I really didn’t see why EY was so damn proud about it in that regard.
Because Hermione’s death was motivating a female character, not just a male one—i.e., an answer to the “fridging” complaint.
(Hence the importance of pointing out it was written that way to start with, rather than as a “half-hearted sop” to patch the fridging issue. i.e., he’s pointing out that he didn’t kill Hermione just to get a rise out of Harry—the death is going to affect the whole school, and Gryffindor in particular, through McGonagall.)
If you do something that looks just like a fridging in a story, to the point where people read it as a fridging, and it works as a fridging in the story so far … if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck then it might be a platypus but it’s not reasonable to tell people they’re wrong to feel it’s another bloody fridging. Authors don’t get to do that—even if it was a preplanned fridging in the great arc of the story—and neither do those of their fans who think they can do no wrong.
I think perhaps you’ve misread the context of my comment. The grandparent comment asked why Eliezer felt chapter 93 was an answer to the critics, and I explained why. More precisely, I explained why he was concerned that 93 might be interpreted as an attempt to fix a perception of fridging.
In a previous LW thread, someone defined fridging as killing off a female character solely to further a male character’s arc; chapter 93 demonstrates that Hermione’s death was not solely to advance Harry’s arc: many other people are affected, most notably McGonagall.
What I expect is pissing off Eliezer (or so I imagine, putting myself in his shoes) is far less the criticism of fridging per se, than the idea that he changed the story in order to avoid the accusation, when from his POV it was never a valid criticism in the first place under the given definition.
it’s not reasonable to tell people they’re wrong to feel it’s another bloody fridging
Whether people “feel” it’s a fridging is frankly irrelevant, since an author’s control over people’s feelings is rather limited. However, under the definition Eliezer’s working from, as of ch. 93, people are in fact wrong that it’s another bloody fringing. In addition to it not being solely to motivate a male character, it’s actually the direct result of Hermione’s brave stance against Quirrel—part of her arc, not Harry’s. (Something that I missed myself at first due to how long ago it was I read that chapter, plus the fact that we’re not directly shown Quirrel’s subsequent machinations to arrange her death.)
(Come to think of it… why didn’t the phoenix also come for Hermione that night? She, too, was making a choice to save another (Harry) in the face of mortal danger to herself. I suppose Eliezer would say that this is too abstract for a phoenix’s brain to process, since the danger is not immediate, and the thing to be saved too vaguely specified.)
Whether people “feel” it’s a fridging is frankly irrelevant, since an author’s control over people’s feelings is rather limited. However, under the definition Eliezer’s working from, as of ch. 93, people are in fact wrong that it’s another bloody fringing.
Eh? We’re not playing Scrabble here; anyone Eliezer’s pissed off with the last few chapters isn’t going to suddenly feel retroactively fine about them if it turns out that the events don’t count as fridging by a strict dictionary definition. Whether people feel it’s a fridging, or functionally equivalent to one, isn’t just relevant; it’s the only thing that’s relevant in this particular context.
You see an animal at a distance. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. You start to get offended by the duck. Then, you get closer and realize the duck was a platypus and not a duck at all. At this point, you realize that you were wrong, in a point of fact, to be offended. You can’t claim that anything that looks like a duck, but which later turns out not to be, is offensive. If it later turns out not to be a duck then it was never a duck, and if you haven’t been able to tell for sure yet (but will be able to in the future) then you need to suspend judgement until you can. Particularly since there is no possible defense that the thing is not a duck except to show you that it is not a duck, which will happen in time.
We’re not playing Scrabble here; anyone Eliezer’s pissed off with the last few chapters isn’t going to suddenly feel retroactively fine about them
Of course not. But that doesn’t mean they can correctly accuse Eliezer of doing what has been claimed. The moment someone pattern matches to “it’s a fridging”, confirmation bias is bound to take over, and it would be an exceptional person who could undo that matching after the fact.
Are there things Eliezer could’ve done (prior to Hermione’s death) to draw a clearer connection to her arc? Yes, plenty, and I’ve posted an idea or two myself. But the connection is there, even if lots of us missed it on first reading.
