Ship-Fanon-Cho/Character-Person/Rhetoric/'trash' (4 of 5)

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 51455

(continuing)

Elkins:
> I think that it is important for us
> to bear in mind that polemic has its
> place -- and a very well-established
> place, at that -- in discussions of
> works of literature.  Literary
> analysis is not a court of law.  We
> are not judges, and the characters
> are not on trial for their lives. 
> There is no  onus upon us to be
> "fair" to fictional characters, or
> to give both sides of an argument
> over their qualities either 
> equal weight or equal hearing.

Not on the part of those IN the 
debate.

However, conclusions drawn before 
examining all sides of the issue risks 
being ill-informed ones.  Until the HP 
cycle is finished, we won't have all 
the pieces to the puzzle.

Then there's that problem with using 
polemics: without dissent that is up 
to the challenge, the exercise is 
inconclusive.

Before hearing Sirius' POV, the 
conclusion that he deserves the 
Dementor's Kiss has a lot going for 
it, no?  JKR then upends that when she 
gives us Sirius' side of the story.

Frankly I am of the opinion that the 
more polemics there are, the more 
aspects of an issue is likely to come 
to light.  But ideally, along with 
being open to all opinions are

(a) pros and cons for all premises, 

and

(b) the impulse to halt the 
proceedings if it's a stalemate.

In a courtroom, that impulse would be 
embodied by the person holding the 
gavel.  Here on this list we don't 
have one...

...nor do I see how we could have one.

This of course is par for this 
course...but frustrating nevertheless.

Elkins:
<snip>
> Fairness to the *characters,*
> though?  Sparing the characters'
> feelings?  Refraining from saying
> mean things about them?  Giving them
> the benefit of the doubt?
> 
> I see no moral obligation to do any
> such thing.

I'm confused - which posts are you 
referring to here?

Elkins:
<snip>
> I think that the disagreement here
> may actually come down  more to the
> difference between literary and
> fannish reading practice: in other
> words, between the conception of the 
> fictional characters as constructs,
> and the conception of them as real
> people.

In regards to treating characters as 
real people, I suggest that we treat 
characters as being real to each other 
of course...not to us.

However, I am of the view that as 
characters are meant to be reflections 
of certain aspects of human nature, 
parallels between examination of them 
and examination of people in RL are 
part of what keeps literature relevant 
universally and personally.

Besides, in discussing the 
interactions between the characters 
within the internal logic of the 
narrative, the characters are not 
constructs to each other.  This POV is 
as valid as that which sees the 
characters only as constructs.  Our 
problem seems to lie in the fact that 
our discussions do not always make 
clear which framework is being used.

Please let me know if there has been 
further refinements to the concept of 
the Affective Fallacy 'cause it's been 
a while and my Abrams Glossary is a 
bit old...

The Affective Fallacy, as defined by 
Wimsatt & Beardsley in 1946, is the 
error of evaluating a piece of writing 
by its effects - esp. its emotional 
effects - upon the readers.

Beardsley has since refined his 
earlier claim.  From this refinement 
of affective fallacy is born the claim 
for Objective Criticism, in which a 
critic concentrates upon the analysis 
of the ways through which the author 
has wrought such emotional effects in 
the readers.

As much as we should be aware of the 
fallacy in order to avoid it and 
certainly mere descriptions of our 
reactions are paltry as literary 
criticism, even Beardsley admitted 
that "it does not appear that critical 
evaluation can be done at all except 
in relation to certain types of effect 
that aesthetic objects have upon their 
perceivers."

So first we must engage with the 
characters, as if they are people in 
RL, before we can identify our 
reactions and analyze how the author 
managed to get our neurons to fire the 
way they did.

The difficulty in stepping back from 
our deep involvement to move to 
analysis is all JKR's fault y'know. 
<g>  Though such 'fannish' involvement 
is at the root of Elkins' protest, it 
is also the starting point for forming 
objective criticism.

Elkins:
> These are slightly different ways of
> viewing the text. Both of them are
> valid, and nearly everyone engages
> in both types of reading
> simultaneously when they sit down 
> to enjoy a story.  We also usually
> engage in both types of thinking on
> this list when we sit down to
> *discuss* the story.  
> 
> Usually...But not always.  And
> that's when we get into trouble.  

<snip>

> I am not going to use the Dread "M
> Word" here <g>, but it does 
> seem to me that this distinction
> -- between reading practice 
> which accepts the characters as
> constructs and that which insists
> on treating them as real people --
> has been coming up frequently 
> of late, perhaps because shipping
> arguments seem to bring it out in
> people.

Agreed - I have yet to see anyone 
pursue romance on behalf of literary 
constructs...just on behalf of the 
characters as those people the author 
is telling us about.

(I have seen the search of an author 
by six characters though...)

However, people often do not 
differentiate at all and in fact mix 
the two frameworks into a muddle: in 
pursuit of romance between two 
characters (H/take_your_pick) that's 
inspired by JKR's sketch of them, 
fanfic writers draw Fanon!Cho using 
their reader response to her narrative 
function instead of their reader 
response to her character in canon.  I 
am not even sure there's a case to be 
made that these writers are even aware 
of doing so.

