Snape, Sadism, and Authorial Intent

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 186647

> Steve again:
> Carol didn't express the opinion, Eggplant did and just quoted something Carol said in the first paragraph of the post.

Zara:
What Carol expressed in the quoted part of her post, is the opinion that Snape is not a sadist. <g>

> Steve:  
> I responded to Eggplant's post. Carol's feelings about Snape had nothing to do w/ my reply to Eggplant.  Sorry if you were confused, I did mention Eggplant's continuation in my reply, but perhaps could have made it clearer.

Zara:
I was not confused. The only thing that is keeping this series of posts on topic, is that we are discussing an interview statement by J. K. Rowling (that Snape is a sadistic teacher) with which it is my contention readers have every reason to disagree. An abstract discussion of what is sometimes called the intentional fallacy, divorced from HP canon, would belong on OT-Chatter.

The most obvious source of evidence, an admission by Snape that he enjoys tormenting his students, is missing. Claims that in particualr scenes he was doing what he was doing because he enjoyed it, I find unpersuasive. For example, in the infamous Trevor the Toad scene, Snape expressed a good deal of frustration with Neville's mistakes. I foound his expression of his motives, as an attempt to get Neville to pay attention in his class, more persuasive. Is he empathetic, kind, and considerate? Heck no, he'd have seen Neville needed to be approached in a completely different manner in that case. But there;s a long way between that and sadism.

> >Steve again:
> Actually, I hadn't given much thought as to whether or not Snape was a sadist until reading that JKR thought so. When I read she thought so than I simply accepted that because I believe her word on the matter to have far more credibility than a mere fan or reader.

Zara:
Whereas I had given my opinion of Snape as a teacher considerable thought, and arrived at an opinon, before I ever read that interview. If she in fact meant Snape was a sadist, I disagree with her. (As I have argued years ago, in contemporary, informal speech, the adjective "sadistic" may be used as a particularly colorful synonym for "mean", which I think is more likely what Rowling actually meant. Especially as she has since stated she likes him!)

> Steve again:
> Huh? An author is the one person who has the most accurate opinions on the matter.  If you wrote a fanfic story and JKR came online to discuss it and said she knew far better than you did about the motivations of one of your character, how would you feel? 

Zara:
Actually, as I write fanfic about her characters, it would not come up. If she came online and explained the reasons I got her characters wrong, I would be extremely interested in those reasons (not to mention flattered!) Mostly, though, I would find her opinions interesting because it would give me insight into the process of her writing, which is interesting to me in its own right, and not because they would inform my reading of her text. Unless, of course, she actually explained scenes from said text in a way I found persuasive. But her interview comments tend not to go that deep. 

I can give an example of an interview comment by her that changed my reading of the text. When she stated that she had always thought of Albus as gay, it was like a lightbulb going off over my head, for me. A few different things that had not been explained to my satisfaction suddenly made all kinds of sense. (Why he fell so hard for Gellert, for example, it had not fully made sense to me before. The notion of *sharing* something like the Hallows had seemed patently ridiculous. But not, perhaps, for lovers/spouses). But I do not find that she has likewise left important pieces out of her writing of Snape, that I would need to consult with her to make sense of what she has written.

(Nor am I saying she failed with Albus. If I had made the leap myself, it would have all made sense without her explanation. That I did not, may well have more to do with limitations in my own personal experiences and background).

> Steve:
> Would you say she had a better idea of what you were thinking of while writing your story, why you wrote this or that a certain way?

Zara:
No. I am not discussing, note, what Rowling was thinking when she wrote something or other. I am discussing, on the basis of what she wrote, what it makes sense for me, or anyone else reading her books, to conclude about them. When she says her story was built around Snape and Dumbledore, I believe her. When she says she had the reason Voldemort would have spared Lily worked out in advance, I believe her. When she asserts that Snape is a sadist, I don't agree. If she said "I wrote Snape as a sadistic character" I would of course believe her, but would suggest she may have failed in this particular, small aspect of her project.

> Steve:
> IF JKR came online to discuss Tigana with you and me, then all three of our opinions would be equally valid.  If Guy Gavriel Kay joined in on the discussion and said he wrote a certain character a certain way for a certain reason, then I'd accept that as truth and whatever you and JKR were saying as opinion.

Zara:
The opinion I would give the most weight would be the one backed by the best support taken from the books we are discussing. But again, I would accept Kay's statement about why he wrote something. This is distinct from accepting his assessment of the meaning of what he *actually* wrote.

> Steve:
> But if you have so little respect for authors that you consider your own personal opinions on their published material as superior to what they say, then I'm sorry, I just can't understand that way of thinking. 

Zara:
Since, as I admitted, I do write fanfiction...I should point out this is a strong influence on my opinion in this matter. Reviewers of my stories have noticed things in them that I never intended. Symbolic meanings for incidents I added for other reasons, double meanings that had not occured to me, etc. Should I tell them they are wrong, when the meanings are quite clearly based upon things that are there in my story? Of course not. They are right, the text contains those things they see in it, even though I did not consciously intend to include them.