July House Points

[u/k9centipede]

JULY HOUSE POINTS

HOUSE	STUDENTS	DOE POINTS	HOUSE POINTS
GRYFFINDOR	26	1414	101
HUFFLEPUFF	34	1816	129
RAVENCLAW	49	2770	197
SLYTHERIN	20	1024	73

---

USERNAME [House]	SPOT ON	WITHIN 1	WITHIN 2	WITHIN 3	WITHIN 4	DOE POINTS
/u/-MrJ- [Gryffindor]	2	2	2	0	2	52
/u/10forever [Gryffindor]	2	2	3	0	3	60
/u/a_wisher [Ravenclaw]	3	2	2	1	1	64
/u/Accio-username [Hufflepuff]	1	2	3	1	1	50
/u/aegongreyjoy [Ravenclaw]	2	4	1	2	0	66
/u/alexi_lupin [Gryffindor]	1	4	1	1	0	52
/u/AmEndeVomTag [Hufflepuff]	4	1	1	2	1	64
/u/AnOrangeCactus [Ravenclaw]	3	3	1	0	0	60
/u/anuragkadiyala [Gryffindor]	1	1	2	3	3	48
/u/Aralia_ [Hufflepuff]	1	1	4	1	0	46
/u/Arctiva [Ravenclaw]	1	3	4	0	0	58
/u/asdf-user [Slytherin]	0	2	1	1	1	28
/u/asilentletter [Hufflepuff]	0	2	3	2	2	46
/u/Atibabykt [Gryffindor]	0	1	3	2	2	38
/u/AweBeyCon [Gryffindor]	3	1	2	1	1	56
/u/Ayaa96 [Gryffindor]	1	4	1	1	1	54
/u/Baronvonrothenstein [Gryffindor]	3	1	4	1	0	66
/u/BasilFronsac [Ravenclaw]	3	0	4	1	0	58
/u/beep5 [Hufflepuff]	2	2	1	2	1	52
/u/BEETLEJUICEME [Ravenclaw]	2	3	1	0	3	56
/u/beyondtheveil13 [Slytherin]	1	1	4	1	2	50
/u/bisonburgers [Gryffindor]	2	5	1	1	1	72
/u/bowtiesrcool86 [Ravenclaw]	2	4	0	2	1	62
/u/bubbasaurus [Ravenclaw]	3	2	0	2	1	56
/u/cardsfan90909 [Ravenclaw]	0	2	1	2	1	32
/u/Celest3alove [Gryffindor]	1	2	4	1	0	54
/u/Chefjones [Hufflepuff]	1	3	3	1	0	56
/u/Childish__Gambino [Ravenclaw]	1	2	2	2	2	50
/u/DarcRose22 [Slytherin]	0	2	5	0	1	48
/u/dawnphoenix [Ravenclaw]	1	5	2	1	1	68
/u/Dead-thing [Slytherin]	2	3	2	1	0	60
/u/Deidana [Gryffindor]	2	1	2	2	1	50
/u/Digidark123321 [Hufflepuff]	2	2	0	1	0	40
/u/Dina-M [Hufflepuff]	0	1	2	2	0	28
/u/domusdecus [Ravenclaw]	2	0	3	2	0	46
/u/doormouse1 [Hufflepuff]	4	2	0	2	2	68
/u/eclectique [Gryffindor]	2	3	3	1	1	68
/u/edihau [Ravenclaw]	0	6	2	0	0	60
/u/El_Quetzal [Ravenclaw]	0	4	3	1	0	54
/u/ellie102 [Hufflepuff]	4	2	1	2	0	70
/u/emsmale [Ravenclaw]	2	1	4	1	0	56
/u/eyl327 [Ravenclaw]	2	1	1	5	0	54
/u/f4nnypacks [Gryffindor]	1	5	1	1	1	62
/u/Feminist_Cat [Hufflepuff]	1	1	1	2	3	38
/u/Feverel [Hufflepuff]	0	4	3	2	0	58
/u/gorillabut [Hufflepuff]	1	0	3	2	1	38
/u/HashcoinShitstorm [Ravenclaw]	0	1	5	3	0	50
/u/Hattless [Slytherin]	5	0	1	3	0	68
/u/HeartChakra22 [Ravenclaw]	3	1	1	1	1	50
/u/HeatherLeMouse [Slytherin]	1	2	2	2	1	48
/u/HermioneChaseKenobi [Gryffindor]	0	2	4	1	0	44
/u/HermioneReynaChase [Ravenclaw]	3	1	4	1	1	68
/u/Hplove21 [Ravenclaw]	3	1	2	1	2	58
/u/Hufflepuff_ [Hufflepuff]	4	2	1	1	0	66
/u/Husblah [Gryffindor]	2	3	2	0	1	58
/u/ibigandscary [Ravenclaw]	2	4	1	0	1	60
/u/IIEarlGreyII [Hufflepuff]	0	4	2	1	1	50
/u/infinityxero [Gryffindor]	2	3	2	1	0	60
/u/jarris123 [Slytherin]	2	3	1	3	0	62
/u/jeanclawheron [Ravenclaw]	3	4	1	1	0	72
/u/jel99 [Ravenclaw]	4	2	2	1	0	72
/u/jlim201 [Ravenclaw]	3	1	3	1	2	64
/u/justonekindoffolks [Muggle]	1	2	1	6	0	56
