Authors, readers and texts

[girlyswot]

Often I find myself thinking about the HP fandom when I'm supposed to be working and vice versa. Partly this is because of an interesting overlap in terminology - I'm reading through books on the formulation of the New Testament canon at the moment. Someone recently described JKR's interviews as 'deuterocanonical' and, of course, we're all accustomed to the terminology of canon in the HP world.

For the book that I spend most of my days and hours and weeks and years studying (the Christian bible), there is no possibility of interviewing the long-dead human authors. The only way to establish what they meant in their books is by means of the text itself (once the relevant historical, linguistic and other analyses and comparisons are done). The text must stand alone in creating meaning, telling stories, establishing characters and so on.

I think perhaps this is why I am so ambivalent about, oh all right, opposed to, treating JKR's interviews as if they are 'canon'. Someone recently made a comment about the HP characters only existing in JKR's head and that she knows them better than anyone and that's why we should listen to her interviews and take her comments as absolute.

I disagree. I don't think Harry Potter lives in JKR's head. I think he lives in the text of the seven books. I profoundly hope that JKR will never be tempted to write 'book 8' but if she ever were to take on such a task, I think she'd quickly discover that some of these things she's saying just wouldn't work in the world and with the characters who already live on the pages of her books.

I also think that we as readers shouldn't need to ask her questions. Before book 7, yes of course - there were questions that we knew we needed answers to (and we also knew they were the ones that wouldn't be answered in interviews) but now we have the whole story, the completed canon. And it is quite clearly complete. I thought DH was a tour de force and I have to say that it has changed my opinions of Rowling as a writer quite significantly. She has told a great story, one that has real depth and meaning, and one that has power to change its readers' minds and hearts. The story is done and should be allowed to speak for itself. The answers to all the questions we need to know are there already in the text and it's lazy to ask JKR to spell them out for us.

Comments

[stmargarets.livejournal.com]

I don't think Harry Potter lives in JKR's head. I think he lives in the text of the seven books. I profoundly hope that JKR will never be tempted to write 'book 8' but if she ever were to take on such a task, I think she'd quickly discover that some of these things she's saying just wouldn't work in the world and with the characters who already live on the pages of her books.

Amen, sister!


Novel writing hinges on cause/effect. That's why revelations about JKR's backstory for her characters almost always makes sense, since she's showing us the cause of why the characters are acting that way in the text. The problem with the Trelawney-type pronouncements is that there is no logic trail for us to be led along until we belive. Ron as Auror (for example)doesn't take into account his reaction to the locket - perhaps if JKR showed us how he handled Dark Magic in other instances, that we could start to believe it.

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Quite right.

I think I just need to forbid myself from looking at the 'What would you ask JKR' thread at the Quill ever again. I just want to shout at all those people who apparently need to know where H/G live or what age Minerva retires or what position James Potter (Jr) is going to play at Quidditch. USE YOUR IMAGINATION!!!!! And go back and read the books better and work it out for yourselves whatever way you want.

[stmargarets.livejournal.com]

LOL - glad to know it's not just me. :)