On Canon, Fanon, Fantasy, Science Fiction, JKR, God and AU's (or "Oh, No! She's thinking again!")
A couple of days ago, alittlewhisper asked (among other things) about what happens to a wizard's wand when they transform into an animagus, and about the mechanics of the animagus transformation itself. I replied with my own opinions, which incorporate some aspects put forth in David Eddings' The Belgariad, since his 'sorcerers' also change shape in a similar manner to what I perceive animagi do in JKR's world. That doesn't mean I'm correct. It's just how I explain it to myself, and it works for me. And in my usual fashion of not letting a subject end at its natural conclusion (as if such a thing exists! Perish the thought! *g*), I've gone and made a mess of things in my head as I formulated a reply to her reply comment, and decided I wanted to post it here instead. so you can see for yourself why I don't post more of my musings. (*cough*)
We were talking a bit about incorporating movie 'canon' into book canon. Personally, I don't take much from the movies as being canon compliant. I love the sets, and I think they've done a very creditable job with casting (despite casting people who are much older than certain roles call for), but the directors (and the screenplay writer) take plenty of liberties with things that are just not filmable or just don't look as... spectacular when put on film, and they feel they need to 'spruce it up'. Like the scars on Lupin's face and the tattoos on Sirius - total movie fanon. Or Aunt Marge flying out the back door of the house and into the sky. (In the book she didn't get farther than the ceiling in the dining room). Or when Ron and Harry fly the car to Hogwarts in CoS - in the book they mostly fly above the clouds to keep away from prying eyes - in the movie they end up nearly getting hit by the train. Or how Hermione gets all of Ron's book lines and she's portrayed as superhuman at times...
There are a gazillion more examples of course, but let's just take Lupin's scars. In the books, there's not one mention of the idea that he has scars all over his body, much less his face. Yet, in fic, art, discussions - we gravitate to the idea that he's got them and it has completely permeated the fandom mentality of Lupin. Anywhere from just the original bite scar to city roadmaps of them all over the place from neck to foot which he hides under his clothes. I'm guilty of it myself, and while it's one of the bigger 'fanon' creations, it's not in any way canon by 'popular' definition. (Is canon just the books or does it also incorporate things she says in interviews or on her website? Ask a different person, you'll get a different answer.) But, if I recall correctly, there are three canon scar mentions in the books: Harry's, the one on Dumbledore's knee shaped like the London Underground, and all of the myriad of scars Moody has been described as having.
The Marauder era (and characters) are my favorite fics to read and write. But popular trends and thinking seem to be what dictates many of the perceptions because the information from the books is spotty and scarce. Even the information we do get isnt absolute. (The dreaded pensieve incident in "Snape's Worst Memory" is not a complete picture of any of them - Marauders, Lily or Snape. No matter how you look at it and from what perspective, it's one scene from one day, and not necessarily indicative that any of the parties behaved that exact way, every day, for all seven of their years at Hogwarts. Period. I mean really. If you went into a pensieve and saw the day I got into an actual physical fist-fighting brawl with a girl in a hallway when I was in high school, you'd probably think I was a nasty, bitchy bully, too!)
In book 1, we get a huge bit of general background info: Hagrid tells us (Harry) that Voldemort had been gaining power for something like 11 years before "that" night (October 31, 1981), yet how many Marauder era fics actively show the effects of this on the characters? Do authors not remember this, or do they ignore it (the way some people ignore Peter's existence) because it doesn't fit with their story idea? Sometimes it's not important to a story, and that's fine, but more often than not, it is ignored outright. Does that make those stories any less canon compliant? It's all a matter of perception. Did it pervade every second of their existence? Likely not, no. Was it public record at the time? Who knows. Did the characters think about it from time to time? Probably, yes.
