![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lls_mutantYou know, I didn't think you could be sick of bodily functions. But I swear, if I have to pee one more time... ::sigh:: Honestly. But that's hardly a new complaint, I'm sure.
The 'rents are coming for the weekend, which will be nice. They haven't been down since Grandma had her stroke back in January- hubby and I have gone up every single time. I think Mom needs to get away from Grandma for a bit. She's pretty much a saint about the whole thing, but it does drain her, and when you consider Grandma isn't even her mother.... Anyway, should be a nice weekend, but I'll be glad when the housecleaning is done! (On the bright side, I needed to clean the house. Badly.)
So I was bored and surfing on LJ, and kind of going to some journals I don't go to much because the owners are R/T shippers- or at least ship defenders. It's not that I find those journals offensive, it's just kind of like the ship threads and can't stand threads at FAP, y'know? If you're a shipper and want to defend a particular ship, you should be able to do so in your LJ without people coming around and telling you why they don't like that ship. But there was actually a really good discussion going on FAP between a few people (the Order of the Phoenix forum on the Tonks thread) that, y'know, actually had INTELLIGENT conversation. So I started surfing journals, and I came across this amusing little piece by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
snorkackcatcher. It features both het and slash, and while it has a successful R/T it actually gives Tonks her dignity, and has a twist that really cracked me up. But anyway. That wasn't my point. (Although you should go read it anyway, as long as you don't feel the need to start any sort of ship wars when you read R/T stuff.)
In the comments, I mentioned that rather than the stereotypes of lesbians, Tonks struck me more as the stereotype of a college student, a commentsnorkackcatcher agreed with. And that got me thinking about Tonks.
You know the kind of college student I'm thinking when I think of Tonks. The kind who is full of fire to change the world, and determined that SHE is going to make a difference. I can see Tonks having that fire and passion... and that idealism. I can see her maintaining that all through her Auror training, especially since she seems to have a close association with Moody. Moody might be kind of creepy in his way, but I can see where a young Auror would idolize him. Heck, I have Sirius do it to an extent, although in my stuff he tends to idolize Damien Lupin more. But in GoF, Sirius talks about what a fantastic Auror Moody is, and how he refused to use the Unforgivable Curses if he could help it. (Or at least that's implied.) So anyway, I can see where Tonks would have this deep-seated belief that she's out to change the world and she can do it, and being an Auror is a great way to do so.
Then Voldemort comes back.
A lot has been made about Tonks's depression being about her being a green Auror and getting into something she didn't really anticipate. Let's say screw that for a moment, because that really IS very degrading to her as a woman (since we don't have a man having the same problem), and say that maybe it's something else... maybe it's Tonks realizing that her ideals are WRONG.
Not wrong in that she shouldn't believe in them. She should. But wrong in that she thinks she herself can save the world, that she can convince people of the way the world should be, and that all those she comes in contact with- especially those that outrank her- are worthy of her respect. But she can't change the world alone. Bellatrix defeated her and killed Sirius. She can't convince people of the way the world should be. No one is really listening to her, and she's basically having to follow orders she doesn't agree with. And those that outrank her are not always worthy of her respect. Even as early as OotP we saw that Tonks didn't totally trust Scrimgeour when she was worried about him asking questions, and then in HBP....
One of my predictions for HBP was that Amos Diggory would be the new Minister of Magic. I was wrong about the identity, but I was close to right about the reasons. I thought that JKR would chose someone who was anti-Voldemort, but who wasn't necessarily pro-Dumbledore, or behaving like Harry would think a Minister of Magic should. And we definitely see that, particularly in the case of Stan Shunpike, where it's obvious, even to the most casual reader, that Stan Shunpike is not a Death Eater, pretty much from the get-go.
We see that case, but it's insinuated that there's more. I'm writing this without having my book, so there might even be more cases mentioned that I'm forgetting. (I really need to do a reread.) But as an Auror- and one of the people being required to arrest these people- Tonks is, without a doubt, seeing things that aren't all that kosher in the Ministry. Now here's where I'm making a jump a bit. It's not canon, but I think it's not unreasonable, either. Tonks is having her ideal picture of being an Auror stripped away layer by layer, very rapidly, as she's being told to do things she doesn't agree with. And she can't stop it, because it doesn't seem like she's got enough power to change anyone's mind (I wouldn't expect her to, at her age). And she can't just up and quit, because a lot of what she is doing IS valuable and is what she wants to do. But we see her losing a lot of her more collegiate stereotypes, particularly the pink hair. (Of course, she gets it back at the end, but...)
