|
Author
|
Comment
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(7/23/04 8:18 am)
|
Re: Adding nothing particularly intelligent on the discussio
I think that Gryffindor has three black students: Lee Jordan, I
seem to recall Dean Thomas being black too (and Ginny's currently
dating him), and Angelina Johnson (whom either Fred or George goes
to the dance with). But that's the problem isn't it? Or at least
one of the problems pointed out in one of the essays I mentioned
above: everybody's whitewashed. It's the ideal of "we're all
the same under the skin," which is an ideal I agree with very
generally--i.e. human beings seek love and security and anybody
raised under a certain set of strictures and pressures blah blah
blah--but is too often reduced to "we're all alike, you can't
tell the difference, certainly the pressures of race and culture
have no effect on people's personalities at all."
My personal opinion is that Harry has to end up with Ginny so that Ron can end up with Hermione. If Harry ends up with Hermione, Ron can't end up with Ginny because she's his sister, so Ron gets nobody. Unless Rowling introduces some other character in the next couple books. Plus, Ginny has what Harry wants, a loving, strong, wizarding family, so it makes a certain kind of pop psychology sense too.
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(7/23/04 9:05 am)
|
Re: Adding nothing particularly intelligent on the discussio
"My problem with the house elf issue is this: in no system of slavery based on race or class that I can think of have the slaves themselves been happy in the system. "
It would make an interesting essay--given that Rowling has often
been compared to Dahl in some ways--to contrast/compare the slavery
issue in both Harry Potter viz house elves and Willy Wonka viz Oompa-Loompas
in CHARLIE
& THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Both groups are spoken of as "happy"
with their lot of service. Neither can leave without permission
or some variety of manumission. Etc.
I was a junior editor on CHARLIE and when we asked Dahl to change the OL who were--in the first edition and some time after--chocolate coloured from Africa, he harumphed and said, "racism is an American problem." Years later when it became a British "problem" as well, the OLs mysteriously tranformed into green (or purple...I cannot remember which) but were still in virtual slavery in the Chocolate Factory. Rowling is a bit of an improvement--because of the era in which she grew up--but only just.
Jane
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(7/26/04 12:07 am)
|
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
And here I was thinking they were just a walloping good tale. To begin, I consider myself a feminist and reasonably intelligent. I also write stories, though nobody seems to want them yet. I feel the need to defend JKR, not because she hasn't addressed some arguably significant subtexts, but because I think she wasn't trying to write a story for the ages. It seems to me that much literary criticism uses a peculiar ruler to measure the relative worth of written material. If an author sets out with the purpose of illustrating some very hard truths in a metaphorical way, more power to them. But, and this is a big "but", if they set out to give us a smashing yarn, then why do we apply all this subtext that the author never intended? It is every reader's decision what they take away from any work. Everyone is free to see whatever subtext it suits them to see. I think it is unfair and unrealistic to expect any writer to deliver a neat package of a perfect world; I really believe JKR's only intent was to write an enjoyable story- I think her target audience has little awareness of some of the things previously discussed. It seems wrong to me to apply adult sensibilities to what is a children's series. Now, that said, I want to be clear that I don't entirely disagree with some of the analysis; I don't believe kids are stupid, either; I do, however, believe they do not respond to things the same way adults do. I really think the main audience of HP doesn't give a hoot about gender politics or the plight of the downtrodden. I am not so foolish as to think they are completely unaffected, hence the vehemence of some of the posts; but I do think that whatever less than enlightened viewpoints exist in HP's world, they are, to a degree, mitigated by what is wonderful. (that roof that shows the sky! the oh so cool uncle. the phoenix) I imagine most children identify with Harry's house and dislike Malfoy's- they're supposed to. Therefore, the other two are insignificant to the story, so why should it matter if they always lose? I also imagine most kids don't even consider the rest of the world while they're visiting Hogwort's- not mudbloods, not stay-at-home moms, not house elves. The books are intended as pure fantasy, so why are we compelled to hold them to an impossible standard of addressing the ills of our society? Why do we need to critique this work as if it were a Statement? If I want a Statement, I'll read Margaret Atwood or Tanith Lee or Angela Carter- if I want fluff I don't have to think about, I'll read JKR or Stephen King or many others. Perhaps someone will say we need to do this BECAUSE it's for kids, or, maybe, somebody will say that all literature should hold to a higher ideal. Well, possibly. My main purpose when I read fiction is entertainment, not anything else; if it happens to be thought provoking, that's a bonus. Maybe I'm being short-sighted. Maybe I'm unaware of the potential far reaching aspects. Maybe this does actually matter. Maybe. Or maybe a lady just wrote a story. Maybe none of this stuff even crossed her mind. Maybe if she'd known what hell she was going to get for failing to realize everything, she wouldn't have written them at all. So, you know, maybe we could all give her a break and just have some gratitude that she wrote a fun, exciting series and call it good.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(7/26/04 1:33 am)
|
Re: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Quote:
Maybe if she'd known what hell she was going to get for failing to realize everything, she wouldn't have written them at all.
Oh, I bet the millions and millions of pounds cushion the blows.
Don't get me wrong: I say good for JKR--she deserves to be rich
and more children's writers should get that rich. It's a far more
worthy occupation than most well-paying ones. But I'm not wasting
any time feeling sorry for her. We should all have such "hell."
My gratitude for the story is shown in the, what, twenty-five bucks
I've forked out for each book and the amount of time I've spent
reading, re-reading, and thinking about them. Because the stuff
I really think is lousy? I don't waste my time on. I have no theories
or readings of, say, "The
Man Show" or Jaws:
the Revenge. It's not worth my energy.
I think what we just have different ways of enjoying reading. The
critique is part of how I read. It's not an effort, particularly.
It's not what I do instead of "enjoying the story."
I do both. They're the same thing for me. The critique informs the
story; the story creates the critique. Not everyone enjoys doing
that, and that's fine, but if I was expected or forced to stop doing
the critique, I would stop enjoying reading so much. I don't run
around castigating people for not analyzing texts, unless they're
students in my English class, in which case they darn well better
be analyzing the texts, for gender, or use of color in descriptions,
or animal imagery, or ocean metaphors, or whatever they like. Each
to her own.
That said, I don't care if Rowling meant to put in social commentary or not. I think she did, given the heavy emphasis on "mudbloods" and the house elves and suchlike. But it doesn't matter to me. What writers don't know or don't realize they're putting in their work can be as revealing of contemporary cultural mores and judgments as what they do purposefully. If not more so.
I want to take up a certain point, because I've seen people write it over and over again--not necessarily here, but elsewhere as well.
Quote:
Everyone is free to see whatever subtext it suits them to see.
Not all subtexts and readings are created equal. Some can be supported with textual evidence. Some analyses have evidence and can be backed up with citations. Some don't. It's an important distinction, in my opinion.
That bit about it sucking to be in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff was a joke about literary cliches and conventions, not a serious complaint.
Edited because however much I may like the rhyme, the names of the houses are Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, not Ravenclaw and Hufflepaw.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 7/26/04 1:35 am
|
Samantha
Leland
Registered User
(7/26/04 3:51 am)
|
Re: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Bear with me as I tentatively dip my foot into what has, thus far
been a deliciously thought-provoking discussion. This may just be
me, but that something is "good" isn't enough, I want
to know why it's good (or, conversely, why it's not). If I love
a book, that says something very specific about what I value and
I want to know what that is. Likewise if a book appears on the syllabus
of one of my lit classes, that says something equally specific both
about what the academic community values, as well as what my professor
values. I don't know, to me this is extraordinarily important information.
Back to the case in point, looking at 'Harry Potter' with these
questions in mind does not, I don't think, hold it to an impossible
standard; these questions aren't a judgment, per se, but to my understanding
an exploration of the material. Criticism does not invent subtexts
out of thin air, but rather deals concretely with what the author
presents in the text. Now granted, this probably isn't the work
of your average fifth grader who picks up 'Harry
Potter,' but to suggest that the discussion should not be undertaken
at all implies a sort of willful blindness, as if by virtue of this
story's appeal we ought to assign it some sacrosanct status.
I don't think the criticism offered here has viciously attacked JKR or the Harry Potter books, nor do I think that criticism is necessarily a measure of the text's worth. Whether Rowling consciously imbued her world with the gender/class politics under discussion here isn't the whole story; add to it that everyone's writing is, to some degree, informed by his or her background and the social structures and systems we're all born into and we see a little more of the picture. While I agree that every reader will take something different from the story, Rowling's assumptions are first, indicative of the cultural context that shaped her life, and second, they are assumptions shared by her readers to some extent if they go unnoticed. Looking at the story critically does not undermine its worth, rather it provides us with yet another tool that can help to uncover some of the underlying structures that inform so much of our experience, even down to the ways we form ideas.
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(7/27/04 1:17 am)
|
contrariwise...
