|
Post by limbowoman on Jul 29, 2007 21:51:22 GMT -5
Well, I read book three first, so I'm slightly biased... I also agree with you about the golden trio Clover... they are exactly how you describe... except when JK twists her characters personalities to fit the story instead of the other way around...then it sucks on an even worse level... I like a lot of the side characters more than any of the main ones...
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 29, 2007 23:56:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aindel on Jul 30, 2007 15:21:55 GMT -5
Hermione doesn't bother me (I think it's because I'm essentially a quieter version of her, sadly. Been trying to change that for years. Didn't work). Ron is, in fact, quite dumb. He bugs me. Harry is also quite dumb, and bugs me. I've spent years responding to the question "Do you think Harry will die in the end?" with "God, I hope so." He's kind of... bland, for a hero. I think that's supposed to make him more interesting, but it doesn't. Snape does indeed rock. But again, I'm still partial to the Weasley twins. Have been since Book 1. Nice, Poppy. Predictable, but still amusing.
|
|
|
Post by Clover on Jul 31, 2007 20:38:23 GMT -5
See, I have two beefs: One, Harry Potter is a Gary Stu. Why? He's got the tragic past. He's got the familial wealth. He's got the magic powerz (even above and beyond what's normal in a magic-using society). He's got the connections with the super-strong mentors. He's got the sidekicks that invariably make him look awesome in comparison.
And as we're shown in the seventh book, Jo wants us to love Harry just because he's Harry. That's a bad reason. A very bad reason. You can't love a character 'just becuz', and its totally the mark of a Gary Stu.
Beef Numero Dos: Apparently, in an interview, Jo doesn't consider Snape a hero. WTF, Jo. WTF.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 31, 2007 23:13:32 GMT -5
Well, that could mean a bunch of things. Maybe she thinks Snape is definitely an anti-hero. He's not a good guy. Death-eater, pro-pure blood, Voldemort's right-hand man. He's not the knight in shining armor.
Then, she could also mean hero as in central, main character in the series. Past the first book, he has a very secondary role, and for the last few moments of the series, he's almost pushed back to a MacGuffin role.
|
|
|
Post by Jones on Aug 1, 2007 8:12:19 GMT -5
Snape was tremendously brave and did awesome things, but for selfish reasons. That's an anti-hero.
The one thing that prevents me from calling Harry a Gary Stu is that his peers tend to hate on him. That's a VERY big strike against the "perfect" characters those are supposed to be. The mark of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu isn't necessarily that the readers are supposed to love them, it's that all the OTHER characters love them, for no reason. Harry's awesomely famous and talented, but it causes him more problems than it benefits him, at least among his peers. The secondary characters' (especially classmates) like and dislike of Harry fluctuates so frequently that I just can't justify calling him a Stu.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Aug 2, 2007 15:23:17 GMT -5
I agree with Jones, and I don't get why people hate Harry so much. I mean, he acts just like a kid in his situation should act. Every teen goes through that bullshit, except his parents died in front of him because of him. That's going to fuck you up. I like him.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 2, 2007 15:35:42 GMT -5
Every teen goes through saving the world 7 years in a row through clever use of magic.
|
|
|
Post by Clover on Aug 2, 2007 15:51:23 GMT -5
I don't despise Harry, not by any stretch. I just... don't really like him very much as a character. And Jones, you have a point in saying that he does get the short end of the stick from his peers quite often, so that does keep him from going all out Sue.
And I should probably clarify.. I don't mean 'hero' as in, the protagonist of the series, and I don't mean 'hero' as in, he's nice, all the time, always and forever. JK actually stated that she doesn't consider him actually a particularily good person, and certainly not someone to look up to.
I always considered that a hero was someone who HAD the bad urges and the potential to be very, very bad, who instead rose above his urges and fought against their nature, and managed to instead be very good. If you look at Snape--and oh my god, writing this post without spoilers is like pulling teeth from a duck-- he's actually more heroic then Harry is.
Harry doesn't really have a lot of negative impulses to overcome. He's a little selfish, but what teenager isn't? He's a little impulsive, but again, what person isn't... He holds grudges, but okay, whatever. Snape, on the other hand, has the potential to be a real threat, and instead seems to moderate himself to being 'just' a bastard. Snape, more then Harry, has to overcome considerable hurdles in his personality, just to get to a neutral point. That's something I consider much more heroic--and what's worse is that for the vast majority of the time, he's had to do this completely on his lonesome.
Harry, even if some of his peers give him hell, has his little group of fast and stalwart friends-- Ron, who's got his back, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, Luna... its true he doesn't have parents, but there's always people around to help him to make the 'right' choice. With positive role models, its a lot easier for him to BE righteous and heroic, because the path is somewhat cleared for him. He's got the entire Order looking out for him.
