What's fairness (or the factual/fictional divide) got to do with it?

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50475

Amy asked:

> Am I being paranoid, or are you talking about me?

Errr...do I get to say 'neither' here?  Or is that cheating?

We've hurt each others' feelings here, obviously, and I'm
very sorry.  I did not mean to imply that your statement
about how we speak to real life people was an ad hominem
attack, although looking over my post, I can see how of
course it must have read that way to you.  That was not
precisely my intent.  I was using that quote as a launching 
point to discuss the difference between two types of reading 
practice and did not realize how in context it would 
come across as if I were setting it forth as an example 
of deliberately hurtful behavior.

The distinction that I wished to make between "fairness 
to characters" and "fairness to real people in real life" 
was mainly prompted by the Cho Chang thread, in which a 
poster's attempt to explain why a fictional character's
narrative function had inspired in her a sense of dislike 
was likened, in rapid succession, both to racial prejudice 
and to real world misogyny.

Now, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I found this exceptionally 
upsetting to read.  *My* feelings were hurt by it.  I could only 
imagine how it might have felt to the person against whom it had 
actually been directed.  

I also thought that it was very much relevant to the distinction 
between how we evaluate fictional characters (do we cut them slack?
do we give them the benefit of the doubt?  are we forgiving of 
their flaws? do we try to avoid using hurtful or judgmental
language when we talk about them? do we hold them responsible 
for things that are "not their fault?") and how we treat real
people in real life, which in turn seemed to me to tie in
to the issue of whether or not polemic writing is acceptable
or desirable on this list.  

This topic has, of course, come up on the list in the past.
I note that I was not the only person here uncomfortably 
reminded of last summer's Twins thread.  I'm not going to
repeat my shpiel about the difference between how we talk
about fictional characters and how we talk about each other
again.  It's all in message #43272.

As it happens, I *do* see a connection between these two 
issues -- as I believe you might yourself, Amy, as you did 
make mention of your own preference for "viewing the characters 
as real people" in one of your posts on this thread.  The 
connection that I perceive is that I imagine that those who 
engage very strongly with the characters as "real people" likely 
find polemic directed against them far more upsetting to read 
when it appears on the list, just as I think that most people 
of good will and kindly dispositions probably find polemic 
rather painful to read in real life when it is directed against 
people they happen to know personally.

I suppose that what makes me uneasy is that when the boundaries
between the fictional world and the real one get blurred, then
that is when we start seeing statements that IMO cross that line
into the realm of ad hominem.  It is the reason, for example, that
shortly after my delurk on this list, I was accused of being the
sort of person who lets the terrorists win. <g>  It is the 
reason that this past summer, those who defended Draco Malfoy
were accused of being racist and "unconscionable."  It is the
reason that somebody can be accused of hypocrisy for verbally
attacking a fictional character while also expressing the belief
that verbally attacking *real* people is unkind behavior.  These 
are statements that come about when people fail to draw that 
distinction between fictional characters and real people.

So, for example, we can see this, from Petra Pan:

> So, how can such dislike be 
> explained? Or justified? To have a 
> strong opinion, positive or negative, 
> about people we barely know is the 
> definition of prejudice after all.

> You know, the older I get, the more 
> forgiving I am of those who prejudge. 
> It happens - we are mere mortals who 
> are still works in progress. It's 
> what we CHOOSE to do once we 
> recognize our own prejudices (be it 
> racial or otherwise) for what they 
> are that is truly telling of who we 
> are.

Disliking Cho Chang on the basis of her narrative function 
within the text is akin to *racial prejudice?*

I can't help but feel that if this is true, then many of us 
must be very bigoted people indeed.  After all, Eileen has 
expressed a dislike for Mrs. Crouch on the basis of her narrative 
function.  I have in the past expressed virtually synonymous 
feelings about poor Mrs. Longbottom: a woman we have never even 
*seen,* for heaven's sake, and know absolutely *nothing* about!  
I have also expressed my profound dislike for Lily Potter, while 
yet acknowledging that she could be (and I profoundly hope *will* 
be!) redeemed in my eyes in the future, should JKR ever decide 
to give her something more to *do* in the text than to serve as 
a rather ickily (IMO) idealized maternal icon.  

(And what can we say about those who abuse poor blameless Tom 
Bombadil?  :-D)

I do not believe that these reader responses reflect a
bigoted or misogynist nature.  There is a profound and
significant difference between how people approach a work 
of fiction and how they approach real people in real life.

I suppose that given that there seemed to be a *lot* of these 
sorts of statements floating about the list this week, it
was difficult for me not to draw the conceptual connection 
between the blurring of the fictional/factual divide and
the concerns you expressed about polemic being directed 
against the characters, particularly when these concerns 
seemed to be combined with a suggestion that how we treat 
people in real life might have some bearing on how we talk 
about the characters of the canon.  I did not mean to suggest
that you had attacked anyone, and I'm sorry if I gave that
impression.  But I do see the two phenomena as *related,*
because both seem to me to be blurring the line between
fictional and factual, which in turn often leads, IMO, 
to situations in which people feel themselves to be
under attack not merely vicariously -- as when a beloved
character comes under fire -- but *personally.*  

In real life, for example, I do not favor statements like
"So-and-so is an inconsiderate weasel!"  I think them
rather unkind and ungenerous.  They do not accord the
person so described much in the way of charity, or of
benefit of the doubt.  I would certainly never call
someone Ever So Evil!  I don't even *believe* that
people can, properly speaking, be "evil."  I view
that term as better applied to actions than to men.

When it comes to fictional characters, however, I am
perfectly willing to use that sort of language, because
I don't really view fictional characters as people who 
need to be granted the benefit of the doubt, if you see
what I mean.  They cannot be harmed by their readers.

So it does make me extremely uncomfortable when I feel
that the relationship between reader and character is 
being equated with the relationship between person and 
person.  It hurts my feelings, because it makes me feel
as if I am being accused of being ungenerous or uncharitable
or unkind or bigoted in real life.  It makes me feel 
constrained from expressing myself, because it implies to
my mind that I should not be speaking of the characters in 
a manner in which I would not speak of a real person who was 
not present to defend himself -- which doesn't leave me with
very much freedom, honestly.  It also makes me feel *very* 
nervous and twitchy and paranoid, not least of which because 
precedent suggests that when I see this happening, the very 
next thing that is going to happen is that someone will be 
hurling some dire ad hominem or another in my general direction.


Elkins