I certainly did not mean to imply that subtext, of whatever nature, is without value. Nor do I think intelligent critique is cruel. However, and perhaps I wasn't clear, I do think heavy analysis can, and sometimes does, interfere with pure story. Now, Veronica Schanoes said she enjoys reading for the analysis- that it is part of her reading pleasure. I do not think this is bad or wrong; it is just what she enjoys. My objection has more to do with the seemingly prevalent notion that minute analyzing adds something to the work. It doesn't really. Literary criticism is it's own work; it says more, in my opinion, about the author of the criticism than it does about the work in question. And I am NOT saying literary criticism is worthless; it's main value is to present new ideas to people, to make them think. It functions best in a context of comparison- to other analysis, to the original work, etc. But sometimes I can't help wondering why we seem to find it so necessary. I don't know- maybe I'm reacting to something I feel, rather than logic. Maybe because I write stories that haven't even been accepted or rejected (yet) I'm too sensitive. I know my life, concious and subconcious, is reflected in my work. I shudder to contemplate what subtleties of politics or whatever escaped my notice. I guess what I wanted to point out was something akin to the idea of taking something the way it's intended. Like movies, for example. I don't have the same requirements of , say, a John Woo flick that I do of Tim Burton. I also try to read fiction the way it seems to be intended. Charles DeLint's work is lovely and he is certainly making some points about modern society, but he isn't in the same league as, oh, Harlan Ellison when it comes to skewering the hypocrisy of our times. Hence, in Ellison's work, I expect thought-provoking symbols, I expect to read more than once so I don't miss anything; I read DeLint for his wonderfully real characters, I expect a simpler, though no less enjoyable, story. And now that I've rambled all over the place, I'm still unsure if I expressed what I wanted to express. Maybe it can be summed up as: Is there something wrong with letting a simple book like Harry Potter just be a simple book? Must we overcomplicate it? Not every writer has an agenda. Is it really necessary to burden a kid's series with all this very adult, deeply intellectual analysis? Isn't there enough adult literature to keep us involved in discussions of gender, race, class, politics, and religion? To me, there seems to be tons of adult literature to occupy us. Like Tolkein. Heinlein. Bradbury. Yolen. McKinley. Etc.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(7/27/04 9:13 am)
|
Re: contrariwise...
But that seems to me to suggest that somehow adult lit is more "worthy" of analysis or serious thought than children's lit, and that's a suggestion I don't agree with. Children's lit is as enjoyable, complex, thoughtful as adult lit--I suppose it's less dense, often, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I don't think that analysis hurts a text, and I think good analysis gives insight into how a text, as a made thing, works, how it's put together (we may simply have to agree to disagree on this--I think that good analysis tells you as much about the critic as about the text, but I definitely think that good analysis, based on close readings of the text and supported with quotations and explications, tells you about the text).
I find litcrit necessary because it's what I do for a living. Can't speak for anyone else, of course. But I also think it's necessary because it can help us to understand how and why art affects us, helping is to be less passive and more active with respect to artistic experience.
I understand not having the same requirements for different genres, but for me, the requirements that differ tend to be more about stylistic expectations. I don't expect terror from a Jane Austen novel, and I don't expect elaborate courtship customs in a horror movie. But I find each subject to the same kinds of methods of understanding and analysis.
Edited to add that it's interesting to me, redtriskell, that we seem to have opposite experiences of what kinds of reading our society values. I feel as though I am constantly being told by various people such as my grandfather, my students, others on chatboards (not necessarily you--I've had this conversation with other people before), etc., things such as why do you have to make such a big deal out of it, it's only a book, you're over-reading, why can't you just enjoy the story, it's just a coincidence, and other such things. It feels to me as though generally, people in this society don't value lit-crit and close reading and textual analysis (and I mean the larger society, it's different when you're talking to a bunch of readers and writers on a chatboard for that purpose!). That's one of the reasons why I've gone into academia--it's one of the only places where I feel what I do is valued. I've never chastised anyone who says that they love to read because they want to lose themselves in the plot, or they enjoy the story, or whatever. I enjoy those things too.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 7/27/04 10:26 am
|
swood
Unregistered User
(7/27/04 10:32 am)
|
Children's Lit Reality vs. Fantasy
This is a great discussion, both of children's lit generally, and HP specifically. I also read the editorials in the Times. It made me angry and also made me wonder whether the author had actually read much children's lit.
First, her criticism that Newbery Award winning books are usually social reality novels, doesn't seem to true. There are a number of children's fantasy classics on the Newbery list, and a lot of historical fiction.
