The Return of Inconsiderate Idiots!Ron and Harry

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 50433

There is much to attend to here. Too much, but I'll
give it a go. :-)

Starting with Petra, (who must wonder why I never
responded to her interesting email about Crouch, the
answer being that I was ill at the time, and still
mean to get back to her on that)

>I expressed no assumption about your motives or 
>your ship when I wrote the above as a part of my 
>reply.  It's just that what you said about 
>not considering it a bad thing to trash characters 
>led me to think...and too much time on my hand + 
>thinking = posting. 

I'm afraid we all suffer from that equation. :-) But,
you must understand, that it is very uncomfortable
when Ebony and I were the only people on the list (at
that point) who had recently written anything that
pertained to this discussion of trashing characters
for rhetorical points. 

So... Pax! 

Petra ever-so-evilly then asked:
>So, what ship is Crouch Sr. an anchor of anyway?  
>Which ship would benefit from the demonization 
>of Crouch Sr.?

But that's Part Nine! I can't get involved in that
now! Look, I have a lot to say about Crouch shipping
eventually. Just wait. (And I'll be sure to address
your theory.) 

<drags herself forcibly away from question>

>Not at all.  But not seeing them as complex 
>characters is problematic.  Not actually your 
>problem, per se.  But in your seafaring voyages 
>surely you have met those who do insist on 
>reducing canon to simplistic terms.

You mean, my brothers? 

Of course, the answer is yes. Who hasn't?  

But you know, I usually don't bother to complain about
them. They're just a hazard of seafaring, I guess.
Like fog. Or heavy winds. 

I spent my Grade 11 English class in the company of
people who just didn't get it. It does wonders for
your sense of fatalistic acceptance. 

<about the Twins discussion>
>It also says a lot about the complexity of her
>characters.

Well, that's what I thought. I'm not that keen on Fred
and George, but I think they are *very* well-drawn
characters. Uncomfortably well-drawn characters for
me. 

Which brings us back to Ron and Harry.

Amy Z wrote:
>I do think Eileen was trashing--sorry, Eileen.

But I'm the person who said that I thought trashing
characters was a fine thing. :-)

But, as you said earlier, perhaps we define trashing
differently. 

Amy to Ebony:
>-I was just following a train of thought from your
>post to Eileen's  to a general trend that you may 
>have been fortunate enough to miss, where people do
>reduce complex characters to flat characteristics 
>such as I described.  I wasn't intending to say that
>you were trashing.

So, trashing is "reducing complex characters to flat
characteristics?" Well, then, I plead vigorously not
guilty! 

How does my intrepretation of Ron and Harry as
inconsiderate reduce their complexity to flat
characteristics?

>It's not a matter of affection for the characters
>(there's no arguing that point, as affection for
>characters is as irrational and indefensible as 
>affection for real-life people), but of supporting 
>your argument with the full range of evidence.  
>Ron and Harry are both, at times, inconsiderate. 
>Evidence abounds.  But to say that on balance they 
>are inconsiderate, to my mind, flattens out
characters >who have both amply demonstrated concern
for others' >feelings. 

To your mind, it does. But not to mine. The fact that
I have not made the whole case for my opinion does not
mean that there isn't a case to be made. 

It does not mean that I am, under your definition of
reducing character complexity to flatness, trashing
the characters. It simply means that I haven't proven
the point. 

But then, I never tried to prove my point. In fact, I
seem to remember saying that I didn't feel at all like
making the whole case at this point of time. I have
such an idiosyncratic reading of Ron and Harry's
characters, especially Harry's, that it'd take a
*long* time to even start explaining it. 

You see, I really don't think that either of them
*has* "amply demonstrated concern for others'
feelings." Not *amply* anyhow. That isn't at all
obvious to me. 

Some of the instances in the text that are cited as
Harry showing concern, for example, strike me as Harry
being woefully inconsiderate. The response to Neville
in PS/SS over the leg-locker curse is one istance
where my intrepretation of the text is decidedly
different from the standard one. And we all know how
popular it's been on the list in the past to voice
that opinion. 

<slightly twisted smile - and yes, I really do have a
slightly twisted smile> 

Bent it may be, but is that a flattening of Harry's
character? To my mind, it's rather *complex*. 