With regard to the "physics" of magic, I don't think JKR is the type to really think in depth about the nature of it. She's set certain boundaries (like magic can't bring dead people back to life), but the fact that it's magic - that's what sets fantasy apart from science fiction. Science fiction writers tend to explain the minutiae - warp engines and coils, di- tri-lithium, coupling inverters - to explain why things work. In fantasy, the author doesn't have to do that, and most don't. Garion always asks why and Belgarath or Polgara tell him "Because. Just accept it." and leave it at that.
Yet we are a most tenacious bunch. Because we want to know why. We want proof. We have a tendency to try to apply human limitations on something that goes beyond the known laws of physics because we want it to make sense. Magic in JKR's universe doesn't comply with Einstein and Hawking, just as warp drive and hyperdrives in Star Trek and Star Wars don't either, yet in general we accept them readily enough. We have to on some level in order to believe in the particular universe. If I looked I'm sure I could find several essays on why Warp Drive is physically impossible, yet at the same time, I could probably find more people claiming that 'today's science fiction is tomorrow's science fact'. So should scientists (and authors/writers) take Einstein at his word and never attempt to challenge his ideas and theories? I think not.
Tenet: Magic can't bring wizards back from the dead.
Sirius fell through the veil. Sirius is dead. Why? Because Lupin and Dumbledore tell us so, but the nature of the veil itself is so sketchy in itself - where do the bodies go? How do they KNOW it leads to death - has anyone ever come back to tell them for sure? It's not necessarily scientific fact within that universe - it's more philosophical, theological and scientific hypothesis/theory - like the nature of death (and of God) itself. So who then is the more canon compliant? Those who accept JKR's assurance that Sirius is dead, or those who question the nature of the veil and perhaps death itself?
How many wizards were convinced that Voldemort was dead after October 31, 1981? Hagrid and Dumbledore didn't think so, but Fudge and Umbridge did - or at least they deluded themselves into believing that he was dead and gone: No ministry preparations were made (that we know of) for the day when he did/might return, and word of his return was ignored, hushed up and worse.
Fantasy by its very nature is filled with plot devices and holes chasms wide, because in a sense, the author is God - the creator of the world - and many of us as readers challenge that the same way we challenge 'truths' and stories contained in religious doctrines like the bible. And in the same way that religion gets sticky in these situations and reverts to people taking sides on these issues, so does 'faith' and 'acceptance' in canon.
I should probably offer a disclaimer that I don't mean to say that the bible and JKR's books are comparable. (I don't want religious people getting in a huff and putting words in my mouth!) I'm just exploring the concepts of faith and our nature and tendency to accept, believe and question.
I ranted last week about people 'playing God' with canon. I find it personally annoying, not that we feel a need to believe in certain perspectives or absolutes, but rather that we feel a need to impose these beliefs and absolutes on others to the exclusion of any consideration of an opposing viewpoint. And I still believe that. But that doesn't mean I don't feel a need (or right) to challenge and argue with God JKR (or in her absence, fandom and you lot) when I personally feel she's in error, or hasn't thought things through completely, or when I just don't understand what the hell she's thinking or doing. Like with the ages of Bill and Charlie; Like with Marcus Flint being named as a seventh year student and then showing up as a student in the next book; Like with the nature of the veil; Like with teaching/class schedules not matching up well when put to paper; Like whether or not Dumbledore is a genuinely good guy or a master manipulator and why he only seems to selectively use his legilimency abilities; Like why certain people come back as ghosts and others don't; Like the ambiguous nature of the sexualities of particular characters; Like Grawp's purpose in life the books. *ahem*
Fandom is a funny place. Why is a "Sirius comes back from beyond the veil some time after the conclusion of book seven" fic automatically AU? After all, a "Harry dates/marries Ginny some time after the conclusion of books seven" fic isn't automatically labeled AU. (Or Harry/Hermione, or Ron/Hermione, or Draco/Pansy, etc.)
I suppose I answer that in the terms of The West Wing:
President Bartlet: "Why is a Kuhndunese life worth less to me than an American life?"
Will Bailey: "I don't know, Sir. But it is."