Second, I think there are all different kinds of books, just like there are all different kinds of readers. I agree that educators usually steer readers towards social reality novels, which is a shame. I'm just happy that children are reading; I am less concerned about WHAT their reading.
Finally, the editorialist complains that fantasy doesn't get taken seriously; but she can only do so while devaluing the alternatives. This kind of criticism doesn't seem very mature to me, or productive when it comes to the promotion of children's literature specifically, or reading generally.
Sarah
P.S. On the subject of HP - most of my friends hated the lastest movie. The reason they gave was that they thought Hermione had TOO BIG OF A ROLE and that it wasn't like the book in that aspect.
I loved the movie. Not only did it seem more magical than the others; I liked that Hermione had a bigger role. I've alway wished I got to see more of her and Ron in the books.
|
Laura
Registered User
(7/27/04 1:46 pm)
|
Wooing Burton
Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun. Woo is as rife with symbolism,
subtext, and meaning as Burton -- we just may not always like it
what it says as much. Furthermore, the intentional fallacy is very
dangerous -- tempting though it may be, we can never know
precisely what an author has in mind. No matter what he/she meant,
what we have is what's on the page, so that's what we must think
about.
As someone who has both pursued lit crit as a profession and had her share of frustration with it, the points here are insightful but perhaps missing something. One of the uses of criticism is to point out precisely that which is uncomfortable, which is pushed aside or not consciously thought about. Redtriskell hits on this by commenting "I shudder to contemplate what subtleties of politics or whatever escaped my notice."
Oftentimes, I wonder if people (such as my students!) who are uncomfortable with literary criticism are perhaps unhappy at what feels like an "attack" on something they love -- or at least enjoy. As good thinkers, we're taught to look for flaws, and socially we're primed to think that things with flaws are damaged, broken, and imperfect. We tend to want to cast aside the flawed to pursue elusive perfection. By examining some of the undercurrents in texts (HP's treatment of females, for example), we see reflected unpleasant truths. The very fact that Rowling, a woman, could claim to be writing a progressive/modern story and yet produce these highly successful-yet-troubling portraits of women and minorities says some interesting things about how far culture has -- or hasn't -- come. But in no way does that mean the stories are without merit -- or even not good. Stories can be wonderful AND troubling.
Similarly, these issues must be confronted even more aggressively in children's literature. Reading shapes a child's life -- take one look at the thread about which tale started each of us off. The messages they read, whether in magazines, books, or anywhere else, penetrate. When literature for ages depicted women and minorities as relatively worthless and weak, it played into the vicious cycle of culture: media reflecting current pop thought, which is formed by media, and so on. The presence of more and more stories with active heroines is symptomatic of an effort to redress these past wrongs, but you rarely see those works achieve the popularity of a Potter.
Whatever else is driving the mania for Harry, we owe a duty to ourselves and our children to think about what their reading is teaching them -- subtly or not.
Laura
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(7/27/04 2:28 pm)
|
litcrit
Laura said:
"Oftentimes, I wonder if people (such as my students!) who are uncomfortable with literary criticism are perhaps unhappy at what feels like an "attack" on something they love -- or at least enjoy. As good thinkers, we're taught to look for flaws, and socially we're primed to think that things with flaws are damaged, broken, and imperfect. We tend to want to cast aside the flawed to pursue elusive perfection. By examining some of the undercurrents in texts (HP's treatment of females, for example), we see reflected unpleasant truths. The very fact that Rowling, a woman, could claim to be writing a progressive/modern story and yet produce these highly successful-yet-troubling portraits of women and minorities says some interesting things about how far culture has -- or hasn't -- come. But in no way does that mean the stories are without merit -- or even not good. Stories can be wonderful AND troubling."
I think this is a great point. I would also agree with Helen, Veronica, and Laura that children's literature is as worthy of criticism as adult literature. (I should confess that as a writer for children and teens I have a chip on my shoulder about this. Too often I've encountered the perspective that this kind of writing is easy, simplistic, and/or trivial.) I believe children's books have power; they help us understand ourselves and our society. Certainly Harry Potter, if only because of it's stunning popularity, merits examination.
That said, I also understand a certain - I don't know the right word, discomfort, uneasiness - with literary criticism. I don't mean to suggest this about comments above at all, but there are times when I feel that the analysis of threads, even many threads, somehow misses the meaning of stories as whole pieces. I didn't express that very well. I'll keep thinking, I suppose.
Now I should say something about Harry Potter, but find I've run out of time.
LauraMc
Edited by: Laura McCaffrey at: 7/27/04 3:41 pm
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(7/27/04 6:24 pm)
|
now that you mention it...
Veronica, I find myself wondering if you and I have close, but not
quite matching, ideas about this subject. I have been accused (sometimes
loudly) many times of "reading too much into it." "It"
being whatever book, movie, story, artwork that happens to be on
the table, so to speak. I believe children's work is equally worthy
of serious attention; just because it's intended for younger readers
doesn't mean it is somehow less than adult work. In fact, I find
children and young adult fiction to be refreshing in its (usually)
simpler approach to storytelling. I have a critical mind and I notice
more than I would like sometimes. For me, the balance between story
and what I'm willing to deal with as a reader is a delicate one.
If any work, of whatever genre or style or quality, strikes me as
dismally oblivious or willfully ignorant, then I can't enjoy it.
I find that reading literary criticism tends, even when it's intelligent
(or, maybe, especially when it's intelligent), to detract from my
enjoyment of fiction. I feel that Art is a dialogue between the
artist and the viewer- no matter what the author set out to do,
the reader sees what they wish to see. This is why, in my opinion,
art is necessary; it leads us to look inward. By looking inward
and knowing yourself well, flaws and all, you become, I choose to
believe, a little more able to understand your fellows on this earth.
And, hopefully, you become a little more tolerant of other people's
flaws. Literary (and film and music and art) criticism seem to subtract
a part of this experience from the audience. In a classroom, I think,
analysis should lead to a deeper, more concious awareness of how
the art in question works. It should also lead to clarity of thought
and an ability to think for oneself. But most people aren't living
in academia; art and poetry and music and story affect them in a
more subtle way. I suppose this is why there is so much enthusiasm
for deconstructing literature- to try to help people see; I suppose
it's also why folks seem so ...disappointed?...in JKR's rather questionable
treatment of girls and minorities. But I still think to apply gender/race/class
politics to these books is unfair and overreaching. I am content
to agree to disagree- it happens to me a lot. Agreeing to disagree,
I mean. I tend towards extreme viewpoints sometimes. On one last
note, I would like to say that I value the judicious use of artistic
critique; it's sad to me that you feel academia is the only place
your work has value. As a reader and as a writer, I'm sure I would
gain a great deal from your class or your books. In fact, I'm curious:
are you this tough on your students? If you are, I'm sure your classes
are amazing. Besides, thinking is good for them. Defending an intellectual
position builds character.
|
Erica
Carlson
Registered User
(7/28/04 12:33 pm)
|
Re: now that you mention it...
I've been reading this thread with great interest, and finally couldn't help myself.
"I feel that Art is a dialogue between the artist and the viewer- no matter what the author set out to do, the reader sees what they wish to see."
Do you really believe this? I'm partly with you, but not entirely.
A reader might not (cannot, really) read a book in the same way
as the author who wrote it, but I don't think the words on the page
allow the reader to read whatever, or even however she wants. We
all bring our own experiences and personalities to our readings,
but there is such a thing as being a good reader, and part of reading
well is recognizing our own interaction with a text--it seems somehow
irresponsible for me to say that my reading of a book is as valid
as anyone else's simply because it is my personal reading.
Surely I can be open to new readings, and surely I can come to see
where my initial perceptions might not be as valid as the reflections
of someone who has put a good deal of time and effort into her/his
reading and who can back that reading up with context and research.
Or, contrariwise, I can disagree with someone else's reading, and
muster my own arguments as to why it isn't the best way to read
the book. One of the gifts of good criticism is that it makes us
take our own readings more seriously, makes us more thoughtful and
discerning, and helps us grow--not just as intellectuals, but as
readers--so that we see more and more clearly when we read.
I'm not saying I read every book as well as I should, or that I
never read for the pleasure of immersing myself in a story. Very
often, especially in the summer, immersing myself in a story is
my main goal when I read. My main complaint with the last
HP was that I thought it could have used some editing, and I've
probably never taken the HPs as seriously as have some others here.
I'm taking them more seriously now, if only because they find their
way into the hands of so many kids.
I'm tempted to think that some of the discomfort with the gender/race/class
issues that are touched on in Rowling's books is due to our own
desire to believe that these things are no longer issues. Rowling
tries to give us a world where all the good guys, basically, get
along. There's something really appealing about such an uncomplicated
world, and her books have had incredibly wide appeal. BUT,
she felt compelled to touch on these issues, to include a variety
of characters, to bring in different races and classes and to call
women 'witches' and boys 'wizards.' Why? The cynical part of me
thinks that Hermione is in the books at least partly so that girls
will read the books.
