Real characters & persuasive argument

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50328

Amy wrote:

> It's not a matter of affection for the characters (there's 
> no arguing that point, as affection for characters is as 
> irrational and indefensible as affection for real-life people), 
> but of supporting your argument with the full range of evidence. 

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.

As Ebony 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? 

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.*

Amy wrote (about Eileen's message #50164):

> . . . in either case it takes more than a citation of their 
> inconsiderate moments to make the argument. At least, that's 
> what it takes if you want to convince *me.*

I believe that the problem here may be that you have misconstrued the 
intended argument of both Eileen's and Ebony's posts.  If you look 
back to Eileen's original post #50164, for example, you will see that 
she wrote this sentence (set apart in a paragraph of its very own, in 
fact, as if for emphasis):

> But I don't expect *anyone* to concede that *either*
> Ron or Harry is as flawed as I read them. 

In other words, she was never trying to "convince you," or anyone 
else, to consider these characters as inconsiderate as she does.  She 
went out of her way to make that explicit.  *Very* explicit.

What she was trying to do was to *explain* her reader response.
(She was also trying to make a point about the Affective Fallacy
in the process: namely, that the reader's own personal gut 
emotional reaction to certain characters in the story should not 
*necessarily* be assumed to be shared by the other characters in 
the story.)

Similarly, as Ebony implied in the paragraph I quoted above, she too 
was trying not to convince, per se, but to *explain.*  To share her 
experience.  To explain her position.  To use written language for 
its intended purpose.  To *communicate* something.  Something about 
herself.  Something about how she as a reader interpreted this 
particular text.

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.


-- Elkins