Hermione's name

[Philip Nel]

No: HPFGUIDX 31307

Dear All:

I'd like to applaud Aberforth's Goat for his remarks on Hermione's name.  I'd also like to continue chuckling at his delightful pseudonym.  But, I'll stop chuckling for long enough to respond.  First, re:

> Further, I'm not sure whether JKR has ever actually agreed that Hermione's
> name was originally derived from Shake's WT. I've run every possible search
> on my link page(http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/), but I can't find
> any reference to Shakespeare in my collection of interviews and press
> releases.

I, too, can't remember where I saw or read it, but Rowling mentions having seen a production of _A Winter's Tale_.  So, she is familiar with it.

Then, Aberforth's Goat responds to my comments:

> > However, while we should take an author's
> > remarks into account, we should be wary of
> > making the argument that the author's
> > interpretation is the only "correct" interpretation.
> > If an author chooses a name that alludes to
> > other works or ideas, this name will continue
> > to make those allusions, irrespective of what
> > the author now says about the name.
>
> Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to read that statement. If you mean that the
> allusion is present in the fabric of our linguistic culture, regardless of
> whether the author knew it, I agree. Even if WT is the one play JKR has
> never even got around to reading, that allusion is still a characteristic of
> the word "Hermione" - in the same way that the patinae on a bronze statue
> are a still a characteristic of the statue, even if the sculptress never
> thought about them while she was at work. To point out that the sculptress
> or author never thought of the patinea or allusions doesn't mean they aren't
> there; it just means that the work of art has passed out of their hands,
> that it has become something independent of its creator.
>
> But perhaps you mean that JKR's creative process was influenced by Shake's
> Herm, only she was either unaware of it or has simply forgotten it. If
> *that's* the point, I'm not so sure. Yes: you might be right. Other people
> may indeed notice real elements in our creative processes that we have
> forgotten or that were formerly subconscious to us. But if people want to

I meant the first interpretation but I like the second one, too.  That is, neither Rowling nor anyone else can control the fact that the name "Hermione" is allusive.  For example, though my parents intended no reference to the South African rugby player named Philip Nel, my name does nonetheless allude to his.  I can't control it.  And your second point gives my comment more credit than it deserves.  In naming Hermione, Rowling may be drawing on any associations she has with the name, _A Winter's Tale_'s Hermione being one of those associations.

Regarding Steve's comment:

> The point is perfectly clear, however. Sometimes I think
> we ascribe more deep meaning than JKR intended. We assign allusions
> after the fact which were never there in the first place. It's a
> nice parlour game, but hardly authentic. I'm not suggesting that we
> stop enjoying the game, but let's keep it in perspective.

The idea that there's such a thing as "authentic" interpretation is intriguing.  How does one measure the authenticity of a particular interpretation?  Do we, as Steve suggests, measure each and every interpretive remark against what the author has said about her work?  Or, perhaps, do we gauge the merits of an interpretation by its ability to examine the work in question in the context of other, related works?  That is, some of the contexts in which one might examine the _Harry Potter_ novels include: fantasy, boarding school novels, young adolescent novels, fairy tales, and Greek and Roman mythology.  Are these contexts more or less valuable than what an author has said about her work?

Also, I don't see how it's possible to "assign allusions after the fact."  The Clintons named their daughter Chelsea after the song "Chelsea Morning"; if you were to name a child "Chelsea" now, that name would allude to both Chelsea Clinton and "Chelsea Morning" (and, presumably, other famous Chelseas).  Similarly, if you were to name a child "Hermione" now, that child's name would allude to previous Hermiones, too.

As Aberforth's Goat points out,

> I think a work of art *may* in fact be a little bigger than the
> sum of its parts - including even its author's conscious - or even
> subconscious - intentions for it Again think of the patinae on the statue or
> the park in which it is placed: they *are* significant in our experience of
> it, even if the sculptor never thought of them.

Hear!  Hear!

Cheers,

Phil
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu