Manifesto?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>  

Kneasy:
Everything that *matters* will be, yes. All  the textual signposts that
were emplaced that if followed assiduously lead to eventual enlightenment.
Of course there are all the red herrings too; whether those are explained
or just ignored - ignored would be good; give folk something to talk
about when it's all over.
 
> 
> 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".
> 

Kneasy:
Oh, I  agree. the 'golden thread' was an allusion to whatever truth(s) and
meaning(s) the author has been trying to communicate.

> 
> 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?
> 

Kneasy:
Personal prejudices have little to do with truth.
There are good people who I find absolutely unbearable in real life,
let alone in fiction, so if Jo praises him as an exemplar of caring
compassion then yes, that was his assigned role and I won't argue. 
And I'll continue to cordially dislike the snotty creep.
The two are not mutually exclusive and he's hardly perfect as presented
in canon so I can continue to disparage him as much as I like for all his
many other faults, but I'll probably have to drop the ESE label.
Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.

> 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?
>

Kneasy:
Or it could be one of those 'add a bit of colour' bits - creating an
atmosphere, perhaps. Included to highlight the developing antipathy/ 
Snape's spite/Harry's willingness to blame Sevvy for everything - his 
paranoia if you will. Did it really happen the way Harry sees it? It
hardly matters, I think. If it was a deliberate action what does it add to 
what we know already? Not much. But the 'atmosphere of mistrust' has 
been highlighted, Harry *and* readers have been wound up and that may
have been its function. 
If no further explication emerges that's how I'll view it anyway.


 
> 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:
The difference being that I don't think about such soppy stuff to start
with. Ugh. I leave that to the SHIPping crew. Can't see that it matters in the 
slightest that Ron is romance-fodder (or a desire for his life to made a
misery by submitting to 'she who must be obeyed'. Same thing really.)
unless it happens that this teenage masochistic fancy impinges on other
plotlines.
Then, with regret, horror and revulsion I'll have to take notice.