[HPforGrownups] Where's the Canon? (Part Two) -- Fans, Subversion, Snape & the DEs

[Porphyria]

No: HPFGUIDX 34968

On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 05:49 PM, Elkins wrote:

> Now, where were we?  Ah, yes.  Subversive reading.
>
> Subversive reading tends to proliferate wherever there is reader
> anxiety, or wherever there exists a strong conflict between reader
> approval and reader discontent...visible
> manifestations of that conflict Rebecca referred to earlier between
> authorial intent ("what is actually suggested by the text") and
> reader desire ("the way a reader imagines things ought to be").

I'd like to jump into this thread <said Porphyria who will probably 
prove to be more un-subversive than will amuse Elkins ;-) >

For starters, I'm interested in summing up a few areas of potential 
reader unrest in the HP series to see if anyone else would like to 
discuss them. You mention two specific instances of incongruous themes 
yourself, which are:
1. Blood will tell vs. Choice over blood (this often comes up when the 
question "is Harry heir of Gryffindor?" is asked)
2. Slytherin=evil vs. overall humanism and moral complexity expressed 
elsewhere (will we see more interesting Slyth characters in the future?)

We could add others sources of reader anxiety, such as:
3. Frustrations of being an adult reading a series which is designed to 
be suitable for a child or young adult audience (i.e. certain issues 
like teen pregnancy or drugs seemingly will never be addressed; sex gets 
glossed over)
4. Cross cultural issues: i.e. non-British readers might either not 
understand or not care for the book's typically British features
5. Inconsistencies of genre: the series combines elements of 
fantasy/fairy tale (in which one typically finds archtypical roles with 
distinct functions) with that of the mystery (where characters are often 
not what the seem and break type), plus other genres as well: boarding 
school, coming-of-age, and certainly satire. Do these genres combine in 
a satisfactory way or are they often at cross-purposes?

These factors certainly affect they way we speculate, and why some 
speculations diverge wildly from others. Do these factors effect how we 
enjoy the series? Are they flaws or signs of complexity? Are there other 
fissures that I'm leaving out? Does anyone have any issues with the 
writing style?

Moving on:

> Now, to some extent _all_ reader speculation is subversive.  Like
> fanfic, speculation represents a reader's attempt to assume, if only
> temporarily, the mantle of authorial power; it is therefore an
> intrinsically subversive act -- as, for that matter, is immersive
> reader engagement itself.  In order to engage with the text on an
> emotional level, we _must_ insert ourselves into that space which
> lies between Absolute Canonical Fact and That Which Canon Does Not
> Prohibit; by doing so, we cannot help but impose our own desires upon
> the text.  Some degree of subversion is inevitable whenever we engage
> deeply with a work of fiction.

I'm interested in your assertion that all speculation (and fanfic) is 
inherently subversive.  This would be a strictly literary subversion: 
when a reader wrests the text from the author and imposes their own 
desires upon it, when they assert, in effect, that they can write the 
series better than the author, or they understand the characters better; 
this is an authorial subversion. If I understand you correctly, this 
subversion is independent of the content of the individual reader's 
content; one does not necessarily have to offer a controversial reading 
in order to effect this type of subversion.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask if all speculation and fanfic *must be* 
predicated on frustrations with the text. Is there such a case where a 
fan simply becomes so enamored with the fictional world (here the 
'Potterverse') or with some of its characters that they simply wish to 
become more of an active participant? That they basically wish that they 
could have written the series themselves, so they want to add to it? Or 
does all emotional involvement require some sort of frustration? If not 
then authorial envy (wanting to write it yourself) and anxiety with the 
text (and its consequent tendency to produce readings against the grain) 
would be two separate forms of subversion.

