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

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 34933

Cindy asks:

> On what basis can we say that a particular idea or theory is or is 
> not supported by canon?

I would say that if someone, when called upon to defend a speculation,
can provide absolutely *nothing* from canon to support their notion,
then there is some legitimate cause for complaint that the 
speculation is not "canon-based."

Canonical suggestion can, however, be very vague -- it is often a 
matter of nuance, or of tone, or of pattern -- and that can sometimes 
blur the distinctions between canon-based and purely imaginative 
speculation.

How, for example, would one classify all of the current speculation 
about Snape's backstory?  Is it "canon-based" speculation, or is it 
not?

Well...both.  It is, and it isn't.  

It is, because the fact that Snape *has* a backstory -- and one that 
must somehow involve him having first sworn loyalty to Voldemort, 
then changed his allegiance, and then spent some time spying for 
Dumbledore before Voldemort's fall -- is most *certainly* canon, and
so speculation about the precise details of how or why any of that 
might have come to pass just seems...*fair,* somehow.  

It isn't, because so many of the arguments people use to defend their 
reasons for favoring one theory over the other are fundamentally 
personal, having no basis in canon at all.

It is, because how we respond emotionally to the canon is a part of 
how we construct a mental image of the Spirit of Canon, against which 
we then compare speculations to see if they match our understanding 
of what the canon "feels" like -- and thus to see how plausible or 
improbable we consider them to be.  ("I like this theory because it 
just seems to *fit* somehow.  It just feels right.")

It isn't, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories 
rely are unsupported by any hard canonical evidence.

It is, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories rely 
are supported by such "soft" canonical evidence as the behavioral
patterns of the work's characters -- which *is* canon.

It isn't, because...

Well, you get the idea.

In the long run, I think that allowing for a fairly loose definition
of what is or is not "canonical" speculation is the most beneficial 
course, partly because to do otherwise would be so inhibiting that it 
would likely smother many useful (and truly canon-based) discussions, 
but mainly simply because it is much more fun that way.  ;-)

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

I like them, too.  I like even the fanciful ones.  Hell, sometimes I
*especially* like the fanciful ones.

(But I do find myself now wondering if I can really legitimately 
respond to that last "Let Us Now Praise Minor Characters" Avery-Works-
For-the-Ministry-of-Magic post as I would like to, or if it needs to 
be taken to OT-Chatter.)

<blinks>

Hey, wait a minute!  Cindy, aren't you a List Elf?

-- Elkins, now awaiting advice