some others, suggested I post my own comments on my journal too. Normally, I might see this as ... well, hijacking a conversation, but it is true that the discussion has indeed spilled outward into the journals of others. Since I notice that some of those posts are meant to argue with her points, and since my own little rant was very much in agreement with her ideas, I think I will do as suggested and post my comments here.
The comments and some additional thoughts Now, a word or two of clarification. Lisa's point was not that fans should not have strong preferences for or against specific characters, or be satisfied or dissatisfied with JKR's themes. She was only suggesting that sometimes we, as fans, read instances of human frailty depicted in these books as (A) definitive of Character A's complete and final disposition on a moral scale, and (B) indicative of JKR's personal philosophies or messages. And, she further suggested that the female characters are judged along these didactic lines more often than the men.
I agree. I've seen the point made that the only thing that really defines Rowling's "Good Guys" as good guys is that the author says they are. This, IMO, is not true. JKR has never, so far as I recall, said Character A or B was "bad", or "good", for that matter. She only shows us all their actions, lets us in on Harry's judgment, and then leaves the rest up to us, her readers. We may agree with Harry, or we may not, but JKR, so far, has been quite good at showing her characters engaging in a pretty broad range of behavior, both negative and positive. It's up to us to judge, if we wish to judge at all, whatever personal comments she may make outside the text notwithstanding.
For example, I'll take this opportunity to mention my favorite character, Sirius (since I'm not one to pass up an opportunity to fangirl when I see one;)). Sirius is a character who has a lot of contradictory character traits, and who is a good example of a character exhibiting negative and positive behavior. Is Sirius a "Good Guy" or a "White Hat"? JKR herself , in the text, has not said either way. Harry seems to think he is, but Harry also seems to be cognizant of Sirius' flaws as well. Yet a good-sized segment of fandom has pegged Sirius as one of those very troubling "Good Guys" who don't warrant the "good" classification on behavior, and are only "good" because JKR says so. But JKR does not say so, not anywhere in the text. So - who does? Who is putting Black into the "Good Guy" camp? Well, we are, of course. Readers have made this classification, not the author. Fans of HP have evaluated Sirius' story, evaluated all of the character's actions that we know of, and have decided, on the basis of the preponderance of his behavior, that Black can be called a "Good Guy". Just as, on the preponderance of his behavior, LV can be considered a "Bad Guy". If you are a fan who subscribes to a minority view on these characters, then you are not in opposition to JKR, you are actually in opposition to the majority fandom evaluation. I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this matter of classification clearly.
I will, in the comments from Lisa's journal I'm adding below, further suggest that I think that we, as fans, will have more fun with and be more satisfied with JKR's story if we use the "judge on preponderance rather than isolated actions" method of moral evaluation. I personally thought Tonk's approach to Remus in the hospital scene in HPB was tacky, self-involved, and embarrassingly naive. But, based on the greater part of her behavior, I only blushed for her, and could not condemn her completely. Similarly, I personally believe that Merope Gaunt actually DID subject Tom Riddle Sr. to kidnapping, brainwashing, and repeated rape. However, were I on a jury seeing her case, I'd definitely judge her not guilty by reason of diminished capacity. What I am suggesting, via these examples, is that, IMO, JKR does intend that her readers will evaluate her characters in an organic, holistic way, rather than a didactic, black-vs-white way. I think she does expect us to temper reason with tolerance. And I think that all the characters will work better for us, both as entertainment and as thematic constructs, if we do.
So, after that long and possibly tedious preamble - let's move on to my comments from
midnitemaraud_r's journal:
"Oh, well said! I love you so much right now I'm going to leap out of the Lurker's Shadowy Corner and comment.
I've been raving (and being very tiresome, no doubt)over this very issue w/ my long-suffering buddies Cricket and Moondagny for ... well ... forever. I think it may be an occupational hazard for Sirius fans ;)certainly I've played Black's advocate often enough to make their ears bleed.
Anyway, I agree completely; as a fandom, in general, we ('we' as in 'some of us' or even as in 'a LOT of us') hold JK's female characters up to an impossible standard. We hold the men up to much the same standards, really, but the women are doubly damned, since we evaluate their behavior so stringently as both people AND as thematic fictional constructs.
