You're reading the wrong book

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51178

Jimmy Pickle wrote:

> I just finished reading the "Snape and Respect" thread and 
> couldn't believe there are readers out there that thought 
> Snape or Slytherin were hard done by in the whole - Dumbledore 
> point awarding affair at the end of book one.

Yes, HPfGU really is unbelievable that way, isn't it?  Did you 
know that there are actually some people around here who *don't* 
think that Ron and Harry are inconsiderate?  That there are people 
who didn't read the Twins as bullies?  That there are people who 
felt no sympathy -- none! -- for Peter Pettigrew in the Shrieking 
Shack (no kidding!  Just go back through the archives!  You'll see 
that I'm telling the absolute truth!  It's incredible!)?  There 
are people who think that Snape never got his hands dirty back
when he was a Death Eater.  There are people who actually thought 
that Ton-Tongue toffee was *funny.*  There are people who *didn't* 
find Lockhart a supremely irritating character.  There are people 
who don't like Lupin.  There are people who don't like Hagrid.  
There are people who don't like Snape.  There are people who
don't like Ginny.

Why, there are even a couple of people around here who think that 
*Sirius Black,* of all people, is *Sexy!*  

Can you believe it?  What a wacky world we live in, eh?


> So, if you Love Snape and think he was mis-treated, if you 
> cheer when Slytherin win, if Malfoy the bouncing ferret brought 
> a tear to your eye (and not from laughing - like mine was), if 
> you're hoping that Lupin/Black/Dumbledore/McGonagall/etc turn 
> out to be Evil, then *you are reading the wrong book*

If you do not at least see something to admire about Snape,
then how do *you* construct the end of GoF?  What do you make
of the idea of a parallelism being drawn in GoF between Snape and 
Peter Pettigrew?  What do you see as Karkaroff's function in the
text, if he is not meant in part to serve as a double to Snape?  If 
we're merely meant to hate him, then what do you make of that long 
appraising exchange of stares between Snape and Harry at the end of 
GoF?

If you do not see any elements of injustice in Snape's treatment, 
then what do you perceive as the role of "Snape's Grudge" in relation 
to PoA's thematic emphasis on the spiritual perils of vengeance and 
the dwelling on past *wrongs?*

If you see nothing disturbing about the bouncing ferret incident, 
then doesn't that sort of weaken for you the raw emotional power 
of GoF's moral complexity, of the novel's erosion of the boundaries 
between how Death Eaters behave and how their enemies (as well as 
ordinary citizens) behave?  It would for me, I think.  But I am not 
you.

(I also assume that you weren't trying to read GoF as a Whodunnit!)

We're likely not reading the same books, no.  But I think that the 
books I've been reading are pretty darned good, and so far, they've 
grown more to my literary tastes with each volume.  I have hopes that 
this trend will continue.

The books that you've been reading are, I'm sure, every bit as 
rewarding to you as mine are to me.  Perhaps we would not care much 
for each others' "copies" of the books, though.  That's okay.  The 
same readings are never going to seem equally rewarding or enriching 
to everyone.

One of the main purposes of a discussion group, as I see it, is to 
serve as a forum in which members can share with each other their 
differing interpretations of the books, in large part so that they 
can come to new insights -- and therefore new pleasures -- in regard 
to the text.  

When people propose readings of the text which strike me as 
unfruitful or simplistic or unrewarding, or which just (for reasons I 
cannot even articulate) *squick* me somehow, then I do indeed often 
feel tempted to tell them they are wrong.  I think, though, that this 
is something I need to guard myself against.  I think that it would 
probably be far more informative and pleasant for everyone in the 
long run to resist that temptation.  After all, it often turns out 
that other people are seeing things in the books that I find 
rewarding as well, once I'm willing to give them a try.  

Or not.  Sometimes when you try a new food, after all, it really 
*does* taste every bit as disgusting as you thought it would.  That 
happens too -- especially to me.  I'm a pretty picky eater.  ;-)
  
But you know, that doesn't mean that the food is disgusting in any 
*objective* sense of the term.  It usually just means that it suits 
some tastes and not others.

There would be little point to this group's existence if we all read 
the books in precisely the same way.  It would be very boring, and 
not in the least bit instructive to anyone.  There would also be 
little point to the group -- for *me,* at any rate -- if I considered 
other people's understandings of the story to be the "wrong books."  
If I truly felt that way, then why on *earth* would I be here?  Why 
not just stick with my own reading and be content with that, rather 
than seeking out the opinions of others?

I'm here to learn about other people's readings of the books.  After 
all, I already know what *I* think.  If there weren't a multiplicity 
of viewpoints represented here, I'd have moved on months ago.

Nonetheless, there are many groups out there which *do* cater to 
particular readings or interpretations of this text.  There are pro-
Snape groups and pro-Lupin groups and R/H groups and H/H groups.  I'm 
even given to understand that there is a Cho Is Evil group out there 
somewhere, for those who like that sort of thing.  ;-)

*This* group, however, does not adhere to any "party line" of 
interpretation, reading or critical approach, and that is one of 
the main reasons that I am here, rather than on one of those other 
groups.  I would humbly suggest that perhaps those who find diverse 
viewpoints *very* upsetting or threatening to their own personal take 
on the canon might just be reading the wrong list.  There are 
alternatives which do not adhere to the same policy of inclusivity 
and which therefore do not host as large or as diverse a multiplicity 
of viewpoints.



Elkins