Link.Have you ever understood implications of the meaning of a book that perhaps the author did not intend? Is the author the supreme interpreter of her works? Do you adhere to originalism in the interpretation of novels? Do you think that anyone who doesn't is a laughable fool?ADDED: There are 2 dimensions of understanding here. There's the understanding of J.K. Rowling's novels and the understanding of transgender issues. The tweet Rowling responds to actually does not accuse her of failing to understand her own books. It accuses her of not understanding transgender issues. That's a specious accusation. It essentially says: If you don't agree with me, you don't understand the issues. This is a very common fallacy! Don't fall for it. It's luring you to cave to your desire to be seen as a person who understands X. You're supposed to be tricked into asserting Y out of vanity, even though it has never been proved that X requires Y.
In the most common form of this fallacy, X is the idea that you are smart. Y is whatever damned thing somebody wants you to believe.
Back to the tweet Rowling is responding to... is there an alignment between what Harry Potter discovered about his true identity and what a transgender person is said to be realizing? The tweet simply assumes there is. By the way, it's hilarious and ironic to use they/them pronouns for Harry Potter when you're making a show of textualism. Harry uses he/him, right?
Posts
75 comments:
I admire JK Rowling's willingness to pushback, no matter how mean or ugly it gets. And, yes I 100% agree with her position on matter.
I always picture JK Rowling kinda laughing when she posts on Twitter. I can't the same about the people (I perceive them to be humorless) to whom she's replying.
'Is the author the supreme interpreter of her works?'
Yes. Especially if she tells you you're wrong.
If you respect the canon, Hogwarts is a hive of magic-user groomers.
Top irony fail of all time: Alanis Morrissette's "Ironic" has zero examples of irony.
https://genius.com/Alanis-morissette-ironic-lyrics
An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late
[Pre-Chorus]
And isn't it ironic?
Don't you think?
[Chorus]
It's like rain on your wedding day
It's a free ride when you've already paid
...
Nope, these are all disappointments or tragic...or mild inconveniences. Not ironic.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ironic
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disappointment
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tragic
I'd just die if I found a black fly in my Chardonnay. /sarcasm ~~ irony/
The left purged humor, sarcasm, irony, and nuance a generation ago. So, this lefty can't even understand JK Rowling's teen fiction. This suggests a likely disappointing and possibly tragic future, but ignorance is not ironic.
Let's talk about 'ingenious' and 'emigrate' and watch heads explode.
Well, it is certainly the case that one of those two people is blinkered by ideology, and I'm pretty sure who.
Jeff Goldstein at the old Protein Wisdom blog made what seemed to me to be a compelling case for intentionalism.
I don't think he was saying that other people couldn't impute meaning to a work beyond or other than what the author intended, only that the author's intent ought to take precedence over any other interpretation. But then again, I'm not Goldstein, so I couldn't say for sure. Heh.
"... only that the author's intent ought to take precedence over any other interpretation. But then again, I'm not Goldstein, so I couldn't say for sure..."
Why? Because Goldstein told you?
I think most great authors realize they are putting things in that even they don't understand and would even change what they were writing if, on reread, an unintended implication became apparent. After something is published, they may hope readers bring whatever is in their mind to the project — not necessarily to attribute it to the writer but because the minds are in communication and reading is active and creative.
Often the reader of a novel thinks something like: This writer thinks she's talking about how most people feel but it's really a delusional view of the world and what she's unintentionally revealing is her own paranoia/depression/narcissism/racism/ignorance.
Nothing restricts the reader from bringing her own intuition and reflection to the project. This seems to be the most valuable approach to reading, as opposed to just figuring out what this writer intended to put in my head. By the way, I think that's why some people read fast. They're not doing enough.
But then again, I'm not Goldstein, so I couldn't say for sure..."
Why? Because Goldstein told you?
It was a joke. Hence the "Heh."
Have you ever understood implications of the meaning of a book that perhaps the author did not intend?
