The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191521

Dear Geoff

Geoff:
"I'm not sure whether to feel privileged or concerned that you are in violent agreement with me. I have had people violently DISagree with me in the past but never the opposite
.."

Otto:
My Response" It's an illustrative flourish. Are you saying that you cannot conceive of an agreement on one issue and disagreement on others? That two people cannot find intermittent agreement?

Geoff:
"However, I felt a need to reply to raise a number of issues – some  concerning the views we have of the books and some about the
group itself. After your rather explosive entry into HPFGU, namely
24 posts in the 49 posts between 191464 and 191512 is going
somewhat. I don't think even I posted to that extent in my early
days eight and a half years ago!! It is just as well that you did not
join about a year or so ago when there was a posting limit of five
per day which was rescinded because of low numbers.

Otto:
No doubt.

Geoff:
"I presume that you must prepare a lot offline unless you can type very quickly judging by the time and date on each one.

Otto:
Naaah-- I do this all extemporaneously- and I type about 54 words a minute. I'm a touch typist.


Geoff:
"I do also wonder whether you read the posting rules, as you were required to, particularly:  Welcome to Harry Potter for Grownups, a friendly, thought-provoking place for adult discussions of the HP books
 and also: HPforGrownups (the "Main List") is for discussion of the HP  books (i.e., the 'canon')


Otto:
I did, are you saying that I have violated these precepts? Please state how?

Geoff:
"In your long discussions on Main, several of your posts have been more suited to HPFGU-Off Topic chatter because they have drifted away from canon. One post I certainly recall (191479) was about snakes as symbols of evil and, interesting as it may be, contained  no canon reference at all and several have drifted off-topic in your analyses of the books.

Otto:
My response: So are you saying that we can only discuss the internals of the books? That is what is written and are not able to place the books within the literary mainstream? Or discuss the tropes and configurations, organizations, and differences and similarities with other works and other situations, or for that matter the logic and overarching themes of the works at all within a literary context. My goodness, even Biblical Fundamentalists don't demand that!

Are you saying that ONLY Harry Potter and specifically simple recapitulation is possible?


Geoff:
"But to return to the topic of "the gap" between 1998 and 2017 when we have little or no knowledge of what happened. I do not think that we are venturing into the world of "What if" but making sensible guesses.

Otto:
Agreed, provided you preface it with that it is only your opinion and in no way illustrative, representative or prognosticating the truth.
I said as much in a recent post on the possibility of a transformative moment for Draco.

Geoff:
"Apart from the basic relationships in the epilogue and I believe a sketchy outline of who married who by J.K.Rowling there is very little information available to cover this period. You, speaking as a historian, must know of situations where there is a lack of knowledge and speculative suggestions are made to fill in the gaps which can provoke further thought on the subject.

Otto:
I respond: It is generally a career ending move for a historian or a Literature Phd to do this. Such things are couched in pages and pages of caveats and disclaimers and always must end in the interrogative- that is a question-- and even then they are usually buried in the parenthetical footnotes. To offer a "bridging hypothesis" which is kind of what you are talking about without these caveats is pretty much the same as slitting your wrists and jumping into the shark tank and splashing around a lot.

Geoff:
"I have to admit that I have always had a soft spot for Draco because I believe that he grew up in an environment which channeled and distorted his view of the world and have always wished for a rapprochement between him and Harry; I am allowed to imagine that because it does not disagree with anything that J.K. Rowling
has said – or not said.

Otto:
My response. Of course you do, you are entitled to your own opinions-- or fantasies, but that does not make them right.

Geoff:
"That is my view. Disagree if you wish but please
do not dictate to me that I MUST accept your version.

Otto:
I do not, insist, but are you saying that your version must be accepted unquestioningly and without demur? That is you are allowed to state your opinion and there can be no other. More pertinently, if you are placing it here are you not inviting debate? It sounds to me like you simply wish to determine the debate, which is pretty much the same thing you are accusing me of no?


I understand that you take pleasure in uncritical reading and accepting as wrote. So do I. The enjoyment of Harry Potter is very great for me as well. However there's more to any book than the mere contents. As I said then, there is the organization of the book, its place and relationship to other works, the internal consistency of the book, and the moral, ethical or philosophical prefigurings of it, as well as the very important paradigmatic and protoypical tropes within it relating to the real world. No book is divorced from reality and step by step you have been making moral judgements and real-life conclusions from the work. They have made certain thoughts in your mind which have influenced you, and therefore these are legitimate questions for discussion. A book is therefore not a simple thing. That this may not be what you want in a book is your choice, but endless recapitulation and repetition is boring. If Rowling did not write a book to make paradigms and models, questions and formats for debate, what did she do it for? Purely to make money?

I think not.  Nor can you deny that the enormous popularity of the book and the large amount of money it made has made manifest that it appeals to something more than mere momentary enjoyment- that people have found deeper and more lasting things in the book that are not so simple as "Fred is Cool" or "Snape is hot."


Geoff:
"There is no reason why you or I or anyone else can imagine a result without trying to impose our view on others with the implication that non-acceptance is indicative of a lack of understanding, either in a literary sense or otherwise."

Otto:
So you are saying that we must accept your opinion uncritically and without demur? That is, that list is here merely for your own pleasure?

Otto