[HPforGrownups] Re: Interpretation of Characters , bad, bad Cho

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 72502

Dan Feeney wrote:

 "LoTR/Silmarillion fan fiction is indigestible to me, 
but HP isn't - it has to do with the proximity of the parallel world, 
and the expectations of that world, and the details. I don't think 
the operative context is quite the difference between open or closed -
seems a far too general argument for me, but perhaps that's part of 
the "placing" within "literature" regarding HP at nimbus2003, which I 
regret not being able to attend, and not only cause I'm male."

Now me (Wendy):

Interesting you bring up LoTR - that came up at Nimbus, and is a good
counter-example of what I'm talking about regarding "open" and "closed."
(I'm not particularly conversant with literary terminology in general, and
this concept of "open" and "closed" is new to me, which is why I qualified
my use of the terms in my original post. But hopefully my understanding and
use of the terms isn't hopelessly naive). What I was trying to get across
is that Rowling has written the HP books (thus far) with lots of space in
which we can form our own opinions about characters (or play about writing
fanfiction about them, for that matter) - that's the "openness." Tolkien
didn't leave that sort of space - by the time he was done writing about his
world (including, I think, things that were published posthumously), he'd
laid out an extremely detailed map of his world, leaving very little room
for other interpretations (including the writing of fanfic). So this seems
to agree with your comment about the unpalatability of LoTR fanfic, vs. HP.
There is a lot more to write about in a believeable
in-congruence-with-canon way in HP than there is in LoTR. 

<grinning at your comment about Nimbus - yes, the odds would have
definitely been in your favour, as I'd say attendance was something like 90
percent female>. 

As I said earlier, it is possible that much of this space will close up as
she wraps up the series in the next two books, but I think there will still
be plenty of room left to play once she's said everything she wants to say.
Perhaps this is connected to the proximity of which you spoke. I'm not
quite clear if I understand what you mean by that. Do you mean the physical
proximity of her world (the fact that it takes place right alongside our
own real Muggle world) vs. the complete fantasy setting of Tolkien? Or do
you mean something else?

Dan again:

<snip two excellent discussions of Cho's character - one calling her
behaviour weak, manipulative and inexcusable, the other painting her as
sympathetic, and a victim of Harry's detrimental effect on others>

"What this proves, I'm not sure. But I notice that both accounts are 
rather sarcastic, the first slightly moreso, and they actually defend 
the apparent opposite stance. Don't know why I chose that, except 
it's probably easier to dichotomize the arguments by doing so."

Now me (Wendy) again:

Yes!  Your examples illustrate exactly what I was getting at in my earlier
post. Both analyses are possible based on the text, even though they are
completely opposite. I would go farther, and point out there's a third,
middle-of-the-road interpretation, as well. (Well, any number of shades in
between, I suppose): that some of Cho's behaviour was weak and
questionable, and that Harry didn't act in the most mature manner either,
and that they're both teenagers, after all. And each of us will create our
own opinion about Cho's character after putting her through the "filter" of
our own experience. JKR's writing makes this possible in the fact that she
doesn't take us by the hand and guide us to one single interpretation of
Cho (nor does she beat us into submission with whip and chair, either <G>).
She tells her story with events, including some interpretation by Harry.
And even that interpretation is subject to our opinions of just how
reliable we each find Harry to be. I'm sure some of us take his opinions at
face value as facts, while others consider his opinions with a varying
number of grains of salt. <G> You did a great job of showing what I was
trying to say in my earlier post. As for the sarcasm, I'd say that is
probably because both of the extreme opinions seem rather ridiculous,
really. As are those sorts of opinions in real life. People are rarely
wholly sympathetic OR annoying. It shows the dichotomy of what is possible
by looking at just the text, and then we move onward toward a more balanced
view of the characters.

Thanks!
Wendy