Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 156145

Carol earlier:
> > Although I respect your feelings here, I can't agree that there's
> such
> > a thing as "emotional analysis." Analysis is a purely intellectual
> > exercise and emotions get in the way of it (just as they get in the
> > way of Occlumency for Harry). I realize that none of us can
> completely
> > set aside our feelings about a particular character (unless it's
> > someone we don't care one way or the other about like, say, Rufus
> > Scrimgeour), but I think it's important to at least make the effort
> to
> > examine the canon evidence objectively.
> 
> Alla responded:
> 
> I disagree completely. I don't think that analysis of the fictional
> story if done with the emotions not **turned off** completely means
> that objectivity is lost.
> 
Carol again: 
Oh, dear. I'm afraid I'll have to resort to dictionary definitions again.

The primary definition of "analysis" in Merriam-webster Onlineis
"separation of a whole into its component parts." In literary
analysis, we look at the component parts of a work a literary work to
figure out its meaning or significance. I.e., we use inductive
reasoning, drawing inferences about the whole work based on its
component parts, or about a character from specific scenes in which he
appears. (In theory, we then reverse the process and support our
conclusions, our generalizations, with deductive reasoning, that is,
backing them up with specific canon evidence). These are intellectual
processes, in theory (if not in fact) divorced from emotions and
preferences. (Now, granted, we try to support the conclusions we've
arrived at using canon evidence favorable to those conclusions, but
other readers will know that we've cheated if we ignore evidence to
the contrary, and they will not be persuaded by our emotions.)

As for objectivity, it's antithetical to emotional reactions:
"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without
distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"
(Merriam-Webster Online, definition 3. For the others, go to
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/objectivity ) Granted, we can't be
completely objective, or we couldn't interpret the text at all, but we
can at least *try* not to let our emotions distort our perceptions.
Otherwise, we're going to have a difficult time persuading anyone to
agree with us, or even to take our arguments seriously.

I could argue, for example, that Sirius Black is just a jerk and
nobody should care that he died because he was a bad influence on
Harry, but I'm defeated before I start because so many people like
black as a character and because I'm obviously not looking at him
fairly and objectively. If, in contrast, I argue that he's reckless
and that his recklessness contributes to his stint in Azkaban and to
his death, I think I can persuade a number of people to agree with me,
even those who like him, because analysis of the text leads to that
conclusion. I can't, however, make anyone who likes him dislike him,
nor do I think there's any point in attempting to do so. by the same
token, I can't make anyone who hates Snape like him. All I want them
to do is examine the evidence without their emotions getting in the
way--which is hard to do since the narrator's commentary is colored by
Harry's emotions. 

Alla:

> I am not talking about analyzing technical elements of the story, I
> am talking about analyzing the characters as a reader.
> The non – fiction book can be analyzed on purely technical level, 
> fictional book 
> IMO does not have to be analyzed that way, unless we are talking 
> about technical aspects of it. I mean, it can, but it does not have 
> to.		
> 
> Moreover, I think JKR does not mean for us to shut off emotional
> acceptance of the story, IMO of course.
> 
Carol responds:
Of course she wants us to respond emotionally to the book and to care
about at least some of the characters. But I don't think that should
interfere with our ability to see their faults and mistakes--or to see
good qualities in the bad characters. Draco Malfoy loves his mother
and she loves him. Even Bellatrix has sisterly feelings (though in her
case, they're subordinate to her loyalty to the Dark Lord). But who
knew? IMO, JKR has presented evidence that even the bad guys (LV
excepted) are human and have feelings. We can have compassion even for
Barty Crouch if we think about what he became as opposed to what he
would have become. And I think we're meant to have compassion for the
young Severus Snape as well. The point is that we shouldn't let our
hatred or love for a character keep us from seeing what that character
actually is or says or does, insofar as we can actually determine that
given the third-person limited narration of most of the book.

Alla:
> I think the story where emotions play such a big part and one of
them is bound to play major role in the end, is meant to be analyzed
with all your senses. I think it only enhances the pleasure of doing it.
> Again, JMO.

