I wasn't trying to tackle the issue of different POVs and perspectives, because that's a whole other can of worms. But when it comes to characterization, while taking differing POVs into account, I still feel there's a difference between what other characters see and perceive about Character A, and what Character A actually does. Like in your example about the twins through the eyes of first-year Slytherins: I have no problem believing that first-year Slytherins might view the public behaviour of the twins as a menace rather than as a form of amusement. I can even be brought around to buy a scene in which the twins are taunting the little Slytherin kids (again, extrapolating from earlier canon behaviour with nothing to contradict it). But if (random example) the twins are suddenly poisoning the water supply of Slytherin house (because they're Slytherins) so that half of the house ends up in the hospital wing, as a prank -- an actual action, not simply an interpretation of behaviour -- I can see how it might be
( ... )
saw this in the daily snitchedidoOctober 25 2005, 00:23:30 UTC
Yeah, I totally know what you mean. I am bemused by this as well, actually, so I probably can't shed any light on it.
I could start by pointing out the huge anomaly of the term that is "canon-snarking" while ninety-nine times out of a hundred really being "Trio/Hagrid/Weasleys/Dumbledore/Order/Light-Side/Gryffindor/[insert "Harry-and/or-JKR-approved" element of canon here]-snarking"; it's very, very rare when I see either Snape/Draco/Malfoys/Blacks/Slytherins/Percy/etc. slammed by canon-snarkers. But even more often, it extends to "canon-compliant" fanfic.This in particular confuses me (though I do enjoy reading it) because usually the snark is aimed at the authorial intent. Gryffindors being portrayed as holier-than-thou, yet as-written are more immoral than Slytherins, whom are meant by the author to be teh evil but actually behave more reasonably, less hypocritically, etc. So if the accusation is that JKR doesn't mean that to be the reading... then how can the pro-Slytherin interpretation be canon
( ... )
Re: saw this in the daily snitchpilly2009October 25 2005, 02:31:51 UTC
Oh, I agree, the snarking tends to be a huge source of amusement. I just find it to be oddly selective at the same time, which is a little weird, because they're all part of the same canon being written by the same author. I mean, in the case of snarking about the vacuum world within the canon, without outside influence (ie, the characters): well, Group B is just as much a part of this canon as Group A. And in the case of snarking over the authorial messages pouring out through Group A (which are not all bad, but also not all good), well there are similar and even equal messages pouring out through Group B (again, not all bad, but not all good).
I think it is fine to say those characterizations could be plausible once those characters have been removed from the Harry-filter, as his personal bias and unreliable narration is canon (whereas poor Harry can't and is destined to be his dumbass-self, hee). However, I think at best, you can only really say that canon doesn't rule it out. Pansy may be a rily, kewl faghag, whom Harry sees as
( ... )
Re: saw this in the daily snitchedidoOctober 25 2005, 14:03:14 UTC
Yeah, I do agree with you. And sometimes we get Pansy Sue & company even when the fic is Harry POV. But I can live with it if the characters are interestingly portrayed and IC within the fic itself.
Also, there was much discussion about JKR going OOC in HBP herself; I think mostly concerning Hermione, Ginny and Tonks? So it just goes to show how subjective characterization is. I think claiming that there are certain trends is true.
The Tale of the Shining Prince It's pre-OotP I think, and a bit dark. And while I liked the novel characterization of Draco, I wasn't in love with Harry's. There are three sequels.
I was thinking about this in relation to another question a couple months ago--the issue of people writing fanfic without any exposure to the source material. And it occured to me that, rather than the canon/fanon distinction we tend to talk about in terms of characterization, there's really something I would call a post-canon continuum
( ... )
It can be a little slippery, especially with characters (like Pansy) that we don't know at all well, and people have distinct opinions about. Some like the uber-cool Pansy and think that must be what she's like. Other people are convinced that Pansy is canonically ugly because Harry refers to her as "pug-faced," but please... it's Harry. He's not inclined to be generous to someone he doesn't like.
Hermione, there's little excuse for getting wrong. Yes, she's ambitious and can be ruthless, but she also feels things very deeply.
Then there are characters where there are different ways to interpret canon behavior, which turns out different but equally legitimate interpretations of the characters when they're out of Harry's view... which fuels the idea that "nothing's really canon" in terms of behavior, which is unfortunate because there are absolutely canon traits and personality quirks. Remus Lupin is many things, but he is not weak and weepy. Harry even comments that Dumbledore's death is the first time he ever saw Lupin lose
( ... )
It can be a little slippery, especially with characters (like Pansy) that we don't know at all well, and people have distinct opinions about. Some like the uber-cool Pansy and think that must be what she's like. Other people are convinced that Pansy is canonically ugly because Harry refers to her as "pug-faced," but please... it's Harry. He's not inclined to be generous to someone he doesn't like.
Just what I wanted to point out, thank you. With the minuscule amount of canon about Pansy there really is no way of saying for certain what she might be like. Oh, and also - I refuse to believe anything Harry says about her ever since he'd spent the train trip to Hogwarts boiling inside at the sight of her stroking Draco's hair and thinking with envy how much he'd like to be in her place. Or was it how much anyone would like to be in her place? :snicker:
We've barely seen Pansy at all. With a lot of characters, we see enough of their actions to make a reasonable mental adjustment for the "Harry filter." Some people, Harry sees pretty well--he likes Hagrid, but knows he's unreliable and not terribly bright. And that's what the audience can see as well... Hagrid is not secretly studying Aristotle at night. But Pansy? She's very minor, seen entirely in the context of a relationship with Draco. "Pug-faced" is an ugly-sounding term, but it could be applied to someone with a cute, slightly upturned nose... but who the observer doesn't at all like. Someone else might describe her as "button-nosed," which sounds a lot more flattering and is describing the same thing. All we've seen from her is that she was genuinely worried when Draco got hurt third year, and has been on his arm more or less ever since. It could mean anything. It's hard to get Pansy "wrong," per se, because we don't know much about what's right, except that she dislikes Harry and the Weasleys. If she suddenly goes
( ... )
The thing is, even Pansy becoming a Weasley fan could be sold by a good enough reason for her to do so. I've encountered a number of stories in which Pansy is shown to dislike Draco very much, and I couldn't very well accuse the author of writing OOC because there was a reason given for Pansy to act like Draco's number one fan in spite of her true feelings. So the moral of the story is, the less cahon about a character, the more freedom an author has to twist and bend them any way she likes.
