Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 180200

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...>
wrote:
>
> "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > But the Hand of Glory is an important 
> > object, introduced into the story early
> > (CoS) because it would play a role later
> 
Eggplant:
> So let's review. Draco sees the Hand of Glory in a shop. A shop is a
place that sells things. Draco expresses great interest in this
object. Some time later we learn that Draco owns this object. You
think JKR's readers will be completely befuddled, they will be unable
to imagine how it could have possibly come into his possession; they
just won't see any way it could have happened. You said JKR had no
respect for her readers but I think that description best fits
somebody else.

Carol:
It's carelessness, just like the missing 24 hours she's still puzzled
about, the letter that had no way of appearing at 12 GP, the skulls in
the Slytherin common room (huh?), and a host of other details that she
could have checked but didn't. Doesn't bother you; does bother me.
Maybe the reader won't be befuddled, but the alert reader who pays
attention to such things will be annoyed that JKR didn't. Enough said.
And if you'd paid attention to the interviews, you'd know where I got
the idea that she doesn't respect her readers. "He's my character and
he is what he is," she said regarding Dumbledore. Funny thing. What
she says he is doesn't appear on the page, and earlier, she said that
she had *always imagined him as gay." Now it's no longer her
imagination. It's what he is, canon or no canon. And that's only the
most obvious example. 
> 
> > I can think of at least four posters, probably more, who were
severely disappointed in the books
> 
> Books, the word in the plural? Oh yes those were the people who were
> disappointed with all the books but who nevertheless read all 7 the
> very first day they were available. I am reminded of the old joke: The
> food in that restaurant is terrible, and portions are way too small.

Carol:
Sorry. I should have said "severely disappointed in DH." And I wasn't
speaking of myself, but of other posters on this list who are much
less happy with DH than I am. I've defended Dumbledore and Snape and
argued that JKR's stated intention in the Slughorn/Slytherin scene is
not entirely at odds with the text. But possibly you're too angry with
me to notice what I've actually written.  
> 
Carol:
> > I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio
> 
> I wanted to see Harry disembowel someone and then laugh with a mad
> gleam in his eye. Oh well I'll take what I can get, at least Harry
> enjoyed the Crucio.

Carol:
Ah, well. Tastes differ. I like the fact that Harry overcame his
desire for vengeance. You wanted Dirty Harry. I say hurray for
forgiveness, mercy, and redemption. She's a Christian author, after
all. On a side note, I'm much less bothered by Harry's Imperius
Curses, which were used when he was in dire peril (though I wonder why
Confundus wouldn't have worked) than I was by the Crucio, which was
"gallantly" employed for the crime of spitting. An eye for an eye
would be more merciful. Let the punishment fit the crime. If I want a
sadist as the protagonist of the novel, I'll read "The Life and Times
of Bellatrix Lestrange." (Or see "Sweeney Todd, but let's not get OT.)
> 
Carol:
> > her attitude of knowing everything about the books
> 
> I won't say she knows everything about her books but I will say she
is the world's leading authority on them.

Carol:
Odd, then, that we remember them better than she does and see
inconsistencies she doesn't see. She's the world's leading authority
on what *didn't* go into the books, discarded subplots and scenes and
characters, certainly. As for authorial intention, I don't think any
author really knows what he or she intended, and what matters, in any
case, is what actually appears on the page. (I always *intend* for my
posts to be clear, courteous, and convincing. I don't always succeed.
Heck, sometimes I can't follow them myself, even when I catch all the
typos. So much for intention.)
> 
Carol:
> > and not allowing us to interpret them
> 
> What on earth are you babbling about? 
Carol:
Not babbling about anything, dear. Read her interviews and chat
transcripts. She appears to think that her interpretation is not only
the right one but the only one, even when what she says conflicts, or
appears to conflict, with what's on the page. Do you think, for
example, that she sees Harry as you do, or that she shares your view
that he should have killed all the Death Eaters? I rather doubt it.
And it appears that she doesn't share my view that Harry's use of the
Crucio was something a bit worse than a flaw revealing his humanity.
And surely, we both have the right to our views rather than thinking,
oh. JKR says such and such. I must be wrong. We have the right to
examine the text and read it as it makes sense to us. Do we all agree
on Ron or Hermione or Snape or Dumbledore or Kreacher or Marietta or
any character in canon? No. Why not? Because the words on the page are
not so absolutely unambiguous that they can have only one
interpretation, because we see things primarily from Harry's
perspective and he's often neither observant nor unbiased, and
because, forgive the blasphemy, JKR is a flawed human being who
forgets the details of her own previous books, from the effects of a
particular spell to Ron's and Harry's having no way of knowing that
Draco had obtained the Hand of Glory. (I'm not complaining that he
acquired it off-page. I'm complaining about theiry *knowing* that he
had one when that's impossible. How he got that Dark artifact past the
protections on the school, I don't know. I suppose he had a DE bring
it from Borgin and Burkes when he fixed the Vanishing Cabinet. But
that's not the explanation we're given in the book.)
> 
Carol earlier:
> > really does make me think less of her and I have lost respect for
her as both author and person because of her "it's my ball and I make
the rules" attitude. 
> 
Eggplant:
> Perhaps I haven't been following this as closely as I should 

