laurus_nobilis | I don't get you sometimes, fandom

Current Mood: frustrated

Entry tags:

I don't get you sometimes, fandom

Yes, I know I should be writing instead of reading Harry Potter forums. I guess I deserved the headache, although I didn't think I'd find many reasons to headdesk in a sane place like the Sugar Quill. But the way HP fandom treats villains creeps me out.

Before I begin, and just to be perfectly clear: I don't think there's anything wrong with liking the villains. Just because I tend to prefer the good guys doesn't mean I can't understand that people like the bad guys, especially because there are some really fascinating bad guys out there (though I'm not very fond of any of the HP ones). The thing is, most people who like villains like them because they're villains. Most people who like rival pairings like them because there's a lot of tension in the mix of love/attraction and opposite views. Or views that are just beginning to show they're opposite, depending on the timeline, but the point remains.

And then there are people who insist that the bad guys aren't really that bad, and make me wonder why don't they just go fangirl the good guys instead of justifying characters who are obviously batshit.

The Grindelwald thread is one scary place because of how it subtly changes along the way. (Appropriate, I guess, but still creepy.)

First there's a perfectly innocent discussion about Grindelwald vs. Voldemort and which one was worse. I agree completely that Voldie was even worse. They both were genocidal maniacs and they both were evil since they were young, yes, but Grindelwald kinda sorta repented a teensy little bit in the end while Voldie refused to do it. And there was the whole thing about splitting his soul in many little pieces. Even from a purely narrative point of view, it makes sense that the new threat is worse than the old threat.

So far so good. But then it starts getting creepy when people begin talking about the era's general views, and how it was understandable that he'd believe in wizards' superiority. Understandable? Maybe. Justifiable? Hell NO. Dumbledore had the same views as him, they say, and it's true.

It'd be nice if they also remembered that Dumbledore stopped himself from turning into an evil dictator and Grindelwald didn't even try.

But he's still not entirely evil! He isn't doing it because he enjoys being evil: even if his acts are terrible, he's still convinced that it's all for the Greater Good.

... uh, guys? That doesn't make him less evil. That makes him FUCKING BATSHIT.

Oh, but wait, it gets better. While people spend all their time arguing about the political side of his acts, and how he got his views, and the influence of the times he lived in... no one seems to remember the little details that no amount of context can justify or even explain.

I guess I imagined that bit where a school with a reputation for teaching the Dark Arts didn't want him anymore.

Or the unimportant, throwaway scene when 16-year-old ickle Gellert uses the Cruciatus Curse on a young teen. And not just any kid, either. We're talking about his boyfriend's little brother here.

Yeah, that was totally for the Greater Good.

Seriously, fandom. Think about it for a moment. Dumbledore was a teenage idiot in love and still managed to realize he was dangerous and insane - why can't the readers do it?

Aaaargh. It's CoS and Tom Riddle all over again. "He was just a misunderstood woobie!" Yeah, a misunderstood woobie who killed a little girl in cold blood when he was sixteen, but I guess that was okay because Myrtle was annoying anyway. But mostly because the only bit of CoS that stuck to some people's brains was HE WAS SOOO HOT.

ETA: I remembered I'd promised I'd keep meta-ish posts public. Oops. It's unlocked now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

See, I like evil/amoral characters because they're interestingly batshit. I find it fascinating to look at how someone could arrive at a conclusion ("Wizards should rule the world") via a chain of assumptions and deductions that seem, from the inside, to be completely sensible. Of course they think they're justified! Of course they think it's all for the Greater Good! And it can be heaps of fun to get inside their heads and show them believing they're completely in the right. At least, I think it's heaps of fun.

But that doesn't change the fact that, from the outside, they are in the wrong. Period. That's non-negotiable: killing, torturing, and messing with people's minds is Wrong, capital W, no matter who's doing it and no matter why.

I'm a villain sympathizer; I like to treat villains as people, with feelings and motivations like the heroes, because they are. To me, every villain is a hero who could have been, and vice versa. But I'm not a villain apologist; some things are just wrong, morally and ethically wrong, and should never be forgotten. I can understand how the villains would feel they were right, but that doesn't mean I agree. Understanding wrong actions does not make them less wrong. Even seeing how I might have done the same doesn't make it right--because I admit that I would have done wrong.

Wow, you got a screed. Sorry about that. I just...really like characters of uncertain morality. "Grindelwald's behavior made sense to him at the time, and you can kind of understand how he got the ideas he did"? Sure! "Grindelwald was just a big soppy really"? No!

Now there's probably going to be a long post about this in my LJ. I hope you're happy.

"Grindelwald's behavior made sense to him at the time, and you can kind of understand how he got the ideas he did"? Sure! "Grindelwald was just a big soppy really"? No!

That's exactly it. I understand what you mean about sympathizing with villains, and I agree that it's really interesting to analyze their motives. (Although I prefer the morally ambiguous, Ravenclaw-gone-wrong kind - hi, Fëanor!) What confuses me is when people go from explaining/analyzing to *justifying* them... and then I start to back away slowly, thanks.

It's a tricky path to walk, though: it can be hard, especially in the context of fiction, to show that you, as the author, know the difference between "He thinks he's justified" and "I think he's justified". I have problems with it sometimes, because I refuse to break my tone for a moral lesson. But in discussion there's really no excuse.

I refuse to break my tone for a moral lesson

I think you shouldn't break your tone, right. If people can't tell difference between a character's point of view and the author's beliefs, it's the readers who have the problem.