It's true that there may be trends in HP that are troubling for feminists, and I always enjoy reading a thoughtful analysis of Rowling's themes (both the intentional and the unintentional)but you, if I understand you correctly, are talking about the virulent anger we so often see, directly focused on this or that character. "Ginny is a whore!" "Merope's a perverted rapist!" "Tonks is a #(^%(&&%** BEARD!"- that kind of thing? The sort of harsh judgment that takes no extenuating circumstance into account and closes off all possibility of further discussion and willfully fails to recognize extremely common human behavior? And, incidentally, further fails to take into account that the author herself does not necessarily approve or agree with every single bit of the behavior she depicts?
This hanging-judge mindset was one of the most baffling things I encountered when I first came into this fandom, and I'm still baffled by it. My former fandom was Hannibal/SotL, and I tell you, all the characters in THAT dark universe are flawed with a capital F. The hero of the fandom is a cannibalistic serial killer. The thematic messages are so disturbing as to give one nightmares. So, once I got used to the much higher sweetness-n-light quota in HP, it was like a wonderful vacation. Writing fic about essentially decent people for a change was So. Much. FUN.
I was amazed, then, to discover that large segments of the HP fandom loudly hate James Potter because he could be an ill-tempered little dork at the age of 15, and further suggest that JKR must be in favor of bullying. Or, to provide equal time, a large segment that will hold JKR as being in favor of child abuse if Snape isn't punished severely for his treatment of Harry sometime soon. And Tonks is a weak, stalking psycho bitch who gives us all a bad name, of course. And Merope is a criminal mastermind. And Ginny is a whore. And Rowling has all the social conscience of a pack of hyenas. And so on.
Such harsh, didactic judgments, and over such small transgressions, at least to me, given my previous fandom. But I think, in a manner of speaking, JKR writes her characters much the way Thomas Harris does. All of them are flawed, but only some of them are trying to do their best. I think we are meant to apply the Golden Rule in our evaluation of her characters and her own motives - we should judge as we would wish to be judged ourselves, and to agree with your point, we'll probably have more fun with Rowling's story and her people if we have some tolerance for human frailty. And maybe we need to be a little less on the look-out for Rowling's message and a little more on the lookout for her great gift for filling her universe with a parade of fascinating, resonant characters. After all, they'd all be boring as hell if they didn't include paradoxes and conflicting drives.
Ginny is only 15 and of course boys and boyfriends are more important to her than they might be to a grown woman. Tonks isn't much older than Ginny, and she doesn't really understand that Remus' objections to her advances are real issues that really will affect them both as time passes. Merope was a pathetic unfortunate who was neither strong nor brave, and who had been given less moral training than a Siamese cat. Fred and George need to work on their sense of proportion, or they may be celebrating their 20th birthday in Azkaban, but they are sometimes the only people in the world who can cheer Harry up. Sirius was a terrible enemy, and also a decent-hearted man who did his best for those he loved to his last breath. Snape, though brave, intelligent and immensely talented, is in enormous pain and has nothing but his outdated bitterness to hang on to. James at fifteen could be a colossal pain in the ass OR a great, great friend. All of this behavior is recognizable to most humans at once, and these conflicting moral imperatives are a function of the human condition: the good and the terrible, side by side (or even the pretty-good and the not-too-terrible, with a lot of these characters). Anyway, for me, a sincere attempt at a faithful rendering of the human condition is a bit of authorial intent that goes a long way toward excusing Rowling if sometimes her feminist thought is a bit shaky or her reputed Gryffindor bias seems glaring.
Oh, dear! Ah, Lisa, I fear you've caused me to rant. Thank you for a stimulating and inspiring post - think I'd better get down off this soapbox now. I'll look forward to reading what others have to say on this subject."
So, there you have it. My additions to a fascinating and rewarding discussion. I'm so glad that
midnitemaraud_r posted it in the first place!
