Theory of theme & Opinions

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 112005

Caspen's opinion is:
>your reasoning, and therefore, your "opinion" are clearly
wrong.<

Caspen also has the opinion:
>leave JKR and your unreasonable and irrational scrutiny 
and judgments, and yes, "opinions" out of it! <

Caspen's opinion is that:
>All opinions are not equal.<

Caspen also has the opinion:
>therefore, mine is just "an opinion;" it's a reasonable opinion.
Your "opinion" on the other hand, is unsupported and 
unreasonable.<

Laurasia's opinion is:

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I think all opinions 
*are* equal. The reason why I am continuing this debate 
is simply because I value your opinion even thought it is 
different to my own. My opinion is that we are all entitled 
to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's unfair to exclude 
anyone of the right to have one. Hopefully, you joined 
HPfGU because you value other people's opinions.

Caspen's opinion:
 >>>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."<<<

Laurasia's opinion:

If you had never heard a JKR interview, how would you 
know this? How would you know she wasn't a white 
witch who divined her crystal ball every afternoon? The 
books *by themselves* celebrate the occult. After all, the 
whole aim of Harry's existence at the boring Dursleys is 
to escape. He finds out he is a wizard, and that means he 
is suddenly a more powerful and interesting person. 
Knowing that JKR is *not* a witch, but yet has written 
a book about it
 Well, it suggests her intent was to be 
ironic. But, wait, we've just hit a dirty word there, 
haven't we?

Listen to you own opinion:
>Yet, you have not, <snip> explained to us, how it is that you can 
claim to
have such a definitive grasp of JKR'S intentions. <

Laurasia's opinion:

How have *you* got such a definite grasp on JKR's 
intentions? I know what you've done- you've got legitimate 
reasons to grasp JKR's intention- you've used facts from 
canon and background information. This is *exactly the 
same* as my reasoning. 

My opinion that JKR makes magic exist only in the 
physical plane is supported by her choice to make the 
Dursleys fearful of magic in a real and physical sense. It is 
supported by the canon fact that Vernon is so convinced 
there are magic explanations about that he dares to bring 
up the Potters with Petunia after pretending they haven't 
existed for years. It is supported by the fact that Vernon 
doesn't say `There's no such thing as magic' but
shoves Harry into his cupboard with `Go - cupboard 
-stay - no meals.' When Hagrid tells Harry he is a 
wizard, Vernon doesn't say `No he's not! Magic 
doesn't exist!' he says `swore we'd stamp it out 
of him!' This suggests that Vernon considers magic 
real, unpleasant and dangerous.

Caspen's opinion is that:
>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.<

Laurasia's opinion is that:

This means your irony/metaphor theory has just gone right out
the window. It relies on knowing that JKR holds disdain for 
the real world-occult, yet has written a book about it. Which 
means she must have done so with the *intent* to be ironic. 
By your own reasoning- it is not necessary relevant or any 
of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine 
whether JKR has an intent to be ironic or literal.

I don't agree with this. I think it's perfectly legitimate to 
attempt to uncover pieces of JKR's intent to understand 
what she wanted to achieve as an author and whether she 
has. After all, as I have said right from the offset- I *like* 
the theory that magic exists in a spiritual plane, I like the 
theory that *love* exists in a spiritual plane, and because 
love is an ancient and powerful form of magic in HP, 
these two themes are really connected.

Caspen wrote:
>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. <

Laurasia:

It was just an analogy designed to illustrate how intentions 
changes the meaning of actions. It was just an analogy 
designed to illustrate that different intentions change the 
meaning of the same action. That was all it was.

Caspen wrote:
>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.<

Laurasia: 

What is your opinion of Jackson Pollock's work? 
Without any intentions his painting are just paint spilled 
on canvas and nothing more- a 6 month old child 
could spill paint on a canvas. Yet, if they have his 
name (and hence, were created with his prolific
intent) on them they sell for millions of dollars. 
Whilst  many people might consider Jackson Pollock 
just a man who spilt paint on canvases, the art world 
and many others don't. Many people consider that 
Jackson Pollock enthusiasts are just being 
`unreasonable,' but that doesn't stop them from
having a valid opinion which is shared by countless 
others.

My own opinion is that Jackson Pollock, whilst a 
prolific and amazing man, only produced mediocre 
work. My distinction between artist and artwork is 
again coming into this. If we do not separate artist 
from work then either Pollock's work is just as 
prolific as he was (maybe I should spill some paint 
on a canvas and sell it for millions of dollars), or 
Pollock himself was only worth as much as a few 
tins of paint. BTW, this wasn't a rhetorical 
question- I would like to know what your 
opinion of artists like Pollock is.

I'm sure this debate is not over, and I am counting 
on you to reply because I am interested in your opinion.

~<(Laurasia)>~