Faye (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
said_scarlett) wrote2005-03-22 07:45 am
said_scarlett) wrote2005-03-22 07:45 am
In Defense of Some Minor Characters....
Or: Minor characters I'm tired of seeing fucked over in fan fiction and RPGs. They get no love, and no one sticking up for them much. I'm sick and tired of seeing the less than main characters fucked over, especially with the excuse 'there's not enough of them in canon to get a feel for them!' In these cases, that's really not true.
This isn't aimed at anyone on my Flist, since the fan fiction authors on here are actually good ones with a firm grasp of characterization.
I will readily admit that I have a different take on Peter than most people. It comes through far more in how I play him than how I write him in fan fiction, but it's still there. I am sick and tired of Peter being played/written as this spineless, obviously insane, cowardly, magically-defunct drooling freak who loves to hurt people.
Peter is a Gryffindor. He is brave. While I will admit that his bravery isn't the self sacrificing noble sort, it doesn't have to be. I seem to have missed the memo where 'brave' was a synonym for 'good'. He turns traitor and spy on his friends. When Snape does this, he's brave, because he turned against the bad people. They were still his friends! The only things we know in canon about Wilkes and Rosier? They were killed by Moody, and they were friends with Snape. But Peter does it and he's a coward. It may not have been good, but it was brave. He seeks out Voldemort again, risks himself by Imperio'ing Barty, and raises Voldemort from near-death. Not the actions of a coward.
When he's young, he is not this evil, twisted, creepy young man who sets off warning bells in everyones head. He's the only person they don't suspect of being the traitor! I don't understand the logic that leads so many people to write him as this poster child for the mentally disturbed and creepy. He's certainly on the disturbed side after spending thirteen years as a rat, but even then he's obviously still functional and capable of taking care of himself. He isn't stupid. And he's a pretty damn good wizard. He's mastered the Unforgivables (we see him use two in the books) and he became an animagus, which is extremely difficult and generally takes years. And was a good enough one to keep his form for thirteen years.
He does not like to hurt people. He doesn't want to hurt Harry in the graveyard scene, and he seems pretty sickened whenever Voldemort talks about hurting people. The times that he kills people, it's all at a distance and with great detachment. Those are not the actions of a man who likes hurting people.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop making Peter into this horrible character just because you don't like him.
I don't understand where the idea that Bellatrix is a soft, weak and delicate woman who is dependant on the men in her life came from. I don't, but I see it all the time.
The first time we see her, she's on trial to go to Azkaban. She holds her head high and even while being sentenced she rallies for the Dark Lord. She's proud, she's angry, and she's obviously the leader of the little group she's sentenced with. The group which includes her husband. This does not say to me that she's dependant on him in the least.
She tortured people until they lost their minds. She stood defiant in the face of dementors. She is one of Voldemort's top lieutenants. That is not the rank of a woman who is soft or delicate, nor are those the actions of a woman who is. She is the only female Death Eater. Essentially, she's a woman in an all boy's club. A soft or weak woman wouldn't survive, and certainly not flourish. This is more than enough canon evidence to prove that she's a strong and in charge sort of person. Sure she may have a softer side, but that's not all she is.
Why is it that we complain there are no strong female characters in the series, then weaken down the ones we get? It's really starting to bug me. Give Bellatrix the respect she deserves and stop writing her like a little girly-girl.
And here my own personal bias ends. I write/play both of the above characters, so I'm generally a bit more emphatic when it comes to them.
Maybe I'm spoiled by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lennaofmidearth's Luna. Maybe I expect too much from writers. But I don't seem to recall Luna being spastic, loud, obnoxious or just plain stupid.
I do realize that Luna's character type is a difficult one, but that doesn't excuse poor characterization. Luna is whimsical, surreal, mysterious and slightly eccentric. She isn't loud in the least, and this is emphasized more times than I can count. She's very fae in her appearance and mannerisms, dreamy and quiet and seemingly in another world. She speaks with a soft and dreamy tone, she looks beneath the surface of things, she's extremely intelligent and she is very much aware of what's going on around her. She simply chooses not to acknowledge this. She does not snap back when insulted, she does not bemoan and cry or scream about it, she doesn't do anything. All through canon she simply ignores nearly all negativity directed to her. She's extremely polite. She doesn't even use nicknames, instead calling Ron by 'Ronald'. This could be something that's singular to Ron, but we don't see her addressing anyone else with a shortened version of their name through the book.
And while her beliefs may be strange, she has a quiet conviction in them that's steady and unwavering. At the end of OotP, she's the only person who can comfort Harry in the least. Again, she goes about this in a very quiet and understated way, almost speaking in riddles. There's an aura of mystery about her, and I have never seen that put across by anyone other thanlennaofmideath. (Who also has the best Luna PB ever.) And that really upsets me, because she's such an interesting character with so many possibilities. And I do hold with the theory that if anyone is going to turn out to be a Seer, it's Luna. All through the books it's subtley displayed that she just knows things.