The thing about the green Auror thing is that we don't see Tonks losing her nerve. If I remember rightly (and I very well may not), she does fine at the battle at Hogwarts at the end, and she doesn't seem to be having any real trouble with her post. But an Auror losing her idealism... now that I can buy.
It also adds a new layer to Tonks/Lupin. Both of them are being asked to do something they don't want to do. There's a difference, of course. Tonks is being asked to do something she believes is wrong, whereas Lupin is being asked to do something that must be extraordinarily painful. I've wondered how various characters feel about Lupin being asked to do his spying job. (And perhaps Tonks is losing some faith in Dumbledore as well? But really, I see no evidence for that one.) But at least it gives them something in common.
Sadly, this is all my thoughts. I still firmly believe that none of these layers that fandom is rapidly building onto Tonks are really clearly built on by JKR, but hey. I really liked Tonks in OotP and one of the big reasons Lupin/Tonks pissed me off was I HATED what it did to her character. So if I can find some rationalizations, at least for now.... I still, for the record, think that she would have been better off with Charlie Weasley. Someone (I want to say it might have even beensnorkackchaser again) pointed out in the FAP discussion that while Tonks might not have been behaving well, Lupin was pretty darn manipulative too, bringing up Dumbledore's death as a shield against a conversation he didn't want to have. Very true. The man is a passive-agressive, manipulative, lying bastard when he wants to be. He really is. And he is old, poor, and dangerous- and even if Tonks doesn't believe these are issues, they will become issues because they are important in his mind. Tonks should have gone for Charlie Weasley, who has a strong attachment to his family but the courage, independence, and interest to go gallivanting off to Romania to do what he really wants to do. Of course, that requires them MEETING on the page, but what do you want? ;)
Anyway, I should get back to work. Not that I'm getting far anyway, which is why I'm writing this. ::Sigh::
ETA: Two pieces of writing posted: my Hitch Review, which I was actually fairly pleased with this time, and (Pooly, look away please) a little PWP. Which I shouldn't have been writing since it's NOT on my list, but at least the Hitch review was (although JUSTIN added the slashy comments to the picture captions. Not me. I only did the first one- the one about going up the stairs and down the banisters, which was really lame. But I suck at captions.)
The 'rents are coming for the weekend, which will be nice. They haven't been down since Grandma had her stroke back in January- hubby and I have gone up every single time. I think Mom needs to get away from Grandma for a bit. She's pretty much a saint about the whole thing, but it does drain her, and when you consider Grandma isn't even her mother.... Anyway, should be a nice weekend, but I'll be glad when the housecleaning is done! (On the bright side, I needed to clean the house. Badly.)
So I was bored and surfing on LJ, and kind of going to some journals I don't go to much because the owners are R/T shippers- or at least ship defenders. It's not that I find those journals offensive, it's just kind of like the ship threads and can't stand threads at FAP, y'know? If you're a shipper and want to defend a particular ship, you should be able to do so in your LJ without people coming around and telling you why they don't like that ship. But there was actually a really good discussion going on FAP between a few people (the Order of the Phoenix forum on the Tonks thread) that, y'know, actually had INTELLIGENT conversation. So I started surfing journals, and I came across this amusing little piece by
snorkackcatcher. It features both het and slash, and while it has a successful R/T it actually gives Tonks her dignity, and has a twist that really cracked me up. But anyway. That wasn't my point. (Although you should go read it anyway, as long as you don't feel the need to start any sort of ship wars when you read R/T stuff.)In the comments, I mentioned that rather than the stereotypes of lesbians, Tonks struck me more as the stereotype of a college student, a comment
snorkackcatcher agreed with. And that got me thinking about Tonks.You know the kind of college student I'm thinking when I think of Tonks. The kind who is full of fire to change the world, and determined that SHE is going to make a difference. I can see Tonks having that fire and passion... and that idealism. I can see her maintaining that all through her Auror training, especially since she seems to have a close association with Moody. Moody might be kind of creepy in his way, but I can see where a young Auror would idolize him. Heck, I have Sirius do it to an extent, although in my stuff he tends to idolize Damien Lupin more. But in GoF, Sirius talks about what a fantastic Auror Moody is, and how he refused to use the Unforgivable Curses if he could help it. (Or at least that's implied.) So anyway, I can see where Tonks would have this deep-seated belief that she's out to change the world and she can do it, and being an Auror is a great way to do so.