Not, but I’ve come close with allegedly scientific, peer-reviewed articles and thought to myself that the reported data don’t really support the authors’ conclusions. Closest I can recollect to telling myself that the author’s conclusion is in opposition to the observed data concerns the “Bili apes,” a variety of a well-known subspecies of chimpanzee. The local natives assert that Bili apes will attack and kill lions. Primatologists pooh-pooh this, but then a field researcher discovered a group of Bili apes eating from the carcass of a dead leopard. The researcher made haste to note that the fact that the Bili apes were eating the big cat did not mean they were the animals that killed it, but I remember saying to myself that it doesn’t mean they weren’t the killers, either.
Harry uses he/him, right?
Right.
Let's turn this to scripture.... say, the book of Isaiah. What are we supposed to get our of that book? Surely whatever Isaiah wrote and intended is mysterious for the most part today. But it's still valuable!
Prophecy is frequently fulfilled multiple times, and I am sure that God put multiple meanings into the scriptures. And people have found many more meanings than God intended.
But when I read something into scripture, I'm not going to claim that my reading is the authoritative interpretation.... unlike the trans activists.
Authors don't get to decide how their work is interpreted. Once they put it out into the world, the world gets to decide. Harry Potter can be an allegory of all sorts of things, including transgenderism. To that extent, I agree with Rowling's critic.
But that critic goes too far in asserting the parallels are so strong that Rowling not seeing them is ironic. Personally, in trying to describe the parallels, I find they slip away. It's hard for me to find any that actually hold up to scrutiny. He was a basically normal boy until somebody told him he was a wizard. That part works.
Rowling is free to reject the transgender interpretation all she wants.
"...coming of age story where the protagonist realizes they are something completely different than what they were socialized to be..."
You mean like kids who were socialized to believe they were born in a body that was of the wrong sex? Sounds like Harry was a detransitioner.
Since this is my day job...
It is not just possible, but very likely that a good, close reader can find patterns of which the author was never consciously aware (Hemingway with rain heralding death or Dickins' villains having the initials C.D. are the most famous, but there are hundreds of examples).
But when it comes to a one-sentence summary of the character-development in a book (not the theme or meaning), then you have to give the living author the authority, especially if the summary is obviously stupid.
The Twitter-person says the book is about the "protagonist realizing that they* [sic] are someone completely different than they [sic] were socialized to be," but that is not what happens in Harry Potter. At all. Perhaps because he was neglected and ignored by his guardians, or perhaps for genetic reasons, or perhaps just from his good luck in the particular friendships he stumbles into, Harry wasn't socialized into any role or identity from which he changes. In fact Harry's fundamental individual character is constant through the entire seven volumes. He doesn't "realize" he's someone completely different: he holds true to his initial character, even in extremis is what gives him the victory (represented by his yelling "Expelliarmus!" Disarm! when Voldemort yells "Avedacadavera" Kill!).
*The protagonist of the Harry Potter books is singular and male, and so not "they" in any possible circumstance. The "they" here is a ridiculous affectation being applied for the sake of (poorly done) virtue signaling.
Dogma about "free play of meaning" has always been generally bogus, anyway. You may have a multitude of arguments about the meaning of Harry Potter or any other work of literature is, but these are all debates within a very narrow window of acceptable arguments--there are zero claims that the book is "really" about bratwurst or lemurs or a uniform plumbing code.
(What would be INTERESTING would be to figure out where the limits of potential meanings are how this works, but no one has even looked at such problems since General Semantics crashed and burned in the 1960s, except for maybe the "Reader Response" people, who unfortunately were just doing 'introspective sociology' or 'sociology without data').
What did Harry not realize about themselves, excepting the typical thing from a hero’s journey of not knowing of what they maybe capable? I know there was some play at who was the one that could defeat Voldemort, was it really Harry or perhaps Neville? I guess it added to the suspense and drama, but JK Rowling answered that by having Harry defeat Voldemort, something he realized early on that he would have to do or at least try. He didn’t know he was going to have to die first, but he wasn’t fully dead, just nearly dead (now I’m mixing stories).
I do think it is very possible for a writer to convey a message they didn’t intend. I don’t think that is the case for JK Rowling, particularly on this issue. For example, she never had the students refer to Ms. McGonagall as a cat, nor did she demand they recognize her trans status as a cat.
I had things to say, but Prof M. Drout said them all better. I could add to them, but why would I want to? It would only dilute what he(?) wrote.
There is simply a wide difference between "additional layers" and "clear writer actually meant just the opposite of what she wrote."
To the extent an author of fiction tells the truth, the writing will be adequate the the nature of things, and therefore will say far more than the author intends because it says the world. This is in fact one of the principle marks of bad fiction, that it can be comprehended completely, and lacks that mysterious vision of the whole.
Let's talk about 'ingenious' and 'emigrate' and watch heads explode.
Do "decimated" after that.
She enjoys trolling these nutters way too much. One of these days, one of them will try to make "Death of the Author" a reality.
'Authors don't get to decide how their work is interpreted. Once they put it out into the world, the world gets to decide.'
True to a certain extent.
But when you, as the reader, assume something about the book, and the author herself tells you you're wrong, then it's just your opinion.
One of the classic examples of the "reading too much into it" is the X-Men. The X-Men were mutants, and in the Marvel universe mutants were discriminated against. This is very much unlike many other superheroes. Pretty much any group that feels itself marginalized decides that the X-Men are all about them. The problem with this is the mutants, or at least some of them, had powers that made them exceptionally dangerous, so there was real justification to be terrified of them, especially when some of the villainous ones started ripping apart the city. Unfortunate implications!
Another one was the film (not the book) Starship Troopers. I remember reading the fan reviews on the IMDB at the time and it seemed that every reviewer had a different interpretation of what the point of the film was. Personally, I doubt the director really had a clue. It was a mediocre to bad film with great special effects.
"Is the author the supreme interpreter of her works?"
Yes, of course. Others may have their own interpretation, but that means little compared to the author's own interpretation. To think otherwise is just plain strange.
Reminds me of The Beatles writing “I Am the Walrus” to make fun of people looking for deeper meanings in their songs.
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” is one of my favorites, but I don’t think LeCarre understands it in the same way I do. Specifically, I think that when Jim Prideaux takes work teaching at a boys’ school his morality is refreshed, so that he understands that the traitor Bill Hayden needs a good killing, while others (Smiley included) dither on about prisoner exchange.
“Is the author the supreme interpreter of her works?”
Thanks for reminding me I need to order a Trump Bible.
I liked it better when JK rowlings was thought to do the work of the devil by publishing anti-christian spiritual screeds about witches
I think the author's intent counts for a lot when you ate using her story to accuse her of hypocracy.
The idea of "Cannon" and of fan/community interpretation is not unique to Harry Potter books. There are people who play quiditch in real life despite the fact it is a shallow stupid game design made to advance the hero character development rather than be a game anyone would actually play.
The more interesting situations are around stories like the Star Wars IP where the community developed a lot of material and the community and the "Creators" have differing opinions.
In the Star Wars cannon after the defeat of the Emperor there were many stories afterwords involving many of the characters. Luke Skywalker went on to accomplish many great things and became a world ending badass. He fought many iterations/clones of the Emperor who achieved a form of immortality. There are characters and entities that are actually interesting.
Of course there are the awful people that created Rei Skywalker and wrote the most ridiculous garbage stories nobody liked or cared about killed the IP.
You can also look at The Witcher series on Netflix where the first series generally lived up to the story and was very good. Henry Cavill was a huge fan of the source material and the characters. He left the series after the show runners Netflix hired to create the series openly mocked the fans and the source material and season 2 and 3 sucked. The Witcher is dead now.
Henry Cavill is working on a Warhammer 40k project right now. This universe is borderline Lovecraftian in darkness. It has an order of magnitude more history and character development and story content than any other IP I am aware of. The "Good Guys" in this universe are the Tau whose goal is to bring everyone else into their "benevolent" and harmonious society. If you object then they wipe you out. The good guys are Nazi's. The Tyrranids are probably the darkest villain race ever created and they are competing with the Chaos Gods who are basically themed incarnations of evil ruthless demons. This would be an example where the "Community" and the story writers that develop the "Cannon" are much more harmonious. The community appreciates a story where there are no good guys and space marines wield chainsaw swords.
Harry finds out he is something other than "what he was socialized to be" may be true, but Harry also finds out something that is actually true about himself. In the game of transgender, it is the detransitioners who are finding out something that is actually true abut themselves despite their socialization. For Harry to be the equivalent of a so-called trans person, he would have to be a muggle in wizarding school. And I see now I'm not the first one to make this argument.
