Theoretical boundaries

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 120379


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that someone in "limited" 
> just because they are openly emotional and openly approach material 
> from the standpoint of their own experiences.  That isn't being 
> limited, it's just being honest, and in most ways is wiser than 
> aspiring to some sort of "neutrality" that (almost) no one can ever 
> really reach, except as a kind of intellectual affectation.  True, 
> the books would be flat if they simply confirm what you already know 
> and believe.  However, it would also be strange if one agreed with 
> everything the books say, assume, present, or imply, now wouldn't 
> it?  That would be a negation of self and one's own personal values, 
> which most of us are not prepared to do.
>

Kneasy:
One's own experiences are limiting - when one imposes them on 
fictional characters. There is a risk that the personae will be reduced
to paradigms of one's own past rather than develop, explain or 
illuminate as the writer intends.

"Agreeing" is not the stance I've been on about - it's "accepting."
Accepting the book on the terms that the author places on the page -
the similarities, the differences between the WW and the RW specifically
outlined in this book and the tale it tells.

Whether the author, or reader come to that, agrees with what an author
presents us with is irrelevant, it's whether it makes a coherent whole, 
whether it *works*. I don't  agree with the concepts and behaviour in
Orwell's 1984, but I do consider them valid within the confines of the 
story. Consequently I don't see the need to beat my breast and impress
on everyone that I believe O'Brien shouldn't do those things.


lupinlore:
> If that type of immersion makes one happy, go for it by all means!  
> But never make the mistake of thinking that such is a superior way of 
> approaching a book or an issue.
>

Kneasy:
Did I mention the word superior? No, I don't think I did. I mentioned 
two possible approaches; I stated which I prefer and why I prefer it.

lupinlore: 
> As for it being a "problem," why so?  People are unhappy with certain 
> things and find them pernicious and morally suspect, if not downright 
> repugnant.  How is it a problem to express that genuine feeling?  
> Because it is emotional?  Because it does not follow the normal 
> routes of academic discourse?  Because it requires one to be firmly 
> based in "this world" and not "that world?"  Not a problem at all!
> 
> Don't ever assume people are stupid or have no imagination just 
> because they prefer to remain grounded in real, and from their 
> perspective, serious and important experiences.  It is a different 
> perspective, certainly, but a perfectly valid one, and a very 
> important one.  After all, if not for people like that most law, 
> scripture (of any religion) or moral philosophy would not exist.
> 

Kneasy:
Just who is making assumptions here? Have I "assumed" that
anyone is stupid? I'm not such a fool that I think anyone who
disagrees with me is half-witted.

It seems to me that you are conducting the same exercise that
you appear to with the books - you're taking your own experiences
and projecting them onto me. Unjustifiably and erroneously.

And you have no monopoly on experiences. I've watched children
die; held their hands while they did so, too. That makes a vast
difference; to me, fiction is nothing like the real thing and never
can be. I cannot behave or pretend to behave as if it were. 
Equating *my* past experiences with a character in a light novel 
would be to debase and devalue real people and real tragedy. 

Maybe I'm old fashioned. I consider my emotions to be intensely 
personal. I would find it distasteful and an imposition on others to
spread them all over a web-site. I'm of the generation that considered
public displays of such matters to be ill-mannered and unnecessary.
Others apparently think differently. 

lupilore:
> It is, I suppose, as you alluded to in an earlier post in reference 
> to Vernon Dursley, a somewhat "middle-class" way of approaching 
> things.  So what?  There's absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy 
> middle class mentality.  It is serious-minded, morally aware, and 
> prepared to strongly assert what it feels to be correct.  
> snip>
> Vernon Dursley is a caracature of the middle class.  Granted.  But 
> please don't think that those of us who, I daresay, share some of 
> Vernon's values (stability, moral seriousness, and interest in a 
> decent society) are like him, just as not every wealthy person is 
> like the Malfoys, every intelligent person like Hermione, or every 
> poor person like the Weasleys.
> 

Kneasy:
See post 92428 for a defence of Vernon and the values he probably 
espouses. I strongly recommend reading my back posts before 
jumping to conclusions about where I stand.

Yes, he is a caricature, intentionally so. We agree. 
What we won't agree on is the utility of employing a fictional caricature
as an opportunity to show one cares about real people.