Ship-Fanon-Cho/Character-Person/Rhetoric/'trash' (2 of 5)

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 51453

(continuing)

Amy:
> It's not a matter of affection
> for the characters 
<snip> 
> but of supporting your argument
> with the full range of evidence. 

Elkins:
> But, but, but...
> 
> But if you are trying to explain
> why you reacted to a given text
> in a particular way, then why on
> earth would you present evidence
> that had nothing to do with what
> you were trying to explain?  I
> don't understand this at all. 
> Wouldn't that be a rather *odd*
> thing to do, really?
> 
> If what you are trying to convey,
> for example, is "Ron and Harry 
> strike me as really inconsiderate. 
> Their behavior upsets me a great
> deal when I read the books.  Here
> are some examples of the sorts of
> things they do that have made me
> feel this way," then why on earth
> would you cite things that *hadn't*
> made you feel that way?  I mean,
> that would just be downright
> *weird,* wouldn't it?  I would
> certainly find it strange.  If
> nothing else, it would make ones
> post utterly incoherent.
 
Ebony had said:
> > Why would I point out all of 
> > Ron's very good characteristics in 
> > an essay in which I am speaking 
> > about why I do not like the idea 
> > of him with Hermione, when such 
> > evidence is tangential to the 
> > topic?

Amy to Elkins, in later post:
> Now, I have an answer to that, which 
> has nothing to do with whether I 
> think Hermione likes Ron or not.  I 
> didn't give it in response to 
> that post of Ebony's, but to a later 
> post by you where you quoted 
> it.  And I basically replied that I 
> don't think counterevidence *is* 
> tangential, but is highly relevant 
> and an excellent way to make a 
> coherent and convincing argument.

Elkins responded to Ebony:
> Yes, precisely.  Why would one?  
> I see no reason why one would
> want to do that.  It's not a matter 
> of sneaky rhetorical ploys, as some
> people seem to be implying.  It is
> simply a matter of coherence 
> and of *relevance.*

As the someone who started to describe 
some of the communications in this 
fandom as going after that very 
rhetorical goal of winning an argument 
recently, I would like to point out 
that any indignation at the implying 
of sneaky-ness of rhetorical ploys 
should be aimed at me, not Aim-me.

But in terms of Elkins' point above, I 
would like to note that I object to 
employing rhetoric purely for the 
rhetorical goal of defeating those who 
hold the opposing opinion.  I do not 
object to conducting a debate 
vigorously.

See, to me, if both sides raise valid 
readings, then to insist on one over 
the other is insupportable in literary 
discussions of complex works.

In using debate to explore as many 
nuances as possible, it is absolutely 
essential that the PARTICIPANTS do 
their best to present their cases.  
That is your point in the above, right 
Elkins?  And Ebony's too, I think.

But once the exercise is over and no 
clear winner has emerged, then what is 
the AUDIENCE/judge-jury to do but to 
form a view of the matter (not so much 
supporting the argument really, right 
Amy?) with the FULL range of evidence?

You and Amy are talking about 
different parts of this discovery 
process, if I read you two correctly.

The problem seem to lie in the 
difficulty of figuring out at just 
which point of the debate does the 
principle of diminishing returns kick 
in.

Elkins:
> What I guess I'm finding upsetting 
> here is the vague feeling that I 
> get from this thread, a feeling that 
> so long as a reader's response 
> is sufficiently idiosyncratic (which 
> is only to be expected: after 
> all, there would be very little 
> point in bothering to set forth ones 
> reasons for having a *universal* 
> response to a text, would there?, 
> which as I read it, was precisely a 
> large part of Eileen's *point*) 
> and sufficiently powerfully 
> expressed (which one would think we 
> would value on this list, but which 
> sometimes it seems that we don't), 
> that it is therefore held to be in 
> some way invalid, or even *unfair.*  
> Dishonest.  Naught but sophistry.  
> Unfair use of rhetoric.  
> 
> Now, what is this reminding me of?  
> Certain words and phrases seem to 
> be coming back to haunt me
> somehow. . . .
> 
> Over-analyzing the text.  Strident. 
> Over-stating the case.  
> Misreading.  Not how one "should" 
> interpret the text.
> 
> Not Fair Play.
> 
> Why, what *is* this strangely 
> familiar odor, wafting by on the 
> breeze?  
> 
> <sniff, sniff>
> 
> Ah!  I have it!
> 
> 
> Smells like Twins spirit.

