Theoretical boundaries

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 120210


mcmaxslb asked Del:
> Will your next posts defended Voldemort murdering James & Lily and 
> then trying to kill an fourteen month baby.

Kneasy replied: 
It's been done. Plus others not so much defending as explaining or
justifying their deaths. And done logically, calmly and using canon as
supportive evidence.

SSSusan:
Yep, and it makes perfect sense that some have delved into this.  
We've talked quite a bit about Voldy since I've been here [I joined 
just as OotP came out in 6/03], and since Voldy has yet to appear to 
be the awe-some Evil Overlord we expect him [and many of us *want* 
him] to be, sure, we've talked about what he's done, why, what was 
effective, and etc.  Discussion of something doesn't equal condoning 
it.  Nor does my *wanting* Voldy to be a really bad guy mean that I 
am defending what he does.  Au contraire.  It just makes for a better 
story – a more believable storyline for Harry & crew to be following.


Kneasy:
What amazes me is that so many posters are so ignorant of what has 
gone before on the site. Yeah, OK, Yahoo!Mort is a mess, finding old 
threads is a chore and when members join the first thing they want to 
do is post and to see their names and thoughts on the board. 
Understandable, I suppose. Me, I'd be stricter (entirely compatible 
with my sadistic tendencies), I'd make each new poster take a test 
after one month to ensure that they had at least a passing 
acquaintance with the major theories that have been suggested in the 
past. If they didn't reach a certain standard they'd stay moderated 
until they did reach the standard. 
<snip>
IMO it would be equally reasonable to expect that members should have 
some knowledge of the history and content of the site. At the very 
least this would encompass the Fantastic Posts and probably also the 
Recommended Posts.

SSSusan:
An interesting idea.  Not sure how I feel about an actual quiz... but 
then again, maybe?!  I'm sure many people would object to the length 
of some of the FPs.  But if the rule were for a newbie to just sit & 
watch for, say, two weeks, before being allowed to post, there would 
be time to go read the FPs.  Not to mention doing so would help 
adjust one to the amount of traffic this list can generate!  As for 
me, I know I found & devoured the [what a surprise!] Severus Snape 
section of FP before I ever even dreamed of posting here.  

It *is* thrilling to find such a huge group of other adults who share 
one's enthusiasm for the Potterverse, and thus it's understandable 
that people want to start posting right away because of it -- and to 
dislike being moderated at the start, but I think moderation is a 
wise step in the process.  It's a lot of work for the elves(!) but 
helpful for making sure newbies understand snipping and crediting, 
etiquette, etc.  I'd be curious what others think about the idea of 
having a required reading prerequisite for posting privileges?  


Kneasy:
Trouble can arise when posters closely identify HP with the RW and
others don't. I'm one of the don'ts. It's most definitely not the RW 
so why try to equate one with the other? I just can't comprehend why 
folk should get so worked up about so-called abuse and emotional 
trauma when it's a 'given' of the story, when it's *deliberately* 
contrived and constructed by the author. Sure, it's maybe unfortunate 
that a fictional construct has to fictionally suffer fictional 
hardship. Do I feel sorry for him? Not so's you'd notice, no. No more 
than I feel sorry for Humpty Dumpty or the Dormouse in Alice. I'll go 
where Jo leads me. If it doesn't tie up satisfactorily at the end, 
then I'll start moaning about characterisations and plot arc, not 
before.

With such characterisations I immediately start wondering why is it 
set up like this? What's the reason? This isn't a case study for 
budding social workers, it's a fantasy adventure mostly aimed at 
youngsters, isn't it? Since I refuse to believe that JKR is being 
gratuitously nasty there's probably some motivation behind such 
behaviour. Usually it's possible to come up with some sort of 
rationalisation with at least some basis in canon that'll do until 
more information becomes available.

I won't bore you with ideas that I've posted; sufficient to say that
there are theories (from others as well as myself) as to *why* the
Dursleys act the way they do, *why* Snape is so nasty, *why* DD trusts
him and so on. One thing I am sure of - discussing the possibilities
of why something is the way it is is infinitely more interesting than 
a sterile and pointless trading of "Oh yes he is," "Oh no he isn't." 
You want to know what the theories are? Look 'em up. And while you're
searching you'll probably find other things you didn't know about too.


SSSusan:
I always struggle with this "complaint" [for lack of a better term, 
Kneasy] about some of the posters' methods/interests at HPfGU.  I am 
one of those who likely drives Kneasy to eye-rolling with my interest 
in social issues, emotional response, and etc.  

But, Kneasy, the way I see it, we're working towards the SAME THING.  
You went on, above, to talk about being interested in the *whys* of 
things -- *why* Snape is nasty, *why* the Dursleys act as they do, 
*why* DD trusts Snape.  These are some of the very things I'm most 
fascinated by as well.  In fact, getting at a *why* for many people 
involves looking at backgrounds, histories, significant events & 
relationships in characters' lifetimes, and, yes, emotions and the 
like.  

You're looking for whys and for "what will be"s based upon those 
whys, are you not?  When someone else talks about Tom Riddle's orphan 
upbringing or the Dursleys' treatment of Harry, and possible impact 
or character reactions to those histories, how is that different?  I 
think many of today's posters are looking for the whys and wherefores 
of the story, too.  Whether looking for FACTS of a situation or of 
characters in a situation, or attempting to INTERPRET those facts, 
we're still all going towards motivation, aren't we? 

Or am I misunderstanding the distinction between your preference and 
the other?  Perhaps you're talking about people who merely 
argue "for" or "against" a character based upon RW parallels, as 
opposed to advancing any sort of theory of the character's 
motivations or likely future actions?

  
Kneasy:
There are an awful lot of theories back there - some wondrous, some
fantastic, some farcical. Enjoy them. Relish them. Even hate them. But
treat them for what they are - theories. Attempts to explain the whys
and wherefores of the story, attempts to explain what the hell is 
going on. In two books time it'll all stop, there'll be definitive 
canon that can't be countered, all the important stuff will be 
explained (it'd better be!) and all that'll be left will be minor nit-
picking or FF.


SSSusan:
And with this I totally agree.  The early theories & FPs set the 
stage, set the vernacular of this place.  I need to go back and 
relish more of them than I have. 

Siriusly Snapey Susan