« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »
Cindy asks:
On what basis can we say that a particular idea or theory is or is not supported by canon?
I would say that if someone, when called upon to defend a speculation, can provide absolutely nothing from canon to support their notion, then there is some legitimate cause for complaint that the speculation is not "canon-based."
Canonical suggestion can, however, be very vague—it is often a matter of nuance, or of tone, or of pattern—and that can sometimes blur the distinctions between canon-based and purely imaginative speculation.
How, for example, would one classify all of the current speculation about Snape's backstory? Is it "canon-based" speculation, or is it not?
Well...both. It is, and it isn't.
It is, because the fact that Snape has a backstory—and one that must somehow involve him having first sworn loyalty to Voldemort, then changed his allegiance, and then spent some time spying for Dumbledore before Voldemort's fall—is most certainly canon, and so speculation about the precise details of how or why any of that might have come to pass just seems...fair, somehow.
It isn't, because so many of the arguments people use to defend their reasons for favoring one theory over the other are fundamentally personal, having no basis in canon at all.
It is, because how we respond emotionally to the canon is a part of how we construct a mental image of the Spirit of Canon, against which we then compare speculations to see if they match our understanding of what the canon "feels" like—and thus to see how plausible or improbable we consider them to be. ("I like this theory because it just seems to fit somehow. It just feels right.")
It isn't, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories rely are unsupported by any hard canonical evidence.
It is, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories rely are supported by such "soft" canonical evidence as the behavioral patterns of the work's characters—which is canon.
It isn't, because...
Well, you get the idea.
In the long run, I think that allowing for a fairly loose definition of what is or is not "canonical" speculation is the most beneficial course, partly because to do otherwise would be so inhibiting that it would likely smother many useful (and truly canon-based) discussions, but mainly simply because it is much more fun that way. ;-)
Cindy (hoping that people will continue to spin creative theories because she has fun thinking about them)
I like them, too. I like even the fanciful ones. Hell, sometimes I especially like the fanciful ones.
(But I do find myself now wondering if I can really legitimately respond to that last "Let Us Now Praise Minor Characters" Avery-Works-For-the-Ministry-of-Magic post as I would like to, or if it needs to be taken to OT-Chatter.)
::blinks::
Hey, wait a minute! Cindy, aren't you a List Elf?
—Elkins, now awaiting advice
Posted to HPfGU by Elkins on February 9, 2002 12:55 PM
« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »