Authorial Intent, the Word of God, and Why All Comic Books Are Fan Fiction

[inverarity]

So I'm taking a wee bit of a breather, now that the rough draft of AQATDR is done. Which means I'm only skimming it now and then and revising a paragraph or two... I'll get back to serious revision once I get my next batch of comments back from my betas

Comments

[anonymous]

Authorial intent strikes me as a rationalization. To me, it's like the author saying, "this is what I meant to say/happen, but I wasn't a good enough writer to accomplish that in the text." Like Harry-the-hero. If Harry doesn't act heroically in the text, then he's not a hero, no matter how often Rowling pounds her fists about it. Willing walking to his death to protect those he cared about = heroic; using not one but TWO Unforgivables in the last book alone = not heroic. But "Rowling said Harry is a hero" is not valid evidence in a debate regarding to Harry heroism.

Just like the Harry/Ginny-soulmate issue. While I don't necessarily buy the notion of soulmates in reality, I could have bought it in a fantasy novel (particularly one where "Love" is shown to be a legitimate magical force) IF there had been ANY mention of it in the novels. I could even have bought it regarding Harry and Ginny, because we only saw them as children: it's realistic to think that they might have discovered such a connection between themselves as they matured as a couple. But in a series in which Rowling uses both Love and souls as crucial plot elements, the notion of soulmates was conspicuously absent. For that reason -- it wasn't in the text -- I can't take her claim seriously, much less consider it canon. And the names of their children in the Epilogue made me twitch; the kids already carry the Potter surname, which by then would be widely renowned, so their given names should have been chosen by Ginny (that's just my thought on that particular topic).

I'm sure you can tell by now that I'm a Sober Universer -- if it's not in the books, then it's not canon. Rowling's interviews and her website are nothing more than polite suggestions in my opinion (or, worse; her own HP fanfiction). If she wants to canonize things like Draco's wife, Scorpius' middle name, the names of the other Weasley sons' wives and children, or Dumbledore's sexuality, then she has to publish another book.

Regarding fan-non (not just "fanon," but the canonicity of elements in a fanfiction series), I can be persuaded to be more flexible. With the Harry Potter series, canon can easily be defined: "what's published in physical novel form." With fanfiction, the definition is less rigid. Fanfiction is disseminated solely online, so it's less clear which elements could be said to be "canon" and which could not. Perhaps AQ canonicity might be defined as anything presented in the form of fiction. That would include the prequel story "Don' Like Peas!," but not Constance's middle name or future husband, or anything from Abraham Thorn's family tree.

Of course, anything I find on the LJ is going on the Quickipedia ;)

Incidentally: I was glad when I read that certain individuals in the AQ series are intended to discover that they are attracted to their own gender. It's more reflective of reality (which, granted, fantasy doesn't need to be), and if I had to take a guess, I'd say it's going to be Anna. No particular reason why, any more than a vague sense I got while reading "Lands Below" and well before it was announced that someone was going to catch "teh Gay."

Now for some groveling: what, Inverarity, must I do to get a character in the AQverse named after me? `Cause I'll do it.

Looking forward to "Deathly Regiment"!

~ Anthony J Fuchs

[inverarity]

I'm not sure, when Rowling said Harry and Ginny are soulmates, that she really meant that in the supernatural/magical sense (though maybe she did). I got the impression she meant it in the sense that most people use it nowadays -- that they're a perfect match, completely in love, totally compatible, etc. (Not that I believe in that either.)

Now for some groveling: what, Inverarity, must I do to get a character in the AQverse named after me? `Cause I'll do it.

There's a character in AQATDR with a toad familiar who hasn't been named yet... ;)

[anonymous]

Ribbit :)

I imagine you're right about Rowling's use of "soulmate" in a non-magical way. But that's sort of the problem: she uses Love in a magical way (there's a pitcher of it behind the Ever-Locked Door, if I recall, and it can apparently bond with thrombocytes in the bloodstream in order to disintegrate those who know it not) and she uses souls in a magical way. Maybe I just think she ought to have used a different word than "soulmates," given that such a concept could (almost should) have been an element in the stories.

~ Anthony J Fuchs