Comments | inverarity: Authorial Intent, the Word of God, and Why All Comic Books Are Fan Fiction

inverarity

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

Feb 20, 2010 11:04

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 ( Read more... )

fandom, alexandra quick, writing

Comments 41

swissmarg February 20 2010, 20:21:01 UTC

Hm. Interesting. I agree with you in principle, that if it wasn't written, it's open to interpretation and opinion, but I still have a hard time really truly putting myself into the mindset where Draco married Pansy (without coming up with some sort of explanation that also includes Astoria, such as Astoria was his second wife), and similarly with anything else that clearly contradicts Rowling's interview information. I think though that's partly because so many people *do* consider the interviews canon, that if a fan fic is written that contradicts them, they sort of need an author's note explaining themselves. And yes, I realize that Rowling has contradicted herself both between interviews and what is written in the books, and between various interviews ( ... )

inverarity February 21 2010, 01:25:45 UTC

I am so tempted to name one of Constance and Forbearance's sisters "Gumption." :)

In practice, I tend to agree with you and follow Rowling's canon, even her interview canon. So in Hogwarts Houses Divided, Draco was indeed married to Astoria (though I still found a canonical way for him to have a child with Pansy), Harry was an Auror, etc.

If, however, I'd decided to write Draco married to Pansy, I think I would still call it canon-compliant, but I would specify in my author's notes that I was ignoring "interview canon."

avsno26rocks February 20 2010, 20:40:34 UTC

So, for example, J.K. Rowling has said that Harry and Ginny are "soul-mates." Now, I'm not a Harry/Ginny hater; I was never any kind of shipper, so I didn't really care who Harry ended up with at the end of Deathly Hallows. But I'm certainly not the first to observe that Rowling did a pretty crappy job of building up Ginny and her relationship with Harry, so when she says that the two of them are "soul-mates," I was left thinking, "Okay, if you say so, but I sure wish you'd written something that would make it easier for me to buy that."

I completely agree with this. In the books, Ginny is very Mary Sue, which is probably why, on a whole, I really don't... appreciate her role in the final two books. Sure, we all knew that she had a thing for Harry since she was ten, but is Harry really just going to wake up and realise that he's in love with his best mate's sister? Not buying that at all.

All the stuff Rowling has said in interviews about what happened after the end of DH -- Cho Chang married a Muggle, Ron and Harry became Aurors, ( ... )

madderbrad February 20 2010, 22:45:43 UTC

One of my main problems with the Epilogue is the fact that all three of Harry and Ginny's children were probably named by Harry. I mean, seriously, is Ginny that much of a damned pushover that she won't have even the slightest say in the naming of their children?I guess the canonical answer to that question is 'yes', as much as some fans would hate that answer and try to bend the books/canon around it. Rowling tried to portray Ginny as a super-feisty girl (in the last two books) but every time she had a difference of opinion with Harry she ended up acceding to his will, I believe. But the childrens' names are pretty damning evidence too ( ... )

Harry and Ginny avsno26rocks February 20 2010, 23:33:30 UTC

Re: Harry and Ginny madderbrad February 21 2010, 00:29:37 UTC

I don't agree that Rowling's wizarding world is a 'different kind of world, that much more resembles some religious groups'. Magical Britain is firmly rooted in the contemporary Western world. The parallels you've mentioned are misleading - Dumbledore might have the superficial appearance of a guru, but he didn't actively promote any religion or faith (he was head of the Order of the Phoenix, but the members of the Order joined to fight Voldemort, not follow Dumbledore's own personal philosophy); I'd say many fans would argue that family values or love is the 'leading value' of that world (certainly the readers who remain convinced that there was a 'power of love' which allowed Harry to vanquish Voldemort) and so forth.

I think Rowling's world is just a somewhat conservative *subset* of western society, that's all.

But I understand fans who have trouble swallowing this, since they don't necessarily understand these alternative societal models.But, 'alternative societal models' to one side, doesn't it all come down to the ( ... )

Thread 11

anonymous February 20 2010, 22:25:06 UTC

Interesting topic.

Re: "Word of God"

I think I'm quite opportunistic in this regard. I argue my position with it when it suits me, and against it when it doesn't. For example, I like to consider DH non Canon, because I don't like many of the technical aspects of magic introduced or explained there, whereas I'll readily pull quotes from Rowling's website as proof for a few theories of mine regarding the books prior.

That may not be very consistent, but I'm not particularly fussed by it.

In general though, I think I'm quite on the site of "it's what the author says it is." If you read something and have a different opinion that's alright and fine, but it's also wrong.

