I don't get you sometimes, fandom

[laurus_nobilis]

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.

Comments

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

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...

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

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.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

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.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

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.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

... 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.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

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!

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

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.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

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:

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

I suspect Grindelwald wouldn't have had friends at school... he'd have had minions XD Like James and Peter Pettigrew - the brilliant, charming golden boy and his adoring fanboy who never challenges him. Meeting Dumbledore must have been a big deal for GG too.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

... and speaking of slightly unequal friendships just what kind of relationship did Albus and Elphias have, by the way? XD In my own personal canon, they were definitively more than just friends by the time they graduated. Staying at the Leaky Cauldron together, planning their travels together, visiting Greece *cough*gay*cough*

Poor boy. Dumbledore totally left him for the pretty, blond bastard.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

That's all true about Sirius, of course. He did some pretty horrible things even before the war - the infamous Prank comes to mind. But I did find a lot of people who argue that he was worse than people like, say, the Malfoys. It's something I've seen a lot in the HP fandom: well-rounded villains are wonderful characters with many shades of gray, but well-rounded good guys get a lot of bashing for their flaws. What makes Sirius so appealing to me is that he tried very hard to be a good person and to live up to his ideals, in spite of all his flaws. So I don't think it's fair when fandom puts him in the same level as Death Eaters.

I really like that parallel, you know. :D And yes, I can see it... I didn't think about it while I was reading DH, but it does make sense.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

ARGH THE LUCIUS FANS DRIVE ME MAD. He is a nasty, prejudiced, hypocritical BASTARD DAMN IT. (sorry) Yes, their love for each other humanises the Malfoys, but this DOES NOT MAKE THEM NICE PEOPLE. I only have some sympathy for Draco, because he is at that age where you start doubting your parents and what they taught you and he can in his few good moments recognise that serving Voldemort was not all that was cracked up to be. And of course, his little plan during HBP is pretty impressive and shows he's neither an idiot nor a coward and that he does genuinely love his parents strongly enough to risk his own skin. But even so he lacks the courage and moral strenght that Sirius has to recognise his mistakes and break from his family of utter bastards and he is very very selfish. He never sees past his own family's sufferings.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

I once saw a Lucius fan say that Arthur Weasley was a worse person than him, because Arthur tries to find loopholes in the law while he works for the Ministry, and at least Lucius is true to his Death Eater views. I wish I was making it up.

I understand why the Malfoys can be appealing, I really do. And I love the Lucius/Narcissa relationship because they are in love even if they're insane. And, yes, they love Draco. But they are NOT good people. AT ALL.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

o______O WHAT.

oh, fangirls.

[cygna-hime.livejournal.com]

Okay, wow, no. Loyalty to beliefs is praiseworthy...but it doesn't really make one whit of difference, if they're bad beliefs. (Also, Lucius? True to the spirit of the laws? Excuse me while I DIE LAUGHING.)

[ayasugi-san.livejournal.com]

It's mostly the Snapefen who vilify Sirius; they say that Sirius should've matured past his hatred of Snape, while it's just fine for Snape to still immaturely hate Sirius, because Snape's life has been so tragic. Much worse and more emotionally stunting than a decade in Azkaban.

But then again, these are also the people who hate Harry for not begging Snape's forgiveness for torturing poor Snapey with his very existence. Because Harry is supposed to know all of Snape's history and take all the blame onto himself.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

they say that Sirius should've matured past his hatred of Snape, while it's just fine for Snape to still immaturely hate Sirius

Both sides of that argument break my brain. The books make it pretty clear that they're both wrong.

It's the same with MWPP vs. Snape at Hogwarts. I always had the impression that, until Sirius got that bright idea involving the Whomping Willow, they were pretty much equals, not a bunch of guys picking on poor Snapey-poo who couldn't defend himself.

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

Snape was perfectly capable of defending himself. However, Snape was presumably on his own and was hardly the most popular kid at school. What James and Sirius did was bullying, plain and simple. It doesn't excuse Snape viciousness, of course, but still - I fail to see how two vs. one can possibly be seen as fair.

[ayasugi-san.livejournal.com]

The parts that really break my brain are the people saying that Sirius deserved to go back to Azkaban/be handed over to the dementors in PoA so Snape could get his glory, and the whole "Harry should know Snape's entire history and apologize continuously" thing.

[solesakuma]

And many people tend to make Sirius into this perfect guy he so obviously wasn't...

[mon-starling.livejournal.com]

and don't forget girly, victimised, wide-eyed ikkle little Remus. ARGH.

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

*twitch*

Did this people forget the part where he's about to kill his ex-friend in cold blood?

Sirius had over ten years of rage and build up waiting to explode. Remus was more like "oh well, I guess we'll have to kill him dead now". Scary.

I love the guy, I really do, and he's had it rough - but he's not a poor little martyr at all.

[solesakuma]

I tend to see that more often in discussion than on fic!

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

Aaargh, that's just as bad. I like Sirius because he makes an effort to be a good guy.

[solesakuma]

Did you see the reactions to the whole 'Harry was a better godfather?'.- It was priceless.