Recently,
midnitemaraud_r posted a very interesting discussion of fandom responses to the fictional women in HP. Here it is: http://midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com/54308.html
That thread is extremely active in her journal, I see, and has even generated responses in the journals of others. I was inspired to rant a bit on her journal myself, and she, along with some others, suggested I post my own comments on my journal too. Normally, I might see this as ... well, hijacking a conversation, but it is true that the discussion has indeed spilled outward into the journals of others. Since I notice that some of those posts are meant to argue with her points, and since my own little rant was very much in agreement with her ideas, I think I will do as suggested and post my comments here.
The comments and some additional thoughts Now, a word or two of clarification. Lisa's point was not that fans should not have strong preferences for or against specific characters, or be satisfied or dissatisfied with JKR's themes. She was only suggesting that sometimes we, as fans, read instances of human frailty depicted in these books as (A) definitive of Character A's complete and final disposition on a moral scale, and (B) indicative of JKR's personal philosophies or messages. And, she further suggested that the female characters are judged along these didactic lines more often than the men.
I agree. I've seen the point made that the only thing that really defines Rowling's "Good Guys" as good guys is that the author says they are. This, IMO, is not true. JKR has never, so far as I recall, said Character A or B was "bad", or "good", for that matter. She only shows us all their actions, lets us in on Harry's judgment, and then leaves the rest up to us, her readers. We may agree with Harry, or we may not, but JKR, so far, has been quite good at showing her characters engaging in a pretty broad range of behavior, both negative and positive. It's up to us to judge, if we wish to judge at all, whatever personal comments she may make outside the text notwithstanding.
For example, I'll take this opportunity to mention my favorite character, Sirius (since I'm not one to pass up an opportunity to fangirl when I see one;)). Sirius is a character who has a lot of contradictory character traits, and who is a good example of a character exhibiting negative and positive behavior. Is Sirius a "Good Guy" or a "White Hat"? JKR herself , in the text, has not said either way. Harry seems to think he is, but Harry also seems to be cognizant of Sirius' flaws as well. Yet a good-sized segment of fandom has pegged Sirius as one of those very troubling "Good Guys" who don't warrant the "good" classification on behavior, and are only "good" because JKR says so. But JKR does not say so, not anywhere in the text. So - who does? Who is putting Black into the "Good Guy" camp? Well, we are, of course. Readers have made this classification, not the author. Fans of HP have evaluated Sirius' story, evaluated all of the character's actions that we know of, and have decided, on the basis of the preponderance of his behavior, that Black can be called a "Good Guy". Just as, on the preponderance of his behavior, LV can be considered a "Bad Guy". If you are a fan who subscribes to a minority view on these characters, then you are not in opposition to JKR, you are actually in opposition to the majority fandom evaluation. I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this matter of classification clearly.
I will, in the comments from Lisa's journal I'm adding below, further suggest that I think that we, as fans, will have more fun with and be more satisfied with JKR's story if we use the "judge on preponderance rather than isolated actions" method of moral evaluation. I personally thought Tonk's approach to Remus in the hospital scene in HPB was tacky, self-involved, and embarrassingly naive. But, based on the greater part of her behavior, I only blushed for her, and could not condemn her completely. Similarly, I personally believe that Merope Gaunt actually DID subject Tom Riddle Sr. to kidnapping, brainwashing, and repeated rape. However, were I on a jury seeing her case, I'd definitely judge her not guilty by reason of diminished capacity. What I am suggesting, via these examples, is that, IMO, JKR does intend that her readers will evaluate her characters in an organic, holistic way, rather than a didactic, black-vs-white way. I think she does expect us to temper reason with tolerance. And I think that all the characters will work better for us, both as entertainment and as thematic constructs, if we do.
So, after that long and possibly tedious preamble - let's move on to my comments from
midnitemaraud_r's journal:
"Oh, well said! I love you so much right now I'm going to leap out of the Lurker's Shadowy Corner and comment.
I've been raving (and being very tiresome, no doubt)over this very issue w/ my long-suffering buddies Cricket and Moondagny for ... well ... forever. I think it may be an occupational hazard for Sirius fans ;)certainly I've played Black's advocate often enough to make their ears bleed.