Again, rhetoric is my diction...not 
Amy's.  Come to think of it, there is 
a lot of words above that look very 
UNfamiliar... <eg>

Elkins:
> Amy, I think that you are still
> misunderstanding the
> nuances and subtleties of the 
> conversation that had
> actually been taking place

<snip>

> Do you see the problem here?

Perhaps I do...this bears repeating: 
Elkins is concerned with the rigorous 
examination of the parts of canon that 
are pertinent while Amy is concerned 
with what conclusion can be drawn once 
a debate has turned into a stalemate 
where no new food for thought is 
available to tip the scale.

I don't think you guys are really at 
odds here.  Both of you have valid 
points to make about the essential 
requirements of the respective parts 
of the process of literary discussion 
that concerns you the most.

Elkins:
<snip>
> I felt that people's responses
> flattened out both of their
> arguments by responding to them as
> if they were just "Ron Is Ever So
> Evil" posts, or somesuch.
>
> It is frustrating to me.  There were
> nuances and subtleties to that
> exchange that went well beyond the
> question of whether or not Ron (or
> Harry) are inconsiderate twerps.  To
> address these posts as if they were
> simple hortatory pieces on the
> nature of Ron and Harry's character
> therefore struck me as not only
> somewhat disingenuous, but also as a
> rather serious mischaracterization. 
> An over-simplification.  A
> "flattening," if you will. 

Can't tell if this reflects what you 
think I've done but if it does, I 
agree that neither Eileen's nor 
Ebony's posts are egregious.  Their 
posts were not the subjects of my 
statements either.

>From the response, I can see that I 
was not clear enough about my 
objections to the idea of tolerating 
the trashing of characters.  All in 
all, that term seem to have less 
radical connotations for Eileen than 
for me (and perhaps Amy?).  But I 
couldn't have known that without 
trying to engaging Eileen in a 
discussion of the difference between

> trashing the characters in the form
> of examining the negatives as
> vigorously as the positives [and]
> trashing the characters for the sake
> of strengthening an argument.
(yours truly, Priori Postis #50207)

Could I? <rhetorical grin>

Elkins to Amy: 
<snip>
> You see, I'm not even *sure* what 
> your actual objection 
> to Ebony's argument is.  But 
> whichever of the possibilities 
> it is, why not say *that,* rather 
> than complaining about the
> fact that Ebony had such a strong 
> negative reader response 
> to Ron's pre-Yule Ball comments?  
> Since we all seem to agree
> that ones emotional responses to the 
> text and its characters
> are highly subjective and ultimately 
> personal, then why not 
> address the canon argument that
> derives *from* that reader 
> response, rather than taking issue 
> with the reader response 
> itself?

<snip>

> I think that it really cripples our
> ability to discuss the canon when
> someone's negative reader response
> to a character can not even be cited
> on route to making a wider point
> without the conversation immediately
> becoming diverted.  It's
> frustrating, that, because it
> reduces every single conversation
> into "How DARE you say such a thing
> about Character X?"

That doesn't sound like Amy...  In 
reading her post, I see that she was 
"not suggesting that we stop 
criticizing characters."  In general, 
I do agree that such expressions of 
fiery indignation on behalf of 
fictional characters do come up.  Is 
this one of those times? 

Can't speak for Amy but I do agree 
with her in that I do yearn for new 
fodder of generous calories to infuse 
new life into our discussions.  
Granted, there are always newbies for 
whom this list is fresh food for 
thought.  But then, I didn't read 
Amy's musing as an attempt to shut 
down the thread...just the thoughts of 
someone who's re-treading very 
familiar territories.  Nothing about 
Amy's thoughts struck me as 
challenging either Eileen or Ebony for 
daring to speak their minds.

Elkins:

<snip>

> Someone says that she doesn't care
> for the Twins because they behave
> like bullies, and it's "How DARE you 
> say that the Twins are pure
> unadulterated evil?"  

<snip>

> I just find this so disheartening. 
> It constrains the debate.  It makes
> it virtually impossible to make any
> argument that involves an even
> *tangential* reference to a popular
> character's bad qualities. 

I don't disagree - to beatify one of 
JKR's multi-layered characters is as 
invalid as demonizing.  I too find 
insisting on either extremes to be 
constraining on the debate.  Since 
Eileen happened to state that she 
"didn't at all think it's a bad thing 
to trash characters," I did wonder if 
she meant that such an extreme is a 
good thing.  That's why I asked her 
about it to clarify.