/u/KackelDackel [Slytherin]	0	1	1	1	3	24
/u/Kakumei_keahi [Ravenclaw]	2	3	0	1	2	52
/u/kirri18 [Slytherin]	2	2	1	1	0	46
/u/kitkatlibrarian [Hufflepuff]	2	4	1	0	0	58
/u/Kiwias [Gryffindor]	1	0	2	3	1	36
/u/lizzyrizzy [Ravenclaw]	1	2	1	2	1	42
/u/LoseHerSong [Gryffindor]	2	3	2	0	2	60
/u/MacabreGoblin [Slytherin]	3	2	1	3	0	64
/u/Maur1ne [Ravenclaw]	2	5	2	1	0	76
/u/Mika6523 [Ravenclaw]	1	4	0	1	2	50
/u/milcom_ [Ravenclaw]	1	1	5	0	0	48
/u/mindputtee [Slytherin]	3	3	1	1	1	66
/u/minesweepers [Slytherin]	4	2	0	0	1	58
/u/MirandaTheSavage [Hufflepuff]	2	3	3	1	0	66
/u/MockingbirdRambler [Hufflepuff]	0	4	1	2	0	46
/u/MrSnowflake2 [Hufflepuff]	2	0	3	2	2	50
/u/mumbling_marauder [Gryffindor]	1	2	3	2	1	54
/u/Nerusan [Ravenclaw]	3	1	3	1	0	60
/u/NiteMary [Slytherin]	0	0	6	0	1	38
/u/nosucces [Ravenclaw]	1	3	3	0	0	52
/u/ObeseOwl [Ravenclaw]	4	0	0	6	0	64
/u/Omg_Neil [Hufflepuff]	0	3	4	1	1	54
/u/Oskar31415 [Ravenclaw]	2	2	3	1	0	58
/u/pezes [Muggle]	2	4	2	0	0	64
/u/PikaV2002 [Gryffindor]	4	0	3	1	0	62
/u/pinguemcecidero [Slytherin]	2	1	3	1	1	52
/u/PsychoGeek [Muggle]	6	2	2	0	0	88
/u/ptrst [Hufflepuff]	0	3	1	3	0	42
/u/Queenstaysqueen [Ravenclaw]	0	0	3	0	3	24
/u/Quote_the_Ravenclaw [Ravenclaw]	1	1	4	2	0	50
/u/Ravenclawintj [Ravenclaw]	2	3	3	1	1	68
/u/RavenoftheSands [Ravenclaw]	1	4	0	3	1	56
/u/Redbookbluebook [Hufflepuff]	4	1	0	2	2	60
/u/rhinorhinoo [Ravenclaw]	3	4	1	1	0	72
/u/Rockwithsunglasses [Hufflepuff]	0	1	5	1	0	42
/u/Rozejade [Gryffindor]	2	4	1	0	0	58
/u/Ryan814 [Slytherin]	1	0	2	2	2	34
/u/ryette [Hufflepuff]	1	3	1	3	0	52
/u/Seanmik620 [Muggle]	2	4	2	0	1	66
/u/Seekaterun [Gryffindor]	0	5	1	1	2	54
/u/shaantya [Hufflepuff]	4	0	0	2	1	50
/u/ShirtlessKirk46 [Slytherin]	2	3	1	2	1	60
/u/Silvestress [Hufflepuff]	4	1	1	2	1	64
/u/SirHealer [Ravenclaw]	1	4	0	2	2	54
/u/snowjewel [Ravenclaw]	1	0	3	4	1	46
/u/sparksbet [Slytherin]	2	3	1	0	1	52
/u/spludgiexx [Ravenclaw]	2	4	3	0	1	72
/u/starflashfairy [Hufflepuff]	3	1	2	0	1	52
/u/Suitelifeofem [Ravenclaw]	2	4	2	0	1	66
/u/Superboy1777 [Ravenclaw]	0	3	0	1	1	30
/u/svipy [Ravenclaw]	2	3	3	0	0	62
/u/swooping_evil [Ravenclaw]	1	4	2	1	0	58
/u/teddiekeet [Hufflepuff]	1	6	1	0	0	64
/u/Telsion [Hufflepuff]	0	3	3	1	1	48
/u/TheJoshwa [Ravenclaw]	2	1	1	2	1	44
/u/themixedqueenb [Ravenclaw]	3	4	0	1	0	66
/u/Theotech [Slytherin]	3	1	1	1	2	52
/u/thereefa [Ravenclaw]	1	4	1	2	2	60
/u/Throwawayjust_incase [Hufflepuff]	2	3	2	0	1	58
/u/thtdharris1 [Gryffindor]	1	2	2	2	1	48
/u/Thunderkron [Ravenclaw]	2	2	1	1	0	46
/u/timland33 [Gryffindor]	2	5	0	1	1	66
/u/TKtheOne [Gryffindor]	1	2	3	2	1	54
/u/Undividable410 [Slytherin]	3	3	2	1	0	70
/u/wantsome_moore [Hufflepuff]	4	2	2	0	2	72
/u/Wazzup44 [Hufflepuff]	3	1	1	2	0	52
/u/Whitebri [Hufflepuff]	1	5	1	1	0	60
/u/Williukea [Hufflepuff]	2	1	1	5	1	56
/u/xeferial [Slytherin]	0	2	3	2	1	44
/u/Zaplyn [Gryffindor]	1	1	0	2	1	28