> When a work of fiction is presented in serialized form, as the HP
> books are, it even further encourages this subversive aspect of
> reading.  The incomplete nature of the serial offers the reader an
> additional level of indeterminacy in which to imagine and to
> speculate -- more room to "play," if you will -- and also invites
> readers to trespass on grounds that are normally off-limits.  Readers
> of Shakespeare, for example, may feel free to speculate about Iago's
> motivations, but they cannot debate the actions he takes within the
> scope of the play itself: these are already canonically set.  Readers
> of serialized fiction, on the other hand, both can and do speculate
> about even those things which _will_ eventually become canonical
> certainty; they are permitted to exercise their imagination over even
> those aspects of the text which normally fall firmly under the
> authorial aegis.

Here I'd like to add that the HP series itself actively and consciously 
encourages speculation due to the way that it's written. Apart from it's 
serialized format, each book is in the form of a puzzle, and the series 
as a whole (we imagine) is also in the form of a puzzle. A throw-away 
line or a scarcely mentioned character in one book can suddenly have 
enormous significance in a future book. Sometimes. And sometimes crazy 
plot twists seem to come out of the blue. So I'd say this text more than 
others (more than a fan-characterized series like Star Trek, for 
instance) deliberately invites the reader to imagine future plot 
developments; it's a mutually conscious game between the author and the 
readers. I guess my point here is, even if wresting authorial control 
from JKR is subversive, it's still, in this case, sort of her own darn 
fault. So, does this make it less subversive? ;-)

<...I had to snip a lot or this would be an unwieldy reply, sorry!>

Moving on once again, to the discussion of Snape as standing in possible 
opposition to the series' problematic stances of 'all Slyth are evil' 
and the limits of individual choice:

> <deep breath>
>
> So.  To get back to the original topic under discussion, I suppose
> that my real question regarding Snape's relationship with his 'old
> Slytherin gang' was this:
<...>
>  "Given that Snape's popularity as a
> character is itself in some ways subversive -- we like him largely
> because he stands in _opposition_ to those aspects of JKR's work
> which strike us as annoyingly morally simplistic -- why then would we
> prefer to fall back on those very aspects of the work which we found
> so unsettling in the first place when we try to imagine Snape's
> relationship with his old DE colleagues?"
<...>
> I still maintain that the most likely answer to the question is
> simply that people feel the need to paint the other DEs blacker than
> black, so that Snape's grey can seem lighter in comparison.  And
> frankly, I find that a bit disappointing.

Well, for one thing I think you're setting up a false opposition between 
Snape and the rest of the text. In other words, one doesn't necessarily 
like Snape because he stands in opposition to the rest of the text. I 
don't think one needs to have an acute frustration with the main thrust 
of the story in order to find Snape intriguing. I also think that the 
evident 'moral simplicity' of the text was always more complicated, 
always a form of misdirection, and it's simply getting clearer as each 
book comes out. This series often shows that in an uncertain world one 
occasionally has to lie, cheat, steal and injure your classmates in 
order to take the ethically sound action. I'd say Snape is comfortably 
nestled into the overall gray area of this mileu. You remark that you 
think that JKR seems to like Snape less than many of her readers. I'm 
not convinced of this, and no I don't believe everything she says in 
interviews. I think she places a lot of importance on his character but 
she's not willing to admit to her readers anything that will spoil the 
surprises of future books. I also think she leaves a lot of hints that 
might seriously tempt the reader to imagine him as being different than 
what he seems, and as I said this is a series where heavy reader 
speculation is consciously encouraged by the structure of the narrative. 
So while Snape-speculation might be subversive on the literary level 
that you describe, it does not naturally follow that it will be 
subversive in the usual 'controversial' sense of the term.