Carol responds:
I think you're confusing the experience of reading, feeling the
emotions that stem from the situations depicted on the page (crying
for Cedric or laughing at Luna or fearing for Harry or raging at
Umbridge) with analysis of the book--looking at it after reading it
and trying to put the pieces together. It's like building a puzzle
except that the pieces don't appear the same to every reader, in part
because so much is still missing. Setting aside whether we like or
hate Snape, did he or didn't he know about Draco's task, at least the
part of it that didn't involve the Vanishing Cabinet? Did he or didn't
he know that Quirrell was loyal to Voldemort? Is he telling the truth,
or is he lying? Thinking that he's an "abusive b*****d" won't get us
anywhere. We have to look at what's on the page, preferably divorced
from Harry's perspective, and see where the evidence leads. 
> 
Alla:
> As to examining canon evidence objectively, Hmmmm. IMO unless canon 
> evidence is an absolute fact (Snape is the Head of Slytherin, for 
> example), our emotions play the huge part into how we interpret 
> ambiguous evidence, as it should be, otherwise half of the fun is 
> lost IMO.
> For example, you view Snape a teacher as being sarcastic to his 
> students and you think that you are being objective, right?

Carol responds:
Yes and no. You hate what you call "abuse" and IMO you impose that
hatred onto your reading of Snape. I admit to liking Snape and wanting
him to be on the side of good, but I try not to let those feelings
influence my reading of the evidence. I know I can't convince anyone
who hates him to like him, so I avoid emotion-based arguments.
> 
> I view Snape as teacher who **so** abuses his authority. Do I think 
> that I am being objective? I absolutely do, but I analyse the same 
> evidence you do, just come to the different conclusions. Do my 
> emotions play a part in it? Sure as in I care for the characters 
> Snape mistreats, but regardless of that fact do I think that Snape's 
> actions can be interpreted differently? No, I don't. I mean, they
can be of course, it is just I don't see it. 

Carol responds:
But you're denying other people's interpretations because they
conflict with your emotional reactions, and you're conflicting your
feelings with facts. *Of course* Snape's actions can be interpreted
differently, whether you agree with those interpretations or not. All
you need to do is read the posts on this board to see that. Your
feelings about him are as valid as anyone else's, but they can't be
used to persuade anyone who doesn't feel that way about him, any more
than I can persuade you to like licorice or Herman Melville because I
like them. My feelings and tastes can't influence yours and yours
can't influence mine. And feeling-based opinions won't persuade
anyone, either. Snape can be shown to be sarcastic ("Our new
celebrity" establishes that trait from our first contact with him),
but whether that sarcasm constitutes abuse is a feeling-based opinion
that no argument is going to alter. It's an area on which we have to
agree to disagree. Where Snape's loyalties lie, in contrast, can be
discussed objectively. Whether he's telling the truth or lying in
"Spinner's End" can be discussed objectively (though not proven
conclusively at this point because the evidence isn't all in--IMO, the
scene is a combination of truths, half-truths, and lies). His motives
can to some degree be discussed objectively, though we're on rather
shaky ground there because of our limited knowledge (we have yet to
see inside his mind except for one trip into the Pensieve and three
fragmentary childhood memories). But all of these things can be
discussed using canon to back us up without resorting to name-calling
or emotional appeals that won't work for most readers.

