Manifesto?

[mooseming]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at w...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/1513 :
> 
> << An illustration - a colour-blind man sees the world differently,
> but he does not see 'truth' - because the filtering/transmission
> mechanism through which he views the world is faulty. Has what
> he sees "taken on a life of its own" because it looks different? 
No,
> I don't believe so; what he sees is a misrepresentation, an 
aberrant
> image - and no matter that it may be interesting or informative, 
it's
> wrong. >>
> 
> I've heard of color-blind men being specially recruited to see 
things
> whose camouflage deceives the normally-sighted, but can't remember 
any
> details just now. We normally-sighted don't see the markings on 
flower
> petals that bees see, because we don't see in the UV range. 
> 
> In a way, all colors are illusions, because the reality is
> electromagnetic radiation of different wave lengths. Some people 
have
> a fourth color receptor that the rest of us lack; the rest for that
> trait is to find the image hidden in a bunch of green polka-dots; 
to
> them, the green dots are a different color than the blue+yellow 
dots.
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that some texts have taken on "a life of 
their
> own", separate from authorial intents, because the texts are
> widely-read and the author is completely unknown, such as the 
Iliad.

Now Mooseming rambles at length...

Let's not forget the ambient light source. Colours are the 
reflection of light from a given object, the object reflects light 
determined by its properties, some absorb blue light and reflect 
back more red and so appear red etc. The object can only reflect 
available light, our brains are pretty good at calculating 
variations in natural light and so colours remain consistent, 
however, artificial light can undermine those processes and so some 
colours appear very different in natural light than they do in say 
fluorescent light.

One can compare the quality of ambient light with the culture, 
experience and mood of the reader and the author. A reading can 
change with variations in that background noise. The `true' reading 
is dependent on environment just as colours are, it is therefore 
subject to change and not fixed and absolute. All perceptions are 
ultimately personal and variable.

Shared perceptions, like reading a book are a product of the 
author's intentions, her native skill at expressing those, the 
reader's ability to interpret them and that reader's individual, 
unique take on life.

I'd agree with Kneasy and say in that shared space the author is the 
authority, if JKR says something is so, then it is. To extend the 
metaphor, if I'm driving and the traffic cops stop me and say I`ve 
run a red light, I could argue in my reality it appeared green but I 
believe they could quite fairly say `very interesting, you're 
nicked!'. We are not all equal.

That said the debate becomes murkier when we consider the author's 
intentions. If JKR says that Snape is not a vampire, then Snape is 
not a vampire. If she were challenged on all those bat references 
she could argue they were coincidental, part of the atmosphere. Take 
the Snape's worst memory example. She could argue she was trying to 
think of an event that would be humiliating, public, comedic and not 
life threatening. The hanging upside down from a tree was one of a 
number options but she liked it best so used it. Subsequently her 
readers may point out the bat thing and she might acknowledge it as 
a fair interpretation but unintentional. Why then did she choose 
that particular example? Well it's quite possibly subconscious, she 
is not aware of the reasons behind her choices but the choices are 
still informed by her internalised conception of the HP world, not 
necessarily conscious or articulated. In that space there is room 
for something independent from the author, the character and world 
taking on a life of its own. JKR can legitimately say `Er I don't 
think so' to the Snape as vampire concept because whilst she hadn't 
created it that way there is room for it to be so.

Part of the fun of creative works, for the author as well as the 
reader, is exploring those unintentional yet significant events 
which can give us a new perspective on what we believe and who we 
are. Works of art are particularly powerful at illuminating and 
challenging received ideas. The act of writing is, in part, a way of 
getting at what you think but don't know you think. The act of 
publishing is to take your thoughts and subject them to a greater 
variety of ambient light, not everyone will see the same colours but 
that will, in turn' highlight differences in environment that we 
might otherwise never notice. A generous author (which I believe JKR 
to be) welcomes and encourages a dialogue around the shared world 
precisely because it creates a greater spectrum of understanding.

Regards
Jo