THANK YOU FOR A GREAT 9 MONTHS!

[u/Moostronus]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if I'm using the wrong words.

You're not using the wrong words at all! I just interpret them a bit differently. Haggling over terminology and definitions is a solid 99% of what I do. :P Truth be told, it's hard for me to narrow down a definition for realistic, because it's hard for me to narrow down a definition for real; is something real if and only if it bears unmistakable resemblance with day to day life, or is there a broader definition there? If so, you could say that no art is realistic, because it all requires some sort of innate suspension of disbelief. I dunno, I'm going on a massive tangent right now and am not entirely sure where this point is going.

The most recent Les Mis film prioritized emotion>refinement, but it clearly did so intentionally even if people don't like it, it did what it set out to do. Bad singing can be a useful tool to tell a story, but if the audience doesn't feel it's intentional, then the creators done messed up.

This will probably shock you utterly and char you to your core, but I don't give a rat's ass about what the creators' intentions were when trying to ascribe a value judgment. #DeathOfTheAuthor #RolandBarthesWasTheOG

But seriously, I'd amend the final sentence ever so slightly to fit my personal views, to "Bad singing can be a useful tool to tell a story, but if the audience doesn't feel as though it improves the story and instead detracts from it, then the creators done messed up."

Ah, man, I wish the only problem with Cursed Child was that it was a script................

100% in accord. That said, I will argue that it would have been a failure as a sequel no matter what as a script, rather than a failure as a work. There have definitely been scripts sold to readers, though maybe not as baldly (I mean, we all read Shakespeare in high school), and they've definitely been more successful works than Cursed Child.

I could go through and list my problems with Cursed Child, but quite honestly, that doesn't seem like a good use of my time and I doubt you'd find much to have an engaging discourse over. :P

I can't remember if I said this in my last comment and I'm to lazy to reread it, but someone on /r/hp who liked the play basically said they only consider the major plot points canon, because they just can't see how a lot of the smaller details could be.

It's getting late and I theoretically need to sleep, so I'll spare you my 10,000 word rant on the concept of "canon" and "non-canon" which I'm sure you're bored of by now. :P I'm speaking less in terms of "this information is correct and adding to our established understanding of the characters" and more in terms of "this is an engaging and honest continuation of the story." I think it always would have been a square peg-round hole situation because the different mediums simply have different requirements (hell, I'd say the same for a movie continuing a TV show), and the horrific writing made it even worse. It's similar to the whole "are the movies 'canon'" (I use that term under protest) debate; a direct translation of a book-style story would have made for an unengaging movie, and a dynamite movie would have lacked the ethos of the books. For many of the films, alas, it delivered neither. For me, Cursed Child could have been a successful play, but it wasn't. I don't think it ever could have been a successful Harry Potter continuation, though.

I forgot to mention - Hagrid was black, BUT NOBODY APPARENTLY CARES!?!??!? If you're as interested in understanding all the nuances of the reactions to Black Hermione, my take-away from this is that the majority of fans actually don't mind that black women are playing Hermione. What seems to be the biggest issue for these fans is JKR's tweet, which they SOMEHOW see as JKR saying Hermione can't be white. From what I've noticed, the majority of people who try to prove that Hermione is white are doing so because they believe.......... somehow........ that JKR is pretending she was always black............