 
Carol earlier:
> > But the point I'm trying to make is that one person's emotions
> have no influence on the way another person reads a particular scene.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Of course, the point I am trying to make though is when I feel
> something for the character or the event, it makes me work harder to
> find canon support for it.
> 
Carol responds:
Yes, I understand that, and I do the same thing. No doubt we all do.
But I'm concerned with the effectiveness of the argument we present
and whether it will influence other posters to change their minds. Of
course, we'll work harder to support an argument we care about (e.g.,
Harry is not a Horcrux!!!) than to support one we're indifferent about
(say, Luna will be the next Divination teacher if she survives). But
we have to use canon evidence, not our own feelings about the
character or situation, to support our position, and it has to be a
position that *can* be supported by canon evidence, if we're going to
persuade other posters to agree with us. "I like the Twins and Dudley
deserves what he got" is a feeling-based opinion that only people who
already like the Twins and who approve of revenge in the hands of
"good" characters will agree with. You can't persuade someone who
dislikes the Twins or someone who disapproves of revenge to agree with
that position. The question is, can you present a reading of the
toffee prank which examines the Twins and their actions *without
reference to your own likes and dislikes*? What, exactly, have they
done and how does it compare to other actions, such as Morfin's, that
we're clearly supposed to disapprove of? Or is there evidence to
indicate that Morfin is right and Ogden is wrong in JKR's view? If so,
please show it to me. I'd be interested in seeing it.

> Carol earlier:
> <SNIP>
> > Let me reverse the equation for a moment. My emotional reaction to
the Twins' actions is sympathy for Dudley and for Petunia, who thinks
her son is dying, combined with a kind of horror/disgust/embarrassed
amusement at the irony of poor Petunia trying to yank out Dudley's
tongue and increasing her son's agony as she tries to save him. I
can't convince anyone else to feel that way because our emotional
reactions, like our tastes and prejudices, are our own.
> 
> Alla:
> Well, yes, but based on that if you could show **why** you feel
> sympathy for Dursleys, then you could convince somebody ( not me
> obviously), but somebody?

Carol:
Well, I'll take a stab at it, but I think it's futile. Even though I
don't particularly like the Dursleys, I can identify with Petunia as a
mother seeing her child in distress and with the Dursleys as Muggles
who are afraid of magic (with good reason). I disapprove of bullying
in any form, and I disapprove of revenge. I don't like physical humor
that depends on someone's pain, either. I never laughed at
"Roadrunner" cartoons or old Three Stooges movies. they're just not
funny to me. Convinced? I didn't think so, because all I'm doing is
explaining (or trying to explain) why I feel as I do. I seriously
doubt that a description of my feelings will convince anyone to share
them. That's why I prefer logical, canon-based arguments. There's at
least a chance that I'll convince someone that what I'm saying is
worth considering.
> 
Carol earlier:
> > Look at Bob Ogden's reasoning when Morfin hexes Tom Riddle. < HUGE
SNIP, including quote> It seems to me that the Morfin/Gaunt/Ogden
scene is intended to illustrate the view of the situation that JKR
wants the reader to take. Yes, even the good Wizards like Mr. Weasley
and Mr. Ogden are condescending toward Muggles, and, yes, it's
disturbing that they would resort to Obliviating Muggles to maintain
the WW's secrecy.
> But nevertheless, Ogden is pointing out to Gaunt (and Morfin) that
it's wrong to use magic on a defenseless Muggle regardless of what the
Muggle has done to deserve it.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And it seems to me that this scene is completely different from
> situation with twins, because it seemed to me that no matter how
much Morfin claims that he did it because his sister loved Riddle, he
is clearly IMO shown to have contempt for Muggles in general.

Carol responds:
But that doesn't matter to Ogden, does it? First, Morfin chose that
particular Muggle to punish, and second, what makes the act despicable
in Ogden's view is the defenselessness of the Muggle. The same applies
to Dudley. He's defenseless against the Twins' magic, just as Tom Sr.
is defenseless against Morfin, regardless of whether either of them
"deserves" it. (Suppose that Harry had really been lying about
Voldemort's return. Would he have "deserved" to be punished with
Umbridge's quill? She's using a superior power that he's defenseless
against, just as Morfin and the Twins are using a superior power that
their victims are defenseless against. Whether Morfin or the Twins
hate all Muggles is no more relevant than whether Umbridge hates all
students. It's what is done by the powerful to the powerless that
matters here. Or so it seems to me.)

Carol, who has spent much too long answering this post when she ought
to be writing a query letter for a client and hopes that no bad Karma
will result from her bad behavior!