lit. crit. and Potter

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood me (my bad I'm sure!). I take post-
> modern to be a rejection of absolutes including morality, there is 
> no definable good/bad or right/wrong. Everything depends on 
> perspective. By isolating the WW from the real world JKR can explore 
> the moral dimension without addressing the more gnarly contemporary 
> debates surrounding power, equality and responsibility whilst *at 
> the same time* not denying those debates.
> 
> The WW itself is modern not post-modern. Good and bad do exist as 
> identifiable attainable concepts. Our ability to be good is a 
> function of our desire to be so and our comprehension of the choices 
> available. The plurality of the WW is an attempt to re-create 
> paradise and assumes there is such a thing to be attained. 


I've been reading this thread in a desultory sort of way - not being an
enthusiast for lit. crit. type analysis means I can take it or leave it.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that quite a lot of lit. crit. - and  I'm 
speaking generally here, not specifically about HP - is based on false 
premises.  

It's assumed that what a reader takes from, or even perceives in a book
is neither subjective interpretation nor an accidental or coincidental 
parallel or allusion arising solely from the requirement of getting 
characters from the start of the tale to the finish. They have to do
something while they're in there, don't they? And as coming up with
actions or interactions that are totally unique is asking a bit much,
the comparison of arcs and threads to past literary or real world 
themes is pretty much ineluctable. 
Significance though; aye, there's the rub.

Sure, it's possible to draw or leap to conclusions and authors may have
intended that some of them should be drawn, but IMO you can have too
much of a good thing - push it too far and you're in trouble, it starts
to get messy, to fall apart into a macedoin of personal agendas.

An example; HP as it might be seen from a certain political stance:
It is patently obvious that the WW is a satiric indictment of the tendency 
of elites in societies to pervert the uses of technology for their own 
selfish ends and that oppression of the weak is the inevitable outcome.
Valid interpretation - or a load of old cobblers?  

Couldn't give a toss either way, frankly.
I'm too busy enjoying the way the words have been strung together on
the page. If someone wants to equate DEs with fascism, House Elves with 
slavery, Goblins with the Peasants Revolt and Giants with the destruction
of Amerind societies, well - it keeps 'em out of mischief, I suppose.
Adds nothing to the books of course, may even detract. Expectations,
indeed current certainties may not be fulfilled - probably disappointing 
some but cheering others.

I think I'll stick to plot theories internal to the canon, thank you very much.
Being right or wrong is a much more cut and dried affair there. 
 
Two quotes; neither from people I admire and with a bit of luck they'll
have been taken out of context:
"There is nothing outside the text." - Derrida.
"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art." - Sontag.

Kneasy