I Don't Believe There's an Atom of Meaning In It

[angua9]

I've always been a plot person, valuing books and movies far more for tight, clever plots than for things like beauty of language, interesting characters, or evocative settings. And I've always been downright suspicious of theme - it seemed to me when I first learned about them that pretty much every major work of fiction is about "good and evil"

Comments

[major_dallas]

well as to a quote for Pirates, you could use Jack's line in describing what the Black Pearl was to him, when he and Elizabeth were abandoned by Barbosa in the First Pirates movie...

as to HP, the quote that stounds out most to me that supports that theme would come from Dumbledore obviously:

"You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night."

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, pages 427-428

[angua9]

That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom.

I never would have thought of that quote from HP, but it works.

[sixth_light]

I generally agree with all of those. For the Vorkosigan series, I think you could also nominate "honour vs. reputation"; of course, this is the central theme of Memory, but it's also strongly apparent in Aral and Cordelia's books and in Mark's journey - every book has a conflict between what someone is honour-bound to do and how other people interpret that decision. Maybe "honour vs. reputation in the line of duty", but that gets a bit unwieldy. And the quote I'd assign for that, of course, would be Aral's comment on honour and reputation in Memory.

[peachespig]

This is superawesome. I've really been missing discussions like this!

I guess I would say that Lord of the Rings is about freedom versus slavery. The Ring stands for domination, coersion and compulsion, the loss of the will in being in thrall to another. It was a conflict between an idealized simple, free, rustic life and the darkest kind of imposed, hierarchical mechanized order. Chaotic good versus lawful evil. Tolkien saw the whole thing in religious tones as well, where "freedom" flows from an acknowledgment of God and slavery is the result of man or men (or Maiar) trying to take His place

[angua9]

I'm totally going to argue with this!

*rubs hands together*

I guess I would say that Lord of the Rings is about freedom versus slavery. The Ring stands for domination ... Tolkien saw the whole thing in religious tones as well, where "freedom" flows from an acknowledgment of God and slavery is the result of man or men (or Maiar) trying to take His place.Okay, but I'd say that "Freedom Versus Slavery" is just an expression of "Good Versus Evil." Where Rowling asserts that the "supreme act of evil" needed to create a Horcrux is murder, I think Tolkien would disagree with her and say it's enslavement. Perhaps it's a reflection of Rowling's "death thing" that she thinks that the destruction of human lives is the ultimate evil, but Tolkien clearly sees the ultimate evil as the destruction of human free will

[hymnia]

"how do I recognize and embrace Good and shun and defeat Evil?" The emphasis is on judgment, because it's not always easy to tell Good from Evil, definitely not as easy as rejecting the power to enslave people.

ITA. That's more or less what I was getting at in my comment below when I said the internal struggle of good vs. evil is as important as the external clash of forces.

[hymnia]

This is superawesome. I've really been missing discussions like this!

SO MUCH YES!!!

Avatar is about redemption, too, Y/Y? Redemption could include all the things you and angua9 said: responsibility to community = restoring (and maintaining) balance; honor = regaining honor; family = reconciling relationships.

[nemesister]

Love vs. death reminds me of Freud. He said that the love drive and the death drive are the two forces that motivate anyone's actions - and they are polar opposites, leading to either destruction or creation.

I don't know if JK did it on purpose but it seems HP fits a psychoanalytical interpretation incredibly well, this isn't the first time I notice.

[angua9]

Love vs. death reminds me of Freud.

*puts fingertips together*

Hmmmmm, most interesting ... how long have you felt this way? :D

[julianrain]

I don't really see HP as Love vs Death as much as the inter-relation between the two.

If anything, one of the messages of the series is that striving for deathlessness is anathema to love.

[angua9]

"Love and Death" rather than "Love Versus Death," then?

I'd actually say she does present love as the solution to the problem of death, either through directly defeating it (Lily's sacrifice for Harry) or through transcending it and making it worthwhile.

[julianrain]

"I'd actually say she does present love as the solution to the problem of death, either through directly defeating it (Lily's sacrifice for Harry) or through transcending it and making it worthwhile."

Yes that is true. In fact even the "senseless" deaths like Lupin, Tonks and Fred could be called "victories" ( of a sort ) against death. They didn't actively sacrifice their lives, but they knew what they were getting into, and made the choice to do it anyway.

So yes your first suggestion of Love vs. Death is correct.

And of course the only reason they put themselves in harm's way was love, either love for a specific person or persons, or a more general love of their society. In fact I think it was Kingsley who advocated Wizards risking their lives to help Muggles. Now Kingsley did not die, but he sure as hell knew that he might.

That's another reason I love the series. It takes a much broader view of love than most people realise.