Steve's Canon versus Fanfic Post

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 16434

Hi --

Okay, I'm going to try one more time ..... because I too am fond of
Steve, and I think we are still not communicating fully.  :--)

A few prefatory points:

1.  I don't care at all if someone hates fanfic or why they hate it.
Doesn't bother me at all.  I'm really & truly not offended, either as an
author or avid consumer of fanfic.

2.  I'm not trying to convert people who wish to avoid fanfic.  That's
not my point either.

Steve Vander Ark wrote:

> *I* don't know. *You* don't know. The writers of fanfic don't know.
> We're all assuming and interpreting and changing what's there. And
> what I try to avoid are other people's assumptions and creative
> alterations of the characters.

Okay.  But, you discuss things on this group, right?  How does that
discussion and analysis not color your perceptions of the canon?  Can
you honestly say that you read the back & forth debates on say Ron since
we're talking about him this week and aren't at all influenced by the
discussions (you may not read the Ron posts but fill in the blank of the
discussions of any character that you do follow)?

If someone read the books and they didn't join any internet groups, read
any book reviews, listen to any talk shows with JKR on them, read any of
the chats, or talk to *anybody* about the books, then they could have a
valid claim that their interpretation is solely their own and not at all
influenced by others.  But, I find it very hard to believe that someone
who's as active on this group as you are, Steve, isn't the least bit
affected by the discussions (or the things you've read, such as book
reviews or commentary like Peg's excellent analyses).  I guess I just
don't understand how you can believe that you have a pure
"uncontaminated by outside influences or the opinions/thoughts/analyses
of others" view of the canon when you're a member of an active group
full of intelligent people who seemingly have nothing else to do than
dissect these books to pieces.  <vbg>  [myself included]

> I said: > You believe that Snape is a stereotype.  There are lots of
> other people, including Amanda who spoke out in support of your post,
> who think Snape is anything *but* a stereotype.  Which one of you is
> correct?  JKR hasn't *said* that he is or isn't a stereotype.
>
> Steve again: You are right. But neither is he a multi-leveled, subtley
> shaded, nuanced character of the type you find in literature.

By literature, do you mean fanfic or literature in a broader sense?

> His actions are almost invariably somewhere between rude and downright
> despicable. There is virtually nothing in the canon besides that.
> <snip> No, I don't know what JKR might do with the character down the
> line.   No, I can't state her intentions any better than anyone else
> can. But
> I can read (and I am also a lit major, BTW, undergrad and postgrad).
>

Again, this is your interpretation of Snape's canon actions.  You're
making some flat-out statements about Snape's character and implying
very strongly that anyone else who sees something different is wrong.
I'm looking at your sentence above that says "There is virtually nothing
in the canon besides that."  I want to be fair, but the only way I can
intepret your language is to say that you're saying there is only one
way to read the text.  Other people on this list would vehemently
disagree with your read on Snape; they could point to any number of
places *in the canon* that support their position. Does it matter
ultimately if they (a) thought up their own canon reasons why Snape is
on the right side, or (b) if they read some fanfic that caused them to
go back to the canon & re-examine their views of his character & his
actions?  As long as that person is citing the canon, their
interpretation of Snape is as valid as your interpretation.  Isn't it?

> You notice that I went out of my way to say that for many people,
> fanfic is exactly the way they want to enjoy their Harry Potter.
> That's terrific. I am not disparaging that (although I can't seem to
> say that clearly enough to stop the knee-jerk defensive reactions).
> My intention is not to convince people not to read fanfic! It just
> seems that some people don't understand why others might NOT want to
> read it.

It truly doesn't matter to me if you read fanfic or not, Steve.  But,
what your original post this morning said to me was: you who read fanfic
cannot possibly be interpreting the characters as they are written.  You
seemed to definitely be saying that there is only one way to interpret a
character and that is by reading what's on the page.  That seems to
still be your main point -- see above ("But, I can read").   Great!
But, what's on the page is open to as many interpretations as there are
pairs of eyes reading it.  I have the impression from your posts today
that you think all the characters are rather flat, one-dimensional,
uncomplicated beings, whose actions can be perceived by a simple
surface-level read of the books.  I attribute JKR with more complexity
than that.  I enjoy debating these characters -- what are they like,
what might they be like in the next books, what challenges do they
face.  In other words, I'm not satisfied with just "Oh, Snape's an evil
git just like Harry sees him and that's all we can possibly think about
at this point."  I'd rather think about *why* Dumbledore trusts him and
what's in his past.  I don't mind being influenced by Amanda's excellent
posts on this topic anymore than I would being influenced by thoughts of
others expressed through the fanfic medium.

> It is my interpretation, sure. I never said I didn't interpret. I
> know I do, everyone does. Again, that's my point! I don't WANT
> anyone's interpretations to interfere. I can't avoid my own, although
> I do try to keep as objective as possible. But I can avoid others'.
> You should keep in mind that I edit the Lexicon, so I have other
> reasons for keeping only the canon in mind as I work. But I'd feel
> this way whether or not I was the editor of the Lexicon.

Just because you're avoiding fanfic doesn't mean you're avoiding the
interpretations of others.  I know you've commented that you don't read
all the posts on this group (very few of us do these days!) .... but
there wouldn't be much point in your being a member if you didn't read
some of them.  And, if you read some of them .... how can you say that
your perceptions haven't been colored at all?

> And I don't have a problem with that. But there is a tremendous
> difference between discussions and fiction. As a reader and a student
> of literature, I am very aware of the fact that a person's reactions
> to those two types of written expression--discussion/essay and
> fiction--are very different. They each influence perceptions in very
> different ways. Fiction is far more subtle in the way it colors your
> thinking.

But if your objective is to have a completely untainted view of canon,
how is it that a 4-page detailed analysis of Ron's character posted on
this group is going to color your perception of Ron in the canon any
less than reading a fanfic that takes a look at his character?  Once
your perception has been influenced, the damage is done, isn't it?

Again, I could care less who reads fanfic and who doesn't.  But, I take
great issue with the idea that the printed words on the page in the
books are clear, unambiguous and uncomplicated.  My point is: it doesn't
matter if it was my own original thoughts in a re-read or the influence
of Heidi's excellent fanfic Surfeit of Curses -- if I suddenly have a
new thought about Draco's character, how can you say it's wrong (because
it delves deeper than what is "printed on the page")?  Do you *not* take
away anything new from re-reading the books?  If I didn't suddenly see
something new that I'd never noticed before or never thought about each
time I re-read one of the HP books, I don't know that I could sustain
this level of interest.  I just don't see these books as static and
uncomplex.  Perhaps I'm mis-reading your comments, but my impression
from your posts is that you think these books are really quite simple
and that anyone who delves very deeply is off-the-wall.  Please correct
me if I'm wrong though!  :--)

Penny
(fondly too!)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]