Essay the Fourth on House characterizations...
And here comes the doozy, the one which I shall burn in the hellfire of fandom for. I'm going to be tarred, feathered and torched as a heretic perhaps, but oh well. It'll be a fun way to go.
Note, though, that I might not reply to all comments, not because I don't consider them valid, but I've finals coming up. Meh. Anyway. Moving on without further ado...
So yes, Gryffindors. Godric the Good, the house that the 'heroes' are in. Harry the heroic, Ron the righteous, and Hermione the helpful. But all is not niceness and alliteration, and yes I'm being a bit sarcastic. Now, let's look at Gryffindor characterization.
Gryffindors are brave, and usually this does mean idealism and honour, but NOT ALWAYS. Not all bravery is heroic knight-in-shining-armour behaviour, and furthermore, not all bravery is GOOD. Let's take a few looks at what bravery does NOT necessarily equate to.
Bravery does not equate to necessary niceness. Case in point, Weasley twins. Sure, they're amusing at times, but they're assholes. Let's face it, their pranks are no better than the most malicious antics of the Slytherins, who at least usually pick on people in retaliation or with some other sort of reason (y'know, rivalry, sabotage, that sort of thing). The twins are far more gratuitous in their targets, and they attack their own as often as they attack others. Turning Neville into a canary. Getting the first-years to be test subjects for their creations. And need I even get to the constant and downright ruthless tormenting of Percy?
Another case in point, Sirius and James to Snape. Admittedly Snape is not a nice guy. I do not like fluffy Snape and think that fluffy fanon Snape should die the death of ten thousand cuts. I'm sure that Snape wasn't the most pleasant of individuals and Sirius and James felt they had some sort of reason to start picking on him. But really, the things they did were downright cruel. And eventually, it seemed as though it was more out of arrogance and spite, to SHOW OFF, than anything else. Not bashing either James or Sirius, but face it they're not these perfect gorgeous Gary Stus that fanon often makes them out to be (although no, I don't agree with gratuitous bashing of Sirius by Snape fangirls either. Let's just be fair all around and keep James and Sirius arrogant pricks and Snape a greasy bastard with all three having some notions of honour kthxbai).
Also, bravery doesn't necessarily mean competence and intelligence. Yes, the Gryffindors have come out on top the majority of times, but they're fallible too, and a lot of their victories had been due to both LUCK and HELP, both often unacknowledged. Harry is brave to the point of heroism, and means well. He's also fairly honourable. BUT... he's really not a great judge of character, rather biased, impulsive and rash and also somewhat ungrateful to people he doesn't like (Snape stands out in this respect). He's BIASED, and the books are from his perspective, so the depiction of all the houses, but especially of Gryffindor and Slytherin, are skewed. As for competence and intelligence, yes the Gryffindors have some (okay, many) glory moments, but Neville stumbles in most classes, and all of them up to and including the almighty fanon favourite, the goddess Hermione, make stupid mistakes. Please do not Sue/Stu the Gryffs just because they're the protagonists. They're not perfect. They don't always succeed. They don't know how to do everything. And if they did, I'd truly hate them.
Also, bravery does not equal unity. All right, let's look at it fairly. In SS, the Gryffindors turned against Harry et. al. after they lost all those points. Seamus turns on Harry in the beginning of OoTP. There are arguments in almost every book amongst trio members themselves which end in one or more not speaking to another for some time. Really, the Hufflepuffs and Slytherins (the duffers and the eeeeeeeebil ones, fanonically), have been much more unified and faithful to their own than the Gryffindors. Really, in Gryffindor more than any other house, it's chaos and no real social order. Rather every man/woman for him/herself, likely because of all the strong but often conflicting personalities there. Yes, they stand up for each other at times... but ONLY WHEN THEY AGREE with each other. Never on the principle of the thing. Gryffindor turncoats against each other are QUITE common. Peter Pettigrew, for one. But to look at a bigger case, see Weasley clan.
