Theoretical boundaries

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 120415


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> 
> Alla wrote:
> "But using emotions does not mean to me to forget the facts, it 
means
>  that I refuse to turn off my emotions when I analyse the facts."
> 
> Del replies:
> I understand. But you must be careful, because emotion and reason
> don't work well together. Sense and sensitivity, you know :-) ?
> 

Renee:
But is it possible to turn off your emotions when discussing the 
characters and their actions? (Are there any Mr. Spocks on this 
list?) And contrary to popular opinion, reason and emotion can go 
together; people who are devoid of emotions often aren't the best 
decision-makers, so why would they make the best critics?   

Speaking for myself, I can't enjoy a story if I don't respond 
emotionally to at least some of the characters, and if I analyse 
them as characters (as opposed to analysing them as plot elements 
etc.), it's impossible for me to ban these emotions entirely, even 
if I'd want to. 

But IMO, this isn't where the main problem arises. The problem 
arises when I allow my emotions to produce moral judgments which I 
then consider valid because they're based on my oh so sincere 
feelings. And looking at this list, my general impression is that 
discussions usually don't turn into arguments until the judgments 
come marching in. That's when I'm inclined to side with the people 
who say: this is fiction, these characters aren't real. We can like 
them or dislike them or anything in between, but are we called to 
judge them? 

Or are we? Do these books try to provoke the readers into being 
judgmental? Sometimes I wonder.

Renee