death to capslock

It's not like I have a long and involved history of ... 'discussions' ... with the rabid pro-Jo fans, but for a couple of years around DH I did encounter a handful; enough to do a little psychological profiling and learning.

Any criticisms you point out, no matter how politely phrased, are instantly shot down

Well, no, the anti-canon *arguments* aren't 'shot down'; typically they aren't addressed at all.

Instead -

... and occasionally other accusations will be leveled at you- you don't like fantasy, you don't understand the books, you're getting caught up with the religious fervor against them, etc.

That's more what happens - attack the person, look for any reason to avoid listening to him - he's a 'hater', the books are for kids, if you don't like the books why are you here anyway, etc.

I've never had the "you're a religious fundamentalist" one levelled at me though.

From:

Perhaps my experience was unusual, but seeing that some of the fans I have discussed this with were also good friends, they probably would have less of a reason to straight up insult me. They still didn't want to acknowledge my arguments though.

if you don't like the books why are you here anyway

Apparently some people really need to learn about the joys of literary criticism.

From:

Well, I only met my psychological subjects via the internet and through Harry Potter so there wasn't any complication of friendship involved. Certainly they weren't held back by any "be nice by default" standards of common courtesy! They came out fighting and gutter kicking from the start.

I've had a couple of internet-friends - friends acquired through the HP fandom - lower the boom on me too as the battle lines became starker and the effort of hiding from the 'truth' became more and more difficult for them. Which was fascinating to watch, actually, if sad too.

Apparently some people really need to learn about the joys of literary criticism.

Heh, yes. Or as I like to put it - "we had to get our money's worth out of the books *somehow*!". :-)

From:

So, do you think that the hype is kind of dying down now since the last movie came out? That would be nice, so that the books could actually be publicly critiqued without hordes of screaming fans attacking whatever brave soul actually does it.

From:

Sorry, that should be *whichever brave soul.

From:

Fandom activity is certainly waning in my own experience. Back before and for a few months after the publication of DH there was enough activity with my small set of LJ friends and communities to keep me busy. Now, though, that's died away to almost nothing.

There was a *lot* (for me) of activity in the Fiction Alley forums for the first couple of years after DH - a lot of DH errors to discuss! - but the site is now practically dead (in the forums I frequent). Sadly one other reason for that would be the bouts of extended downtime that the site has suffered.

I'm not sure about activity elsewhere. Someone posted on Fiction Alley recently that the 'majority' of HP fans, in her experience, at the sites she frequented, 'liked' the books, thought DH was a success, etc. I don't think she identified those sites though. So it could be that the hype is still running strong on other (pro-canon, more kid-orientated?) sites.

I expected a surge with this Pottermore thing but haven't really seen much at all. Again, maybe there are fandom hotspots of which I am simply unaware (actually, there must be; I've never really gone searching for them). Or maybe a lot more people than I thought are disenchanted with Rowling and her failed canon and have just abandoned the fandom.

I haven't had a real vitriolic bout with a rabid pro-Jo zombie for quite a while. My last experience was with a relatively polite canon zombie who, under the pressure of the H/Hr publicity for the first DH movie, 'broke' under the stress and silently/cowardly/rudely banned me for the sin of not agreeing with her condemnation of the non-canon (H/Hr) additions. The reasons she proffered for this action were amusing - in that they were inconsistent and largely fabricated out of thin air - but her reaction was still good stuff from the psychological point of view, dovetailing beautifully with what I'd been observing of the overall reaction of the canon faithful whose canon beliefs were being threatened at the time. Plus a couple of other details that were personally amusing that I won't go into here. :-)

I suspect if you went to a strong pro-canon site and screamed 'THE HP BOOKS ARE TERRIBLE' you'd get a reaction, but I wouldn't know where you would go to do that. Other than the Leaky Cauldron perhaps? I went there once and encountered a few people who were quite upset that I would dare criticise the books, with all the usual excuses for not actually debating my arguments themselves.

