Whose side are we on??/Story analysis

[potioncat]

No: HPFGUIDX 156172



>  Alla:
> > Yes, sure this is again just different levels of analysing the 
story. 
> > For myself I call it analysing on "feelings"" level 
> > and "intellectual" level. This is strictly how I classify it. I 
found 
> > long time ago that for myself to be able to argue effectively 
turning 
> > off my emotions completely never works. :)
 
 
 Potioncat:
 I've been following this thread with great interest, but came back 
to 
the earliest post I could find to comment.
 
 I'll nitpick at words, if you don't mind. I agree with those who've 
 said you can't have an emotional analysis. You can have an emotional 
 discussion---as we often do at this site, or you can have a fact 
based 
 analysis. 
 
We actually do different levels here. 

We have lots of emotional discussions. Usually these sound as if the 
characters are people we happen to know very, very well. You can see
the writers' emotions pouring off the page. These are valid 
discussions, 
but are mainly opion pieces.

Sometimes we discuss a portion of 
the book, expressing our opinions about the author's intent, or her 
 success at her intent or whether we agree with her philosophy. 
 Sometimes we do that using literary words and a degree of form. 
Other 
time we talk about the characters or events on a more personal basis, 
 but still with an analytical approach. 
 
 I don't dare use Snape as an example, do I? Take Pettigrew. From my 
 standpoint, he's a disgusting little man. There is nothing redeeming 
 about him, he is loathsome. He's a rat and in my opinion rats are 
 horrible, dirty, disgusting creatures. The only good thing I can say 
about Peter Pettigrew is that he is portrayed by Timothy Spall. We 
 could run a long involved thread about all the bad things Pettigrew 
has 
 done, peppered with posts defending rats as good pets, etc, etc... 
All 
emotional.

However, if I step away from my personal reaction to Pettigrew, I 
could
 ask why  the canon description of him does not fit with the things 
he's 
 done. For a mediocre Wizard, he's performed some advanced magic. 
Where 
 does that ability come from? What is really going on here? Or I 
could 
ask, what did JKR have in mind when she created the dynamics behind 
the 
 Marauders. What is she saying about friendship? I might ask why she 
 placed Pettigrew and Snape in the same house. I might be forced to 
look 
 at the comparisons between the two men. (I wouldn't like it, but I 
could do
it.)
 
An analysis can come from an emotional reaction, but one has to 
remove 
 the emotions. Dumbledore's death caused a strong emotional reaction 
for 
 me. But to discuss that chapter, I have to set aside the emotions. 
To discuss
my reaction to the death, I can include the emotions.The 
 closest RL example I can come with is from parenthood. If your kids 
are 
 fighting about something, you have to stay detached while you sort 
out 
 who did what to whom and why.
 
 So, we have both sorts of discussions, emotional and analytical. 
Both 
 are valid, both are fun---sometimes they happen in the same thread 
which can cause a bit of a miscommunication, or a great deal of fun 
if 
 you're the observer.


Sorry for the odd formatting. I deleted this post and then took it to 
Word Pad to cut and paste---I wasn't any good at cutting and pasting 
in Kindergarten either.