authorial intent

[lotesse]

Adding to the discussion that's been linked by metafandom, just one thing:

If an author's intent is not made clear by the text, that's her problem, not ours. And we don't have to listen to any explanations. If JK wrote Draco as a little psychopath, that would be one thing. But obviously she didn't. She may think that she did. But hundreds of fen find him sympathetic. I don't love him myself, but it seem to me that for the story to develop properly he can't just be a demon from hell. It's not the Way of Stories. And so I have a hard time believing him to be the source of all evil. If that upsets JK, her problem again. I feel that way because to a certain extent she failed as a writer.

Writing is all about communication. A writer is one who communicates through words, and a storyteller is one who communicates through stories. And if JKR didn't tell the story she meant to, it's not my problem.

Comments

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

WORD. While I like authors who let the readers think a bit for themselves, and don't spell everything out for them in great detail, it is, in the end, the author's job to serve the reader, not the other way around. Any explanations outside the text are superfluous, because we should get all the explanations we need from the text, and if we haven't, well, that's a failure on the author's part.

If JK wrote Draco as a little psychopath, that would be one thing. But obviously she didn't. She may think that she did. But hundreds of fen find him sympathetic.

I never get those people who argue that a) Draco is two-dimensional and b) said two-dimensionality is intended by JKR and a proof of her great talent. Um, two-dimensionality is never a good thing in a character, not even a villain.

[anima-mecanique.livejournal.com]

Personally, I was always interested in Draco because I felt he had a lot of potential as a character -- to develop into something truly despicable, something good, or something in between. Personally I had my money on in between -- but NOTHING has happened. Draco has become LESS interesting, if anything. I think a lot of people are into Draco because they saw a potential that Rowling doesn't seem to have acknowledged.

While all the other characters have grown up and changed, Draco seems to be stuck as an eleven-year-old bully forever. Yes, some people start out cruel and remain cruel, but they CHANGE. They find new ways of controlling others, they adapt their prejudices...if Draco's going to be a bad person, he needs to grow up into a bad person, not stay the same.

[hyel.livejournal.com]

I actually think she did manage to paint him as - well, not the source of all evil, but a right little shit. It's just that fangirls love blond hair and pointy chins and completely recreated him. That's okay! I recreate characters when I write them, snip here and there and make an image I can better adore. Nothing wrong with that, but, as said, I don't think it's a question of the author's failing in this case.

[lotesse]

Of course fanon!Malfoy exists! But I do think that JK's Malfoy is problematic, mainly because he's written as a cardboard cut-out of a childhood nemesis. He's not realistic in the slightest. He just remains pathetic and puerile and does not resopnd logically to the things happening around him. JK's put too much into setting up the James-Snape dynamic (bullying is bad!) to be able to have Draco stay the way he is, IMO. In OotP, for example, Harry does that great bit where he's sympathizing with Snape after peeking in the Pensieve, and then launches right into Malfoy. He even thinks something along the lines of "How awful! But maybe if it was Malfoy...". I just don't see how JK can leave that sort of mental inconsistency. Both Harry and Draco need to grow up, and I can't help but feel that it can only happen if Draco is shown to be a wee bit more complex than "Malfoy Bad. Urgh."

[hyel.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's inconsistent. Harry finds out his dad's a bully, and he knows from his dealings with Draco how that's a Very Bad Thing. He angsts because he doesn't know how to accept dad wasn't perfect, he's confused, but at least he can still be sure that Draco's a git and Draco he's not in any way obligated to make excuses for. He can't hate his dad, but he can hate Draco, and thus safely exercise his moral ideas in an uncomplicated scenario of Draco's a git, let's hurt Draco. Of course if he starts thinking about how his behaviour towards Draco might be comparable to his dad's behaviour that's back into the ow brain hurts area, but didn't he sort of resolve that - decide that what he does to Malfoy isn't the same thing, because he doesn't bother Malfoy if Malfoy doesn't bother him or his friends first? James and Sirius just humiliated Snape because they were bored. That's the sort of thing Malfoy does, not Harry.

