OVERANALYZING THE TEXT

Amy wrote:

It's not a matter of affection for the characters (there's no arguing that point, as affection for characters is as irrational and indefensible as affection for real-life people), but of supporting your argument with the full range of evidence.

But, but, but...

But if you are trying to explain why you reacted to a given text in a particular way, then why on earth would you present evidence that had nothing to do with what you were trying to explain? I don't understand this at all. Wouldn't that be a rather odd thing to do, really?

If what you are trying to convey, for example, is "Ron and Harry strike me as really inconsiderate. Their behavior upsets me a great deal when I read the books. Here are some examples of the sorts of things they do that have made me feel this way," then why on earth would you cite things that hadn't made you feel that way? I mean, that would just be downright weird, wouldn't it? I would certainly find it strange. If nothing else, it would make ones post utterly incoherent.

As Ebony said:

Why would I point out all of Ron's very good characteristics in an essay in which I am speaking about why I do not like the idea of him with Hermione, when such evidence is tangential to the topic?

Yes, precisely. Why would one? I see no reason why one would want to do that. It's not a matter of sneaky rhetorical ploys, as some people seem to be implying. It is simply a matter of coherence and of relevance.

Amy wrote (about Eileen's message #50164):

. . . in either case it takes more than a citation of their inconsiderate moments to make the argument. At least, that's what it takes if you want to convince me.

I believe that the problem here may be that you have misconstrued the intended argument of both Eileen's and Ebony's posts. If you look back to Eileen's original post #50164, for example, you will see that she wrote this sentence (set apart in a paragraph of its very own, in fact, as if for emphasis):

But I don't expect anyone to concede that either Ron or Harry is as flawed as I read them.

In other words, she was never trying to "convince you," or anyone else, to consider these characters as inconsiderate as she does. She went out of her way to make that explicit. Very explicit.

What she was trying to do was to explain her reader response. (She was also trying to make a point about the Affective Fallacy in the process: namely, that the reader's own personal gut emotional reaction to certain characters in the story should not necessarily be assumed to be shared by the other characters in the story.)

Similarly, as Ebony implied in the paragraph I quoted above, she too was trying not to convince, per se, but to explain. To share her experience. To explain her position. To use written language for its intended purpose. To communicate something. Something about herself. Something about how she as a reader interpreted this particular text.

What I guess I'm finding upsetting here is the vague feeling that I get from this thread, a feeling that so long as a reader's response is sufficiently idiosyncratic (which is only to be expected: after all, there would be very little point in bothering to set forth ones reasons for having a universal response to a text, would there?, which as I read it, was precisely a large part of Eileen's point) and sufficiently powerfully expressed (which one would think we would value on this list, but which sometimes it seems that we don't), that it is therefore held to be in some way invalid, or even unfair. Dishonest. Naught but sophistry. Unfair use of rhetoric.

Now, what is this reminding me of? Certain words and phrases seem to be coming back to haunt me somehow. . . .

Over-analyzing the text. Strident. Over-stating the case. Misreading. Not how one "should" interpret the text.

Not Fair Play.

Why, what is this strangely familiar odor, wafting by on the breeze?

::sniff, sniff::

Ah! I have it!

Smells like Twins spirit.

—Elkins