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

[zendemort]

No: HPFGUIDX 111832

> Laurasia:
> 
> That's my point exactly, Zendemort. I think that awareness of 
action
> is intrinsic to taking value of that action as a creator. If you 
are
> aware of what your actions mean you are aware of other 
> alternatives, you can weigh the pros and cons, you realise that 
> you have a *choice* to do something or not. You are not blind. 

Zendemort Pipes in:

Just because you are not conciously "aware" does not make 
you "blind." 
So you are saying that we should take into consideration 
the "awareness" of the author when evaluating his/her value?? This, 
I completely disagree. I can give you many examples where the 
creator might not be conciously aware, but the genie of the creation 
is still valid, and thus must be attributed to the creator. In 
physics, this is completely true, as well as mathematics and 
chemistry. A physicist might be able to solve an equation or anomaly 
intuitively, but might not yet be "aware" of the direct 
implications. This does not mean that her/his work should be 
discredited. 
However, this is not physics or math. This is art, something FAR 
more intuitive! and where the genie often lies in intuition (what 
sounds right, what looks right, what feels right)!
But, I believe that JKR is actually becoming more and more aware of 
what she has created as she writes. Thus, as we go up in the series, 
the books' significance increases. And yes, you have a "choice" to 
do something, but sometimes, even if you are choosing on intuition, 
the product you create is still from the choices you make and the 
decision you made them with, even if this is more "intuitive" 
than "reasoning" (as I have said earlier, intuition and reasoning 
come from the same source). 


> Laurasia:
> To use a great HP example- The fastest snitch capture ever was by
> Roderick Plumpton in something like 3 seconds.  However, the 
> snitch flew up the sleeve of his Quidditch robes without him even 
> realising it. Of course, he claims to have meant it all along, but 
we
> all realise he was not aware that it happened, therefore, whilst 
> capturing the snitch in 3 seconds is still spectacular, none of 
the 
> credit really goes to Plumpton. 

Zendemort:
What does this have anything to do with creation and creating????
TO follow your example, Harry moves to the left of the field (not 
because he saw anything, but something inside him told him to go 
there). All of the sudden, right in front of his eyes is the snitch, 
and he makes the grap, winning for Gryffindor. He is still going to 
get all the credit for catching the snitch eventhough he was guided 
by his intuition most of the time. 

> Laurasia:
> If, unlike me, you refuse to separate the intent from the act, then
> it follows logically that you must actually consider a snitch 
flying 
> up your sleeve a great display of the talent of Quidditch. 
> If you are aware, you understand WHY something is good (not simply
> that it is) and then you have control over it. 

Zendemort: 
Again, this is completely different from catching a snitch. JKR 
isn't sitting at a cafe sipping some beverage while watching her pen 
write across the paper. The snitch acts on its own, JKR's pen does 
not. JKR must write the words, and come up with the story. Very 
different from having a snitch just appear in your sleave. The 
snitch comparison correctly would be more along the lines of JKR 
finding the story in a dumpster and deciding to publish it.

> 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. 

Zendemort: 

I believe you did not understand my point. Yes, law takes into 
consideration the intentions, but it also takes into consideration 
the actions. If I get up in the middle of the night, stab my partner 
in the back, but in court say I didn't mean too, I just intuitively 
felt that it was the right thing to do. I didn't actually think 
through my actions. I still killed the person!!!!! My sentence might 
not be as harsh if I can prove that it was not premeditative, but I 
still committed a murder, and I will still be responsible for my 
actions (of course not if I was insane, but that's another 
arguement). Anyway, the law comparison is shifty since most legal 
matters are complex and situational. But this is not law, it's 
art!!!! ALL I was trying to say is that imagine if law was NOT based 
WHAT SO EVER on the actions BUT ONLY on the EXPLICIT intent, the 
intent the person claims to have and no other intent that might be 
lurking in the back of that person's mind. 

> Laurasia: 
> I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author.


Zendemort:
Awareness does not equal choice. They are two separate things. 
Physicist/Mathematicians often love equations because of elegance 
and the fact that it "intuitively" feels right. Often, these 
equations turn out to be true, turn out to explain something. 
Thus, choice does not equal awareness. This is like thinking in 
black and white terms. 

> Laurasia:
> 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?

Zendemort:
Umm... These interpretations fail to consider that there 
are "goodies" who don't just have French names, but are French... 
Who is French that is bad? Fleurdelacour? Maxime? Last time I 
checked, all the French people that I have seen in HP have been on 
the "good" side. This argument is rather ridiculous. If there was a 
consistent use of French people for bad guys, I would say it was her 
intent. But there is not, obviously. So, she does NOT discriminate 
against the French. Although, she shows the French having certain 
characteristics (think Fleurdelacour) which I believe is exactly how 
she intended to portray the French.