Theory of theme & Author's Intent

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 111980

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" 
<sevenhundredandthirteen at y...> wrote:
> 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.
Snip!
> 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)>~

Ah Laurasia! Thank you, once again, for the interesting discussion, 
and also for the reading rec., but no, I won't "agree to disagree." 
Because your reasoning, and therefore, your "opinion" are clearly 
wrong.

Let me just say at the out-set, that I'm at a disadvantage re: 
checking whether the quote I attributed to Vernon is actually "movie 
contamination," having just packed and all of my HP books, except 
the last two, together with the rest of my library, because I am in 
the process of moving. Nevertheless, and having recently re-read the 
first four books of the series) I stand by my interpretation of this 
particular nuance of JKR's HP works, regarding anti-fundamentalism. 
JKR, herself, underlined the Dursley's dedication to their literal 
universe in the opening chapters of SS/PS in many different ways, 
regardless whether that "quote" is explicit in cannon or simply a 
movie summarization of VD's attitude. And, regardless what he 
actually believes, or what Petunia believes, they clearly chose and 
attempt to actively ignore any reality other than their own mudane, 
prosaic existence. One is eminently safe in assuming that VD share's 
Petunia's disdain for those who don't so chose as "freaks." That 
coupled with the fact that JKR, herself, then goes on to underline 
her disdain for the fortune-telling, astrology, etc. that 
comprise "popular magic" today, despite, or more acurately, in the 
face of the charms, transfigurations, potions, etc. of her own 
creation, the magical world of Hogwarts, support my "opinion."

therefore, mine is just "an opinion;" it's a reasonable opinion. 
Your "opinion" on the other hand, is unsupported and unreasonable. 
NB I have not claimed to have proved this theme "right." The notion 
that themes can be ... wrong, ... [or] right" is but the latest in 
your string of absurdities. IMO (and the experience of the rest of 
the educated fiction-reading world, for that matter, but why drag 
them into it?) most good literature has many themes, supported 
within the work, and not on the basis of the author's assumed, 
guessed, and/or divined "intentions." Your whole "case" rests on 
your notion of JKR's "intentions. Yet, you have not, despite the 
fact that this weakness in your "opinion" has been repeatedly 
pointed out to you, explained to us, how it is that you can claim to 
have such a definitive grasp of JKR'S intentions. Please, before 
this continues any further, do tell!

In addition, on the subject of "intentions" in general, you are 
still missing the point, somehow, despite the fact that you admit 
that your legal analogy is flawed. While I do "accept that 
intentions change the meanings of actions," to a limited extent, in 
a court of law, I do not accept that they change the meanings of a 
finnished work of art at all. The situations simply are not 
comparable: one's potentially a crime, having already effected 
negative consequences to others and carrying the potential of severe 
penalty; the other, at most, is a creation, of better or worse 
quality, effecting no one who doesn't chose to concern him/her-self 
with it. Therefore, it is not necessary, relevant, or even any of 
our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine the 
artist's/author's "intentions," let alone his/her flossing habits. 
If the author produces good creations, repeatedly, as in the case of 
Shakespeare, he/she is studied not primarily out of a concern for 
scouring his/her intentions to determine the exact amount of credit 
due him/her, but firstly out of genuine interest, by those of common 
sense, who assume, reasonably, that his/her capacty to produce such 
quality work is not mere coincidence. 

And on the subject of Shakespeare, your whole argument is based upon 
the presumption that Shakespeare is a lesser playwright because we 
have no proof that he could have continuously repeated the Oedipus 
theme in his works to demonstrate his "control" over the concept, 
because he did not chose to do so. This "argument" for lack of a 
better word, completely disregards of the fact that for him to 
chosen to do so would have been an absurd waste of time! Why need he 
invent the same wheel repeatedly? Contrary to your ridiculous 
hypothesis, hammering that single theme to death woud have detracted 
from his reputation, not enhanced it, precisely because it would 
have been the apogee of silliness to have done so! 

I studied my share of mediaeval art and aesthetics in college. I 
didn't study as much oriental art, though you haven't specified any 
period or style within that tradition here (and there are many). 
While I certainly enjoy some oriental art - particularly the 
Japanese - later periods, I'll freely admit that when it comes to 
Western art, I much prefer the Renaissance or any later (or earlier, 
for that matter) period to the mediaeval. If the endless predictable 
repetition of the mediaeval and "oriental" (presuming you mean 
oriental comparable to the Western mediaeval period) styles gives 
you comfort, then enjoy yourself with mindless, low-grade fantasy 
fiction, or whatever it is you usually read, but leave JKR and your 
unreasonable and irrational scrutiny and judgments, and 
yes, "opinions" out of it! All opinions are not equal. JKR doesn't 
belong to those traditions, and  neither they, nor you have any 
claim on her.

Caspen