lit. crit. and Potter

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

Kneasy:
Over the years many authors have elicited hollow laughter (from this 
direction, anyway) when attempting to justify or 'explain' their works. 
No doubt you've experienced as much cynicism or frustration as anyone
while they spout obvious rubbish on chat shows, interviews and the like,
mostly to try and sell more copies. Well, that's something Jo won't have 
to do, that much is certain. But the frequency with which authors pretend
that their books are something they quite patently aren't does cause one 
to wonder if their answers aren't fully as fictional as their works. All it needs
is for some critic (who  probably never bothered to finish the book) to
include a few words or phrases like 'angst' (synonym for miserable), 
'deep insight into the modern condition' (messy) and suddenly a very
run-of-the-mill volume acquires the Emperors New Clothes.

Mind you in can happen in reverse. All the agonised twistings of an agitated
Attwood when confronted by the shock-horror news that she'd written 
a Sci-Fi novel. It would have made the cat laugh. Still, it was true, it wasn't
her first and it wasn't very good. Three time loser. Didn't stop her denying it
vehemently though.
 
Hence a deep distrust lingers. At least when readers discuss plot theories
it is with the reasonable expectation that an answer will be found before 
the closing of the final chapter.
 

> 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. 
>

Kneasy:
It might. French academe got very exercised about HP last year.
Not sure if it was totally serious or a veiled attempt to remind the taxpayers
that professors are really important by indulging in a public knock-about
over a subject people have actually heard of.
 
 
> snip> 
> 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?
> 
>

Kneasy:
Disturbing? Do you think so? Can't think why. Don't see it myself. It'd be
interesting if you expanded on that.
No, I regard all the discussion about sources, influences etc. as pretty much
on a par with the extras they tend to include on  DVDs - all those "how we
did this" and "weren't we clever to do that". Extraneous guff from smug bastards.
Professional lit. critters fill much the ecological niche IMO.