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

[mesmer44]

No: HPFGUIDX 186898

<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > 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. 
> 
> Magpie:
> I think it's just as impossible to divide readers into those with subjective agendas and those without. All readers have subjective agendas. If we didn't we wouldn't have personalities at all. Something that seems obvious to one person based on their experiences and personality comes across completely differently to someone else. We all filter books through our own tastes, beliefs, emotions and experiences. 
> 
> I've seen people who champion the author's interpretation and claim to just "read what's there" and let the author's interpretation rule their readings cheerfully explain away blatant things in the text when it conflicts with something they particularly want or think to be true. And not even see a difference. They don't see themselves as reading against canon if they think of themselves as a person who doesn't do that, they just think this must be what the author meant. "I think what the author wants everyone to think" very easily becomes "If I think something, this is what the author wants everyone to think." 
> 
> For instance, even in this very thread. There's the question of Snape being a sadist, which gets into that "is Ginny Harry's ideal wife" territory. It depends on how one defines a sadist and how one sees Snape etc. It doesn't necessarily come down to being a huge fan of Snape or not. There's lots of things that can influence it. But in defense of that argument SWM was brought up and we got this:
> 
> Carol:
> > There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at
> least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
> >
> > Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged
> >
> 
> jkoney:
> Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.
> 
> No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.
> 
> Magpie:
> How's that not just as subjective an agenda? The scene clearly shows Snape walking out of an exam and sitting by himself. James and Sirius see him alone, and start picking on him--boredom being the one reason they discuss for it. They're enjoying themselves; they aren't depicted as being particularly vengeful in the scene. On the contrary, iirc, they're happy to see him because they are going to get some pleasure out of causing him pain. He's not provoking them *in this scene.*
> 
> JKR says Snape is a sadistic person. I think she probably is writing him demonstrating that (based on her definition of the word) in many scenes. Here he's an innocent victim. Harry thinks so. Sirius and Remus both admit to it. (Well, Remus--who's the more reliable character does--Sirius, who's been established as being more emotionally biased about Snape doesn't. But even his references to Snape being annoying are explaining why it's okay they did this; it's not a claim that they were provoked in this scene when they weren't.)
> 
> So what reason is there to even wonder if Snape attacked Mudbloods all week or wonder about all the things that Snape has done to annoy them in the past. We know they find him annoying. We also know he's not provoking them here. They're not even acting out on a memory of a particular thing he's done in the past. His past deeds being justification for what they do here is subjective. Putting any of those past deeds in their head as provocation here seems like changing the scene to fit a desired interpretation.
> 
> I don't, btw, think it's necessary to agree with an author's opinion on anything. I doubt anybody's ever agreed with the author on everything in a book. Author's themselves been known to change their own opinions on their own books and characters dramatically over the years, so forcing myself to agree with something they said at any given time seems even more pointless. There's no real people or real life stories in the world people 100% agree on. Authors even have their own subjective biases. Sometimes readers correctly nail them.
> 
> Steve replies:

You make excellent points here Magpie.  I agree that most if not all agenda's are subjective, especially about fictional media.  It's extremely rare to find someone who has a completely objective agenda.