I'm trying quite hard not to express it, but your essay did upset me. I'm exhausted of being surrounded in fandom by people with these point of views about the Slytherins. And the comments you've received in which people seem to be basically using Draco as a means to justify treating other people badly... It upsets me a lot. That's not what the books are about, and I suspect that's part of why JKR said what she did about Draco not being nice. If you recognise a negative quality in yourself, you should strive to change it, not embrace it. People need to earn their second chances. (Which Draco did, and the fact that he survived the series into adulthood is evidence that he received his second chance.)
I can imagine that when the AiD philosophy is used as it was meant to be used, it sometimes produces interesting results. However, I am burnt out on it from seeing too many truly bad (and by bad, I mean not supported by the text and clearly ignoring authorial intent) "personal interpretations" of the HP series (and Hunger Games and other media) written by fandomers who justify their opinions by claiming AiD. I've just read way too much nonsense in which someone confuses their head canon with actual canon and ignores the obvious themes of the books.
I'll quote Georgia O'Keefe: “I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
I think it's lazy, because it stops readers from putting in the work to truly analyse a text. Instead, they take a short cut and substitute their own meaning. If you ignore the fact that JKR implied that Dumbledore is a god figure, you're going to miss out on a whole lot of meaning in the HP series and probably end up frustrated.
I don't agree that both sides have equal weight. If I say something to you, you don't get to decide what I meant. You may have something interesting to add to my thoughts or another perspective on it, but you don't get equal weight as far as my own intent is concerned.
I know a lot of artists too and a lot of writers. I know that as a writer, when someone sees something interesting and meaningful in something I wrote but which I didn't intend to communicate, it's nice, but I don't feel that I can take credit for it.
"Art, in all forms, is about expression, and what is the point of expression without any sort of return?" -- But that's my point. Analysing what an artist was trying to say and then moving on from that point is giving them a return, and a more respectful one, imo.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-11-27 11:42 am (UTC)(Which Draco did, and the fact that he survived the series into adulthood is evidence that he received his second chance.)
I can imagine that when the AiD philosophy is used as it was meant to be used, it sometimes produces interesting results. However, I am burnt out on it from seeing too many truly bad (and by bad, I mean not supported by the text and clearly ignoring authorial intent) "personal interpretations" of the HP series (and Hunger Games and other media) written by fandomers who justify their opinions by claiming AiD. I've just read way too much nonsense in which someone confuses their head canon with actual canon and ignores the obvious themes of the books.
I'll quote Georgia O'Keefe: “I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
I think it's lazy, because it stops readers from putting in the work to truly analyse a text. Instead, they take a short cut and substitute their own meaning. If you ignore the fact that JKR implied that Dumbledore is a god figure, you're going to miss out on a whole lot of meaning in the HP series and probably end up frustrated.
I don't agree that both sides have equal weight. If I say something to you, you don't get to decide what I meant. You may have something interesting to add to my thoughts or another perspective on it, but you don't get equal weight as far as my own intent is concerned.
I know a lot of artists too and a lot of writers. I know that as a writer, when someone sees something interesting and meaningful in something I wrote but which I didn't intend to communicate, it's nice, but I don't feel that I can take credit for it.
"Art, in all forms, is about expression, and what is the point of expression without any sort of return?" -- But that's my point. Analysing what an artist was trying to say and then moving on from that point is giving them a return, and a more respectful one, imo.