Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 148246

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>



> This has some truth to it.  However, there is a contrary and 
equally 
> strong principle: never bet against the author in a work in 
progress.
> 

True.  However, one should never forget that interpretation of 
anything, be it a novel or the U.S. Constitution, is a profoundly 
political act.  As I've said before, in a very real way the books 
are about certain things, in my case child abuse, because we say 
they are about child abuse, just as Tolkien's work was about WWII 
because people said it was.

The problem is what to do with the notorious "original intent" of 
the author/framer/creator?  How does the author's intent, in so far 
as it can even be determined, play into the politics of 
interpretation?  How much should it play into those politics?

I take your point that, in a work that is not yet finished and where 
the author is still around, the author's intent has profound 
practical weight.  After all, who in the end will determine Snape's 
motivations?  JKR.  Who will determine what punishment he has to 
bear for his multitude of sins?  JKR.  Therefore, how she sees him 
will have, as you say, a front and center place in how his story arc 
is completed.

So, what I guess I'm saying is that while it's true that JKR really 
has much less say in what the books are ABOUT than many would like 
to grant her, she does have the ultimate say in WHAT HAPPENS.  I, 
for instance, only have a moderate interest in what JKR thinks Snape 
is ABOUT, as in the end her opinions concerning Snape and his 
abusive ways are no more important than anyone elses.  However, I do 
have a great interest in WHAT HAPPENS.  And in that sense, her 
comments about Snape do lead me to warm chuckles on most occasions.


Lupinlore