On "head-canon" and whether or not it's appropriate [Archive]

Legato Endless

2014-04-26, 07:21 PM

However, I feel like some might say that it then doesn't capture the full intent of the author and I'm either being immature or simply am not getting the full experience of the narrative.

There's an argument for this at times perhaps. Especially when the audience may be ducking the author's point, or exhibiting petty escapism. However, there is a problem with the central assumption. First, a vast number of works, including television shows, are not purely under the auspices of a singular creator. Furthermore, the intentions of a group work, or even something an author comes back to later, are not always harmonious. Different people can intend differing things. Sometimes author's fall from grace and cease produce work of a similar caliber to what they had before. Sometimes a work strays from it's original purpose. Sometimes the author does something dumb, illogical, inconsistent, and you ignore it for verisimilitude. This is entirely within your rights.

Its no different than any other personal opinion, and as such, is no more correct or incorrect than anyone else. If you feel a story would have been better if x never happened, or y did, then thats your opinion, nothing wrong with having one.

This is true.

The author is dead. Once a work is released to an audience then their intentions cease to matter. The story stands on its own. Anyone can interpret it however they like, cut bits, mentally add bits, and no one's version is more or less correct than anyone else's. Not even the author's.

This is patently ludicrous. First, death of the author does not mean that in popular parlance at all. It states that the author's intentions are not supreme or above anyone else's. Second, interpretation is the last place on earth everything is equally valid. An opinion, a dislike, is perfectly valid. I like purple. Chicken tastes better than tuna. A view point is nothing of the sort.

An interpretation can be flawed, incomplete and misunderstand the text readily. If I state I believe that the Order of the Stick contains no references to a tabletop roleplaying game, my interpretation is not valid. Nor is my hypothetical view that the chief thematic point of the Giant's webcomic is that giant echinoderms cause cancer. Anyone can interpret the work as they will, but those ideas do not float in a subjective void coequal correctness.

Allegory would not exist if this were so, nor Satire for that matter. Furthermore, textual interpretation, like any form of understanding, is based on evidence. Perhaps A Tale of Two Cities is actually an advertisement for the Playstation 4, and a persuasive essay for the superiority of wings over mechanized flight?

Not everything has a definitive interpretation. Things can be ambiguous, they can be uncertain. Not everything is as clear as day. But certain things are, and yes, you can be very wrong with your interoperation of a work.

Aotrs Commander

2014-04-26, 07:39 PM

An interpretation can be flawed, incomplete and misunderstand the text readily. If I state I believe that the Order of the Stick contains no references to a tabletop roleplaying game, my interpretation is not valid. Nor is my hypothetical view that the chief thematic point of the Giant's webcomic is that giant echinoderms cause cancer. Anyone can interpret the work as they will, but those ideas do not float in a subjective void coequal correctness.

Indeed. You can be wrong in your interpretation of a work - but not your opinion of it (nor of whether you want to remove bits of it in your own head).

The author's intent is just that: intent. And sometimes, if the author has done a poor job of it, it can be at odds with what they actually SHOW - in which case, the author's intent really doesn't matter, since they completely fracked the execution.

(And if that execution is so bad it causes me to not want it to have happened, I will headcanon it away without a second thought. (See: post-final Thrawn Star Wars/last fifteen minutes of Mass Effect 3/final episode of Enterprise/Voyager's Threshold etc etc etc1.) If people want me to not headcanon stuff away and say "nope, didn't happen" than they must first Not Write Stuipid, for Writing Stupid, regardlessly of who you are, is a sin I will not be lenient upon.)

1The Steele Chronicles, of course, is not such an occurance, since that is merely an uncanon transparent act of Rebel revisionist propagander to discredit the true hero of those events and replace him in the history books with his worthless Rebel-sympathising comedy inept wingman Maric Steele. And if anyone tells you otherwise, they are wrong: even if George Lucas (or I guess, now, Mickey Mouse) himself tells you, because that just means the Rebels got to him first.

Mx.Silver

2014-04-26, 08:04 PM

If you want to create your own head-canon that's fine, how you enjoy your media is your own business. Just be aware that if you want to discuss the thing in question and you're talking about your head-canon you are technically discussing a different work to everyone else - your own personal 'director's cut' version as it were.

Its no different than any other personal opinion, and as such, is no more correct or incorrect than anyone else.
I'd argue that it is sometimes possible for a personal opinion to be incorrect, at least to a degree, if it's based on misconceptions or incorrect assumptions.
For example: a few months ago one of the members of my book group expressed a strong dislike of Lev Grossman's The Magicians. His reason for this personal opinion was that he thought that it borrowed almost to the point of plagiarism the Fillory and Further series of books by Christopher Plover, which feature heavily in the novel's plot. He had not realised that this series and its author were entirely fictional elements of the novel itself.

Anyone can interpret it however they like, cut bits, mentally add bits, and no one's version is more or less correct than anyone else's. Not even the author's.
If you're cutting things from the text or adding things to it that weren't there then you aren't interpreting it any more: you're altering it. An interpretation that relies on you altering the text to make it work is simply a bad interpretation, because you're no longer discussing the text.

I disagree. the author's work is the author's kingdom. he defines and rules it. death of the author theory is disrespectful to the person who wrote it and all that the intended to communicate by writing it.
Even if the author subscribes to death of the author themselves and fully intends for other people to view the work through that lens? :smalltongue:

Benthesquid

2014-04-26, 08:22 PM

Look, you can absolutely add or take away from an existing work. What you're doing then has nothing to do with the canon of the existing work. You're creating a new work- and, given Sturgeon's Law, the vast majority of the time, it's going to be derivative dreck*.

That's not in itself a problem, unless you try and insist that other people respect your headcanon. In which case, no, screw off.

*It's not impossible that you're going to create something worthwhile. I quite enjoy some works in The Great Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlockian_game), which consists entirely of people's headcanon and I would totally read Ronald Johnson's Radi Os if I came across a copy.

Math_Mage

2014-04-26, 08:34 PM

Headcanon is just that: in your head only.

And of course you're not getting the full narrative experience if you cut parts of the show out in your head--but if you're at the point where you hate those parts enough to cut them out, you probably don't want the full narrative experience.

ChaosArchon

2014-04-26, 08:45 PM

My main point for making this thread was to get an idea of what everyone's opinion on head-canon was and it seems mostly to be what I thought. I agree that its totally personal to the individual and you shouldn't force anyone to believe it as it isn't really true.

What kicked off my questioning is as I mentioned before, season 5 of Chuck which seems like a huge letdown given that I know something happens which results in a bittersweet ending and honestly I loved the Sarah/Chuck relationship to the point that I'm not ashamed to say I had small tears of joy at the wedding scene and when they were practicing their vows... anyway so I think that was a good point to end the series and thats my reasoning for my head-canon.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-26, 08:48 PM

Even if the author subscribes to death of the author themselves and fully intends for other people to view the work through that lens? :smalltongue:

That is his kingdom, not mine.

for myself however, I do not like the prospect of all my hard work being for naught because some person thinks I'm no better than him when it comes to the universe I have created.

erikun

2014-04-26, 08:49 PM

Terraoblivion

2014-04-26, 09:21 PM

That is his kingdom, not mine.

for myself however, I do not like the prospect of all my hard work being for naught because some person thinks I'm no better than him when it comes to the universe I have created.

So we should accept that Twilight is a beautiful romantic story because it'd hurt Stephanie Meyer's feelings to say otherwise? While it is ludicrous to claim that authorial intent has no meaning, it is equally ludicrous to say that the author's stated intent trumps the content of the story itself. Legato Endless explained the more balanced position that death of the author actually refers to, that you base your statements on textual evidence and that depending on what you're interested in what the author intended may or may not be relevant. All stories have some level of ambiguity and all stories have things that are definitely outside what they might mean, both extremes get very silly very quickly. Also, sometimes the author is wrong about what they produced, most of the canon of hilariously bad movies can serve as examples of that.

As for the ops original question I see no problem with it as long as you keep in mind that it's not the objective truth of what's presented. If you, say, insist that there are only three Star Wars movies, rather than that the prequels are bad and you prefer imagining the setting without them, you're just being obnoxious. However, I also think that there is great value in seeking out your own, personal meaning in a story instead of doggedly pursuing the correct one. Not only does everyone read fiction through the lens of their own experience, beliefs and social context, but texts only truly come to life when they become meaningful to people. So if it is meaningful and useful for you to see parallels between some story and your life, even if the author insists that you're misunderstanding it, nobody should take that away from you.

Starwulf

2014-04-26, 09:36 PM

The author is dead. Once a work is released to an audience then their intentions cease to matter. The story stands on its own. Anyone can interpret it however they like, cut bits, mentally add bits, and no one's version is more or less correct than anyone else's. Not even the author's.

Fully disagree, for pretty much the same reasons others have stated. Who are you to tell the author that the world they created, the characters they poured their heart and soul into, aren't really the way they intended them to be? If the author says X happened to Y for Z reason, then that is what happened, end of story. You may believe differently inside of your head, but if you are getting into a discussion with others about it, and the author has already specifically spoken on the event you are referring to, then you need to realize that you are arguing against undisputed fact with personal opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that you can't interpret an authors work differently then they did, but just know that your interpretation is technically wrong if it isn't what the author says it is.

On topic: Head-canon is fine, I do it inside my head all the times by imaging how different scenarios would be if a certain major event didn't happen exactly the way they happened. It's great fun really, and I imagine is the biggest single contributor to FanFiction stories. I've never put any of mine down on paper, but I have personally imagined incredibly large, detailed scenarios inside my head, spanning multiple hours over the course of a day, on more them one occasion completely re-writing a story inside my head just by changing one key event.

SaintRidley

2014-04-26, 10:43 PM

Pretty much what Terra and Legato said.

As for headcanon, why not? I look at the final moments of Dexter not as what they appear to be but as a St. Elsehwere ending, because as bad as endings like that are in this case it made for an improvement. That's my headcanon and I'm sticking to it. Whether the writers or directors want to say otherwise, too.

TuggyNE

2014-04-26, 11:01 PM

for myself however, I do not like the prospect of all my hard work being for naught because some person thinks I'm no better than him when it comes to the universe I have created.

Headcanon only applies to the person in whose head it is, and, if there's a situation that warrants the creation of headcanon, not merely the hyperbolic "all" of your quote, but really truly all of that work may be at stake. Consider: you are reading/watching/hearing a story you like, until suddenly something comes up that makes no sense, is horrible, or otherwise you just want to reject that bit. In such a case, is it better to a) reject the failed part and mentally rewrite something that makes sense and go on with the story, b) stop paying attention to the story because you can't stand it any more, or c) suffer on with a story that keeps reminding you of its nigh-unbearable flaws?

I submit that in such cases, headcanon is the most surgical approach. It very seldom involves the author losing "all" of their hard work; some might uncharitably say that it clearly involves the loss of no very hard work at all.

