Authorial Intent, Fan Readings and "Canon" (WAS: Authorial Intent/CARP)

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 39196

Note: in places in this post I use the terms "fan" and "fannish" to 
refer to a particular style of reading and a particular type of 
engagement with the text.  Unfortunately, these words have extremely 
negative connotations.  If there had been suitable synonyms, I would 
have used them instead.  Sadly, however, there aren't.  So please do 
try to bear in mind while reading this message that although
"fannish" is often considered a derogatory term (while "academic" is 
more positively connoted), I intend no value judgements upon these
two modes of reading.  

"Fannish" readings are perfectly respectable and indeed, even 
instinctive.  In fact, reading in this manner is generally what we do 
when we read for pleasure; without it, fiction itself would be very 
unlikely to exist at all.  The difference between simply "reading"
and fannish reading, as I see it, is that fan communities have
established an entire mode of *analysis* based on this mode of 
approach.  They do analyze texts critically -- and sometimes very 
critically indeed! -- but they do so *within the context of the mode 
of reading for pleasure.*  Fandoms in some ways therefore bridge the
gap between the completely unselfconscious act of reading a work of 
fiction for pleasure and the academic style of analyzing a text.


-----


Eloise wrote:

> Following Elkins' first exposition of these ideas, back in 
> February, I posted a long-forgotten note commenting from the 
> perspective of my own background, in music. 

I do remember your thoughtful response, Eloise!  I did mean to reply 
to it at the time, actually, but it, er, was thoughtful.  You know, 
as in "required thought?"  And back in those days I seem to remember 
feeling far less willing than I am now to respond to things once some 
time had passed (Silly Elkins!), so I'm afraid that I just let it 
slide.

I remember that the part of your post that really stymied me was when 
you asked about JKR's notes: all of those infamous shoeboxes full of 
papers that she occasionally shows to reporters.  That was a real 
stumper for me, and now I see that you have raised the issue again -- 
thus forcing me once more to think.

<sigh>  You people really do help to keep me honest.  You know that?


Eloise:

> One of the things that I think may be at the root of some of the 
> anxiety about JKR's authorial intentions is the *unpublished* 
> canon, so to speak. 

Yes, I agree.  Even leaving aside for the moment the question of those
pesky notes, the books are effectively a *serial,* which means that it
is quite natural for readers to speculate about future canonical 
events. Such speculation almost invariably involves the attempt to 
second-guess the author's conscious intent because, well, how else 
would one go about it?

The in-progress nature of the series is even more anxiety-provoking, 
I think, when it comes to literary analysis than it is when it comes 
to speculation.  It is very much a part of the nature of speculation 
to be "disproved" by later canon.  It does not feel nearly as natural 
to me to contemplate the notion of a work of literary analysis 
being "disproved."  

Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to analyzing completed 
texts, while speculation is the province of serialized fiction?  I 
don't know for sure.  But I do know that while I personally feel 
perfectly content with the knowledge that Book Five, when (and if) if 
ever comes out, will almost certainly sink many a speculative theory, 
I find it rather distressing to contemplate the notion that the next 
volume might well serve to undercut completely one of my favored 
*thematic* readings.


> Perhaps one of the reasons for concern over whether interpretations 
> are canonical or not is that JKR has made it very public that there 
> are 'right' answers to many of the questions we ask, 'right' 
> answers that are sitting in her little notebooks, perhaps 'right' 
> answers that will never be revealed.

She has.  I myself tend to suspect, though, that her fictional 
universe is not really nearly as elaborately defined in those notes 
as many of us enjoy imagining it to be.  The books really are just 
riddled with inconsistencies, which leads me to suspect that the 
Master Plan is probably not nearly as masterfully planned as JKR 
might enjoy leading her readers to believe it to be.


> Now, as long as these remain unpublished, remain in her private 
> domain, they are not, by Elkins' definition (I think), 'canon' . 
> The problem that I see is that we are dealing with an author who 
> conveys a strong sense of authorial intent, of wishing to control 
> her creation, whilst intentionally withholding parts of it. The 
> suggestion is thus that the unpublished information *is* canon,
> which to JKR, it presumably is, as it's all part of her carefully 
> thought-out scheme. 