Carol:
Perhaps you haven't. :-)

Eggplant:
because I don't even know what public statement JKR said that has
gotten you into such a tizzy, but frankly I don't care. 

Carol:
It seems you do care, because you appear to be in a bit of a tizzy
yourself. As I said, if you'd read the interviews, you'd know what I'm
referring to. And I wouldn't call my own reaction a tizzy, just
annoyance at her possessive attitude. She gave us the books,
certainly, and I'm grateful to have had the experience of reading and
discussing them. I just don't want to be told *how* to read them by
the author or anyone else.

Eggplant:
Unless JKR has publicly
> endorsed ritual cannibalism then nothing she could say would make me
disrespect her, and even if she said that I'd still like her books
even if I didn't like her.

Carol:
Let's just say that I also distinguish between the author and the
books (for which I still feel a lingering affection) and leave it at that.
> 
Carol:
> > I have every right to say that on this list. 
>
Eggplant: 
> That is true you do, and I have every right to say that by doing so
> you demonstrate a smallness of spirit.

Carol:
Well, you see, I don't think that posters should insult one another,
and I hope you'll notice that I'm not insulting you in return. Nor am
I insulting JKR, just expressing disapproval of her attitude. She's a
public figure, after all, and her conduct is as subject to discussion
as Bush's or Elizabeth II's or Russell Crowe's. None of them, to my
knowledge, has told anyone how to think. Peter Jackson has not told us
how to interpret his films. (I like Tolkien's view that applicability
is in the mind of the reader, myself. Bad paraphrase, but if I go to
another window to check the quote, I'll lose my post.)
> 
Carol:
> > I don't, however, regard them as great literature 
> 
> Great literature? <snip> I feel very confident in saying that in
another 107 years JKR will still be better known than Sully Prudhomme,
Grazia Deledda or Harold Bloom; in the year 2115 Harry Potter will be
even better known than that other piece of writing that literary snobs
sneer at, Sherlock Holmes. 

Carol:
I was familiar with Harold Bloom long before JKR began drafting Harry
Potter. As for the others, who knows. Maybe JKR will stand the test of
time; maybe she won't. All I know is that JKR made mistakes that a
more careful writer wouldn't have made. I granted her a pair of great
characters. And certainly, she excels at providing popular
entertainment on a massive scale. Whether that makes her great is
another question on which you and I have clearly arrived at different
answers.
> 
Carol:
> > I would never say that about another poster
> 
Eggplant:
> Why not? 

Carol:

Because I believe in courtesy.

Eggplant:
No poster has given you as much joy as JKR has done,

Carol:
Oh, I don't know. This list has given me plenty of enjoyment, and I
could name particular posters who have been especially entertaining
and stimulating if I chose. I do concede that without JKR and her
books, there'd have been no list. But if the books could only be read
her way, there'd be no list, either.

Eggplant:
 if you
> must insult someone insult posters not JKR.

Carol:
Sorry. You're insulting me, but I have no intention of returning blow
for blow. I'm not insulting JKR, either. I said that her books were
good and that they had provided me a great deal of entertainment (and
some frustration), including the privilege of discussing them. But I
think that she's exceeded her capacity. We, the readers, were no doubt
expecting too much. She wrote the book she planned all along to write
without regard for inconsistencies, coincidence, and other flaws. (I
certainly never expected her to write the book I wanted her to write,
nor would I criticize her for not doing so. But a twelve-year-old can
spot some of the flaws. I've heard young readers pointing them out.)

Eggplant:
 If you had aimed your insults at me I would not have been the least
bit upset, but calling JKR those things makes me mad as hell. They are
as unjust as they are stupid.
> 
Carol:
In my view, they are neither unjust nor stupid or I would not have
said them. Nor did I insult JKR. I merely said that the books,
especially DH, are flawed and that I find her desire to impose her own
interpretation of them on other readers annoying.

Carol, wishing Eggplant a happy New Year and hoping that he'll refrain
from insulting her in future