FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione; Draco is Ever so Evil

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 39171

Penny Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> I completely reject the notion of authorial intent as the sole 
means of interpretation.  I highly commend the following brief essay, 
which sets forth my thoughts almost exactly:
> 
> http://mesastate.edu/~blaga/theoryindex/intentionx.html
> 
> I particularly like this bit:
> 
> " We know as well that texts can signify more than one thing, so 
it's unrealistic to assume that only
> one "right" meaning exists. What the author says about her own text 
is nothing more than a reader's response and therefore no more valid 
than another reader's response."  
> 
> See also --
> 
> http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/meaning.html
> 
> Particularly --  
>   Does the meaning exist 'in' the text? 

<snip>

 As a text is in a sense only ink-marks on a page, and as all 
meanings are culturally created and transferred, the argument that 
the meaning is 'in' the text is not a particularly persuasive one.
> 
> I think this is the heart of the dispute that rages intermittently 
on the list with regard to issues where there is a wide divergence of 
opinion.  I have strong issues with the "textual meaning" school of 
thought, under which I ought to be able to read "the words printed on 
the page" & come to the conclusion that Draco is a flat caricature 
who will never be redeemed.  Someone who thinks the reader-response 
theory that I favor is a load of bunk will naturally come to the 
conclusion that I'm being a "resisting reader" in coming to my 
interpretation of Draco.  That's okay.  I think we should just 
acknowledge though that there are different ways of approaching 
literary interpretation.  

David now:

I do agree with Elkins and Penny on this (and on Draco).

But I also agree with Jim Ferer, who wrote:

>I think it's perfectly fair for [readers] to infer what the author's 
intent is, so long as they can defend their view. We try facts all 
the time based on a preponderance of the evidence. (And end up wrong 
much of the time). It's also fair to criticize a fic if it seems too 
far off JKR's intent to be believeable.

What does it mean, and how is it possible to say, that 
(say) 'Dumbledore is evil' is an unlikely reading of canon, or a 
perverse one?  How can we say that a given interpretation 
is 'subversive'?  If I assert that the reading you find subversive is 
my instinctive reading (something of the sort must occur on the R/H - 
H/H divide, I think), are you reduced to saying 'fine for you, 
David', or have you any rational basis for persuading me different?

The above thinking does not bother me very much as far as Harry 
Potter is concerned, but I think it has the potential for making me 
feel very lost and alone if it is applied to speaking, writing, and 
reading outside fiction.  For example, I am starting to wonder if I 
am sure I have interpreted Penny's, Elkins', and Jim's 
posts 'correctly' (if there *is* a 'correctly') - perhaps my 
interpretation of their writings is completely disconnected from 
theirs.

Any answers?

Is anybody out there?

David