And, well, the series isn't over yet. Malfoy might change in some direction. *thinks* The way I've seen it go for boys like him is that if they're bullies and "cool" in junior high, they're losers in senior. Doesn't work in this context, though, since the stages aren't separated...

[lotesse]

Right. It's perfectly explicable inconsistency. But I think that the problem comes in when JK starts to sound like she doesn't see it that way. If Harry realizes his own errors in judgement and manages to grow past the "Draco is a git" mentality, I'll be perfectly happy. But when fen say that, JK seems to usually retort "you justb like tom felton" or somesuch. And that troubles me.

No one is saying that Harry has to be morally perfect right now. All that I'm worried about is the hints that the author truly believes that he already is.

[hyel.livejournal.com]

But Draco IS a git. And Harry is a better person than his dad was, or than Draco is, because he realises the difference between reacting to provocation or protecting your friends and going after someone just because he's there and you're bored. I mean, Draco doesn't see anything wrong with hurting others to gain prestige or for fun, or doesn't care if it's wrong, and James saw nothing wrong with hurting someone who is unpleasant to gain prestige or for fun... Well, basically, if Draco finds Ron, Neville and those others unpleasant, then he's not doing anything worse than James was, or rather, James was doing the exact same thing Draco is. Harry thinks they're both wrong, and I think he's right. He forgives his dad and Sirius, I think, because they're not like that anymore. If Draco stopped being a git, Harry would probably forgive him too. But he'd have to stop first.

[(Anonymous)]

Harry is a better person than his dad was, or than Draco is, because he realises the difference between reacting to provocation or protecting your friends and going after someone just because he's there and you're bored.

Heh. Guess you got served by HBP, what with Harry hexing people in the halls and all, huh?

[lotesse]

Yo. no sassing my girl. Year, I disagree with her too, but still. Not on.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I totally see what you mean. How could JK not adhere to the Way of Stories? She didn't write him at ALL the way I think she needs to write him and since it doesn't come up to the imaginary standard I made up in my head she is a failure.

Are you really this stupid?

[lotesse]

If you are going to comment anoymously on my lj, please leave a name for identification purposes, and maybe a tag telling me how you got here. This encourages dialogue and maybe could give me some idea of where you're coming from as a fan. You can see my positions in this lj, and I'd like some indication of yours. Thanks.

Also, I have never said that any author has failed for breaking the rules. Rules are there to be broken. But she broke them unclearly, as is demonstrated by the cross-reading common in her fandom. Looking at Draco, I can see several ways that a character like his would traditionally go. He doesn't have to go in any of them, but what he does has to be literarily coherent. ITA with everything go_back_chief says above.

But this wasn't even a post about whether Draco Malfoy was well- or poorly-written. It was a comment stating that if the audience of a piece, or some significant part of it, doesn't get what the author wanted them to, the author was the one who screwed up and failed to communicate properly, and thus should not throw snitty remarks at them.

[(Anonymous)]

Is Miss Rowling throwing snitty remarks at you? Did she have something she wanted interpreted in a different way? I have a hard time thinking that she communicates with you, of all people, in any respect, much less a remotely professional one.

-ERF

[lotesse]

Um. the context of the whole discussion might be useful for you. I did make it clear that this was intended as part of an ongoing conversation linked at metafandom, a conversation that centers mainly around JK's treament of fen in her interviews.

Ad homs and neither useful nor clever. Not here, please.

[(Anonymous)]

...I think I just made a comment on somebody else's account (I'm using a public computer).

If anything was interpreted as an ad hominem attack, I apologize. But I feel compelled to ask---what's with the word "fen"? Why not "fans"?

[lotesse]

Actually, I have no idea. I've heard it used for a really long time, though. I like it, myself. As far as I can tell, it's a purely fannis usage.