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

[Geoff]

No: HPFGUIDX 191526

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote:

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 (later):
You obviously don't recognise a little gentle irony. In standard UK English, 
you just don't "violently" agree. "Strongly" agree, yes, but "violently" is the 
wrong adjective in this context..

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 (later):
Presumably you are also a touch thinker. To be able to turn out this post like this 
with your reply and then post your next reply in two minutes is quite some achievement.
 
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 (later):
Certainly not. But in discussion of canon, we need to link what we are talking about to HP. 
The post I quoted does not appear to have relevance to the story. there is not even a nod 
in the direction of either the book or the author.

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 (later): I said as much.
 
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? 

Geoff (later):
No more than you by your persistent belittling of anything said by members of the group
which is counter to your view and the patronising way in which you have addressed some
answers to your post - and that doesn't include mine.

Otto:
> 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?
 
Geoff (later):
You are introducing contradictory arguments here. On the one hand, you claim to enjoy 
reading for pleasure, for reading's sake. Yet, as a non-sequitur, you then lead off into 
your long discussion which suggests that you are doing anything but reading for enjoyment.
To answer your last question, JKR has said that she did it initially for her own satisfaction, which
I believe if you follow the history of the book's journey into publication.

Do you really believe that the huge number of members of this group merely reiterate the same arguments? I have been a member of the group, as I said for many years, and I have been 
involved on many occasion in deep and lengthy exchanges of views. Before you criticise the group,
spend a few hours away from your keyboard and trawl through the eleven years' worth of posts
that are available via the archive. Some threads are obviously quite shallow and unimportant but 
there are many themes which have deepened the thoughts and understanding - and friendships -
of contributors.

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?

Geoff (later):
Nope, but that is how some members of HPFGU see your attitude, swamping the list and 
batting away any counter-argument which they put forward.