Theory of theme & Author's Intent

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 111958

The Agree to Disagree Post.

Debate Topic One:
Does HP suggest that magic exists in the real world on a spiritual
level?

Here are two options which have been raised in the course of
discussion:

A) Yes. Caspen wrote: (111400) >"I think the overall theme of the 
books will be that contrary to Vernon Dursley's pronouncement 
in Book 1 that "There's no such thing as magic," "magic" does, 
in fact, exist in JKR'S view - but (this is JKR'S raelly brilliant 
point) only on a spiritual, as opposed to physical, plane."< 
This means that magic is used as a cunning metaphor in the HP 
series.

B) No. Because Dursley actually believes that there is such thing 
as magic in a very real and physical sense. He is not in denial 
about magic- he sees its physical effects of his family and house. 
Also, the actual line (which is the most direct and explicit support 
of this theme) `There's no such thing as magic' is movie 
contamination. Canon!Dursley never says it. He never says 
anything even similar to it. On the contrary, he is so convinced 
that there is magical explanation underfoot that he dares to 
mention his sister-in-law to his wife. This contradicts the theme, 
which suggest that if the theme can be seen in HP it must not have 
been intended by JKR.

Conclusion? Both are just opinions, make up your own mind. You 
can believe in a theory without believing JKR intended for it to be 
there, which leads onto the next debate point...

Debate Topic Two:
Can we give writing credit to JKR for themes which can be read into 
her books but which she is not aware of?

Here are two options which have been raised in the course of
discussion:

A) Yes, of course. If it can be seen in her books, then JKR, as 
author, is the one who deserves the credit for it. Even if she
isn't consciously aware of it, she may be subconsciously aware of 
it. 
Therefore, she is an intuitive and observant person and deserves 
credit for everything which can be read into her work.
Disadvantage: Every theory or theme (both good and bad) must 
be included. Even ones like HP is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic.
If you can choose which themes to include and which ones not to, 
then you aren't fully giving JKR credit for things she didn't 
consciously intend.

B) No. The reader deserves the credit for bringing their own 
experiences to the work and responding to it. If there are themes 
which the reader's see, but JKR isn't aware of, the reader
gets the credit for reading them in.
Disadvantage: This invariably makes JKR seem less important.

Conclusion? It's just an opinion again as to which you believe. 
Of course, the question of how do we know which things JKR 
intended and can give her full credit for leads onto the next 
point...

Debate Topic Three:
What are JKR's intentions and what themes is she aware of?

Here are two options which have been raised in the course of
discussion:

A) We can never know, so we should give her the benefit of the 
doubt and say that she is as well-read, experienced and 
knowledgeable as we need. Assumes that she is aware of 
everything.
Disadvantage: Means that no themes can be disproved or 
eliminated even if canon appears to contradict them. JKR is 
sole creator and anything she does must be intentional- it 
suggests that JKR is infallible and that there can be no mistakes 
(which is probably a little unrealistic).

B) We can never know, but if canon or background information 
contradicts an alleged intention, it proves she mustn't be aware 
of it. 
Disadvantage: It means that themes can only be proved wrong, 
never proved right.

Conclusion? Make up your own mind. I think we all accept that 
intentions change the meanings of actions. This raises the 
question- how can be make sure we are getting the right meaning 
across every issue? Should we know as much as possible about 
the author, or ignore them entirely so that nothing is tainted? This 
leads onto the next point...

Debate Topic Four:
What is the best way to understand texts?

Here are two options which have been raised in the course of
discussion:

A) Using the principles of literary criticism. You can never 
separate author from work, so you can study the author to 
understand better the creation. In other words- the work and the 
author are the same thing. Good works can only be illustrative of 
good authors.
Disadvantage: You get a better understanding of context, but it 
also limits view to the author's sole voice. Whilst they are the 
work's creator, they are certainly not omniscient in the real world. 

B) By using the tradition of the Anonymous Artist. By treating the 
work as though by an anonymous author (ignoring any context) 
there is nothing to prop up the work except its content. Fame, 
marketing, publicity, scandal, controversy, social context, etc. 
are all taken out of the equation and the work is examined for 
universal and timeless truths, rather than simply the author's 
truth or narrow themes pertinent to one social situation. 
Disadvantage: The author's intentions are degraded to being the 
same value as any reader's.

Conclusion? Both opinions. Neither is right. 
We all have different opinions.

As a note: I am not trying to say that any of these theories are 
right (though I will accept that I can not be impartial). Neither am 
I trying to say that every single person who replied to me 
disagrees with me on every point or that I accurately portrayed 
their opinion. If you feel you have another opinion, please reply 
so that this debate can be more resolved. Neither am I trying to 
say that you cannot believe in both or parts of both options at the 
same time. That would be being much wiser than me. I am trying 
to reach a conclusion where we can all accept that this all, 
ultimately, comes down to opinion and that in all probability, 
none of us will ever be convinced to change their opinions. Every 
alternative offers has some advantages and some disadvantages 
to it.