I think that this might come down to what you were saying before, 
about works of art only truly existing *as* art in the interplay 
between creator and audience.  So long as that information continues 
to be withheld, then to my mind it is very much the same as the 
author's own internal thoughts on her fiction.  To the author 
herself, of course, her thoughts on her own work *are* the absolute 
truth about the fictive reality.  "Canon," though, is a term that I 
think really only has relevance to the reader.

Of course, once that information is released to the public, then the 
situation might change, depending very much on the context in which 
one is discussing the *uses* of canon.  It would, for example, be 
possible to write a literary analysis of _The Lord of the Rings_ 
without recourse to any of Tolkien's other published Middle Earth 
material.  If one were analysing the trilogy as a work of fiction, 
then it would seem to me quite reasonable to set out with the
ground rule that one was considering the work as a discrete entity, 
and thus, for the purposes of that project, choosing not to recognize 
material contained within _The Hobbit_ or _The Silmarillion_ as 
relevant to the task at hand.  If one were writing what one hoped to 
be a perfectly canonically loyal Middle Earth fanfic, on the other 
hand, then one would presumably want to accept all of the published 
writings and notes and shopping lists, and whatever other tat 
Christopher Tolkien chose to have published after his father's death, 
as "canon."

When it comes to the HP books, I tend to approach them primarily as a 
work of fiction.  I'm therefore predisposed to accept only material 
contained within the scope of the books themselves as "canon."  But 
of course, people differ widely in their approach to this issue.


> One of the fascinating things about the Potterverse is this feeling 
> that we are glimpsing part of another world, a world that seems to 
> be (apparently claims to be) internally consistent (aren't many of 
> our threads concerned with trying to work out these consistencies, 
> smooth out the apparent contradictions?), a world, in other words 
> that has some kind of real, objective truth about it. 

Indeed, this is one of the major distinctions between "fan" readings 
and academic ones.  Fandoms are characterized by the tendency to 
discuss the fictive universe as if it is a real place, existing 
independently not only of the author's intent, but even of the 
canonical text itself.  So, for example, one often finds fanfiction 
which takes as its starting premise the point at which the "real" 
characters (in other words, the real people upon whom the canon 
characters were "based") first encounter or first learn of the 
existence of their fictive counterparts.  (They are almost inevitably 
appalled by the terrible "lies" that the author has told about them 
in the text.)  You also find the "moral inversion" version of this 
fic, in which the canonical text itself is revealed to be nothing but 
a slanderous piece of propaganda distributed by the canonical heroes -
- who of course are revealed to be in truth the villains of the 
piece.  Stories in which the author is revealed to be an emigrant or 
a refugee from the fictive world are also very common.  These story 
premises are fanfic classics.  They can be found in all fandoms.  
They are ubiquitous.

The fannish interest in explaining away canon's internal 
inconsistencies and plot holes without recourse to external argument 
is also a symptom of this same phenomenon.  Even while understanding 
that the *real* reason for some seeming inconsistency within the text 
is likely one of authorial strategy (or even of simple authorial 
error), fan readers will nonetheless always try to come up with 
some "in-world" explanation for it.  This reflects the fan's 
preference for a style of reading which grants the fictive universe 
the status of objective reality.


> This feeling that we are talking about a world with an objective 
> reality sits ill at ease alongside our intellectual realisation 
> that it is in fact a fictional world, one which we are free to 
> interpret according to our own lights. I feel this may account for 
> some of the contradictions in the way we choose to interpret it.

Yes.  We see a nice mix of approaches on this list, I think.  Some 
posts, such as those which attempt to find in-world ways to 
reconcile "FLINTS," are quite deeply (and also generally very self-
consciously) based on the assumptions of fan reading.  Others are 
more academic in their approach, allowing for the recognition of 
factors such as authorial error and strategy. Many combine the two 
approaches, or else make it explicit when they are moving from one 
form of analysis to the other ("I'm sure that it was really just a 
FLINT.  But here's one way that we could go about explaining it...").

(One of the nice things about this list from my perspective, BTW, is 
that people here generally *are* aware of the difference.  They can 
therefore jump back and forth between the two types of reading 
without undue difficulty, and can mark in a clear fashion when they 
are toggling their mode of approach.  This cannot be said for the 
Usenet groups that I have lurked about on, where the population has 
tended to be both much younger and *far* less self-aware.)



-- Elkins