Manifesto?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> Let me clarify, although this isn't my position.  This school of 
> disgruntlement believes that JKR *is* sending out moral messages from 
> a very strong authorial voice, and they do not like them.  
> Specifically, it is considered to be a message that Gryffindor House 
> is Good and Slytherin House is Entirely Bad, reinforced by her 
> interviews where she's like "Draco is nasty, the Slytherin kids are 
> unpleasant, who could possibly really like Snape, etc."  People who 
> JKR likes, such as Hagrid, have flaws that are readily obvious to any 
> reader, but she likes them and so we are supposed to regard them as 
> good.  The Twins do morally heinous things, but for some reason she 
> likes the little shits, so we get their excellence shoved down our 
> throats.
> 
> Again, it ain't my position.  But you can see where from it comes, no?
>

Kneasy:
Maybe the moral is "Make hypocrisy work for you."
Mostly the anguish of those that complain is a result of taking it all
too seriously and without the necessary pinch of salt, IMO. Sadly,
it's almost impossible to get them to take the step back that might
put it into some sort of perspective. What does get irritating is the
assumption that others do or should take it as seriously and as 
literally as they do. 

It's all down to reader perceptions, each is different to a greater
or lesser extent - and they mean bugger all without a confirmatory
nod from the author. 

A lot of those that have romped around Jo's playground for a while
are aware that some of the comments she's made could well have
been preparation for unexpected and unwelcome plot developments,
at least where some fans are concerned. The statement that she 
"doesn't care if only six books are bought" she still won't change
the story, for example. Sounds good to me. Something to look
forward to. Hope it's nothing trivial. There's a fair chance that
others will be horrified - assuming she had a reason for making
the statement in the first place.

It's worth remembering that the main story was complete before
the furore of world fame. She expected (if she was lucky) to sell
a few thousand copies and supplement a teacher's salary. With
all the millions of fans she's not going to please them all. She's
probably wise to expect complaints, some vociferous. She'd
be even wiser to brush 'em off - here it is, take it or leave it.
Can you see any other realistic alternative?

 
> > 
> > Kneasy:
> > A bit premature there, I'd have thought; the series is but 70% 
> > complete, with most of the action and explication to come.
> > Or perhaps you have information that we're not privy to...
> 
> Two words: Mark Evans. :)
> 

Kneasy:
OK - though I never bought that one anyway.
I'll respond with one word - Scabbers.
What would FAITH's response have been if after book 2 it had
been suggested that a dozy pet rat would be an apparently major 
villain?
In retrospect much acquires an aura of inevitability that before
the event would have been thought fanciful, yet if you browse through
the archives there's very little that wasn't suggested by someone. The
trick is picking the winners. Most of the major theories are still up
for grabs - mostly because they aren't expected to be tested until
the final volume, or perhaps by something really BANGy in book 6.
Then we'll get the slaughter of the not-so-innocent.
Should be fun. And I do mean fun. I doubt that *any* of the theorisers
are as intensely involved with HP as the moralists are. Most are doomed
to seeing theories rubbished; so what? It's not important. But it seems
to be for the moralists.

> I'm also thinking of some plot situations which can be picked apart 
> at present as a little flimsy, but you are indeed-y correct that 
> future information could modify things drastically.  Here's another 
> example which floats around but **is not my own thinking**: the DEs 
> have all sorts of various skills that we're told about, like unto 
> specialties.  Why weren't any of them using them in the DoM battle?  
> These guys are hardened black hats and they're just holding back on 
> the kids so as not to break the shiny?  Doesn't make sense.  (Of 
> course, you can reason it out so as to make sense--but the critic 
> rejects the validity and/or quality of what you have to do to make it 
> make sense.)
> 

Kneasy:
Yes.  The Dark Magic question. Or perhaps DM is not so much a matter
of defined spells as an intention to do harm with a spell. Who knows?
The exchange between DD and MM chap.1, PS/SS is probably a pointer 
of some kind.

> 
> No, you can't actually be rejected, but you certainly can feel as if 
> you are rejected.  The strength of reaction in the fandom has, at 
> times, certainly gone past 'disappointment', particularly in the 
> expression of intense personal feeling about said events.  If a fan 
> has a very heavy emotional investment in a particular set of ideas 
> and projections about a character (and many do), it's not easy to 
> have things go the other way.
> 

Kneasy:
It's probably because I'm an unfeeling brute, but I've never had any
intense reaction to anything in HP. Doubt I ever will, apart from
"Hey! That's a good plot twist!" if there's an unexpected turn of events.
Some fiction and poetry can get to me, but not Jo. It's solely light
entertainment from this viewpoint; no emotional investment at all.
Sure, I appreciate that there are those that are heavily committed.
I appreciate that it happens, but I don't pretend to understand it.
"Hello? It's not real! It's not even realistic!" is my attitude.
And never the twain shall meet.

> 
> IMHO, some fanon arises because of a desire for things to go 
> differently, and because of disgruntlement with the present story 
> arc.  This is pretty clearly observable in the type of AU scenarios 
> which have flourished post-OotP.  Otherwise we wouldn't have suave, 
> sexy, enlightened Draco who wants Harry so badly, or a zillion 
> stories where Sirius gets resurrected, or the continued writing of 
> Snape as an aristocratic figure of wealth and supreme erudition.  In 
> the discussion threads of what might happen next to a beloved 
> character (especially Draco and/or Snape), a common refrain is "if we 
> don't like it and she ruins the character, there's still always 
> fanon!".  Fanon can be a great deal of fun and YMMV and go for it and 
> all that, but it does frequently arise from fan dislike (and hence 
> indictment of) the story arc and presentation of characters, and the 
> desire to have more acceptible alternatives.  The newcomer to fanon 
> characterizations often ends up looking at them and going "Where the 
> hell did this come from?  Reading the same books?"
>

Kneasy:
We'll continue to disagree, I think.
Nobody in their right mind could ever conceive of JKR (or any mainstream
author, come to that) developing HP along some of the fanon lines.
But looking at the more, let's say, conventional outpourings - I don't
believe it means as much as you think. You may recall that there are
three(?) TBAYS from yours truly - the MADAM WHIPLASH series. Does
that signify an indictment of JKR for not making Hermione a sex-pot
dominatice? Nope. It's a humorous counterpoint to the Hermy of the
books and means nothing. But stuff like that is fun to write and I'd
guess most would regard the more readable fanon as an adjunct to
HP rather than as an attempt at a replacement.