Sadistic!Snape? /Different canon interpretations/A bit of Star Wars

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 140348

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all.  
> 
> > >>Lupinlore: 
> > Errr, actually they do.  On each and every page where Snape 
is      
> > shown interacting with Harry, Hermione, Ron, or Neville.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Ummm, no they do not.  If they did I suspect you'd quote canon to 
> prove it.  But you don't so...


Lupinlore:
That's interesting.  You would be, in terms of what I would and would 
not do, completely and totally wrong.  I think that quoting canon as 
proof text in terms of philosophical and moral issues (as opposed to 
simple matters of fact such as what color somebody's eyes are) is a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the function of canon (any canon, not 
just the Harry Potter text).

Canon contains many currents.  How one uses or does not use canon, or 
even better how one approaches canon, is determined by which current 
one engages.  If one is talking about pure textual analysis of the 
type "what word is used where" then canon DOES become proof, as the 
text itself is the subject of argument.

Moral and philosophical issues do not function that way, however.  
Moral and ethical understandings arise from a gestalt process in 
which a community of interpretation (however large that community is) 
uses canon and allied texts (e.g. JKR's interviews) as a creative 
catalyst for its own understandings and interpretations.  While the 
actual and literal wording of the text is important, it is not proof 
of anything, but only a foundational point that is often expanded, 
modified, and even sometimes over ridden (usually in an attempt to 
make an internally contradictory text make more sense on the level of 
interpretation).  In a very real sense, the moral and ethical meaning 
of canon is whatever a community of interpretation decides it is.  
Snape is sadistic if an interpretive community decrees him to be so.

In this you are right that the interviews are no more proof text than 
is canon.  JKR has an opinion on these matters that is no more 
binding than anyone else's.  Interpretations from different 
communities will vary radically and the decision about which is 
supreme is a social and political process, not one decided by further 
analysis or academic debate.  Eventually one community of 
interpretation becomes dominant.  The members of the community 
believe, quite sincerely, that there interpretation is the correct 
one, of course, and act accordingly -- indeed, they would be cowardly 
and lacking in moral character if they did not.  However, from 
outside the political process there is no proof text that can be 
applied to settle argument, no person, even the author, who can issue 
a definitive ruling (well, there is one person who can rule 
definitively, that being God, but I don't think he's going to favor 
us with an opinion this side of the General Resurrection).


> 
<SNIP>
> 
> > >>Lupinlore:
> > The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the 
deepest     
> > sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the 
Wizarding     
> > World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have 
such  
> > deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to 
see     
> > Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as 
the     
> > Weasleys.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Many "fans" hold the WW in contempt?  Why on earth do they call 
> themselves fans?  It's like saying, I loved Star Wars, except for 
the 
> annoying Jedi stuff.


That is absolutely possible, and what I in fact do say.  I do love 
the Star Wars series, but I find the Jedi philosophy, as presented, 
to be shallow -- a kind of superficial reading of Buddhism mixed with 
some popular New Age slogans.  As the older Jedi philosophy (that of 
Anakin's youth) was presented, I found it fundamentally wrong-headed 
about the nature of human reactions and emotions.

Nevertheless, even though I found the Jedi deeply suspect, and their 
philosophy not all that appealing, there are many, many things I love 
about the Star Wars universe.  Just as there are many things I love 
about the Harry Potter books, although I find the WW morally corrupt 
and generally - in the terms of institutions and practices - worthy 
of nothing but contempt.

Betsy Hp:
  And it's interesting that you'd bring up the 
> Weasley family as the example of all that's good in the world.  Two 
> of their sons nearly murdered a fellow student.  Why do they get a 
> pass?  (All students are equal.  Gryffindors are more equal than 
> others?)
> 

Lupinlore:
Absolutely Gryffindors are more equal than others, at least, as we 
have seen so far, more equal than Slytherins.  The Weasleys are nice, 
they get a break.  That's the way real social and personal 
interactions work, and even often political interactions on the 
petite scale.  The Slytherins are mean and unlikeable, they don't get 
a break - at least not the same kind of break the Gryffindors get.  
Once again, that's the way real social and person interactions work.  
That's the way people are in any sort of realistic universe.  I think 
the portrayal of this dual standard between the "nice" and the "mean" 
people is very well done of JKR in that it is very believable and 
realistic.  In fact, it isn't even a dual standard.  It is a 
realistic portrayal of the fact that moral, social, and personal 
judgements are not academic or legal disputations, but arise out of a 
gestalt function in which they are affected and largely determined by 
one's overall experience of an entire person or institution.


Lupinlore