If you've never been to Fiction Alley you should go there and look at the fossil records. The site's very quiet now but it was really humming right after DH came out (and no doubt for years earlier; I only started posting there at the end of 2007). I think we've catalogued all of the DH errors ... part of me is surprised it only took us 2+ years to do it. :-)

From:

I went there once and encountered a few people who were quite upset that I would dare criticise the books, with all the usual excuses for not actually debating my arguments themselves.

May I ask what you said?

From:

Nothing too evil or polemic; just a few general 'this is an error, and that is an error' sort of things.

As I said I only visited the Leaky Cauldron forum once; it was on a reference to a particular thread set up by a bloke (pseudonym 'migdalin'?) who'd written a *book* criticising Rowling. And he was getting attacked by most of the respondents in that thread.

Many of his arguments were along the lines of "I would have written it differently, therefore Rowling made an error", which isn't really a logical/good argument in my opinion, but some of the things he pointed out were bona fide flaws, and I was supporting those.

I came across a few kiddie-types who just snarled and gave the usual excuses to avoid discussion - at least I think I did. I mostly remember the discussion for one such person who - in rebuttal of my argument that *anyone* could have fought the dark lord - told me/us that no, it *had* to be Harry, because the HP series was a 'mythic work' and all such 'great' works of epic myth boiled down to the hero versus the villain in the climax, everyone knew that.

I was amazed by that person. He wasn't just giving Rowling a pass on the errors that would otherwise dash her from her lofty pedestal; no, he was happily giving her a free rocket boost to those heights. "Don't worry about setting up a good plot that shows us that Harry has to be the one who faces Voldemort, Jo, we all *know* that it *has* to end up that way, regardless of what you actually *write*". (My paraphrased sarcasm.)

Think about it. At the very end of DH, in that pathetic melodramatic showdown, Harry says "no-one interfere, it has to be him and me". Bull. Voldemort was on his own, all his death eaters defeated. It was one against two hundred. In fact, if you want to accept the (sad, inconsisent, flawed) assertion of Harry's providing the like-Lily's-only-totally-different sacrificial protection then Voldemort wasn't able to harm ANY of those hundreds of castle defenders.

Yet they all stand back and allow the ONE person who COULD be killed by Voldemort to duel him. Aurors, teachers, parents ... all stood back and watched. Why? Because Harry/Rowling says "oh, it's got to be him and me". But why did you say that, Harry?

Uhm ...

Oh, because the HP series resembles a MYTHIC WORK and we readers KNOW it has to be that way, it doesn't actually matter if the author failed to set it up in the story!

I'm still amused by that correspondent, can you tell?

Oryx has replied to my comment here saying that the Leaky Cauldron forums aren't the den of pro-Jo fundamentalism that my one foray there suggested. She also said that a lot of people there dropped out after DH. Maybe a lot more people have accepted the failure of HP than I thought.

From:

Wow, that is seriously one of the saddest explanations for that lame ending I have ever heard. I mean, at the very least, why are all the relations and friends of the people Voldemort killed content to stand by and let the hero finish him off? Because the script says so? I know that JKR thinks that Harry is the most important person ever, but the other characters shouldn't think so. It's like the literary version of metagaming.

From:

Here's a link (https://whywereason.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/psychologys-treacherous-trio-confirmation-bias-cognitive-dissonance-and-motivated-reasoning/) that explains what's going on. I'm subject to all of these biases, but I try to be aware of them, at least. (As an aside, I don't get the post's examples at all -- there must be better ones. In fact, there are probably better articles on each concept, but this one has them all in one place.)

For Rowling, I'd add liberal use of Informed Attributes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute) to the whole Doublethink (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Doublethink) tendency. I'm usually willing to suspend disbelief for fiction, but when the characters and then the author tell me what to think when the evidence on the page contradicts their view, when others tell me I'm prejudiced in my reading from the get-go and am reading it wrong, it does frustrate and insult me. I was a huge HP fan and looked forward to the last two books tremendously, but they were full of contradictions and stereotypes and unresolved plotlines and dei ex machina. Worst of all, they were tedious with the romance and the camping and the what not. The last two books can't help but cast a bad light on the previous five. Pottermore isn't helping, either.

I think some fans have invested so much in a certain HP worldview that maintaining the primacy of that worldview takes precedence over critical examination. "All was well." Sigh, it's beautiful because someone told me it was! It's fine if the worldview is acknowledged and restricted to fanfiction and art, as some shippers do. But when the worldview shuts people out of discussion, it's not so grand.

I also invested an embarrassing amount of time in the books, and I find it's hard to let go. Now I'm fascinated by the close examination that occurs in places such as DTCL. It's like stopping to watch the aftermath of an accident, I guess.

From:

Informed attributes are a shorthand that works in oral folktales, I think - where you don't have whole chapters to introduce characters and their background. But even there, if the simple son turns out sophisticated and subtle, if the wise adviser gives stupid advice, if the brave knight leaves innocents to a horrible fate - then we can't just trust the story teller with the attributes of the characters.

The last two books can't help but cast a bad light on the previous five.

Right. Because it is one story. At the very least characters shouldn't be arbitrarily changing beliefs and motivations from one book to the next. If something changes I want to know why. But if I can't trust the apparent reading then no wonder I end up preferring conspiracy theories :)

From:

Informed attributes are a shorthand that works in oral folktales, I think

What is interesting to me is how the information imparted by an unreliable narrator (or unreliable author) on a character's attributes is taken as gospel long after the story has been told and the information proven incomplete or even incorrect in the story. E.g., the characters of Dumbledore and Snape - are they what pre-DH Rowling told us they were when she was covering her tracks? Some still believe so, or want to believe. (Add to Rowling's disinformation the depictions in the films and in fan works, which can deeply color perception, and you're in a mess.)

From:

Your comment and references were really interesting, thank you. I never studied psychology but I've really had great fun trying to work out what makes some segments of the HP fandom tick, and I've learnt a few things along the way, thanks to occasions when folk like you have referred me to various psychological conditions. It's really interesting stuff.

Rowling really went to town with the 'Informed Attributes' thing, didn't she? She was basically flat-out *offensive* in her off-the-printed-page lectures and instructions on how her readers should be interpreting her books. Not understanding that every time she opened her mouth she was just highlighting her own failure as a writer in doing the job through her work itself.

And then there's no doubt a heavy use of it in the books themselves, although right now by default I'm focusing on one of my favourite Rowling failures, Ginny's characterisation and the H/G relationship. Rowling wanted Ginny's magnificence to be kept 'secret' (and in fact her doing so was too artificial to finally believe) but we were still told along the way that she was a 'powerful witch', I think. Where such is never really shown in the books at all. Unless you put the 'bat bogey' curse up there with Adava Kedavra. :-)

It was a case of having the cake and eating it too. Ginny is wonderful but I've got to hide it until she is suddenly revealed overnight as super-fantastic okay I'll have her brothers say she is powerful even though she never actually shows it.

Just one example, I'm sure there's others. I'm not sure if Harry's patronising praise of Dumbledore at King's Cross fits:

"I was safer at Hogwarts. I think I was a good teacher –"

"You were the best ---"

"--- you are very kind, Harry. ..."

I've always *detested* that line - Harry was never even 'taught' by Dumbledore - but maybe it doesn't fit as an 'informed attribute', coming as it does near the end of the series?

I thought Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning were basically the two sides of the same thing, really; we focus favourably on what will support our theories and concentrate our criticism on that which will hinder them. Selective focus either way. And the flip side of that is 'deliberate ignorance', which is a large part of my own little theory of how H/G shippers and pro-canon zealots function. Maybe there's a fancy term for 'deliberate ignorance ... or I guess it's just a part of the definition of 'Confirmation Bias' as defined by that article of yours.