People tend to react in proportion to 
the cause.  In other words, extreme 
positions tend to elicit extreme 
reactions.  Of course, I haven't read 
every post, but I have the impression 
that tangential references don't 
usually get over-the-top backlash.  
For there to be a backlash, there has 
to be...uhm...a lash in the first 
place.

Sometimes the backlash of one incident 
even ends up striking off-target 
months later y'know.

Elkins:
> It enforces a (to my mind very
> strange) expectation that fictional 
> characters themselves are entitled
> to some sort of *due process,* as if
> literary discussion itself were
> a court of law in which the
> characters are standing trial for 
> their crimes.

How is giving each character 'due 
process' in examining all viewpoints a 
bad thing though?  That is, if we are 
to come to general conclusions about 
characters.  At any given point on 
this list, people who haven't read all 
50K+ posts <hand a-raised> should be 
forgiven for not realizing that 
specific aspects and only those 
specific aspects are under current 
discussion.

For an example, personally I would not 
expect posts entitled "That Twerp! an 
Aspect of Ron that Surely Repels All 
Females" to examine anything else but 
that particular aspect of interest.

Maybe this is where we could improve 
in going forward?

Elkins:
> What I guess I'm finding upsetting
> here is the vague feeling that I get
> from this thread...that so long as
> a reader's response is sufficiently
> idiosyncratic. . . . it is therefore
> held to be in some way invalid, or
> even *unfair*

Amy asked:
> What did I write that makes you
> think I was saying so?

Elkins: 
> I was perhaps unfairly conflating
> your comments with Petra's comments
> about rhetorical ploys.  If you did
> not mean to make that argument, then
> I apologize.

Amy responds in a later post: 
> Thank you.  I didn't, and the
> apology is accepted.  (No criticism 
> meant of Petra's comments, which I
> don't recall enough to criticize 
> or affirm.)

<picking up my cue belatedly...>

Help me out here - tell me how I have 
managed to make you think "that so 
long as a reader's response is 
sufficiently idiosyncratic. . . . it 
is therefore held to be in some way 
invalid, or even *unfair*"

Can I be guilty of the above when the 
reader response in disliking Cho the 
character in this fandom is NOT an 
idiosyncratic one?

<blinking politely in puzzlement>

Elkins:
<snip>
> It did not surprise me that both
> Ebony and Eileen responded 
> rather defensively to that
> statement.  I would have done so 
> as well.  In fact, I *did* responded
> defensively to it, even 
> though it was not even one of my own
> arguments being so attacked.  
> 
> Well.  Not *this* time, at any rate.

Though my assessment of the currents 
of frustration running through this 
fandom is mostly based on shipping and 
how the debates have escalated, I 
would like to point out that JKR does 
not do just one juggling act.  Not 
only does she keep all the romances in 
play, perpetually alternating between 
rising and falling, so do just about 
everything else.

For an example, such patterns of 
dynamic ebb and flow can be seen in 
the personal growth and regression of 
her characters.  I see the twins doing 
one at one point and the other at 
another point.

In other words, I waffle not a bit 
about remaining unconvinced by either 
ends of the ESE Twins arguments.  Both 
sides have absolutely valid points.  
Which is to say that once both sides 
insist that only one side can be true, 
both sides failed to be satisfied by 
the exposure and examination of valid 
observances.

If I do advocate anything it is to be 
on the lookout for this pattern: once 
winning the argument becomes more 
important than studying the text for 
the sake of deeper understanding, the 
exercise ceases to yield lasting 
benefits (shedding light on that which 
is eternal - the very nature of the 
human condition) and yield only the 
very temporal and the very temporary 
satisfaction that goes along with 
winning a debate.  I do see this 
paradigm repeat itself often - not 
just on this list, not just in this 
fandom.

Rhetoric out of control.

Elkins, you ought to be very familiar 
with how tempting the temporal is.  
You've seen how EVEN THE PERFECTLY 
SANE AND INTELLIGENT listees can get 
caught up in the passion of the 
moment.  You can personally attest to 
how lasting such battle scars can be.

This is at the root of my protest in 
terms of issues of rhetoric.

I found those who refuse to see the 
twins as possessing that ability to 
evolve that has served our species 
well just as guilty of not seeing the 
complexity in JKR's words, as those 
who refuse to see the twins as human 
beings who are still works in progress 
who have a looong road ahead of them.

(continued)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com