There are other cases in which headcanon is useful: imagining the paths not taken, extending the story to cover characters or situations not dealt with much, and so on. In these cases there is likely to be no work lost at all, hard or otherwise.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-26, 11:05 PM

Mewtarthio

2014-04-26, 11:08 PM

Fully disagree, for pretty much the same reasons others have stated. Who are you to tell the author that the world they created, the characters they poured their heart and soul into, aren't really the way they intended them to be?

A reader. If the author didn't want anyone else to sully his world with their own interpretations, he shouldn't have let anyone else read his works. As it stands, no matter how much Christopher Paolini insists that Eragon is a noble, selfless hero, I'm well within my rights to point out that his interpretation is blatantly at odds with events in the book.

Knaight

2014-04-26, 11:13 PM

Fully disagree, for pretty much the same reasons others have stated. Who are you to tell the author that the world they created, the characters they poured their heart and soul into, aren't really the way they intended them to be? If the author says X happened to Y for Z reason, then that is what happened, end of story. You may believe differently inside of your head, but if you are getting into a discussion with others about it, and the author has already specifically spoken on the event you are referring to, then you need to realize that you are arguing against undisputed fact with personal opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that you can't interpret an authors work differently then they did, but just know that your interpretation is technically wrong if it isn't what the author says it is.

X happened to Y for Z reason is one thing. On the other hand, take something like The Sword of Truth. Terry Goodkind can call the character Richard Cypher a moral paragon all he likes. The text of the books nonetheless includes him doing things like massacring a bunch of unarmed civilians making a peaceful protest. Terry Goodkind is wrong, and his "moral paragon" argument mostly just serves to make him seem questionable. His intent here is irrelevant.

Starwulf

2014-04-26, 11:26 PM

X happened to Y for Z reason is one thing. On the other hand, take something like The Sword of Truth. Terry Goodkind can call the character Richard Cypher a moral paragon all he likes. The text of the books nonetheless includes him doing things like massacring a bunch of unarmed civilians making a peaceful protest. Terry Goodkind is wrong, and his "moral paragon" argument mostly just serves to make him seem questionable. His intent here is irrelevant.

Meh, I'll just agree to disagree here. If the Author says X is X, I firmly believe who am I to say "No X is actually Z". Doesn't matter if their writing doesn't fully portray things the way they want it to be, the fact of the matter is(to me) that the Author has that character, event, whatever, firmly in mind as X and X it shall remain, and no matter of arguing and pointing out of flaws by other people is going to convince me, or the author, otherwise, for the simple fact that IT'S THE AUTHORS CREATION(sorry for the caps, but I felt that needed to be emphasized). We didn't spend hundreds of hours crafting an entire world with in-depth characters, the author did, so they get to decide what is what, not us. Again, we can believe differently, but as far as I'm concerned, Word of God is the absolute final say, and if you are trying to argue something in an authors universe, if Word of God has spoken, then it's fact, and that's all there is to it.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-26, 11:35 PM

Starwulf

2014-04-26, 11:42 PM

Thankfully, one of the greatest playwright of English language of all time quite disagreed with your position. Otherwise, the only Romeo and Juliet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Romeus_and_Juliet) we would know about (and probably would have long forgotten) would be a morality play about how not obeying your parents will kill you.

Grey Wolf

I've never said people couldn't re-imagine things. And obviously my stance doesn't hold true if you are able to procure the rights to a written work and then retell it yourself. I am merely saying(for example) that if you get into an argument on an internet forum(lol, the irony!) and you are saying "This is how this character really is, this, this, and this event all prove my point", and Word of God says otherwise, and the other side in the argument are arguing on the Authors Side, they are automatically right. Head-canon does NOT trump Word of God.

Now, if you go out and buy said Authors rights to the books, and sit down and re-write the entire thing, good for you! What you are writing, is now correct, FOR YOUR VERSION. Your story still won't trump the previous versions truth, as it is written by a different author. Your story has it's own truth, and when people argue about whether you meant for this character, or that event to mean this or that, your word is law.

warty goblin

2014-04-26, 11:53 PM

Frankly I cannot wrap my head around the obsession with canon in the continuity sense of the term to begin with. I really don't get headcanon or personal canon or whatever we're calling it these days.

The point on which this rests is one I'm having a bit of trouble articulating, but here goes. The story as written (or animated or recorded or whatever) is a thing. It demonstrably exists. The events of the story do not, in the case of fiction, exist. I can look over to my bookshelf and note that it contains the entirety of The Lord of the Rings; ergo the story is a real thing, even if what it depicts is obviously not. Now I am of the mind that it's generally foolish to get upset about things that don't exist for not being other things that don't exist, and poor practice to pretend that a thing is something it's not. So if I dislike or am disappointed by a story, or parts of a story, that's about as far as it goes. I don't like that part. I dislike Season 7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and think it's a crappy end to an otherwise pretty good show; I don't go around denying its existence or substituting my own ending. The show ends how the show ends, pretending otherwise is either a saccharine kind of mental sugarcoating, or else leads down the road of blibbering counterfactuals and backseat authoring I'll leave to those with unimaginably wordy blogs. Personally if I'm going to put that much effort into a story, I'll actually tell a new story I want to tell, not harp on an old one or pastiche it together into a shiny new toy so I don't have to acknowledge something I dislike.

Now in future if I rewatch Buffy, odds are pretty good I call it quits after Season 6. I know Season 7 is disappointing, and there's no point in seeking it out. It exists, I don't like it, and I'll simply avoid it. My life will continue to be really quite content, vile last few episodes or no, and frankly if I had to go around pretending Season 7 of Buffy didn't suck to be content I would think it time to do some serious reevaluation of my priorities.

But then I'm don't identify as a 'fan' of anything. I like stuff, or I dislike it. I may even be ambivalent towards it. I don't hang my sense of being on that. Maybe if I did, I would see things differently.

Or as I put in verse a while back;

The rose in the garden but bloometh a short time,
Yet that is longer than that which in my thought does bloom
Tho' the mind's blossom is ever mine,
It n'er the vine shall brighten, or the air perfume,

But these strange folk make contest on an illusion,
And endless do clash on the shade of the flowery fancy.
Here proclaiming it yellow, there of the deepest crimson.
Forgetting the hue is naught but fantasy.

Such a quarrel can n'er reach a conclusion.
As the fighters fiercely land blows on men of straw.
Proclaiming each strike a lethal resolution,
For a cause honerless as the sooty jackdaw.

But still the rose's illusion does flower,
As cardboard knights tilt at imagined quintain,
Its scent sweetens my mind's bower,
Where I rest, untroubled by their endless refrain

'Nay, this is the number of angels on the head of the pin.'
Easy is it their gnashing and ranting to ignore
Peacefully I sleep through their din.
For truly 'tis only a tremendous bore.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-26, 11:57 PM

So we should accept that Twilight is a beautiful romantic story because it'd hurt Stephanie Meyer's feelings to say otherwise? While it is ludicrous to claim that authorial intent has no meaning, it is equally ludicrous to say that the author's stated intent trumps the content of the story itself. Legato Endless explained the more balanced position that death of the author actually refers to, that you base your statements on textual evidence and that depending on what you're interested in what the author intended may or may not be relevant. All stories have some level of ambiguity and all stories have things that are definitely outside what they might mean, both extremes get very silly very quickly. Also, sometimes the author is wrong about what they produced, most of the canon of hilariously bad movies can serve as examples of that.
.

I said hard work. as in actual effort. to create Twilight, I doubt much effort had to be expended. and therefore less worthy of respect.

a shoddily built kingdom, is worth nothing. they still rule it, but the rule ruins not fit for any rulership at all.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 12:01 AM

I don't go around denying its existence or substituting my own ending. The show ends how the show ends, pretending otherwise is either a saccharine kind of mental sugarcoating, or else leads down the road of blibbering counterfactuals and backseat authoring I'll leave to those with unimaginably wordy blogs. Personally if I'm going to put that much effort into a story, I'll actually tell a new story I want to tell, not harp on an old one or pastiche it together into a shiny new toy so I don't have to acknowledge something I dislike.

Again, I refer you to the above example about Romeo and Juliet. You tell me if the English-speaking world is better off culturally, or not, because a 16th century playwright decided to not tell a new story, but improve the one he had a copy off.

I said hard work. as in actual effort. to create Twilight, I doubt much effort had to be expended. and therefore less worthy of respect.

I'm sorry, but now this is offensive. You do not know how much work Stephen Meyer put into Twilight, and demeaning her effort because the results are poor is far worse than substituting bits of canon you dislike for re-imagined bits you do. The hypocrisy of your words is quite astounding.

GW

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 12:02 AM

I can't imagine how you'd propose to use Thought Police to prevent anyone from having it if you decided that it was some kind of sin.

So one is largely left deciding what venues and contexts it's appropriate to discuss it in, really, unless one's desire is to look unreasonable.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 12:04 AM

I'm sorry, but now this is offensive. You do not know how much work Stephen Meyer put into Twilight, and demeaning her effort because the results are poor is far worse than substituting bits of canon you dislike for re-imagined bits you do. The hypocrisy of your words is quite astounding.

if she did not put in the effort to make it actually good, she didn't put in enough effort. period. it does not matter how much effort you put in if you cannot even get a passing grade, you still fail.

Knaight

2014-04-27, 12:06 AM

I said hard work. as in actual effort. to create Twilight, I doubt much effort had to be expended. and therefore less worthy of respect.

The broader point stands. Should abject crap be treated as if it isn't just because it wasn't intended to be abject crap? This is just dodging the point through a jab at a particular example.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 12:10 AM

if she did not put in the effort to make it actually good, she didn't put in enough effort. period. it does not matter how much effort you put in if you cannot even get a passing grade, you still fail.

This is patently untrue. Effort and results are not directly proportioned, as evidence, for example, by people struggling for years to play the piano while others teach themselves by age 4. Besides, you were calling us disrespectful for daring to contradict the author, and now suddenly it is fine if you dislike the result? Well, then, I shall do as you say and simply decree that any work I dislike is clearly shoddy work that the author did not put in the effort to make it actually good, and proceed to disrespect it at my hearts content.

Or, rather, I will continue to respect other people, while not respecting the "sanctity" of canon, because people are people, and canon is not.

Grey Wolf

Starwulf

2014-04-27, 12:12 AM

if she did not put in the effort to make it actually good, she didn't put in enough effort. period. it does not matter how much effort you put in if you cannot even get a passing grade, you still fail.

And it's YOUR opinion that Twilight is not in fact a good series. I personally love the book series. Honestly, most people that claim that it's crap, are people who have only seen the movies, and quite frankly, the movies are significantly different then the books. My wife loves the series, and I have a several other friends who love the series? Are you now going to say we are stupid for believing it's a good series? Are you going to insinuate that we "Don't have good taste"?

