[the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter

[Sean Dwyer]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:06:34AM -0000, kumayama wrote:
 
> 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.  

[snip egregrious top-posting]

How would you be any better equipped after the series? Are we supposed to wait
for JKR's pronouncement and accept that as face-value too? We're not without
opinions of our own, surely?

External theory apparently not as acceptable as wild theorizing within the
text - well it's all far-fetched to me, entertainingly enjoyable as it is. I
doubt lit. crit. will ever fully engage with the Potterverse simply because
it's all escapism to them. Interesting word+concept, escapism. Apparently
invented some time in the 1930's by a literary critic, noone's quite sure, but
quickly became the favourite word. 

But i disagree with the thrust of Kneasy's argument, that criticism has
anything to do with forcing artistic work to equate with reality. A clever way
of avoiding the issue, but that's his choice. Perhaps current lit. critters
are delusionally obsessed with that, but i suspect it's only to get
dissertations accepted and tenure secured. I'm not interested in Potterverse
as a social phenonemon, I want to see how JKR's sources and influences might
influence the logic of the story. You can hardly cry foul if JKR is also
playing the game on her website. You can hardly expect JKR to not be affected
by the mass of hypothoesis around her work. The text is not Writ, it's the end
of a process. That process includes us, it's a necessary feedback loop whether
it's desired or not. 

I can see both sides of Kneasy's (obviously shared) argument, I live in both
worlds figuratively. I don't ignore one to preserve the wonder of the other, i
wouldn't be on a Potterverse list if i did. But the implications of such
external insights seem curiously threatening, or at least disturbing to some.
That's a limitation that surprises me, why isn't it the case for Tolkien fans
just as the most obvious example?

-- 
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."