Magic and the Dursleys (Was) Theory of theme & Opinions

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 112548

Laurasia wrote:
 
> 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.
<snip>
> 
> This means your [Caspen's] 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.

Carol:
I hope I'm not making a mistake by stepping into your debate with
Caspen. Certainly, not being as patient and tolerant as you clearly
are, I won't answer any responses to my view that label them as
absurd. Calling an argument absurd does not refute it, and I would
never do that. (If I think an argument is absurd, I may privately roll
up my eyes, but I would not attempt to answer it.) That said, I want
to respond to a few of your points without attacking them. Instead,
I'll give reasons why I agree or disagree and try to support them with
logic and evidence.

To begin with, I disagree (politely and civilly) with your view that
all opinions are equal. Suppose I said that Dumbledore and Dursley are
clearly the same person because their names both begin with "D"? That
opinion *would* be absurd, however uncivil it would be to label it so.
An opinion, to be worthy of debate, must be based on inductive or
deductive reasoning (not emotions or personal preference or "how it
looks to me") and must be supportable with evidence that others will
accept as valid. Not all opinions can meet these criteria, so not all
opinions are equal.

I certainly agree that Vernon Dursley is aware of the existence of
magic and fears it. In fact, it would be difficult to argue with that
assertion, which I'm tempted to call "fact" (or, rather, "canon"). We
see that awareness and the accompanying fear from the moment he sees
(and immediately denies seeing) a cat reading a map. We also see it in
his refusal to allow Harry to use the "M" word and his growing fear of
Harry as the books progress. Even in SS/PS he knows that Harry was
somehow responsible for the vanishing glass in the snake's cage and he
personally witnesses Hagrid giving his son a pig's tail. He tries to
keep Harry from going to Hogwarts. There is no question that Vernon
Dursley knows that magic exists and considers it dangerous. 

Your inference that magic exists in HP on a physical plane, and that
even some Muggles are aware of it, follows logically and inevitably
from this evidence (which can be applied to the whole Dursley family
and other Muggles who are less afraid of it, as well). But you could
also argue that magic exists on a *spiritual* plane in the WW (though
not necessarily in the world of Vernon Dursley!). The veil, the
(apparently) true prophecies bottled by the MoM, the very existence of
a Department of Mysteries that studies such intangibles as death and
time, and even the existence of ghosts would appear to support this
view. The fact that magic in the HP books exists on a physical plane
perceivable by Muggles does not exclude the possibility that it *also*
exists on a spiritual one only partially understood even by wizards
themselves, any more than the existence of body necessarily precludes
the existence of spirit in the WW or the world as we know it.

To argue (as you appear to be doing) that because Vernon Dursley is
aware of magic on a physical plane, JKR herself must somehow believe
in "the real-world occult," is also not logical. The beliefs and
values of a character, particularly one as unpleasant as Vernon
Dursley, don't necessarily reflect those of the author who created
him. Nor does the world of JKR's imagination exactly reflect her
perception of the day-to-day world in which she writes them, in which
floating puddings and pig's tails on fat boys' bottoms are likely to
be computer-generated special effects and most unlikely to be caused
by magic or the supernatural. IOW, just because magic exists as a
"fact" in her books does not mean that she believes in the occult or
any kind of magic in real life. (In fact, she has said in interviews
that she doesn't.)

Even if it turns out that the practical-minded Hermione and McGonagall
are wrong to dismiss Trelawney's attempts at divination as fraud
(after all, Trelawney did see a black dog that was probably Sirius in
her crystal ball even though she misinterpreted it as a Grim), we
can't translate what happens in the WW to what JKR believes about the
RW. (I personally think Trelawney is a spoof of British New Agers who
believe in the occult and actually have "universities" that teach
students how to read tea leaves, but I can't prove that and don't see
the point of trying.)

I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to the larger question of
author's intention, which is extremely complex and has never been
satisfactorily resolved, but you might recall that the Greeks who
wrote the epics and the tragedies that we still read 2,500 years later
did not credit themselves with creating those works. They believed
that they were divinely "inspired" (they *breathed in* and were
exalted by the spirit of the Muse, transcribing her words rather than
inventing their own). Although we reject such a supernatural
explanation today, we're still not exactly sure how the creative
process works. I would be inclined to say that much of it is
unconscious--it comes from parts of our minds that we normally can't
access and can't consciously control. The process of revision, in
contrast, is almost wholly conscious and deliberate. To try to
determine which elements of a literary work are conscious and which
are unconscious is probably futile and will not, IMO, help us to
determine either a book's worth or that of its author. More important,
it won't help us to determine its meaning, which is partly dependent
on the text, with all its intended and unintended meanings, and partly
on what Tolkien called "applicability"--the freedom of the reader to
interpret the text in relation to his own experience and training
(without reading into it what isn't there--say, a reading of Sirius's
relationship with his dead mother as an Oedipus complex or a heroic
quest).

If the author solely determines the meaning and all that matters is
the words on the page, why are we here discussing the books? Read them
 once and forget about them. There's only one meaning that's obvious
to everyone (clearly not the case). OTOH, if the text itself doesn't
matter and every opinion is as good as every other opinion, why
attempt to present a plausible explanation of some less than obvious
aspect of the books, much less support it with canon? Just state your
view and be done with it. If that's the case, I can say that Snape is
a Christ figure and no one can prove me wrong (or at least show my
argument to be faulty) because it's mine and I wants it to be true.
Erm, I mean, because it's just as good as an argument that Snape is
genuinely loyal to Dumbledore even though there isn't an iota of
evidence to support it. Clearly the author's words and the reader's
interpretation are both important, but the interpretation must be
based upon the words or it's not interpretation but the product of the
reader's imagination.

I do think that an author's intention can sometimes be inferred from
the text (for example, we can infer that JKR has fairly liberal
political views from the house-elf and pureblood segments), but as
readers we're free to agree or disagree about the applicability or
relevance of these inferences (if we acknowledge their validity) to
our own interpretations of the work. (If the reader happens to be a
conservative who disagrees with JKR's apparent views, does that
authomatically make his or her interpretations of the house-elf or
pureblood segments wrong? I would hope not.) We can also apply the
author's *stated* intentions (interviews, website, etc.) to our
interpretations of the books. But if we disagree with her statements
and/or implications (e.g., that Dumbledore is "the epitome of
goodness" or that Gryffindor is better than the other houses), does
that make our interpretations wrong? It may mean, instead, that JKR
has not succeeded in transferring her intentions from her mind to her
book and so failed to convince us that Dumbledore is a saint or that
all Slytherins are inferior to Gryffindors. So are the books inferior
or inadequate if she failed to make the readers see the characters as
she wants us to? I think otherwise. The books, in this instance, are
greater than the author, talented though she undoubtedly is. They have
taken on a life of their own far beyond any intentions of the maker
(sorry--LOTR on the brain). Snape in particular is a marvelous
creation and will continue to provoke debate long after JKR has given
us what she considers to be the last word on him. Or so I hope.

Carol, who certainly didn't mean to write such a long post, but it
escaped her conscious control, and who apologizes if she misunderstood
laurasia's arguments