Authorial intention vs. interpretation (Was: Hero Status Redeemed )

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 173847

pair_0_docks:
>
> As for questioning the importance of authorial intentionality I
> found the comments posted regarding that issue to be interesting and
> informative. Also I agree with them to the extent that sometimes an
> author might not be able to step back and appreciate a greater depth
> to the character or perhaps other connections that a person brings
to them due to her past experiences that can limit one's view of who
the character might be (just like certain people we might meet in life).
> 
> (Side note: I have thoroughly enjoyed reading justcarol67's views
> into Snape's character as well. Very insightful IMO.)

Carol:
Thank you very much. And BTW, I think that JKR is still considering
her view of Snape (and other aspects of the story). If authors' views
of their own works were definitive, literary critics would be out of
business! (Als, IMO, much of what an author writes comes from the
unconscious mind. Just because she didn't intentionally put a symbol
into the books doesn't mean that it's not legitimate to interpret it
as one if that fits the text. Also, she may not be consciously aware
of the mythological and Christian influences that permeate the text
because they're so much a part of her worldview. At any rate, while
JKR's comments cast light on her intentions, it's clear that even she
hasn't fully grasped a character as complex as Snape, and as for
Dumbledore, I think the dumbledore who exists in her mind and the
Dumbledore we see on the page are rather far apart.

IOW, all of us bring something to the discussion that others may not
see. If an interpretation fits with the text, even if it doesn't fit
with her her stated intentions or her view of a character, it's still
legitimate. OTOH, if she's explaining a plot complication that the
reader doesn't understand, I think we can take her word for it. But
we're going to see Flints and inconsistencies and plot holes that she
just doesn't see. (Hagrid's predecessor Ogg, anyone? That would make
the Weasleys older than Hagrid instead of just a bit older than Lucius
Malfoy.)

Some questions should, IMO, remain unanswered. If she's asked what's
beyond the Veil, what Harry would have seen if he'd "gone on," I hope
that she's brave enough to say "I don't know" or "That's up to the
reader." It's enough to know that there is an afterlife (hinted by all
the references to the soul in earlier books and by the Veil in OoP).
Death is the last great adventure. Dumbledore's hand is healed. Lupin
is younger and healthier. Sirius is as he was before Azkaban. That's
all we need to know. As for what happened to Ariana (or even Umbridge
in the forest), I think we should leave that up to the imagination as
well, especially bearing in mind that the primary readers of these
books are supposed to be children.

Carol, glad to know that someone loved George despite his missing ear
and hoping that JKR will confine her future comments to similar
"factual" tidbits, understanding that the printed word is open to
interpretation beyond the author's conscious intention and that it's
not up to her to tell us what it means