At first glance, this family seems to be ideal, at least in Harry's eyes. And perhaps, compared to the sterile, emotionally starved environment that is the Dursley household, it is relatively 'good'. Molly Weasley brings him under her wing and showers him with affection like he'd never known before, and the Weasley offspring are his friends and allies. Oh, except that nerdy one who ain't cool.
Yes. Sorry. Personal Percy fangirling getting in the way. I shall attempt to be objective now. But really, look at how Molly treats Hermione in GoF, etc. Believing Rita Skeeter over the girl who is best friends with her son (whom she kind of ignores until he makes Prefect) and without whose help said son and ickle Harrykins would have been dead several times over. Arthur and Molly aren't perfectly happy with how things go in their family (as shown from how Arthur keeps such things as children's misdeeds from his wife and how Molly bosses everyone around to the point of almost being a bully, except of course Harry who can do no wrong). And of course, the Percy issue. All right, fine, I CAN'T ignore the Percy issue, but I'll just give a few thoughts on it.
Percy's been made to be the black sheep of the Weasley family, and fanon takes that to an extreme degree to make him into this evil 'should have been in Slytherin!!1!111' bastard. But let's look at his experiences, shall we? The boy's not really ever been respected by anyone in his family. Sure, Molly was all squeeful and happy when he made Prefect and Head Boy, but that made for an extensive amount of tormenting and downright mean pranking from twins, and teasing by the rest of the family (those who didn't ignore him altogether, anyway). BUT! WHO made Ginny take Pepperup her first-year? Percy. WHO took the time to explain classes to Hermione (whom everyone else thought was a tiresome know it all)? Percy. WHO waded into the freezing lake when Ron and Harry resurfaced to make sure that this younger brother (who's pretty much never given him the time of day) was okay? Percy. Yes, ladies and wizards, Percy is human, has feelings, and does care about his family. It seems more as though his family doesn't care about him, because not only are none of his efforts really acknowledged, they pay him back by... what, pranking his badges, the only mark of worth that he think he has? Telling the twins about his girlfriend after PROMISING NOT TO and KNOWING that he'd be teased incessantly? CONGRATULATING each other on pissing him off? Gee golly whiz no wonder he left the family to side with the Ministry, who at least appeared to take him seriously. I'd have bitch-slapped all and stomped out years earlier than he did.
Other things on the Weasley clan? Take a look at Ginny. Really, if there were ever a most Slytherinish Weasley, it'd be HER, not Percy. She can lie and put on the innocent act like the best of them, including to her own mother, and as shown in OoTP, she, too, can be vicious when crossed. She can keep her romantic life secret from her family, but dole out her older brother's. She's a strong character, and a good person overall. She means well, but she's not this perfect ickle angel. None of the Gryffindors really are, if you look at it, and the 'perfect' Weasley clan is a case in point that not all things are sunshine, daisies and butter mellow, despite what they might seem at first.
I'm not saying that the Weasleys are completely dysfunctional or that they'll be killing each other viciously and maliciously someday. I don't think that will happen. But it's silly to make them into the white-picket-fence Pleasantville clan N (and then to make the Malfoys the Addams Family complete with sp00ky muzik).
Other cliches for Gryffindors apply more to individual characters than the house or groups as a whole, but I'll go into them briefly (if you're still reading).
Hermione. In canon, she is a lovable bookworm, but she has her faults and shortcomings. Most chiefly, she's like Antigone: completely rigid in doing what she believes is right even when it's a lost cause, she KNOWS it's a lost cause, and damn but she can be self-serving about some things too. She's got more than a spark of ruthlessness in her (think Umbridge and centaurs, or setting fire to Snape), and though it's been used for 'good' more often than not, please do not make Hermione perfectly nice. She's not perfect, and she's not always nice. And yes, though she excels in her classes, there ARE things that she can't do, and although I don't particularly think that blowing off Divination and such is a sin, Trelawney's accusation that her mind was 'mundane' DOES have some basis in that she really cannot see beyond what her strict set of beliefs allow her to see. She is smart, but she isn't empathic. She doesn't see 'the other side'.
