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

[Nora Renka]

No: HPFGUIDX 112676

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" 
<sevenhundredandthirteen at y...> wrote:

> 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. 

Perhaps that last is a bad example because we've been told, on a 
purely factual and objective basis, no interpretation involved, that 
Slytherin!Lily isn't true--and my mindset on such things is that 
there's no point in speculating on issues of simple fact when they've 
been shot down.  No, it's not in the book texts (or canon, if you 
will) yet that Lily was a Gryffindor--but it's pretty sure that it 
will be. 

Speculation is great and fine and good, and every reader does it, but 
it's a carefully delineated sport for the conscientious reader, and 
something a little distasteful to the analyst.  That kind of 
speculation and elaboration really stands outside the realm of 
analysis, but has its place in interpretation--except, of course, 
that a supportable interpretation has to also be based on a well-done 
analysis.  For example, if you want to interpret a character as 
representing, for example, the failure of the will, you have to be 
able to provide situations that illustrate that.  While it may be fun 
to speculate on the sensitive Draco who is full of contradictions, 
the more analytically sound conclusion is that Draco is, well, pretty 
shallow. :)

There's nothing wrong with picturing Lily as a three-dimensional 
character, but there's something wrong with doing so in a way that 
directly contradicts the text.  Otherwise we get a literary free-for-
all, and despite what the (now largely discredited--I talk to my 
friends in English) deconstructionists were telling us, not all 
interpretations are equally valid.  Evidentiary standards matter.

So every reader is, at present time in this WiP, free to interpret 
and predict as he or she wishes.  Those avenues will objectively 
start to close off as we get more information, because new canon 
always forces re-reading and re-examination of old canon.

I freely admit my biases here.  I'm interested in analysis, and I'm 
interested in hermeneutics that I can provide a good foundation for.  
Criticism is profoundly uninteresting at present, because it's far 
too dependent upon the critic.  I want more information to plug the 
simple holes of fact, before going on to bigger and better things.  
In my experiences, labeling a book with the primary adjective 
of 'interesting' is a kiss-of-death; it generally means "Sure, it's 
fun, but the methodology is wacked and you won't get anything really 
useable out of it".  I fear that most all of our speculations will 
fall into that category eventually--such is the profound danger of 
the work-in-progress.

-Nora still reads the New Critics, but notes they really didn't read 
for context, as all good classicists learn to do