I'm in the school of thought that says authorial intent is irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the text. It may be interesting to know what the author's intent was, but if the message I get from Deathly Hallows is not as uplifting and heroic as what Rowling says it is, I'm not "wrong" in any objective sense. Harry isn't a hero just because Rowling says he is -- ( ... )

madderbrad February 20 2010, 22:56:57 UTC

Harry is a hero if Rowling says he is. Period. She's the only one who really knows her books, as she's the author.

Well, you're wrong there, for a start. I'm quite sure she's been shown up, multiple times, as not knowing her own books, forgetting details and so forth. She's on record as saying that she's never re-read any of her books after they were published (I *think* she might have said that she re-read DH?).

If an author has forgotten her own books to some extent then this belies your faith that she's the only one who really knows her books. And so the grounds for accepting her private thoughts as canon.

Now as for the last sentence -- it might be quite possible that Harry *appears* not to be a hero. But if that's the case, it simply means Rowling fails as a writer, because she failed to correctly convey what she thought; Harry is still a hero.But only in her own mind; not in her books ( ... )

anonymous February 20 2010, 23:17:32 UTC

Maybe you have your own personal definition of 'canon', but in any debate like this with others we've got to use the accepted meaning of the word, right?

Well, you were the one who brought up the word "Canon"? I only said I like to consider DH non-Canon. I omitted that word in all later parts, because I wanted to avoid exactly this, having it become an argument on definitions.

I said Harry is a hero when Rowling says he is. Whether you want to call that "Canon" or not is up to you, but I stand to the meaning of that statement.

If an author has forgotten her own books to some extent then this belies your faith that she's the only one who really knows her books.If you're asking for my opinion, I'd say that this is quite irrelevant. If Rowling says on a Monday "Harry is a hero", and on the Tuesday after "Harry is a villain", then he is a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Again, whether or not that constitutes as Canon wasn't my point (so I've no real opinion on the rest of what you wrote): just that the author's word is the ( ... )

inverarity February 21 2010, 01:58:53 UTC

Well, I do think it substantially weakens your position that the Word of God is canon, period, when you freely admit to ignoring actual written, unambiguous canon when it suits you. :)

So, if C.S. Lewis had said, "Hey, the Chronicles of Narnia isn't a Christian allegory at all, it's just a fantasy series. You guys totally read a bunch of stuff I didn't intend into that whole Aslan/sacrifice thing!" then, to you, that would mean the Chronicles of Narnia aren't and shouldn't be read as a Christian allegory, period, even if you think you see parallels ( ... )

Thread 12

madderbrad February 20 2010, 22:26:19 UTC

It's silly to say that it has no stamp of authenticity, since Rowling could, if she chose, write an eighth Harry Potter book called "The Auror Adventures of Ron and Harry."

I don't think it's silly at all to say that; the statement isn't precise enough.

The interviews don't have any stamp of authenticity as HP canon; they are authentic instances of the Word of Rowling, which is a different thing entirely. Or you could think of them has having a stamp of authenticity as potential HP canon.

The potential is there - the intent - but until it's transformed by the writer's pen into a book, it ain't canon.

Just like Rowling's original thoughts on Harry 20 years ago; lots of potential, certainly authentic "thoughts of Rowling", but not canon until it was published.

I'd say the comics are canon. If the company holding the legal reins aren't scrupulous in their duty to keep new work consistent with the old then it might result in *bad* canon (like HBP and Deathly Hallows!) but still canon nonetheless.

Re: Bad Canon avsno26rocks February 20 2010, 23:25:25 UTC

*bad* canon (like HBP and Deathly Hallows!)

FINALLY!!! Someone else who agrees with me! It just seems like a lot of the carefully constructed world of HP was sent askew by fuzzily substantiated magic (Horcruxes, wandlore).

Re: Bad Canon madderbrad February 21 2010, 00:47:56 UTC

It just seems like a lot of the carefully constructed world of HP was sent askew by fuzzily substantiated magic (Horcruxes, wandlore).

Oh yeah, you bet! Rowling threw everything she could think of into the last book in a desperate hope that something would stick and manage to get Harry across the finish line.

Re: Bad Canon inverarity February 21 2010, 01:45:35 UTC

Oh, there's lots of canon-hate, especially where HBP and DH are concerned. But this is not a FAP V.E.N.O.M. thread. (I'm looking at you, brad...)

Thread 8

anonymous February 21 2010, 00:43:46 UTC

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 ( ... )

inverarity February 21 2010, 02:11:51 UTC

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 February 21 2010, 02:30:43 UTC

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