I use the interviews as regulation upon speculation. I don't think she lies to us. For instance, there is a cottage industry amongst some (some, not all) fans of Snape to deny the "horrible person" comments, and many others (especially the "sadistic teacher"). I take the latter, especially, as a "Don't expect any exculpatory reasons for his behavior to pop up" (he doesn't actually mean it, it's an act, etc.), which is a favorite theory of some. I think the interviews will be largely useless when all is said and done, because I think we're about to get some very solid information on some big things, especially the metaphysics. And the metaphysical revelations are going to permanently piss some fans off.
A good antidote to "author is dead" is (especially in my field) to stop pretending that music comes out fully-formed in nice packaged Collected Works editions, and go to a manuscript library and look at originals. Both the New Critical and the deconstructionist approach that tend to just look at text forget about things like bibliographic codes and context. When you note the careful arrangement of a manuscript book of Lieder or the marks in the composer's hand on a proof, making corrections and changing things, or even a whole 'nother version of a song, the author starts to come back to life as a controlling figure in the creation of a work. I'm working on Marenzio's Ninth Book right now, and there is no doubt that the order of the madrigals and selection of poetry is completely determined and meaningful...and so a little bit of Marenzio himself as an artistic personality comes to life there. When you actually have real hard data about a composer's life, there can be careful yet incredibly illuminating connections to make (like with my main man, Richard Strauss). (And revisions can tell you a massive amount about a work. Same thing goes in literature).
Rowling's work needs to be read in context, with an awareness of the genres that she is spoofing or playing off of. On the other hand, I don't find too much value in the deep mythological hunts that some engage in and consider definitive, because she takes things and twists them, and only the way that she twists them is particularly applicable. (I feel differently about Wagner's relationship to myth, but that's different time, different place, and very different treatment). I have a strong suspicion that her Christian ethos is going to be important to the denoument, too.
The eternal question of balance between the local and that which is good for all times; there's often a significant loss in modernization, but I feel like sometimes one can go through and peg exactly what is being lost, and decide how much that matters. Alas, all my good examples are musical, but here goes: Don Giovanni gets staged any number of ways. Everyone misunderstands Don Ottavio, because our ideas of masculinity are so radically different than the late 18th century. You can *do* it, but anyone who knows more of the context notes what gets lost, and how it doesn't sit with the rest of the text. All opera seria is much the same way; wild mythological settings are all about the 18th century, and even that far back is unrecoverable for an audience not willing to do their homework. Much the same problem as with Shakespeare, I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 07:21 am (UTC)A good antidote to "author is dead" is (especially in my field) to stop pretending that music comes out fully-formed in nice packaged Collected Works editions, and go to a manuscript library and look at originals. Both the New Critical and the deconstructionist approach that tend to just look at text forget about things like bibliographic codes and context. When you note the careful arrangement of a manuscript book of Lieder or the marks in the composer's hand on a proof, making corrections and changing things, or even a whole 'nother version of a song, the author starts to come back to life as a controlling figure in the creation of a work. I'm working on Marenzio's Ninth Book right now, and there is no doubt that the order of the madrigals and selection of poetry is completely determined and meaningful...and so a little bit of Marenzio himself as an artistic personality comes to life there. When you actually have real hard data about a composer's life, there can be careful yet incredibly illuminating connections to make (like with my main man, Richard Strauss). (And revisions can tell you a massive amount about a work. Same thing goes in literature).
Rowling's work needs to be read in context, with an awareness of the genres that she is spoofing or playing off of. On the other hand, I don't find too much value in the deep mythological hunts that some engage in and consider definitive, because she takes things and twists them, and only the way that she twists them is particularly applicable. (I feel differently about Wagner's relationship to myth, but that's different time, different place, and very different treatment). I have a strong suspicion that her Christian ethos is going to be important to the denoument, too.
The eternal question of balance between the local and that which is good for all times; there's often a significant loss in modernization, but I feel like sometimes one can go through and peg exactly what is being lost, and decide how much that matters. Alas, all my good examples are musical, but here goes: Don Giovanni gets staged any number of ways. Everyone misunderstands Don Ottavio, because our ideas of masculinity are so radically different than the late 18th century. You can *do* it, but anyone who knows more of the context notes what gets lost, and how it doesn't sit with the rest of the text. All opera seria is much the same way; wild mythological settings are all about the 18th century, and even that far back is unrecoverable for an audience not willing to do their homework. Much the same problem as with Shakespeare, I think.