In fanon she's so often made into a Mary Sue (named 'Mione) with uber-powers off the charts and a completely farcical, downright disrespectful (to the idea that women can be more than, y'know, walking sex goddesses) 'makeover', then paired with the author's canon male favourite of choice that I don't think I even have to elaborate. And Poseur Gothslut!Hermione... we just won't go there. Is it not BLAZINGLY obvious that Hermione is not a leather-wearing angst whore with a face that was marred by a thousand piercings?
Ginny gets made into a Mary Sue much like Hermione is, although often with a lot more gratuitous overblown angst and fucking around with serious issues thrown in. Fucking around with serious issues is bad, but that rant is for another time. Canon!Ginny has been talked about above. Stick with that. Please.
Ron. Is generally ignored by fanon because he's not tEh KeWlIeZ!11! like Harry or Draco (I still don't QUITE get how Draco gets such a fan following... though I have a few suspicions). Otherwise, is turned into this eeeeeeeevil jackass or randomly shipped with a complete cardboard cutout version of a minor canon (often Lavender Brown) so that Harry and 'Mione (you'll notice I didn't say HERMIONE) can fly off into the pwitty sunset hand in hand. Canon!Ron is amusing, jealous, hot-headed and a bit unsure of what exactly he wants in life (although he's in general discontented with what he has), and has something of an inferiority complex that he tries to hide with macho behaviour and emulating the twins. Again, stick with canon!Ron. Yes, I'm sorry if you don't ship Ron/Hermione and there are a few canonical hints that he might be attracted to her. Work around that, please. Without making him OOC.
Speaking of Lavender Brown, on a side note, please do not make ParvatiLavender a flat and identical collective with no purpose but to throw Ron upon or to conveniently spread gossip. Canonically, though it is subtle, they have been shown to do more than talk about fashion and Divination. AND they're not identical. Parvati seems the more assertive/tough of the two (defending Neville in the first book and leading Harry in the dance in GoF), and Lavender seems the more sensitive/girly (crying over bunny's death, etc.). Parvati seems also a bit more forward. She was the one who told Harry that Lavender was going with Seamus for the ball. Anyway, yes. Although this goes with all characters. Develop, develop, develop if you're going to write about them as more than a cameo at all. And attempt to do so in a non-cliched manner.
Harry is not perfect. But neither is he a complete angst whore. He's had sad times in his life, and is upset now and then, but hey, Rita's the only one in canon who said that he cried over his dead parents and that his tears were filling his beautiful green eyes (or whatever the term was) during the interview. Do not make him perfect. Do not make him a complete stud. He is not either. He's not even that smart most of the time. But he goes on with his life and learns new stuff every day. Oh, and do not ship him with your Mary Sues, either.
On Gryffindor Mary Sues. Usually these are the violet-eyed wandless magic performing blonde perky types with the exotic animagus forms and even more exotic pets, dressing like an American cheerleader and automatically either becoming Hermione's bestest fwend or worst enemy, in which case Hermione gets made into a raving bitch-queen. Gryffindor Sues often have some s00per s33krit connection with Harry in some way, either the cliched long-lost relative (long lost relative Sues are almost exclusively Gryffindor or Slytherin), or some psychic knowledge of his life/past/feelings. Gryffindor Sues also almost always end up shagging either Harry (and saving the world with him) or otherwise shagging Draco (and making for a fluffy reconciliation of Gryffindor and Slytherin through their eternal t00by love). It's really sickening. Well, most Mary Sues are, but Gryffindor, like Slytherin, has more Sues than the other Houses.
All in all, I think that if people stopped seeing things in such a polarized, all black/all white manner, and started noticing shades of gray and the mediums between completely good and completely evil (neither of which, I might add, are in the books), things would be happier and fic would be far more interesting. I'm no Gryffindor myself, but I am a bitch about characterization. The above are things that bug me the most, and yes I'm expecting to get flamed over some. Mind, just my views on things. You don't have to agree.
But I think a few might agree with at least some parts of it anyway.