As far as interpretation, I don't think the author is the sole authority and that the reader can (and probably should) bring his own interpretation to the work although I agree with Prof. M. Drout that "Dogma about "You may have a multitude of arguments about the meaning of Harry Potter or any other work of literature is, but these are all debates within a very narrow window of acceptable arguments--there are zero claims that the book is "really" about bratwurst or lemurs or a uniform plumbing code."
I remember (I think) John le Carré saying a few decades back that even though he invented George Smiley - had written 3 books about the character -- once he saw Alec Guinness in Tinker Tailor Soldiers Spy he was never again able to imagine Smily as someone different than Guiness' portrayal.
Actually you could draw a parallel between the two items.
They're both FICTION!
If life were only like this…
Althouse:
Is the author the supreme interpreter of her works?
Yes. Only the pompous think they know more about what the author meant than the author.
Small reminder, no one can mind read - much less across geography, time and text.
I think most great authors realize they are putting things in that even they don't understand...
That mind-reading to which I referred.
"Often the reader of a novel thinks something like: "
Often? Or you?
“ It was a joke. Hence the "Heh."”
Noted.
I take “heh” to mean something like I think that’s funny. It doesn’t necessarily mean that what I just wrote is a joke, but to track your approach: how could I know what you mean by heh? it means whatever you intended it to mean. I can see how one would lose all interest in reading, if the original intent approach to reading was mandatory.
I recall a scene in Rodney Dangerfield's movie Back to School where he -- a very rich man who goes to college at a very mature age -- hires Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. to write a paper on . . . the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The ghost written paper received a failing mark along the lines of "You jut don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."
tim maguire:
Authors don't get to decide how their work is interpreted.
Yeah. One of the biggest problems with religion is the interpretations, ain't it?
To the point, no they don't but the interpreters don't get to decide they're right in their interpretation. Other interpreters do and leading the pack is the author.
Harry Potter always had magical powers but he didn't know how to use them. He didn't have to cut off parts of his body or take drugs to suppress his powers in order to gain the "magical" power of being a member of the opposite sex. He was educated, not mutilated.
That is the literal level, the author's intention. Now if a book lasts beyond the author's generation it's going to mean things to new generations that the author could not have anticipated because she never saw the new social scene. But still those new meanings should be founded on the original, literal meaning. The supposition is that some people have such a strong deep message that generation after generation carries the original meaning into new social scenes. Socrates, Shakespeare. Other people are immersed in their present with nothing to say except for an unknown message to one tribe, one time. No one else can comment because no else is thought to know what the message means. But it's timebound like one human life and like one human life, it's soon dead. An example would be CDC statements made in 2021 relating to the origins of Covid. Or Kamala Harris any time she talks.
An intriguing mirror image to the intentioality of the Harry Potter stories is how the Wachowskis intended as an allegory for trans existence--
https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/the-matrix-and-gender-identity-the-trans-narrative-behind-the-wachowskis-sci-fi-classic
--while "red-pilled" has been the self-identifying term of convenience for those opposed to the linguisic, informational and institution-subverting machinations of cultural marxism.
I think, depending on the work, the level of subtlety etc. one can read into and find that an author is revealing something about themselves. It's easier when they're famous and you know something about their life-story. If the only thing you know about them is their work, this is maybe harder to do.
That said, it is funny when authors are used as authorities on their work. Like when Woody Allen produces an author, who chastises the know-it-all.
https://youtu.be/vTSmbMm7MDg?si=fOjXXG-SSs9urw-a
The opposite, sort-of, happens when Rodney Dangerfield gets Kurt Vonnegut to write a term paper about Kurt Vonnegut and the professor he likes disparages the work.
https://youtu.be/pDLzLUmtU3w
I'm reminded of the anti-racist admonition to "Do the work!", as if anyone who disagrees with the anti-racist shibboleth of the moment is, by definition, ignorant.
Lilly beat me to it... From wikipedia, Roland Barthe's "The Death of the Author" "argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation." And Lilly seems to be further arguing that Ms. Rowling's critics are so aggressively pro-Death of the Author that they are advocating assassination or exile of the author.
As J>D Salinger is reported to have said about ,"Catcher in The Rye". "When I wrote it God and I knew what I meant. Now god only knows."
