Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 111790

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" 
<sevenhundredandthirteen at y...> wrote:
> I've replied to ideas from these four posts:
> 
> Caspen- 111580
> Zendemort- 111589
> Melete- 111615
> Pippin- 111616
> 
> Some debate was common between them, so I only used one quote to 
show 
> what concept I was talking about.
Snip!
> Zendemort wrote:
> >>>>Now, Let's go ahead and judge everyone by their "intentions." 
The 
> court of law will only put people in jail for their "intentions," 
> not their actual actions. Just imagine that world.<<<<
> 
> Laurasia:
> 
> To use your own example, the court of law is *all about* intentions
> rather than simply the act. Killing a human in self-defense and 
> killing a person in first-degree murder are two separate things, 
> although they are both the same act of taking a human's life. 
> People who show remorse are given different sentences 
> to those who don't. 
> 
> If you refuse to take the intention into account (and focus only on
> the action) then Harry should be given the death penalty because 
> he directly lead to Quirrel's death. The fact that he did it 
because 
> he was 2 seconds away from being killed himself, and was also 
> trying to save the lives of millions of other people who would be 
> destroyed if Voldemort got the Philosopher's Stone would 
> therefore be superfluous to the action (killing Quirrel) he
> undertook. 
> 
> If we ignore intent and focus only on actions, then Harry should 
have
> been expelled in OotP and had his wand snapped in half because 
> he did produce a Patronus. The intention that he was trying to 
save 
> his own and his cousin's lives would be beside the point
> 
> This is complete nonsense. Intent greatly changes the meaning of
> actions. This is why the criminal state of mind is so important in
> trials. 
> 
> A court of law where strives to uncover one sole truth and judge
> that. If JKR was aware that he book was conveying the theme 
> that magic exists even in the real world above the physical plane 
> (the topic which this discussion originally sprung from) then she 
> has control over it. If she is not aware of it, then it is just 
the 
> same as a snitch flying up your robes- still spectacular, still 
> enjoyable to watch, but no credit to the author. The theme still
> resonates with us, but the credit doesn't go to JKR for writing it 
in 
> there, it goes to *us* for reading it in there. 
> 
> I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author.
> 
> Very recently there were interpretations that Harry Potter is
> anti-French because many of the baddies have French names- 
> Voldemort, Malfoy, Lestrange. I don't think JKR meant for that to 
> happen, but there's no denying the three baddest people in the
>  books have French names. If you want to give JKR the credit 
> for all the themes which can be interpreted in her books (even 
> the ones she didn't intend) then why aren't you convinced she 
> really does discriminate against the French? Or are you?
> 
> Melete: 
> 
> >>>>I find this a very complex and strange idea. 
> Generally speaking as a literture student, its quite
> difficult to evaluate author's intentions without
> having the author to pick over yourself.<<<<
> 
> Laurasia:
> 
> Intentions change the work. Letting the finished work stand alone 
for
> the author completely removes all intent from it, (which, IMO, is 
why 
> so all classics are by dead authors). Making the author anonymous 
> means the work no longer has one truth to it which is either 
*right*
> or *wrong* according to the author's intent. It can mean a 
thousand 
> things to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of 
> what the author intended.
Snip!
> Caspen wrote:
> 
> >>>>>William 
> Shakespeare's "Hamlet" has been well-analysed in terms of Freud's 
> formulation of the Oedipus complex, although all of his work 
> precede's Freud's. Is it, therefore, an "accident" that Hamlet 
> resonates so well with this particular theory of Freud's? I don't 
> think so.<<<<< 
> 
> Laurasia:
> 
> Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had 
*control* 
> over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind 
of 
> relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered 
> a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet 
> was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet
> in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint 
the 
> relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which 
> was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an 
amazing 
> work, it's another to have control over it.
> 
> Caspen wrote:
> 
> >>>>>I think you've missed the irony: she 
> writes about these things (magical boy/magical world) not only 
> because they make a good story and provide ample opportunity for 
> whimsical fun, but also, because she has something to say about 
the 
> concept of a supernatural altogether. Otherwise,
> <snip>She wouldn't, for that matter have raised 
> the issue of whether and to what extent the supernatural exists in 
> the first chapters of her first book via Vernon Dursely,<<<<<
> 
> Laurasia:
> 
> I don't think JKR intended for the theme of 'magic as a real world 
> existence in the spiritual level' to be in Harry Potter like you 
do.
> I would believe it, if it weren't for the simple fact that Vernon
> Dursley actually does believe that magic exists. 
> 
> Magic has had real physical impacts on his sister and son and
> house... If Vernon continued to deny the belief of magic even 
> when he was confronted with all these things, I would agree 
> that you have a point. The problem I see is that he doesn't. 
Vernon 
> *knows* there is such a thing as magic and is afraid of it in a 
> very real physical sense.
> 
> I don't think I've missed the irony, I think you're inserting the
> irony in. That's just my opinion, but it's only your opinion that 
> I have missed the irony, so we're square.
Snip!

Hi Laurasia.

I'd hoped this whole issue had been put to rest on the strength of 
all of the other responses, all of which agree, in substance, with 
mine, but alas!

Your whole absurd assertion that JKR is not "brilliant" rests upon 
the very dubious assumption that you can discern JKR's 
ultimate "intentions," (read her mind, in other words) and the even 
more dubious notion that it is possible to judge the artist's 
quality separately from the quality of the artist's work. In fact, 
based upon these, your very shakey criteria, it appears that you 
would have us believe that nearly all great works of art have, in 
effect, been produced by idiots savant! 

Your position (and I mean this in the kindest way) is beyond 
ludicrous. You provide clear evidence of this in your "reasoning" 
about Shakespeare: 

> Laurasia:
 
"Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* 
over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind 
of relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered 
a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet 
was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet
in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the 
relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which 
was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing 
work, it's another to have control over it."

Had "control" over it? What, on earth does that mean? Is that 
supposed to be some kind of cogent distinction? Because if it is, I 
defy you to explain the following:

1. More people have read Shakespeare's Hamlet than have ever read 
Freud;

2. More people have read Shakespeare's plays and sonnets than have 
ever read Freud;

3. Finally, and FYI, Shakespeare did "replicate the success of 
Hamlet," not just in "another play," but in play after play, after 
play, and many sonnets - the fact that he didn't feel the need to re-
write Hamlet, notwithstanding! He mananged to hit collective nerve 
after nerve, after nerve (by chance, you would have us believe?)!

Hello! If that's not having "control" over one's work, than what is? 
And why would anyone value your "control" over the creative capacity 
to produce work of the quality of Shakespeare's for that matter?

I'll leave it to other respondents to explain to you why applying 
legal reasoning to literary analysis is completely inapposite, and 
to remind you that you, yourself, in a previous post stated 
that "the work stands alone." I'll leave it to others to re-explain 
to you why mathematical formulas are inapposite as well, and 
why "awareness" as you seem to define it is irrelevant to "choice = 
good author." I'll leave it to others to explain to you how it is 
possible for others (not being hung-up, as you are, on the whole 
assumption that they can discern intent) can see "a thousand things 
to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of what the 
author intended" even when they know the name of the author (imagine 
that!) and to point out to you that you're the only one here for 
whom "intention changes the work" (once again, in contradiction to 
your earlier statement that the work stands alone). And I won't 
bother re-explaining to you why discerning "irony" in a work has 
absolutely nothing to do with anyone's intentions, percieved or 
imagined in your crystal ball of author evaluation.

You clearly have little understanding of literary critcism as a 
subject, and I clearly have no more patience for explaining it to 
you.

Best wishes,

Caspen