Anyway, I agree completely; as a fandom, in general, we ('we' as in 'some of us' or even as in 'a LOT of us') hold JK's female characters up to an impossible standard. We hold the men up to much the same standards, really, but the women are doubly damned, since we evaluate their behavior so stringently as both people AND as thematic fictional constructs.
It's true that there may be trends in HP that are troubling for feminists, and I always enjoy reading a thoughtful analysis of Rowling's themes (both the intentional and the unintentional)but you, if I understand you correctly, are talking about the virulent anger we so often see, directly focused on this or that character. "Ginny is a whore!" "Merope's a perverted rapist!" "Tonks is a #(^%(&&%** BEARD!"- that kind of thing? The sort of harsh judgment that takes no extenuating circumstance into account and closes off all possibility of further discussion and willfully fails to recognize extremely common human behavior? And, incidentally, further fails to take into account that the author herself does not necessarily approve or agree with every single bit of the behavior she depicts?
This hanging-judge mindset was one of the most baffling things I encountered when I first came into this fandom, and I'm still baffled by it. My former fandom was Hannibal/SotL, and I tell you, all the characters in THAT dark universe are flawed with a capital F. The hero of the fandom is a cannibalistic serial killer. The thematic messages are so disturbing as to give one nightmares. So, once I got used to the much higher sweetness-n-light quota in HP, it was like a wonderful vacation. Writing fic about essentially decent people for a change was So. Much. FUN.
I was amazed, then, to discover that large segments of the HP fandom loudly hate James Potter because he could be an ill-tempered little dork at the age of 15, and further suggest that JKR must be in favor of bullying. Or, to provide equal time, a large segment that will hold JKR as being in favor of child abuse if Snape isn't punished severely for his treatment of Harry sometime soon. And Tonks is a weak, stalking psycho bitch who gives us all a bad name, of course. And Merope is a criminal mastermind. And Ginny is a whore. And Rowling has all the social conscience of a pack of hyenas. And so on.
Such harsh, didactic judgments, and over such small transgressions, at least to me, given my previous fandom. But I think, in a manner of speaking, JKR writes her characters much the way Thomas Harris does. All of them are flawed, but only some of them are trying to do their best. I think we are meant to apply the Golden Rule in our evaluation of her characters and her own motives - we should judge as we would wish to be judged ourselves, and to agree with your point, we'll probably have more fun with Rowling's story and her people if we have some tolerance for human frailty. And maybe we need to be a little less on the look-out for Rowling's message and a little more on the lookout for her great gift for filling her universe with a parade of fascinating, resonant characters. After all, they'd all be boring as hell if they didn't include paradoxes and conflicting drives.
Ginny is only 15 and of course boys and boyfriends are more important to her than they might be to a grown woman. Tonks isn't much older than Ginny, and she doesn't really understand that Remus' objections to her advances are real issues that really will affect them both as time passes. Merope was a pathetic unfortunate who was neither strong nor brave, and who had been given less moral training than a Siamese cat. Fred and George need to work on their sense of proportion, or they may be celebrating their 20th birthday in Azkaban, but they are sometimes the only people in the world who can cheer Harry up. Sirius was a terrible enemy, and also a decent-hearted man who did his best for those he loved to his last breath. Snape, though brave, intelligent and immensely talented, is in enormous pain and has nothing but his outdated bitterness to hang on to. James at fifteen could be a colossal pain in the ass OR a great, great friend. All of this behavior is recognizable to most humans at once, and these conflicting moral imperatives are a function of the human condition: the good and the terrible, side by side (or even the pretty-good and the not-too-terrible, with a lot of these characters). Anyway, for me, a sincere attempt at a faithful rendering of the human condition is a bit of authorial intent that goes a long way toward excusing Rowling if sometimes her feminist thought is a bit shaky or her reputed Gryffindor bias seems glaring.
Oh, dear! Ah, Lisa, I fear you've caused me to rant. Thank you for a stimulating and inspiring post - think I'd better get down off this soapbox now. I'll look forward to reading what others have to say on this subject."
So, there you have it. My additions to a fascinating and rewarding discussion. I'm so glad that
midnitemaraud_r posted it in the first place!