(from season 4 episode "Inauguration, Part I")
I love it when art imitates life imitates art imitates life. :) And notice that I didn't really answer any questions at all with this...ramble...either. Heh.
ETA: I suppose I should add (since it's what got me started on this whole thing in the first place!) that I have no actual or factual information about where a wizard's clothes or wand or anything on his/her person go when they transform into an animagus - just theories harvested from my own and others' imaginations. :)
We were talking a bit about incorporating movie 'canon' into book canon. Personally, I don't take much from the movies as being canon compliant. I love the sets, and I think they've done a very creditable job with casting (despite casting people who are much older than certain roles call for), but the directors (and the screenplay writer) take plenty of liberties with things that are just not filmable or just don't look as... spectacular when put on film, and they feel they need to 'spruce it up'. Like the scars on Lupin's face and the tattoos on Sirius - total movie fanon. Or Aunt Marge flying out the back door of the house and into the sky. (In the book she didn't get farther than the ceiling in the dining room). Or when Ron and Harry fly the car to Hogwarts in CoS - in the book they mostly fly above the clouds to keep away from prying eyes - in the movie they end up nearly getting hit by the train. Or how Hermione gets all of Ron's book lines and she's portrayed as superhuman at times...
There are a gazillion more examples of course, but let's just take Lupin's scars. In the books, there's not one mention of the idea that he has scars all over his body, much less his face. Yet, in fic, art, discussions - we gravitate to the idea that he's got them and it has completely permeated the fandom mentality of Lupin. Anywhere from just the original bite scar to city roadmaps of them all over the place from neck to foot which he hides under his clothes. I'm guilty of it myself, and while it's one of the bigger 'fanon' creations, it's not in any way canon by 'popular' definition. (Is canon just the books or does it also incorporate things she says in interviews or on her website? Ask a different person, you'll get a different answer.) But, if I recall correctly, there are three canon scar mentions in the books: Harry's, the one on Dumbledore's knee shaped like the London Underground, and all of the myriad of scars Moody has been described as having.
The Marauder era (and characters) are my favorite fics to read and write. But popular trends and thinking seem to be what dictates many of the perceptions because the information from the books is spotty and scarce. Even the information we do get isnt absolute. (The dreaded pensieve incident in "Snape's Worst Memory" is not a complete picture of any of them - Marauders, Lily or Snape. No matter how you look at it and from what perspective, it's one scene from one day, and not necessarily indicative that any of the parties behaved that exact way, every day, for all seven of their years at Hogwarts. Period. I mean really. If you went into a pensieve and saw the day I got into an actual physical fist-fighting brawl with a girl in a hallway when I was in high school, you'd probably think I was a nasty, bitchy bully, too!)
In book 1, we get a huge bit of general background info: Hagrid tells us (Harry) that Voldemort had been gaining power for something like 11 years before "that" night (October 31, 1981), yet how many Marauder era fics actively show the effects of this on the characters? Do authors not remember this, or do they ignore it (the way some people ignore Peter's existence) because it doesn't fit with their story idea? Sometimes it's not important to a story, and that's fine, but more often than not, it is ignored outright. Does that make those stories any less canon compliant? It's all a matter of perception. Did it pervade every second of their existence? Likely not, no. Was it public record at the time? Who knows. Did the characters think about it from time to time? Probably, yes.
With regard to the "physics" of magic, I don't think JKR is the type to really think in depth about the nature of it. She's set certain boundaries (like magic can't bring dead people back to life), but the fact that it's magic - that's what sets fantasy apart from science fiction. Science fiction writers tend to explain the minutiae - warp engines and coils, di- tri-lithium, coupling inverters - to explain why things work. In fantasy, the author doesn't have to do that, and most don't. Garion always asks why and Belgarath or Polgara tell him "Because. Just accept it." and leave it at that.
