[HPforGrownups] Re: Where's the Canon? (Part One)

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 34903

Elkins ( a brief extract):

> >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.  ;-)
> 

I think Elkins' original posts would make a good basis for a PhD thesis. This 
is just a footnote in comparison.

This discussion touches on something I have been thinking about for a while: 
how much  control does a writer have or can they expect to have of their  
work once it is in the public domain? How much should we worry about 'what 
the author intended'?

If I draw an analogy from music, it is easy to see how a composer's original 
creation is continually reinterpreted, even reinvented, in the hands of 
different performers who may be motivated very differently. Take Bach, for 
instance. An artist such as Harnoncourt may strive to recreate as closely as 
possible the experience of hearing Bach performed as it was at the time of 
composition, with precise attention paid to the details of contemporary  
technique. Then again we have the idiosyncratic performances of someone like 
Glen Gould or yet again, the versions of his works by the Swingle Singers or 
even on Moog synthesizer. Does it matter if music is performed as originally 
heard? To some purists yes, to others no. Is it *possible* to recreate the 
composer's intentions exactly? Well, probably not, as the experience of music 
is individual to the hearer/ performer and everyone's interpretation will be 
different. Does this *matter*? My answer would be 'no' . Once a composition 
has been written down, once it is in the public domain, it takes on a life of 
its own. The strength of a great composition is that it *is* capable of 
bearing different interpretations. We may like some better than others, but 
all are valid.

This too, is what we do with literature. We all interpret differently. We 
all, because of our different life experiences, our different characters, 
different world-views, view things differently. Now as in music those 
interpretations hang around precise, pre-ordained notes in literature, our 
interpretations hang on the precise use of words. Those words tell us 
*everything* we are entitled to know in one sense, (they form the 'canon') 
yet just as the notes of a composition are fixed, complete, they are not 
complete without interpretation. Literature is meaningless without a reader, 
just as music is dead without a performer. Individual, variant 
interpretations of 'canon' are inevitable and legitimate. But as Elkins says, 
there is something we can recognise as the 'spirit of canon'. I can accept 
both Harnoncourt and the Swingles as legitimate interpreters of Bach, because 
in the performances of each I can recognise a similar spirit of performance, 
one that I would find lacking from many old-fashioned 'classical' 
performances with over-heavy orchestration and dirge-like tempi.

But the Harry Potter canon provides us with two particular problems, both of 
which can be expressed the same way: the canon is not complete.

First of all, we are only half way or so through the story, which leads to a 
lot of interpretation necesarily being speculative. We know that we have had 
to reinterpret so much that has gone before with the benefit of hindsight, so 
we are constantly on the lookout for situations and characters whom we will 
have to reinterpret as future books come out. We hypothesise because as yet 
we cannot know.

The other problem, which I think is worse, is that we know that JKR has a 
deal of information on the characters and events surrounding the story that 
she is simply witholding from us. This is where the musical analogy breaks 
down. Even when the published canon is complete and we could argue that the 
books are there for *our* interpretation, that anything which can be 
reasonably argued from the published canon is a legitimate interpretation, we 
will still have the uncomfortable feeling that there really is *one* correct 
interpretation. JKR appears to desire an exceptionally  high degree of 
control over her creation and she lets us know about it with those 
tantalising glimpses of her notebooks in which she has detailed all those 
backstories etc. 
We could contrast this with, for example Charlotte Bronte. Now to be honest, 
I don't know if she filled notebooks with the back stories of Mrs Rochester 
etc, but for the purposes of this argument, I shall suppose she didn't. She 
certainly didn't publicise any. This then leaves the field clear for a writer 
such as Jean Rhys to come along and write a perfectly legitimate prequel 
filling in Mrs Rochester's story. The same has recently been done of course 
for Rebecca. But I am left (sorry, all you writers of fanfic, this isn't a 
criticism) with a problem when it comes to filling in the backstories for the 
HP characters. In the normal way of things, I would regard it as open season, 
particularly once the published canon is complete and yet, no, there *is* 
already a 'canon' backstory  for example, for Snape. There *is* a canon 
reason for his defection from the DEs. There *is* a canon reason why 
Dumbledore trusts him. There *is* a canon reason for his treatment of Harry. 
But it is witheld, and unless JKR decides to publish her notebooks in some 
form, we will never know. 

Here, I think we have two options. One is to ignore the unpublished canon, in 
which case anything goes, as long as it is not in contradiction of the 
published canon. The other is simply to accept that there are things we may 
never know. We tend to talk about these  characters and events with such 
passion, with such a willing suspension of disbelief, that they seem to be 
real. Real people hold many mysteries.They are always intriguing, but it is 
not always appropriate or possible to probe them. 

In thinking about this earlier today, I realised what it is about this series 
and this forum that grips me.
My passion in life is archaeology . We are doing exactly what archaeologists 
do, taking tiny fragments of evidence of what people have done, little clues 
they have left behind, and from them compiling great theories . In the 
process archaeologists tread a fine line between evidence and inference, they 
necessarily use imagination to fill in the gaps, yet all the time knowing 
that, like JKR's unpublished canon, there are *real* answers to the questions 
they are asking, answers which in many, if not most cases they will never 
know for certain. And in the process they have the most wonderful and 
spirited arguments. Just like us.

Eloise 
(who really ought to be getting back to early dynastic Egypt, but thinks 
she'll go to bed instead after this slight piece of intellectal exertion.)




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