Whether people feel it’s a fridging, or functionally equivalent to one, isn’t just relevant; it’s the only thing that’s relevant in this particular context.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
If the accusation were reduced to “your story made me feel bad” (as you seem to be implying it should), then I doubt Eliezer would’ve bothered to respond. Just because somebody feels bad doesn’t mean Eliezer is bad or has done a bad thing.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
You are a writer. You’ve written a story which you believe instantiates concept P; you’re aware of a related concept Q, which is considered harmful, but you believe you’re avoiding it. On publication, an unexpectedly large group of people get upset over your plot because by their lights it’s indeed an example of concept Q, despite your precautions. Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans? I’ve been thinking of this as pretty basic Human’s Guide to Words stuff.
It seems to me like if people become upset in the middle of a history book, and then complain why the author let Nazis win the war. As opposed to reading the next chapter to see they actually lost.
I was not aware of Women in Refrigerators as a trope at the time I wrote that chapter, let alone at the time the outcome of Hermione’s meeting with the troll was determined as part of the plot—which was the instant I thought ‘What happens with the troll?’ back when the fic was being formed, insofar as I’d read that scene a dozen times in a dozen fanfictions and nobody ever gets hurt. That event was one of the primordial ingredients of HPMOR, and canon!Hermione is the troll’s target in canon, and that is the true causal origin, period.
With respect, I don’t think your reply actually answers the parent at all? He didn’t posit that you were aware of the WiR trope or wrote an instantiation of same deliberately.
On the contrary, he asks what it would take to make you consider that you had inadvertently conformed to “Q” [WiR], despite your intention to write “P,” something completely different.
EDITED: I’m sorry, on re-read he did posit awareness of WiR. I would suggest the point stands even if you had been unaware.
Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans?
It is also (similarly weak) evidence that it may be useful to update Z, the set of desired fans, such that it excludes those who execute behaviour Y. The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
Or respond to at all, when any kind of response will further elevate the perceived importance of the issue, especially when attention to the topic is further incentivized by the author through him discouraging the reading of his response. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Alas, there seems to be something about “PR-savvy” which bars general competency from seeping through to it. Score one for the mindkillers.
The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
This presumes that the complaints and concerns in question are asking for something like “Harry Potter and the Methods of Feminism.” Having concerns about something is not the same as wanting to turn it into a feminist tract.
Because Hermione’s death was motivating a female character, not just a male one—i.e., an answer to the “fridging” complaint.
(Hence the importance of pointing out it was written that way to start with, rather than as a “half-hearted sop” to patch the fridging issue. i.e., he’s pointing out that he didn’t kill Hermione just to get a rise out of Harry—the death is going to affect the whole school, and Gryffindor in particular, through McGonagall.)
If you do something that looks just like a fridging in a story, to the point where people read it as a fridging, and it works as a fridging in the story so far … if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck then it might be a platypus but it’s not reasonable to tell people they’re wrong to feel it’s another bloody fridging. Authors don’t get to do that—even if it was a preplanned fridging in the great arc of the story—and neither do those of their fans who think they can do no wrong.
I think perhaps you’ve misread the context of my comment. The grandparent comment asked why Eliezer felt chapter 93 was an answer to the critics, and I explained why. More precisely, I explained why he was concerned that 93 might be interpreted as an attempt to fix a perception of fridging.
In a previous LW thread, someone defined fridging as killing off a female character solely to further a male character’s arc; chapter 93 demonstrates that Hermione’s death was not solely to advance Harry’s arc: many other people are affected, most notably McGonagall.
What I expect is pissing off Eliezer (or so I imagine, putting myself in his shoes) is far less the criticism of fridging per se, than the idea that he changed the story in order to avoid the accusation, when from his POV it was never a valid criticism in the first place under the given definition.
