[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione/Snape and "authorial intent"

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 69780


Marianne wrote:

"I've decided that I'm going to repeat this little bit of a JKR 
interview ad nauseum, until Snape-as-a-teacher fans address it.

JKR has describe Snape as "a sadistic teacher who abuses his powers." 

<snip>

I don't care about how Hermione interacts with Snape.  I'm going to 
the source, the creator, the mind who created all of the HP universe. 
And she says "Snape is a sadistic teacher who abuses his power."

Now me (Wendy)

Please DON'T! Repeat it ad nauseum, that is. <g> While I haven't been
previously involved in this thread (a least I don't think I have been -
hard to remember, sometimes), I thought I'd jump in here just to add a bit
about reader interpretation. Before I get into that, I will say that this
particular scene ("I see no difference") is the one which bothers me the
most about Snape (and I'm a huge Snapefan, just so you'll know), and I hate
what he said to Hermione. I would love for Darrin's theory that Hermione
knows the truth (and perhaps even received an apology) to be true. As for
his teaching methods, I didn't like the way he started off with Harry in
the first potion's class in PS/SS, and I don't really like the way he rides
Neville, but aside from that I think his teaching methods are strict and a
bit nasty, but not abusive or even that unusual. But, more importantly, I
prefer to believe that part of Snape's nastiness is an act to keep up his
image as unreformed Death Eater to Malfoy, etc.

But this isn't the point I wanted to make . . . what I want to add revolves
around the way I, as a reader, interpret the books and why. I don't really
care what JKR says in an interview about what sort of a teacher Snape is.
What I care about is what she has *actually written* in the books. She can
say that he's sadistic all she wants, but unless I see it in the canon for
myself, I am free to choose not to believe it. I think of this as an issue
over "authorial intent" (not sure if that's the correct literary term or
not, but that's how I think of it). There are many different ways to read a
book, and while it is certainly valid to take into account things the
author says outwith the actual text of the books, I don't feel obligated to
consider it if I don't want to do so. If she writes Snape in a way that
appears sadistic to me, with no other possible explanation for his
behaviour, then I'll see him as sadistic. If Dumbledore were to say in Book
6 or 7, "yes - Snape is a sadistic, abusive teacher but I let him get away
with it because . . . . " then I would have to consider Snape's behaviour
as sadistic and abusive. But for Rowling to say it in an interview, that
doesn't cut it with me. Even if she believes that he is sadistic and
abusive, if that isn't the way she has written the character, then I can
choose to disagree with her. It's almost as if once she sends the book off
to the publisher, she loses control of it and it takes on a "life" of its
own, at which point I begin interacting with the work on my own terms (no
longer on hers, as she's released it to the world). And I, personally, have
not reached the point where it is clear to me *from the text, and only the
text, of the books* that Snape is sadistic and abusing his power as a
teacher. I can still find alternate ways to explain his behaviour that
haven't been disproven within the canon. 

I'm not saying it can't make the difference to YOUR interpretation of
Snape. It is entirely valid for you to credit her intent (or what she says
to have been her intent) in writing the character. It's also valid for me
not to. It's purely a matter of personal choice, and I don't think one
interpretation is any more valid than any other. Just like it is perfectly
valid for you to see Snape as sadistic and abusive (from the text alone, or
from JKR's comments). We all have our own interpretations of the work. I
hope I'm explaining this properly - it's not a new concept, and has been
discussed on this list in the past, and I'm not the only one around here
who reads the books in this way, but I'm not sure I'm the best one to
actually explain it <G>.  And I'll admit there are times when I do allow
her comments in interviews to influence my thoughts. I'm perfectly happy
with her explanation of why Harry doesn't see the thestrals at the end of
GoF, for example. I'm just saying that trying to use one of JKR's interview
quotes to prove a point in a discussion of the canon is not going to
impress everyone. It's a great point to add to the discussion, but please
don't pound us over the heads with it until we "get it," because I for one
am not swayed by what Rowling says until she's actually *written* it into
one of the books. So no "ad nauseum, " okay? ;-)

Cheers!
Wendy
hebrideanblack at earthlink.net