Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry’s Sadism (was: Lack of re-examination)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 186886

> >>Carol again:
> > What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself.

> >>Steve replies:  
> Perhaps in your opinion, which is what this actually is. In my opinion and in the opinion of those who actually have some degree of respect for what an author has to say about their work after they've completed it, what that author says about her intentions in writing her book is extremely helpful, whether or not those intentions were actually realized within the book or not. 

Betsy Hp:
I think you're presuming a bit much here, Steve.  Nothing Carol has said implies a lack of respect for the author.  In fact, one could argue that by suggesting the author's intent will be clearly set forth within their written work (rather than erratically filled in by later interviews) Carol is showing a deep respect for the author.  She's taking their work seriously and presuming that the author took their work seriously, as well.

I myself do enjoy hearing an author's intent (unless I adored the book beyond the telling and fear having it sullied by later revisionism or too strict interpretations), but if the work is any good it really should stand on its own.  If the work is any good, it should be beyond an author's need to explain.  (Huh.  That's probably why I don't like having my favorites "explained".  Interestingly, my favorite authors tend to steer their readers back to the book[s] when questioned... and wow but I'm digressing.  Sorry.)

> >>Carol continues:
> > Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her.
> > <snip>

> >>Steve replies:  
> Right you are. Not every reader is going to agree with her.  And as JKoney has astutely pointed out, for very subjective agendas and as I might add, often completely silly or irrational reasons.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think there's some conflation going on here.  First there's the question, "does JKR intend for Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife?"  I agree with Carol that it'd be an uphill battle to say this was *not* JKR's intention.  Not because of interviews where JKR stated as much, but within the books themselves, JKR makes her intention perfectly clear.  We have an ending where Harry is content, happy, feeling all is well with the world, and Ginny is his wife.  The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.

Second, there's the *completely* different question, "Do you, the reader, feel Ginny is Harry's ideal wife?"  This is where subjective reasons (silly or irrational ones, even! *g*) come into play.  And of course, this has nothing to do with the author at all.  *Clearly* it has nothing to do with the author.  It's asking the question of the *reader*.

For me, the first question has more of actual literary analysis about it (we're more focused on the text) while the second seems like more of a social discussion (we're focusing more on how various people define an "ideal wife" and a satisfying marriage, etc.).  Both sorts of discussion can be fun, though the first is more easily conclusive since it requires textual proof, while the second is mainly personal opinion which isn't really about settled conclusions.

I think where the confusion comes in is that for so long we were dealing with open canon.  We didn't always know JKR's intentions because *she didn't want us to know*.  For example, the final redemption of Snape was supposed to be a surprise.  Readers had an unclear sense of the author's intentions *by design* and therefore relied on the canon they had to try and predict what those intentions actually where. 

For myself, I predicted some things correctly (Snape, the main 'ships), and some not correctly at all (Draco, house unification).  But I'd never argue that my incorrect prediction of JKR's intentions with Draco (that he'd step up to bat and help bring about Voldemort's downfall) means that the text's intentions with that character are somehow non-existent. Draco is as JKR wrote him which was different from what I'd predicted.

> >>jkoney:
> > > The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.
 
> >>Carol responds:
> > I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. <SNIP>

> >>Steve replies:
> I understood the point Jkoney was making completely. It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.

I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 

> >>Steve:
> Your talking about readers who cry for hours after reading about the death of a favorite character...a favorite fictional character! They could care less why the author wrote that death scene. They could care less what the author intended for that scene. All they see is that their favorite character is dead, or that a character they hate is still alive, or some such subjective plot consideration happening.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And you're wrong again. :)  I recently finished a book where a favorite character died and I cried.  I cared *deeply* about why the author wrote that death scene and what his intentions where in having that character die.  Did it work with the flow of the story?  Did it create a smooth ending or was it a false construct meant to just end the damn story all ready?  In this case it worked beautifully with the flow, it segued into another scene that brought the story to a satisfying close while encouraging the reader to imagine what will come after that last page is done.  And it left me deeply, deeply satisfied with the story as a whole and with the author's story-telling skill.

On the other hand, I read a story a while ago (coming soon to a theater near you and I hope to God they changed the ending) where a favorite character died at the end, and it seemed so contrived, seemed to have occurred only to add a "twist" that I *didn't* cry.  The character suddenly became an obvious construct in a fictional story, and *believe me* I wondered deeply at the author's intent. So I read where she explained her intent and it struck me as an intention to provide a twist meant to tidy up what should have stayed messy.  Which convinced me that the ending *was* contrived.

So you see, even while in tears, the author's intentions matter to me. :)  I'm just generally confident that the text itself will make those intentions clear. (If the text doesn't, it's generally a sign the author did something wrong, imo.)

> >>Steve replies: 
> My point is that while we may not need the author to tell us what to look for in their work, I'm going to value the authors views when offered more than I'm going to value others views based on very subjective and personal agendas.

Betsy Hp:
Personal agendas and obviously subjective viewpoints do not make for very compelling arguments, I totally agree.  But if JKR tells me that she intended for students from Slytherin house to come back and fight in the final battle (for example), I'm going to look at the text and say, "you failed in your intentions there, I'm sorry to say."  Because there's no textual support.  Of course, this could easily be fixed in later editions, in which case there *will* be textual support.  But that simply underlines the fact that, because JKR has to explain Slytherin's return outside of the text, it means she made an error and failed to communicate her intention.  Nothing personal or subjective about that, I'd say. 

Betsy Hp (who rather likes readers, for without them we'd have no books and what a hell that would be)