Like you said, my issues are with the people who try to justify him in objective discussion.

I feel sort of guilty for my unrepentant Grindelwald loving - not because I make apologies for his evil ways (cause yeah, he's a sociopathic little bastard) but because of all the "OMG your Gellert is shoooo cuuuuute!!!!1" from thirteen year-old fangirls who are - like young Dumbledore - blinded by his pretty boy curls. So yes, I understand your point, and I agree with you - the whole "but he's a poor little woobie" thing is what put me off shipping Buffy/Spike back then, after all...

That reminds me of what Cygna said above about writing fics and the blurry line between what the character believes and what the author believes. But I don't think authors/artists should feel guilty about the sillier fans' reactions. Especially when the pretty boy curls are canon.

thirteen year-old fangirls who are - like young Dumbledore - blinded by his pretty boy curls

That's a great way to put it. And it made me notice something:

Both Grindelwald and Tom Riddle are shown as gorgeous, charming young men with a great talent for convincing people that they're not that bad, really! Some fans find that manipulative streak fascinating... and some fans fall right into it. Even with all the outside knowledge and Jo's anvilicious "THIS IS A MANIPULATIVE BASTARD" neon signs. It breaks my brain.

Well, there are three canonically gorgeous, charismatic young men in Harry Potter: Grindelwald, Tom Riddle and Sirius Black. So erm - techically not all of them are manipulative bastards, sometimes they've just had very bad luck with their upbringing and choice of friends. :P

(though I am very fond of conceited, manipulative, arrogant blind bastard! Sirius in fic - he is, after all, a Black, even if he's fairly decent, all things considered ;))

Howeveeer, the reason I like Grindelwald and not, say, Tom Riddle is that he is not so cardboard-inhuman as Voldemort, who is freaky, unredeamable evil even as a little boy. Of course, that's partly because we only see Grindelwald in a handful of scenes through other characters' eyes, so there's more room to fill in the gaps, so to speak. But also, all the emphasis on his being mischevious and laughing openingly, like a Fred & George figure, his soaring with the Elder Wand in hand, the association with summer, youth and freedom in the flashbacks paint a very appealing picture (no wonder Albus, burdened by adult responsibilities and trapped in a house he probably hated would fall for him). Riddle always seemed cool and composed and remote, even when his soul was all it one piece. He was cruel and repulsive alright, but I never found him brilliant, or interesting or engaging.

Funny that you mention Sirius. He's a gorgeous, charismatic young man who isn't evil... and he gets vilified a lot. No, I don't understand this fandom.

he is not so cardboard-inhuman as Voldemort
That's true. I find Grindelwald a lot more interesting than Voldemort, too, because of the differences you mention there. But there's a cynical side of me that tells me maybe it's also that he remains interesting because we Jo didn't have a chance to contradict what she tells us with what she shows us. ;P Tom Riddle was supposed to brilliant, and even as Voldemort he's supposed to be great, at least the way Ollivander defines the word... but then you look at his actual plans and, well, he's not the brightest crayon in the box.

... not that there's anything wrong with liking Grindelwald for the fill-in-the-blanks thing. Hell, it's one of the main reasons why I like Clow ~~and why I'm so terrified every time he shows up in TRC, because I don't want CLAMP to ruin him~~.

I don't think people vilify Sirius - the fandom, or the corner of the fandom I know, seems to adore him (as I do). The thing is, Sirius may be a good guy but he's not exactly a role-model despite his many admirable qualities. He does have a dark side, as would anyone after fighting a war, losing his best friend and feeling responsible for it, failing to recognise that one of his closest friends was a traitor to the cause and spending a decade in Azkaban! Not to mention as a young boy he was arrogant, prone to that sort of casual teenage cruelty that I always found horrifying, and the type of hot-headed, erratic, wild character that could easily make a rash decision and have it backfire spectacularly.

Going back to Grindelwald, one has to wonder if, considering his being expelled from school and his eagerness to throw Unforgivables around when he'd lost his head, he was similarly wild and unpredictable in his youth (I think Dumbledore implies it in DH?) - that coupled with a total disregard for school disipline but none of Sirius' empathy or strong attachments to his friends just screams Teenage Psycho in the making!

mind you, I am not advocating psycho!Sirius nor calling him borderline sociopathic. Just to be clear. XD

And wow, now I want a Grindelwald-in-Drumstrang ficlet. Was he like Tom Riddle, all impeccable manners and spotless Head Boy reputation (I doubt it), was he the brilliant, arrogant and-not-quite sane social outcast? a joker? Insanely popular on account of his charisma? Or did his arrogance separate him from the rest? Had he ever had a real friend before Dumbledore? And of course, the big question: just what happened to get him expelled? I can't help thinking he might have killed a student during a duel with a spell so nasty everybody at school freaked, or causing a lot of harm to a younger student during one of his "experiments" and, of course, feeling perfectly entitled to pursue these experiements, being the brightest mind at school and all that. Nasty piece of work, that boy.

Well done Grindelwald-in-Durmstrang fic would be creepy and frightening and wonderful. He strikes me as too hot headed to be like Tom Riddle (who managed not to get expelled or even in trouble at all); I see him more as Fred & George gone horribly wrong.

I can't help thinking he might have killed a student during a duel with a spell so nasty everybody at school freaked, or causing a lot of harm to a younger student during one of his "experiments" and, of course, feeling perfectly entitled to pursue these experiements

That's scarily plausible. D:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject