Manifesto?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Mind you, it could be the product of a mischievious mind - throw
in a few deliberately ambiguous phrases that'll let us work ourselves
into a lather, later to deny any relevance with wide-eyed innocence
whilst chortling inside. Red herrings have been planted, that's been
openly admitted -  and how many have we identified? Hm. Since
we've no idea how many exist, that knowledge is liable to encourage
the more, what? - imaginative? volatile? suspicious? fans to chase
their own tails, eventually to disappear up their own chuff. Entire
edifices of speculation have doubtlessly been constructed on
premises that are not only false, but based on 'information' intentionally
inserted as bait for the unwary.

Then there's the problem of the contrived getting tangled up with the
unintentional - Mark Evans, wand order in GoF, stuff like that. They were
corrected eventually, true - and weren't exactly congruent with existing 
canon, but still, we've enough uncertainties already without the added 
complication of wondering if something is erroneous, inadvertently 
coincidental or planned.
Just pull your hair out and tell yourself it's not meant to be easy.

When we talk of 'authorial intentions' there's a risk of becoming too
portentous by assuming that there *must* be some profound or serious
message or insight that will have the reader nodding sagely when
the final full-stop appears. Jo has said what this tale is not - a
morality story - but she's never said what it is. Could be anything
from therapy to an amusing entertainment - and 'intentions' will
have encompassed a lot more than the content, that's for sure.

Relax, sit back and put yourself in her place.
You get an idea.
What do you intend doing about it?
1st intention. - "Ooh. Looks good. Can I make it work?"
It does - to your own unprofessional eyes, anyway.
2nd intention. - Get it published.
Finally - a yes!
3rd intention. - "Hang on; there might be a few quid in this," recalling
the dictum of old Sam Johnson - "No man but a blockhead ever wrote,
except for money."
There is. Lots.
A significant fraction of the book reading public goes bananas.
Pottermania sweeps civilisation, all sorts of odd-balls speculate on
what will happen to Harry and why.
4th intention. - Suspense. Don't tell 'em. Keep it secret until the bitter 
end. The possibility of a modern-day repetition of Dickens and the crowds
on the New York docks desperate for news of Little Nell doesn't seem
fanciful -  the bookshops are besieged with the publication of each 
volume.
5th intention. - Don't let it go to your head. Taking it too seriously
would be laying out the 'Welcome' mat for Hubris to come calling.
6th intention.  - Enjoy yourself. Engage with the fans, not the literary 
establishment. The fans are more fun and the LE is mostly a bunch
of back-biting wannabes anyway. Come the finale there'll probably be
more of those old weirdies claiming there's a lack of the 'numinous',
or it's badly done or some rubbish or other.
7th intention. - Remind the fans that they're supposed to enjoy it, too.
  
With all this, who's got time for eternal verities?
Those mischievious buggers on the web-sites, that's who. 
Some people are never satisfied.

Kneasy