JKR's Intent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 178776

> >>Jen: Hee, well, it would make a good fanfic anyway. Seriously 
> though, I don't get why it's fine to make resonable assumptions    
> about something like the Marietta incident in order to get it work 
> the way a reader was imagining it, but not to say that Hermione    
> would have a career in her lifetime after 7 books worth of          
> character development, including information that Hermione thinks   
> about her future career.  

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I think yes we can speculate anything we want.  And I think 
we can have a discussion about whether or not Hermione would work 
after having kids based on what we know about her character.  That's 
all well and good (and fun).

What I'm protesting (and I'll admit I drifted from the main point a 
bit... it's kind of what I do <g>) is that we're to base the theme of 
the books on something that happened off page and was never mentioned.

Pippin was arguing that JKR was using the house-elf story-line to 
show the evils of slavery.  I was responding that it seemed an odd 
way to do it because the last we see, her hero is a happy house-elf 
slave owner.  (If I've mis-spoken, I take comfort in the knowledge 
that I'll be swiftly corrected. <g>)  And that led Pippin to say that 
the obvious trajectory of Hermione's story leads to her working on 
for house-elf rights (and I assume freedom?).

To which I replied:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178712
> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> House-elves became a good excuse to kiss her boyfriend.
> And afterwords she has his kids. Nothing about a future of crusading
> for anyone's rights. Just a dead freedom seeking house-elf and a
> live slave.

We can *imagine* Hermione continuing on as a crusader for house-elf 
rights, but JKR gives us nothing to suggest this actually happens. 
What *is* important to JKR is that we know who Hermione married, how 
many children she has, and what their names are. Which doesn't do 
much to support the idea JKR was going for a message about slavery, 
IMO.

Pippin responded:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178740
> >>Pippin:
> Oh, I *see.* So the default assumption is that a woman who gets
> married and has kids is politically dead? If JKR wants you to think
> otherwise, she has to show you? I kind of hoped we'd moved
> beyond that. ::sigh::

Whenever I'm accused of an extreme position (in this case, sexism) I 
tend to respond in the affirmative.  "Well you must hate 
kids!" "Generally, yes. Unless ground up in sandwiches." Etc.  So 
this is where I started to drift off point a bit. <g>

Because I didn't default assume anything.  JKR provided the most 
important (to her) aspect of Hermione's life.  She's married, she has 
children.  Nothing about politics.  Which again, tells me that JKR 
wasn't looking to Hermione to provide a wrap up of her anti-slavery 
theme.  

(I'll add, just in case, that I don't think JKR is *pro* any sort of 
real life slavery.  Just in this fictional world, there are creatures 
that love to be domestic slaves and it's very cool to have one.  And 
of course, if you're a good guy, you'll treat the little guys right.  
I don't think it's meant to say much about RL slavery at all.)

If anyone wanted to write a fanfic in which house-elf slavery was a 
major theme that speaks to RL slavery and so gave Hermione either a 
Ministry job or a fight the powers that be private sector job, well, 
more power to them.  But you can't expect me to default assume 
Hermione has such a job in the epilogue and JKR just didn't bother to 
mention it.  *And* use that assumption to help me see that house-elf 
slavery was a major theme all along. 


> >>Jen:
> <snip>
> Sure, it's selective on here because there's also the point of 
> building a case for one reading over another, and sometimes to      
> build a case there's a gap to fill.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You can build a case, IMO, that going by her on-page stuff Hermione 
either did or did not have a job in the epilogue.  It could be a fun 
exercise, realizing of course that a final definitive answer wouldn't 
ever occur.  But I don't think you'd need a final answer to have an 
enjoyable discussion.

However, the bigger the point to the story, the less gaps there 
should be, IMO.  The last we see of house-elves, our hero is thinking 
of having his own house-elf get him a sandwich. And that's it.  It's 
not a gap, it's a cliff.  There's no other side to jump to.  We end 
with our victorious good guy thinking sweetly simple domestic 
thoughts (bed and a sandwich) that involve a slave we know he'll 
never mistreat.  And then years later we have our hero, still 
victorious, engaged in another domestic event, obviously happy, 
obviously still a good guy. 

It's an impossibly big leap, IMO, to read a complete negating of that 
first domestic scene when there's no other side to leap to.  (Mind 
the gap, indeed. <bg>)


> >>Jen:
> Basically, my opinion is if the 'default assumption' 
> as Magpie puts it is what is literally on page, then imagination   
> gets parked at the door and debate becomes more focused on smaller 
> and smaller portions of 'acceptable' material - and what            
> information is deemed acceptable - rather than engaging with the    
> text on the different levels that fiction promotes.

Betsy Hp:
I think they are two different things.  Your imagination is engaged 
in the realm of fanfic and fun.  What if's, wouldn't it be cool if's, 
etc.  But thematic (for want of a better word) debates should depend 
pretty much solely on what's on the page, IMO.  The books are done so 
the time of unlimited speculation within the realm of debating is 
also done.  (I mean, obviously you can debate however you want to, 
but there will be fuddy-duddies insisting on text evidence or episode 
numbers.  And, um, sometimes they'll be down right 
strident. ::glances shiftly at Star Trek fans::)

> >>Jen:
> Back to Hermione, the story doesn't end with her as a 17 (18?) year 
> old but 19 years later.  Things have occurred that aren't *in the 
> story* and yet the story continues.  To me, the point by zgirnius   
> up above is a reasonable point to put up for debate.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh sure, I totally agree about that.  But it doesn't work, IMO, if 
you're trying to tie it into house-elves and the treatment thereof 
and how this proves JKR had an ongoing (and completed) theme about RL 
slavery tied into her story. Hermione's part in that business ended 
long before the epilogue because JKR stopped writing her into it, 
IMO.  To say something otherwise (and convince me), I'd need to see 
something from the text.


> >>Jen:
> <snip>
> Is anyone debating this point saying they don't think a character 
> developed like Hermione would have a career or that she changed her 
> mind about having a career based on information in the story?  I 
> don't think that's the point being made.  The point seems to be 
> promoting a certain default assumption that may not be an           
> acceptable rule of engagement for everyone.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm...  The original point was: did JKR address the issue of house-
elf slavery?  Based on the text, no she didn't, IMO. (Or at least, 
not in a way that informs much on RL slavery.)  The house-elf story 
line ended with Harry owning a slave and being fine with it.  The 
argument was made that JKR did address the issue because Hermione is 
breathing 19 years later and so will have obviously fought for their 
rights.  To my mind that's too much speculation.  We could create any 
kind of life for a breathing Hermione, so I don't see that one tiny 
fact supporting an entire theme.  Especially since JKR thought 
Hermione's political future a fact not worth knowing.

Betsy Hp (All of the above is my opinion only and also deals with how 
*I* personally enjoy debating issues.  I'm neither judging nor 
condemning other forms of debate and the enjoyment thereof.  I'm just 
stating what works for me personally. <g>)