fanfic/speculation - more bletherings

[davewitley]

On the main list, "gwendolyngrace" <lee_hillman at u...> wrote:

> My question concerns the nature of speculation with and without a
> narrative context. How are the processes alike and where do they 
cease
> to be the same? 

I understand the main difference to be precisely the narrative 
context.  I did try to work out a fanfic in my mind, and it fell over 
because, while the *idea* was competent enough, I was unable to 
develop a *sequence of events* to hang it on.  Obviously, if you can 
make up sequences of events, you have a very powerful mechanism for 
testing canon theories, so to that extent, fanfic is superior to 
theoretical speculation.

In theory, we should be able to develop a 'constrained' rather 
than 'specific' narrative.  For example, the possibilities for 
Snape's task are very constrained by factors such as Dumbledore's 
apprehension and its long-planned nature.  But it's impossible, 
without fundamentally changing the English language, to postulate 
generic scenarios - we can only postulate specific ones, such as 
returning to Voldemort.

> Without the narrative context, what devices do canon-only 
participants
> permit themselves to use in order to coordinate theories with the
> 'facts' as they have been presented?

There is no easy answer to this - it's more like a box of tricks:  
ask yourself questions such as:

-under what circumstances would my theory fall down?
-does anyone in canon display ignorance of something they would know 
if my theory were true?
-if my theory were true, would things happen which didn't happen?
-if I work out the existing narrative in detail, does my theory hold 
(think of when H & H would appear twice on the map, for example)

Notice that the key is to try to force your theory to *fail*, as in 
all scientific endeavour.  I don't have a conscious checklist - it's 
much more of a gestalt thing.  If someone asks, is Dumbledore related 
to Harry, it just clicks in: he said the Dursleys are the only 
relatives.

I think the fundamental device is to keep 'fact' separate 
from 'theory' in your mind.  None of us is very good at this, because 
a good theory replaces a large pile of facts so economically (and a 
bad one seems to).  So, rather than, say, deciding that Snape is or 
is not a vampire, keep all the bits of canon in mind that bear on the 
question, and don't decide.  Develop interpretations of conflicting 
evidence (ie explain away the garlic if he isn't; explain away 
the 'non-wizarding part-humans' if he is) and keep them in your mind 
as interpretations *while still retaining all the facts*.

Every time you read something about Hermione, keep both 'old 
Hermione' and 'young Hermione' in mind.

> Mahoney said she would allow her theories to derive from the books 
and
> deviate up "to a point." I guess I'm curious to know _where_ that
> point falls between theory and narrative so that it's not deviated
> "too far" and yet still accounts for all the questions that arise
> while actually engaging in the writing process.

I think I'm basically with you on this - that speculation suffers 
from the supposed disadvantages of fanfic in terms of diverging from, 
and 'polluting' canon.  There is no such point.  With the very little 
fanfic that I've read, I found no difficulty in seeing the characters 
as essentially different from canon - though stylistic differences in 
writing may have helped here.  Thus POU Hermione does not affect my 
understanding of canon Hermione.  In the same way, I can read 
somebody's speculation and keep my own perception intact - unless I 
choose to change it.
> 
> Ack. It's getting more difficut to clarify, instead of less. Does
> anyone get this?

I think, mainly, yes.  I like it.

David