Erica
|
Helen
J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(7/28/04 2:21 pm)
|
Re: now that you mention it...
Since I've been off-board for a few days, I start off by saying that I agree with what Veronica, Samantha, and Laura have said: ditto, ditto, ditto. I also, in some ways, empathize with Erica's last comment, concerning the fact that
A reader might not (cannot, really) read a book in the same way as the author who wrote it, but I don't think the words on the page allow the reader to read whatever, or even however she wants. We all bring our own experiences and personalities to our readings, but there is such a thing as being a good reader, and part of reading well is recognizing our own interaction with a text--it seems somehow irresponsible for me to say that my reading of a book is as valid as anyone else's simply because it is my personal reading.
When I first started reading literary theory, Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida irritated me tremendously. The author is dead? Spare me. To some extent, I still feel this way: I think that the idea of removing a text from its context - the time and place in which it was written, the social poisitioning of the person who wrote it, etc. - is both impossible and undesirable. It leads to anachronistic viewings of the work and the world, and, more importantly for me, to flawed criticism that will always tell us more about ourselves than it does about the work. I think that the criticism that we've seen on this thread has been very good by my standards (I'll remove myself from the mix for reasons of potential self-aggrandizement), because the critics are all attempting to understand *why* Rowling is using these elements, what her purpose is, whether it's working, not just in terms of our political world-views, but in terms of advancing the story, both plot-wise and message wise. Because, sometimes, criticism can be off the wall enough to make my head hurt - obviously, Dumbledore's repeated mentions of goats are subtle hints that he is the AntiChrist! - but sometimes, they reveal attitudes that the author has internalized which affect the ways in which the story is told, and in which the story is read.
I, too, suffer from an off-button for my critical filter: I deconstruct just about everything that I come across, just like the Onion parody "Grad Student Deconstructs Take-Out Menue!" Like Veronica, I don't really bother carrying the process out all the way with take-out menues ... or schlocky horror movies ... or literature that doesn't meet my standards. But that doesn't mean that I don't make the automatic cross-connections in my head, and when something seems to be having a significant impact on the world of literature, that seems like a good time to admit that it deserves, and perhaps even requires, analysis. I'm very disturbed by the idea that some literature - children's literature, or fantasy, for example - just isn't serious enough for this sort of attention. It's precisely the conceptualization that's, a) kept genre literature ghettoized, and b) made criticism concerning f&s-f, YA, and other genre categories very hard-sells to the academic community. Not because they don't have a lot to offer ... but because there's this unspoken prejudice that it's not serious material. Fantasy doesn't address societal issues head on, with dates and places and concrete signifiers; then again, all fiction, even mainstream realist fiction, always twists things slightly to distill the issues to their most important elements. Fantasy just does it with a lovelier series of metaphors (and a deeper grounding in the now out-moded symbolism of more "superstitious" times). I've always felt that the idea that "All of this Literature is Equal, But Some of it Is More Equal than the Rest," was a short-sighted view, but, being that I'm a critic who specializes in this stuff, I could be taking it personally - I have actually seen one friend of mine reassure another, despondent because she hadn't been as involved in her discipline as I was in mind, with the words, "Don't worry! It's not like its a *real* field."
Jeez, now I'm deconstructing the commentary ... all in the friendly spirit of debate. But, you see, I *really* just can't help myself ...
Edited to add: I think that there's a certain amount of truth to the idea that that Hermione is included in order to give female fans a character whom they can emphasize with. However, studies have shown that women (and/or girls, in light of the age group) have a far easier time identifying with male protagonists than the other way around. My take on it is simply that Rowling chose the typical hero (one reason that, while I enjoy her work *immensely,*as I respect it somewhat less then that of, say, Tamora Pierce or even Phillip Pullman), and included Hermione as an authorial voice - she's said in interviews that Hermione is very similar to what she was like as a student, a child, a young woman. Says a lot in terms of the denigration, doesn't it?
