Theoretical boundaries

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 120363


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> But we *don't* just sail right past them, do we?  Someone trying to 
> clinically examine Snape's role in the story from the perspective of 
> narrative structure will inevitably be accused of defending abusive 
> behaviour, no matter *how* many times they try to explain that 
> they're not making value judgements about the characters.  Elegantly 
> demonstrated by at least one current thread.  
> 
> We leap gleefully into the fray not realising that we're wearing the 
> wrong hat for the discussion (occasionally not even checking), and 
> because we *have* to have the last word (even when it's clear that 
> we're coming at the argument from completely different angles - 
> or 'planets', as we say on my world) discussions become arguments 
> and they run and run and run.  
> 

I don't think you'll make much of an impression, sadly. There's a
conflict in how the books are approached, I think.

It looks as if the main split is between those that see the WW from their
own perspective and those that try to see the WW from the character's
perspective. The one brings the characters into their world, the other 
goes into the characters world. The two will never be congruent.

Seeing Harry in the limited terms of one's own attitudes and experiences
seems to defeat the whole object of reading a magical fantasy; we're
looking at an imaginative 'other' and though comparisons between
the WW and ours may be interesting and even valid to a certain extent, 
to castigate the cast because they act in ways different from us seems 
pointless. Of course they're somewhat different with somewhat different 
values, the books would be pretty flat if they were just a confirmation of 
our own prejudices.
 
I like the WW; I particularly like it's differences, the different flavour, tone,
call it what you will. Others don't seem comfortable with this. I see that
as their problem, not mine. If they don't have sufficient imagination or 
objectivity to put aside the real and immerse themselves whole-heartedly
in the fictional, well.... I remember a fragment from another book, can't 
remember which off-hand, but set in the future and old books are being 
precied and condensed. Moby Dick is categorised thus: "Nineteenth
Century knowledge of Cetaceans was erroneous."

It doesn't do to shine too hard a light on the wondrous.

Kneasy