"All was well." Sigh, it's beautiful because someone told me it was!

Ah, yes. That abounds in the fandom. My current two favourite examples of that is the "Harry *is too* a hero! Because ... because ... because we know he was supposed to be!" (okay, that and Rowling pushed him into the hero's circle even if he was a square peg) and my absolute #1 favourite, some fans still believing that Harry had a 'power of love' and that the prophecy *meant something* because book 5 relied on it, even though it was emasculated in the very next novel ... or because Rowling had Harry quote "neither can live while the other survives" in his final melodramatic showdown and that must mean that the prophecy was fulfilled, surely? Bah. Rowling just desperately through those words in there with everythign else in the hope that the prophecy would 'stick'. Sadly some fans seem to have fallen for that trick.

Now I'm fascinated by the close examination that occurs in places such as DTCL. It's like stopping to watch the aftermath of an accident, I guess.

Nuh uh!! People who watch accidents just sit there and gawk. We HP critics are applying insight and intelligence to Rowling's work (even if sometimes I think Oryx and others are going too far in their 'conspiracy theories' :-) But I appreciate their industry (and marvel at their canon memories).

Seriously, the two years I spent in the Fiction Alley forums picking DH to pieces was extremely satisfying ... some clever people there just pulling it to shreds, every day coming up with new flaws to criticise and enjoy. A much more active pursuit than just watching the aftermath of a crime scene.

From:

sharaz-jek.livejournal.com

Rowling wanted Ginny's magnificence to be kept 'secret'

Really? Did she ever explain why? Or is this just something she said when some pesky person who'd actually read the books asked "where did Fiery!Ginny come from?

From:

No, that's my interpretation/slant on things; I don't think Rowling ever said something as exact as that. Although that was what she actually wrote, wasn't it? Ginny was hidden way in the background for books 1-4 (appearing as victim!girl rather than 'Ginny' in CoS) and only having a slight presence in OotP. But then in HBP she's revealed in all her sudden artificial glory; Pansy tells us in one of the first chapters that she's so good looking "a lot of boys like her" and the book went downhill from there.

Right after HBP was published Rowing had a lengthy interview wherein she patted herself on the back for her work; her comments on Ginny are in part 3, here (http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml). There's a lot of 'informed attributes' being passed down from the mount with that interview, I think.

From:

I think a good example of how the Treacherous Trio combine is found in the response of certain commentators, Pat Buchanan among others, to the recent Norwegian massacres. When the news first came out, Buchanan was not alone in declaring that the horrible events were the work of Islamic terrorists (confirmation bias - several commentators were all in agreement and supporting each other). When it turned out one Norwegian man killed all those people, Buchanan was initially silent (cognitive dissonance - the killer was a white guy who said he was a Christian and was inspired by far-right pundits, like Buchanan). Then, Buchanan came out and said the maybe the killer had a point after all, that Muslims were really the problem (motivated reasoning - Buchanan wants to hate Muslims and will find any excuse to do so).

I could also use Hermione/Harry shippers as an example... but that would be too easy. ;-)

But, yeah, it seems to be somewhat natural to remain belligerent and ignorant than to rationally consider evidence or confront one's prejudices.

However, this (http://michaeljfaris.tumblr.com/post/10525569930).

From:

Heh, Daria. Classic cartoon. She'd be a patron saint of deattocapslock, right? :-)

The Norwegian thing is a good example, although I didn't know much about the early commentary that followed.

I could also use Hermione/Harry shippers as an example... but that would be too easy. ;-)

Heh. Surprisingly, as a H/Hr shipper myself, I didn't see too much of the 'crazy' side of that sub-fandom. I did have contact with a few shippers who were still arguing/hoping for a H/Hr resolution with the last book, based on patterns of 'alchemy' they'd discerned from the books. Half their problem was that Rowling just wasn't as smart as they thought/hoped she was (and they were smarter than her). But they were also flying in the face of the post-HBP interviews where Rowling had made it clear that she thought she'd done a great job writing her OBHWF relationships.

