Where's the Canon? (Part One) -- Canonical "suggestion" and p lausibility

[Allen, Rebecca]

No: HPFGUIDX 34814

Hello all. I'm replying to Elkin's post of today #34802. It would just be too long to do a point-by-point commentary, so I hope it's OK with everyone if I just make a general reply. I do think her discussion is fascinating, and while I think I concede most of it, I shall add my thoughts, which might or might not clarify things. :-)

My initial preamble (from post 33930) tried to make a distinction between a canonical reading and one based on extra-canonical factors. This statement reflected my understanding about this list, which is that is was primarily devoted to canonical discussions, to the point that it needs separate sister lists devoted to speculation, fanfic, chatter, the film, and so on. So while I appreciate that the mere concept of 'what canon suggests' is fraught with gray areas up the wazoo, my understanding was that for the purposes of this list, there was some concept of a distinction between where the canon reasonably suggests something and where beyond that speculation lies. Mods, long-time members, please correct me if I have the wrong idea!

Thus, on this list it would always be a fair question to ask a fellow poster "where are you getting this idea?" and expect them to make that distinction, either to cite a quote from the canon or admit 'well, it's my gut instinct,' or 'well, because my idea goes with the moral of the story,' or 'because character Q. is similar to another character in a similar book,' etc. (And people on this list successfully make that distinction all the time.) To put it better, I have faith that there is a canon with 'canonical fact' (you can quote it) around which one may draw a little halo of reasonableness, and we'll call this 'canonical suggestion.' So while any real interpretation or appreciation of a text, or as you say yourself, any real reading at all, is based on a constellation of issues, still I think that one can always go back to the original text and actually look at what it says. And *then* argue over what it means, and do so within degrees of likelihood and probability. So y!
es, I have faith that there is such a thing as a canon as a starting point. And you are correct that it might be an inherently unstable and self-contradictory canon -- but you can still quote these discrepancies. :-) And while as usual I don't think we are in utter disagreement with anything here, I get the impression my security with the possibility of arguing for canonical suggestion is probably a little stronger than yours. Otherwise this list would not itself strive to make a distinction between canon-based and speculation. 

Having said that, perhaps some of my responses to you could have been a little flippant in suggesting that 'canon absolutely implies blah blah blah' without substantiating it in canon myself -- or without considering *all* canonical evidence. But I would say that this would be more the result of my own shortcomings and less the problem of the lack of an independent canon.

As to your example of whether Draco will or will not be redeemed, it's very well thought through and thorough and I have nothing bad to say about it. I *think* I get your point, if your point is that going by canon (and a lot of other sources) that the very same information can be read in opposite ways. And I don't believe that I ever contradicted that in my previous posts; if I did I was wrong. I *thought* I was arguing something similar, that one speculation (Snape never liked or at least now hates his old friends) could be supported in canon just as well as another (Snape has deep regrets about betraying them), based on a *reasonable* (yes, it's a weasel word, but I defend it) examination of what is written in the books. I was *never* trying to say the bulk your interpretation was *disproved* by canon. OK, there might have been some details I disputed, but we are free to do that. However, I was and still am defending the idea that there is a concrete, separate entity know!
n as canon that we can quote, summarize, allude to and otherwise use as a basis to go on from there.

Which never precludes a subversive reading! But if one is to make subversive readings, IMHO, they have to be backed up pretty well from the text, which you might be able to do, quite well.  So I invite you to send me your Avery post, on or off list, if you think it will in any way amuse or enlighten me.

Is this more clear? Less clear? I expect I shall spend much more time replying to your next post,
Rebecca


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