lit. crit. and Potter

[kumayama]

Kneasy, Your comments below are most refreshing.

 I also question just how much one can properly make of any of JKR's supposed motives 
and  moral messages (overtly or covertly represented  in the text) before the series (and 
thus story) is completed. For all we know, at the end she may make Harry into a chump for 
ever believing in DD, wishing to help others, embracing the WW, and showing alliegance to 
Ron and Hermione.  
Lyn

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> 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.
>