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 12:24 AM

This is patently untrue. Effort and results are not directly proportioned, as evidence, for example, by people struggling for years to play the piano while others teach themselves by age 4. Besides, you were calling us disrespectful for daring to contradict the author, and now suddenly it is fine if you dislike the result? Well, then, I shall do as you say and simply decree that any work I dislike is clearly shoddy work that the author did not put in the effort to make it actually good, and proceed to disrespect it at my hearts content.

Or, rather, I will continue to respect other people, while not respecting the "sanctity" of canon, because people are people, and canon is not.

Grey Wolf

it is exactly why a person who can struggle for years to play a piano while others teach themselves by age 4 that I say the effort does not matter, its the passing grade that matters. while one struggling to and succeeding to hone a skill until they master it through pure hard work is admirable, so is enjoying and perfecting your natural talent. however, one meeting neither qualities is not admirable at all. it is a failing grade.

its called "having standards" I can watch something I hate while still recognizing its quality, and its possible to like something that is low quality. to mistake recognizing a lack of quality for hatred out of personal taste and vice versa is a mark of immaturity and incompetence in ones skills of analyzation and discernment. if one cannot separate the two....well I wouldn't rate them high in such areas. and that is that.

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 12:28 AM

Again, I refer you to the above example about Romeo and Juliet. You tell me if the English-speaking world is better off culturally, or not, because a 16th century playwright decided to not tell a new story, but improve the one he had a copy off.

GW

Cheap, overly pedantic answer: I have no way of knowing. I love me some Romeo and Juliet; I have insufficient data to compare it against a play that does not, in point of fact, exist. Nor do I know enough of Shakespeare's motivations to have any insight as to whether he wrote Romeo and Juliet to fix a bunch of stuff he found irritating about the original, or because he had a profound desire to pay the rent and a need for a quick plot. Perhaps my imagination is overly limited, but I cannot see the value in attempting to build an argument around a hypothetical that cannot ever be evaluated or even reasonably estimated.

Actual response now that I've gotten that out of the system: I rather think that by the time a person rewrites the entire thing, it's a new story in all relevant ways. It might be based on or inspired by another, but I never said there was anything questionable about doing that. I said I disliked the idea of rewriting a story out of a desire to pretend the original did not exist or was something else. Which, given the subject of the thread is maintaining a different mental version of events for a work of fiction, seemed a point in keeping with the topic at hand. If I'd wanted to make a statement about all adaptions ever, I would have neglected the qualifier.

Starwulf

2014-04-27, 12:28 AM

it is exactly why a person who can struggle for years to play a piano while others teach themselves by age 4 that I say the effort does not matter, its the passing grade that matters. while one struggling to and succeeding to hone a skill until they master it through pure hard work is admirable, so is enjoying and perfecting your natural talent. however, one meeting neither qualities is not admirable at all. it is a failing grade.

its called "having standards" I can watch something I hate while still recognizing its quality, and its possible to like something that is low quality. to mistake recognizing a lack of quality for hatred out of personal taste and vice versa is a mark of immaturity and incompetence in ones skills of analyzation and discernment. if one cannot separate the two....well I wouldn't rate them high in such areas. and that is that.

Wonderfully veiled insult there. Sorry, but again, it's your opinion that Twilight is "low quality". I think it's of a "decent" to "good" quality myself, and more then enjoy it as such. Is it(to borrow from Greywolf) "Romeo and Juliet" level of quality? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it's "low" quality either. It's incredibly rude of you to say that someone is "immature" or "incompetent" just because they disagree with your assessment of something.

Honestly, you are coming off the same way food snobs come off. "Oh, the only way any meat should ever be eaten is medium rare, if you eat it well-done, you are nothing more then a savage" or "If you don't like caviar/lobster, you are nothing more then a peasant". I despise people like that. Just because I like my meat well-done, and dislike fish eggs and shellfish, doesn't make me some abnormal freak, or any less then them, it just means I have different tastes, and those tastes should be respected. I don't tell them they are freaks for eating meat that still has blood coming out of it, nope, I just nod my head when they say it's great and move on.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 12:36 AM

Wonderfully veiled insult there. Sorry, but again, it's your opinion that Twilight is "low quality". I think it's of a "decent" to "good" quality myself, and more then enjoy it as such. Is it(to borrow from Greywolf) "Romeo and Juliet" level of quality? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it's "low" quality either.

ah but your still using a scale and acknowledging it as lower quality. you agree with me that is of lower quality and therefore not as worthy as much respect, as opposed to not recognizing any difference at all, which means that you must acknowledge there has to be standards, and that Romeo and Juliet passes standards that Twilight does not. by comparing it to a higher work, you acknowledge that its lower, and therefore one is a high quality and another, a low quality work. and therefore it is my opinion, it is fact that its low quality, as others are using similar standards as I.

Edit: it matters not whether they agree with me, it matters whether they can separate their emotional reaction and personal taste from their objective judgement. which is honestly, kind of the basics of evaluating anything.

Math_Mage

2014-04-27, 12:37 AM

Starwulf

2014-04-27, 12:37 AM

ah but your still using a scale and acknowledging it as lower quality. you agree with me that is of lower quality and therefore not as worthy as much respect, as opposed to not recognizing any difference at all, which means that you must acknowledge there has to be standards, and that Romeo and Juliet passes standards that Twilight does not. by comparing it to a higher work, you acknowledge that its lower, and therefore one is a high quality and another, a low quality work. and therefore it is my opinion, it is fact that its low quality, as others are using similar standards as I.

There is a significant difference between acknowledging that a series of fantasy fiction books are not on the same level as an epic like Odysseus, or Romeo and Juliet, and calling it "low quality". And might I point out that you never said "lower" quality, you said "low" quality, as though it was some absolute piece of trash that isn't fit to wipe yourself with. Saying "lower" on the other hand, would just imply it wasn't up to the standards of truly great works, and I wouldn't have taken such contention with your words.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 12:39 AM

But now you contradict yourself, as your initial justification for respecting the sanctity of authorial intent was:

(emphasis mine)
If, as you say, effort does not matter, your argument falls apart.

I intend to get a passing grade. my argument does not fall apart. if I do not measure up, I don't, but once I do, my works are my kingdom. I am nothing if not consistent in my adherence to proper evaluation, death of the author being the lack of evaluation. to know what work passes and therefore does not need changing, and what work does not pass and therefore does need changing, is the essence of evaluation and standards, to say that its all the same, that one's judgement doesn't matter more than the other, or that one work does not matter more than the other, is the essence of a lack of standards and poor evaluation.

Math_Mage

2014-04-27, 12:58 AM

I intend to get a passing grade. my argument does not fall apart. if I do not measure up, I don't, but once I do, my works are my kingdom.
Your argument fails in the absence of the existence of an objective undeniable grade, such that authors who 'make the grade' are exempt from reinterpretation. Otherwise, there really is nothing stopping Stephanie Meyer from deciding your work sucks just as much as you think her work sucks, hard work be damned. After all, she presumably intended to get a passing grade too (whatever that means). Does such an objective literature grading system exist? And where on this hypothetical objective grading system do we draw the line between reinterpretable works and sacred cows?

Moreover, aren't you being quite hasty in declaring that reinterpretations sully your kingdom? New events may create a new cultural context in which your work is significant for different reasons than you intended in your cultural context. Take, for example, the modern use of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" as a gay pride anthem. Is that an insult to Judy Garland? This is not the only way in which a work may be extended beyond authorial intent, but it does suggest that there is good reason to consider such extensions.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 01:08 AM

Your argument fails in the absence of the existence of an objective undeniable grade, such that authors who 'make the grade' are exempt from reinterpretation. Otherwise, there really is nothing stopping Stephanie Meyer from deciding your work sucks just as much as you think her work sucks. Does such an objective literature grading system exist? And where on this hypothetical objective grading system do we draw the line between reinterpretable works and sacred cows?

Moreover, aren't you being quite hasty in declaring that reinterpretations sully your kingdom? New events may create a new cultural context in which your work is significant for different reasons than you intended in your cultural context. Take, for example, the modern use of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" as a gay pride anthem. Is that an insult to Judy Garland? This is not the only way in which a work may be extended beyond authorial intent, but it does suggest that there is good reason to consider such extensions.

The dunning-krueger effect will always haunt such people I'm afraid. ah, but while a perfect one does not exist, even an imperfect system of evaluation is better than none at all. there is a reason why we have editors and people who look at such works of art before they are published. school grades after all, are not perfect either, but I wouldn't want a school without them.

such people are creating alternate universes in their mind that it is extended. while technically it is true they have done so, they must acknowledge that it came from my source material which cannot actually be changed, and therefore the version they are using is not the same work as mine, but a copy that they have created as a mental construct, using the original as a source, which is still there, inviolate, no matter what they do, where my will still reigns supreme.

Math_Mage

2014-04-27, 01:26 AM

The dunning-krueger effect will always haunt such people I'm afraid. ah, but while a perfect one does not exist, even an imperfect system of evaluation is better than none at all. there is a reason why we have editors and people who look at such works of art before they are published. school grades after all, are not perfect either, but I wouldn't want a school without them.
Leaving aside the very debatable issue of grading in schools, I didn't say anything about a perfect standard, only an objective one. If your standard is subjective, why is it better than someone else's standard that says your work doesn't 'make the grade' and is therefore fair game for reinterpretation?

such people are creating alternate universes in their mind that it is extended. while technically it is true they have done so, they must acknowledge that it came from my source material which cannot actually be changed, and therefore the version they are using is not the same work as mine, but a copy that they have created as a mental construct, using the original as a source, which is still there, inviolate, no matter what they do, where my will still reigns supreme.
Except they haven't changed your source material. What's changed is the culture surrounding your work. And while "Lord Raziere intended to say X with his work" is inviolate in that no one can say you didn't mean what you meant, that doesn't and shouldn't mean X is the only 'real' meaning to be found in the work.

In other words, when it comes to literary interpretation, even your mental construct of your text is just that--a mental construct--albeit a very thorough and detailed one, since you are the author.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 01:37 AM

Leaving aside the very debatable issue of grading in schools, I didn't say anything about a perfect standard, only an objective one. If your standard is subjective, why is it better than someone else's standard that says your work doesn't 'make the grade' and is therefore fair game for reinterpretation?

Except they haven't changed your source material. What's changed is the culture surrounding your work. And while "Lord Raziere intended to say X with his work" is inviolate in that no one can say you didn't mean what you meant, that doesn't and shouldn't mean X is the only 'real' meaning to be found in the work.

In other words, even your mental construct of your text is just that--a mental construct--albeit a very thorough and detailed one, since you are the author.

1. everyone has different standards that set themselves higher than others. to meet ones standards might not require much work, but another requires a lot more. shoot for the ones with high standards and you will improve far more than someone with low standards.

2. yes, the culture has changed. so what? I do not see the point in say, trying to find meaning in anything like Gilgamesh or the Odyssey for example, as they are too far in the past and I can't see the message the author intended to communicate, which is what I primarily consume media for: not for my own interpretation, but to find what is trying to be communicated to me. my own interpretation of another's work is what I always hear, what I want is to find what is being communicated to me, so that I may someday communicate something to others in return. if people do not get what I'm trying to communicate, I have not communicated well enough for them to get it and therefore would be a failure upon my part.

Anteros

2014-04-27, 01:55 AM

And it's YOUR opinion that Twilight is not in fact a good series. I personally love the book series. Honestly, most people that claim that it's crap, are people who have only seen the movies, and quite frankly, the movies are significantly different then the books. My wife loves the series, and I have a several other friends who love the series? Are you now going to say we are stupid for believing it's a good series? Are you going to insinuate that we "Don't have good taste"?

I haven't seen the movies, but as someone who read the books...they're pretty crap in my opinion. They're perfectly entertaining but Edward is a creepy stalker, and he has an abusive relationship towards Bella. "I can barely stop myself from murdering you at any given time...oh and by the way I've been watching you sleep" is not a solid basis for a romance. The writing itself is no worse than any other pulpy fiction such as Salvatore's though...although I consider those works to be bad as well. It's a style that's marketed towards an extremely immature, angsty teen audience, and it shows in the product.

I also agree with those stating that the author's intent is no more valid than a reader's. If the author wants something to exist in their universe, then they need to include it in the actual work. These are fictional characters, not real people, and as such don't actually exist outside of what's written on the page. A famous example is Dumbledore being gay. He's not gay because he isn't real, and you didn't make him gay in the book. If Rowling wants to write an 8th book, and have Dumbledore be gay in it, then she is within her rights to do so...but until that time he has no established sexuality whatsoever.

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 02:10 AM

I do not see the point in say, trying to find meaning in anything like Gilgamesh or the Odyssey for example, as they are too far in the past and I can't see the message the author intended to communicate, which is what I primarily consume media for: not for my own interpretation, but to find what is trying to be communicated to me. my own interpretation of another's work is what I always hear, what I want is to find what is being communicated to me, so that I may someday communicate something to others in return. if people do not get what I'm trying to communicate, I have not communicated well enough for them to get it and therefore would be a failure upon my part.

Indeed, it's shocking that a lone person could fail to see the point in an exercise. Or that people are not all identical to Lord Raziere.

Legato Endless

2014-04-27, 02:16 AM

The healthiest viewpoint on canon I have every heard, and one that I now embrace whole-heartedly, is Moffat & Gatiss approach to Sherlock Holmes canon: everything is canon. Even the parts Conan Dolye didn't like. Even the films. Even the bad films. All of it.Grey Wolf

You're confusing artistic creation with continuity. Many a work is generally assumed to have a kind of consistency. It becomes rather convenient when discussing sufficiently dense material. Continuity can certainly be a mixed bag, it has it's advantages and disadvantages, but that's a different topic entirely. Moffat and Gatiss' approach to Holmes works fine for their work. I'm dubious how it works writ large. Something being inspired by something else is not usually taken as grounds that they inhabit the same timeline.

Thankfully, one of the greatest playwright of English language of all time quite disagreed with your position. Otherwise, the only Romeo and Juliet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Romeus_and_Juliet) we would know about (and probably would have long forgotten) would be a morality play about how not obeying your parents will kill you.

Grey Wolf

So how does that even work Grey Wolf? Was the nurse banished or not? Is there some sort of dimensional flux involved? How do you make any sense of a person's life when nothing fits together thanks to countervailing events? That seems bizarrely complicated. It also rather seems to kill consistency and believability in a grounded work if we assume things did and yet did not happen…somehow.

Or as I put in verse a while back;

The rose in the garden but bloometh a short time,
Yet that is longer than that which in my thought does bloom
Tho' the mind's blossom is ever mine,
It n'er the vine shall brighten, or the air perfume,

But these strange folk make contest on an illusion,
And endless do clash on the shade of the flowery fancy.
Here proclaiming it yellow, there of the deepest crimson.
Forgetting the hue is naught but fantasy.

Such a quarrel can n'er reach a conclusion.
As the fighters fiercely land blows on men of straw.
Proclaiming each strike a lethal resolution,
For a cause honerless as the sooty jackdaw.

But still the rose's illusion does flower,
As cardboard knights tilt at imagined quintain,
Its scent sweetens my mind's bower,
Where I rest, untroubled by their endless refrain

'Nay, this is the number of angels on the head of the pin.'
Easy is it their gnashing and ranting to ignore
Peacefully I sleep through their din.
For truly 'tis only a tremendous bore.

Heh, that's charming Warty.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 02:29 AM

Indeed, it's shocking that a lone person could fail to see the point in an exercise. Or that people are not all identical to Lord Raziere.

so....your saying that I'm failing to see the point to all this, and that I'm erroneously assuming that everyone thinks like me?

Math_Mage

2014-04-27, 02:47 AM

1. everyone has different standards that set themselves higher than others. to meet ones standards might not require much work, but another requires a lot more. shoot for the ones with high standards and you will improve far more than someone with low standards.
Which choice of standards leads to improvement has no bearing on the discussion.

2. yes, the culture has changed. so what? I do not see the point in say, trying to find meaning in anything like Gilgamesh or the Odyssey for example, as they are too far in the past and I can't see the message the author intended to communicate, which is what I primarily consume media for: not for my own interpretation, but to find what is trying to be communicated to me. my own interpretation of another's work is what I always hear, what I want is to find what is being communicated to me, so that I may someday communicate something to others in return. if people do not get what I'm trying to communicate, I have not communicated well enough for them to get it and therefore would be a failure upon my part.
The way you consume media does not dictate the way everyone should consume media.

(Similarly, the way you write a story does not dictate the way everyone should read it.)

Pronounceable

2014-04-27, 02:53 AM

So I was wondering then what the general consensus of it is, and what other people's own head-canon beliefs are, like how I've decided that s5 of Chuck does not exist to me.
The "headcanon" is not just appropriate, it's the only thing that matters. You know better than anyone else, what do those shmucks know? Does someone else have to dictate how you should be doing all the things you're doing in your life? Interpreting art is no different. Whether it's the author, professional "critics" or a fellow reader/watcher, you mustn't let others' opinions come before yours. And if your opinion contains adding/removing/swapping bits to a thing, then bits are added/removed/swapped.

The ultimate example that always comes up in this sort of talk: There are 3 Star Wars movies. It's true. Because I've decided those later movies were a pile of crap made by some loser and they don't count. If I had decided there were 6 equally good movies, then I'd be right as well. But I didn't decide on that, so that opinion is wrong. Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise has as much weight as someone who'd be telling me I should like Elvis better than Beatles.
...
On the other hand, getting hung up on "canon" is a stupid thing too. What exactly is the canon for, let's say, Hamlet? Solely the original ye olde English text of the play? The modern translation by X person/group? One particular version staged in year Y at place Z? This funky reinterpretation IN SPACE! that nobody but you ever heard of? That weird ass fanfic which crossovers with Sailor Moon? There's like a jillion other versions, adaptations, retellings, readaptations, interpretations, reinterpretations, etc but they don't count because they're not "canon"? It's silly. The more well known a piece of art becomes, the dumber it is to try canonizing it. They're all "canon". It's just that your canon is better than all the others (because it is yours).

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 02:54 AM

The way you consume media does not dictate the way everyone should consume media.

(Similarly, the way you write a story does not dictate the way everyone should read it.)

True.

But no matter how true it is, it still does not solve the problem that people will come up with interpretations that I won't like and therefore wish that they did not exist.

Edit: also my interpretation of a work matters as much a grain of sand matters to a boulder. its the boulder that matters, what is trying to be communicated that is important, not what I think of it, because what I think of it is inaccurate and probably unintended.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-27, 03:13 AM

Alright on Headcanon? Yeah I use it all the time and I think it's very appropriate. Generally I use it to 'fix' things that'd I'd otherwise fine detestable in the story.

However very rarely does my headcanon ever directly contradict the story itself. It's more or less an interpretation. Sometime it does, but those cases are exceptional.

On Word of God (IE the author declaring a fact or the point of their story) well I don't give their opinion much merit. Sometimes I do but here's I go

1. On works with multiple creators: it gets zero credit. Each creator likely has their own view and just because one of them is 'loud' enough to express their opinion doesn't mean I'm going to bother with it when there are likely multiple 'valid' author opinions.

2. Creations as part of an incomplete series: pretty much zero credit. Because the author very well might change their mind later. I've seen this before.

3. Works that are complete, comment is clarifying a vague fact: I'll give it credit then. Particularly if the vague fact is really vague (like Dumbledore's sexuality).

4. Comment directly contradicts facts in the work: Zero credit. I don't care if Zombie Tolkien says that it was Sam who actually threw the Ring in the fire, that's not what his story says.

5. Comment is just silly: I'll treat it with all the respect a joke deserves.

6. Comment partially contradicts strong interpretations of the work: Partial credit. Basically the author has to convince me. In other words his interpretation still has to fit, as well as the other interpretations, or at least well enough.

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 07:45 AM

I disagree. the author's work is the author's kingdom. he defines and rules it. death of the author theory is disrespectful to the person who wrote it and all that the intended to communicate by writing it. I would not dream of actually replacing canon with my own, I can acknowledge that the canon is what really happened, then make an alternate universe where something else happened instead, but I cannot deny that what the author wrote is what happened, and what they intended for the work is what reigns supreme, to do anything else would be devalue all the work they have put into it and make light of what they have achieved, of the artistic creation they have made.

I could not possibly disagree more with post.

By which I mean, I agree with it completely.

EDIT: I put a lot of work (~a minute) into writing this post and it's my kingdom. I am the author and this post is right. If you disagree then you're wrong because I say my work is right.

-What is the author's opinion? What if the author declines to give an opinion? Does that mean you can't have an opinion?
-The author can't point out things about every single part of his work unless it's too simplistic to bother with
-Art is complex. People have different opinions about things. If you want your work to resemble reality then it must be ambiguous on some level. Even if you want to write a book about how conspiracy theorists are stupid, you might accidentally write something that suggests the opposite. If you don't want to do this then you can write an unreadable, one-sided text about something sucks but even then it might be seen as so heavy-handed that it's actually satire.
-Great art is usually about ambiguities and survive because the reader can overlay his own opinions and interpretations into the text. Henry V is both jingoistic war play and a savage critique on the point of war depending on who is reading it. Othello is easy to describe as a play about racism instead of a racist play. Even Harold Bloom thinks The Taming of the Shrew is sexist. Aesthetics aside, which play is more respected?
-The author could be lying or simply incorrect
-The author could be misremembering. Stephen King can't even remember writing The Shining because he was off his head on drugs. A common criticism is that many people misinterpret Fahrenheit 451 to be about censorship even though Bradbury said that it was about how much he hates TV. Although years earlier Bradbury did say it was about censorship as well. Who's right? The younger Bradbury who's closer to the Bradbury who wrote it or the older Bradbury?
-Self-knowledge is an unattainale idea and we can do or mean things without meaning to

This argument only seems to apply to books, songs, plays etc. If a carpenter tries to make a chair and ends up with a table, you don't call it a chair. If a chef puts a turd on your plate and tells you it's a chocolate cake, you don't grin and eat it.

Once again, this post is correct so if you disagree with it then you're wrong.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 08:44 AM

You're confusing artistic creation with continuity.

No, I am not. I am discussing headcanon, i.e. the personal opinion of a consumer of culture regarding the content of said culture, particularly when said content differs from the original. Continuity refers to the internal consistency of a creation, and it has been given way more importance than it should have, particularly when people try to apply it to, heh, headcanon, by trying to have continuity between versions. In Matiss' case, it can be given with one example: does Sherlock Holmes wear a deer stalking hat?

According to "headcanon is disrespectful" Lord Raziere and warty goblin, the answer must forever be No. If they don't see a problem with this, I am out of ideas to show them that their position is not just objectively wrong, but worse, misguided.

So how does that even work Grey Wolf? Was the nurse banished or not? Is there some sort of dimensional flux involved? How do you make any sense of a person's life when nothing fits together thanks to countervailing events? That seems bizarrely complicated. It also rather seems to kill consistency and believability in a grounded work if we assume things did and yet did not happen…somehow.

See, I believe you are the one that confuses headcanon with continuity, by trying to drag continuity outside its area of influence. The answer is: which one do you want it to be? Do you prefer the motivations of Shakespeare but the results of Matteo Bandello? Good for you! Do you only like the Shakespeare headcanon? Good for you! Do you mix and match beyond a simple example? Good for you!

That is the only sane approach to this. I have never read anything written by Raziere or warty goblin, and I sincerely doubt I ever will, but chances are that whatever they have done will be derivative, no matter how much effort they have put in, and thus their claims of the sacrosant nature of original canon come through as myopic. Newsflash: you can't stop me from rewriting your work in my head, and you can't stop someone that is much better writer [to be clear: not talking about me] than you are from improving on it. And it will still be the same canon, no matter what warty says: the LotR films are as much LotR canon as the books - yes, the books is "the original canon" and the films are "the film of the book canon" and the animated film "the animated film canon" but they are all canon - getting all high and mighty about how only the original counts is like trying to draw the line of low tide in the beach, and then expecting the sea to respect it.

Edit: another example. In my headcanon, Gimli did lead a group of survivors through the caves to regroup with the rest of the Helm's army, and in doing so won the competition with Legolas, who by that point didn't care, because he got his friend back. But then, later, in the battle for Minas Tirith, Legolas did bring down a Mumakil single-handed, and that made the count a little harder, although Gimli still ended ahead.

Now, tell me: who exactly am I disrespecting here?

Edit: T-O-E, that is wonderful. I love your Catch-22.

Grey Wolf

SuperPanda

2014-04-27, 08:49 AM

so....your saying that I'm failing to see the point to all this, and that I'm erroneously assuming that everyone thinks like me?

Well I don't know about "all this" but when it comes to reading those ancient texts you mentioned (like the Illiad and the Epic of Gilgamesh) I would argue you would be missing the point if, as you wrote, you honestly don't believe any part of the author's message is relevant to you. When talking about really old literature, the things that survive and are still valued have had to speak to part of the human animal that changes very slowly. The quest for home, longing to see loved ones again after a long war, and the willingness to keep struggling towards that goal even when facing impossible odds is not alien to the modern world. At the risk of brushing into real world politics, my great uncle served in the second world war where he was taken prisoner, and when I listen to him talk about his experiences I hear the same emotions bleeding through the narrative. Humans haven't changed very much since Gilgamesh was first put into verse. It stands to reason that parts of those stories would still resonate with the quintessential human in you.

Our forum's resident Lich might disagree, but the rest of us still have all those odd emotion things. (Something to do with glands or what not :smallwink:).

I'm frequently appalled at how "the internet" in general uses the term "The Death of the Author." This particular example (despite a few rather intelligent responses) have been a fascinating train-wreck of usages of it. Lord Raziere, your very arguments about how an author's works should be treated are the foundation of what "Death of the Author" is actually about. What is means is that It doesn't matter if the author tried to 'get a passing grade' only whether or not they did.

Take The Hunger Games. The Author has openly stated that the book's intention was to make people disturbed and unhappy with violence in television and film. The book has instead succeeded in making a popular film franchise through further glorifying violence in film. If we are constrained to discussing the book within the frame of the author's intentions it must be noted that the books objectively failed at their stated purpose. If we are not required to do that, we note that the books have been a financial and popular success and are free to investigate why this is without needing to consider whether or not the Author intended this.

Since Twilight has been brought up... The books and films are successful ergo something the author did "got a passing grade." The author has stated that they intended the books to be a sweet and romantic story. Many readers disagree with that (sometimes quite angrily) and are more than able to use evidence from the books to show why they disagree with that. Objectively, using the popularity and name recognition of the books, Twlight is successful and therefore it did something right. I would be hard pressed if not unable to defend a position that it was the things which the author intended to do right. In rejecting "Death of the author" I must consdier that the author of both texts failed to convey their intended message and therefore both texts are failures despite overwhelming evidence that they are, in fact, highly successful.

So as not to harp on the same authors over and over again... I have never seen a class read Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' without having a good portion of people miss the joke and think he really wanted the British to eat babies Given that there is historical evidence that this was true in Swift's day too does this mean that the text should be considered a failure? It was very successful in angering the parties it intended to shame but of itself brought none of the positive changes it was intended to? The essay is generally considered to have been masterfully crafted, but without subscribing to "Death of the Author" it too must ultimately be considered a failure.

TLDR: Because that is what 'Death of the Author' really means. It means you are not confined or constrained by evaluating a work based on what the Author wanted (by the grade the author was trying to get) but by any Sane, Well Define, and Competently Demonstrated set of criteria you can support using the author's work.

If The Hunger Games fails spectacularly to be a wake-up call to the break and circuses mentality of the country (something the books clearly are trying to be) but succeeds instead at capturing a shard of this era's Zeitgeist it can be celebrated for what it succeeded in doing.
If Twlight successfully captures and embodies a level of cognitive dissonance which has long been part of our romantic subculture, but drags it into the light where it can be criticized, then it should be celebrated for that... even if it is entirely accidental.

Still TLDR?
1. You are wrong about what 'Death of the Author' means (and so are many other people).
2. Yes I'm fully aware how ironic that is if you didn't read the post above it.
3. 'Death of the Author' is about more fully celebrating the hard work of an author and accepting that accidental genius is still genius.
4. Arguments about the "quality of the work" spring from (not against) 'The Death of the Author.'
5. Going against 'The Death of the Author' means: If the author says the text means A and I thought B when I read it, the text failed.
6. If student Y thought the text meant C, student Y failed to read the text properly because the author said the text means A and a student who reads the text should always and only ever see A regardless of the student's personal context.

dps

2014-04-27, 09:40 AM

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 10:10 AM

I think everybody is entitled to their own interpretation of a work of fiction, including including ignoring parts of it they don't like, but I really wish people wouldn't use "canon" or "head canon" in this context. First and foremost because using the term "canon" in this way highly suggests that you don't really know what the term means.

And homosexual people should not call themselves gay, because using the term "gay" in this way highly suggests that you don't really know what the term means? Sorry, but that's not how language works. Headcanon is a perfectly valid word to describe the process of modifying original canon.

The discussion then is only down to what "canon" should be. You have extreme exclusivists (only the original is allowed to be canon! And the nurse is banished and the apothecary is hanged!) and the extreme inclusivists (everything is canon! Even the bits that make no sense!), and most people fall somewhere in between.

Grey Wolf

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 10:10 AM

According to "headcanon is disrespectful" Lord Raziere and warty goblin, the answer must forever be No. If they don't see a problem with this, I am out of ideas to show them that their position is not just objectively wrong, but worse, misguided.

I never said it was disrespectful. Frankly when it comes to pieces of fiction I have trouble imagining what disrespectful even means. I said it was pretending something is something it is not, which is something I generally consider to be poor mental practice. This strikes me as an entirely obvious point; I am wearing a black sweatshirt. I can imagine it is purple, but the shirt remains black. I can imagine Lord of the Rings containing the word 'wazzup?' but this does not make that a true statement about Lord of the Rings as it actually exists. I can imagine Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a good seventh season, or no seventh season at all, which does nothing to change the fact that I consider the actual seventh season that verifiably exists to be terrible.

So what exactly about looking at what actually exists and being honest about that is objectively wrong and misguided? Objectively is a fairly strong word; it requires some form of reasonably strong proof, usually based in empirical observation. Which, funnily enough, is what I'm actually advocating for; observing what actually exists not what I wish existed. Misguided suggests I have strayed from the path of truth, probably to my own or others' detriment. Again, how is looking at what demonstrably exists as it demonstrably exists anything but the path of truth, and who exactly am I harming?

I'm not arguing for whatever Lord Raziere is arguing for; frankly I find that, so far as I've been able to follow it, pretty terrible. Our positions look nothing alike, so kindly stop lumping me in with hers simply because we both disagree with you.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 10:17 AM

So what exactly about looking at what actually exists and being honest about that is objectively wrong and misguided? Objectively is a fairly strong word; it requires some form of reasonably strong proof, usually based in empirical observation. Which, funnily enough, is what I'm actually advocating for; observing what actually exists not what I wish existed. Misguided suggests I have strayed from the path of truth, probably to my own or others' detriment. Again, how is looking at what demonstrably exists as it demonstrably exists anything but the path of truth, and who exactly am I harming?

My problem with your position is that, to you, Romeo and Juliet should not have been written, and that the canon for Romeo and Juliet is whatever the original is, and everything else is not canon. This is orthogonal to reality. Objectively, Sherlock Holmes wears a deer stalking hat. And I do mean objectively because canon does not belong to the author, or to you, or to anyone. It belongs to everyone, a shared dream of what actually happened. So many people believe that Sherlock Holmes wears a deer stalking hat that the hat type is now known as a Sherlock Holmes hat - an objective change. If enough people agreed with you that the 7th season of Buffy didn't exist, it would stop existing in canon, because culture is shared, and agreed upon. And if 30 years from now someone reboots Buffy and they fix the seventh season and make a better one, then it will become canon. Your idea that canon is untouchable is simply untrue, as should be obvious from the fact that canon has changed.

Edit: let me remind you of your claim:

The show ends how the show ends, pretending otherwise is either a saccharine kind of mental sugarcoating, or else leads down the road of blibbering counterfactuals and backseat authoring I'll leave to those with unimaginably wordy blogs.

Objectively wrong: that famously neither a blibbering counterfactuals nor a backseat author Shakespeare changed how the show ended, and in doing so improved it, and changed the canon, so that his version, rather than the original, is now "canon".

Personally if I'm going to put that much effort into a story, I'll actually tell a new story I want to tell, not harp on an old one or pastiche it together into a shiny new toy so I don't have to acknowledge something I dislike.

You objectively can't tell a new story. Everything is derivative, to some degree or another.

Grey Wolf

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 11:36 AM

My problem with your position is that, to you, Romeo and Juliet should not have been written, and that the canon for Romeo and Juliet is whatever the original is, and everything else is not canon. This is orthogonal to reality. Objectively, Sherlock Holmes wears a deer stalking hat. And I do mean objectively because canon does not belong to the author, or to you, or to anyone. It belongs to everyone, a shared dream of what actually happened. So many people believe that Sherlock Holmes wears a deer stalking hat that the hat type is now known as a Sherlock Holmes hat - an objective change. If enough people agreed with you that the 7th season of Buffy didn't exist, it would stop existing in canon, because culture is shared, and agreed upon. And if 30 years from now someone reboots Buffy and they fix the seventh season and make a better one, then it will become canon. Your idea that canon is untouchable is simply untrue, as should be obvious from the fact that canon has changed.

I never said that. I maintain that what exists should be examined as it actually exists. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet exists, I have no problem with its existence. I believe I specifically said I don't have a problem with adaptations in general. The previous morality play version also exists, a fact with which I also have no problem. The two are not the same. I have no objection or problem or complaint with that. They are different things. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet does not undo the previous versions, any more than the copy of the movie Troy on my bookshelf somehow deletes my Homer two shelves up, or the Fagles translation thereof suddenly caused Lattimore's to cease existing. All three of them are separate, and demonstrably distinct, things, despite being versions of the same story about a war for a city in Asia Minor three thousand years ago. Each can be examined on its own, or referenced against each other, but none of them negates any of the others.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I have some version of 'what really happened,' and a need to share it with others. Neither is true. I read or watch stories; they have events. Those are the fictitious events of that story, the things the author(s) used to create something that's hopefully entertaining and moving, but there's no 'really' or 'happened' for me. As such, I don't really care if Bob down the street chooses to think that something else happened; nothing happened in the first place. I have the story in front of me, and whatever reactions and emotions it caused, none of which depend in the slightest on Bob down the street. If Bob down the street and I get on well, we may choose to read a book together and share our reactions to that for mutual pleasure and good conversation, but I wouldn't feel a need to sit down and hammer out a Bob and I account of the 'true' story. If there's another version of that same story, it can give a different take on those fictitious events, and that's fine too. I feel no need to reconcile the two into one personal 'what really happened: ME edition.' If they remake Buffy and it has a better Season 7, that's great, but it does not alter the verifiable existence of the Season 7 that came out in 2003, or the fact that I hated that season. If it makes somebody feel better somehow to pretend Season 7 never happened, hey, fine, knock yourself out. It makes no difference to me. Personally I don't understand the point since Season 7 continues its stubborn existence regardless of how anybody feels about that, but others may see things differently, and choose accordingly. I'm not going to pretend right along with them, but they're welcome to do whatever the hell they want.

About the closest I came to what you seem to think I said, is saying I would not choose to write a story simply as an effort to 'fix' another. This was a personal statement, as indicated by the use of the personal pronoun 'I'. Had I wished to make a statement about what everybody everywhere should do, I would have qualified my statement appropriately. I'm a mathematician by training, I pay attention to my qualifiers. Nothing in that statement is a universal condemnation of adapted works, derivative works or anything. I would happily write a story based on another if I had the time. I would not, however, rewrite the Iliad so Hektor lives just because I got the sads when he died.

Objectively wrong: that famously neither a blibbering counterfactuals nor a backseat author Shakespeare changed how the show ended, and in doing so improved it, and changed the canon, so that his version, rather than the original, is now "canon".
As written, your sentence makes no sense at all. Assuming you meant to say that by writing a different ending for Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare changed the canon of that story, I continue to disagree. The original Shakespeare based his story on is a thing that exists. Shakespeare's version is different, so in that sense he changed the story. He did not however alter the original as it exists.

You objectively can't tell a new story. Everything is derivative, to some degree or another.

Grey Wolf
I meant 'new' in the sense of 'not this story with the serial numbers filed off.' A point I thought should have been abundantly clear from context.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 02:09 PM

No, I am not. I am discussing headcanon, i.e. the personal opinion of a consumer of culture regarding the content of said culture, particularly when said content differs from the original. Continuity refers to the internal consistency of a creation, and it has been given way more importance than it should have, particularly when people try to apply it to, heh, headcanon, by trying to have continuity between versions. In Matiss' case, it can be given with one example: does Sherlock Holmes wear a deer stalking hat?

According to "headcanon is disrespectful" Lord Raziere and warty goblin, the answer must forever be No. If they don't see a problem with this, I am out of ideas to show them that their position is not just objectively wrong, but worse, misguided.

I don't see how this question is important? Sherlock Holmes is Sherlock Holmes no matter what hat he is wearing, or not wearing. Saying that Sherlock Holmes doesn't wear a deer stalking hat is simply a statement of fact. To say that others have mistakenly made versions of Sherlock Holmes where he does, but is clearly not the original Sherlock Holmes, is also a statement of fact. I do not see anything wrong or misguided in this, merely accurate.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 02:42 PM

Saying that Sherlock Holmes doesn't wear a deer stalking hat is simply a statement of fact. To say that others have mistakenly made versions of Sherlock Holmes where he does, but is clearly not the original Sherlock Holmes, is also a statement of fact. I do not see anything wrong or misguided in this, merely accurate.

No, it is not accurate. Sherlock Holmes does not belong to Conan Doyle, and thus it is not up to him - or you - to tell the rest of the world what he does or does not wear. He belongs to the world cultural heritage, and as such Sherlock Holmes (http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/pr/silhouette-large.GIF) now does wear a Sherlock Holmes hat, formerly known as deer stalking hat, because the popular conscience believes he does. The fact that he does does not disrespect Conan Doyle, no matter what you say. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

Grey Wolf

Legato Endless

2014-04-27, 03:04 PM

No, I am not. I am discussing headcanon, i.e. the personal opinion of a consumer of culture regarding the content of said culture, particularly when said content differs from the original.

Okay. I may have interpolated a different meaning than what you described. When you said canon, I assumed you meant the word in it's usage in literature, not head canon, which is related but distinct. I thought your argument was, everything is canonical (literature). Therefor everything happens in a singular context despite coming from distinct bodies. If so, this is bizarre. If you simply meant, you have your opinion, you have an idea of the story and will not cede it to Raz, then we're arguing differing things. As the thread essentially immediately segued into subjective-objective discussion and canonicity itself fairly immediately, it was somewhat ambiguous to me.

Continuity refers to the internal consistency of a creation, and it has been given way more importance than it should have, particularly when people try to apply it to, heh, headcanon, by trying to have continuity between versions.

I was not referring to differing versions.

In Matiss' case, it can be given with one example: does Sherlock Holmes wear a deer stalking hat?

The original character did not. Doyle did not intend his Detective to hold an incredibly bizarre notion of fashion. That's a fact. Now, if you want to say that popular opinion now associates the outfit with him, you would be correct. If you wish to write a version of the character which does so, you are again free to do so. But the original did not. The character was written by a person. He may be adapted later, but that does not change the original.

I have no grounds for some sort of hypothetical construction which reconciles a character who has been remade into several dozen versions with differing writers. But this also has nothing to do with canon.

See, I believe you are the one that confuses headcanon with continuity, by trying to drag continuity outside its area of influence. The answer is: which one do you want it to be? Do you prefer the motivations of Shakespeare but the results of Matteo Bandello? Good for you! Do you only like the Shakespeare headcanon? Good for you! Do you mix and match beyond a simple example? Good for you!f

Canon is continuity that counts. That's what it is in literature. If you refer to canon, you refer to continuity in an agreed form. There is no dragging. Headcanon implicitly ignores what happened. This is probably rooted in the initial disagreement, when I assumed you referring to canon versus personal construction.

Now, tell me: who exactly am I disrespecting here?

I'm not Raziere. I never agreed to her position.

You objectively can't tell a new story. Everything is derivative, to some degree or another.

Literature evolves. It has changed considerably in the last few millennia. Various literary references, devices, ect. did not exist at one point. At some point, a person incorporated them into a work. New Genres have emerged, new ideas, new considered subject matter. We aren't really all saying entirely the same thing now that we were 5,000 years ago. Inspiration does not obviate originality.

And homosexual people should not call themselves gay, because using the term "gay" in this way highly suggests that you don't really know what the term means? Sorry, but that's not how language works. Headcanon is a perfectly valid word to describe the process of modifying original canon.

This argument is misleading. Quibbling about whether one is using term correctly is very different from the struggle and ability for a group of people to self identify.

The discussion then is only down to what "canon" should be. You have extreme exclusivists (only the original is allowed to be canon! And the nurse is banished and the apothecary is hanged!) and the extreme inclusivists (everything is canon! Even the bits that make no sense!), and most people fall somewhere in between.

I have no place on that scale. Neither does Warty, if I'm interpreting his posts correctly. I agree with his post #57. Your argument is alien to me. Works are allowed to be there own thing. However, the Sherlock Homles stories have an original canon. This is what Doyle work. Other people have written new variants, but they are not part of the same canon. The Sherlock television show has an established continuity and view of the character. Moffet would agree. He held that this creation resembled the original more than any preceding show. Obviously, that means differing versions exist independently.

I'm frequently appalled at how "the internet" in general uses the term "The Death of the Author." This particular example (despite a few rather intelligent responses) have been a fascinating train-wreck of usages of it.

I would like to voice a polite contention against this statement. This thread has been passionately heated, but remained essentially civil. "Rather intelligent" seems, well, pretty condescending.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 03:19 PM

Okay. I may have interpolated a different meaning than what you described. When you said canon, I assumed you meant the word in it's usage in literature, not head canon, which is related but distinct. I thought your argument was, everything is canonical (literature). Therefor everything happens in a singular context despite coming from distinct bodies. If so, this is bizarre. If you simply meant, you have your opinion, you have an idea of the story and will not cede it to Raz, then we're arguing differing things. As the thread essentially immediately segued into subjective-objective discussion and canonicity itself fairly immediately, it was somewhat ambiguous to me.

Sorry, that is probably my fault. The thread is about headcanon and how appropriate is to have some. What Matiss calls "canon" is actually their headcanon, and since I as quoting them, I wanted to quote them precisely. But yes, I believe that, otherwise, we agree. Canon is what happened in one individual story. If I dislike it, I am arguing that there is nothing wrong with substituting it for a new version - indeed, Shakespeare's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet would get him sued for copyright violation in this day and age, and yet no-one can argue that the English language and culture is better off because he did not, like Raz, believe he was disrespecting the original author or like warty, believe that he must not modify the original and instead create his own "new" creation. Admittedly, Shakespeare never intended for his works to survive him, so maybe by the very fact that they did not get entombed with him, we too are disrespecting him. In which case, screw him. the works he penned stopped belonging to him the moment he stopped being able to own anything.

The original character did not. Doyle did not intend his Detective to hold an incredibly bizarre notion of fashion. That's a fact. Now, if you want to say that popular opinion now associates the outfit with him, you would be correct. If you wish to write a version of the character which does so, you are again free to do so. But the original did not. The character was written by a person. He may be adapted later, but that does not change the original.

But that is my point- there is no such thing as "the original Sherlock Holmes" because Sherlock Holmes, like Robin Hood, or Mickey Mouse, now exists outside the original works that created them. With the horrible exception of the latter, those characters now belong to all of us, and "canon" -or rather, if you follow what I mean, "global headcanon" - has changed the originals, and now are different.

But before we embark in another grand misunderstanding, let me restate my answer to the original thread question: Is "head-canon" appropriate?

Yes, it is. In fact, it is a wonderful creative force that should be encouraged, not stopped or argued against. Every great piece of storytelling ever told started out as headcanon of something else, and to pretend otherwise is contrary to reality.

Edit: Let me put it a different way. Before Disney broke copyright (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4), an author only retained control of their work for a limited period. Lets say 20 years. After that, his works, all of them, became public property. At that point, Raz's and warty's position simply disappeared. The author, I hope they will agree, is allowed to change his stories. When authorship moves to the general public, everyone is allowed to do the same. So at best, "headcanon" can only be "wrong" as long as the original author retains control. In which case, in the grand scheme of things, it is effectively equivalent to never being wrong.

Grey Wolf

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 04:05 PM

so....your saying that I'm failing to see the point to all this, and that I'm erroneously assuming that everyone thinks like me?

That is precisely what you've been communicating. And if not failing to realize that others are not like you, believing that they should be forced to conform to you as the model sophont.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 04:10 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 04:17 PM

well pardon me if I do not see any point in reading and gaining something, then creating something that is essentially a less accurate version of it that is therefore less valuable, a watered-down version of the first. To say, make a Romeo and Juliet where they don't die and go off and live happily ever after is to make a mockery of what Shakespeare was trying to say with it, as would be altering Sherlock Holmes to be a complete idiot and so and so forth. there is a spirit of things that must be kept in mind, and your philosophy on this would eventually have the spirit of all fiction ever twisted, distorted and forgotten.

And yet that is precisely what Shakespeare did do. And between him and you, I trust his authorial vision more than I trust yours.

sure I could possibly make a Sherlock Holmes- but I would never dream of it. that is another person's character, and for me to take them and use them without understanding them, without being true to that character, would be to make a mockery of that character. remember Masonicon? how he just took a bunch of characters and mashed them all together in some fan-fic mess that was horrible to read, everyone was out of character and so on and so forth? Yeah, that is what can- and will- happen. in fact, it is happening, its called horrible fan fiction, which is a vast a majority of fan fiction.

Where you go wrong is in assuming that "original works" are not as terrible as fanfics. Sturgeon's Law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw) applies to everything, not just fanfic. Sure, if you aren't a good enough content creator to improve on something else, by all means do not inflict your lack of quality on the rest of the world - I certainly won't attempt to. But there is a big distance between "you (or I) can't do it" and "no-one can do it".

sure there is a public domain version of Sherlock Holmes, but thats the theme park version. thats the watered-down generic image of the super-detective. when the real Sherlock Holmes was like, y'know, had a bunch of flaws and a brother who would've been better than him if he didn't have a crippling fear of blood? yea I'd rather read the original, its more interesting.

Do you also prefer the original Romeo and Juliet?

as for making original works from ideas of earlier ones, you might as well blame later inventors for stealing from earlier inventors by using metal, or atoms.

The only person assigning blame for that is you. I have been very clear that I approve of derivative works, and indeed think they are a great thing.

Grey Wolf

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 04:17 PM

well pardon me if I do not see any point in reading and gaining something, then creating something that is essentially a less accurate version of it that is therefore less valuable, a watered-down version of the first.

as for making original works from ideas of earlier ones, you might as well blame later inventors for stealing from earlier inventors by using metal, or atoms.

The fact that your self-contradiction forms bookends to the post is truly a thing of beauty.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 04:24 PM

Oh, if you admit that he is a low-quality hack, then it becomes obvious why someone would like both Romeo and Juliet and Twilight: they're both low quality.

there is no contradiction. doing so to interpret an existing work is pointless for serious work, doing so to make your own work, an original one that has no relation to it, is admirable. again, your creating your own kingdom, to do so to only make a kingdom that is some facsimile of another's is not very creative. a kingdom however that is clearly your own, clearly built with your vision in mind is a part of the creative process.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 04:26 PM

Oh, if you admit that he is a low-quality hack, then it becomes obvious why someone would like both Romeo and Juliet and Twilight: they're both low quality.

What in blazes are you talking about? Who has admitted to whom being a low-quality hack?

GW

Siosilvar

2014-04-27, 04:35 PM

-snip-

Here's the thing:

It's not necessarily watered down or less accurate. Recently I watched a version of the Oedipus Rex story called Oedipus el Rey. All of the characters are Hispanic gangsters from southern L.A., and it's set as them telling their story while sitting in prison. Tiresias and the adoptive father are combined into the same character. Jocasta is given a bit more agency and is the only character allowed to leave the contained stage/seating/prison area. All the characters speak English with interspersed Spanish (usually curses), not Greek.

It is fundamentally the same exact story set in a different setting. This is a complete mockery of the original work, but in making these changes it becomes even more relevant to our modern world.

What is the difference between Luis Alvaro's reinterpretation of Oedipus, What if Star Wars: Episode 1 was good? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y), and my own headcanon that the Mass Effect trilogy is about 30 minutes shorter than the games we were given? The entire point of media is to interpret it and gain something from the experience. Why should we shy away from fan fiction and headcanon? Sure, 90% of it is crap, but hiding behind Sturgeon's Law prevents us from getting the other 10%.

I admit to not having read the first two pages of this thread, but I think we're running across a fundamental disconnect in how we view art. You believe the original artwork and intent is something sacred (and, by extension, should not be messed around with unnecessarily). I believe that since it is impossible to experience art without our own interpretation, that interpretation and exploration is what counts more (and therefore everything goes). Neither view is wrong, but I think you'll run into a lot more people preferring the second opinion.

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 04:41 PM

But that is my point- there is no such thing as "the original Sherlock Holmes" because Sherlock Holmes, like Robin Hood, or Mickey Mouse, now exists outside the original works that created them. With the horrible exception of the latter, those characters now belong to all of us, and "canon" -or rather, if you follow what I mean, "global headcanon" - has changed the originals, and now are different.

I fail to see what the clothing tastes of a character outside of a novel has to do with his dress sense within that novel.

Edit: Let me put it a different way. Before Disney broke copyright (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4), an author only retained control of their work for a limited period. Lets say 20 years. After that, his works, all of them, became public property. At that point, Raz's and warty's position simply disappeared. The author, I hope they will agree, is allowed to change his stories. When authorship moves to the general public, everyone is allowed to do the same. So at best, "headcanon" can only be "wrong" as long as the original author retains control. In which case, in the grand scheme of things, it is effectively equivalent to never being wrong.

Grey Wolf
Do you read what I actually write, or just your headcanon version of what I write? Public domain, copyright law and related concepts have exactly nothing to do with anything I have said. I have not referenced copyright, creative control, public domain or anything of the kind. Disagree with my apparently controversial view that the books on my shelves don't change their pages every time somebody decides to imagine they contain a different story all you like, but kindly stop conflating this with other concepts I never even talked about.

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 04:41 PM

well pardon me if I do not see any point in reading and gaining something, then creating something that is essentially a less accurate version of it that is therefore less valuable, a watered-down version of the first. To say, make a Romeo and Juliet where they don't die and go off and live happily ever after is to make a mockery of what Shakespeare was trying to say with it

It's interesting you say this because Shakespeare proved this by writing a horrible play where an old legend was altered to have a few main characters die at the end whereas in the original they lived. This artistic abomination was considered distasteful by contemporary audiences and an edited version by a man called Nahum Tate was published to give it a happy ending. For centuries, Tate's version was seen as the correct version.

as would be altering Sherlock Holmes to be a complete idiot and so and so forth. there is a spirit of things that must be kept in mind, and your philosophy on this would eventually have the spirit of all fiction ever twisted, distorted and forgotten.

This seems like something very, very trivial. What's the difference between doing this by changing a character slightly and giving the character a new name? I've actually been thinking of writing a few Holmes-type stories with a completely new character to fit the detective mode. I'm thinking of calling it The Adventures of C. Auguste Dupín.

sure I could possibly make a Sherlock Holmes- but I would never dream of it. that is another person's character, and for me to take them and use them without understanding them, without being true to that character, would be to make a mockery of that character. remember Masonicon? how he just took a bunch of characters and mashed them all together in some fan-fic mess that was horrible to read, everyone was out of character and so on and so forth? Yeah, that is what can- and will- happen. in fact, it is happening, its called horrible fan fiction, which is a vast a majority of fan fiction.

Remember Wide Sargasso Sea? If a work of art is only about trasmitting messages then what's wrong with using a character to transmit a new message since humanity is so different now?

sure there is a public domain version of Sherlock Holmes, but thats the theme park version. thats the watered-down generic image of the super-detective. when the real Sherlock Holmes was like, y'know, had a bunch of flaws and a brother who would've been better than him if he didn't have a crippling fear of blood? yea I'd rather read the original, its more interesting.

Every super-detective is flawed. Sherlock Holmes and the characters he inspired.
Mycroft scared of blood? I don't remember that from the original stories. I remember the given reason being his excessive sedentariness, worse than Sherlock's own. Have you read them?

The exact location of Watson's injury is also inconsistent in the Doyle stories. What if the "original" canon is self-contradicting?

EDIT: My head hurts from trying to understand Raz's opinions on art.

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 04:44 PM

What in blazes are you talking about? Who has admitted to whom being a low-quality hack?

GW

They would appear to be calling Billy Shakes a low-quality hack who is a worse writer than they are and thus undeserving of the privileges that they are demanding the rest of the world afford them.

As well as failing to get the point of... several things at once. :smallconfused: One might even surmise that at the root of it is a profound hatred for and misunderstanding of critics and critique given the apparent fetishization of creators.

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 04:53 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 05:02 PM

I fail to see what the clothing tastes of a character outside of a novel has to do with his dress sense within that novel.

It's what is generally called "an example". To illustrate the fact that Sherlock Holmes exists outside of the original novels, to attempt to give an answer to your original statement in this thread: "I really don't get headcanon or personal canon or whatever we're calling it these days."

Headcanon is the expansion of the original work. For example, Sherlock's choice of headwear. There is nothing to "get". People are allowed to build upon established characters, and "canon" becomes what they communally believe to be true, whether or not it is. Ask 100 English speakers who this guy (http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/pr/silhouette-large.GIF) is and the large majority will say "Sherlock Holmes", a few may not know him, and I doubt anyone will say "a bad rendition of Sherlock Holmes with inappropriate headwear".

