Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising

[nrenka]

> Carolyn:
>
> So, for example, JKR's apparent inability to construct a consistent 
> pattern for Lupin's lycanthropy (see your tragically funny post: 
> 123946 Full Moon - A Rant About Lycanthropy Symptoms) is a case of 
> internal rules being irrelevant, despite the immense opportunities 
> this opens up for doubting Lupin?

Ah, the eternal question.

Let me put forth a model that I tend to play with; being as this is 
fiction and not history, JKR has in mind some very concrete things 
that we might dare to call facts: whether Lupin is ESE or not, what 
exactly happened at Godric's Hollow that night, what Snape's 
motivations actually are.  I think that many of these things will 
ultimately be revealed.

The game that we're ultimately playing (in part) is "how close are we 
getting to guessing these things correctly?".  But, as this is also 
fiction, there is the eminent possibility of a certain...disconnect 
between details and the factual reality I posited above.  That is to 
say, it's very possible that it's completely factual that Lupin is 
not ESE, despite how *one* reading of the inconsistencies opens up 
that possibility.  Facts, as Uncle Carl has been reminding me of for 
the past goddamn three weeks, can prove themselves amenable to any 
number of paradigms.

> Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they 
> appear, and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The 
> End. So, we sweep under the carpet little uncomfortable details 
> like why great guys like James and Sirius were betrayed by one of 
> their closest school friends, or why the saintly Lily didn't tell 
> Dumbledore her husband was an animagus (you are telling me she 
> didn't know?). You can see where memorable assertions like 'Frank 
> Longbottom was Judge Dredd on acid' begin (Eric Oppen on top 
> form...). Intelligent readers start to fill in the gaps in 
> frustration.

The problem is ultimately whether the gaps that we perceive are the 
same gaps that she does, when she writes the story.  Or whether 
something that we think is a gap really IS a gap, in said factual 
model.  I don't think everything is going to be settled, but I do get 
the idea that JKR has some very solid factual answers in mind (and 
does she ever have defined ideas about her characters), and there is 
always the point at which one runs into the reality of what is 
written.  [I might add that mercifully, the idea that the author is 
dead is now pretty much officially dead.  It has such nasty side-
effects when you start to work with it seriously.]

<snip>

> Neri:
>
> The analogy with Le Carre might be misleading. JKR may be that deep,
> but that does not necessarily mean she shares the same themes and
> values. There are other ways of being deep than having a big ESE. 
> And anyway, JKR wrote five books already. For theorizing about what 
> will happen in books 6 and 7, I prefer to analyze these books then 
> rely on analogies with Le Carre or any other author.<<

Somehow, bizzarely, having to trudge through Heidegger for class has 
actually thrown out something almost interesting for thinking about 
these ideas.  It's his concept of Stimmung, which is perhaps best 
rendered as 'mood' or 'predisposition'.  [Karol Berger takes that on 
to argue for Stimmung as the expressive power of music; it's not 
flawless, but hot damn does it get you somewhere that makes intuitive 
sense.  You get around the emotion problem because Stimmung does not 
require an intentional object.]

More, it's this astonishing claim made in some of the secondary 
literature about the work disclosing the whole of a set of relations, 
manifesting the possibilities for being of a fictional world...in 
other words, what kind of being is possible in that work of fiction, 
and linking that to genre.  

And I like that idea of 'what kind of being', because it makes me 
think about what the ground rules, what the cosmology of JKR's world 
is--because it sets limits on the possibilities of both plot and 
characterization.  I don't think I've fully guessed JKR's 
Stimmung. :) 

But since I'm not one to ignore source material when I get it, I'm 
expecting the comments about Christianity to play a role in the 
denoument somehow.  (It doesn't matter whether I *like* that or not--
it's there, and when she says she won't talk about religious aspects 
until it's all over...).  I expect some of her comments about what 
she values and doesn't, about the broad themes, about who influenced 
her (Decca Mitford, anyone?) who she loves; all little hints.

My personal sense is that it's a universe rather far from Le Carre's, 
and that it's one with shades of grey, but is a lot more 
straightfoward than most theorists think.  Not to mention analysts.

Eh, it's an idea.

-Nora is also something of a fan of Faith