Whether people “feel” it’s a fridging is frankly irrelevant, since an author’s control over people’s feelings is rather limited. However, under the definition Eliezer’s working from, as of ch. 93, people are in fact wrong that it’s another bloody fringing. In addition to it not being solely to motivate a male character, it’s actually the direct result of Hermione’s brave stance against Quirrel—part of her arc, not Harry’s. (Something that I missed myself at first due to how long ago it was I read that chapter, plus the fact that we’re not directly shown Quirrel’s subsequent machinations to arrange her death.)
(Come to think of it… why didn’t the phoenix also come for Hermione that night? She, too, was making a choice to save another (Harry) in the face of mortal danger to herself. I suppose Eliezer would say that this is too abstract for a phoenix’s brain to process, since the danger is not immediate, and the thing to be saved too vaguely specified.)
Eh? We’re not playing Scrabble here; anyone Eliezer’s pissed off with the last few chapters isn’t going to suddenly feel retroactively fine about them if it turns out that the events don’t count as fridging by a strict dictionary definition. Whether people feel it’s a fridging, or functionally equivalent to one, isn’t just relevant; it’s the only thing that’s relevant in this particular context.
You see an animal at a distance. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. You start to get offended by the duck. Then, you get closer and realize the duck was a platypus and not a duck at all. At this point, you realize that you were wrong, in a point of fact, to be offended. You can’t claim that anything that looks like a duck, but which later turns out not to be, is offensive. If it later turns out not to be a duck then it was never a duck, and if you haven’t been able to tell for sure yet (but will be able to in the future) then you need to suspend judgement until you can. Particularly since there is no possible defense that the thing is not a duck except to show you that it is not a duck, which will happen in time.
Of course not. But that doesn’t mean they can correctly accuse Eliezer of doing what has been claimed. The moment someone pattern matches to “it’s a fridging”, confirmation bias is bound to take over, and it would be an exceptional person who could undo that matching after the fact.
Are there things Eliezer could’ve done (prior to Hermione’s death) to draw a clearer connection to her arc? Yes, plenty, and I’ve posted an idea or two myself. But the connection is there, even if lots of us missed it on first reading.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
If the accusation were reduced to “your story made me feel bad” (as you seem to be implying it should), then I doubt Eliezer would’ve bothered to respond. Just because somebody feels bad doesn’t mean Eliezer is bad or has done a bad thing.
You are a writer. You’ve written a story which you believe instantiates concept P; you’re aware of a related concept Q, which is considered harmful, but you believe you’re avoiding it. On publication, an unexpectedly large group of people get upset over your plot because by their lights it’s indeed an example of concept Q, despite your precautions. Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans? I’ve been thinking of this as pretty basic Human’s Guide to Words stuff.
It seems to me like if people become upset in the middle of a history book, and then complain why the author let Nazis win the war. As opposed to reading the next chapter to see they actually lost.
I was not aware of Women in Refrigerators as a trope at the time I wrote that chapter, let alone at the time the outcome of Hermione’s meeting with the troll was determined as part of the plot—which was the instant I thought ‘What happens with the troll?’ back when the fic was being formed, insofar as I’d read that scene a dozen times in a dozen fanfictions and nobody ever gets hurt. That event was one of the primordial ingredients of HPMOR, and canon!Hermione is the troll’s target in canon, and that is the true causal origin, period.
With respect, I don’t think your reply actually answers the parent at all? He didn’t posit that you were aware of the WiR trope or wrote an instantiation of same deliberately.
On the contrary, he asks what it would take to make you consider that you had inadvertently conformed to “Q” [WiR], despite your intention to write “P,” something completely different.
EDITED: I’m sorry, on re-read he did posit awareness of WiR. I would suggest the point stands even if you had been unaware.
It is also (similarly weak) evidence that it may be useful to update Z, the set of desired fans, such that it excludes those who execute behaviour Y. The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
Or respond to at all, when any kind of response will further elevate the perceived importance of the issue, especially when attention to the topic is further incentivized by the author through him discouraging the reading of his response. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Alas, there seems to be something about “PR-savvy” which bars general competency from seeping through to it. Score one for the mindkillers.
This presumes that the complaints and concerns in question are asking for something like “Harry Potter and the Methods of Feminism.” Having concerns about something is not the same as wanting to turn it into a feminist tract.