Here from the Daily SnitchlanjelinOctober 25 2005, 20:48:19 UTC
Yet most fanon terms that have to do with canon are so relative! I could start by pointing out the huge anomaly of the term that is "canon-snarking" while ninety-nine times out of a hundred really being "Trio/Hagrid/Weasleys/Dumbledore/Order/Light-Side/Gryffindor/[insert "Harry-and/or-JKR-approved" element of canon here]-snarking"; it's very, very rare when I see either Snape/Draco/Malfoys/Blacks/Slytherins/Percy/etc. slammed by canon-snarkers.
So it's not just me then? I've also noticed this, but sadly I have no idea what it stems from either. Though it makes me happy to find someone elso who wonders about it, heh.
I certainly don't want people to stop exploring the possibilities of less prominent characters; on the contrary, I love it! However, in almost all the cases I've come across there seem to be a need to discredit Harry and/or his allies. Often large logical leaps are made, just to make Draco/Snape/the entire Slytherin House seem like victims who've only been driven to do bad things by the bullies in Gryffindor. What's with
( ... )
Comments 11
Reply
I wasn't trying to tackle the issue of different POVs and perspectives, because that's a whole other can of worms. But when it comes to characterization, while taking differing POVs into account, I still feel there's a difference between what other characters see and perceive about Character A, and what Character A actually does. Like in your example about the twins through the eyes of first-year Slytherins: I have no problem believing that first-year Slytherins might view the public behaviour of the twins as a menace rather than as a form of amusement. I can even be brought around to buy a scene in which the twins are taunting the little Slytherin kids (again, extrapolating from earlier canon behaviour with nothing to contradict it). But if (random example) the twins are suddenly poisoning the water supply of Slytherin house (because they're Slytherins) so that half of the house ends up in the hospital wing, as a prank -- an actual action, not simply an interpretation of behaviour -- I can see how it might be ( ... )
Reply
I could start by pointing out the huge anomaly of the term that is "canon-snarking" while ninety-nine times out of a hundred really being "Trio/Hagrid/Weasleys/Dumbledore/Order/Light-Side/Gryffindor/[insert "Harry-and/or-JKR-approved" element of canon here]-snarking"; it's very, very rare when I see either Snape/Draco/Malfoys/Blacks/Slytherins/Percy/etc. slammed by canon-snarkers. But even more often, it extends to "canon-compliant" fanfic.This in particular confuses me (though I do enjoy reading it) because usually the snark is aimed at the authorial intent. Gryffindors being portrayed as holier-than-thou, yet as-written are more immoral than Slytherins, whom are meant by the author to be teh evil but actually behave more reasonably, less hypocritically, etc. So if the accusation is that JKR doesn't mean that to be the reading... then how can the pro-Slytherin interpretation be canon ( ... )
Reply
I think it is fine to say those characterizations could be plausible once those characters have been removed from the Harry-filter, as his personal bias and unreliable narration is canon (whereas poor Harry can't and is destined to be his dumbass-self, hee). However, I think at best, you can only really say that canon doesn't rule it out. Pansy may be a rily, kewl faghag, whom Harry sees as ( ... )
Reply
Also, there was much discussion about JKR going OOC in HBP herself; I think mostly concerning Hermione, Ginny and Tonks? So it just goes to show how subjective characterization is. I think claiming that there are certain trends is true.
The Tale of the Shining Prince It's pre-OotP I think, and a bit dark. And while I liked the novel characterization of Draco, I wasn't in love with Harry's. There are three sequels.
Reply
Reply
Hermione, there's little excuse for getting wrong. Yes, she's ambitious and can be ruthless, but she also feels things very deeply.
Then there are characters where there are different ways to interpret canon behavior, which turns out different but equally legitimate interpretations of the characters when they're out of Harry's view... which fuels the idea that "nothing's really canon" in terms of behavior, which is unfortunate because there are absolutely canon traits and personality quirks. Remus Lupin is many things, but he is not weak and weepy. Harry even comments that Dumbledore's death is the first time he ever saw Lupin lose ( ... )
Reply
Just what I wanted to point out, thank you. With the minuscule amount of canon about Pansy there really is no way of saying for certain what she might be like. Oh, and also - I refuse to believe anything Harry says about her ever since he'd spent the train trip to Hogwarts boiling inside at the sight of her stroking Draco's hair and thinking with envy how much he'd like to be in her place. Or was it how much anyone would like to be in her place? :snicker:
Reply
Reply
Reply
So it's not just me then? I've also noticed this, but sadly I have no idea what it stems from either. Though it makes me happy to find someone elso who wonders about it, heh.
I certainly don't want people to stop exploring the possibilities of less prominent characters; on the contrary, I love it! However, in almost all the cases I've come across there seem to be a need to discredit Harry and/or his allies. Often large logical leaps are made, just to make Draco/Snape/the entire Slytherin House seem like victims who've only been driven to do bad things by the bullies in Gryffindor. What's with ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment