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

[girlspell.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, and how it applies to fan fiction. Well, I still think the artist does understand his own creation better then someone eles's, because that is why they created it in the first place.

(Pretty bold statement from someone who can not write worth a plugged nickel, considering whom I'm disagreeing with) LOL :)

On the other hand, fan fiction writers are using someone else's character..oh what the heck. I changed mny mind. Its the singer not song. There are some outsanding writers in fan fiction. You among others (we know who they are).

[amamama.livejournal.com]

Now this is very interesting, and I heartliy agree. Because I disagree very much completely with those who claims all JKR says is law. 'tis not. Her books are law. Interviews and such can be used for interpretation, but is not law. Who knows, if Mary had interviewed her, and argued against Harry becoming an auror and for his becoming a life saver instead, maybe they'd agreed. Maybe JKR would've changed her mind, and found Mary to be correct. I think so. But then again, that's my not at all humble opinion.

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think he overstates his case slightly. Authors do generally have the privilege of at least knowing their work better, and that obviously can be a help in interpreting it. But an author can intend to communicate something and fail utterly, or not intend to communicate something else that the text clearly indicates. That's the work of the critic - not to read into the author's mind what they intended, but to discern what the text actually says.

[girlspell.livejournal.com]

Hee hee...you might be opening up a can of worms. I read recently that the Harmony shippers are not about to give up. They claim (now) that epilogue means nothing. Harry & Ginny might be married, but Ginny is cheating on him with Draco (Scorpio is their son) Harry's children on the other hand are the offspring of him and Hermione. Poor Ron has no clue...

They pass the time trying to interpret eveything, I mean everything that comes out of JKR's mouth for their ship.

[amamama.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well - I sort of wish she hadn't written that epilogue as detailed as she did. I wish there'd been more room for interpretation (mainly because I'm still mourning the loss of RtB, I'm so sad it ended up in the drawer), but seriously - Harry/Hermione? Only if Ginny and Ron both dies, in my opinion. Which could happen, but I don't really care. I'm quite happy with R/Hr and H/G. I've found that ships matter less than happiness. I want them to be happy, with whom is not so important (as I love Jeconais' writing exercises where he wrote loads of ficlets pairing Harry with most everyone, but the point is that he's a good writer, and Harry's happy). It might be because I've never written fanfiction that I'm not so emotionally invested in one specific ship. Don't know. That said, I've never managed to read slashfic with Harry, as he's as straight as they come imo. I hope I don't open a can of worms, but then I don't spend much time in fandom doing more than reading anymore (I've long since abandoned the discussions at the Quill). I read fics and enjoy them, arguing for a lost case is something I don't care about. So Ginny doesn't cheat on Harry (With Draco? Get real...), Scorpius is Dracos son with his wife (whoever that is), harry is not cheating with Hermione, and Ron loves his wife very much, thank you. And vice versa. They do have a clear moral compass that they follow, imo.

[girlspell.livejournal.com]

As for Ron and Hermione..ahh. They (Harmony) says NO WHERE in the epilouge (crapilouge they call it) says that Ron and Hemione are married. It gets weirder and sigh....

[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!!

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Actually, RtB is completely epilogue compliant. Just not stupid-and-inconsistent-interview compliant.

[amamama.livejournal.com]

*grins* Didn't remember that, but you're right. Then's the question - how to convince Mary her version is loads better than JKR-in-interview? And of course, that's why the idea that Mary should've interviewed JKR had lodged itself in my brain. I'm sure she'd be able to counter her and get her to see reason. Cuz of all the people I've met who've seen war and had their childhoods torn apart by it, none have chosen a career similar to being auror. They've become politically active, and/or had a burning desire to help and make a difference.

[stmargarets.livejournal.com]

The act of creation confers no special privileges on authors when it comes to the distinctly different, if lesser, task of interpretation.

I like this distinction here - which is why I have a lot more respect for JKR's creations rather than her intereviews. There's something that happens in the process of writing that is a little magical - it's very different from answering questions in a Q&A format. I do think that if JKR set out to write Harry as an Auror at 17 she would start making subtle differences to the story - to his character. It just happens. Harry would turn around and tell her he was tired of being responsible or that he missed Quidditch or he just wanted to make sure Ginny was okay. Who knows? The act of writing would help her figure that out.

She's too close (both in the time since she's written it and to the subject matter itself) to do her own analyzing - the things she's thought about - like death and evil and Snape, I think she could give you a fairly good analysis. The things that she hasn't thought about - like what Ron would be doing in twenty years or what economic system the goblins are representing in DH - someone else would probably do a better job with it. And I don't think JKR would really care to tell you the truth. Ron's job or goblin economics weren't compelling to her then, and probably aren't now. :)

[moonette1.livejournal.com]

Don't you love it when a reader or reviewer finds some wonderful symbolism or deeper meaning or imagery that you never intended when writing your story?

Reviewer: "I greatly admire the fine craftsmanship of this story where the layers of symbolism you've built so carefully at the end are actually a reversal of what you demonstrated in the beginning, therefore showing us that flangst can never be underestimated as a vehicle for illustrating the deeper meaning of our existence.

Moonette: "Uh...yeah...I planned that from the beginning. Thank you."

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Exactly!!!!

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Why didn't anyone ask her those interesting questions in the interviews?

[tdu000.livejournal.com]

So there is a deep, hidden reason for flangst. Maybe it's like symbolism, and it's just too deep for me to really get. (Still love your stories Moonette!)