JKR's Intent

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 178802

Betsy Hp wrote:
> <snip> Well, you'd (correctly, IMO) ask for text evidence of
Slytherin descriptors that match the negative propaganda about Jews in
pre-WWII Europe.  I'd either have it or I wouldn't.  If I didn't, than
my theory is solely my perception and it's mistaken.  If I could
provide the match than we'd get into a delicious discussion about what
that match means exactly (or if it means anything).  And we wouldn't 
necessarily agree on the meaning, which is where perception (tempered
by the books) can come into play.  
> 
> Like how both Prep0strus and I agree that Slytherin is described 
> negatively in the books.  If asked, I think we'd both point to 
> similar texts to back our views.  But as to what that negative 
> description means?  I think Prep0strus and I have different views on 
> that, and that's where our perceptions come into play.  But if we 
> have a hope of convincing the other (or fellow listies) that our view 
> is valid and maybe even more valid than the other, text still needs 
> to play a part.
> 
> Betsy Hp  (again, this is all my opinion, and people can discuss the 
> books in whatever way they desire as far as I'm concerned)
>
Carol responds:

It might help if we use the term used by professional literary
critics, "interpretation," rather than "perception." "Interpretation"
implies "of the text"--IOW, it's the text itself, which is the same
for all readers (setting aside a few minor differences between the
British and American editions and ignoring translations, which present
problems of their own), that's being interpreted. (We can discuss
"perception" in relation to Harry and the other characters, who, for
example, *perceive* Snape as evil through most of DH, but that's
different from individual readings of the same text. Without the text,
we have nothing (except maybe some unreliable statements about
authorial intentention). We start with the text, we draw inferences
from it, we see how these inferences fit with other canon evidence,
and we arrive at an interpretation, not necessarily definitive, not
necessarily even our own permanent view of the text, but it's based on
canon evidence. We go back and support that interpretation in posts or
even essays for other readers, who respond with their own
interpretation of the same text. But without the text, there's nothing
on which to base our inferences and nothing with which to support our
arguments. It all boils down to the words on the page filtered through
individual minds and experiences. But, as you say, we can't just say
anything we like about the books, for example, that Hermione is a boy
in disguise or Aunt Petunia is really Madam Pince because there's
simply no evidence for those conclusions.

We can, however, speculate on likely futures for the characters--not
canonical, not definitive, but likely. All we *know* about the
Hermione of the epilogue, for example, is that she's alive, married to
Ron, the mother of a witch and a wizard, and still friends with the
Potters. But we also have textual evidence about the kind of person
Hermione is (highly skilled compared with Harry and Ron, intelligent,
prone to looking things up in books and taking matters into her own
hands--cf. the beaded bag and Monica and Wendell Wilkins, to name only
two instances). We have seen Hermione eagerly looking through career
pamphlets in OoP. We know that she earned eleven OWLs (unless that was
changed later), all O's except one E in DADA. We know that she has
nothing in common with Mrs. Weasley--no domestic skills to speak of,
and she resents having to cook when she's no better at it than the
boys are. (Ron, of course, has an injured arm, but Harry can cook
bacon Muggle style; maybe he should be the cook?). We hear Scrimgeour
noting Hermione's familiarity with Wizarding law and asking if she
plans to go into that career and Hermione's sanctimonious (IMO)
response that she wants to do some good in the world. We see her
horror at the new statue in the MoM (she has to point out its
significance to the less observant boys). We also see her throughout
the book providing what's needed (except food and whatever might have
saved Snape)--though, of course, she has her own moments of human
fallibility, which I won't list here. Suffice it to say that Harry
could never have survived to defeat Voldemort without her (or without
Ron, but her rescue of Harry from Nagini nicely balances Ron's rescue
of Harry from the well and the Horcrux). She tells the Goblin Griphook
that she believes in freedom for House-Elves, indicating that she
hasn't given up on that very strange goal--Hermione vs. the entire WW
and the House-Elves themselves, apparently (but at least she now has a
better understanding of House-Elf psychology than before, to judge by
"Kreacher's Tale"). She also expresses a concern for prejudice against
Goblins and House-Elves and identifies herself, as a "Mudblood"--her
own word--as a member of an oppressed class. Based on all of this
evidence, it would be *in character* for Hermione to have some sort of
humanitarian career and OOC for her not to do so. And to assume that a
highly motivated, highly talented, highly opinionated woman in her
late thirties is unemployed, finding satisfaction as a wife and
mother, seems at odds with the evidence in the books themselves, which
leads to the assumption (admittedly an assumption, but one based on
canon and character) that she's a Ministry official or otherwise
usefully and lucratively employed. (Slughorn might well have used his
influence if it were needed after her role in helping Harry defeat
Voldemort. Hermione would hardly have failed to be hired for any
position she applied for. And to assume that a married woman with
children, one of them old enough to attend Hogwarts, doesn't work
outside the home despite two working parents seems just odd. She could
choose to be a housewife if she had the temperament, but she isn't
Molly or Petunia or Fleur (whom I can imagine making that decision).
She's take-charge, "insufferable know-it-all" Hermione, and she's not
going to be happy baking cookies and cleaning ovens. I wouldn't be
surprised if she has her own freed House-Elf, a second Dobby who
"likes being paid," to do her housework and sends her younger child to
a Muggle day school. There are ways to work and be a wife and mother,
and if anyone can do it, it's Hermione.

If you can find any evidence that Hermione might choose to be a Molly
Weasley, I mean a stay-at-home mom, other than the mere fact that she
married and had two children (notice that she doesn't have a whole
brood despite having married a Weasley), please present it. In the
meantime, setting aside any extracononical evidence by JKR, it seems
to me that an employed Hermione is more likely than a housewife Hermione.

Carol, wondering whether Draco is employed or living off the Lestrange
inheritance (assuming Dead!Rodolphus)