Dissin' the Slyths

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 38527

I'm going to quote some things out of sequence here, in order to
better organize my thoughts.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" <dicentra at x> wrote:

> If the effect the switcheroo had on the Slyths was significant to
the
> story, JKR would have found some way to make their reaction visible.

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that JKR does not consider
it significant to the story.  And if we narrowly define "story" to
mean "plot," then I don't consider it significant to that, either. 
But if the definition of story includes characterization (by which I
mean not only the character's motives but also the moral, ethical and
practical implications of their actions), then I do consider it
significant.

> I wouldn't call for a discarding of real-world knowledge (it's
> impossible to do) but rather for a privileging of the inner logic of
> the fictional world such that it gets the benefit of the doubt. 
> Unfortunately, fictional worlds don't have all the bases covered.  I
> don't know to what degree we can fill in the blanks for them with
our
> own, beliefs, PoVs, and such.

It's always a tricky question when analyzing a piece of fiction.  For
a more obvious example, look at Sirius' Prank and its effect on
Lupin.  We never see Lupin criticizing Sirius about the Prank; we
never see him acting angry or betrayed, or frightened of possible
consequences to himself.  Yet many readers (myself included) believe
that Lupin must've been affected that way, and use that belief as part
of the basis for censuring Sirius.  Why?  Because our understanding of
the real world tells us that this is how a person of Lupin's
temperament would react under such circumstances.  Did JKR intend us
to read it that way, or does she, in fact, view the Prank as just a
childish joke that Snape is holding an unreasonable grudge about? 
Search me.  I'm merely using the same basic interpretive process to
evaluate the Prank, and Dumbledore's actions at the leaving feast, and
any other action by any other character.

 

> > Perhaps it all comes down to a difference in reading philosophies,
> > then.  I believe that a work of fiction can have implications and
> > meanings that the writer didn't intend, and that the unintended
> > interpretations can be as valid as the intended ones.  (Not
always,
> > but they can be.)
> 
> I can deal with finding *meanings* the author didn't intend (I'd
never
> have made it through a literature program if I didn't), but as far
as
> *events* go (and a bad reaction from the Slyths would count as an
> event), it didn't happen unless it is either shown or alluded to in
> the text itself.  And it wasn't. 

I don't think it's an event at all.  It's not like the Slytherins were
all sweetness and light until Dumbledore switched the banners around,
and then they all ran out and joined the Junior Death Eaters League. 
Most Slytherins already seem set on a certain course.  I believe that
Dumbledore's action provided undesirable reinforcement for that
course, but that's hardly something that can be pointed to as an
event.  It's purely a matter of meaning.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com