You can decern intent in anything according to your predjudices.
The 'Harry Potter' series was entertaining young adult reading and it got a lot of teenagers to sit down and read. Which is a good thing.
I can see how one would lose all interest in reading, if the original intent approach to reading was mandatory.
Maybe...
You don't have to privilege an author's intent. But if you don't at least pay attention to it, especially when the author herself objects to your interpretation and says that you're misreading, shouldn't that count for something?
I could also see that the challenge of perceiving the author's intent, especially when the author isn't around to add information, might enhance a person's interest.
But I suppose everyone's mileage may vary.
"In the most common form of this fallacy, X is the idea that you are smart. Y is whatever damned thing somebody wants you to believe."
Heh. Not me! I'm too stupid to fall for that one!
"I can see how one would lose all interest in reading, if the original intent approach to reading was mandatory."
I pretty much lost all interest in reading fiction as I came to understand that it was just somebody making shit up. History, on the other hand ...
All right--who had "2024--J.K. Rowling gets caught up in epic war with transgender activists" on their bingo card?
Harry Potter and trannies are not the same. Duh!
To some trans people, everything is about them. That includes Harry Potter books. To suggest otherwise is to be trans-phobic.
I'm reminded of the critics of French composer Erik Satie, who accused him of writing music that had no discernible theme, structure or form. Whereupon he immediately set about composing 'Three Pieces, in the shape of a Pear'
Joe Smith said...
'Authors don't get to decide how their work is interpreted. Once they put it out into the world, the world gets to decide.'
True to a certain extent.
No, true to an infinite extent.
But when you, as the reader, assume something about the book, and the author herself tells you you're wrong, then it's just your opinion.
Of course it is. What else could it be?
Harry Potter was a wizard, not a delusional lunatic who didn't know what restroom to use.
Cannon: a scientific instrument used in the rectification of boundaries. (Acc. Ambrose Bierce)
Canon: a body of work or works considered essential to knowledge of a subject (among other definitions).
I stopped reading the HP series when I realized that there would be no bratwurst or lemurs.
Enigma said...
Top irony fail of all time: Alanis Morrissette's "Ironic" has zero examples of irony.
I don't think zero (I'd argue 'free ride when you already paid' is one but it's hard to figure out how that would be realized) but yes, the majority of her examples are simply bad luck.
I am surprised she didn’t go for the obvious one. Harry Potter is fiction. Witches aren’t real. These are all figments of the imagination… just like believing you were born in the wrong body.
There is an older Key and Peele skit where a flamboyant homosexual behaves in an outrageous manner about his sexuality in an office setting. As his male coworker becomes increasingly uncomfortable with the guy's behavior, the guy more and more thinks the male coworker is being homophobic. Eventually, the male coworker's male lover shows up, they kiss, and they leave for lunch. At which point the flaming homosexual realizes that perhaps it isn't that his also-gay coworker is homophobic, the problem is that he himself is "just an asshole."
That skit explains about 90% of what is publicly declared to be whatever-phobic.
I kind of like what Heinlein said about writers and interpreting them. I mean, why did a writer write that- in that way? Well, because it could be sold and make money so the author can eat and keep a rood overhead...
And Heinlein wrote a lot of fiction that could be understood = or misunderstood - in multiple ways. Starship Troopers is the ultimate example of that.
There are Bible thumpers who wouldn't let their children read Harry Potter books because they involved witchcraft and wizardry. Our two youngest grew up with Harry Potter- having first read the middlest child's books. 4 years from him to next and another 4 to last. It might have been the second, and I know by the third- we were at the bookstores at midnight on the day of release to pick up our reserved and paid for copies. Our daughter was 7 when Goblet of Fire was released. And brought it to school the next day. We had to have a discussion with the teacher when we were sent a not saying we should be giving her simpler books that she could understand. Teachers really don't know what to do with students reading above "grade level". She had already read the previous 3- by herself. The educators didn't appreciate it when we told them if the rest of the students couldn't read and comprehend the books- maybe they weren't doing their jobs properly..
Oh, the point. Why did we, a good Christian non-Bible thumping family allow our children to read books about witches and wizards and witchcraft? Easy- along with teaching them to read, we taught them the difference between fantasy and reality. On that note- 5 children- no socialists... The difference between fantasy and reality. A good thing to teach children.