Snape, on the other hand, is miles into the enemy camp, the left hand man to the biggest bastard in recent Wizarding history--- and even the people in his OWN camp don't like him much. He's in a very persnickity situation, and the temptation for him to just tell the Order to faff off must be extreme. I mean-- he's good enough to lie, cheat, steal and spy for them... but when it comes down to it, he's not good enough to eat dinner with them, or share pleasant company.
SO, he's got the opportunity, the motive, the mindset... and yet he still turns away, keeps his alleigances, and sticks to his very principled (if skewed) version of the straight-and-narrow. I consider that, the whole struggle against nature and nurture, to be more heroic then just pediddling along a preset path.
|
|
|
Post by limbowoman on Aug 2, 2007 21:24:47 GMT -5
I agree with Jones, and I don't get why people hate Harry so much. I mean, he acts just like a kid in his situation should act. Every teen goes through that bullshit, except his parents died in front of him because of him. That's going to fuck you up. I like him. That's just it... he's too normal... badly written normal... but too normal... it's been done too mnay times in fantasy... but when you get a good one, it can be quite fun... this isn't a good one... Apart from that JK tends to slightly tweak her character's personality slightly to fit the story that happens to be going on at that moment... but she doesn't do it with Snape, which is always good to see... so snape is certainly the most well written... I cou;d certainly see why you could like Snape a lot more than Harry...
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Aug 3, 2007 4:55:42 GMT -5
No no, every kid goes through the angsty angry stage.
also, so Limbo, you'd rather have an entire book written with no 'normal' characters, but instead with all outrageous characters? Because to me that makes a rather bad book. I mean, in all honesty, every character can't be all wild and out-of-the-norm. And I think that harry was written well for what he is. I think he SHOULD be 'normal'. Though I really wouldn't call him normal myself. But even thus, I don't think he should have been written differently.
And Clover, I do, in fact, see your point. But even his friends abandon him at times, and hell, he probably doesn't feel like he's got these people who have always got his back. I mean, he's pretty damn paranoid, having this huge faction of people out to kill him and all. Then he's suppost to save the world, so to speak. And people expect him to know what to do, even his friends expect a lot of him.
|
|
|
Post by Clover on Aug 3, 2007 14:31:00 GMT -5
I don't know, Trey.. if you look at some of the stuff Terry Pratchett does, he's got characters that are so over the top, so very nutty, that they all work. The trick with writing a cast of completely nutty and outrageous people is to do it tongue-in-cheek. You have to KNOW they're all nucking futs, and then you can get on with the plot, smirking all the way.
Oh, I know, and I know that the kid carries a lot of guilt-- its because of him that his parents, his godfather, Cedric.. all of those people died for his sake, and so he's got a lot of residual guilt. But really, the only time we see Harry feel actually alone is when Dumbledore 'abandons' him. Actually, if you look through the books, the vast majority of the time he's the one who pushes away his friends.
He holds his secrets close to the vest, which is entirely reasonable given that people are trying to kill him... but often times, he's the one who pushes away his friends or refuses to explain things to him. Thus, he has this dirty habit of alienating himself-- to use the 5th book/movie, he actually tries to convince Ron and Hermione to let him go to the Ministry alone. In the sixth book, we see that he wants to set off for the Horcruxes alone, Ron and Hermione have to browbeat him into letting them go along.
Its because he wants to protect them, sure, but when he alienates himself, the vast majority of the time, its under his own perrogative.
Snape, on the other hand, tends to get shunned as a matter of course. We're not told if Snape actively seeks out human interaction, but for a student to be so desperate for acceptance that he joins a terrorist organization fixated on blood purity--despite having 'tainted blood' himself-- shows that he did, at some point, desire the human interaction quite fiercely.
I don't think that's changed as he's matured; he seems to have a relatively cordial relationship with many of the people on staff. For example, in Philosopher's Stone, at the Christmas Feast, he opens a cracker and recieves the notorious 'Vulture Hat'. He's said to give a wry little scowl, and slide the hat across the high table to Dumbledore, who switches him hats. That's not the attitude of someone who is antisocial. Shy, potentially, bitter, probably.. but not antisocial.
|
|
|
Post by Aindel on Aug 3, 2007 15:27:11 GMT -5
I think he's somewhat socially inept, really. If you look at it, he spent years without too much social interaction so that, despite wanting it, he doesn't know how to react when he does succeed in getting it. Harry's the same way, when you think about it. Part of the reason, beyond protecting everyone, I think, is that it's simply become -habit- for him to do things alone. He spent 11 years (well, okay, 10 but it's not like he remembers that first year) virtually alone in Vernon and Petunia's house, so friends are still kind of a new thing to him.
|
|
Ran
New Member
Deny and Confuse the Ideal
Posts: 41
|
Post by Ran on Aug 4, 2007 14:18:46 GMT -5
I love how... I disappear for a week or so, and come back to find this has become a pretty in-depth conversation concerning character. ;D
<3
|
|
|
Post by Clover on Aug 4, 2007 20:47:44 GMT -5
Absolutely, Ran, now fucking contribute something. XD
|
|