Black and white and read all over.

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 116808


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> I still maintain my sneaking suspicion that yes, it is all actually 
> going to come back and down to him--and it's going to involve his 
> actions, not merely Harry-as-spectator.  I'd argue that all of the 
> Thingy of Whatits are primarily important in and so much as they 
> relate to Mr. Potter, not the other way around.  The plotlines are 
> designed to give Mr. Potter things to do, rather than Mr. Potter 
> being merely another gear plugged in to make the machine go.  Most 
> all of the other characters--they are probably mainly considered for 
> their plot relevance, but also for what they mean to the 
> abovementioned eponymous hero.
> 

Kneasy:
Things to do....actions....yes. Though he may have some sort of fake 
'choice' about what he does or tries to do, no way will he be in that
position of his own volition. The clockwork mouse simile stands.
He's forever ending up in fraught situations that are the result of 
misunderstandings, impetuosity and pig-headedness. Whatever 
happened to heroes who can actually think? It really is getting
more than a little tiresome. Still, ever hopeful, we can pray that his
luck eventually runs out and that provides he us with a modicum of 
amusement as he goes down for the last time.
  
> Nora:
> I speak only for myself, but some of us are *gasp* actually more 
> interested in little things like analysis and interpretation than 
> plot speculation--that is to say, it's really a matter of interest 
> what it means and how it fits together, in addition to the (perhaps 
> mere) question of what's going to happen.  As such, it's interesting 
> what the actions of a character might mean or be read as, rather than 
> simply the actions that they take in the plot itself.  There are 
> perhaps hidden joys for the theorist to be found in interpretation, 
> as well--when you have some idea what a character is about and what 
> he represents, you can start to rank your guesses about future and 
> past actions a little more intelligently.
>

Kneasy:
Huh. And what are you going to do with these wonderful analyses and
interpretations? Sit tight and then declaim on your insight when all is
finally revealed? In this instance analyses and interpretations are tools 
to lever open the plot structure, not ends in and of themselves. Because
quite frankly I think that many of the current interpretations are 
misleading or plain wrong. All the information is not yet in, things 
will change, surprises will be sprung. However, for sure JKR has
cunningly slipped in clues and pointers (along with a barrel-load of 
red herrings) and they're not just intended for her own entertainment,
that much she admits. She *expects* us to take up the challenge of
perhaps beating her to the draw. She doesn't think we'll do it, but 
that just underlines the challange IMO. Sitting meekly waiting to be
spoon-fed is not something I'm comfortable with. I don't mind being
beaten, I don't mind being wrong, but doing nothing is not acceptable.
It implies that one is happy not to think, that existing canon is the
be-all and end-all of HP so close down and put your mind in neutral. 

Now if after analysis and interpretation we progress to extrapolation
based on conclusions drawn and possibilities considered, then things 
can get very interesting.
Not necessarily right, but certainly more fun than sitting twiddling our
thumbs waiting for the next book to come along and tell us what 
to believe.


> Nora:
> Of course future revelations force considerable reinterpretation.  
> But we are not, all of a sudden, going to find out that Voldie is 
> wonderful, or Draco is the actual hero of the whole thing, or that 
> the 'So EWWWer It's In The SEWWWer' theory 
> (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#eww, for the 
> curious) is actually true.  I hope she surprises us all.  But I won't 
> be surprised if there aren't big, huge, radical surprises.  We've 
> almost covered everything by now, haven't we?
> 

Kneasy:
We? What's this 'we'? 
The 'we' you're on about that has 'covered everything' is the 'we' that
you're currently proposing is and has been wasting it's time. Sounds
remarkably like that US Senator at the beginning of the last century who
proposed closing down the U.S. Patent Office because everything useful
had already been discovered. Talk about having limited expectations. 
And no, there are plenty of possibilities that have not yet hit the board, 
something I pointed out in post No. 101614 'Which way?' Too many 
fans wearing blinkers, I'm afraid - including I'm ashamed to say, yours 
truly. 

> -Nora sings a love song (major key) to hermeneutics--the word that 
> makes all the scientists of her acquaintance scatter and run

Kneasy:
All love songs belong in a minor key - they all end up with a loss, sooner
or later.
And if you're keen on hermeneutics then why are you arguing against
theorising?  It is after all concerned with - what? Theories of course.