Whether intended or not- one lesson taught by the Harry Potter books is that blind obedience to authority is not a good thing. Another is that officialdom looks after itself, not the people it's supposed to look after. Another- rule by bureaucrats and unelected elites can lead to disastrous results.
In Babbitt I didn't think the business associations were that bad. Their sheer quantity tòok time away from personal lives, as did Babbitt's midlife crisis escapade.
Dave Begley? want to explain this?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-bill-to-keep-males-out-of-womens-bathrooms-sports-teams-fails-after-two-republicans-abstain
A bill in Nebraska that would have kept males out of women’s restrooms and off of girls’ sports teams at schools failed after two Republicans abstained from voting on the measure after they initially indicated support for the legislation.
Two Republicans, state Sens. Tom Brandt and Merv Riepe, both abstained from the cloture vote even though they had initially signed on as sponsors to the legislation.
Riepe previously blocked Nebraska from advancing pro-life protections for unborn babies at six weeks after claiming that Republicans “must embrace the future of reproductive rights.”
'Of course it is. What else could it be?'
Wrong. It could be Wrong. That's another way of saying 'Wrong.'
Reading comprehension is abysmal with this crowd.
"Jeff Goldstein at the old Protein Wisdom blog made what seemed to me to be a compelling case for intentionalism."
Jeff's thesis is that the locus of meaning is in the intent of the speaker/writer. Imagine you find an ancient clay tablet with an unknown writing system thereon. In your attempts to interpret it, you are asking yourself, "what did the writer *mean* when they inscribed these symbols?" You don't just randomly decide that because the symbols remind *you* of egret tracks, that the writer is talking about egrets.
JKR *meant* something when she wrote her books. The first layer of understanding needs to appeal to what she *meant*. It's possible that she communicates her intent poorly, and it's possible that the reader interprets her words poorly, but if you want to know what the books *mean*, you have to appeal to what she *meant*.
After that, you might also find things that the author did not intend. That can be an interesting exercise, and to an extent you might even make a case for the text having that meaning.
But if you put the locus of meaning in the reader's interpretation, you open the floor for mischief. As we've seen repeatedly, motivated communities of interpreters have no qualms about taking someone else's words and insisting that that they mean whatever the interpreters say they mean.
"This is a racist text, and therefore you're a racist," they might say, even if you meant something 180 degrees from what they say you said.
The implications for law are obvious: do you appeal to the intent of those who wrote and ratified the law, or do you impose your own interpretation on someone else's words, even to torture them into saying something that the originators never meant.
"Intentionalism" means that my words are *my* words, and the meaning is *my* meaning, and you can't come along and insist that your interpretation -- malicious though it may be -- overrides what I meant.
I don't think there's a person on the planet who's OK with someone taking their words and twisting them into something they didn't mean.
Not a one.
Howard said...
I liked it better when JK rowlings was thought to do the work of the devil by publishing anti-christian spiritual screeds about witches
4/9/24, 4:08 PM
She hasn’t changed. Your statement says mor about you than her.
Isn’t it ironic.
honey, Indiana has always been in the dark.
@Christopher B: I don't think zero (I'd argue 'free ride when you already paid' is one but it's hard to figure out how that would be realized) but yes, the majority of her examples are simply bad luck.
Morrissette hated it:
When asked about the lyrical content of the song – especially the lack of irony – Morissette replied: “There are a lot of people that have shame around being stupid, and I did too. It was embarrassing to have the planet basically say, ‘you’re a dumba–‘ for your malapropism. And at the same time, it is ironic that a song called ‘Ironic’ isn’t filled with ironies.”
“We [Morissette and Ballard] weren’t being precious about it. Honestly, I thought 10 people would hear that song. I didn’t think the whole planet would be putting it under such scrutiny so, I wasn’t really being precious about it.”
The lack of irony in “Ironic” has been a point of debate ever since the song’s release. In an interview with The Guardian Morissette cited the backlash as the most embarrassing moment of her career. But over the years, Morissette decided to poke fun at her own song. During The Late Late Show with James Corden, for instance, she sang the song with updated lyrics including the line: “It’s singing ‘Ironic’, when there are no ironies.”
https://songstoriesmatter.com/meaning-behind-ironic-by-alanis-morissette/
I think our host recently mentioned she likes to re-watch a movie the next day or three after the first viewing.