>On rapid reflection I would say Harry is definitely
>more considerate than otherwise; Ron's a tougher
case; 

Well... actually...

I hesitate to say this, but I suppose I'm going to say
it anyway.

I read Harry as much more inconsiderate than Ron. 

There. I await a painful and slow death. 

>in either case it takes more than a citation of 
>their inconsiderate moments to make the argument.  
>At least, that's what it takes if you want to 
>convince *me.*

Well, yes, I'd agree. Only the fact that I haven't
made the argument doesn't mean that I am, under your
definition of the word, "trashing" the characters. It
means simply that I haven't made the argument.

Making the argument seems like way too much work,
which I wouldn't enjoy, since I'd want to be writing
about Crouch, or Avery, or Neville, or Snape. Then,
I'd have to deal with the firestorm that would follow,
which wouldn't be that fun either. And it would
enlighten no-one, since I know no-one is likely to get
on board with my reading of the text. 

So why mention it in the first place? 

Here, Elkins comes to my rescue:
>What she was trying to do was to *explain* her 
>reader response.(She was also trying to make a 
>point about the Affective Fallacy in the process:
>namely, that the reader's own personal gut 
>emotional reaction to certain characters in the story
>should not *necessarily* be assumed to be shared by 
>the other characters in the story.)

Why yes! <sunny grin> Of course, that was the point.
That Hermione doesn't seem to share my negative
reaction to either Harry or Ron. That just as Ebony
could feel uneasy about Ron, I could feel uneasy about
Ron *and* Harry. To illustrate this, I pointed to one
issue on which Ebony reads Ron as inconsiderate, and
added my reading of Harry as inconsiderate on that
same issue: their relationship with Neville. 

But Hermione doesn't necessarily agree with either of
us. 

So, then, Amy said:
>Fair enough.  She doesn't want to convince me, and 
>I'm unconvinced, so we're all in agreement. 

Yes, I think that's the measure of it. :)

But I do have some things to say about Ron and Harry
now that everything's got stirred up. 

Amy wrote:
>I suppose the disagreement between us may come down 
>to the fact that we may speak differently about
>real-life people.  If a friend of mine whom on 
>balance I liked occasionally did something
>inconsiderate, I wouldn't say "Lois is
inconsiderate."
>I'd say "Lois did something really inconsiderate."  
>I'd save "Lois is inconsiderate" for people 
>who frequently, or better yet dominantly, express 
>that trait. 

Such as children? 

<takes a deep breath>

Affective Fallacy time.

Yeah, I think children are, by definition,
inconsiderate. (And idiots, much of the time, though
honestly, I used the term "idiot" much more
affectionately. That's what makes them less culpable
for their behaviour.)

Hearing the praises of childhood sends me up a wall. I
want to tear my hair out when I hear people talking
about how reading Harry Potter they regained the lost
innocence of their childhood. 

What innocence? Children are twisted and sick. We
educate them not to be. 

Of course, this may be influenced heavily by my own
childhood experience. Including the fact that I...
errr... <lowers her voice> tortured my dolls while
identifying with them. 

And yes, I was an inconsiderate idiot. I grew out of
it (at least *I* think so!), as nice kids, and even
the not-so-nice kids, often do. 

I don't deny that Harry and Ron are nice kids. But
nice kids are some of the most inconsiderate people in
the world. My brothers are nice kids... Has anyone
ever wondered why I now identify so strongly with
Percy? 

I think that's as far as I want to pursue that
Affective Fallacy. 

Before I'm pegged by the entire list as the ogre who
hates children, let me protest that, as oldest of
eight children, I *adore* children and, they usually
*adore* me. I know how to look after them. I can
understand them. I want a few of my own, should I ever
marry. I want to be a teacher. I drool over strangers'
babies in public places. I jump at any opportunity to
babysit. I devote time to thinking up amusements for
children. My life is incredibly kid-focused, to the
point where I am cuddling a two-year old while writing
this post.  

But I don't have a high opinion of kids' characters.
The exciting thing is seeing them grow up, not staying
forever the inconsiderate idiots they are. 

Which is why when Lupin "went for the jugular" in PoA,
and Harry matured as a result, I was cheering. One of
my favourite moments in the books. 

I really sincerely believe that Ron and Harry are
inconsiderate. And I also believe that they'll develop
before our eyes into wonderful young men. 

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca