(Post a new comment)

	iczer6 2003-06-25 02:58 am UTC (link)
	So basically Harry was brainwashed into being a hero despite there being no evidence of such a thing happening, and when you disagree you're wrong because you don't see the characters actions the way this chick does? Just double checking. Icz (Reply to this)(Thread)

	nevadafighter 2003-06-25 05:05 am UTC (link)
	Yep. That pretty much sums it up. I was impressed until she tried beating me into submitting to her point of view--I thought she had some good points but when I saw that she's not willing to accept that part of literary criticism includes more than one interpretation of a given work I felt it crossed the line into self-important wanking. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

northatlantic 2003-06-25 04:15 am UTC (link)

Yanno, I just adore when people try to apply clinical tools to fictional characters, when the plain fact of the matter is is that a lot of the time, to be an effective character you have to exaggerate or minimize aspects of their character in a way that real people don't act or behave. I mean, JK wasn't interested in whether Harry was acting consistently with the DSM-IV's definition of PTSD or abused-person syndrome or whatever the hell vesania_aeterno's busting out there. She wanted to hit people's buttons, whether it be righteous indignation, empathy, amusement. And it isn't always the most human or admirable response that does that, or the most realistic. Sometimes, but not always. feh. [/wankish rant] (Reply to this)

@.@ ruaki 2003-06-25 05:18 am UTC (link)

Geez. This reminds me of the ever popular Harry is a jock!!111 article. Psycho-analyzing a character is all fine and good--hell, one is asked to do it all the time in school--but the fact of the matter comes down to that really, anyone can interpret a character's actions in so many ways (why else do psychologists/psychiatrists get paid so much? ^^;) and that probably only the author is aware of why the hell their character acts the way s/he did. I admire her gumption to analyze a character and their actions, as I've written a few dissertations myself, but holy cow, trying to browbeat it into someone just cause they see it differently is .. ... well, wanky. o.o; Although it doesn't seem like she's brought out the huge 'OMG I R RITE!@!11' guns yet, her nose is seriously in the air: If Harry had acted differently then I predicted he would then I'd believe I was incorrect but as is his behaviour is more consistent with my theory (especially once you apply psychology via the Dursleys) then with the theory that he is a true hero/moral good. 'My theory' 'I predicted', hello, are you Ms. Rowling in disguise? ... I go away before I get snrky now. >D (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: @.@ pepperpot 2003-06-25 06:41 am UTC (link)
	You know, if she knew the difference between then/than, I'd be more inclined to read this dissertation. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ruaki 2003-06-25 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Holy cow, I didn't even notice that. But then, after all, the words kind of blend together more often than not. ::IS SHOT:: (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	carolinecrane 2003-06-25 07:41 am UTC (link)
	Personally, I didn't even make it past this: EDITED TO CLEAR UP SOMETHINGS AND REFORMATING Point A: All caps. Just because Rowling does it doesn't mean you should. Point B: 'Somethings'? 'Reformating'? I'm sure it's going to be a fantastic essay with those errors in her line about edits. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: pepperpot 2003-06-25 08:06 pm UTC (link)
	Hee. *passes you a Band-Aid* (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Too right. chimara 2003-06-25 09:59 am UTC (link)
	Nothing puts the "pseudo" in "pseudointellectual" like--well, like probably not knowing how many Ls there are in "intellectual". (Reply to this)(Parent)

ev_vy 2003-06-25 10:20 am UTC (link)

Lovely. Than I hope you will accept my point of view which isn't exactly opposite, but. The wanky part that the author of the essay doesn't accept the opponent's PoV might be true, I really don't care. But making this essay a wank partly because you think it's pointless to analyse a fictional character, well, that's wanky too. I'd say that Roland Barthes, Wolfgang Iser and the likes of them would disagree. For one thing, the authorial intention is a really passe term, reader-oriented theories have more or less taken over, and I should suppose that existence of such books as Deconstructing the Hero. Literary Theory and Children's Literature by Margery Hourihan is really inconsequential. But I accept your point of view. Okay. (Reply to this)(Thread)

nevadafighter 2003-06-25 10:30 am UTC (link)

