On authors and their own work

[girlyswot]

I came across this in an article I was reading this morning and thought it had some relevance to the 'JKR's word as canon' debate.

I am inclined to agree with C. S. Lewis who commented on his own book, Till We Have Faces, : "An author doesn't necessarily understand the meaning of his own story better than anyone else..." The act of creation confers no special privileges on authors when it comes to the distinctly different, if lesser, task of interpretation. Wordsworth the critic is not in the same league with Wordsworth the poet, while Samuel Johnson the critic towers over Johnson the creative artist. Authors obviously have something in mind when they write, but a work of historical or theological or aesthetic imagination has a life of its own.

Comments

[rhetoretician.livejournal.com]

I agree with Lewis entirely, but I think that we're talking about two different things. Lewis is speaking of the "meaning" of the text, its implications and its importance. In that area, the author has some standing, but an intelligent, well-informed reader might have more.

But in the question of "What is canon?" we are on different ground entirely. The concept of "canon" is an artificial one, used by fans to describe the fixed point around which their discussions (and fanfic) revolve. It is a definition of common ground on which we can all walk. To that extent, "canon" is defined by common consent, and those who agree to the same definition are able to have meaningful conversations based on it. If two persons do not agree on the meaning of "canon" they will have difficulty understanding one another, and their comments will miss the mark. (Thus, e.g., madderbrad and I often talk around each other because the whole H-G vs. H-Hr thing gets in the way of our conversations.)

One of the pleasant things about the Web is that it allows people to assemble with others who share common interests and beliefs, no matter how few they are in number. Thus, the Quill was formed (as was Phoenix Song) out of a desire for like-minded people to converse.

Any community has its own way of defining itself and its premises. In the case of most moderated web sites, or sites with an active owner, it is the moderator or owner who generally determines what those premises are. (That's not the only way of doing it, of course -- you could require consensus or majority vote before a "canon" assumption was made, but then you'd have the question of deciding who'd be eligible to vote.)

I don't like the interviews much, nor everything that's on the jkrowling.com web site, and so I don't necessarily include them in my personal definition of "canon," but if I'm writing strictly within that personal definition I run the risk that my only readers will be those on my flist.

(By the way -- why is everything crammed onto the right-hand side of the screen?)

[girlspell.livejournal.com]

Mine is OK. Several days ago, I lost my right margin. The text did not wrap correctly. I thought it was a problem with everyone. Found out it was mine. I sent in a problem ticket to LJ. Two days later if fixed itself. By magic. My ticket was still sitting there.

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're right, of course, the two concepts are different but not, I think, unrelated. One of the major arguments used to support the 'interviews are canon theory' is that because JKR is the author of the books, she must know and understand them best and who are we, who've only read them, to query her answers.

And yes, you don't have to hang out with the people you disagree with. But it doesn't make the discussions where you're realising you disagree and why any less frustrating!!