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

[jkoney65]

No: HPFGUIDX 186935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
>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.
> 

jkoney:
Right, but the problem I'm bringing up is that people mistake the second discussion for the first. They then continue on inspite of what the text actually says. 


Betsy Hp:
> snip> 
> 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:
But if you thought that Draco and Harry were going to be friends you were ignoring a large part of the text. This would be subjective on your part. You would be confusing what you think might occur based on other stories with what is actually happening in this one.


> 
> > >>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.

jkoney:
Actually I'm saying that the reader doesn't know how to read. And it doesn't matter what's in the text, they are going to use their subjective viewpoint and ignore the facts as they are written.




> Betsy Hp
> 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. 
> 

jkoney:
I agree that readers are allowed their own opinion as long as they understand what is actually happening and don't confuse the two.


>