[HPforGrownups] Where is the matter? (Metathinking and canon theories)

[Iris FT]

No: HPFGUIDX 47808


 
Well, there were loads of e-mails in my box, and I couldn’t ignore that many of them had to do with what I call “the metathinking versus theories debate”.

Honestly, I don’t see where is the matter. Or rather, should I say that, debating about which is the better way of understanding our favourite books, many of us are missing opportunities of enjoying them completely?

We don’t have to forget that writing is an art, and that an artwork can’t be understood completely if we separate it from what makes it exist: the artist, the society the artist lives in, and the artistic sources he or she uses to work.

Some examples:

Michelangelo’s David is at the same time the heir to antique statuary, a symbol of Florence in the 15th century (the colossus represents the will of the city to claim its independence), and an example of the artist’s thirst of fame.

Mozart’s Don Giovanni is reliant on Tirso de Molina and Molière, and it’s also a painting of the 18th century’s society and a representation of the musician’s own preoccupations (the Comendatore’s statue is a symbol of all the obstacles he had to face).

When Victor Hugo wrote Les Misérables, he relied on the antique tragedy to create Jean Valjean, but he also put in his book a realistic description of France in the 19th century and many of his political ideas.

Closer to us, Picasso’s Guernica is a perfect example of the old pictorial tradition of the triptych; at the same time it’s an account of the Spanish Civil War and an expression of the painter’s own suffering.

I will finish that list with Coppola’s Dracula: the prologue is a tribute to Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, the main topic relies on the 1990’s society (many critics said that it was a metaphor of AIDS), and the whole movie is a reflection of the director’s questioning about power and darkness.

Sorry, it was long, but I wanted to give artistic examples as different as possible. It’s clear that you can take one or another and analyse it from a single point of view. You can look at David or Guernica and say that they are incredibly powerful, that they impress you and make you feel very small or very sad, and you will be right. You can listen to Don Giovanni singing to Zerlina “Là ci darem la mano” and say that he reminds you some very tricky boyfriend, and you will be right. You can analyse Dracula for itself, notice that the vampire and Van Helsing share many characteristics, and you will be right. On the other hand, you can analyse David  and Guernica from an historical point of view, and you will be right too. You will say that don Giovanni’s aria is so representative of Mozart’s art and that will be exact. You can consider that Dracula and Don Corleone are two faces of a same character in Coppola’s artwork; that will be true. The only matter is that if you take only one point of view, you will miss something. Guernica can make you thrill, but it is nothing if you forget what it represents. Mozart’s maestria is wonderful, but the most important is that his opera touches your human heart.

That’s what I would like to help you understand, coming back to Harry Potter. We are so lucky; we have an artwork that we can enjoy and analyse at the same time; a wonderful book that is a literary tribute to prestigious traditions, a sharp painting of our society and a mirror of our own emotions. Why should we deprive ourselves of one of those opportunities?

Personally, I have no problem in seeing Harry as a new Oedipus and in finding that he looks like the teenagers I work with. I don’t see any contradiction in saying that Snape reminds me one of my teachers and that he is also a romantic (literary speaking) character. I don’t see any objection to the fact that Harry behaves according to epic style in GoF and that the description of his resentment towards Ron makes me remind how I felt myself two years ago when I had an argument with a friend. I take all the points of view; I need them all.

How could I deny that MD is a fine canon theory, and that it’s true that we can see the story as an echo of the war against terrorism? Furthermore, the vision of Dumbledore as the leader of a big spying game that implies he has to manipulate Harry (forgive me if this summate is close to caricature, but here it’s late and I have to finish) is so interesting
 It reminds the gods manipulating the heroes in the Greek tragedies. Who said that canon theories and metathinking were incompatible?

 

Iris

 

December , 6th. One year ago, at 11a.m., I opened for the first time a Harry Potter book
Champagne! 



---------------------------------
Soyez solidaire soutenez l’action du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France.
Cliquez ici pour faire un don !

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]