Hermione/Snape and "authorial intent"

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 69817

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Wendy St John" 
<hebrideanblack at e...> wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Well, okay.  I won't. The only real reason I said that was because 
the recent discussions about Snape and how, really, he's not that bad 
a guy, he's turned to the side of the good, what he says and does in 
class is always excusable, etc. And, I know I'm generalizing because 
not everyone who is a Snape fan necessarily will give him a pass all 
the time.  But, I wanted to see if anyone would respond to that JKR 
quote and address it.  So far, you're the only one!

> 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). 

I understand what you mean.  And I don't have a problem with that. 
(Really!)  What interests me, and we on the list will never answer 
this question since none of us are JKR, is how does the author feel 
when s/he makes comments about a character and how s/he sees this 
character, and a large part of the author's readers don't see that at 
all? Or, don't think the author's stated opinions about the character 
stand up to what's presented in canon? And, I'm not pointing 
specifically at Snape here, but he does generate a lot of 
discussion.  JKR also seemed to be a bit perturbed at the Royal 
Albert Hall reading that so many kids dress up as Draco.  And, it 
makes me wonder if an author ever goes back to that computer and 
say, "Why do people *like* (or hate) this character?  Why don't they 
see him/her the way I think I've created him/her?"

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>. 

No, you've done quite an admirable job explaining your position.  
And, again, I have no argument with it.  The characters in these 
books have all made an impression on us in various ways.  My gut 
feeling is that once a reader has formed a connection to a character, 
however the reader interprets that character, it would take a lot to 
make the reader change their minds about that character, even if the 
author strongly implies a certain belief in what that character is 
like. 

 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? ;-)

You're taking all the fun out of this <g>! But, seriously, I do 
appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your thoughts on 
reader interpretation.  And, I promise I won't try to pound people 
over the head with this. It's just one of those things that I find 
interesting - readers (a lot of them) with one interpretation, author 
with another.  

Marianne