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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 148251

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" <leslie41 at ...> wrote:

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

Intent as it was in the pre-Wimslatt days, no.  But context, yes--and 
some forms of intent often end up sneaking in the backdoor when you 
start factoring in things like the author's ethnic/cultural 
background, class, etc.

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

I have to disagree.  For instance, it is up to the reader to furnish 
all of the varying motives we've thrown into the mix for Snape.  In 
the past week and one thread, we see readings which are mutually 
exclusive: Snape pushes Neville because he thinks it will get the kid 
to learn, Snape pushes Neville the way that he does because he enjoys 
watching the kid suffer, Snape doesn't really care one way or the 
other.  There's nothing in the text which says it must be one of 
these three, plain and simple: the reader could well say "He's just 
an ass of a character" and leave it at that, which is a very simple 
reaction, but which does cover everything textually.

We are the ones who spin the stories of Snape's profoundly conflicted 
nature and his struggle to do the right things despite his hatred.  
Every reader tells himself a different story, which leads me to 
believe that it's more the readers than the story.  Or rather, it's a 
story which is constructed to encourage readers to spin stories.

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

Yes, one can always apply the "character X is lying" function to get 
rid of anything unwanted or inconvenient.

> 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. 

None of those, though, are in the same structural position in the 
story as what I'm guessing might take place.  Often in stories of 
this type, we finally get to the "cut the crap and cards on the 
table" point.  I grant you that not all authors play that game, but 
given JKR's love for book-ending explanations of What Really Happened 
(which listies love to complicate more than ever gets borne out in 
future installments), it's a possibility.

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

It depends on what she's interested in.  If she collapses Snape to 
bring her story to what she feels is a satisfying close, it wouldn't 
be a surprise, given that Harry is the most important character--he 
keeps his complexity in this scenario, because we've actually gotten 
so much more on him.  This is a constant lurking danger in reading, 
that what author cares about and what readers do is so different.

-Nora thinks: who cares about that Siegfried guy, anyways...