I also don't understand why she's so often portrayed as half blooded, when it's canon that she's pureblood.
If you can't write Luna proplery, please don't write her at all.
Where is there any evidence that Pansy is a lost little lamb with a heart of gold, trying to make it in the tough Slytherin world? She's the ringleader in practically everything she does. She goes out of her way to be a bitch. She's petty and cruel and spiteful and snobby. You want to have your redeemed Slytherin? (Which in itself is a touchy subject with me, since the whole thing is rarely done well.) That's fine. But it isn't Pansy, I'm sorry. She may not be evil, but she's not secretly this nice and loving person who will embrace all muggleborns as her kin.
She isn't acting or faking it all. And it isn't just that she's going along with things. She instigates them. When it comes to Slytherins, they're cunning and crafty and self serving. She's not just going along with things to fit in. She's the person people have to go along with. And she's not stupid, either. She's more witty than Draco, and she makes it to Prefect.
She's also not gorgeous. She has, and I quote 'a face like a pug'. She's probably cute in her way, and I'm sure there are people who find her beautiful, but she's not drop dead gorgeous. And bless the authors/players who realize and acknowledge this.
And so ends this rant. It filled my head last night as I was surfing the net desperately trying to get to sleep at one in the morning. I still somehow managed to wake up at 7:30.
This isn't aimed at anyone on my Flist, since the fan fiction authors on here are actually good ones with a firm grasp of characterization.
I will readily admit that I have a different take on Peter than most people. It comes through far more in how I play him than how I write him in fan fiction, but it's still there. I am sick and tired of Peter being played/written as this spineless, obviously insane, cowardly, magically-defunct drooling freak who loves to hurt people.
Peter is a Gryffindor. He is brave. While I will admit that his bravery isn't the self sacrificing noble sort, it doesn't have to be. I seem to have missed the memo where 'brave' was a synonym for 'good'. He turns traitor and spy on his friends. When Snape does this, he's brave, because he turned against the bad people. They were still his friends! The only things we know in canon about Wilkes and Rosier? They were killed by Moody, and they were friends with Snape. But Peter does it and he's a coward. It may not have been good, but it was brave. He seeks out Voldemort again, risks himself by Imperio'ing Barty, and raises Voldemort from near-death. Not the actions of a coward.
When he's young, he is not this evil, twisted, creepy young man who sets off warning bells in everyones head. He's the only person they don't suspect of being the traitor! I don't understand the logic that leads so many people to write him as this poster child for the mentally disturbed and creepy. He's certainly on the disturbed side after spending thirteen years as a rat, but even then he's obviously still functional and capable of taking care of himself. He isn't stupid. And he's a pretty damn good wizard. He's mastered the Unforgivables (we see him use two in the books) and he became an animagus, which is extremely difficult and generally takes years. And was a good enough one to keep his form for thirteen years.
He does not like to hurt people. He doesn't want to hurt Harry in the graveyard scene, and he seems pretty sickened whenever Voldemort talks about hurting people. The times that he kills people, it's all at a distance and with great detachment. Those are not the actions of a man who likes hurting people.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop making Peter into this horrible character just because you don't like him.
I don't understand where the idea that Bellatrix is a soft, weak and delicate woman who is dependant on the men in her life came from. I don't, but I see it all the time.
The first time we see her, she's on trial to go to Azkaban. She holds her head high and even while being sentenced she rallies for the Dark Lord. She's proud, she's angry, and she's obviously the leader of the little group she's sentenced with. The group which includes her husband. This does not say to me that she's dependant on him in the least.
She tortured people until they lost their minds. She stood defiant in the face of dementors. She is one of Voldemort's top lieutenants. That is not the rank of a woman who is soft or delicate, nor are those the actions of a woman who is. She is the only female Death Eater. Essentially, she's a woman in an all boy's club. A soft or weak woman wouldn't survive, and certainly not flourish. This is more than enough canon evidence to prove that she's a strong and in charge sort of person. Sure she may have a softer side, but that's not all she is.
Why is it that we complain there are no strong female characters in the series, then weaken down the ones we get? It's really starting to bug me. Give Bellatrix the respect she deserves and stop writing her like a little girly-girl.
And here my own personal bias ends. I write/play both of the above characters, so I'm generally a bit more emphatic when it comes to them.
Maybe I'm spoiled by
lennaofmidearth's Luna. Maybe I expect too much from writers. But I don't seem to recall Luna being spastic, loud, obnoxious or just plain stupid. I do realize that Luna's character type is a difficult one, but that doesn't excuse poor characterization. Luna is whimsical, surreal, mysterious and slightly eccentric. She isn't loud in the least, and this is emphasized more times than I can count. She's very fae in her appearance and mannerisms, dreamy and quiet and seemingly in another world. She speaks with a soft and dreamy tone, she looks beneath the surface of things, she's extremely intelligent and she is very much aware of what's going on around her. She simply chooses not to acknowledge this. She does not snap back when insulted, she does not bemoan and cry or scream about it, she doesn't do anything. All through canon she simply ignores nearly all negativity directed to her. She's extremely polite. She doesn't even use nicknames, instead calling Ron by 'Ronald'. This could be something that's singular to Ron, but we don't see her addressing anyone else with a shortened version of their name through the book.
