One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> >  I would have no objection at all to a similar work by JKR as long
as she realized that it reflected the writing process and that a
rejected draft or her imagined view of a character is not canonical.
> > 
> 
> colebiancardi:
> 
> huh?  JKR's imagined view of a character is what brought that
> character to life and to us.   I know that George Lucas, the creator
> of Star Wars, has made all of the comics & novels written about the
> Star Wars universe canonical, even though they are the movies or
> stories he has written himself.
> 
> I would think that any of JKR's works or viewpoints are canonical,
> even if some of her views contradict each other.  
> 
> Who gets to decide what is canonical?  I would think the author does.
>
Carol responds:
No. "Canonical" means "according to or withing canon," IOW, within the
authentic published works of a writer. That author's statements about
his or her own works are what's called "secondary sources," in the
same category as published works or literary criticism or biographies
of the author. (Lexicon Steve's published book would also be an
uncanonical secondary source if she allowed him to publish it). If
what she imagined or intended didn't make it into the books, how can
readers or critics possibly be expected to interpret that imagined
trait? Her imagined view of the character is only relevant to the
extent that it shaped the character as he or she appears on the page,
which is all that we, as readers, can draw upon in our
interpretations. The same is true for themes and motifs (e.g.,
"tolerance" or Christianity). We have her stated intention, but we're
free to dispute her success in conveying that intention to readers.
If, for example, I want to discuss Christian imagery in the books, I
can certainly use her statements that she deliberately used Christian
elements in the books as support for the main point, but I don't need
her statements about Christianity or the after life to explore those
elements as they appear in the books or their possible significance.
Frankly, the less she says, the better, in my view. Just because she
hasn't talked about it doesn't mean it isn't there, and just because
she has talked about what exists in her imagination doesn't mean that
her imagined character or theme has made its way onto the page.

I don't want to sound rude or provocative, so I'll word this question
impersonally: Does a reader, any reader, really need to rely on the
author to tell him or her what to think? If so, perhaps we'd better
wait for further revelations on Harry and Hermione and Lupin and so
forth and base our judgments on what she thinks about them rather than
examining her published works and thinking for ourselves. She did
create the characters, but she does not *own* them (except as far as
copyright laws extend), simply because they are not real and exist
only on paper and in the imaginations of her readers. Nor can she
control how they are interpreted by readers of all ages and
backgrounds and both sexes. Each reader will interpret them
differently. Not all will hear her pronouncement on DD's sexuality and
not all who do will accept it. Others will dismiss it as irrelevant.
Still others are annoyed by her after-the-fact announcement, which
interferes with their own canon-based interpretations.

If you want to accept her pronouncements as definitive, that's your
right. By all means, allow them to alter your interpretation. I prefer
to base my assessment on what's in the books. And that's a right that
JKR, for all her posturing, cannot take away.

Carol, wondering how JKR went from awarding the Lexicon a Site of the
Month Award to suing the publisher of the book version (though I don't
dispute her right to request that certain errors, such as Snape's
birth date, be corrected before publication).

At one point, I would have been thrilled to read her notes and drafts
for the light that they threw on her writing process and, perhaps, on
certain characters that I'm particularly interested in (Theo Nott, for
example). But I wouldn't consider that information canonical any more
than I would consider the rejected early draft of the first chapter of
PS, in which Hermione's father witnessed the Potters' deaths, as
canonical. The character Pyrites isn't canonical, either. He's a
rejected idea. He existed, perhaps still exists, in JKR's imagination,
but he never made it to the printed page, so for the purposes of
literary analysis, he doesn't exist.

An author's intentions may or may not be considered by a literary
critic, depending on the school of criticism to which he or she
belongs. But those intentions are never definitive. The words on the
printed page are the primary source. All other sources of information,
even the words of the author in an interview or chat or letter, are
secondary sources.

Carol, whose 637-page dissertation examined sources of all varieties,
including photocopies of nearly 200-year-old letters (which, for me,
were primary sources because I was writing about a biography that
included altered versions of those letters)