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

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 34818

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I think that both parts of 
this post are very thought-provoking.  There is a *lot* here, and I 
can't wrap my mind around all of it, at least not yet.  

But it does touch on something I've always wondered about, so I'll 
pull a chunk out and ask if anyone has thoughts about it:

**************

Elkins wrote:

<snip>

>[C]anon itself is often ambiguous or self-
> contradictory, open to many equally-plausible interpretations; on 
> many issues, it is simply silent.  When this happens, then readers 
> must turn to non-canonical considerations -- themselves often 
> ambiguous or self-contradictory -- to decide which of competing 
> potential canonical 'truths' they wish to privilege.  Because there 
> are so many non-canonical factors open for consideration, however, 
> and because many of these are intensely personal, no two readers 
are 
> likely to construct 'canonical suggestion' in precisely the same 
> way.  Some disagreement over what is in fact suggested or implied 
by 
> the text is unavoidable.


>AND 

>That said, however, I think that we would both agree that there _is_ 
> such a thing as 'canonical purity,' and that some interpretations 
> adhere to it far more strictly than others.  Even on subjects about 
> which canon is silent, we generally do recognize certain theories 
as 
> more 'plausible' -- by which we mean, 'more likely to be what the 
> author intended' -- than others.  We recognize the existence of a 
> thing called 'Spirit of Canon,' a spirit which can be either 
> respected or violated.  Because the Spirit of the Canon is a thing 
of 
> nuance and inference and tone, it may be difficult to define in 
> precise terms, but we believe in it nonetheless.  It's a lot like 
> pornography that way -- we may not know exactly what it is, but we 
> recognize it when we see it.  ;-)
> > 

There's nothing in this passage I disagree with.  I think it is quite 
reasonable, as Elkins suggests, to view interpretation of canon on a 
bit of a continuum.  So straight to my question, then:  On what basis 
can we say that a particular idea or theory is or is not supported by 
canon?

Let me explain.  Obviously, if I say Lupin is not a werewolf, that 
statement is not supported by canon and is directly contradicted by 
canon.  That's easy; I will be shot down on this list.

It also seems to me to be an easy case if someone makes up a never-
mentioned-in-canon magical device to solve a problem with a theory 
they'd like to support.  You know, like "He must have had an X-ray 
vision device."  Or adds in an existing magical device where one has 
not been mentioned:  "Oh, he must have had an invisibility cloak." 

But I have seen theories that just strike me as inconsistent with 
canon, and I find it difficult to say exactly why that is.  An 
example is the idea that Lupin's backstory is that he worked as an 
unpaid Auror.  That sounds wrong to me, but why is it any more wrong 
than saying Bagman really was a Death Eater?  Where, oh where, is the 
bright line between a fair discussion of HP canon (including 
predictions and spinning fun theories) and speculation that is so 
wild as to be disregarded as fanciful?

This dilemma frustrates me because, without some sort of limitations 
on what is fair interpretation of canon, our discussions can get 
pretty ridiculous in a hurry.  It also matters because list rules 
require SHIPpers to have a basis in canon for their SHIPping 
arguments, so what is and is not a fair basis?  

Anyway, please understand that I am not saying that my own ideas are 
pure and canon-based and beyond reproach, because they frequently are 
not, as has been proven more often than I would like.  I do wonder, 
however, to what extent it is possible to say that a theory is 
playing fast and loose with canon.  

Cindy (hoping that people will continue to spin creative theories 
because she has fun thinking about them)