The Agony and the Ecstacy

[sistermagpie]

> bboyminn:
> 
> Of course, there are books I simply don't like. I didn't
> like Lord of the Rings. I found it meandering, confusing, 
> dull, and slow. But there is quite a difference between
> not liking a book in a broad and general context, and
> picking nit with a fiery vehement vitriol.

Magpie:
You hated LOTR because it was slow, but if you hate a book because 
you thought it said something ugly you tend to sound more passionate 
about it because you're disagreeing with the idea. Especially if the 
book is still fresh in your mind. I've ranted far more about books I 
probably barely remember now than I have about DH, which is in a 
universe I had put more effort into to begin with. 

bboyminn: 
> For example, one person compared the Houses to the Nazis
> and the Jews, only Gryffindors were the Nazis and
> Slytherins were the Jews. [Acknowledging that I am
> removing this statement from its context.] Oh really?
> Nasty evil vile Gryffindors are the Nazis and poor 
> sweet innocent Slytherins are the Jew? Apparently, the
> other Houses conspired to put upon and oppress the poor 
> innocent Slytherins. 
> 
> It is one thing to be disappointed that Slytherins didn't
> play a larger part, or that their 'some degree' of 
> redemption wasn't made more clear. But to go to the 
> extreme of paint Slytherin as poor victims, and the other
> Houses as oppressors is slightly beyond the pale for me.

Magpie:
No, she did not do that. That's a total distortion of what she said--
and tried to re-explain a number of times that she was *not* saying 
that the Gryffindors were the Nazis and Slytherins were the Jews. 
She also acknowledged all the explicit parallels in the text to the 
Slytherins being Nazis and Muggle-borns being Jews. I thought in 
context she made herself clear, but apparently the concept just 
could not be gotten across, and she regretted trying to even explain 
it. Okay, she didn't get her point across, but don't put words in 
her mouth and say she was claiming the Nazi Gryffindors were 
persecuting the Jewish Slytherins. If you really thought she was 
painting the Slytherins as victims in that way, rest assured that is 
not what she said. 


bboyminn:
> 
> Slytherin, themselves, by their own behavior, created 
> the animosity that is felt by the other Houses. If 
> Slytherin want to fix that, then they have to behave in
> a way that reduces the animosity. It is not up to
> the other Houses to change their attitude toward 
> Slytherin, it is up to Slytherin to /behave in a way/
> the changes the attitudes of the other Houses. 

Magpie:
Yes, and that's actually what she said--she did not compare them to 
actual Jewish people. She agreed that Slytherins by their own 
behavior created the animosity. The animosity was deserved and 
Slytherin lived down to everyone's expectations.

bboyminn:
> 
> Again, that is an example of someone who is so 
> emotionally invested in a subplot that doesn't advance 
> the story that they have become slightly irrational.

Magpie:
No, just an example of someone trying to say something and being 
completely misunderstood in ways that offended people, I think. 

bboyminn:
> 
> Again, I readily acknowledge that I have removed the
> statement from the context, so it really stands more
> as an illustration than an example. This was a long
> and detail discussion, so I admit there may have been
> some valid context for the comparison. So, apologies 
> to the person who posted this idea; again, it serves 
> as an illustration, not as an example. 

Magpie:
I'm afraid I don't understand what it stands as an example of. She 
was discussing how uncomfortable she felt reading a story that 
worked out the way this one did and tried to explain why having a 
group that was "othered" this way wasn't a pleasant read for her. I 
don't see what the big deal is. If books leave you with an 
unpleasant feeling you described what you found so unpleasant about 
it. She wasn't the only one who came away with that unpleasant 
feeling. I don't find it irrational (it was closer to my own 
response)--I think it's actually trying to understand one's own 
negative response to a book and explain it to others.

bboyminn:
> 
> In fact, there is a thread that does exactly as you 
> suggest. This person simply says... 'eh... the books
> simply didn't do it for me'. I don't agree with that
> but they didn't like it, so they didn't like it; that's
> life. Even if I can't understand it, I can easily
> accept that this person simply didn't like the book.
> 
> But that is quite different from being vehemently 
> incensed over some minor point, or because your
> favorite plot line wasn't resolved the way you 
> wanted. Annoyed-OK, but vehemently incensed is over
> the top. 

Magpie:
Isn't that what we do in fandom, nit-pick over different points? 
I've ignored tons of threads that nitpicked over the years trying to 
cover plot-holes I didn't need covered. (For instance, I don't mind 
how the letter got to Sirius' place, but it seems like an expected 
fandom thing to argue about how it doesn't work.) I mean, it seems 
to me that it also might be that the person who's saying "eh, it 
didn't do it for me" is okay because they're not challenging anybody 
else. A person who hated the book might be equally okay with a 
thread saying, "I really liked it!" but be more likely to engage 
with somebody saying "The book was brilliant and here's why..." 
That's when you tend to get into back and forth arguments.

-m