This issue in regards to clear 
reference in posting about characters 
would be a worthy addition to the 
must-read materials for the newbies.  
Anyone want to come up with an 
acronym?  What would be the easiest 
way to differentiate between different 
frameworks of reference?

Elkins:
> So Maria, for example, says that she
> did not like Cho Chang. She felt a
> strong sense of dislike for her, and
> on reflection, realized that this
> was probably because she didn't care
> for Cho's narrative function in the
> story.  
> 
> Now, this is a perfectly valid --
> and, indeed, very common -- reason
> for a reader to feel a strong sense
> of dislike for a fictional
> character.  It is, in fact,
> precisely the same reason 
> that Eileen cited a while back for
> feeling such a strong dislike for
> Bartemius Crouch Sr's dear departed
> wife.  
> 
> Yet when Maria said this, she got
> responses which implied that her
> reader response was somehow
> "unfair," that it was unjust to
> "hold Cho accountable" for her own
> narrative function in the text.  The
> argument here, if I have it right,
> is: "It's not *Cho's* fault that she
> serves a function you don't like!"

IIRC, only one post read as such 
(that'd be the only one that uses more 
'you's' than 'I's').  Perhaps the 
above needs to be more specifically 
addressed.

In case you are referring to me 
though, here's my original question: 
"Is it actually Cho's FAULT that 
Harry's romantic interest is focused 
on her at this point in this series?"  
This is really meant to be a 
rhetorical one, asked in hopes that 
Maria already knows the answer to it 
and become more aware of the different 
frameworks in referencing characters 
by name.

Not obvious...no exclamation points 
anywhere...but Maria got the point 
right away in the spirit it was sent.

Everyone else simply shared their 
thoughts.  My post asked a billion and 
one rhetorical questions intended to 
help Maria clarify her POV.  No 
accusations of Maria of 'rhetorical 
dishonesty' and I don't remember ever 
thinking that Maria must hold racial 
prejudices in real life just because 
she doesn't like Cho.  If I did, I 
wouldn't have bothered to write.  What 
I do remember thinking is that she 
seems to have inexplicably switched 
from "I don't like Harry with anyone" 
to boarding H/G.

I do however find fanfics containing 
OOC and shamelessly perfect avatars 
that are convenient but baseless to be 
dealing in 'rhetorical dishonesty.'  
More ship-debates-in-fanfic-form are 
guilty of this 'rhetorical dishonesty' 
than any other kind.  I see now that I 
did not make this clear enough in 
Priori Postis #50207 and didn't have 
the time that day to write the follow-
up to further address this as I had 
meant to.  My apologies.

Elkins:
<snip>
> Cho Chang and Barty Crouch Sr.,
> however, are *not* real people.  
> They are *like* real people, in that
> they can come to feel so very real
> to us that we start responding to
> them with the same depths of emotion
> that we ordinarily reserve for
> genuine human beings, but at the end
> of the day, they are fictive
> constructs.  It is therefore
> perfectly "fair" to feel a liking or
> a disliking for them on account of
> the narrative functions that they
> play in the story, or because
> they remind us of people we have
> known in real life, or because we
> simply do not like their "types."

I agree - Maria's dislike of 
NarrativeFunction!Cho is completely 
valid.  It is, however not until I 
engaged her in a discussion were we 
able to pin that distinction from 
Canon!Cho down.  True, that discussion 
when read in part led one poster to 
'attack' but everyone else seem to 
have read the whole thread in order 
and got the point just fine.

Elkins:
> Cho and Barty and Ron and Harry and
> Remus are not being "maligned" by
> such reader responses.  How can
> they be?  They have no feelings
> which we the readers can hurt.  To 
> the extent that they can be said to
> exist as "people" at all, they exist
> on a different plane of reality
> than we as readers do.  To the
> extent that they can be said to 
> have "feelings" at all, those
> feelings can only be hurt by the
> people who exist on the same plane
> of reality that they do -- in other
> words, by the other fictional
> characters.  Cho and Ron and Harry
> and Remus Lupin (whether Ever So
> Evil or not) can all hurt each
> *other.*  But we the readers?  
> 
> Nah.  We can't touch 'em.

No, we can't touch them within the 
internal logic of canon.  But 
contamination of our perception of 
characters in canon by ill-written 
fanon gives me pause.  It's one thing 
to hone our own readings of canon by 
perusing through other fans' 
interpretations; such interpretations 
are expressed as opinions.

When bias based on ship preference 
leads to 'maligning' characters 
through putting words in their mouths 
that are OOC, this is problematic in 
that such interpretations are 
expressed as narration.  Excluding 
ironic fanfics told by fallible 
narrators, doing so does affect the 
characters' narrative functions in 
readings of canon.

In other words, it's sort of like 
TBAY.  Responsible TBAY does not 
misquote out of context.  Poor TBAY 
makes it hard to tell a listee's 
own words from those merely 
attributed to him/her.  See?

Elkins:
> We can, however, hurt each others'
> feelings.

If I am reading this correctly in that 
you think I'm the guilty one, could 
you point me to the posts you're 
referring to?  I will be happy to 
return the words of thanks and the 
olive branch when I deliver my 
apologies. <awaiting patiently...>

(continued)

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