Alla wrote: (111860)
>Yes, the work of art at some point acquires the life of its own.
Surely, many of us are reading in Harry Potter many significantly
different things from what JKR wanted us to read.

Why should it counts against JKR, if we dissect a richer meanings
from the books, something that she may not be consciously aware 
of, when she just started?<

Laurasia:

And why shouldn't *we* get the credit for the richer meanings we 
uncover? I am pro-reader and anti-JKR as god. I give credit to 
readers for wild and wacky theories and am harsh (probably too 
harsh) on JKR. I think the widespread nature of  Fanfic and the 
ubiquity of The Mary-Sue show that people like to read their own 
versions of HP, rather than limit themselves exclusively to 
JKR's point of view. I think that the more we are allowed to 
see ourselves in a work, the more we enjoy it.
 
That's the reason why I don't think JKR deserves the credit- 
because I think *we* deserve the credit. (Maybe my own 
self-importance is coming into this... *grins*) I think that JKR 
deserves full credit for her part in the work- like you said, the 
starting point. I think from then on we should start crediting each 
individual reader for bringing their own life-experience and unique 
point-of-view to the work and dissecting their own meanings.

Zendemort wrote: (111859)
>Oh, and we don't need "archetypes," that is another ridiculous
concept by an archaic psychologist. <

Laurasia:

IMO,  we do need them. Carl Jung is the source, if you want to 
know the facts rather than my badly filtered version of them. 
Joseph Campbell also talks about archetypes in his book 
`Hero With A Thousand Faces' which is well worth the read. 
I don't think Freud was an archaic psychologist.

Zendmort: (111832)
>What does this have anything to do with creation and creating????<

Laurasia:

It was just an analogy designed to illustrate the way that intent 
greatly changes the meaning of actions.

Zendemort: (11859)
>"Surface details" are what make art.<

Laurasia:

Details certainly make all the difference. But, to me, the 
underlying story is what is the most important because it is 
what I can respond to on an emotional level.

Caspen wrote: (111790)
>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!<

Laurasia:

*Smiles* Yes, never underestimate the power on An Opinion 
Other Than One's Own. Especially when wielded by an 
argumentative person like me.
To quote Oscar Wilde: When people agree with me I always
feel that I must be wrong. 

Caspen: (111790)

>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!<

Laurasia:

Yes. I was rasing a point about the specific relationship between 
Hamlet and his mother.

Caspen: (111790)
>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." <

Laurasia:

Yes, the `legal reasoning' was just an analogy used to
illustrate that intent greatly changes the meaning of actions, not a 
practical example of literary analysis. And for the most important 
point- I do believe the work should stand alone, even though I've 
been rabbiting on about JKR's intentions which, it might seem, if
I was consistent I should have ignored entirely. 

It's because we've really been discussing two things at the 
same time. How to evaluate a book, and how to evaluate an 
author. I think they're separate things. I would assume that 
you think they are the same thing and that if a book is good the 
author is good. I hold the opinion that we should judge JKR 
completely on her intentions and ignore her work
 *tongue 
only very slightly in cheek*. That would be the way to go about it- 
evaluate JKR solely on what she meant to do, disregarding what 
anyone else likes to read in. 

But we have debated long enough. And they exact same points 
would most likely be raised. And this post was meant to be the 
`agree to disagree' post. So I guess you might have to be
patient and accept that my opinion is just my opinion.

Caspen wrote: (111790)
>You clearly have little understanding of literary critcism as a
subject, and I clearly have no more patience for explaining it to
you.<

Laurasia:

I wasn't trying to be a literary critic. I was trying to be an 
`everything in the world' critic. I didn't make up any of
the Anonymous Artist reasoning  myself. It's all ancient 
philosophy which can be applied to any creation- artwork, 
book, architecture, even chairs or pencils. It can be used to 
evaluate whether anything in the entire world which has been 
designed is worthy of being called `great.'

The Anonymous Artist is as old as human-kind. It was highly 
revered as an ideal by all traditional societies because of the 
nature of these societies. All were concerned primarily with 
preparing for life beyond this one. All traditions teach the 
importance of seeking freedom from self as an ideal. The 
artwork (book, architecture, whatever) stands by itself and 
the artist is known only by the traces of his/her hand which 
are inside of it. It follows that evaluating other artworks 
should follow the same principles as creation. That is, ignore 
the individual creator for the sake of the work.

I thought you might know a bit about this already because 
it is very related to the Spiritual Plane. It's a belief common 
in cultures who accept the existence of the spiritual plane 
of existence which Western Society ignores (amazing that 
that was what we originally started talking about, and this 
is where we ended up!).

If you want to know more about it, a good summary of it 
would be in A.K.Coomaraswamy's "The Philosophy of 
Mediaeval and Oriental Art", an essay included in Vol. 1, 
"Selected Papers: Traditional Art and Symbolism" (pp.43-70) 
of the three volume set called "Coomaraswamy" edited by 
Roger Lipsey (Bollingen Series, Princeton Uni Press, New 
Jersey, 1977).

~<(Laurasia)>~