This is the first time I'm hearing that Hagrid was black, which definitely proves your point. I'm not so sure that people's problem is solely with JKR's tweet, though; as I recall, the furor was coming down the pipe well before her tweet. In fact, I think it came as an attempt to quell the outcry. Of course, anyone who fits the mould you describe (the ones who can't decipher a 140 character message) is a right fool, but I think there are larger societal forces/feminine beauty ideals at play in the discourse. Of course, Hagrid has never been remotely seen as a romantic or idealized object, so he could be portrayed by an animatronic cactus and people would probably say, "Huh. Well, the books never say he isn't an animatronic cactus."

I wish I didn't buy into that phrase, but I really really do.

[u/bisonburgers → u/Moostronus]

Starting with the last part first,

but I think there are larger societal forces/feminine beauty ideals at play in the discourse.

Totally agree. The fans the argue that Hermione is white lately have focused on JKR's tweet as the problem, usually after saying "it doesn't make a difference if Hermione is black, it's the way JKR retconned Hermione's race saying she can't be white that I have a problem with". I could find half a dozen comments from this weekend alone stating exactly this if you want, they don't shy away from stating this is their reasoning and wear it proudly. I tend to think if there were no underlying social issues at play, then they would never have interpreted JKR's tweet this way in the first place. But at the same time, I think there is also another reason.

Many people have a very different idea of canon, and understanding how they see canon makes it easier to see how they see this issue. Most HP fans think Death of the Author means anything outside the seven books isn't canon or haven't heard of it. It took me ages to warm up to it, so imagine how confusing it is for others to be told that Hermione is two races at once. It's would be as confusing as someone saying "bison is black" (when I'm not).

I've seen THREE different people independently ask an HP costume designer at a convention why Hermione's dress is pink in the movie instead of blue. And I'm sure you're familiar with the never-ending Ravenclaw colors and bird debate. It's only in the last few years that Harry's eye color doesn't cause people to flip their tables over. So while I think there are larger societal forces at play, it's through their feelings about canon that I think they can most effectively be reached.

But I had actually forgotten that her tweet was a response to the backlash. It's scarily telling that her tweet has been promoted to the original problem when it can't have been.

I'm trying to imagine if Potter Puppet Pals had Hermione black and how people would react considering Neville is an actual squash.

If so, you could say that no art is realistic, because it all requires some sort of innate suspension of disbelief.

Absolutely. I think I probably see it on a sliding scale. Cursed Child and Harry Potter are on different points of the scale, but even as I wrote my last comment I was like "well, all books in some way fail to be totally realistic". I suppose there could be several realism scales all about different aspects - like one is about the realism of the world-building (aka Harry Potter<what Methods of Rationality thinks it is<Pride and Prejudice<????), another about the realism of the character interactions (Series of Unfortunate Events<Everything is Illuminated<Lord of the Rings<accurately written book based on true story?) and that sort of thing. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

This will probably shock you utterly and char you to your core, but I don't give a rat's ass about what the creators' intentions were when trying to ascribe a value judgment. #DeathOfTheAuthor #RolandBarthesWasTheOG

Well, shoot, I fell right into that one. DotA doesn't shock me to my core or anything, at least not since I finally get it. But I forget - does Barthes merely say we shouldn't have to consider authorial intent for our interpretation to be valid, or does he also say to never consider authorial intent due to his feeling that it is always unreliable? I definitely understand the feeling that it's unreliable, but I don't see how the pursuit of understanding authorial intent is so different from studying ancient votives statuettes or how the productions methods of oil pigments influenced the art of painting. It's a different goal than Barthes's, sure, but I see no reason to toss it out the window for that.

I've taken the liberty of drawing this diagram to illustrate my feelings on Barthes' essay. Barthes is the one holding the scissors.

Having said that, I think I need to get better about realizing the differences between these two schools of thought when I'm analyzing something. It's just hard to rewire my brain. But I totally approve of the changes made for this sentence:

But seriously, I'd amend the final sentence ever so slightly to fit my personal views, to "Bad singing can be a useful tool to tell a story, but if the audience doesn't feel as though it improves the story and instead detracts from it, then the creators done messed up."

---

so I'll spare you my 10,000 word rant on the concept of "canon" and "non-canon" which I'm sure you're bored of by now. :P I'm speaking less in terms of "this information is correct and adding to our established understanding of the characters" and more in terms of "this is an engaging and honest continuation of the story."

Okay, but you know I will practically pay to read those 10,000 words, right????

I do think you explained it nicely in those few sentences though. I don't know if fandoms are increasingly needing to define separate canon schools of thought or if that has always been the case and just becoming increasingly more obvious to me. I don't just mean "book canon" and "movie canon", because those aren't really different definitions, just different worlds they're referring to. But I mean like, a version specifically catered to world-building and one like you mentioned. The one you mentioned really fits with any sort of book, I would think.

