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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 186933

> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's very true, and a reason for one person loving a book and another hating it, etc.  But I think it's too sweeping to suggest that readers are *so* subjective they'll *necessarily* miss out on what the author is trying to do. That a story cannot be understood or analyzed or thoughtfully interpreted without the author explaining it all.  

For one, it'd mean the author has no hope of shaping the sort of story they're trying to tell.  And I think it dismisses the kind of tropes and universals that story-tellers generally use to shape reader reactions.  (The hero rescuing a puppy, the villain kicking a kitten, a mother protecting her child, eerie sounds in the night, etc.) I think it also sells readers short to suggest that they can't recognize when their experiences contradict what the author is trying to do, that they don't realize they're actually reading against the text.

Of course, none of this is to say that bringing yourself to a book is not a beautiful part of interacting with that book.  It makes for such wonderful discussions and insights! :) But, for myself, what keeps the discussions interesting is either structuring them around the actual text (backing up a pov with textual evidence, iows), or clearly stating that the reader is using the book as a jumping off point to discuss something else (what is an ideal marriage, how do good friends interact, etc.).

> >>Magpie:
> 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." 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think that's where the textev becomes so important.  It's rarely (if ever!) so utterly conclusive that everyone comes to harmonious agreement (though I'll say I've thought one thing was being said in a story and had text cited to me that changed my mind; so it can happen! *g*) but it at least provides a certain amount of structure.

> >>Magpie:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Yes!  This is why an out-of-book statement by an author can be interesting but not necessarily conclusive, for me. After all, intentions change.  And a big reason why I don't go looking for author opinion with books I love.  What if the creator of a story I adored turns out to be a not very nice person?  Or what if their view of their story has soured for one reason or another?  But the work is the work, and once it's done it should have everything it's going to say within its pages.  And the fun of interpreting it is ready to begin. :)


> >>Steve replies:
> I never said Carol didn't respect the author, that was your presumption and subjective interpretation. Which in and of itself proves my point that most readers view what they read (whether it's a post on an online group site or a book) subjectively, according to their own agenda, and often contrary to what the writer of what is being interpreted intends. Paraphrasing what I wrote (and as I wrote it, I know my own intent and can do so)if a person respects an author's work and respects what that author has to say about their work, they are more likely to find that author's intentions helpful to them than perhaps a person who doesn't respect what that author has to say about their own work.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  I still have a problem with your use of the word "respect".  I don't think respect enters into it, frankly.  (At least, not in the way I'm presuming you mean. *g*)  In saying that I don't put a lot of weight into what an author says about their work, I'm not saying I don't respect the author or the right of that author to have an opinion about their work.  Nor am I saying that I don't find a knowledge of that author's intentions helpful.  

What I am saying is that I think there's a better chance of understanding the author's intentions by looking at the actual book, not statements made afterwords.  I'm under the impression that your opinion differs, and that in fact you think it very hard (because of your use of the phrase "often contrary") for readers to understand anything of what the author is trying to say unless the author explains their intentions in later interviews.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.

> >>Steve replies:
> <snip> And I also agree w/ Carol and you that it's an uphill battle to say that this was not JKR's intention.  But some readers will still march boldly uphill to prove their own subjective POV of their own in spite of what JKR intends or what the story obviously shows us.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, sure.  But, as I pointed out, the uphill battle is certainly not dependent on an interview JKR gave.  The story makes it clear; anyone trying to say the *story* says something different will have no text to point to.  JKR wrote this part of her series quite clearly.

> >>Steve:
> If for example the reader doesn't like Ginny as a character, they may ignore the story and what is obvious to 99% of everyone else who reads it and try and believe that Ginny wasn't what JKR intended as an ideal wife.  Makes no sense to me, but sense doesn't always enter into the equation when we're talking about subjective pov's.

Betsy Hp:
I think people cling to the idea that this isn't what JKR meant because they still want to love the books and feel they can't if their view isn't supported by the text.  It's an interesting phenomenon and I think one particular to the Harry Potter series because of its immense popularity before it was done, and the fierce battles between readers over authorial intent aided and abetted by the internet.

> >>Steve:
> > > <snip>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.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 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. <snip>

> >>Steve:
> <snip> However, I didn't say that the reader needs to agree with the authors intentions, you did. What I said or at least meant to say was that the reader because of their own very subjective agendas may or may not see the author's intent, or if they do see or recognize the authors intent in the storyline may or may not care or agree with it. Readers's perception and reaction to an authors work is subjectively viewed whether or not in agreement w/ the author or not.   

Betsy Hp:
Where I got the idea that you disliked readers disagreeing with the text is the idea that readers will ignore an author's intent even if hit over the head with a sledgehammer. But this is an area where I think readers can put aside their subjectivity and understand the author's intent, even if they disagree.  Example: I'm not particularly fond of the Weasley family for various and sundry reasons.  That's my subjective view.  But I can put that aside and recognize that JKR intends for me to feel warm and fuzzy about the Weasleys.  I pick that up from the text itself, not my reaction to it (my reaction is negative) but from what the text itself is saying (the text is positive).

> >>Steve:
> People often believe what they want to believe, Betsy, according to several personal factors.  That's the main point I'm making.

Betsy Hp:
I don't disagree with this point.  My disliking the Weasley family goes against JKR's intentions and is definitely shaped by my personal background.  My point is that this doesn't equate with me ignoring JKR's intentions, and that my understanding of her intentions is not dependent on reading or listening to JKR's interviews.

Betsy Hp