As to black and gray: you suggest that the impulse to blacken his peers 
in order to lighten him up is disappointing. I respect what you mean 
here, I honestly do, but I'd add that Snape's very grayness is a source 
of fascination. In other words, it's not always the case that wimpy, 
uptight fans might need to whiten him up to make him palatable (and here 
I'm speaking as a wimpy, uptight fan myself). But rather, his function 
in the text (and by extension his evident personality) has a very 
uncategorizable, indeterminate quality. He doesn't seem to belong 
anywhere: he is in some sense a failure at being a bad guy (something in 
his DE experience didn't agree with him), but he's a malevolent and 
occasionally frightening good guy. He often appears to have Harry's 
worst interests at heart, and Harry still has to force himself to 
acknowledge that Snape *probably* isn't trying to kill him. Yet there is 
evidence elsewhere that the safety of the student body and Harry in 
particular is of paramount importance to him. He constantly makes 
threats he never follows through on which makes the reader wonder if his 
demeanor is out of synch with his actual intentions -- if he's actually 
acting, and to what extent and why. And on a personal level, he seems at 
odds with himself. It seems his fondest desires might have something to 
do with getting honor and recognition (i.e. his drooling over the Order 
of Merlin, his evident jealously of Harry's fame, his fury over any 
disrespect), but if his greatest contribution to the cause of good is 
spying, then his heroism must always remain under wraps. He takes great 
pride in his talents, but has moments of sharp insecurity. Lastly, from 
what we do know about his youth, he spent it jealous of and obsessed 
with a group of 'popular' guys even thought he evidently had a clique of 
his own to belong to. Why?

Well, he seems to be a character fraught with internal and external 
contradictions. He has this 'neither fish nor fowl' quality which IMHO 
is a little subversive in itself. So in some cases the impulse to 
imagine his peers as being securely black is an effort to highlight this 
perverse, 'neither' quality of his, and the temptation to imagine him as 
never *quite* fitting in with them can be read as an extension of his 
uncategorizable quality. How could he fit in with them when he never 
seems to fit in anywhere? Granted, IRL people are complicated and still 
have close groups of friends. But I'm saying his function as a character 
in the text is one which is profoundly indeterminate, and what we see of 
his personality mimics this motif. Hence the impulse to preserve this 
theme in speculating his backstory.

> For one thing, if Snape really _was_ always a cut above all of the
> other DEs -- morally, ethically, spiritually, intellectually, or what
> have you -- then to my mind that seriously devalues his eventual
> defection to the side of Good.  It makes it a matter of essentialism,
> rather than existentialism: he was _always_ better than all the rest
> of them by his very nature, and so he made a choice that none of the
> rest of them could ever have made.  I find this idea...oh, I don't
> know.  Distasteful, I suppose.  Both distasteful and severely
> disappointing.

Again, I understand and respect your problem with this, but I think the 
essentialism vs. existentialism issue has dangers on both sides. On the 
one hand, as you say if he was inherently better than his peers, then 
what's the big deal that he should prove 'good' in the end? But on the 
other hand, people can't change their natures, and can often only change 
their actions with much difficulty, so any dramatic change from all bad 
to all good would be narratively unsatisfying for the reader as well. He 
can't just flip a switch; that would undermine the value and effort of 
his choice to change as well. So what we could imagine instead is a 
character whose 'nature' was always inconsistent and prone to 
conflicting impulses, someone who was never quite sure where he stood, 
and it took a lot of angst to finally make a decision.

Now I expect here you'd object that, yes that's true, but then why 
wouldn't the same opportunity for conflict be afforded to all his 
friends? After all, all humans are complicated. And you'd be right. I 
can only counter to say that I think the text highlights Snape's 
conflict and indeterminacy in a particular way and wants the reader to 
sympathize with it (yes, I really feel he's written as sympathetic). 
He's designed to stand out for the artistic purposes of contrast. Which 
again, might be unrealistic and frustrating -- but every text needs 
focal points.

Besides, I like the idea of him envying the young Mrs. (pre-Mrs.) 
Lestrange her conviction, but never really being able to feel it 
himself. Wouldn't it be nice to be that positive about something? But 
really it's hard to force yourself when a secure position doesn't come 
naturally. So yes, I'm willing to grant the text a few extreme 
characters to make him more sympathetic in comparison -- or at least 
more peculiar.

And Mrs. Lestrange *is* sexy, so you can creep out from behind that 
coffee cup. ;-)

Well, I hope I've made some kind of point here, although I'm not sure 
what kind.
~~Porphyria