Then Voldemort comes back.
A lot has been made about Tonks's depression being about her being a green Auror and getting into something she didn't really anticipate. Let's say screw that for a moment, because that really IS very degrading to her as a woman (since we don't have a man having the same problem), and say that maybe it's something else... maybe it's Tonks realizing that her ideals are WRONG.
Not wrong in that she shouldn't believe in them. She should. But wrong in that she thinks she herself can save the world, that she can convince people of the way the world should be, and that all those she comes in contact with- especially those that outrank her- are worthy of her respect. But she can't change the world alone. Bellatrix defeated her and killed Sirius. She can't convince people of the way the world should be. No one is really listening to her, and she's basically having to follow orders she doesn't agree with. And those that outrank her are not always worthy of her respect. Even as early as OotP we saw that Tonks didn't totally trust Scrimgeour when she was worried about him asking questions, and then in HBP....
One of my predictions for HBP was that Amos Diggory would be the new Minister of Magic. I was wrong about the identity, but I was close to right about the reasons. I thought that JKR would chose someone who was anti-Voldemort, but who wasn't necessarily pro-Dumbledore, or behaving like Harry would think a Minister of Magic should. And we definitely see that, particularly in the case of Stan Shunpike, where it's obvious, even to the most casual reader, that Stan Shunpike is not a Death Eater, pretty much from the get-go.
We see that case, but it's insinuated that there's more. I'm writing this without having my book, so there might even be more cases mentioned that I'm forgetting. (I really need to do a reread.) But as an Auror- and one of the people being required to arrest these people- Tonks is, without a doubt, seeing things that aren't all that kosher in the Ministry. Now here's where I'm making a jump a bit. It's not canon, but I think it's not unreasonable, either. Tonks is having her ideal picture of being an Auror stripped away layer by layer, very rapidly, as she's being told to do things she doesn't agree with. And she can't stop it, because it doesn't seem like she's got enough power to change anyone's mind (I wouldn't expect her to, at her age). And she can't just up and quit, because a lot of what she is doing IS valuable and is what she wants to do. But we see her losing a lot of her more collegiate stereotypes, particularly the pink hair. (Of course, she gets it back at the end, but...)
The thing about the green Auror thing is that we don't see Tonks losing her nerve. If I remember rightly (and I very well may not), she does fine at the battle at Hogwarts at the end, and she doesn't seem to be having any real trouble with her post. But an Auror losing her idealism... now that I can buy.
It also adds a new layer to Tonks/Lupin. Both of them are being asked to do something they don't want to do. There's a difference, of course. Tonks is being asked to do something she believes is wrong, whereas Lupin is being asked to do something that must be extraordinarily painful. I've wondered how various characters feel about Lupin being asked to do his spying job. (And perhaps Tonks is losing some faith in Dumbledore as well? But really, I see no evidence for that one.) But at least it gives them something in common.
Sadly, this is all my thoughts. I still firmly believe that none of these layers that fandom is rapidly building onto Tonks are really clearly built on by JKR, but hey. I really liked Tonks in OotP and one of the big reasons Lupin/Tonks pissed me off was I HATED what it did to her character. So if I can find some rationalizations, at least for now.... I still, for the record, think that she would have been better off with Charlie Weasley. Someone (I want to say it might have even been
snorkackchaser again) pointed out in the FAP discussion that while Tonks might not have been behaving well, Lupin was pretty darn manipulative too, bringing up Dumbledore's death as a shield against a conversation he didn't want to have. Very true. The man is a passive-agressive, manipulative, lying bastard when he wants to be. He really is. And he is old, poor, and dangerous- and even if Tonks doesn't believe these are issues, they will become issues because they are important in his mind. Tonks should have gone for Charlie Weasley, who has a strong attachment to his family but the courage, independence, and interest to go gallivanting off to Romania to do what he really wants to do. Of course, that requires them MEETING on the page, but what do you want? ;) Anyway, I should get back to work. Not that I'm getting far anyway, which is why I'm writing this. ::Sigh::
ETA: Two pieces of writing posted: my Hitch Review, which I was actually fairly pleased with this time, and (Pooly, look away please) a little PWP. Which I shouldn't have been writing since it's NOT on my list, but at least the Hitch review was (although JUSTIN added the slashy comments to the picture captions. Not me. I only did the first one- the one about going up the stairs and down the banisters, which was really lame. But I suck at captions.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-25 05:06 pm (UTC)She compared what she did to Tonks with what she did with Percy. And what she did with Percy worked. In CoS, Percy kept showing up at the wrong places at the wrong times, looking flusterd and guilty, and Ginny obviously knew he had a secret that he didn't want out. What you were meant to think was that it had to do with the Chamber of Secrets- either Percy himself was opening it somehow, or that Percy was trying to catch the culprit to further his own ambition. At the end, we find out that no, both of those were wrong and it was just that Percy had a girlfriend! There it really worked, for several reasons: 1.) It took the suspicion off of Ginny- Percy certainly seemed like a more likely candidate, if nothing else because of his age and ambition. 2.) It was very plausible at the end- and kind of funny. A boy that age would be embarrassed to be caught with a girlfriend, and of course he'd threaten his sister.