Myself, I've had a few encounters with a handful of semi-feral pro-canon zealots which are classic examples of this sort of thing. I've long been building my own little theory of how H/G shippers can be such, and one of the elements is what I think of as 'deliberate ignorance/blindness'. Which is part of that 'trio' you referenced.

(no subject)

From:

oryx_leucoryx - Date: 2011-09-24 04:32 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-24 05:46 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

oryx_leucoryx - Date: 2011-09-24 06:31 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-24 06:50 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

Hmm, sounds like we had very similar experiences in going from huge fans to... uh, to so much. Did you change your mind right at the last book? It took me several years to figure it out, sadly.

From:

Myself, I finished DH with such an empty feeling. In part because we were shown no essential change in wizarding society, in part because of the shockingly immoral behavior of the supposed 'good guys'. But on top of that I wasn't quite sure how everything fit together - especially Dumbly's part - how much was his plan, how much dumb luck or bad luck. I stayed around fandom to pick things apart, and the longer I stayed the less flattering my view of the 'good guys' became.

From:

I actually hated the sixth book -- all the "training" of Harry -- passive, the depiction of the Gaunts -- offensive, turning Draco's confederates into young girls -- sexist, Hermione Confunding McLaggen to "help" Ron and abusing Ron -- creepy, the chest monster -- clumsy, Tonks turning into a wan phantom because of love then cornering Remus at someone else's sickbed -- weak, Remus "spying" on the werewolves -- pointless, Dumbledore telling Draco that it was his mercy that was important -- jerky, the whole Severus/Draco set-up -- unbelievable, Slughorn the "good" Slytherin -- no. I was so let down by the travesties of that book, the romances and Voldemort's backstory and the overall feeling of treading water.

ETA: I forgot Harry cheating the whole year and nearly killing Draco but only worrying about missing Quidditch afterwards -- sheesh, what a hero.

But, I got caught up in the whole "is Snape evil" debate. (I became an active fan after OOTP because of the turn in Snape's story in that book, so I had a horse in the race, so to speak.) Ridiculously, I carried a kernel of hope that Rowling would turn the story around in the seventh book and come out with something sophisticated and truly remarkable. I was quickly disabused of that hope.

Edited Date: 2011-09-24 06:28 am (UTC)

From:

Remus "spying" on the werewolves -- pointless

Hey, Albus knew about Fenrir's recruitment early on (according to The Prince's Tale, but in HBP he was supposed to be an old timer, so????). Also - that no werewolf other than Fenrir helped the DEs (as far as we know) means Remus was successful doesn't it? (Or just that Rowling forgot about any werewolves other than those two.)

(no subject)

From:

sunnyskywalker - Date: 2011-09-25 12:47 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

That pretty much sums it up.

What was the whole chest monster thing again, though?

(no subject)

From:

the-bitter-word.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-24 05:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

You know something really weird? Yesterday I had a conversation with an HP loving friend and she used almost the exact justification for the lame final showdown. It was a little eerie.

From:

I was on Leaky from about 6 months before DH came out to some 10 months after. Many of those who had very detailed theories that got canon-shafted left shortly after DH, but there were a handful of very vocal anti-Dumbledore fans that stayed for quite a while. But during my time there I haven't seen much criticism of Harry, Hermione or the twins. Defending Percy over there was a rare (but existent) phenomenon. (Criticism of Ginny was common enough though.)

I saw too many threads about what a great Christian allegory the series was. OTOH I do remember a very vocal fan who was mostly pro-JKR bring up the questionable house-elf situation. IOW it is (or at least was) possible to be at least somewhat critical of the themes and of JKR's favorites.

From: