OVERANALYZING THE TEXT

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