Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 156822

Neri wrote:
Salman Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had  always
vouched for him. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villian  and
Dumbledore's killer. We cannot, or don't want to believe this.  (Crowd
laughs) Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy,  (crowd
applauds) from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be  dead
and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape  to
put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come  face
to face, (crowd laughs) Harry may have more allies than he  or
Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (Crowd laughs,  applauds
and screams) In our opinion, everything follows from it.

JK  Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right. But I
see that I  need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore
is definitely  dead.

[more followes about grief management]  
*************************************************************

There  are two significant differences between this transcript and the
previous  transcript we discussed here, and IMO both these differences
confirm my view  that Salman Rushdie was making an if/then statement.
Firstly, he says: "Our  theory is that Snape is in fact still a good
guy, *from which it follows  that* Dumbledore can't really be dead" (I
stress the difference from the  first transcript).  It is obvious that
Dumbledore being alive, in  Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape being
good. It is not an AND statement  "Snape is good AND Dumbledore can't
be dead". It is not even a list of things  that are not necessarily
connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be  dead, 3)...". It
is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be  dead".
 
 
Julie:
But JKR doesn't respond by saying "Your theory is right." She  responds
"Your *opinion* is right" directly after Rushdie says "In our  *opinion*,
everything follows from it (whether Snape is good or bad)." So it is 
just as likely, if not more likely, that she was in fact responding  to
the opinion and not the theory. Which leaves unanswered the question
of whether Snape is good or bad. 

Neri again:
Secondly, when Rushdie repeats the words "follows from"  he says: "is
Snape good or bad? *In our opinion* everything follows from it  (I
stress again the difference from the previous transcript).  Rushdie's
words "in our opinion" are important here because JKR's answers  here
"well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right". It is  obvious
that by "your opinion" JKR was meaning Rushdie's "In our  opinion
everything follows from this". IOW it was precisely the "follows  from"
part that JKR was validating.
 
Julie:
I sort of see what you're saying...maybe. But I think Rushdie was
expressing a more generalized opinion about the story when he
said "everything follows from it." I don't think he meant Dumbledore
being alive or dead depends respectively on whether Snape is good 
or bad. Rather that many plot points will be reevaluated based on
whether Snape turns out to be good or bad.
 
I also don't think JKR would consider bothering to even note  that
DD's death does NOT answer whether Snape is good or bad. It very
obviously doesn't, because we've already come up with numerous 
workable theories on this group how DD can be dead and Snape can
be either good or bad. (Heck even polyuiced!Snape is workable if
not very likely nor very good storytelling.) Whatever *JKR's* flavor  of
Snape will turn out to be, DD being dead doesn't seal it, and I don't
see why she'd be *less* obscure than usual when  Snape's loyalty  
is without a doubt the biggest question to be answered in Book 7  (by 
her own admission).


Neri:
So as I wrote before, Rushdie was basically saying "IF Snape is  good
THEN it follows that Dumbledore can't be dead", and JKR was  basically
answering "this statement is correct but Dumbledore *is* dead". If  we
treat this as a logical argument then the unavoidable conclusion  is
that Snape can't be good. The only wiggle room I see here  for
Good!Snape is if JKR wasn't treating this as an absolutely  logical
statement or if her logic was faulty. 
 
Julie:
I don't see why we should treat it as a logical  argument as most
people don't carefully analyze the logic of words and arguments 
during a conversation, especially one in the midst of a crowd where
the conversation is being interrupted by lots of noise and laughter.
I'd have absolutely no expectation for JKR to follow the logic of 
Rushdie's words in the exact manner you've presented. I'm not a
stupid person, and I'm sure I wouldn't have done so, unless I had
a few minutes to rehear/reread Rushdie's exact words and analyze
their meaning before I answered! Which, of course, isn't possible
in that situation.

Neri:
I also watched the video and it didn't change my impression.  One thing
that isn't in the transcript is that JKR is following each sentence  of
Rushdie with "aha..." and "yes..." and after Rushdie says "our  theory
is that Snape is in fact still a good guy" JKR says "right..." in  a
tone of "I'm following you, please continue..." and then  momentarily
panics, apparently realizing that this might be interpreted as if  she
agrees. This may have contributed to the first impression that JKR  was
validating Snape being good, but from watching the video it's  pretty
obvious she wasn't doing any such thing. It was also obvious that  both
Rushdie and JKR were carefully weighting each word. Rushdie  was
reading the question from a note and keeping with the  written
sentences despite interference from the crowd, and JKR was  listening
attentively and considering every word of her reply.
 
Julie:
I agree all JKR's "ah" and "yes" comments meant was that she
was listening to each sentence. It doesn't follow that she was
putting them all together and analyzing them all as one logical 
statement that she should reply to as such. JKR's a writer, not
a logician or mathematician (to say the least ;-). I don't think 
she is thinking along the lines, "If A, then B, if not A, then not
B..." She also often answers questions in a partial manner, or in a 
deliberately obscure manner, so there is no reason to think she
wouldn't do so here. Addressing Rushdie's last statement in and
of itself (Everything follows from it--whether Snape is good or bad)
would be right in character for her, IMO.



Julie 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]