Polemic, "cannibalism," and Common Wisdom

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50462

Amy:

> I don't believe I ever said that Eileen did *nothing* but 
> flatten the nuances of Ron and Harry. But I did think she 
> flattened them, and that was the bit I was interested in. 
> If it isn't the bit Eileen is interested in, or you are 
> interested in, or anyone else is interested in, please skip 
> my post. I won't be offended.

Yes, okay.  Fair enough, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your
intent.  I hadn't understood that you were attempting to
pick up on one aspect of the discussion and focus solely
on that aspect.  From where I was sitting, I guess that 
it looked more like a "shaddup" then like a "let's talk
about this other thing for a while," probably because last
August's Twins thread has left me unduly sensitive to
"shaddups."  I'm sorry that I mischaracterized your intent.

But as to the actual topic that you wanted to discuss: 

> Why then is cannibalism on the rise, if indeed it is?

If it is on the rise, then my guess is that it is because
the purpose of a strongly-stated polemic attack on a
character or position is to provoke the reader into 
questioning long-cherished assumptions about specific 
aspects of the text.

"Long-cherished" is the relevant term here.  It takes
a while for the "common wisdom" about characters within 
a fandom to be established in the first place.  Absent
that sort of consensus, there is little incentive for
anyone to write a polemic, because there is no weight
of "common wisdom" against which one is aware of having
to push.

Pippin, for example, writes about Remus Lupin in such
harsh terms in part, I imagine, because she is aware 
that there is already a long-standing consensus within 
the fandom about this character, one which stands in 
opposition to her own reading.  What the HELL: Hey, 
Everybody Loves Lupin.  Right?  Well, Pippin doesn't.  
But she knows full well that just about everyone else 
does, and so she recognizes that if she wants people 
to grant a hearing to her argument, then she is going 
to have to make a really *strong* case for it.  
Otherwise, nobody will pay her any attention at all.

Similarly, back in August, I was asked why I was being
so unfair as to point out the Twins' bullying characteristics,
while "letting Draco off the hook."  Well, how interesting
would it be to talk about Draco's bullying characteristics?
We all know about them already, don't we?  It is established
common wisdom within the community that Draco Is A Bully.
The Twins' bullying characteristics, on the other hand, are
*not* widely discussed in the fandom.  Any post which aims
to point them out must therefore take a strong tone, while
the fact that Draco is a bully can safely be referred to 
in passing.

Are we likely to see less polemic in the immediate wake
of OoP's release?  Yes, possibly, because it will take
a while for the consensus over the "accepted reading"
of newly introduced characters and plotlines to be
established, and absent that consensus, there is far
less social need for polemic.  On the other hand,
possibly not.  After all, how did the fandom's "common
wisdoms" get formed in the first place?  Well, from
what I've seen in the archives of this list, many of
them came about because people finished GoF and immediately 
began to state their feelings about the book's characters 
and events -- and to state them in no uncertain terms.  



Elkins