Yet we are a most tenacious bunch. Because we want to know why. We want proof. We have a tendency to try to apply human limitations on something that goes beyond the known laws of physics because we want it to make sense. Magic in JKR's universe doesn't comply with Einstein and Hawking, just as warp drive and hyperdrives in Star Trek and Star Wars don't either, yet in general we accept them readily enough. We have to on some level in order to believe in the particular universe. If I looked I'm sure I could find several essays on why Warp Drive is physically impossible, yet at the same time, I could probably find more people claiming that 'today's science fiction is tomorrow's science fact'. So should scientists (and authors/writers) take Einstein at his word and never attempt to challenge his ideas and theories? I think not.
Tenet: Magic can't bring wizards back from the dead.
Sirius fell through the veil. Sirius is dead. Why? Because Lupin and Dumbledore tell us so, but the nature of the veil itself is so sketchy in itself - where do the bodies go? How do they KNOW it leads to death - has anyone ever come back to tell them for sure? It's not necessarily scientific fact within that universe - it's more philosophical, theological and scientific hypothesis/theory - like the nature of death (and of God) itself. So who then is the more canon compliant? Those who accept JKR's assurance that Sirius is dead, or those who question the nature of the veil and perhaps death itself?
How many wizards were convinced that Voldemort was dead after October 31, 1981? Hagrid and Dumbledore didn't think so, but Fudge and Umbridge did - or at least they deluded themselves into believing that he was dead and gone: No ministry preparations were made (that we know of) for the day when he did/might return, and word of his return was ignored, hushed up and worse.
Fantasy by its very nature is filled with plot devices and holes chasms wide, because in a sense, the author is God - the creator of the world - and many of us as readers challenge that the same way we challenge 'truths' and stories contained in religious doctrines like the bible. And in the same way that religion gets sticky in these situations and reverts to people taking sides on these issues, so does 'faith' and 'acceptance' in canon.
I should probably offer a disclaimer that I don't mean to say that the bible and JKR's books are comparable. (I don't want religious people getting in a huff and putting words in my mouth!) I'm just exploring the concepts of faith and our nature and tendency to accept, believe and question.
I ranted last week about people 'playing God' with canon. I find it personally annoying, not that we feel a need to believe in certain perspectives or absolutes, but rather that we feel a need to impose these beliefs and absolutes on others to the exclusion of any consideration of an opposing viewpoint. And I still believe that. But that doesn't mean I don't feel a need (or right) to challenge and argue with God JKR (or in her absence, fandom and you lot) when I personally feel she's in error, or hasn't thought things through completely, or when I just don't understand what the hell she's thinking or doing. Like with the ages of Bill and Charlie; Like with Marcus Flint being named as a seventh year student and then showing up as a student in the next book; Like with the nature of the veil; Like with teaching/class schedules not matching up well when put to paper; Like whether or not Dumbledore is a genuinely good guy or a master manipulator and why he only seems to selectively use his legilimency abilities; Like why certain people come back as ghosts and others don't; Like the ambiguous nature of the sexualities of particular characters; Like Grawp's purpose in life the books. *ahem*
Fandom is a funny place. Why is a "Sirius comes back from beyond the veil some time after the conclusion of book seven" fic automatically AU? After all, a "Harry dates/marries Ginny some time after the conclusion of books seven" fic isn't automatically labeled AU. (Or Harry/Hermione, or Ron/Hermione, or Draco/Pansy, etc.)
I suppose I answer that in the terms of The West Wing:
President Bartlet: "Why is a Kuhndunese life worth less to me than an American life?"
Will Bailey: "I don't know, Sir. But it is."
(from season 4 episode "Inauguration, Part I")
I love it when art imitates life imitates art imitates life. :) And notice that I didn't really answer any questions at all with this...ramble...either. Heh.
ETA: I suppose I should add (since it's what got me started on this whole thing in the first place!) that I have no actual or factual information about where a wizard's clothes or wand or anything on his/her person go when they transform into an animagus - just theories harvested from my own and others' imaginations. :)