Yes I realize I didn't include EVERY cliche. Just the ones that I find most irritating. And no you don't have to agree with me on everything, this is just MY POV.
Note, though, that I might not reply to all comments, not because I don't consider them valid, but I've finals coming up. Meh. Anyway. Moving on without further ado...
So yes, Gryffindors. Godric the Good, the house that the 'heroes' are in. Harry the heroic, Ron the righteous, and Hermione the helpful. But all is not niceness and alliteration, and yes I'm being a bit sarcastic. Now, let's look at Gryffindor characterization.
Gryffindors are brave, and usually this does mean idealism and honour, but NOT ALWAYS. Not all bravery is heroic knight-in-shining-armour behaviour, and furthermore, not all bravery is GOOD. Let's take a few looks at what bravery does NOT necessarily equate to.
Bravery does not equate to necessary niceness. Case in point, Weasley twins. Sure, they're amusing at times, but they're assholes. Let's face it, their pranks are no better than the most malicious antics of the Slytherins, who at least usually pick on people in retaliation or with some other sort of reason (y'know, rivalry, sabotage, that sort of thing). The twins are far more gratuitous in their targets, and they attack their own as often as they attack others. Turning Neville into a canary. Getting the first-years to be test subjects for their creations. And need I even get to the constant and downright ruthless tormenting of Percy?
Another case in point, Sirius and James to Snape. Admittedly Snape is not a nice guy. I do not like fluffy Snape and think that fluffy fanon Snape should die the death of ten thousand cuts. I'm sure that Snape wasn't the most pleasant of individuals and Sirius and James felt they had some sort of reason to start picking on him. But really, the things they did were downright cruel. And eventually, it seemed as though it was more out of arrogance and spite, to SHOW OFF, than anything else. Not bashing either James or Sirius, but face it they're not these perfect gorgeous Gary Stus that fanon often makes them out to be (although no, I don't agree with gratuitous bashing of Sirius by Snape fangirls either. Let's just be fair all around and keep James and Sirius arrogant pricks and Snape a greasy bastard with all three having some notions of honour kthxbai).
Also, bravery doesn't necessarily mean competence and intelligence. Yes, the Gryffindors have come out on top the majority of times, but they're fallible too, and a lot of their victories had been due to both LUCK and HELP, both often unacknowledged. Harry is brave to the point of heroism, and means well. He's also fairly honourable. BUT... he's really not a great judge of character, rather biased, impulsive and rash and also somewhat ungrateful to people he doesn't like (Snape stands out in this respect). He's BIASED, and the books are from his perspective, so the depiction of all the houses, but especially of Gryffindor and Slytherin, are skewed. As for competence and intelligence, yes the Gryffindors have some (okay, many) glory moments, but Neville stumbles in most classes, and all of them up to and including the almighty fanon favourite, the goddess Hermione, make stupid mistakes. Please do not Sue/Stu the Gryffs just because they're the protagonists. They're not perfect. They don't always succeed. They don't know how to do everything. And if they did, I'd truly hate them.
Also, bravery does not equal unity. All right, let's look at it fairly. In SS, the Gryffindors turned against Harry et. al. after they lost all those points. Seamus turns on Harry in the beginning of OoTP. There are arguments in almost every book amongst trio members themselves which end in one or more not speaking to another for some time. Really, the Hufflepuffs and Slytherins (the duffers and the eeeeeeeebil ones, fanonically), have been much more unified and faithful to their own than the Gryffindors. Really, in Gryffindor more than any other house, it's chaos and no real social order. Rather every man/woman for him/herself, likely because of all the strong but often conflicting personalities there. Yes, they stand up for each other at times... but ONLY WHEN THEY AGREE with each other. Never on the principle of the thing. Gryffindor turncoats against each other are QUITE common. Peter Pettigrew, for one. But to look at a bigger case, see Weasley clan.
At first glance, this family seems to be ideal, at least in Harry's eyes. And perhaps, compared to the sterile, emotionally starved environment that is the Dursley household, it is relatively 'good'. Molly Weasley brings him under her wing and showers him with affection like he'd never known before, and the Weasley offspring are his friends and allies. Oh, except that nerdy one who ain't cool.