On the contrary--I don't think analyzing fictional characters is pointless (after all, I am a graduate student in English); the essay itself brings up some interesting points, some of which I agree with. That's not the issue. What's wanky is her self-important tone, especially within the scope of the comments--every reply, both in her personal journal and in the entry she posted to badficsupport, reeks of a long-winded attempt to get everyone to agree with her. I admire (to a point) her ability to make reasoned arguments that make sense, but I found myself vaguely insulted by her refusal to accept the equally valid points brought up by others, as if the fact that they disagreed made them wrongheaded. It's nothing personal; I am just annoyed by the tone. Simply put, she doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that her viewpoint is not the only valid one. That's what's wanky here. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ev_vy 2003-06-25 10:35 am UTC (link)

OK. I get your point. I simply think that emphasising the fictionality of the character in yout initial post has been a bit misdirecting. It seems as if you were trying to undermine the validity of her points by stating that. I'm sorry for having misunderstood you. Then again, not accepting someone else's view should not give rise to petty comments, which unfortunately happened. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

nevadafighter 2003-06-25 10:42 am UTC (link)

*nods* Perfectly all right. My emphasis was meant to highlight that she was expending a great deal of effort in applying heavy-duty pyschological theory to someone who exists only in the mind of a talented writer and her many readers. I just thought that it was a bit of a stretch, not that the whole idea of analyzing fictional characters is off--I've seen more than a few books dealing with the subject of whether or not Hamlet was insane, so far be it from me to criticize that. ;) And even the matter of "not accepting someone else's view" is not quite accurate--I have never expected nor wanted anyone to change their viewpoints because people disagree--but this author not only refuses to accept that those alternate viewpoints exist, she tries to change those people's minds to agree with her. That's what I saw as wanky. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ev_vy 2003-06-25 11:18 am UTC (link)

I think that it isn't that much of a stretch. If we could agree on the point that HP is more or less a contained world, modelled on ours than why not apply the same theories to it as can be applied to real people. When I read I don't think of the characters as fictional, and I'm glad that JKR is one of those writers who can make her 'people' alive. I rather meant the comments here that were raised in support of wankiness of that essay post. It may be wanky to be hard-headed, then again, it's as wanky to point out spelling mistakes. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	koanju 2003-06-25 10:39 am UTC (link)
	...then you might consider changing and removing the emphasis on "fictional character" in your original post. Because your tone comes off as if you think the fact that people post critical analysis of fictional characters is, in and of itself, wank-worthy. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nevadafighter 2003-06-25 10:49 am UTC (link)
	Done. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tanzy 2003-06-25 10:53 am UTC (link)
	I love your icon. <3 (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nevadafighter 2003-06-25 10:56 am UTC (link)
	Danke. Made that one and this one from pics a friend forwarded me . . . (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ev_vy 2003-06-25 11:13 am UTC (link)
	So you got yourself a journalfen? *waves* Maybe I should finally log on to AIM... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: koanju 2003-06-25 11:16 am UTC (link)
	Er, yeah, don't expect me to post very often. And yes! Yes you should! If only to help Remus pry Sirius out of his rooms. *grin* (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ev_vy 2003-06-25 11:22 am UTC (link)
	Excuse moi? To help what? Are you suggesting anything illicit that those three might get themselves into? Why the hell not! LOL! But I think he'll have to go blind if I appear online. Maybe not instantaneously, but soon. (Reply to this)(Parent)

northatlantic 2003-06-25 05:42 pm UTC (link)

I should suppose that existence of such books as Deconstructing the Hero. Literary Theory and Children's Literature by Margery Hourihan is really inconsequential. You're not honestly trying to tell me that academic authors aren't capable of wanking? PLEASE. I hope you accept my point of view that I think it's premature to call authorial-intent theory dead. I think that it impoverishes an analysis to not consider both the author's expressed intent, including the fact that her TARGET AUDIENCE probably doesn't have a professional education and a bookshelf full of diagnostic and critical theory textbooks they didn't sell back when the class was over and was no doubt more engaged in hating the Eval Dursleys than wondering how it was warping the formation of Harry's psyche to be locked under the stairs, or can fully empathize with feeling powerless and angry at adults more so than being a Selfless Wizard Hero Boy. Or taking into account the author's social class, education and personal experience, which probably doesn't include again a degree in abnormal psych or personal experience of having been locked in a closet for a bedroom for eleven years (possible, but doubtful). So expecting Harry to react in "normal" ways for that situation is kind of, I don't know, unrealistic, if the author wasn't operating with that knowledge? Also--ask two different psychologists their opinion, and depending on their training, background, and experience you're likely to get two different answers on just about any given case. A Freudian could give you very different answers than an Ericksonian than a Jungian, etc. etc. etc. So for v_a to act as if we're supposed to take as gospel her interpretation of Harry because she's using *gasp-gulp* psychological theory--a psychological theory--when she's not filtering it through the lens of JK's knowledge and experiences creating the chararacter, AND when it's entirely possible someone ELSE using another psychological theory could have come up with a whole different paradigm--well, pardon me, that's pretty damn wanky. but you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and so's v_a. It's just not any damn better than anybody else's. [deleted and reposted because I'm a dumbass who can't close tags.] (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ev_vy 2003-06-25 07:20 pm UTC (link)

I didn't say the authorial intent theory is dead, just passe. I hope you see the difference, and it served to emphasize the fact that everyone can have their own interpretation of any book, regardless of the authorial intent, because even if the author explains their intent, it's still an interpretation and not the original 'reason' behind creating any character. I also hope that you might remember that Rowling never said who her target audience was. Plus, I really don't get your point. Who said that Harry is supposed to react in some kind of 'normal' way, other than in the books? I rather suppose v_a's argument was that Harry behaves as expected of a boy in such circumstances, and that he had it all in him from the beginning, only in the first books it wasn't as pronounced as in OotP. What the target audience or author's background are, is really inconsequential. Harry is a believable character. v_a's attitude may be wanky, but I'd just like to point out that v_a's arguments were really valid (IMHO good as weel), and I'm not surprised that her opponent didn't manage to convince her to change her mind, because the counter-arguments were not very strong. But that's my opinion. Plus, if I understand you correctly, we should abandon any attempts of psychological analysis, because we don't have JKR's lens. Oh, please. Additionally, who said this particular interpretation was gospel. I only noticed that it was valid, well-supported, and hotly-argued for. I would do the same, if I thought I was right. And I would have every right not to accept anyone else's PoV if I thought it wrong. Period. It's very hard to convince someone who has a strong opinion, and in this case it would and should take more than the arguments provided by the opponent. Wasn't the opponent taking their PoV as gospel as well? v_a disagreed with me, and she's wrong, let's take it to f_w. Isn't that a bit wanky as well? Oh, man. I've promised myself not to get into such arguments. And just to make it clear, I'm speaking only for myself, I see the situation this way, but you've got every right to see it differently, but you haven't managed to convince me so far. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Addendum ev_vy 2003-06-25 07:32 pm UTC (link)
	It's very hard to convince someone who has a strong opinion, and in this case it would and should take more than the arguments provided by the opponent. - To make it clear, I meant convincing to the existence of the fact that there might be a different take, as valid as any other; not convincing to change an opinion. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	And another addnedum ev_vy 2003-06-25 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	Apologies to the original poster of this entry. I'm human, therefore prone to make false and misguided assumptions. My argument about taking this to f_w on grounds of gospel is not valid at all, I'm sorry for having assumed the anonymous poster from LJ and the author of this entry being one person, it makes me wanky and petty. (Reply to this)(Parent)

northatlantic 2003-06-25 08:03 pm UTC (link)

