Re: Seven for Seven
- From: "Karnak17" <karnak17@xxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jun 2006 12:05:42 -0700
Thom Madura wrote:
Karnak17 wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
<snip>
No - I prefer to judge a person based on their own personal opinions as
they have directly said them - rather than how I or YOU interpret
passages in a series of Fictional Books where her real opinion may or
may not be the same.
It is still possible to judge the attitude conveyed by the fictional
works, now isn't it.
No - it is not unless the author also states that his/her attitudes are
expressed in the books. <snip rest>
Okay. Whatever. We clearly cannot talk about the books then.
No - I never said that. I simply said that an authors personal views on
a subject - any subject - may or may not agreee with a piece of
literature they have written - either partially or entirely.
When you talk about AGREEING or DISAGREEING with a piece of literature,
then you are conceding that the piece of literature ITSELF has a point
of view. This is usually referred to as the "author's point of view"
by people discussing the work of literature. Even if the "author's
point of view" is completely different in his/her next work of fiction.
If Rowling chooses to write a "revenge is good" KILL BILL-style action
adventure as a folloiwup to Harry Potter, that doesn't change the fact
that the "author's point of view" for Harry Potter is in opposition to
that sort of thing, and portrays it as "evil".
That does not make the books any less engaging. They are - as I have
said - Well written - well documented - with lots of obvious references
to people and things - both past and present. The references are one of
the major fascinations of the books for the "older" of us who have read
other literature and/or history.
So we are allowed to discuss Trivial Pursuit issues such as Dobby's
resemblance to the shoemaker elves in the Grimms' Fairy Tale, or
McGonagall's resemblance to Athena, but we are NOT allowed to discuss
the MEANING and moral of the work itself?
Hence, in a story about good and evil, we are not supposed to judge
that slavery is one of the Good things or one of the Evil things,
unless Rowling explicitly tells us.
Of course, Rowling has not explicitely said that Dobby was inspired by
THE SHOEMAKER AND THE ELVES, nor that McGonagall's name is an allusion
to Athena. So wait, I guess we cannot discuss that stuff EITHER,
according to your position.
I SO wish my father was alive right now. He was a professor of English
literature. Like most professors of literature I have known or learned
from, he like to read for MEANING, to get at the POINT of what the
author was trying to SAY. Not just to 1) know what happens next, and
2) then show off by pointing out the literary allusions. I would
dearly love to tell him that a member of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY was
of the opinion he went about his life's work all wrong. Something
tells me he would have found that highly gratifying.
I disagree with Sueme's position on House Elves, but at least he is
reading the book for MEANING. He and I have, I think, "chosen the
better part", and I for one mean to keep it. You can stick to trivial
pursuit if you want to.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- References:
- Seven for Seven
- From: Paracelsus
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: David Sueme
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Thom Madura
- Re: Seven for Seven
- From: Karnak17
- Seven for Seven
- Prev by Date: Re: Harry is a Horcrux
- Next by Date: Re: Perhaps Potter fans should learn from Donald P Bellisario...
- Previous by thread: Re: Seven for Seven
- Next by thread: Re: Seven for Seven
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|