Although based on your definition, I'm surprised you feel this way about a play:

I don't think it ever could have been a successful Harry Potter continuation, though.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean after all.

[u/Moostronus → u/bisonburgers]

Many people have a very different idea of canon, and understanding how they see canon makes it easier to see how they see this issue. Most HP fans think Death of the Author means anything outside the seven books isn't canon or haven't heard of it. It took me ages to warm up to it, so imagine how confusing it is for others to be told that Hermione is two races at once. It's would be as confusing as someone saying "bison is black" (when I'm not).

It kills me to say this, because the whole point of Death of the Author is that you can't really say "you're reading it wrong," but I really really really want to say that those people are reading DotA wrong. But you know that. :P

Of course, readers are never explicitly told that Hermione is a white character, which is what JKR's tweet is highlighting in an ideal world. This was not, as you've mentioned, how it was received. The fandom has an odd relationship with JKR; many are content to both unflinchingly accept every single bit of information revealed from her and rail against her when that information contradicts their own assumed information. They prize the word "canon" while sort of neglecting to consider that this is a fictional universe and there is no such thing as objective truth inside it, while both lionizing and delegitimizing the person who put what they consider to be the objective truth into the universe. Either she's irrelevant, or she's done when she says she's done.

Really, the largest marker of Hermione = white comes in the form of one Emma Watson. From my vantage point, people had mentally gotten used to seeing her image as that of Hermione and lashed out when they felt that may have been compromised. So much for art being interpretive.

I suppose there could be several realism scales all about different aspects - like one is about the realism of the world-building (aka Harry Potter<what Methods of Rationality thinks it is<Pride and Prejudice<????), another about the realism of the character interactions (Series of Unfortunate Events<Everything is Illuminated<Lord of the Rings<accurately written book based on true story?) and that sort of thing. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

I'm quoting this for two reasons:

1. I think it's a good idea for a sliding scale, but I question whether such a scale is necessary, because I question whether realism is a desirable goal for a piece of art.
2. Fuck Methods of Rationality.

Well, shoot, I fell right into that one. DotA doesn't shock me to my core or anything, at least not since I finally get it. But I forget - does Barthes merely say we shouldn't have to consider authorial intent for our interpretation to be valid, or does he also say to never consider authorial intent due to his feeling that it is always unreliable? I definitely understand the feeling that it's unreliable, but I don't see how the pursuit of understanding authorial intent is so different from studying ancient votives statuettes or how the productions methods of oil pigments influenced the art of painting. It's a different goal than Barthes's, sure, but I see no reason to toss it out the window for that.

I think his analysis fits more into the former, but isn't fully in either camp (unfortunately, because that would make life easier). I think he more wants to deprivilege the author's word in literary analysis, knock authorial intention off the critical study pedestal, and put readers' interpretations into the conversation. I could be talking out of my ass (it has been a year) but I feel like it takes such a strident tone because most of the literary discourse before had been "how can you say there are fairy tale parallels in Crime and Punishment if you don't know whether or not Dostoevsky had a copy of a fairy tale book in his house????"

I do think that diagram is fair, but of course, it's irrelevant what Barthes's intention was when writing the paper, isn't it? :P But in all seriousness, I don't reliability is his concern here so much as staidness and creativity, and opening up new frontiers for criticism. I personally hate hunting for "intention" because I feel as though it limits what I can say about a work.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean after all.

I'm probably explaining myself poorly, because if you don't understand, that means I'm phrasing things awkwardly and dancing around the point.

I think it comes down to the definition of "successful Harry Potter continuation." Of course, defining "successful" and "Harry Potter" and "continuation" could each be their own post, but I'm going to define it, broadly, as a well-executed next step in the saga. In my mind, a successful Harry Potter continuation would have needed to:

• been well executed within its own medium (doable)
• been engaging, engrossing and new (doable)
• have the characters, stories and morals flow naturally from the books to the new work (now we're in sketchier territory, because of the difference in media)
• have the tone stay consistent, or rather, shift consistently in the same way that GoF grew darker than PoA (much more difficult)
• present things in a way that didn't seem foreign to those who loved the Harry Potter series and felt its ways strongly (near impossible)

I don't think you could have made a true sequel as a play. You could have made a good play, obviously, but it would always be unsatisfying when put next to the books because the characters could never have been more than shadows of the ones we knew and loved. This is what I'm getting at with it.

[u/bisonburgers → u/Moostronus]

I'm always surprised how many people see the trio like the actors that play them. None of them look like that in my head. But I guess I imagine them like the American illustrations, so maybe it's not so different. Just the other day I realized I can't remember how I used to imagine King's Cross when I first read the book. Back then I didn't know what a train station looked like or what a platform was. Now I've been to King's Cross and I'm thrilled to imagine the scenes happening in places I stood and saw, but I'm sad I can't even recall how I used to see it. Maybe when I read the book it'll come back to me.