I also hope that you might remember that Rowling never said who her target audience was. Beg to differ. The secret seems to be that her target audience consists of one person: herself. "I think it's wrong to think of adult books as 'real literature'. Real literature can be for people of nine and that's what I'm trying to write." These comments would both seem to support the fact that there IS a target audience, that JK is writing to please herself and children. Therefore, we know perfectly well who her target is, from her own mouth. Plus, if I understand you correctly, we should abandon any attempts of psychological analysis, because we don't have JKR's lens. Psychological analysis of Harry? Yes. I think if you want to analyze somebody, analyze why JK/her readers latch onto certain aspects of Harry's character, knock yourself out. But I resist Harry as antihero, because I don't think at all JK--or many of her readers who ARE teens--think he's anything but Everyman. v_a's point is that he is NOT Everyman, but that because of his damage from an abusive childhood, all of his positive acts are motivated by self-preservation/gaining approval from his peers. And I do not find that a valid or well-reasoned argument. And I think that the traits v_a uses to prove her points are traits exaggerated by JK to give her hero flaws that allow kids to feel some sense of connection with Harry. Obviously, they can't defeat all-powerful evil wizard opponents. But they can feel frustrated by adults protecting them "for their own good." They can have selfish pissy fits because most 15-year-old kids ARE selfish and self-absorbed because they're still figuring out who that "self" is. So I think her analysis of Harry as antihero doesn't stand up, because I don't think that's what JK meant AND I don't think that's what many of her readers are seeing. And, apparently v_a thinks she's gospel, or she wouldn't be going after the anonymous commenter and explaining why she is wrong, wrong, wrong instead of just saying "good points, that's certainly another way to think about it." So, respectfully still not convinced either. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	northatlantic 2003-06-25 08:22 pm UTC (link)
	and nevadafighter? please feel free to flag these comments, 'cause I think I'm skirting the "wrong, wrong, wrong" line myself now :) [squints at entry--damn failing eyesight, who knew?] (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nevadafighter 2003-06-25 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	Wouldn't know how to flag a comment even if I knew what it meant. ;) I think you summed up just about perfectly my feelings regarding Harry AND v_a, so well done. I'm ready to move on from this wank. It's too damn hot to be this bothering about what amounts to much ado about nothing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	northatlantic 2003-06-25 10:26 pm UTC (link)
	It's too damn hot to be this bothering about what amounts to much ado about nothing. think it's because it's this damn hot that I find myself getting borderline wanky over it. flagging--not technical term, just pointing out "hey, I'm so good I don't even have to go looking for the wank, it comes and plays in the comments all by itself!" (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: nevadafighter 2003-06-26 01:16 am UTC (link)
	:D (Reply to this)(Parent)

ev_vy 2003-06-25 10:29 pm UTC (link)

Exactly my point, she never said who the target audience was. She only said that real literature includes literature for children, and that she's trying to write real literature. Plus, Harry's an everyman, thus an anithero. He doesn't fall into any category of a hero, but he manages to act heroically regardless of the fact that his motivations may be selfish, or stemming from his defiancy against adults - that's what makes him an anti-hero. The only thing that makes Harry a hero is his markedness, chosenness, but he still remains a teenager. Then again, it doesn't contradict v_a's point that Harry's not an everyman, because to be honest, he can't realy be one. He has the same flaws as a teenager, but he would be just another dull teenager if he weren't different. Then again I may be wrong, because I'm not JKR and I really shouldn't be reading Harry in any way different as an everyman. Seeing the difference between the stomping-foot kind of "you're wrong", and the "you're wrong, because..." type might also be useful. But, yes it's getting wanky here. Because of me as well, I'm more and more convinced that I'm stomping-my-foot right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and being as adamant about it as they like. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

northatlantic 2003-06-25 11:30 pm UTC (link)

Part of the problem here seems to be confusion about the uses and application of the term "hero" and "antihero" -- my understanding of that term is that the antihero is not merely an Everyman, but a deeply flawed, even amoral and essentially self-interested character, and that seems to be the perspective from which v_a is operating as well (to the point where she's throwing around "the wizarding world had better be scared if Harry is its savior"). Hannibal Lector is an antihero. The titular Mr. Ripley of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" is an antihero. "Dirty Harry" is an antihero. I'd argue that Harry Potter is a long way from blowing his wizarding enemies away without a second thought or not acting where he can't perceive a return (re: not letting Sirius and Remus kill Peter Pettigrew, for example, or rescuing Fleur's sister in the Triwizard Challenge). If you are operating from the premise that an antihero is any hero that has a human flaw, then indeed Harry is an antihero and I apologize for stomping my foot. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	northatlantic 2003-06-26 04:19 pm UTC (link)
	you do--a lot of Hemingway's protagonists aren't particularly good, decent people, and they operate a lot of the time from self-interest :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	iczer6 2003-06-25 10:13 pm UTC (link)
	I know I'm a late comer but I just had to add my opinion to this mess. A lot of people really don't seem to get that FICTION does not represent REALITY, and that maybe a characters motiviation for acting the way they do has nothing to do with psychological conditioning, it is simply because that how the author wrote them. Icz (Reply to this)(Thread)

cmikhailovic 2003-06-26 12:23 am UTC (link)

*nods* Borges said something about reality not being obligated to make sense. And "realism" isn't necessarily the same thing as "psychological realism," nor is either of those things a requirement for literature. And speaking of "psychological realism," well, what that is, exactly, depends upon who you ask. Rather OT, but I'm semi-convinced that CoS has some serious Freudian stuff going on, almost to the point of parody. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)