Clearly that is to get a better understanding of "intent". I think we ALL arrive at "deeper" understanding of the material, after multiple exposure to the content. Star Wars? Who has the same view of the movie today, vs the original viewing? Even Biographies can shift as our own knowledge of the world around us, continues to expand.
Spiritual writings are famously known to have wildly different meanings, depending on where the reader is at, in there own spiritual path. Deeper understanding of self, will always give more meaning to passages well known to you...IF you are continuing to grow. That's kind of the way life works.
Its a sign of healthy development, and an active open mind, that allows for different understandings of content.
If you believe all the the stuff you did when you were 20, as you do at 50, you may need to open your mind.
I don't think there's a person on the planet who's OK with someone taking their words and twisting them into something they didn't mean.
Not a one.
Yet it happens every day.
Every day.
Works of fiction, are meant to examine topics interpretation is included in the experience of enjoying the work.
Non-fiction works will suffer the same view point altered meanings.
"History is written by the victors" is a truism.
Today's media is an example of "interpretation" of facts.
Sometimes I write a short story or a song in a rush to get it out, with only a rough idea of what it's about. Other times I shape he premise as I go. But more often than not the end result has ambiguity, sometimes in abundance, especially my lyrics. John Lennon said something to the effect that it's always up to the listener and that if he were to impose his opinion by explaining the song it would detract from the experience for listeners.
JKR may see it differently, or simply be pushing back on the unrelenting transmaniacs who claim literally everything proves trans feelings "are real." And like Gnostics, they can see it and if we can't it's only because we lack their "special knowledge" of how things "really" are.
From the post:
"Have you ever understood implications of the meaning of a book that perhaps the author did not intend?"
I'm seeing two movies, and the trans advocate appears to be eisegeting JKR's intent based on a preconception.
"the trans advocate appears to be eisegeting JKR's intent based on a preconception."
What means "eisegeting"?
"By the way, I think that's why some people read fast. They're not doing enough."
Many people read for plot, not for meaning.
I could see the argument that what the commenter describes is covered in the beginning of the first book, when Harry finds out his parents were wizards. After that, not so much. So 98% of Rowlings tales have nothing to do with what the commenter wants to see.
Modern fiction is full, full, of what's known as the "unreliable narrator" as the POV in the work. It is intended that the reader will figure out what's going on even when the narrator does not.
There are Bible thumpers who wouldn't let their children read Harry Potter books because they involved witchcraft and wizardry.
Yeah the media, which is actively hostile to Christians in increasing intensity in relation to how fundamentalist the Christian is, pimped this story. I've hung around a lot of serious Christians and I never met one for whom this was true. Properly understood, the magic of JKR was rather in the same tradition of allegory much as JRR Tolkien's and CS Lewis's were.
dicentra63 said...
I don't think there's a person on the planet who's OK with someone taking their words and twisting them into something they didn't mean.
I lean towards iowan2's comment on this.
You have to nuance that statement.
I don't see anything wrong with developing an interpretation of some work of art *so long as you own that interpretation personally*. It's yours but at the same time it may not be mine, nor is it necessarily the meaning the author wished or thought they were conveying. And that's fine with me even if I think, or the author thinks, you're making egregious errors in the interpretation.
Where I, and I think most people, start objecting is when any interpretation is presented as the 'one true meaning' of a particular work, especially when people start talking about what the author subconsciously meant or the typical post-modern blather about subtexts. This includes instances where the author tries to cabin interpretations ala Bruce Springsteen's often voiced complaints that "Born in The USA" doesn't echo modern conservative themes.
The tweet above is on the ambiguous side but I can certainly see where transgender or adjacent groups would see echos of their assertions about gender in Harry Potter. As I noted in my earlier comment this could have some darkly humorous implications because it makes Hogwarts practically a grooming organization. If they want to interpret it that way, no skin off my nose, but I think JKR is correct to object to the insinuation that she somehow accidentally wrote a coming of age story where the protagonist undergoes significant growth and change.
Post a Comment