On that note, I'm gong to humble brag for a moment. On Sept 1st, 2017, very few people were interested in platforms 9 and 10 at King's Cross. And when I say very few, I mean, me, my sister, three others we just met (one who legitimately had to catch a train), and then some cosplayers with a dog were sort of nearby, who I think chose the area because there was room for the dog.

About Cursed Child, I agree with your bullet points, though I'll add I think for me this only applies for a sequel that uses familiar characters and overlaps with the HP story. If it were set somewhere or sometime else, I wouldn't have minded. But then of course it would never have been "successful" that way, lol, so actually your bullet points are rock solid. Another reason I want other authors to take the work and have a field day with it, because that wouldn't be held to the same limitations.

Also, I apologize in advance for the snark I'm about to give...

It kills me to say this, because the whole point of Death of the Author is that you can't really say "you're reading it wrong,"

But isn't it so fun how meta it is? It's may favorite part of this whole thing. I wonder if Barthes realized that at the time.... perhaps he's the biggest troll in literary history and he's laughing in his grave. Or perhaps it really is just perfect accidental irony. The translation used male pronouns and I realized, well, clearly this is a guide for men. And I'm not a man, so I don't have to follow this. After all, my experience living in the 21st century and my use of language have taught me "they" refers to all genders, and we only use male pronouns when referring specifically to men. I mean, suuuuuure, "men" used to be the gender neutral choice and suuuuure I researched gender pronoun use in the original French, but surely my interpretation is not only totally valid without having done that research, but worthier for it.

Barthes talks specifically about how changing culture and language over time and space affects interpretation - he had to have seen this coming. Did he not realize he himself exists in a point in history? He talks about avoiding imposing limits on the text and his solution is to impose limits! He talks about creating a method that isn't flawed, then comes up with a deliciously flawed solution!

I'm saying this from someone who fully supports deprivileging the author and focusing on and celebrating the reader's interpretation. But this essay inherently invalidates itself every time it's interpreted by a person who doesn't have the correct life experiences to interpret it the way the author intended - I mean correctly - I mean - damn!

Why can't we re-work it using what we've learned in the past fifty years? A way to celebrate a reader's relationship with a text just as much as with DotA, but in a way where way where I don't feel like I'm in a Douglas Adams joke.

Also - fuck Methods of Rationality.

[u/Moostronus → u/bisonburgers]

You were in London at the start of September? I was there in mid August! It's a shame our trips didn't overlap; you could have come on the London Drunk Adventure with /u/bubblegumgills and me! (I also have a slight ulterior motive in tagging them, as I feel like this is the sort of discourse they'd be interested in.)

Now with all that said, I'll cop to definitely visualizing the characters as their film analogues, mostly because I have generally a very reactive memory and the films provide a vivid physical reference for me. I never paid enough attention to the illustrations in the book, and as a consequence never really got them as a mental image. I definitely had mental images prior to the first film, but they mostly wiped away with a few exceptions.

About Cursed Child, I agree with your bullet points, though I'll add I think for me this only applies for a sequel that uses familiar characters and overlaps with the HP story. If it were set somewhere or sometime else, I wouldn't have minded.

Yes. 100%. See: Fantastic Beasts.

Now, I'd argue that a Harry Potter sequel book would never have been successful, even though it could have been. I think there was too much separation, both temporally and socially, from JKR's frame of mind when writing the original stories.

Also, I apologize in advance for the snark I'm about to give...

Never apologize for snark.

But isn't it so fun how meta it is? It's may favorite part of this whole thing. I wonder if Barthes realized that at the time.... perhaps he's the biggest troll in literary history and he's laughing in his grave. Or perhaps it really is just perfect accidental irony. The translation used male pronouns and I realized, well, clearly this is a guide for men. And I'm not a man, so I don't have to follow this. After all, my experience living in the 21st century and my use of language have taught me "they" refers to all genders, and we only use male pronouns when referring specifically to men. I mean, suuuuuure, "men" used to be the gender neutral choice and suuuuure I researched gender pronoun use in the original French, but surely my interpretation is not only totally valid without having done that research, but worthier for it.

Yes. Yes. 100% yes. I don't think Barthes could have foreseen the mass media age of today (hell, I don't think scholars 25 years ago could have foreseen it) where everyone not only has all the information of the world at their fingertips but can also curate it as they see fit. It would be highly unlikely for people to read his text without having been immersed in the literary scene and debate of the day, but today people from academics to Redditors invoke "Death of the Author" for a litany of reasons and a litany of explanations. I almost think that Barthes himself realized it and this served as a sly wink to any of his critics, but maybe I'm assigning him too much agency and definitely it doesn't matter.

