A few thoughts on the recent debate

[rj_anderson]

Firstly, and I've meant to say this for a day or two now, I'd just like to thank everybody who weighed in on the comments to my Evil!James essay. Most, if not all, of the comments I received on the entry here were thoughtfully and intelligently worded, and not a bit personally insulting or belittling, even when the main thrust of them was to argue that my whole idea was a load of tosh. It gives me hope for the fandom, it does. Or at least, the part of the fandom that can be bothered to go back to the source.

Secondly, I want to say that the phrase "unnecessarily baroque" is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, even when applied to my theory by someone who disagrees with it. Thank you, marinarusalka, for brightening my day.

Thirdly, I would like to remark that I have no difficulty whatsoever with the notion that people can change, even radically, after the age of fifteen. I myself underwent a fairly radical change (in my opinion) between the ages of twenty-four and twenty-eight. I am still changing. I will spend the rest of my life changing (hopefully for the better, but I'm not the best judge of that). This is not my problem with James. My problem with James's supposed radical personality transplant between fifth and seventh year is that his own friends seemed to be rather vague and waffling on the point of how much he had changed, even when talking to James's own son. And I still don't like that bit about hexing Snape behind Lily's back, which strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, but we can agree to disagree about how serious that is and how much was simple self-defense yadda yadda.

Fourthly, I feel the need to point out that believing Snape might have a logical reason behind some of his behaviour in no way implies that I think he is justified in all of his behaviour; nor do I believe that questioning the morality of James Potter or any of the other Marauders is somehow going to make Snape look like an angel of virtue by contrast. He isn't, and it won't. All of JKR's adult characters are screwed up, as far as I can tell: the question is just how badly they're screwed up, and whether it's likely to prove fatal to them or anyone else.

Fifthly, I am an INTJ. I like to play with ideas and theories. They are shiny pretty things. I have no particular emotional attachment to most of the ideas I throw out, and I know the difference between "this is an interesting notion, there might be some truth to it," and "I just know this is what JKR is going to do in the next two books, and if she doesn't I will be crushed". Really, the only thing in this increasingly wide-ranging debate that has come close to stirring up emotion in me is seeing my arguments misrepresented (or ignored) and my ideas discounted, not on the basis of contradictory factual or logical evidence (either of which I welcome) but on the basis of bizarre and rather prejudicial ideas about who I am and what I think. Here's a news flash: not all Snape fans think alike, so don't assume that my interest in Snape means that I share all, or most, or indeed any of the views you might have seen put forth by other Snape fans. Don't assume you know what my fic is like if you haven't read it, either. Thank you.

Finally, it looks as though this whole froufarah has made fandom_wank. And tomorrow... the world! Muaaah ha ha ha ha ha!

Er, I think I'll just go to bed now. And maybe in the morning, LiveJournal will decide to be nice and start delivering my comment e-mails again. I haven't had a single LJ post delivered to my inbox in the last twelve hours, so if you said something insightful and/or witty and/or abusive and I haven't responded, it's probably because I missed it. I'll do my best to catch up tomorrow...

Comments

[drmm.livejournal.com]

I know I didn't respond to that journal entry because I didn't want to get embroiled in some giant controversy ... but I did find it interesting. It was well thought out and quite logical, even though I must join the majority and say "it's a load of tosh". ;)

I also found the James Personality Change, as described in OotP, very unlikely. However, as I expect that there will be some future revelation that explains James' change in ideals to a greater extent than we've seen in OotP. If it's never described with more detail or reasons, then it'd be easier to believe an Evil!James theory. I already believe the "James Potter was a teenage prat" theory but going from prat to evil is a bit extreme.

[cesario.livejournal.com]

(LJ must be teed off at you because it's also posting the comments you make to others (or to me at least) about 3 hours after you make them.)

