(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Well, tumblr is entertaining in that it has lots of pretty pictures and ahem, some incredibly not so pretty pictures. Not sure what to do with it though. Can you write on it?
Or is it mainly for collaborations and posting of pictures?

2. Good Reads is weird. Hard to really talk to people on that site. The discussion threads don't permit you to directly reply to one post, instead you find yourself relegated to the end. And it requires work to read the whole thread. Not productive at all and reminds me a lot of sites like Buffy-forums and whedoneseque. I miss voy forums - where you replied directly to the post you read or Live Journal, which has a similar construction. Much easier to follow in my opinion. OTOH...there's a hilarious thread on Good Reads right now:

Harry Potter and Katniss Everdeen vs. Bella (TWilight) and Percy Jackson in the smack down to end all smack down's.

One poster was offended that Percy got stuck with Bella of all people. Bella is not well loved by anyone outside of the Twilight fandom. Can't think why. It's not like she's wimpy or anything. (I need a sarcasm icon or emoticon.)

Let me think...who do you think would win this battle? Guess it depends on whether Bella is a vampire yet?

3. Finished Sylvia Day's "I Married a Stranger" and realized Day is definitely a Joss Whedon fan. She literally names the son of her protagonists...."Lord Whedon"...which made me giggle for five minutes on the train. Sorry. A six year old..."Lord Whedon??" in Edwardian England. Bwhahhahah! I don't recommend the novel, well not unless you are in the mood for a lot of repetitive sex scenes. And I do mean a lot. Day likes to write sex scenes. The novel is innovative in regards to its characters ages and experience levels, I will give it that. The heroine is 26 and four years later 30. Which is relatively ancient in Regency Romance novels. Seriously, if you are older than 21 or 22, you are considered on the shelf. Apparently people didn't make it past 45 back then? Quite disturbing. And the hero is 22 and 26 in the book. She's experienced and jaded and has had multiple lovers. He aims to make her fall desperately in love with him - basically by shagging her senseless. You'd think after having multiple lovers...it wouldn't work, but it does. Much sexual hijinks ensue.

And now that I'm finally burned out on the trashy romance/erotica genre, I've started Thomas Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd. Which I've never read. My aim is to read the book, then rent the movie, assuming it is available. Next, Tess of the D'Ubervilles and then the Roman Polanski film. Then possibly Elizabeth Gatskill's North and South...we'll see what my mood is. I also want to read Under the Skin by Michael Faber - which has been collecting dust on my book shelf for some time. At any rate can already tell the difference in the writing. It is playing out like a film in my head.
Detailed and textured. I can taste it. Maybe I'll try Eugendis Marriage Plot again after I read Hardy. Might be in the mood for it now. It's all about the mood.

Comments

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

All I know about Twilight I learned by reading Cleolinda's summaries (http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/630150.html). I definitely recommend them (if you haven't read them already) for getting an idea of what happens without having to actually read the books. Plus, hilarious commentary. She also talks a lot about the appeal; her take is mostly that because Bella is a cardboard cutout and not an actual character, it makes it very easy to put yourself in her place. From there, it's pretty much 100% romantic fantasy, which is why the lack of plot isn't a problem for most fans. I think she's definitely on to something there. She cites Harry Potter as having a similar effect-- the first book is definitely all about wish fulfillment and fantasy, although Harry Potter developed more of a plot later where Twilight... really didn't.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

50 Shades is similar in a way...Ana the main character is in some respects a cardboard cut-out character. All the characterization is on the male love interest. Sounds similar to Twilight...where Edward gets most of the attention. Heterosexual female fantasy.

Harry Potter had a little bit more to it even in the beginning, the world was innovative and the whole school bit. Also there's a heavy theme on class issues. But it is admittedly unevenly written...and I have to admit, I had a tendency to forget the books shortly after I read them. I called them my "happy books" - required little thought, were fun fluffy reads, and didn't fill head space that was being overwhelmed by work.

I read the red shoes summaries of the Twilight novels - she may be gone now or changed her name to faithhopetricks. Hers were really snarky and she ripped the books apart.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

I enjoy Harry Potter, but it's always been a casual thing for me. Kind of like, hm, Star Wars or Star Trek. I enjoy them, but I don't obsess, and I don't feel compelled to track down all the extra material. No expanded universes for me. The first few books were more memorable for me; once the characters hit the awkward teenage stage and spent like a quarter of each book making out (or fighting about who was making out with who) I grew a lot less interested. Which is too bad, because that's about when the really serious plot started happening.

I think JKR just fell prey to not having a vicious enough editor, especially in the last two books. Did we really need chapters and chapters of the main trio camping in the woods and sniping at each other? Probably not. I mean, five years later and that is ALL I can remember of the book because it annoyed me so much. Not the epic battle at the end. Not any of the other character stuff. Just that really boring section. I never even got around to watching the last two movies.

