Manifesto?

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> Kneasy:
> Why so? Are you so sure that the apparent complexity isn't a result 
> of your own incomprehension? Missed cues, faulty interpretation, 
> incorrect conclusions drawn?

Your argument seems to rest upon the contention that everything will 
be proven out--both plot-wise and in the hazier realm of 
interpretation.  Admittedly, dealing with a WiP, these things can't 
be settled, but I don't get the feeling that she's going to try to 
nail down exactly what we should think about what the actions of any 
character mean, or even the exact details of an arguable action (many 
of which she doesn't see as such, methinks, but are still open, from 
a strictly textual perspective).  We may find out exactly what 
everyone has done, but even if we then say "We have this set of 
objective actions", there are a number (not infinite and not 
unbounded) of potential patterns for reading those actions.  Some 
patterns are better supported than others.
 
> When discussing works most sensible comment is prefaced by, or 
> understood to be modified by, phrases like "As I see it" or "My 
> take on it" - which includes the possibility of uncertainty or 
> error on the part of the speaker. Others may then offer dissent or 
> support. In either case it is, consciously or unconsciously an 
> exercise to define/determine the guts of the story. Isn't that the 
> author's intention? For us to ferret out the golden thread? But if 
> we don't, if we give primacy to our own individual constructs, we 
> end up with a stunted (or mutant) offspring that crawls feebly 
> within the confines of our own limitations. I read to find out what 
> the writer's limitations are, not my  own - those're all too 
> evident. 

Or to rephrase the last line, to find out what the author's horizon 
(a group of things including perspective on the world) is; to read 
something written by someone who thinks differently.

And here we differ in that I do not believe there is ONE golden 
thread, but there are a number of threads running through the book.  
I don't think all of them are absolutely perfect "read the book and 
you will find this and not disagree".

> Not quite. In  fact not all -  you're ignoring the fact that the 
> work is incomplete. That makes a hell of a difference. No one can 
> at this moment be totally sure what Jo's intentions are. Right now 
> I can postulate anything that doesn't conflict with existing canon. 
> Hell, some fans go further, that Sirius lives, for example. Outside 
> of fanon this will not be possible once the conclusion is reached. 

It can be a tricky thing to discern authorial intention even when the 
work is completed, but that's another argument altogether.

So let me throw out a question, here.  It's all about authorial 
intention which is solidly defining.  Does that mean when it comes 
down to it, that your readings uncharitable to Sirius will be 
projections on your behalf rather than canon--assuming that we don't 
find out about his true evil nature but rather get told about what a 
good guy he was?  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we get 
told he's a good guy and he's presented positively.  Does it then 
become invalid to argue against the character being positive, if 
Rowling's 'intentions' are, in the long run, strongly on the positive 
side of the balance?

Snape seems to drop Harry's vial off of the desk in OotP, but it can 
be vociferously argued that Snape did not do anything to it (lacking 
the malicious intent) and it's simply Harry's flawed perception that 
puts the two things together.  If we don't get any followup ("Of 
course I dropped it, you idiot!" or the contrary), does it just hang, 
supporting all arguments?  Or will our picture of Snape's character 
be so complete that we can easily decide on one or the other?

I am in full agreement with you, Kneasy, about the need for evidence 
in both analysis and interpretation.  If you (the general 'you') 
can't ground it in something that we all have access to, there is no 
path for communication and I can't possibly care about it.  There's 
still a difference between analysis and interpretation, and what you 
get out of analysis is still partially dependent upon what you're 
looking for.  I read very differently if I'm thinking large-scale 
thematic issues than if I'm thinking Ron and Hermione's interpersonal 
dynamic.
 
> Kneasy
> who is of the opinion that no opinion is worth a damn unless it's 
> backed by reproducible experimental results. Doesn't stop him 
> offering them, though.

-Nora notes that literature is not exactly the realm of 'reproducible 
experimental results', unless you want to go into cognitive studies 
on it...