The Challenge for January 2011:
Lily revisited
Lily revisited
Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alicekinsno1 suggested to take a closer look at Lily's character:Maybe something that discusses the character of Lily more deeply? I'd love to see what some of your ideas are for just how Lily went from treating Snape so harshly and talking back to James, to being the stereotypical "saintly mother" at the end of her life. There's something about her personality that doesn't add up.
That is to say, how her apparently selfless decision to die for her baby makes sense in light of the way she treated Severus or even James. With possibly a side comment about how despite being so powerful and gifted she didn't really show any of that by dying pleading for her baby's life without even trying to take on Voldemort.
Please post your entries here or in a separate post. I'm looking forward to your entries.
If you have ideas for new challenges, please post them here. (This is a new list, your earlier suggestions are still in the old post).
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Nor am I trying to.
"I said no such thing. I said I interpreted the text using a Doyalist perspective."
1) Doylist is fine for literary analysis in general, but it fails at character analysis because it destroys the coherence of character information.
2) JK's authorial fiat is not part of the text. Text is a discrete product. Authors are, to some extent, merely observers of what their subconscious produces: slightly more privileged than the rest of us, because they observed the process, but for that very reason less likely to engage fully with the end product. Their memory of what they *wanted* to put in obscures their vision of what they did put in.
"And yet she created Severus Snape!"
Whose subtleties *we* attributed to him. *Her* Snape is very black and white, just like her world. He loved Lily. He hated James. He loathed Harry for James' sake and saved him for Lily's, and never grew past that. He was in her words "deeply horrible".
"So the woman clearly has SOME writing ability."
Writing ability and shades of grey are not synonymous.
"desperately trying to save his wife and son"
Well, at least he shouts a warning. He doesn't do anything else to the purpose because he doesn't even have the sense to carry a wand at all times.
And how does this show growth on his part? Do you think he *wouldn't* have tried to save family as a schoolboy? His loyalty and bravery are the *only* ethical strengths we know of him, and they coexisted with his bullying.
"Harry is a magical child with magical abilities"
How irresponsible of his parents to suppose they can rely on that. Magical children can get injured too, and we see in canon that magic isn't able to heal *everything*. Has Harry's magic even begun to kick in at one year? (Neville's didn't until he was eight, and before it did he "nearly drowned" once.) Accidental magic rarely saves Harry in canon from being beaten up by Dudley's gang.
I can only presume you have no conception of how seriously and how quickly babies can injure themselves. (And I notice that the cat's danger is less than nothing to you.) Babies have no sense of what's dangerous. They lunge suddenly. They topple. They smash glass and play with it. They try to play with the bright pretty fire. If baby-Harry had broken his neck, could they have brought him back to life? If he'd crashed through glass and scarred his eyes, could they have restored his sight?
"Rowling is a mother too. Next thing you'll be telling me is that she isn't fit to look after children!"
Now *who* is putting words into the other person's mouth? I don't use books as a prism through which to look at the author. I engage only with the text.
"don't put words in my mouth."
You're the one who says "It's HUMOUR. Lighten up." Some things aren't funny. A lot of what the text presents as funny *really* isn't.
"I don't like Dumbledore much either, but that's a really offensive analogy."
Dumbledore is a really offensive character. Maybe you aren't offended by the spectacle of him grooming Harry to become a child soldier and willing sacrifice, with lines like "Death is the next great adventure," and points rewards for being stupidly reckless. I think it's horrific, and although there is no sexual element in Dumbledore's relationship with Harry it's just as much a predatory one as any pedophile's.
"trivialising and cheapening"
Child soldiers is just as much a horrible form of child abuse as pedophilia, and one which is just as much of a real world problem. Maybe you didn't notice because the victims of child soldiery are "third-worlders", and we safe comfortable westerners don't usually get confronted with the issue close up.
"It really is a waste of time here trying to discuss Lily's character in a more positive light, isn't it? Dissenting opinions are not allowed."
*You* certainly don't allow them. If I disagree you get abusive, and now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stifle debate.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
But you ARE casting aspersions on a) the way I critique things and b) my character. Which does look rather like trying to steamroller the opposition. *shrug*
1) Doylist is fine for literary analysis in general, but it fails at character analysis because it destroys the coherence of character information.
Not in my experience it doesn’t. I think my character analysis of the characters in Rowling’s Potterverse (and Tolkien’s Middle-earth and every other book I’ve ever read) works just dandy, thanks. I don’t claim my view is superior, of course not, but I sure ain’t having it slapped down just because someone happens to disagree with it.
I can only presume you have no conception of how seriously and how quickly babies can injure themselves.
You don’t know anything about me, my life experiences or my dealings with children. Cut it out, please.
(And I notice that the cat's danger is less than nothing to you.)
Yet another ‘ad hominem’ attack. First I don’t care about child abuse, now I don’t care about animals. Knock it off.
Dumbledore is a really offensive character. Maybe you aren't offended by the spectacle of him grooming Harry to become a child soldier and willing sacrifice, with lines like "Death is the next great adventure," and points rewards for being stupidly reckless. I think it's horrific, and although there is no sexual element in Dumbledore's relationship with Harry it's just as much a predatory one as any pedophile's.
As I’ve already said, Dumbledore is not a favourite of mine. But I think we also should add Gandalf the Grey to the list of Machiavellian old gits who send unwitting innocents on a suicide mission. How about it, Duj? Let’s compile a list. ;)
Except not, because I love Gandalf, and Frodo, and that’s never going to happen.
Child soldiers is just as much a horrible form of child abuse as pedophilia, and one which is just as much of a real world problem. Maybe you didn't notice because the victims of child soldiery are "third-worlders", and we safe comfortable westerners don't usually get confronted with the issue close up.
Here we go again. More ‘ad hominem’. I’m not going to dignify this with a response.
*You* certainly don't allow them. If I disagree you get abusive, and now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stifle debate.
I am not saying anything of the sort. My opinion of Lily is clearly the minority one on this site. Which is fine. I'm a big girl and I'm not threatened by opposing POVs. But YOU are the one who threw the first punch by saying that my method of literary analsyis doesn’t count (because you disagree with it) and then insinuating, several times, that I don’t care about child abuse and animal cruelty. If a stranger on the internet casts such crass aspersions on my character, you bet I am going to respond robustly. (And you have the gall to call ME abusive.) Please note that I have not made any personal accusations about YOUR morals and integrity.
One of the pleasures I get from online discussions is alternative POVs that challenge the way I see a character. One of my favourite characters is Hermione, but other readers don’t like her. Are they WRONG not to like her? Of course not. Anymore than I am wrong to like Severus, Harry, Hermione … and Lily.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Here we go again. More ‘ad hominem’. I’m not going to dignify this with a response.
Ad hominem attacks: attacks on the character or personal attributes of the writer rather than the person's argument
That is not what duj is doing above.
Also: it's clear by the end of the book series that Dumbledore was reckless with Harry's life and possibly planning for Harry to get killed all along. Harry of all people accepts this. Maybe we're meant to forgive Dumbledore or like him in spite of this, maybe this theme is just not meant to be taken seriously, but it is a part of the text, an undeniable part of it. It makes sense to take those themes and character developments into account in the course of interpreting the book. So, the comment about Dumbledore's character is relevant in the context of this discussion.