Laurus Nobilis (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
laurus_nobilis) wrote2007-11-04 10:10 am
laurus_nobilis) wrote2007-11-04 10:10 am
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You don't mind if I link to this entry, do you?
no subject