Edited by: Helen J Pilinovsky at: 7/29/04 12:50 am
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(7/29/04 12:02 am)
|
arrgghhh
Well, to Erica, yes, I really do think my reading is just as valid as anyone's. Why shouldn't it be? Not to minimize anyone's critical theory of anything, but when did my opinion become somehow less valid than a "professional"? Just because I am not as highly educated as some or as widely read as others does not detract from my personal response or experience to or of anything. And just because I have strong opinions doesn't automatically mean that I am unwilling or unable to understand another view. I get frustrated when it seems that too many people are willing to acquiese (sp?) to another's opinion. When, in our culture, did it become okay to allow professionals to do all of our thinking for us? This attitude seems prominent- something along the lines of "well, if so-and-so says blah, then it must be true." This approach is great when seeking medical or legal advice, but when it comes to art, of any form, it leaves something to be desired. That said, I need to add that I recognize the difference between opposing interpretation and obvious incomplete understanding of the material. It's true that artists/writers/musicians have something they want to express to us, and they tend to use symbols to do so; it's also true that the audience needs to have a basic grasp of the symbollic vocabulary in order to keep up. I agree that there is such a thing as a good reader- this is someone who understands the particular metaphorical language. I think I am a good reader;I've not completed college, but I consider myself smart enough and well-read enough to participate intelligently in these discussions. The subjects I am unfamiliar with, I read to learn. I was startled, I guess, when you said you felt it was irresponsible to consider your own opinion equally. Or maybe I misunderstood? Anyway, criticism is here to stay and I can choose to read it or not. I choose to continue to believe my analysis of what I read is the most important one of all, because it is mine. I will always choose to listen to other opinions, because maybe they saw something I didn't. I will always choose to discuss, even if I disagree, because it's fascinating to see how other people's minds work. I will continue to do these things because I love literature. The greatest tragedy of the brevity of our lives is that there isn't enough time to read everything worth reading. (I realize this sounds goofy, but it's the way I feel)
|
Helen
J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(7/29/04 12:58 am)
|
Re: arrgghhh
I think that the question of validity isn't tied into personal background
or opinion so much as it is into the idea that readers - any readers,
be they Ph.D.'s or elementary school children - can supercede the
author's intent in their response to whatever work it is that lies
in question. That's *exactly* the part that I, too, have a problem
with ... I don't think that my opinion is ever *more* valid than
that of the author who created the universe that we've graciously
been given the right to play in. But I don't necessarily think that
it's *less* valid, either ... not in terms of interpretation. I
wouldn't dream of predicting a character's future actions (say,
of dictating that Carter's protagonist from "The
Bloody Chamber" goes on to become a women's rights activist
on the basis of her experience), but I'm happy to ponder my own
feelings as to the motivations that lead to the acts in the text
(to continue the example, a sense of being overshadowed by her mother,
looking for a father figure, finally finding herself in the adversity
resulting from said "father's" malign actions and her
mother's strong example coupled with the impetus of her own desire).
Off to ponder some more ...
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(7/30/04 10:20 am)
|
Re: arrgghhh
Quote:
As a reader and as a writer, I'm sure I would gain a great deal from your class or your books. In fact, I'm curious: are you this tough on your students? If you are, I'm sure your classes are amazing.
Oh, that's very kind! Thank you! (not sarcasm, genuine thanks! That's nice!). I'm a bit more tactful to my students--there's a power dynamic in the classroom that thank goodness isn't here! I expect a lot from them, but I also make sure they have the tools and the knowledge to live up to those expectations. It's a two-way thing. I've been singularly fortunate in my students these past few years, I must say, and really that's been the deciding factor. My, I've gone off-topic in nattering on about my classes. Sorry.
I've had to stay off this conversation for a couple days due to a migraine, but I just need to note that it's gotten more and more interesting in my absence! I find myself agreeing with several people at once. I certainly agree with Erica and Helen, but I also agree with redtriskell about not discounting her/his (forgive me if you made this clear earlier--I have forgotten!) views. On the other hand, I am too familiar with dismissal of the idea of expertise in the humanities, which is very frustrating to those of us who have devoted our lives and careers to studying those humanities. I would never discount somebody's opinion merely because of their lack of professional qualifications. But making a career out of reading and analyzing literature does add to one's sharpness, I think, at least insofar as practice makes perfect and doing anything alot hones your skills. I also think there's more than that involved: analyzing lit as a career involves some close mentoring, reading theory that can be very helpful and illuminating, etc.
That doesn't mean that brilliant readings can't come from non-academics, of course. I think the knee-jerk frustration comes because of the number of students and politicians who natter on about how "anybody can read" and suchlike.
As I've mentioned before, I judge readings on whether or not they are supported with textual evidence. I think that's the point that Helen was making in her final paragraph. That may seem simplistic, but the number of students I've run across who seriously argue points that are pure speculation suggests otherwise.
