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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186659

Steve wrote:
> 
> "she has her opinion on the matter and we are free to have our own? She's the author for goodness sake.  She has a lot more than just an opinion on the matter, as she created the character of Snape and wrote thousands of words and several dozen scenes him in them.  If JKR says that Snape was a very sadistic teacher, that holds a whole heck of a lot more credence with me and than coming from a reader who for very subjective personal reasons doesn't like what KKR wrote or how she presented a character.  Yes, with all due respect to any fan or reader, you do have the right to personally dislike how an author wrote or views their literary characters to be sure.  But do you have an equal right with the author to interpret the nature of a character created by that author?  I don't think so, and most authors I've talked to sure don't think so. Authors love their readers to have all kinds of reactions to their work, to be sure.  But when a reader equates their opinions of what a character is like as equal to or superior to the literary intention and perception of the author, then I have to side w/ the author.  They wrote it, you didn't. If you want to think of Frodo and Sam as being gay, be my guest, but don't think your opinion on the matter is better than or holds more weight in credibility than Tolkiens does. 

Carol responds:

I've already expressed my views on this subject on the OT list, so I'll just summarize. Literary critics or analysts (including readers in general on an amateur level) have a choice of whether to consider an author's expressed intentions when they interpret a literary work. No author can be aware of all his own intentions (some are unconscious and so ingrained in the author's thinking that the author is unaware of them); the intentions may change as he or writes; or the intentions may not have been carried out. A simple example of the last category is JKR's intention to bring the Slytherins back into the battle of Hogwarts behind Slughorn. She may see the scene that way in her mind, but many readers who closely examine the text do not. By the same token, some readers don't perceive Dumbledore as gay even though JKR says that she "always thought of him" in that way. In other words, what matters to me and to many professional literary critics is not what the author says about the text or a particular character (especially Snape, about whom she was keeping secrets and whom she wanted her readers to perceive as Harry did until the revelations of "The Prince's Tale," which were *intended* (whether they succeeded or not is another matter) to change the reader's perception of Snape just as they changed Harry's.

If we take JKR's statements about anything, whether it's House Elves or Harry's ideal wife as definitive, we might as well stop discussing the books. But it doesn't work that way. We all bring our own perceptions, values, education, and cultural background to the books, and we are, indeed, free to disagree with any statements that JKR or any author makes with regard to the books and characters. She's not infallible; she makes mistakes (she still doesn't understand why many careful readers talk about "the missing twenty-four hours" in SS/PS; she doesn't always check her facts, so the books are sometimes inconsistent with one another; and, most important, she doesn't always succeed in her intentions. Not all readers will laugh at the lines and scenes that she intends to be humorous. Not all readers will be moved by the scenes that she finds most moving. Not all readers will like the same characters that she likes. (Certainly, few of us still consider Dumbledore to be "the epitome of goodness," whether that statement expresses her true intention or merely what she wanted the readers to think at the time that she spoke those words.)

Sorry--I didn't mean to go on at such length. But a writer's intentions, like those of any artist, are not always clear to the reader even when those intentions are stated. The meaning of a work changes with each reader and over time. (We don't perceive the statues of Phidias the same way that Phidias and the Greeks in general did, even if they still had their original paint.) There would be no point in literary criticism if every reader saw the same book in the same way. No reader--none--can see a book exactly the way that the author intended it to be read. Even JKR may see the books differently on a rereading than she did when she wrote them. It's human nature not only to react to what we read but to interpret and to analyze.

I really don't care how JKR intended me to perceive Snape or Dumbledore or Harry or Ron or Hermione or Dobby or Griphook or any other character. I look at the text itself and, based on my own education and experience, I interpret it. I see, for example, literary devices like the unreliable narrator and analyze the way those devices work in the text whether the author was conscious of using those devices or not.

Carol, who would not want any author, whether it's JKR or Shakespeare or Tolstoy, to dictate her interpretation of a literary work