Fanfiction/speculation

[gwendolyngrace]

No: HPFGUIDX 31273

In response to questions about the nature of speculating without
turning into fanfic, Mahoney wrote:

> I don't.  I know that I bring my experiences/POV/other such
> subjective and colorizing things to the reading, and I go with it, to
> a point, at least.
>

But _where_ is that point? As you demonstrated, there are huge factors
left unconsidered and when you're not, as Susanna calls it, winding up
the characters and then letting them wander around, how do you confine
them within that "point" that is evidently too far?

Mahoney continued:
>
> Well, knowing that Rowling intends 3 more books, wherein all sorts of
> things could be answered or changed, right now I'm content to tell
> myself, "Self, if it's not in black and white and undeniable per the
> published books, any speculation amounts to running in place
> mentally.  Fun, envigorating, but ultimately has no bearing on the
> outcome of the race."  Except that I say it less metaphorically, er,
> naturally.
>

This merely restates my original assumption, I think. I'm very afraid
of the person who writes fanfic and decides it's canon. The books are
the canon we're talking about here. Actual information in black and
white released by the author in cooperation with her editors and
publishers. The story she has chosen to tell us.

ANY fanfic is by definition wrong. But doesn't it then follow that any
speculation in the absence of fanfic (i.e., without going so far as to
create a narrative context), also wrong? They are only "possible" to a
greater or lesser degree until they are confirmed by new evidence.

Many staunch canon-only fans (i.e., non-fanfic participants) have "pet
theories" that I would consider to have little basis in canon. It
makes me wonder how extensively they've tested the theories by
assuming they are right and letting the implications play for a while,
to see where it leads. The questions that come up when engaged in a
writing process are similar to those that arise from pure theorizing.
But with a theory alone, is it easier or harder to ignore the
implications of the arbitrary decision?

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? Where do they diverge? At what point? Is it *only*
when the theorizer attempts to duplicate JKR's voice--that is, when he
pursues his answers from the standpoint of a narrative that echoes or
evokes the books? And furthermore, is that a divergence merely because
by definition we cannot produce an accurate extrapolation, or does it
also have to do with the degree to which the derivative author is able
to replicate character voice, narrative quality, the world view, the
quirks of JKR's names and humour, and the *feel* of the Potterverse?

Or is it from the moment one hazards a guess, which leads to another
choice, which implies another guess, and so on? Or is that "point"
somewhere in between the two? How far?

Mahoney again:
> So for me, there's no need for complex organization; only the
> books, and whatever fun, but unsubstantiated, theory I like at any
> given moment.
>

Is it then fair to say that by your example, you don't feel the need
to extend the branches of that theory any further into the Potterverse
than necessary to minimally substantiate it? But then, does that mean
that there is a greater or lesser tendency to think "globally" in the
Potterverse through speculation alone or through speculation by fanfic?

Am I making myself clear? I have medicine head today, so I'm not sure
I'm being coherent.

I'm asking those listies out there who absolutely do not read, write,
or participate in any fanfic medium: To what degree do you immerse
yourself in the Potterverse in order to flesh out your theories to
their fullest, most realistic implications? (Steve, you may not
answer, "The Lexicon." :^))

I'm a fanfic writer, but if I were not, I imagine I'd still have to
find a concrete format to work out for myself the various inner
workings of the universe. To return to the werewolf example, if I
refused to write a Remus-fic to explore the Werewolf Registry, could I
jot down some of the laws I think must govern that office? Does that
count as fanfic? Have I already diverged down a derivative path?

Members here have humourously posted "excerpts" from magical texts as
a platform for their theories. Is that fanfic, or merely a fun way of
presenting the idea? Do non-fanfic participants confine the definition
to character-related ideas, as for example when a person explores a
character by taking on his voice, to write a monologue? Or is it any
attempt to create a narrative form based on Rowling, either in tone or
content? We've talked about identifying with characters--by so doing,
are we already leaving the realm of canon, because we are necessarily
projecting our own feelings onto the character? Or is it possible for
us to really understand a character and represent that person and be
*reasonably confident* that that portrayal is plausible behaviour ("in
character")?

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?

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.

Ack. It's getting more difficut to clarify, instead of less. Does
anyone get this?

Gwen