Yes. Sorry. Personal Percy fangirling getting in the way. I shall attempt to be objective now. But really, look at how Molly treats Hermione in GoF, etc. Believing Rita Skeeter over the girl who is best friends with her son (whom she kind of ignores until he makes Prefect) and without whose help said son and ickle Harrykins would have been dead several times over. Arthur and Molly aren't perfectly happy with how things go in their family (as shown from how Arthur keeps such things as children's misdeeds from his wife and how Molly bosses everyone around to the point of almost being a bully, except of course Harry who can do no wrong). And of course, the Percy issue. All right, fine, I CAN'T ignore the Percy issue, but I'll just give a few thoughts on it.
Percy's been made to be the black sheep of the Weasley family, and fanon takes that to an extreme degree to make him into this evil 'should have been in Slytherin!!1!111' bastard. But let's look at his experiences, shall we? The boy's not really ever been respected by anyone in his family. Sure, Molly was all squeeful and happy when he made Prefect and Head Boy, but that made for an extensive amount of tormenting and downright mean pranking from twins, and teasing by the rest of the family (those who didn't ignore him altogether, anyway). BUT! WHO made Ginny take Pepperup her first-year? Percy. WHO took the time to explain classes to Hermione (whom everyone else thought was a tiresome know it all)? Percy. WHO waded into the freezing lake when Ron and Harry resurfaced to make sure that this younger brother (who's pretty much never given him the time of day) was okay? Percy. Yes, ladies and wizards, Percy is human, has feelings, and does care about his family. It seems more as though his family doesn't care about him, because not only are none of his efforts really acknowledged, they pay him back by... what, pranking his badges, the only mark of worth that he think he has? Telling the twins about his girlfriend after PROMISING NOT TO and KNOWING that he'd be teased incessantly? CONGRATULATING each other on pissing him off? Gee golly whiz no wonder he left the family to side with the Ministry, who at least appeared to take him seriously. I'd have bitch-slapped all and stomped out years earlier than he did.
Other things on the Weasley clan? Take a look at Ginny. Really, if there were ever a most Slytherinish Weasley, it'd be HER, not Percy. She can lie and put on the innocent act like the best of them, including to her own mother, and as shown in OoTP, she, too, can be vicious when crossed. She can keep her romantic life secret from her family, but dole out her older brother's. She's a strong character, and a good person overall. She means well, but she's not this perfect ickle angel. None of the Gryffindors really are, if you look at it, and the 'perfect' Weasley clan is a case in point that not all things are sunshine, daisies and butter mellow, despite what they might seem at first.
I'm not saying that the Weasleys are completely dysfunctional or that they'll be killing each other viciously and maliciously someday. I don't think that will happen. But it's silly to make them into the white-picket-fence Pleasantville clan N (and then to make the Malfoys the Addams Family complete with sp00ky muzik).
Other cliches for Gryffindors apply more to individual characters than the house or groups as a whole, but I'll go into them briefly (if you're still reading).
Hermione. In canon, she is a lovable bookworm, but she has her faults and shortcomings. Most chiefly, she's like Antigone: completely rigid in doing what she believes is right even when it's a lost cause, she KNOWS it's a lost cause, and damn but she can be self-serving about some things too. She's got more than a spark of ruthlessness in her (think Umbridge and centaurs, or setting fire to Snape), and though it's been used for 'good' more often than not, please do not make Hermione perfectly nice. She's not perfect, and she's not always nice. And yes, though she excels in her classes, there ARE things that she can't do, and although I don't particularly think that blowing off Divination and such is a sin, Trelawney's accusation that her mind was 'mundane' DOES have some basis in that she really cannot see beyond what her strict set of beliefs allow her to see. She is smart, but she isn't empathic. She doesn't see 'the other side'.
