ADMIN: Interpretive Methods: Tolerance for other viewpoints

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 47922

Hi all --

There seems to have been some contention lately arising from differences in
preferred interpretive method (that is, what is canonical, what approach is
best for interpreting the text, and so forth) on the list.

HPfGU is not affiliated with any particular school of literary criticism,
nor will it ever be.  When posting, please try to keep in mind that this
list has a diverse membership of now over 5000 members.  Just as we expect
that our members show due consideration for social and cultural diversity
when they post to the list, we must also insist that they show respect for
diversity in critical method or school.

As a part of our posting guidelines we urge people to take care to express
their personal opinions as opinions, rather than as statements of fact.
Phrases like "I think," "I prefer," and "in my opinion" can go a very long
way towards reducing the chances of misunderstandings and hurt feelings on
the list. We have the same expectation for members who are remarking on
issues of literary criticism -- intolerance of different points of view
really has no place here.

When commenting on a method or critical school, please be aware of these
guidelines and phrase your thoughts accordingly.  Within the field of
literary criticism, scholars may indeed label one another's analytic
tools as "fallacies" all the time.  However, we would like to keep HPfGU
focused on friendly discussion and analysis of the Harry Potter books with
due respect for *all* critical approaches.

As we do not discriminate between critical approaches on the list as a
whole, we would appreciate it if listmembers would not give the impression
that certain critical approaches are unwelcome or forbidden on any specific
topics or threads.  If you believe someone's objection or canon point to be
fallacious or unpersuasive, please try to keep our posting guidelines in
mind when you express that belief.  In many circumstances, it might be best
to ignore an objection or statement altogether if you believe it to be based
in fallacy.

So, for example, "That is the Intentional Fallacy, which makes your argument
non-canonical!" is not the best way to register an objection to someone
else's citing an interview statement.  For one thing, it can be taken as
aggressive and accusatory.  For another, it is presenting an opinion as if
it were a fact: the Intentional Fallacy is actually only considered a
"fallacy" within *some* schools of criticism, by no means all of them, and
there are plenty of people who do believe authorial intent to be
"canonical."  Indeed, many of our members are quite partial to arguments
based on what JKR has said in interviews and chats.  A kinder, less
contentious, and far more clear way to convey this meaning therefore might
be: "I have no response to that objection, because I prefer not to take the
author's claims about what she intended into account when interpreting what
she actually wrote."

Furthermore, we would urge everyone to take particular care to avoid
phrasings which might give the misapprehension that they are conveying list
policy, rather than personal preference.  Comments about "cheating," "fair
play," and "breaking the rules" can be very misleading to new members, as
they give the impression that what is being discussed are rules of the list,
rather than matters of personal preference.

Finally, while some back and forth on personal preferences regarding canon
analysis is fine -- and indeed often necessary to establish a shared
understanding of the framework of the debate -- we would like to ask that
exchanges which have become *solely* concerned with the respective virtues
of critical schools, methods or techniques be taken over to OTC.  Remember
that our Content Guidelines require that posts to the main list make a
point about the Harry Potter books themselves.  Critical methodology is a
fascinating topic, and we welcome discussion of it on the main list, so
long as it is being discussed with some eye to its application to these
*particular* books.  Theory debates divorced from any discussion of the
books themselves, on the other hand, would be best conducted on OTC.

We would like to reiterate that HPfGU does not discriminate on the basis
of critical school or method.  Blanket statements of dismissal or attacks
directed against interpretive schools are inappropriate, violate good
netiquette and will be addressed off-list with the member.

If anyone has any comments on this message, or on the issues relating to it,
please write to the Moderators at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com
rather than posting to the list.  We'd also like to remind members that
if they feel they are being treated unfairly or with disrespect on the
list, they should alert us at the same address.

Thanks,

Penny
for the Moderator Team