An interesting article...
Sep. 2nd, 2013 09:32 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sweettalkeress.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockSo I was perusing the intarwebz and I found this website with this article about heroes, victims, and self-sacrifice, which has some ideas that seemed relevant to what we discuss on this comm.
It's interesting because it occurs to me that Harry does seem to switch between playing the hero card and the victim card throughout the course of the books (particularly the last three), and so do most other characters we're supposed to admire, either on Harry's behalf or their own (such as Lily begging Voldemort to spare Harry's life to no avail). And the narrative never really attempts to reconcile the two sides of that coin at all--we're just kind-of supposed to think that Harry is so noble and virtuous that the decisions he makes are always right and when things go wrong he's never to blame and always deserving of all the sympathy.
Some of the quotes that most stood out to me are as follows:
"[a] person that chooses to play the hero should not simultaneously be allowed to receive the benefits of being seen as a victim. It needs to be one or the other. A victim is someone who is to be pitied because they didn't have a choice in the matter."
"When someone does choose to play the hero, we should not get outraged because they had to suffer for it. We should not rail against the obstacles that stand in their way, or suggest that the opposition that they were against should've made it easier for them.... An attitude of victimization just cheapens the value of being a hero and suggests that they weren't responsible for their own decisions. That adversity is the only thing that gives the word "hero" any value at all and stands to separate the real heroes from the wannabes."
I bring this up only because it provides an interesting counterpoint to the way that Harry, for all he suffers, doesn't actually have to face the consequences of his own actions unless it's convenient to the plot--it seems like always finds someone to rescue him whenever things get really bad, and reassure him that he's totally right about everything.
And finally:
"Of course there is a whole other category of people who are even less sincere and who try to look like they're playing the hero in order to put themselves into a victim position later. These people are called attention hogs, masochists and martyrs; but that's an entirely different topic."
As to whether that last one applies to Harry or anyone else...eh, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
It's interesting because it occurs to me that Harry does seem to switch between playing the hero card and the victim card throughout the course of the books (particularly the last three), and so do most other characters we're supposed to admire, either on Harry's behalf or their own (such as Lily begging Voldemort to spare Harry's life to no avail). And the narrative never really attempts to reconcile the two sides of that coin at all--we're just kind-of supposed to think that Harry is so noble and virtuous that the decisions he makes are always right and when things go wrong he's never to blame and always deserving of all the sympathy.
Some of the quotes that most stood out to me are as follows:
"[a] person that chooses to play the hero should not simultaneously be allowed to receive the benefits of being seen as a victim. It needs to be one or the other. A victim is someone who is to be pitied because they didn't have a choice in the matter."
"When someone does choose to play the hero, we should not get outraged because they had to suffer for it. We should not rail against the obstacles that stand in their way, or suggest that the opposition that they were against should've made it easier for them.... An attitude of victimization just cheapens the value of being a hero and suggests that they weren't responsible for their own decisions. That adversity is the only thing that gives the word "hero" any value at all and stands to separate the real heroes from the wannabes."
I bring this up only because it provides an interesting counterpoint to the way that Harry, for all he suffers, doesn't actually have to face the consequences of his own actions unless it's convenient to the plot--it seems like always finds someone to rescue him whenever things get really bad, and reassure him that he's totally right about everything.
And finally:
"Of course there is a whole other category of people who are even less sincere and who try to look like they're playing the hero in order to put themselves into a victim position later. These people are called attention hogs, masochists and martyrs; but that's an entirely different topic."
As to whether that last one applies to Harry or anyone else...eh, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-09-04 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-06 03:23 am (UTC)Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal works as satire because 1) the view presented is extreme enough that (almost) no one could mistake as a serious proposal while 2) containing enough truth to hit uncomfortably close to home and 3) the arguments, once you accepted the obscene premises, were natural logical outcomes. The article linked lacks 1 and 3, and while it is true insofar as many people make such arguments, it doesn't comment on them in any way so I'd say it fails 2 as well.
If it's a parody, what's it a parody of?
If it's just general humor, I'd still say it fails because it's neither dark enough for black humor nor is it particularly silly, given that nearly identical arguments are made all the time in all seriousness.
If it's an essay written from the in-character perspective of the villain of another story, the argument still fails on merits.
I think I'm just not seeing the point here.