Why Snape may know what he knows WAS Re: The Gleam Revisited

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 45148

<Snip>
Marina writes:
> Okay, we're using two different definitions of metathinking here.  
I 
> think I was confused by the fact that you seemed to be setting 
> up "meta" and "canon-based" as opposing concepts, which I now see 
> they're not. You're limiting your definition of "meta" to the "lit-
> crit" approach, while I was defining it in more general terms as 
any 
> extratextual thinking, in which the reader's interpretation of the 
> text is filtered through considerations from outside the text.  In 
> the case of the DISHWASHER, the filter is your knowledge and 
> understanding of the way anti-terrorist campaigns are conducted in 
> real life.  We can call it "external thinking," or some other 
> suitable name to distinguish it from the lit-crit method. This is 
a 
> perfectly valid approach -- I think the DISHWASHER theory is very 
> well thought-out, even if I disagree with it -- but it's no more 
> canonically rigorous than the lit-crit approach, or the 
> philosophical one, or any number of other methods people use to 
> interpret the text.


Hmmm... unfortunately lit-crit tends to provoke strange growling 
noises from me, but could you possibly explain how a reader is *not* 
supposed to interpret a text through their own knowledge and 
understanding? And why this is supposedly less canonically rigorous 
than interpreting it through, say, Freudian psychology. 

A reader has to be able to *read*, for a start, which is 'their own 
knowledge and understanding'. Or if the book is being read to them, 
they must have, of their own knowledge and understanding, a 
sufficient vocabulary to understand it. 

To say the readers interpretation of the text is filtered through 
considerations outside the text is to basically say that 'this is a 
book, people read the book, people will use their own experience to 
understand what they read.' It's a given, it's the basis from which 
we start. 

For example: I support my reading of Snape's goading of Harry in PoA 
Ch. 19 by making reference to his similar behaviour in Ch.14 (where 
he also goads Harry into losing his temper) and argue that Snape in 
Ch.19 knows from his previous experience in Ch.14 that insulting 
Harry's parents will make him lose his temper. That is MORE 
canonically rigorous than supporting a different reading of Snape's 
goading of Harry by saying that at this point in the Story it is 
essential that Harry take independent action and learn that 
sometimes we have to defy those in authority.

The one points to what the characters have said and done in the 
text. The other uses a theory of what the story is about as its 
supporting evidence. They are not equally canonically rigorous nor 
are they on the same level; I can never, however much I argue, say 
that Snape in Ch.19 had *no* knowledge that insulting Harry's 
parents would make Harry lose his temper; I *can* argue that Harry's 
need for independent action is met earlier, or later, or is not 
needed in PoA at all because the Story is about his growth to 
manhood, and the independence will come later...

<Snip>

> I never said the universe revolved around Harry, I said the 
*story* 
> revolved around Harry.  Now I suppose you're going to say that by 
> bringing the concept of story into it I'm indulging in meta-
> thinking, but I think that attempting to analyze a literary text 
> without ever acknowledging that it *is* a literary text is a 
highly 
> artificial and pitfall-laden approach.  

[Rant mode on]
Marina, of course I know it's a literary text. It has a cover, and 
pages, and words printed on the pages; I bought it from 
the 'fiction' section of the bookshop - these are some of the clues 
which tell me that it is a literary text.

And I pay the entire list the compliment of assuming that I do not 
*need* to acknowledge that it is a literary text, because they too 
have picked up on these clues. Far from being 'artificial', assuming 
that the fact that a literary text *is* a literary text is 
understood by everyone (other than English Lit professors) and thus 
requires no acknowledgement within a theory is the beginning point 
of analysis.
[Rant mode off]

Of course, a lot of it has 
> to do with what your goal is.  If a theory is intended purely as  
>an intellectual exercise, then anything goes.  

Personally, my goal is fun. My secondary goal is to be able to 
say 'I TOLD YOU SO!' when Book 5, 6 or possibly 7 comes out. [grin]

But if you're actually 
> trying to predict where the story will go, then you have to deal 
> with the fact that it is a story, not a news report or a 
> historical chronicle, and examine the literary underpinnings.
> 

You mean that stories follow certain rules, and that an examination 
of which rules the author is following will allow you to predict 
where the story will go.

Unfortunately, this mostly only works with second-rate writers. The 
Rules say that Frodo either a)should have died heroically succeeding 
in his task (theme of courage against certain death) or b)have 
miraculously survived to a happy retirement (theme of grace) or c) 
failed completely, with death and despair all round (theme of 
despair). In fact, Tolkein is a good enough writer that none of 
these happened - though there were a few chapters where the reader 
was fooled into thinking it was going to be ending b).

> Example: if you were trying to predict the ending of a traditional 
> cozy British mystery, you would not say "the killer will be the 
most 
> likely suspect" or "the killer will be an anonymous drifter with 
no 
> connection to anyone in town."  That may happen all the time in 
> real life, but that's not how it happens in cozy British 
mysteries. 
 
Of course, prior to Agatha Christie's cozy British mysteries you 
would also have said 'the murderer cannot be a small child', 'the 
murderer cannot be the detective', and so on. I think the only 
reason she never used 'anonymous drifter' is because it's *so* 
boring. That's not how it happens ... until a writer decides 
different.

 > the HP series aren't quite as genre-bound, but I still don't 
think 
> you can just ignore the fact that Harry is the protagonist of the 
> story, or that free choice, morality and the power of love have  
>been established as major themes.  

I'm not. I just think that another major theme is going to turn out 
to be 'sometimes we have to do things we hate and consider immoral 
because the alternative is even more evil than the things we have to 
do'. Morality when it consists of choosing between good and evil is 
one thing; choosing the 'lesser of two evils' another. 

The Voldemort war as shown in the books is one where both sides shot 
to kill, and the supposedly good side imprisoned without trial. 
Dumbledore may not have had a shoot-to-kill policy, but he uses a 
truth potion on Crouch Jr. (depriving *him* of free choice and of 
the right to not incriminate himself) without a second 
thought.'Lesser of two evils' - he needed that information and he 
needed it *now*.


Many people have said that the final 
> outcome of the Harry-Voldemort conflict will not depend on who's 
>the  more powerful wizard.  I agree with this, and I also think 
>that the  outcome will not depend on which shadowy puppet-master 
> does a better job of manipulating his pawns.

Actually, I'm also one of the people who's said the Harry-Voldemort 
conflict will not depend on who has the more powerful magic. Nor is 
Harry a pawn - the MAGIC DISHWASHER plan could have been back to 
square one in PoA if Harry had decided to say 'kill Pettigrew. What 
I want is revenge'.

Nor am I certain what is so wrong with a strategy that consistently 
relies on its so-called 'pawns' to do what is brave, good, and 
true...

Pip!Squeak