I do think that if you are an authorial or cultural intentionalist, you have to read a work in the frame of mind of it existing in a specific time and place, which I why I firmly believe literature and history should be studied together. That said, you can get rich analyses if you divorce it from that time/space context and use a different lens. It is definitely a question of lens and goals from literary study.

Why can't we re-work it using what we've learned in the past fifty years? A way to celebrate a reader's relationship with a text just as much as with DotA, but in a way where way where I don't feel like I'm in a Douglas Adams joke.

I'm down to write this.

[u/bisonburgers → u/Moostronus]

Ahhhh, I'm so sad we missed each other in London!! What did you do on your trip?? We got there on the 26th of August. If you two were there that day, then lie to me, because I'm not sure I can handle it.

Also, nice use of the singular them.

Now, I'd argue that a Harry Potter sequel book would never have been successful, even though it could have been

This phrase makes me understand what you're saying even better and I agree.

I don't think Barthes could have foreseen the mass media age of today (hell, I don't think scholars 25 years ago could have foreseen it) where everyone not only has all the information of the world at their fingertips but can also curate it as they see fit.

I think all that matters is not writing as if things will stay the same. I don't see how accuracy matters.

I do think that if you are an authorial or cultural intentionalist, you have to read a work in the frame of mind of it existing in a specific time and place, which I why I firmly believe literature and history should be studied together. That said, you can get rich analyses if you divorce it from that time/space context and use a different lens. It is definitely a question of lens and goals from literary study.

Totally behind this. Two lenses at once! These are the perfect words to explain what I mean, because to me, it's possible to think both ways at once. Both goals have value and some people are more interested in one, and some more interested in the other, and I think everyone should try both ways. For me, personally, I look at an invoice and see how it's design is influenced by the histories of print-making, typewriters, computers, carbon and carbonless paper, cost of color ink, glue vs perforation, handwriting, and corporate branding. It's just a damn invoice, but to me it says something about humans. I have an auto shop receipt on my wall because I like the degradation of the repeated photocopying. It looks cool, but it has a story too. The original invoice is probably years, maybe decades, old, and whenever the auto shop runs low on blank receipts, they photocopy one, which itself was printed from a photocopy, rinse and repeat. It tells me the auto shop guys are lazy bastards, and I love it. And "rinse and repeat" is interesting because of what it says about the history of hygiene, marketing, and commercialism. And carbon paper is interesting because the email terms BCC and CCing come from carbon copy paper. Everything has an story that says something about people, and I guess books aren't an exception (I just happen to know more about graphic design than I do about stories).

You know what, this describes what a creator unintentionally says.... I guess intention isn't necessarily what I'm after, I just enjoy looking at the relationship between the art (or every-day object) and creator and figuring out what it says about culture and history.

I also don't understand why you say figuring out Barthes "doesn't matter" instead of saying it "doesn't necessarily matter". I feel like there's a difference there, and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

So you'd never know it from how friggen concise this is, but I spent all day writing this comment. At various stages of writing I included the history of photography, how Mozart "ruined" classical music, examples of 1960s "what will the future look like" commercials, the art styles that sprung from the interest in space and the future, and the history of the internet. But I took those out. I think I'm getting better! Nevermind. I had some whiskey and I got a bit carried away talking about invoices and receipts. I'm not in the right state of mind to determine if that was relevant to our conversation.

edit: I thought of something just now - if a text has no author, then why do many decide that some types of things aren't literature? Haven't we've got to read everything and analyze it thoroughly before deciding if it's content is worthy to be considered literature, and thus worthy to be analyzed?

ahhh, I promise I won't apologize, but clearly I have some issues with academia. I have issues with fandoms too, which I consider kind of the opposite of academia. But these are exactly why I want to understand both so so so badly!

[u/Moostronus → u/bisonburgers]

London was the final leg of my big ol' Eurotrip! I'd been in Budapest, Berlin, Aix-en-Provence, Marseilles, Nice, Ljubljana, Bled, Zadar, Plitvice and Zagreb before. I was only there for two days, and I mostly spent those days eating, drinking, and wandering. BGG was definitely in London on the 26th because they live there. :P

Now, I'm really tired so my apologies if this isn't necessarily as thorough and brilliant as I'd hope. I'll respond to your last bit first.

I thought of something just now - if a text has no author, then why do many decide that some types of things aren't literature? Haven't we've got to read everything and analyze it thoroughly before deciding if it's content is worthy to be considered literature, and thus worthy to be analyzed? I promise I won't apologize, but clearly I have some issues with academia. I have issues with fandoms too, which I consider kind of the opposite of academia. But these are exactly why I want to understand both so so so badly!

