On the nature of canon

[Kelley <kelleythompson@gbronline.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51425


Hello Tom, and welcome aboard!


Tom wrote:

<<MY QUESTIONS:

1) If one is proposing an outlandish theory (such as Dumbledore was 
aware that the Chamber of Secrets held a Basilisk) shouldn't that 
be "rooted" in canon, in the sense that something from canon be 
provided to support the quote? If not, then why would we be 
encouraged to speak from the "I," if it is acceptable to not 
necessarily have canon to support one's theory. 

"From the hbfile:
TBAY: Theory Bay (TBAY) is a presentation style for canon-based posts 
using fictionalized settings or extended metaphors. Such messages 
must remain on the whole rooted in canon and must be marked with the 
TBAY prefix." >>>>>>>>

The phrase "rooted in canon" is specific to TBAY posts and its 
purpose is to prohibit these posts from going off-topic, in the sense 
that they're all CARP and no canon.  There must be some canon-based 
discussion in these posts, aside from all the fun role-playing and 
such.


Tom:
<<2)
GREY WOLF WROTE:
Shielding behind the "no canon" is not a good idea, because the 
simplest answer to it is "canon doesn't state that he didn't know, 
either". 
 
and 

"Grey Wolf wrote:
Welcome to Theory Bay, where the ships navigate the pleasent waters 
and the hurricane Jo is fast approaching. Get used to outlandish 
theories, because they are commonplace in this list. If you're going 
to cry "no canon" every time someone comes up with a new theory, 
you're going to be posting a lot of one-liners. :)" 

I'm wondering if this is considered acceptable netiquette. I mean, 
what is the point of even needing a term like 'canon' if one can use 
it in that negative sense. That's like saying: "the word blue means 
orange because the dictionary doesn't say that it doesn't mean 
orange." I just don't see how that can be acceptable - that's 
twistabout logic. 

It is either in canon or it isn't. If it isn't, you should say so. If 
it is, you should provide the reference when it is requested. Yes/no?

Is this double negative "doesn't say that he doesn't..." considered 
an acceptable way to refer to canon? >>>>>>>>


As to Grey Wolf's comments, it's better that he speak to this.  This 
is his own position as another list member, not that of the Mods, 
Elves, and Geists.  Our guidelines, rules and requirements are those 
spelled out in the HBF.


Tom:
<<3) When is it appropriate to request support from canon from 
another member of the list? It would seem to me that, above arguments 
considered, that no one would ever be able to request proof from 
anyone else, since canon (or lack thereof, per subject) wouldn't 
ultimately seem to matter, if inferences are considered okay. >>>>>>


This also ties in to the other points you reference from the HBF:

"From the hbfile:
2.7 Distinguish opinion & fact; If stating canon 
fact, give references"

and

"From the hbfile:
We also very much encourage people to "speak from the I" when stating 
their opinions. This means that you should use phrases like "I 
think", "I feel", "I believe" rather than making outright statements. 
For example, instead of writing "Draco will be a Death Eater", 
write "I feel that Draco's background and actions so far in canon 
show that he is likely to become a Death Eater"." >>>>>>>>


You can request canon support for another list member's statements 
any time you feel the need.  For example, I believe that Arabella 
Figg is a squib.  Why?  Because some time just after GoF's release, 
JKR was giving a reading (I can't recall the specifics anymore, 
though I could probably search them up) and was asked about Mrs. 
Figg.  JKR stated to her audience that Figg was a squib.  Now, this 
is definitely hearsay, and in no way is it canon *yet*.

However, if I post that "Mrs. Figg will probably not be the new DADA 
prof, as she's a squib.  How could a squib be an effective DADA 
teacher??" you would be well within your rights to call me on 
it:  "Where in canon is it stated that Arabella, aka Mrs. Figg, is a 
*squib*?"

I would then have to sheepishly concede that it is indeed *not* canon 
at this point, but just my own opinion.  So, to avoid all this, my 
original post would have been much better off if I had stated "~I 
believe~ Mrs. Figg is a squib (and could even go on to explain why I 
believe it), and will therefore not be the new DADA teacher."  Make 
sense?

So these two points -- distinguish opinion from canon fact, and 
speak 'from the I' are both meant to reflect on the same issue:  if 
you're posting about a theory or speculation that is your own belief, 
but not proven in canon so far, then please make sure that you are 
clear about that in your post.  Don't state 'Figg is a squib' as 
fact, because right now, it's not.  This just basically serves to 
avoid confusing everyone else on the list, and to avoid a flurry of 
posts to the list all asking "What?!  Figg is a squib?  Where does it 
say that?!"

I hope this helps to clear things up a bit for you, Tom.  

Also, if there are any other points about the HBF, the workings of 
the groups, etc., on which you, or anyone, would like further 
clarifications, please feel free to contact us or your list elf:

Mods:  MagicalMods@ yahoogroups.com

Mods, Elves, and Geists:  HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com

Thank you so much for asking, Tom!

--Kelley, Mod and semi-retired Elf, who is just thrilled to her toes 
that Tom is making such a wonderful effort and is so eager to 
understand the HBF!  :-)