I give Harry Potter a lot of credit for kicking the YA genre into gear and proving that children would read long books, which meant that all the other authors got to publish 300-400 page novels instead of the standard 150-200 pages. As someone who reads a lot of YA, I appreciate the booming genre. But... the older I get, the more I have some serious issues with the underlying morality of the books that make it hard for me to enjoy the fantasy story.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But... the older I get, the more I have some serious issues with the underlying morality of the books that make it hard for me to enjoy the fantasy story.

Please clarify? It's been a while since I've read the books and I admittedly never re-read or obsessed over them. I watched all the films.
Which in some respects I enjoy more than the books, particularly the latter ones.

But the morality seemed to be fine. It was anti-classism, anti-racism, and about fighting inner demons and how to handle power in a responsible manner...?

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

Oh, the overall morality of the series is fine. But... when I think a little harder about things, I start to side-eye some of the characters. Like, was dumping Harry in an abusive home for most of his childhood really the best option? I could maybe give Dumbledore & McGonagall a pass for this at first, because maybe they didn't realize how bad it was? (Although they were monitoring him fairly closely, so this is a weak excuse at best.) But once he got to school and they actually knew how awful it was, he still had to keep going back? All the magical protections they can conjure and staying with his family is really the best option? I'm not sure if I quite accept that.

There's also stuff like the love potions that are essentially date-rape drugs, yet they get played pretty much for laughs. Yes, the series mentions they're technically illegal, but no one really goes after Fred & George for making them, either.

Also, slavery of an entire magical sentient race (house-elves) is totally okay because... they're born to enjoy it? Or something?

I haven't looked at the series overall very closely, but I have read some discussions on these topics and they do make me go "Hmmm." I actually read a sort of interesting discussion recently that pointed out, hey, with all the magic that the HP wizards can do, they could cure a LOT of real world problems (disease, hunger, etc). Aren't they kind of morally obligated to do that, instead of hiding away in their own little world and ignoring the rest of the world population?

None of these things ruin the series for me, and I still think it's a really fun and solid story about coming of age within the narrow focus of the main plot, which is just about Harry and his trials at school/defeating Voldemort. But so many people take the information and explore the ramifications in a larger context, for fanfiction or role-playing or whatever, and in a broader sense it does seem like there are a lot of unfortunate implications that appear.

I should also say that it's not just Harry Potter that has this problem-- fantasy as a whole often raises some questionable moral stuff, like the ever-present armies of "evil" orcs/drow/goblins/whatever low-power mooks the heroes need to fight. Could or would an entire race of creatures all be mindlessly evil? Probably not. Does fantasy care? ...not really. To some extent, this is okay, because it's fantasy and it doesn't have to play by the rules of the real world. But fantasies are also a reflection of society and its values, so I do think it's worth thinking about and noting these issues, so we can address them in the real world, if not the fantasy world.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify. ;-)

While I don't entirely agree with your or various fans interpretations of the Harry Potter novels, I do agree with this statement:

But fantasies are also a reflection of society and its values, so I do think it's worth thinking about and noting these issues, so we can address them in the real world, if not the fantasy world.

I think and mileage varies on this that good art is a reflection of the world in which we live, often like a funhouse mirror. Fantasy and Science Fiction are often more aggressive reflections and often not always address ethical and political issues in a more aggressive manner than realism does. Because you have that safe barrier to fall back on.
Star Trek for example could address social issues as could Twilight Zone through metaphor that many tv series of that time could not, because of that barrier.

And Harry Potter does address some serious class and ethical issues.

One of them is how the Wizards treat muggles and other magical creatures as being beneath them, and the sorting hat. You are supposed to cringe at that.

What Rowlings does much like Ronald Dahl and Tolkien is not provide easy answers. She shone a light on society via a magical world. And in her series, Harry does question the ethics of his superiors and their rules, even the supposedly infallible Dumbledore - who he discovers in the final book is not infallible or pure, but deeply flawed. Just as Snape isn't evil or irredeemable. Harry discovers the world is not black and white but grey...and people aren't one thing or another, but a combo of both. And there really is no such thing as a strict moral code or rigid set of rules.


here's also stuff like the love potions that are essentially date-rape drugs, yet they get played pretty much for laughs. Yes, the series mentions they're technically illegal, but no one really goes after Fred & George for making them, either.

This interpretation of the text doesn't quite work for me. For various reasons.

One - Ron suffers as does the girl who gives him the potion, she regrets it deeply.

Two - it doesn't act in the same manner as date rape drug - which makes the person almost unconscious - with no memory.
They don't feel love when they take the date rape drug, they just lose all inhibitions and eventually consciousness.

Three - Love potions have existed in literature since the Greeks. Shakespeare used the love spell in Midsommer Night's Dream. The comparison here fits the traditional use more than the realistic one.

But, if it did work as a comparison to date rape drug- there's nothing in the text that condones its use, if anything just the opposite. And the use of it depicts an abuse of power. All the characters in Harry Potter abuse power in various ways, just as we do.
They are flawed. We are supposed to question their actions.

Fred and George are shown making a lot of pranky magical things that have dire consequences. Harry sees them as good, because they are Ron's brother's...he laughs off their pranks. But are they? Harry starts to question the use and abuses of power in the latter books, particularly Deathly Hallows - where we see three good brothers destroy their souls for power.

Also, slavery of an entire magical sentient race (house-elves) is totally okay because... they're born to enjoy it? Or something?

Uh no. Actually this is questioned throughout. Harry goes out of his way to free Doby. And the other house slave who is horribly twisted by the Black family - depicts the cruelty of this treatment as well. If anything Rowlings is saying the exact opposite. They don't enjoy it.
Rowlings in a way is questioning the British Caste system and the assumption the British royalty has that servants enjoy being servants.
Remember Rowlings came from poverty. There's a heavy theme in these books about the abuses of power and privilege by those born to it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Like, was dumping Harry in an abusive home for most of his childhood really the best option? I could maybe give Dumbledore & McGonagall a pass for this at first, because maybe they didn't realize how bad it was? (Although they were monitoring him fairly closely, so this is a weak excuse at best.) But once he got to school and they actually knew how awful it was, he still had to keep going back?

This is actually explained fairly well - at the time, they were Harry's only living family and the only way to protect Harry from Voldemart, who Dumbledore knew was still alive. By placing him with the Dorsey's - they hid Harry from the Deatheaters and Voldemart. He was safe at school and safe with the Dorsey's. No where else. (Which we sort of see evidence of when he visits the game in the fourth or fifth book.)

They didn't put him with Ron's family - because it wasn't safe (which is true - considering how quickly the Deatheaters would have come after him there.)

They also at that time didn't know who betrayed Harry and his parents whereabouts to Voldemart or if the traitor was still at large.

From their point of view, the Dorsey's were the lesser of two evils.
They may not have been right about that - but hindsight is 20/20. Neither were perfect. Which is why the book is interesting and good, because the characters are flawed and make mistakes. Perfect characters make really boring books, and sort of pointless ones.;-)

That said, Rowlings through Harry and Voldemart is in a way critiquing a major social issue - how orphans are handled in the system. Foster care is dicey and state orphanages are worse...kids often get lost. She's also showing how two people similarly raised by brutal families can come out differently.

Rowlings chose to put Harry with the Dorsey's to make him literally Voldemart's shadow. Both have the same powers, the same opportunities, and face in some respects the same adversity - nasty upbringings by nasty Muggles. But Harry experienced unconditional love while Voldemart never did. That's another theme in the book.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not totally on board with all these theories either, but they have made me think. And a lot of things happen because that's the way they need to be for the story to work/themes to be explored, but I do always question whether events might have worked out differently or what other choices could have been made. It's just how my brain works-- no matter what the situation, I'm always evaluating it from multiple angles and trying to puzzle out alternate solutions to the problems that show up.

I still enjoy the series, like I said, but I'm more critical of a reader now than when I first read them, and it's much easier for me to see the flaws in the characters. Which makes it a little harder to get lost in the escapism.

It's kind of like music-- sometimes you listen to songs and they sound really catchy, and then maybe years later you actually pay attention to the lyrics and it's like "Wait! This song is actually kind of creepy/upsetting/weird!"

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

True. I do much the same thing.

Although...after reading the list of most disturbing books on Good Reads and some of the reviews of them, the issues with Harry Potter seem rather tame.

Go look at this and get back to me.

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2455.The_Most_Disturbing_Book_Ever_Written?format=html&page=1

Actually, it's not the list that is disturbing to read, so much as some of the reviews of the books on that list...making me wonder about people.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Just checked out Cleolinda's summaries - you are right, those are good. She also has nailed the obsession. Unlike Mark Watches and Red Shoes who did summaries, she actually liked the books and has respect for others who did.
(In short, she's not a hypocritical culture vulture.) She also seems to see them for what they are.

BTW...I think the 50 Shades phenomena is similar, as is the Harry Potter.
They are happy books or as Cleo puts it so well...Twinkies. You want to snuggle the book afterwards.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

Cleolinda is great. I found her through her 'Movies in 15 Minutes' parodies (which are quite brilliant on their own) and always enjoy reading what she has to say about fandom or pop culture events. She's able to grasp the visceral appeal of these kinds of things while still taking a critical look at it. Her post about twinkie books made me a little less antagonistic towards Twilight and its fans...if people enjoy it, who am I to argue? Certainly I have read my own drama-tastic twinkie books, which might be better written than Twilight, but have a core concept that's probably equally silly. Although I DO think there are a lot of problematic things in the books that should be examined.