Hmm

[ricardienne]

So, today, in L&T, we talked about Abu Ghraib, and 'cultural consent.' I wonder about this. When a book or a movie trivializes torture or death -- am I responsible for something like Abu Ghraib if I see it?

And no, it isn't enough to say, "That's the way things are. You aren't responsible if you don't do it. You have the right to see or read anything you want." Because movies/books where such things are used as casual plot devices -- not ones where it is implied that they are okay, mind you -- don't they give the impression, don't they foster the opinion that they're normal? That they're no worse than, oh, anything else, lying, stealing, that they can be rationalized away.

This the danger of romanticizing Death Eaters, I think. Of romanticizing Darth Vader (iharthdarth notwithstanding). Possibly, I shall write an essay about this. On the other hand, I don't think that the perpetrators at Abu Ghraib were the obsessive HP or SW fans who go around rationalizing that kind of stuff.

Comments

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

Hmmm is right.

For some reason, this is reminding me of the army privates on trial for torturing prisoners in Afghanistan who claimed that they hadn't done anything wrong because the army had trained them in how to do so. X(

I don't think many of us go around romanticizing Death Eaters...just trying to prove that the ones we like aren't *actually* Death Eaters. Although I guess that's pretty much the same thing, now that I think of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, all of this "Snape isn't really evil" does tend to trivialize killing people in that we tend to forget what happened such that we need to be so vociferously defending him. Because he kill someone. And he was a DE. So he probably tortured people, too.

On the other hand, are we going to deny Snape redemption? Or should that be Redemption? That is, if he did torture and kill, does that irrevecably damn him as evil? But if it doesn't, doesn't that fact in and of itself trivialize torture and killing? It isn't a big deal. Just be sorry for it, and it's all okay. Come to think of it, Snape does need to die in Book 7. If he sacrifices himself, realizing that he can never atone for what he's done, then, perhaps, it will not be a trivialization of the seriousness of murder and torture.

Hmm, perhaps I could write a decent essay on this. But then I would spoil Harry Potter for my L&T teacher, and I wouldn't want to do that.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, and that's me, above.

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

True.

But I don't think redemption for Snape necessarily trivializes torture and murder. I mean, couldn't he be redeemed by realizing that what he did was so horrible that he must spend the rest of his life atoning for it, for example? That doesn't really trivialize killing, does it?

You could always ask you L&T teacher if he (she?) has read HBP...or maybe you could substitute Richard III. Although I guess that's not really a case of trivialization so much as claiming that in fact, someone else committed the horrible crime.

I just realized what really trivializes killing. Xena: Warrior Princess. She's supposed to be redeemed for killing all of those innocent people by killing more people, just making sure that they're the bad guys this time. *sigh* A pity, really. I adore Xena. Which makes me guilty of trivialization, I suppose.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Why don't you get online?

So, assuming Snape is innocent. Has he appeared in the last 6 books to be filled with self-loathing, and more importantly, desperately trying to atone for what he's done? Okay, so he was filled with self-loathing after he killed Dumbledore, but supposedly, he was supposed to be atoning since his break with the Dark Lord way back when.

I don't think I can substitute Richard III. Harry Potter, because that's an element of popular culture that could be said to influence (subliminally) people's attitudes towards things. Richard III, well, isn't really popular culture. On this journal, yes, but in the real world, no.

Although, Richard, like most (fairly early) historical figures that we like, does represent an explaining-away of killing, executions, and that sort of thing.

At what point is it accepting someone in the context of his world, and at what point is it ignoring the values of one's own?