Edited to add that this:
Quote:
Dumbledore's repeated mentions of goats are subtle hints that he is the AntiChrist!
is the single best thing I've ever heard in my entire life. I love it and will treasure it always in my box of readings so bizarrely screwed up, they come out the other side into greatness.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 7/30/04 11:09 am
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(7/30/04 1:58 pm)
|
dumbledore's goat
Hi
I just did a search of all the HP e-books, and this is the only time Dumbledore mentions a goat. Obviously, if it is a crime to charm goats, they must be held in very high regard by the ministry of magic. In fact, like the cows of India, they are probably objects of religious devotion. If a goat stood in the road in front of the Knightbus, it would cause the worst traffic jam in the history of England. Wich is conclusive proof that old Dumby's a closet goathugger, in other words, the antichrist.
I obviously have too much time on my hands...
"An excellent point," said Professor Dumbledore. "My own brother, Aberforth,
was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms on a goat. It was all over the
papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not! He held his head high and went
about his business as usual! Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that
may not have been bravery. . .."
|
Amal
Registered User
(7/30/04 4:33 pm)
|
On a -perfectly relevant- note...
Quote:
My personal opinion is that Harry has to end up with Ginny so that Ron can end up with Hermione. If Harry ends up with Hermione, Ron can't end up with Ginny because she's his sister, so Ron gets nobody. Unless Rowling introduces some other character in the next couple books. Plus, Ginny has what Harry wants, a loving, strong, wizarding family, so it makes a certain kind of pop psychology sense too.
I'm sorry, Veronica. Terribly sorry, truly, to all you forum-posters who may have had thoughts along those lines. But, really, Draco Malfoy is the only one for Harry, and that's the honest-to-goodness truth of the matter. Pop psychology may say one thing, but thousands of pages of fanfiction just can't be wrong!
(Obviously, I'm joking. The quantity of a given opinion does not justify its quality. Harry/Draco, however, remain perfect for each other -- and wouldn't that be a fabulous way for JKR to introduce a touchy subject? Is gay marriage an issue in the wizarding world? Tee hee!)
Amal
|
Erica
Carlson
Registered User
(7/30/04 8:58 pm)
|
Re: back to aaaarrrgggh.
Redtriskell, I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions on your
personal readings. My question was really more about how much the
reader's wishes shape her reading--it's a fascinating idea,
that we see what we want to see, but I think reading is a more complicated
process than that. In the same quote that I asked you about, you
earlier referred to the author-reader relationship as a dialogue,
which implies that the author has some say in what the reader finds
in the text, which also implies that the reader's reading is not
purely shaped by her/his wishes (or desires or experiences, if you
like). I've struggled with the whole Foucauldian "Death of
the Author" theory, too, and the argument that the author doesn't
matter at all never sat easy with me, so I was curious
about your take on the author-reader relationship.
As for the rest, I don't think one has to be a professional to be a good reader, nor do I think (sadly) that all professionals are good readers. Many of them are, however, and since I find good criticism valuable, I like to take them up on what they have to offer.
I tend to stand by my own readings (stubborn and opinionated, that's
me) but not, in spite of my stubbornness, just because of the
fact that they're mine. Even when doing pleasure-reading, I
tend to ask myself why I read something a certain way and
I tend to look for other parts of the book that support that reading.
I don't believe that all readings are equal (and many thanks to
Veronica for her clarity and eloquence on this subject). As a really
simple and entirely non-professional example, I understand a book
better on a second or third reading, when I've had time to ponder
and puzzle out images and linger over language, and to make connections.
I'm probably going to wind up recommending books to library patrons some day, and I feel responsible to those future patrons. I feel like I have a responsibility to be as good a reader as I can be. I also like to make sure my own readings stand up to argument and scrutiny (more a matter of personal pride than anything else since I've escaped academia). Part of the way I double-check my reading is to see how it stands up to someone else's. That certainly doesn't mean I'll agree with another person's reading--In fact, what academic training I have makes me more likely to search for ways in which to disagree than otherwise--but I may find out something about a book that I didn't know before, something meaningful that will change the way I read that book for the better.
Erica
P.S. My own speculations on the end of the Potter Books: Ron and Hermione hook up, Harry and Ginny hook up, and Dumbledore probably has to die in one of the last two books so that Harry can stand alone and come of age and so forth. I'd love to see Percy and Fudge hook up but don't think it will happen...
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(7/31/04 11:03 pm)
|
Goatcharmer
Ah, but bielie, it's only wrong to practice inappropriate
charms on a goat. Clearly, then, there must be appropriate
charms to practice on a goat. One wonders what they are...
"Goathugger" is now joining "cakesniffer" as one of my favorite insults.
You...you...cakesniffing goathugger! You goathugging cakesniffer! You cakehugging goatsniffer! You goatsniffing cakehugger! This will provide me with hours of fun.
|
|