And while her beliefs may be strange, she has a quiet conviction in them that's steady and unwavering. At the end of OotP, she's the only person who can comfort Harry in the least. Again, she goes about this in a very quiet and understated way, almost speaking in riddles. There's an aura of mystery about her, and I have never seen that put across by anyone other than
lennaofmideath. (Who also has the best Luna PB ever.) And that really upsets me, because she's such an interesting character with so many possibilities. And I do hold with the theory that if anyone is going to turn out to be a Seer, it's Luna. All through the books it's subtley displayed that she just knows things.I also don't understand why she's so often portrayed as half blooded, when it's canon that she's pureblood.
If you can't write Luna proplery, please don't write her at all.
Where is there any evidence that Pansy is a lost little lamb with a heart of gold, trying to make it in the tough Slytherin world? She's the ringleader in practically everything she does. She goes out of her way to be a bitch. She's petty and cruel and spiteful and snobby. You want to have your redeemed Slytherin? (Which in itself is a touchy subject with me, since the whole thing is rarely done well.) That's fine. But it isn't Pansy, I'm sorry. She may not be evil, but she's not secretly this nice and loving person who will embrace all muggleborns as her kin.
She isn't acting or faking it all. And it isn't just that she's going along with things. She instigates them. When it comes to Slytherins, they're cunning and crafty and self serving. She's not just going along with things to fit in. She's the person people have to go along with. And she's not stupid, either. She's more witty than Draco, and she makes it to Prefect.
She's also not gorgeous. She has, and I quote 'a face like a pug'. She's probably cute in her way, and I'm sure there are people who find her beautiful, but she's not drop dead gorgeous. And bless the authors/players who realize and acknowledge this.
And so ends this rant. It filled my head last night as I was surfing the net desperately trying to get to sleep at one in the morning. I still somehow managed to wake up at 7:30.
no subject
The trio is pretty nice to pretty much everyone, really. Hemrione doesn't get on with Luna all that much, but she's not outright mean to her. Ron and Harry are nice with the rest of Gryffindor, the Hufflepuffs we see them interacting with, and almost all of the DA.
We really only see Pansy being actually 'nice' to Draco.
no subject
But those are all their own groups. (Apart from the Hufflepuffs, and I think it's interesting that they've come closest to disliking Harry and Ron, apparently, and vice-versa.)
So many people speak so highly of them and claim to be close with them, I think it's hard to say they were only nice to each other.
I don't know. They were charming, funny, handsome (well, half of them, apparently) which naturally people respond well to.
I don't think even said people who speak so highly of them would describe them as 'nice', particularly. But then, I don't get the feeling 'niceness' is a valued trait in the WW.
(I do like Peter, however.)
The trio is pretty nice to pretty much everyone, really.
Hmm. I don't think they're exactly aggressive to people, but I don't see much of a case for active friendliness. They seem to keep themselves to themselves and quickly close ranks against anyone with a dissenting opinion. Which I guess would describe the Slytherins also, leading back to my point.
I mean, Pansy seems to be quick to criticise the Gryffindors, as well as those associating with them, but that's no worse than the Gryffindors' haste to criticise Slytherin. And Pansy at least seems able to limit her more negative actions to rude words, whereas the Trio can become violent.
no subject
With MWPP, a large number of people speak highly of them on a personal level. Peers, people they worked with, and people tangentially associated with them. It's very rare that people speak kindly of people that weren't nice to them. We don't see anything of the Marauders other than through Harry's mind, after him being told or shown things. We have to rely on filtered information through an unreliable narrator.
There's quite a bit of ddissension within the DA. We see plenty of causes of scuffles and whatnot, but they're generally limited to typical teenage things. I don't see much 'closing off to those who don't agree'. Over large issues such as Voldemort, well yes. But that's just normal, and not really an argument for whether or not someone is a nice person. Again, it all goes back to having an unreliable narrator.
Pansy joined the Inquisitional Squad. She's the ring leader of a rather cruel group of girls. She's vicious towards everyone who isn't a Slytherin - going out of her way to pick on people she hardly even knows, as shown in GoF, and is friendly towards no one but Draco. I can't accept that as pointing to her having a core personality of being a nice and kind person.
no subject
It appears to be a matter of interpretation. Iirc, Zacharias Smith questioned and got threatened and hexed for it. Adding to that the treatment of Marietta and the end mass hexing on the train, I actually find the DA a much more dangerous and malicious group than the Inquisitorial Squad.
I don't see any of the Inquisitorial Squad has having particularly kind personalities, definitely.
My point is that I don't see kindness in many characters in this series, so I guess the logical conclusion for me is that kindness is something either the culture or the author doesn't find valuable, in comparison to other traits.