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

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 148247

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at ...> wrote:
> I've been told that deconstruction is mostly dead, 'cultural 
> studies' is where it's at.  

Yah.  But "cultural studies" doesn't favor authorial intent much more 
than poststructuralism.  

 
> But would you agree that the Snape you want to see, the blindingly 
> complex one, is a very fragile creation?  The genius of Rowling in 
> creating Snape is that he's not a character made from page time or 
> deep psychological exploration: we certainly never get into his 
> head, he has no monologues, we never know what he's thinking.  To 
> claim to 'know' him is a slippery proposition at best.

We never know what Beowulf is thinking either, and don't get into his 
head.  And personally I believe I know him quite well.  

We get to know Snape (and Beowulf) as we would get to know a person, 
not a character in a book.  We have to judge him by what he says and 
does, and via the opinions of others, not through his interior 
thoughts spread across a screen for us to peruse.  If you hang around 
someone long enough, and pay close enough attention, you figure out 
quite a lot.  Far more than you could even if they "tell" you what 
they're about, and what they're thinking.      

> Snape exists as a complex creation largely from the efforts of the 
> reader.  

Well, the reader sees the complexity.  The reader doesn't create it.

> I would never say that's not profound and significant--
> it's essential to the act of reading, which is a cooperative 
> enterprise between the reader and his assumptions and the text 
> which the author has created.  But it is something which can be 
> crushed by the author, if she chooses to break her pattern and, for 
> once, lets Snape talk directly to the audience (via the medium of 
> an audience on the page, of course).  

That doesn't have to be the case at all.  Just like a real person, 
Snape may not be aware of his own motivations.  

> She could, for instance, have Snape himself scoff at the idea 
> that he felt genuine remorse.  She could have him talk about how 
> single-mindedly he's been motivated by one or two things.  

Snape lies.  I would find such a "revelation" suspect. 

> As she wants to give us answers to questions, I can easily see a 
> scene like this somewhere in the future.  

We've had scenes like that already.  He "reveals" to Harry the 
essence of his reasons for spying during the Occlumency lessons.  He 
reveals something entirely different to Bella and Narcissa.  As for 
us suddenly getting completely into his head, I don't think she'll do 
that, but it would be fascinating.  Because it wouldn't surprise me 
if he lies to himself as well.  Most people are notoriously bad at 
judging their own characters.    

> That's both the beauty and the danger of the withhold.  Just as, in 
> many ways, Sirius Black was created as a character so that he would 
> fall behind the Veil and mean certain things to Harry, it looks 
> more and more like Severus Snape has been built ambiguous to create 
> tension before the ultimate denoument.
> 
> I just won't be surprised if the ambiguity doesn't survive it.

I would not be surprised, either.  But I would be gravely 
disappointed.  Rowling is a better writer than that.