The Nature of Magic and Author's Intention (was: Magic and the Dursleys)

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 112671

Carol wrote:

> 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.


Laurasia:

Yes. I agree. I like the idea of magic existing on a spiritual 
plane. But not *all* magic. 

Most magic is about learning spells by number- the right wand 
movement, the right pronunciation, the right number of times to stir 
your potion in an anti-clockwise direction, etc. Magic could be seen 
as a purely physical force- it creates light, it creates heat, it 
create sounds. The weaker at apparating you are (we assume) the 
less POP! the more CRACK! which suggests that magic is about moving 
matter in space and time. 

Two opposing spells can bounce off each other. There are great 
theories about the electro-magnetic spectrum of magic and how wands 
are tuned to these different numerical ranges; and how spells of 
opposing value get attracted to one another like negative and 
positive charges; how spells can be added together like at the end 
of GoF. And even a really great theory about how Priori Incantatem 
can be explained scientifically using the scientific idea of 
opposites attract and alike repels.

It would seem that magic, in general, is just a matter of scientific 
accuracy.

However, the Department of Mysteries is the most perfect example 
of how some magic exists on a spiritual plane, which is something 
I alluded to earlier with the concept of Love as a spiritual form of 
magic. The whole Dep. of Myst. is apparently devoted to magic 
which is beyond logic and reason. And the fact that the Love 
Door is kept locked at all times suggests that it is the ultimate 
spiritual force which Wizards don't even want to begin to find 
an explanation for. 

The Veil, Time, etc are all being investigated which suggest that 
the wizarding population *wants* a nice physical, logical 
explanation for these types of magic. This is why I think the 
overriding theme of Harry Potter is about the nature of Love. 
We don't have Veils and ghosts in our real world, but we 
certainly have Love. And I think JKR wants to suggest that 
even Muggles share this very ancient form of magic.

And, IMO, the fact that fact-obsessed Hermione is even 
interested in the idea of prophesy (at the end of OotP in the 
Hospital Wing) suggests that even the most logical interpretation 
of magic is lacking. I don't think it's any coincidence that we 
meet Luna Lovegood in OotP when the purely scientific idea 
of magic is specifically questioned by the Department of 
Mysteries. Even though we see ordinary, mundane magic 
as a physical force, there are certainly incomprehensible 
magical forces at play.

Carol wrote:

> 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. 

Laurasia:

Yes. I was trying to prove my point by making an illogical 
statement (How illogical does that sound?). I was trying to 
say 'Hey, JKR shows how magic exists on a physical plane. 
Does this mean JKR is a witch? Does this mean she is 
anti-magic and being ironic? Or does it mean she just thinks 
it's fun?' 

I think JKR thinks magic is fun. And the complete whimsy 
of a lot of JKR's magic certainly suggest it. If magic wasn't 
meant to be fun, then why is Uric the Oddball doing as the 
Wizard of the Month with a jellyfish of his head? What have 
Janus Thickey fake his own death by Lethifold? Why make 
vomit flavoured sweets? I think JKR, not intentionally being 
ironic (IMO) and certainly not being literally a magician, is 
more or less showing that most of the time magic is just an 
everyday commodity and it's funny.

I was trying to point out that there are more than two options. 
It is not so clear cut as 'JKR thinks she is a witch' or 'JKR 
hates magic and purposely wrote a book about it to ironically 
show it.' 

Carol wrote:

> 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.

Laurasia:

Yeah. I was just frustrated that my opinion was being labelled 
wrong, even though I actually had canon support for it, merely 
because it was an opinion. I was also frustrated that my opinions 
on *how* to approach reading a book were dismissed, even 
though they go back hundreds and thousands of years and I 
certainly didn't invent them. 

I also feel that there can never be 'one true, sole' interpretation 
of any book. And that immediately saying that 'not all opinions are 
equal' makes it sound like JKR's is the only perfect opinion. Whilst 
JKR certainly has the best idea of what's going on, she doesn't 
always cover everything. For example: JKR meant for Lupin's 
lycanthropy to represent disabilities in general. But the very s
pecific interpretation of Lupin representing AIDS and 
homosexuality is, IMO, actually better. If JKR was a god, we 
would have to disregard this opinion because she's never said it. 
That's why I dislike making a 'hierarchy of opinions.'

So, yes, opinions without justification are weaker than those with 
justification. I was just responding in the microcosm of one debate 
where both opposing opinions had fair justification. And I 
conceded that the idea of whether magic is physical or spiritual 
will never be fully resolved (in my agree to disagree post) because 
of this reason. I like the idea of magic existing on a spiritual 
level.

Carol wrote:

>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).<

Laurasia:

Oh, I didn't mean any such thing. I meant to focus only on the 
words of the page so that there *wouldn't be* one interpretation 
of the work. Focusing solely on the words on the page means 
that the author's one true interpretation isn't alone but
every individual reader's interpretation is valid. What *you* can 
bring to the work far outweighs what the author intended. 

Carol wrote:

>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. <

Laurasia:

Very true. The Greeks believed in the notion of an anonymous 
artist. They believed that the author should be anonymous for 
the sake of the work. That way the work itself was about 
universal truths, rather than a specific person's truth. By 
refusing to credit themselves with the work it automatically 
removes the issue of sub-conscious versus conscious creation. 
Ignore the author entirely and it doesn't matter whether things 
are conscious or sub-conscious. But if we were to specifically 
evaluate a non-anonymous author who puts her own name on 
her work and answer questions about it... A different story. 

Should JKR/any author get credit for things they didn't mean 
to happen but did? I say no. And I say the credit goes to the 
reader who interpret things that way. Go to Elkin's site.
http://elkins.theennead.com/hp/ Does JKR get credit for all of that 
great stuff? 
I say Elkins does.

Carol wrote:

>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. <

Laurasia:

Yes. That's why I dislike focusing on intention and ignoring it. 
Why should speculation on Draco be closed off by JKR saying 
he is simply nasty? So many people (like fan-fic writers) want 
to see him as a 3 dimensional character with a few virtues 
hidden in there. Why say that Lily is simply 2 dimensionally 
good when we all want to see that she is 3D and part evil? 
These are the times when the author's intent actually changes 
the work for worse. Author's intent immediately distances 
readers. This is why I agree with the idea of making author's 
intent only the same as any reader's. Because I think 
Slytherin!Lily is far more interesting than Pure!Lily. 

~<(Laurasia)>~