In fanon she's so often made into a Mary Sue (named 'Mione) with uber-powers off the charts and a completely farcical, downright disrespectful (to the idea that women can be more than, y'know, walking sex goddesses) 'makeover', then paired with the author's canon male favourite of choice that I don't think I even have to elaborate. And Poseur Gothslut!Hermione... we just won't go there. Is it not BLAZINGLY obvious that Hermione is not a leather-wearing angst whore with a face that was marred by a thousand piercings?
Ginny gets made into a Mary Sue much like Hermione is, although often with a lot more gratuitous overblown angst and fucking around with serious issues thrown in. Fucking around with serious issues is bad, but that rant is for another time. Canon!Ginny has been talked about above. Stick with that. Please.
Ron. Is generally ignored by fanon because he's not tEh KeWlIeZ!11! like Harry or Draco (I still don't QUITE get how Draco gets such a fan following... though I have a few suspicions). Otherwise, is turned into this eeeeeeeevil jackass or randomly shipped with a complete cardboard cutout version of a minor canon (often Lavender Brown) so that Harry and 'Mione (you'll notice I didn't say HERMIONE) can fly off into the pwitty sunset hand in hand. Canon!Ron is amusing, jealous, hot-headed and a bit unsure of what exactly he wants in life (although he's in general discontented with what he has), and has something of an inferiority complex that he tries to hide with macho behaviour and emulating the twins. Again, stick with canon!Ron. Yes, I'm sorry if you don't ship Ron/Hermione and there are a few canonical hints that he might be attracted to her. Work around that, please. Without making him OOC.
Speaking of Lavender Brown, on a side note, please do not make ParvatiLavender a flat and identical collective with no purpose but to throw Ron upon or to conveniently spread gossip. Canonically, though it is subtle, they have been shown to do more than talk about fashion and Divination. AND they're not identical. Parvati seems the more assertive/tough of the two (defending Neville in the first book and leading Harry in the dance in GoF), and Lavender seems the more sensitive/girly (crying over bunny's death, etc.). Parvati seems also a bit more forward. She was the one who told Harry that Lavender was going with Seamus for the ball. Anyway, yes. Although this goes with all characters. Develop, develop, develop if you're going to write about them as more than a cameo at all. And attempt to do so in a non-cliched manner.
Harry is not perfect. But neither is he a complete angst whore. He's had sad times in his life, and is upset now and then, but hey, Rita's the only one in canon who said that he cried over his dead parents and that his tears were filling his beautiful green eyes (or whatever the term was) during the interview. Do not make him perfect. Do not make him a complete stud. He is not either. He's not even that smart most of the time. But he goes on with his life and learns new stuff every day. Oh, and do not ship him with your Mary Sues, either.
On Gryffindor Mary Sues. Usually these are the violet-eyed wandless magic performing blonde perky types with the exotic animagus forms and even more exotic pets, dressing like an American cheerleader and automatically either becoming Hermione's bestest fwend or worst enemy, in which case Hermione gets made into a raving bitch-queen. Gryffindor Sues often have some s00per s33krit connection with Harry in some way, either the cliched long-lost relative (long lost relative Sues are almost exclusively Gryffindor or Slytherin), or some psychic knowledge of his life/past/feelings. Gryffindor Sues also almost always end up shagging either Harry (and saving the world with him) or otherwise shagging Draco (and making for a fluffy reconciliation of Gryffindor and Slytherin through their eternal t00by love). It's really sickening. Well, most Mary Sues are, but Gryffindor, like Slytherin, has more Sues than the other Houses.
All in all, I think that if people stopped seeing things in such a polarized, all black/all white manner, and started noticing shades of gray and the mediums between completely good and completely evil (neither of which, I might add, are in the books), things would be happier and fic would be far more interesting. I'm no Gryffindor myself, but I am a bitch about characterization. The above are things that bug me the most, and yes I'm expecting to get flamed over some. Mind, just my views on things. You don't have to agree.
But I think a few might agree with at least some parts of it anyway.
Yes I realize I didn't include EVERY cliche. Just the ones that I find most irritating. And no you don't have to agree with me on everything, this is just MY POV.