FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective

[heidit at netbox.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38788

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" <jmmears at c...> wrote:
I wrote: 
> > Or are you saying that because I've created an argument that I 
> have put into
> > "dialogue" form through fanfic, that I am making waters very muddy 
> for myself?
> > Would it be easier to make this argument credible in your eyes if 
> I had only
> > argued it onlist? Because if that's the case, then please do go 
> back to my
> > posts in September, 2000 and read my take on the possibilities 
> between Draco
> > and Hermione. That predates the first chapter of my fanfic by 
> almost a month,
> > and might therefore have more credibility in your eyes.

Jo replied: 
> I don't know.  It's an interesting question, but my problem with 
> using fanfic in this way is that we are no longer dealing 
> exclusively with Rowlings characters. <snip>
> I think that any time people use fanfic examples to support their 
> opinions of canon, they are mixing apples and oranges.  They are 
> taking characters that share the same names as JKR's, making them do 
> and say things that JKR has never had them do, and then 
> extrapolating arguments from this new, artificial construct.
> Am I the only one bothered by this?


I'm not sure what you mean bby "using fanfic in this way".  I did not use any
fanfic in my original post when I suggested that in a manner that parallels
Pride & Prejudice, Draco might find it in him to overcome the elements of his
attitude and behaviour that would preclude a relationship with Hermione (see
various Draco Redemption threads). I admit that in rereading the books back in
2000, I did look at the narration and events from other perspectives - as the
book is told almost entirely in third person limited and from Harry's
perspective, we rarely know what the other characters are truly thinking, as
we see everything more or less through Harry's eyes. 

Canon itself plays with perspective in a fascinating way - on your first read
of Goblet of Fire, for example, the reader likely sees Moody as a good guy
almost all the way through the book - but on a second read, knowing that Moody
is really Barty Crouch, faithful servant of Voldemort, things he does which at
first seemed delightful or at least benign take on a sinister glow - things
like giving the book to Neville (obviously) but also things like his physical
abuse of Draco (slamming him from floor to ceiling, moreso than the
transfiguration) - and while we have a perfectly good explanation of the
former (he wanted Harry to get access to the gillyweed information), the
"obvious" explanation for the latter is somewhat sketchy. That explanation
would be that he wanted to be on Harry's good side by showing himself to be an
enemy of Draco's. But that doesn't really explain it all, to me - it seemed
clear to me that he had a vendetta against Draco as the wealthy, at least
superficially pampered child whose father was a Death Eater who walked free,
and who kept his stature when even Crouch's own father lost face because of
his familial relationship to a "convicted" Death Eater. 

My conclusion is borne out by canon at least as well as any conclusion that
Neville is under a memory charm, but I have seen far fewer claims that making
a conclusion like that about Neville is fanon based or stems from reading too
much fanfic or that those who believe such things are getting confused between
things written by JKR's fans, and by her, herself.

I do admit to being troubled when people garble things from canon and fanfic -
I've seen people wonder whether Orla Quirke or Aiden Lynch were fanfic
characters (they're not, they're both in GoF) or be sure that JKR has said in
the english-language versions of the book that Blaise is a girl or a boy, or
state that Ron and Hermione kissed in GoF. It does bother me when people mix
up their fictional "facts".

However, it never bothers me when fanfic causes someone to think about a
character a little differently, or to view a scene from a different
perspective. JKR makes it SO EASY for us to do so, it's almost as if she wants
us to examine certain things from the book from multiple perspectives! Just
look at the debate about the Shrieking Shack Prank! Snape sees it one way,
Sirius another, and Lupin probably a third. Or even look at Sirius' take on
the real Moody, versus what Snape thinks about him - Sirius says that Moody
didn't use unforgivable curses unless he really had to; anyone want to bet
that Snape thinks Moody may be more like the police officer who says he had to
shoot the unarmed suspect because he *thought* said suspect had a weapon? Is
the latter conjecture? Possibly - but it's an entirely canon-based conclusion,
just like a conclusion that Lily and James died young. 

I went back today and paged through Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys' novel which
has been called a literary masterpiece. It's Jane Eyre fanfic - even the
premise behind Rhys' writing of it is the same as many of those of us who
write fanfic have. I found a comment in a literary journal today that said,
"Rhys was always fascinated by Bronte’s novel – especially the underlying
story that was never told. Who was Mrs. Rochester, that mad woman locked-up in
the attic? What was Rochester’s terrible secret? In Antoinette, Rhys has
recreated that imprisoned woman, providing a haunting, tragic portrait of the
fine line between love and madness." It also noted that there has been no 19th
century wife more demonized than Mrs Rochester. By creating a "redemption"
scenario for her, has Jean Rhys somehow ruined Jane Eyre for those who've read
her book? Debatable. Is she making Mrs Rochester do and say things that
Charlotte Bronte never intended? Certainly! Is that wrong or ruinous? Not from
my perspective - but then again, I've always loved Rashamon and Rashamon-esque
things.

To give a less "highbrow" example, look at Anne Rice's Interview With a
Vampire and The Vampire Lestat. The former is entirely from Louis'
perspective, the latter from Lestat's - and the cover, to some extent, the
same scenes and acts. We learn when reading Lestat that many things that Louis
assumed about him - his background, his motives - were incorrect, and it's
fascinating to go back and reread the first book, knowing the other point of
view as you do once you've read the second one. 

I know if I continue in this vein I will be running off topic, so if anyone
wants to pick up the thread of discussion of perspective in novels, let's do
so on OTC.

Lastly, I fear we keep running this conversation around in circles, Jo. You
are convinced that I am arguing things based on what I've read in fanfic, or
what I've written into fanfic. I can assure that nothing could be further from
the truth, and were I doing so, I would be off topic for this list. Just
because you personally don't see an argument as canon-based doesn't mean that
it isn't actually just that. We're all reading the same books; none of us is
reading them exactly like anyone else.

As I said back at Post 37373, "Some speculation has more canon to peg itself
to, some has less - but where there is canon basis, that speculation is
reasonable and in the absence of new canon, I think (IMHO) de riguer."

What is wrong with speculating, anyway?

Heidi Tandy
www.fictionalley.org


Please reply to heidit at netbox.com


____________________________________________________________________
This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account.