I think she was trying to do something similar with Tonks. Look how mysterious Tonks is acting! She can't metamorph! Her Patronus is different, and she's around not long after some of these crimes. Is she behind them? Is that really Tonks? Or is it an imposter taking Polyjuice? And then you find out at the end no, it was Draco controlling Madame Rosmerta, and Tonks was really in love with Lupin and THAT'S what was going on with her. I think that was what JKR meant by the red herring- she certainly wouldn't tell us in advance if she's plotting to fool us in Book 7!
I do hope there's more, and I wouldn't necessarily put tons of money on Tonks and Lupin being perfectly happy right now. (They might be. But I'd rather they had some issues. I don't think Lupin's an easy person to be in a relationship with- no matter who you are!)
I don't think of romance writer as the crappy bodice ripper novels. I'd like her to be a bit better at the serious stuff, but not in excruciating detail. I like Harry/Ginny as a pair, and I actually thought a lot of the buildup was fine, but she really did the "tell don't show" sort of writing for the time they spent together, which was very anticlimatic. And I do wish she'd treat women with a little more backbone in love. But oh well. Can't have everything! :)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-25 05:52 pm (UTC)Ah, but she didn't say that, did she? She's always done stuff like that, mentioned in semi-offhand comments that maybe people don't pay much attention to, or are so vague no one really understands what she's talking about. I'm perfectly prepared to be fooled by something in book 7, whether or not it has anything to do with Remus or Tonks or both of them together.
And I strongly feel that Tonks' behavior was, at the very least, not completely attributable to Remus. I'm starting to think it's more even than that, but that's my personal reading of it, and you obviously don't want to give JKR that much credit.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-25 06:35 pm (UTC)I don't think JKR set out to write a character that was deliberately sickening to me. The simple truth is I don't think she thought about what this character would say- or this possible reading of this character (just like I'm thinking she didn't think about the possibility people might read Sirius and Remus as more than friends.) I don't find any one action (except the Evil Hospital Scene) damning; it's the sum of all of the attributes I see that make me not like how Tonks was written. And obviously, not everyone reads it the same.
I think there's room for the survivor's guilt argument in canon. I don't remember (although if you do and have evidence, please correct me!) anything explicitely saying that Tonks was upset about her job, or nervous, or the whole green Auror tossed into war for the first time thing. I find that a fanon explanation of Tonks's behavior, because there's nothing in the narrative to explicitly state that. And the whole thing I just proposed, with the loss of her ideals- again, this is an extrapolation.
I DO think that 90% of Tonks's problem and behavior was attributable to Remus, as evidenced by the pink hair at the funeral and the symbolic return of her powers. I'll hold my entire judgment until we see Tonks's attitude in Book 7: we get her back exactly as she was in OotP, sorry, no, her entire problems were Remus related. We get her back happier but subdued, okay then. However, while I think this, I don't think JKR meant for this to come off as an anti-feminist slant; I think it's just one way that it can be read.
There are ways that JKR could have done this that would have been far more palatable to me. But the big thing was I really never had the impression Remus was interested in her. I didn't. Not a single hint. The staring into the fire as music older than Tonks played was not a good hint to me, and the fact that Remus didn't even know (or seem to care) where she was spending Christmas really sealed it. There was NOTHING in OotP. If we the reader had had an indication that Remus was interested in Tonks, I wouldn't find it quite so offensive- I would have found the idea that he's stonewalling her much more believable. But there was absolutely, positively nothing for me. (Incidentally, I don't find the idea of Remus stonewalling Sirius like that believable, either.)
And don't get me wrong. I like JKR as an author. I think a lot of what she does is very brilliant. But I think, like every author, she has her flaws, and her romantic subplots- particularly this one- is one of the biggies. It's certainly not going to get me to stop reading. Realistically, we're talking 3 pages in a 700 page book, and more than that, 3 pages in an over-2000 page series. And while I don't like the way she writes any of her serious romances (even if I do agree with the pairings, outside of this one), again, it's a very small percentage of what JKR writes.
Sure, I complain about it. But me calling her on some writing I think is crappy is hardly a bad thing. It means that I'm not afraid to have my own opinions. I'm certainly not saying I'm a better writer than she is or anything, or even that she's a crappy writer. Just that she's bad at this one area. And I complain about it because my fandom interest- and yes, what keeps me in fandom (*as opposed to just being a major fan of the books)- is the older generation. Am I not willing to give her more credit on this issue? Yup- you called it. I'm not. She hasn't shown me anything in the writing- or even in her interviews- to prove me wrong. (Although I will be VERY happy to eat my words. I never thought Voldemort was anything more than your stock evil Overlord villian, either, and very cheerfully was proved wrong.) However, I'm willing to give her credit for a lot more, and a lot more important things, like Harry himself, his overall plot, some brilliant twists, Ron, Hermione, the twins, Percy, the marauders themselves, Moody, Tonks pre-OotP, Neville ::hugs Neville!:: and Luna... and getting millions of kids to read. So that I'm not willing to give her credit on one subplot bothers me not at all!
no subject
Date: 2005-08-25 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-25 08:15 pm (UTC)I think that you can make arguments for something that's not explicitly stated. Continuing on Tonks: is the argument above about her losing her idealism logical? Hell, yes! Absolutely! Will I accept it in a fan story? YES. Again, absolutely. In fact, I would EXPECT a writer to put that kind of thought into the characters. Do I think it is canon? That's where I'd say no.
I think "canon" is defined as what is presented in the book. Canon is generally hard and fast, and there really isn't much debate over it. Is it canon that Draco tried to kill Dumbledore? Yes. Is it canon that Fleur loves Bill? Yes. These are the things that are presented by the author.
However, "canon" is the bones of the matter. In any work, no one agrees completely on everything. I mean, symbolism. I could tell you that in Gone With the Wind, Gerald's fall from the horse to his death is symbolic of the fall of the Confederacy. I could make one heck of a case for it. And Margarat Mitchell could have looked at me blankly and said "Um, what? No, I just needed Gerald to die and that seemed like the most appropriate way." We hang our interpretations on the bones of canon, and that's what makes the reading unique to all of us.
I think that reading a book does require you to do that. The thing is, like Christmas trees, we aren't going to hang things the same way. That's why I can read the books with the assumption that Remus and Sirius are lovers, and other people can read it and not see anything but a deep platonic friendship. I can say socks symbolize something (I haven't decided what yet, but something), and other people can look at me and tell me I'm nuts. Interpretation is what made the internet fans pin a noble personality on Regulus Black (turns out they were right!), what makes people wonder about the tickings of Voldemort... and what makes people assume that there is or isn't something more going on with Tonks. I personally don't see the canonical evidence for anything more, except the survivor's guilt, but that doesn't mean that a reader can't add other interpretations. I might agree, in fact, I might like the reader's interpretations better than what is presented. But I will not say that it's what JKR intended, because I can't read her mind, and it's not what's written on the page.
I seem to be getting that argument a lot lately. It's odd, too, because I get it from people who make wild theories all the time and try to pass them off as canon.
You know, the thing about that statement is that I've never made claim that any of my wild theories ARE canon. (Heck, none of my not-so-wild theories, like Peter's hand not being able to Transfigure and thus denying him his Animagus form and keeping him bound to Voldemort, are canon.) I like- and propose- plausible theories. Theories that make sense. I'll even happily accept theories and cheerfully work them into my own writing. But they're just that: theories. Canon is what comes from JKR, and what comes from JKR only. The misbelief here is that canon is the be-all and end-all, and is automatically superior to anything that isn't canon. Does canon trump certain things? Yes. But the fact that something isn't canon doesn't mean it can't be utterly fascinating or supported by canon.
So what's given to us IN CANON right now is that Tonks does have some issues with survivor's guilt, and that a LOT of her problems have to do with Remus. It is not canon that anything else is true... BUT it is not canon that it is not, either. I mean, I'll admit that. What bothers me is when people INSIST that there were other, canonical reasons to assume Tonks was depressed. Not that we were given, no. There are other plausible reasons for Tonks to be depressed, but they've come from the fans and interpretation, not from JKR.