Annoying vs. funny

[cahn]

We've now finished Chamber of Secrets (actually we're most of the way through PoA, but I'm slow posting), and I was trying to figure out why Gilderoy Lockhart is funny to me, while on the other hand my hatred for Dobby burns with the fire of a thousand suns. Both of them are kind of over-the-top characters who cause a great deal of unnecessary damage. In fact, you could argue that bumbling, thick Lockhart is really more of a Jarjar binks character than is Dobby, but I rank JarJar and Dobby together in terms of sheer and utter annoyance, whereas I actually like scenes with Lockhart quite a bit.

Part of it is that I have a deep hatred for characters not being given the information they need. (Dumbledore, although I love him, has suffered substantially in my estimation, especially in Books 5 and 6, because of this. (It was always fairly easy to ignore him before, because he was relatively such a small part of the books.) I mean, it just seems like he could have given Harry *much* more useful information than stupid forays into Tom's past...) And Dobby is a prime offender in this regard, though he has plot reasons for not being able to reveal things. Lockhart has no important information, so he doesn't annoy me as much.

Also, I have an even deeper loathing, in real life as well as books, for those who don't even make the semblance of rational discourse, and Dobby falls into this category. Note that my standards are not exactly high, here. I don't need you to agree with me, or to display ironclad logic (or really any logic at all), or even to change your opinion when I display some ironclad logic or point out some fallacy in your argument. I'm merely asking here that you at least make the effort to look like you're listening to what I'm saying.

Dobby basically does this exact thing early in the book-- Harry's asking him nicely not to get him in total trouble, and Dobby acts as if Harry isn't even saying anything, which I can't stand. Of course, Lockhart doesn't do the whole rational-discourse thing either, but at least a) Harry and friends use this tendency (to get the pass for the Restricted Section), which is nice, and b) Lockharts gets whapped a lot for it. And that's my other thing-- perhaps because I am not a very nice person, I thrive on the annoying and evil characters getting their comeuppance. I just love it. One of the reasons I read trashy novels every so often. And Dobby gets rewarded for being annoying. So not fair! Whine whine!

More thoughts on CoS:

-Harry is really, really likeable in books 1 and 2. Too bad he becomes such a whiny teenager.

-Snape being a Legilimens has been foreshadowed, I think, 3 times so far (e.g., Harry thinks Snape knows it was Harry who made the diversion so Hermione could steal the Boomslang). I hadn't noticed this before. Well, either that, or Snape and/or Harry are paranoid.

-Given that Hogwarts didn't expel the Marauders who, you know, endangered another student's life, what made Snape, of all people, think that Harry would get expelled for flying a car? Are the outside-Hogwarts-magic restrictions really that much more serious?

Comments

[poodlerat.livejournal.com]

I also find Dobby annoying, but mostly because the house elves' broken English drives me up the wall. I might be willing to forgive it if JKR was making a point about, say, how we judge people on their intelligence based on how they talk, and how lack of intelligence (real or imagined) is often used as a justification for oppression and discrimination, but since pretty much all sentient non-humans seem to be marginalized in the Wizarding World, it's clear that she's not making that point.

Totally agree about Dumbledore withholding information, and about Harry's teenage obnoxiousness.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

We're most of the way through GoF right now, and I have to say that a) you're absolutely right; I hate hate the broken English! and b) I do find Dobby less annoying when he's actually acting like a real house-elf (because I do enjoy seeing their completely different mindset) and not like a totally random deus ex machina like he was in book 2.

[poodlerat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, house-elves are a pretty interesting creation, and the whole SPEW debate is one that deserves a more in-depth look that can be reasonably expected from a children's series. One thing I can say for JKR: she's not afraid to acknowledge the dark side of the privileged fantasy world she's created. And much as Harry's indifference sometimes irritates me, I kind of love that it's Hermione, rather than Our Hero, who is the genuinely moral one. Actually, I just kind of love Hermione. Book nerds kick ass.

I really hope this comment goes through. I've been trying to respond to your comment on your TSK/romance post, but every time I try, livejournal just laughs at me.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Yup, this comment went through. Hm, I wonder why the other one is having problems? Maybe try again now and see if it works? :)

I love Hermione too (and am filled with incoherent rage at the fact that she is apparently doomed to get together with Ron... why not Krum, who appreciates her? Or at least Harry, who at least understands her? Why Ron, who only interacts with her through big fights? ...But I digress) and think I'd be more likely to be friends with her than basically anyone else in the books. Except McGonagall, who is My Favorite.

The only annoyance I have with Hermione (besides her unaccountable mooning over Ron) is -- a friend pointed this out to me, and it's bugged me ever since-- in Book 5 she is really dramatically mature, to serve the purposes of the subplots, and in Book 6 she reverts back to acting her age, again apparently just to serve the purposes of the subplots. Grrrr.

[poodlerat.livejournal.com]

I did manage to post that other comment, but I only saw this comment by chance, since livejournal didn't email me like it usually does...so apparently it's not done messing with me yet.

I think the thing with Hermione is true of a lot of the characters, unfortunately. It's one of the main reasons behind characters withholding important information---most of the time there's no rational reason for it, and most of the time JKR never even bothers to give excuses for it.

I can live with inconsistent characterization, though, since at least the personality she's given has never annoyed me. Better than Ron, who...yeah, okay, it was fine for him to be thoughtless and ignorant when he was eleven. Not so forgivable at sixteen. Krum, please come back...

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. I didn't mind Ron at first, but now... come *on.* I think Harry is the only one who has escaped massive silly characterization-- I don't much like him in Book 5, but I understand why he got that way, whereas Hermione's character just gets jerked around and Ron's character is apparently still stuck at age 11, like you said.

Reading through the books (almsot through GoF now) this information-witholding problem seems to be gettin worse as the books go on. In the first 3 or so books, you can kind of see why things happen the way they do, or at least some shoddy reason is given... Book 4 the most random illogical things take place without any explanation. (Perhaps a rant!post about that later... :) )

[poodlerat.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to read it, if you do---GoF is actually my favourite, so if I noticed it in that book, evidently it didn't bother me---I haven't read the whole thing all the way through since I first bought it, which was in...2000, I think. At 16, it's possible I was a more uncritical reader than I am now...