And as an INTP, can I just give a hearty HUZZAH to the following:

I like to play with ideas and theories. They are shiny pretty things. I have no particular emotional attachment to most of the ideas I throw out.... Really, the only thing in this increasingly wide-ranging debate that has come close to stirring up emotion in me is seeing my arguments misrepresented (or ignored) and my ideas discounted...

I didn't actually respond to your "James is Evil" post because I knew you were, essentially, just playing with an idea. And I thought it was an excellently argued idea that makes perfect sense. I just don't think it's what JKR is doing. Mostly because, brilliant as I think she is, I don't think she's going after that much subtlety in her characterization/plotting.

But I have just your attitude on arguing---lack of emotional attachment to ideas, etc---and sometimes it's a shock to realized how invested non NT individuals can be in theories you put out just for the fun of it. I hope the crowd doesn't get too ugly. ^_^

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

*waves Hi*

If it's any consolation, you're not alone: the PotentiallyRuthless!Hermione theory didn't go over well, either....

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

But she *is* Potentially!Ruthless! Where is this theory may I ask, that I may worship you?

NM

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

*is embarassed, but not enough to turn down worship*

It's not a theory per se, it's simply a personal observation that I think Hermione has the potential to be massively screwed up in adulthood -- based in part on what I feel are canon examples of "ruthlessness" and insensitivity that may come back to bite her on the arse. (Am currently at work on a futurefic in which HG is characterized this way. Not necessarily always ruthless, but possibly screwed up and most definitely flawed.)

There was, er... considerable discontent aired with this interp on someone else's journal. Including a charge of Anti-Feminism, which is quite ironic considering where I'm taking the stinkin' fic.

Yes, having others make assumptions about your motivations is very pissy-mood making.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

As a matter of fact, I endorsed the theory in one of my comments to the original thread. In fact, I said that how she treated Marietta Higgs potentially crosses the line into evil.

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

? ! I think I missed your post, or have expunged as much of the whole episode from my memory as possible. It was doing horrible things to my blood pressure, as I felt I'd been quoted out of context.

I really think Ron might have got it right -- "brilliant, but scary."

[owl]

Higgs? I could have sworn her name was Edgecombe. Who's Edgecombe, then? Ginny's bf was Corner, wasn't he? Edgecombe, Edgecombe...or am I on the wrong book altogether?

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Oh, golly, you're quite right. Blushes! Now why did I think Higgs?

Anyway, the sneak with the spots.

[owl]

Is Higgs on the Slytherin Quidditch team? I find anyone I don't know tends to be from there.

[angie-v12.livejournal.com]

Yep, Terence Higgs was Slytherin Seeker Harry's first year.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

This is very random, but I have to say how much I adore your icon. =)

(I'd vote for him!)

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

:headdesk:

Not the Wank again.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Really, the only thing in this increasingly wide-ranging debate that has come close to stirring up emotion in me is seeing my arguments misrepresented (or ignored) and my ideas discounted, not on the basis of contradictory factual or logical evidence (either of which I welcome) but on the basis of bizarre and rather prejudicial ideas about who I am and what I think.

I apologise for this. I was commenting on general trends in fandom (not even in Snape fandom, fandom in general), and was being satirical thus the generalizations - but it was bad form on my part. I shouldn't have assumed what your motivations were.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

S'okay. Apology gratefully accepted.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[hedda62.livejournal.com]

Here's a news flash: not all Snape fans think alike, so don't assume that my interest in Snape means that I share all, or most, or indeed any of the views you might have seen put forth by other Snape fans.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that the root of all evil much stupidity is the automatic application of perceived group characteristics to individuals. Really, it just doesn't work.

Glad this isn't bothering you too much. It would have made me foam at the mouth.

theories and emotions

[(Anonymous)]

I also didn't post on the debate, mostly because I do tend to get far too emotional about theories like this. And you made your theory so very plausible, backed up by so much canon evidence, that I was already somewhat upset. :) That said, I do admire your ability to provoke discussion, particularly in this fandom, where speculation and theorizing can be so much fun.

Sarah izhilzha