Theoretical boundaries

[carolynwhite2]

No: HPFGUIDX 120361


Kneasy, originally [120202]:
>>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.<<<

Lupinlore [120352]:

>>Now, OOTP is *not* a modern fairy tale. It is something rather like 
a dark melodrama with magical elements. That is a totally different 
genre. We respond very, very differently to melodrama than we do to 
modern fairy tales. Things that do not necessarily raise our ire in 
fairy tales *do* in melodrama.<<<

>>Another way of putting it is, did JKR intend to create the kind of 
emotional backlash she did with OOTP? I rather doubt it. I'm sure she 
intended to be provocative and surprising. I'm not at all sure she 
intended to generate the kind of distaste and anger she has in a lot 
of quarters.<<<

Lupinlore [120353]:
>>>I certainly disagree that emotional responses to plot and 
character are out of place here. This is not an academic discussion 
of the mechanics of JKR's writing, nor is it an exercise in applying 
one literary theory or another, or in arguing which literary theory 
is most appropriate for analysis of canon, or in constructing formal
arguments according to any particular rules of evidence or 
procedure.<<

>>>It is a forum for discussing how this piece of fiction affects our 
human lives. Now, if you happen to find all those things (theory and 
mechanics and formal rules of evidence) to be powerful and 
meaningful, then employ them by all means. However many of us aren't 
particularly impressed with such approaches, as we find interacting 
with this story to be primarily a human response to human characters -
 i.e. an emotional and even, to use an admittedly vague and sometimes 
maligned word -- a spiritual experience. Our responses will be 
emotion based, and we aren't very interested in "criticism" as such.<<


Carolyn:

Lupinlore, your two responses quoted above are somewhat 
contradictory. On the one hand you comment as to what kind of books 
these are, and attempt to state what our responses should be to each 
type of genre (as if there was any agreement about that), plus make 
unprovable statements about what JKR intended. Then you change tack 
and say that anyway, formal theoretical literary approaches are 
totally irrelevant, and the only thing that really matters (to you) 
is (your) emotional response. 

You appear familiar with literary criticism as a discipline, 
therefore you must be aware that these two positions are merely 
opposite (and very well-known) positions within, well, literary 
theory? In particular, the arguments about authorial intent rage on 
continuously. It's a tad disingenuous not to be more upfront about 
this if you are going to make a strong argument for one type of 
reading over another.

I also don't think it helps to make sweeping statements about 'what 
this forum is about'. There are many academics on this board, and if 
they want to have their say, that's fine by me. I'd even argue it is 
a good thing to try and test theoretical analyses against the kind of 
robust non-academic reader response to be found on HPfGU. I 
originally studied lit at college many years ago, and have never 
regretted the breadth of perspective it has given me on what writers 
may (or may not) be trying to do with a book. At the same time, it is 
self-evident to anyone with a grain of commonsense that many academic 
contributions are farcically ivory-tower, and the only useful 
response to the authors is that they should get out more. HPfGU 
offers them this (virtual) option.


Renee [120357] in response to Lupinlore:
>>Relatively short answer to long post: Why not do both? Are analysis 
and emotional respons really two entirely separate compartments? An 
emotional response can lead to the question: why do we react like we 
do, and this can create a demand for analysis. And the analysis in 
its turn can lead to a better understanding.<<<

Carolyn:
I entirely agree, with the proviso that both types of analysis are 
kept focused on the work that JKR has created. Unfortunately what 
tends to happen is that discussions about the Potterverse quickly 
become lightening conductors for debates about RL issues, and then 
the discussion deteriorates into the kind of slanging match seen the 
other night. Much heat, no light.

 
Kneasy [120202]:
>>What amazes me is that so many posters are so ignorant of what has 
gone before on the site.<<


Carolyn:
Yep, you said it. Just to prove the point, I commend everyone to two 
posts from the archives which discuss the validity of different 
responses to the books. They are as relevant today as they were two 
years ago.


Where's the Canon? (Part One):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34802

Where's the Canon? (Part Two):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34811

(Anyone interested in reading more of the great Elkins' posts can see 
them all collected together here at: 
http://elkins.theennead.com/hp/ ).

Finally, those concerned about authorial intent should perhaps note 
JKR's comments, from the Edinburgh chat, Aug 2004:

Q:If you could be one of the characters for a day, who would it be?

A:Definitely not Harry, because I would not want to go through it 
all. I know what is coming for him so there is no way that I would 
want to be him. At the moment, I would not want to be any of them, 
because life is getting quite tough for them. It would be a laugh to 
be someone like Peeves, causing mayhem and not bothering.

Carolyn