lit. crit. and Potter

[kumayama]

Hello Sean,

What Jolly fun, my third public post and I'm held to account with a word I"m not sure really 
exists--i.e., your line, "snip egregrious top-posting." Seems a "word" of that spelling gets 
used occasionally, yet I've never really found it in a respected dictionary (say the OED, at 
least my worn old muti-volume set). 

So being my inquisitive self, I say, "Self, just what did Sean mean to say about my posting? 
Ah, why not go to the source and ask." So, taking my self's advice to Self, I shall ask, just 
what did you intend to convey in finding my "top-posting" egregrious? TIA for any 
enlightenment you may bestow.  

But on to your more expansive comments. Frankly, you illustrate why I found Kneasy's 
comments refreshing. I shan't go too far into this as I don't have the interest or time,  and 
Kneasy has already made his own reply in defence (or was it just explanation?). I guess I'm 
a simpleton at heart, and perhaps a bit of a detective (and thus why I'm a 
neuropsychologist and not a Jungian analyst). 

I enjoy the books, and I don't need for them to be any larger or lesser than the story 
contained therein. Those looking for profundity will likely generate it (ah, happily deluded 
Hans). I really wonder how much JKR looks out on all the assumptions associated with her 
each and every word and phrase, and then thinks to herself how much richer and devious 
and symbolic a story she has written than her mind ever intended. Will she be able to be 
honest with herself that this apparent (or better, pseudo-) richness is the fabrication of 
some readers, or will she begin to believe her "underlying intent" (conscious or un-
conscious) has been recognized and revealed in their erudite interpretations and "insight." 

I suspect she won't, but if she did she would not be the first author to begin to believe 
there is more meaning in her text than she ever conceived of when writing. If you have fun 
with that stuff, fine. Doesn't bother me, but my fun lies in a less cerebral and more narrow 
approach to the story, which, as Kneasy indicated, can come from the story itself and does 
not require speculation based on the social/political/economic/religious context of the 
writer and the written. (I recall my wife seeing the original Star Wars film and being much 
put off by the "sound" of weapons firing in empy space--I can't help but think those who 
less critically submersed themselves in the film enjoyed it much more. Indeed, hasn't it 
appeared that there has been a little less enjoyment of the HP story on the part of many of 
those actively engaged in its disection over at HPfGU.) Thus again, I find refreshing to read 
Kneasy "I'm too busy enjoying the way the words have been strung together on the page," 
and the story they tell. 

Of course, I don't know the whole story yet, even though I've read the 5 volumes. The story 
will be complete (at least to JKR's satisfaction and intent) at the end of 7. If the story were 
spread over only one book, I wouldn't feel I could fairly understand, let alone critique, the 
volume based on reading only the first 5 of the 7 chapters, so I don't feel I can fairly 
critique (nor fully understand) this story when almost one third of it remains to be written. 
[To use an almost tiresome analogy, could one really understand the significance of 
Gollum, and Frodo's choices with respect to Gollum, until almost the very end of the last 
volume of the LOTR.] At this time, most analysis of the HP story can only be speculation 
and expectation, and as Kneasy has written, "Expectations,indeed current certainties may 
not be fulfilled - probably disappointing some but cheering others." 

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything (might have tried in my youth, 
but no longer---and of course the battling shippers well illustrate the futility of such 
attempts), and thus I'm not much into arguing my statements either. We will all find our 
own ways to extend and expand on the HP experience for ourselves. I use the word "I" a 
lot, perhaps because of a hint (or more ) of narcissim, but also because I am labeling the 
comments as representing MY approach to HP. I toss ideas out into the market place-- 
some may find them worthy of purchase as is, some may add to them, some may walk 
around them, some may walk over, and some may attempt to trample them. Observing the 
process is sometimes interesting, but mostly there is the potential I may learn from the 
reactions, whether or not I appreciate them.  

Lyn

below if one wants the back text here.
   

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