JKR's Intent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 178798

> >>Jen: Admittedly I'm not that interested in the house-elf debate   
> at the moment and was taking the thread in a new direction given   
> the information that piqued my interest.  The segement I read was   
> an example of an ongoing debate since DH about what counts as 'in   
> the books.'  That interests me because it appears to be important   
> for future debates on the list.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but for me it's *very* important to determine exactly what is 
being discussed.  If we're just talking about where we think Hermione 
will be in 19 years, there's a different burden of proof, IMO, than 
if we're talking about what the (or even 'a') theme of the books is.  
The first, being speculative, can be built off of assumptions to a 
much greater extent than the second.

So, for me, every discussion and debate will have to figure out its 
own parameters. 


> >>Betsy HP:
> > <snip> 
> > 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.

> >>Jen: This is where I would veer off to say that the last line of 
> a book or an epilogue does not a story make.  Others have said it   
> with points from the story so I'll leave them to it.:)

Betsy Hp:
But it does lend to a conclusion.  Stories have an arc, and that arc 
is important.  Where a story ends does a great deal (possibly the 
greatest) to define a story.  So, IMO, ignoring where the arc ends 
will lead to a misinterpertation of theme.


> >>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.
> > <snip>

> >>Jen: I honestly don't see why the cases put forth for the house   
> elf situation are any more or less 'in the books' than someone      
> making the case that Slytherins represent Jewish people, imo.

Betsy Hp:
They aren't.  In both cases it's a discussion that has to do with 
theme, so yes, it needs to be in the books a heck of a lot more than 
speculation about Hermione's career, IMO.  

(And um, just to clarify...  No one was saying Slytherins represent 
Jewish people as far as I remember.  They were saying that the 
negative descriptions of Slytherins matched very closely to negative 
propaganda about Jews in pre-WWII Europe.)

> >>Jen:
> So which case can be presented as in the books and which can't?

Betsy Hp:
IMO, what involves actual book content (theme, etc) needs to be 
backed by "in the books" evidence, whereas speculations can be made 
with a lot less.  (I'd say there should be *something* from the books 
for speculation too, but frankly, whatever works for those involved 
in the discussion is cool.)

> >>Jen:
> Who decides?

Betsy Hp:
Those involved in the discussion I would think.

> >>Jen:
> I appreciate you taking time to write everything you did Betsy,     
> really I do, my answer doesn't do your post justice, but what's in 
> the books is perception as far as I can tell and not a fact like a 
> math problem.

Betsy Hp:
Eep! You just made my right eye-ball twitch. <g>  I adore scientists 
and when possible tend to follow them around like a puppy-dog eager 
to listen in on discussions about Schrödinger's cat and the like.  
But every once in a while one of them will start talking art and/or 
literature and scoff about those being "real" academics because you 
can say or make up whatever and call it good.  And it drives me batty 
because that's not true! 

No, it's not like math in that it's not true/false.  But it's not 
utter chaos either.  There *are* wrong conclusions.  We're not really 
allowed to full out say that on these lists, but it's true.  Also, 
some conclusions are more correct than others.  Everyone's 
perceptions are not equal.  They just aren't.  Some have greater 
proof from the text and that makes them more correct.

(Just to be clear, I'm *not* saying that my ideas or theories are the 
right ones. I generally *think* they are, otherwise I wouldn't waste 
my time making them, but I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't ever 
be wrong. <g>)  

I'm not going to say that a perfect consenses will be reached, 
because again, not true/false. But this idea that it's *all* based on 
perception... no it's not.  If I said that the Potter series is about 
Hagrid sexually molesting Harry and Harry's subsequent psychological 
break...  I don't care how much I may *perceive* this to be true, 
there just isn't the text there, IMO, to back up that "perception".
 
> >>Jen:
> In my perception that particular idea about Slytherin isn't in the 
> story; in your perception it is.  I don't know where it goes 
> from there if the only answer to offer one another is 'it's not in 
> the books.'

Betsy Hp:
Well, you'd (correctly, IMO) ask for text evidence of Slytherin 
descriptors that match the negative propaganda about Jews in pre-WWII 
Europe.  I'd either have it or I wouldn't.  If I didn't, than my 
theory is solely my perception and it's mistaken.  If I could provide 
the match than we'd get into a delicious discussion about what that 
match means exactly (or if it means anything).  And we wouldn't 
necessarily agree on the meaning, which is where perception (tempered 
by the books) can come into play.  

Like how both Prep0strus and I agree that Slytherin is described 
negatively in the books.  If asked, I think we'd both point to 
similar texts to back our views.  But as to what that negative 
description means?  I think Prep0strus and I have different views on 
that, and that's where our perceptions come into play.  But if we 
have a hope of convincing the other (or fellow listies) that our view 
is valid and maybe even more valid than the other, text still needs 
to play a part.

Betsy Hp  (again, this is all my opinion, and people can discuss the 
books in whatever way they desire as far as I'm concerned)