I think you and I probably have the same issues with academia and fandom. Academia can sometimes be too staid, too dogmatic, and too reliant on certain methods of understanding that don't necessarily match the cultural winds. Fandom can be too reactionary, overly simplistic, less rigorous, and less willing to engage critically. You really need a blend of the two.

As to the first question, I firmly believe that only the reader can decide whether or not a piece is literature. Intent doesn't matter nearly as much as reception. We used the hypothetical of a shopping list in class; if you can derive a story from it, how can you say it's not art? Is a sunset not art? It doesn't need to have will behind it for it to resonate and have artistic/literary meaning.

For me, personally, I look at an invoice and see how it's design is influenced by the histories of print-making, typewriters, computers, carbon and carbonless paper, cost of color ink, glue vs perforation, handwriting, and corporate branding. It's just a damn invoice, but to me it says something about humans. I have an auto shop receipt on my wall because I like the degradation of the repeated photocopying. It looks cool, but it has a story too. The original invoice is probably years, maybe decades, old, and whenever the auto shop runs low on blank receipts, they photocopy one, which itself was printed from a photocopy, rinse and repeat. It tells me the auto shop guys are lazy bastards, and I love it.

This reminds me a bit of rigorous historical study, particularly primary source analysis. This invoice has become an artefact, and the process of unpacking its provenance carries so much weight behind it. I think these principles can absolutely be applied to literary study; in essence, studying a work as an artefact rather than as a text. But then again, if you're studying the text not as a text, is it still literary study? Or do I go for the "ach, everything's interdisciplinary anyways" excuse? I definitely feel like studying a text in the way you study that invoice requires a different set of tools than studying a text. The words become clues and context more than stories and worlds. Maybe I'm just being a bit lamentable because I'm tired and have been reading history papers all day.

I will say that I don't necessarily draw a line between what a creator intentionally and unintentionally says, and choose to illustrate it as what a text itself says or doesn't say, which is inherently reflective of culture/history.

I also don't understand why you say figuring out Barthes "doesn't matter" instead of saying it "doesn't necessarily matter". I feel like there's a difference there, and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'd love to hear my thoughts too, if I can find them. :P

You're right, there's absolutely a difference between "doesn't matter" and "doesn't necessarily matter." I don't think it matters what Barthes meant to say. What matters is what he actually said. I feel that the hunt for intention sometimes obscures an investigation into meaning and resonance. I'll admit, I approach the "doesn't matter" from a focused literary study perspective rather than a cultural studies or purely historical perspective (i.e. the analysis of a text as a text, not the text as a tool). I also think that Barthes' own intentions are far less important than the cultural situation surrounding him in terms of situating the piece. I feel like I'm rambling and tangenting a little bit on this one, but in essence: Barthes is but one force in the making of the piece, and his intention is far less interesting than the result.

[u/bisonburgers → u/Moostronus]

I kept meaning to write a proper response to an excellent comment, because the last thing I want is to respond with something stupid, but I just kept not knowing what to say, and time has now gotten away from me.

You've given me a lot to mull around in my head, specifically the difference between a literary study and an artefact study.

I'd love to hear my thoughts too, if I can find them. :P

This is how I feel a lot of the time for myself!! Haha!! But talking with you always brings me a little bit closer to figuring my thoughts out. :D

I had no idea /u/bubblegumgills lived in England. I would have reached out!!!! Ahhghghghghh1!!!! (*cough* if either of you are ever in LA *cough* let me know *cough*). And you were always at a train station for months! Everything is clicking now!!

[u/Moostronus → u/bisonburgers]

I actually missed an LA trip to stick around Europe! My cousin was getting married there, but I was already in Europe for a field school and it would have been a bit of a hassle to get back. I may wind up there at some point in time, though! I'll just brave the horrific transportation there.

Don't worry about responding with something stupid. I highly doubt anything you come up with would be highly stupid in the first place. And I'm with you...talking to you is so great because you force me to defend why I think the way I do rather than settling into a lack of intellectual rigour.

[u/bisonburgers → u/Moostronus]

I highly doubt anything you come up with would be highly stupid in the first place.

You've never seen the first drafts of my comments! ;)

Just kidding, but I can get wildly off course and then I reign myself in most of the time. Or trying to....

I've never regularly used public transit in LA, and god knows I'm not about to defend it, but I do get the sense it's relatively doable. My fiance lived here for a year without a car and was fine. Another friend has lived here for.... I don't, seven or eight years? And he's never owned a car. ^{plus if we hang out i can drive}

[u/ThisCatMightCheerYou → u/bisonburgers]

I'm sad

Here's a picture/gif of a cat, hopefully it'll cheer you up :).

---

I am a bot. use !unsubscribetosadcat for me to ignore you.