[HPforGrownups] Re: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Dr...

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 39198

David:
> 
> 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, 
> 


Eloise, (out of her depth in a sea of literary theory, but gamely trying to 
keep her head above water):

Logically, from the above, it is only possible to regard a reading as 
subversive if you also subscribe to the school of thought which believes in 
the possibility of devining and being true to the author's intent.

I think the difference perhaps lies in the *reader's* intent: does the reader 
*intend*  to be true to the author's intent, or is the reader consciously 
quite happy to entertain any interpretation which the text might support, 
whether likely to have been in the author's mind, or not. Those of us who are 
consciously happy to entertain readings that may not have been in JKR's mind 
happily use the term 'subversive'  (when perhaps another term would be 
better) whereas those who wish to be true to what they believe are the 
authors intentions, might regard it as more pejorative.

If I believed that your instinctive interpretation of something could not be 
supported by the text, then I would regard it as beyond subversive, it would 
be wrong! And I might therefore try to persuade.

If an interpretation was canonically supported, but perhaps unlikely (and I 
thought that its author's intentions were not to try to discern authorial 
intent), then I would defend it (whether I subscribed to it or not) as a 
subversive reading. Something like.....ooh, what shall I pick? Well, 
Evil!Minerva would be perhaps an example, which I suspect might just have 
been slightly tongue-in-cheek. Evil!Snape? Yeah. I don't think he'll turn out 
to be evil, but I can make out a case and it is just a possibility. Of 
course, if he turns out to *be* evil after all, then the reading will prove 
*not* to have been subversive, after all. (My head's starting to hurt.)

If I could see a textual justification for your belief but I could use the 
same evidence to make a different case, then ultimately I think agreeing to 
differ is the only option. On something like the H/H-R/H divide (not that I 
know anything about SHIPping), where two groups hold sincere and strongly 
divided yet canonically supported opinions, I think we have to acknowledge 
that authorial intent cannot be divined, whether desirable or not, and that 
neither view can be labelled 'subversive'.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Don't think about it! I have just been trying to tackle this issue myself and 
I completely agree!
Life demands that we make the assumption that we understand what others mean, 
that we can identify our experiences with theirs, that we use words and 
concepts to mean pretty much the same thing. Otherwise, as you say, we are 
completely alone and can never meaningfully communicate with anyone. We know 
we get it wrong sometimes, but that knowledge perhaps reassures us that at 
other times we succeed. (One of the disconcerting things about this list is 
that we tend not to get the reassurance of knowing when people *do* agree 
with us.)
> 
> 

Who knows? Perhaps we're all just figments of your imagination. ;-)  

But only if you have a very strange imagination.

Eloise






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