Do you read what I actually write, or just your headcanon version of what I write? Public domain, copyright law and related concepts have exactly nothing to do with anything I have said. I have not referenced copyright, creative control, public domain or anything of the kind. Disagree with my apparently controversial view that the books on my shelves don't change their pages every time somebody decides to imagine they contain a different story all you like, but kindly stop conflating this with other concepts I never even talked about.

I could ask the same of you. My point has been for quite some time to attempt to explain to you that your position that canon is strictly restricted to the original work is incorrect. The characters exists outside it. Yes, the original Sherlock Holmes didn't wear the Sherlock Holmes hat. But the canonical Sherlock Holmes does. Because the character exists beyond the original works, and because he belongs to everyone (which I, again, attempted to illustrate to you by giving a reference to copyright laws to make you see what I meant by "Sherlock belongs to everyone").

Now, you want to stick to your guns? Fair enough. But your position that canon can only refer to a specific story means that you are going to need to be a lot more long winded. When you say Sherlock Holmes, which one do you mean? Please tell me the exact canon - "original" is not good enough. Which short story? Pre-first death? Because after all, there are about 50 different canons written by Doyle. And none of them actually reflect what most people think of when they speak of Sherlock Holmes, because to most people, Sherlock Holmes is a combination of the original novels, and all the derivative work that has built him up.

Grey Wolf

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 05:24 PM

It's interesting you say this because Shakespeare proved this by writing a horrible play where an old legend was altered to have a few main characters die at the end whereas in the original they lived. This artistic abomination was considered distasteful by contemporary audiences and an edited version by a man called Nahum Tate was published to give it a happy ending. For centuries, Tate's version was seen as the correct version.

This seems like something very, very trivial. What's the difference between doing this by changing a character slightly and giving the character a new name? I've actually been thinking of writing a few Holmes-type stories with a completely new character to fit the detective mode. I'm thinking of calling it The Adventures of C. Auguste Dupín.

Remember Wide Sargasso Sea? If a work of art is only about trasmitting messages then what's wrong with using a character to transmit a new message since humanity is so different now?

Every super-detective is flawed. Sherlock Holmes and the characters he inspired.
Mycroft scared of blood? I don't remember that from the original stories. I remember the given reason being his excessive sedentariness, worse than Sherlock's own. Have you read them?

The exact location of Watson's injury is also inconsistent in the Doyle stories. What if the "original" canon is self-contradicting?

EDIT: My head hurts from trying to understand Raz's opinions on art.

1. really? well its low quality, therefore it got what it deserved.

2. the difference between them is character derailment and plagiarism. character derailment is where you take a character and distort them horribly while keeping the name. plagiarism is where you put them into another story without distorting them horribly. to avoid both you must both distort the character horribly and put them in a different situation so that character is different enough to avoid being the same character, or a version of the character twisted into something he is not.

3. whats Wide Sargasso Sea?

4. yes. might've forgotten a few things, but thanks for correcting me on that. I was inaccurate.

5. then the first location ever mentioned is what counts.

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 05:35 PM

It's what is generally called "an example". To illustrate the fact that Sherlock Holmes exists outside of the original novels, to attempt to give an answer to your original statement in this thread: "I really don't get headcanon or personal canon or whatever we're calling it these days."

Headcanon is the expansion of the original work. For example, Sherlock's choice of headwear. There is nothing to "get". People are allowed to build upon established characters, and "canon" becomes what they communally believe to be true, whether or not it is. Ask 100 English speakers who this guy (http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/pr/silhouette-large.GIF) is and the large majority will say "Sherlock Holmes", a few may not know him, and I doubt anyone will say "a bad rendition of Sherlock Holmes with inappropriate headwear".

I understand what it is. I do not understand the point, which is what I was badly trying to express with 'do not get.'

I could ask the same of you. My point has been for quite some time to attempt to explain to you that your position that canon is strictly restricted to the original work is incorrect. The characters exists outside it. Yes, the original Sherlock Holmes didn't wear the Sherlock Holmes hat. But the canonical Sherlock Holmes does. Because the character exists beyond the original works, and because he belongs to everyone (which I, again, attempted to illustrate to you by giving a reference to copyright laws to make you see what I meant by "Sherlock belongs to everyone").
He belongs to everyone, fair enough. My interest in (other people's) stories is basically in sitting down and reading them. Does this universal ownership matter when I do that? I don't see that it does, really. The words on the page remain the words on the page. I, you, or anybody can imagine them to be whatever we feel like, but it doesn't change them. The words being the thing I read, they're the thing I'm interested in.

Reading can obviously be generalized to watching, listening, or whatever else is appropriate for the particular work in question.

Now, you want to stick to your guns? Fair enough. But your position that canon can only refer to a specific story means that you are going to need to be a lot more long winded. When you say Sherlock Holmes, which one do you mean? Please tell me the exact canon - "original" is not good enough. Which short story? Pre-first death? Because after all, there are about 50 different canons written by Doyle. And none of them actually reflect what most people think of when they speak of Sherlock Holmes, because to most people, Sherlock Holmes is a combination of the original novels, and all the derivative work that has built him up.

Grey Wolf
I'm a mathematician. Requiring a high degree of specificity when talking about something is what I do. It is, I find, in general, a desirable thing, and any generalizations should be built up with great care from the specific cases if they're to be of any use at all. Something as amorphous as the 'canonical' (in your sense of the word) Sherlock Holmes is, at least to me, not a particularly interesting thing about which to ask questions. It's ill-defined, ask a hundred people you'll get 80 different answers as soon as you get into anything remotely specific, and doesn't tell me very much of interest about any particular Sherlock Holmes story, regardless of authorship. The story being, to reiterate, the thing that interests me.

Now if you're really fascinated by amorphous popular constructs, great, go to town and have fun. I'm not trying to stop anybody. I am merely expressing a certain degree of bafflement with the urge.

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 05:40 PM

1. really? well its low quality, therefore it got what it deserved.

Yes, it's called King Lear. You probably haven't heard of it.

3. whats Wide Sargasso Sea?

A reimagining of Jane Eyre. It features characters from that book but gives the perspective of the mad woman in the attic, Bertha Mason. It's about racism and its message would be a lot less effective were it not derivative.

5. then the first location ever mentioned is what counts.

Editing? Errors? Amendments by the same author? Is the manuscript copy the author's 'canon'? Or is the actual, non-canon the seed idea in the author's head before she ever writes anything down in the first place? Is Aragorn the Ranger the headcanon bastardisation of Trotter the hobbit?

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 05:46 PM

Warty, before I snip all but one little bit, let me just say that now I understand what our disconnect was. Sorry I was a bit dense. If I understand your position, what you don't get is the urge to tinker with a story. Fair enough. Be assured that many people do get the urge, but I can not more explain said urge to you than my bungee-jumping friend could explain the urge to (safely) jump off bridges to me.

The words on the page remain the words on the page. I, you, or anybody can imagine them to be whatever we feel like, but it doesn't change them.

This is the only bit where I can say you are not accurate in your post. Just because the word is the same, it does not mean its meaning doesn't change depending on who reads it, and what mental baggage they carry with them. I don't have a good example (of English literature*) on hand for this (sorry) but in "The Redemption of Althalus" there is a certain knife with a single word written on it, which everyone reads as a different command. Who you are, the sum of all your experiences during your life, absolutely changes texts as you read them. Even the same text, read at two points in your life, can mean diametrically different things. For Thor's sake, people spend their lives attempting to draw meaning from texts, and they can't agree on anything much!

Grey Wolf

*I could give you three different examples from my own culture's literature, but I'm too paranoid about giving those clues about myself. Besides, chances are that you have not heard of them, rendering any explanation drawn from them rather sterile.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 05:52 PM

Yes, it's called King Lear. You probably haven't heard of it.

A reimagining of Jane Eyre. It features characters from that book but gives the perspective of the mad woman in the attic, Bertha Mason. It's about racism and its message would be a lot less effective were it not derivative.

Editing? Errors? Amendments by the same author? Is the manuscript copy the author's 'canon'? Or is the actual, non-canon the seed idea in the author's head before she ever writes anything down in the first place? Is Aragorn the Ranger the headcanon bastardisation of Trotter the hobbit?

1. your right, I have not.

2. and your point is?

3. first published, if not amended by same author to something plausible.

Math_Mage

2014-04-27, 06:01 PM

I think a number of posters are having difficulty determining where headcanon ends and adaptation begins (if there is one).

Also, if we can't cite Shakespeare to show derivative work producing great literature, I have no idea what's supposed to count as great literature.

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 06:13 PM

Warty, before I snip all but one little bit, let me just say that now I understand what our disconnect was. Sorry I was a bit dense. If I understand your position, what you don't get is the urge to tinker with a story. Fair enough. Be assured that many people do get the urge, but I can not more explain said urge to you than my bungee-jumping friend could explain the urge to (safely) jump off bridges to me.

Yes, I think we are now on the same wavelength. I apologize if I ever came off as snippy, or was unclear. Neither was my intent.

This is the only bit where I can say you are not accurate in your post. Just because the word is the same, it does not mean its meaning doesn't change depending on who reads it, and what mental baggage they carry with them. I don't have a good example (of English literature*) on hand for this (sorry) but in "The Redemption of Althalus" there is a certain knife with a single word written on it, which everyone reads as a different command. Who you are, the sum of all your experiences during your life, absolutely changes texts as you read them. Even the same text, read at two points in your life, can mean diametrically different things. For Thor's sake, people spend their lives attempting to draw meaning from texts, and they can't agree on anything much!

The meaning of a word does shift with the reader to some degree. This is what makes talking about a book with another person so much fun in some cases, since everybody got something slightly different from it. I don't see this as a willful re-imagining of the work though as it is the inevitable and often interesting consequence of everybody's own subjectivities.

Yes, it's called King Lear. You probably haven't heard of it.

You know, I thought this was the apogee of the thread -

1. your right, I have not.

- but no.

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 06:13 PM

1. your right, I have not.

2. and your point is?

3. first published, if not amended by same author to something plausible.

I'm very confused by your position. Could you give me some examples of what you consider to be great literature?

EDIT:

You know, I thought this was the apogee of the thread -

- but no.

The worst is not
So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'

Forum Explorer

2014-04-27, 06:41 PM

1. your right, I have not.

2. and your point is?

3. first published, if not amended by same author to something plausible.

1. It's a decently famous play, and personally I liked it a lot better then Romeo and Juliet.

Pronounceable

2014-04-27, 06:48 PM

If only Shakespeare had made Hamlet about a woobie prince who learns to become Hotblooded from his Analytical Badass friend Horatio to usurp his Obviously Evil uncle and win the affection of the Tsundere Ophelia, perhaps it would have been worth reading. Perhaps then a clear message could have been intercepted.
This here is awesome. Golden sig material right there. It deserves being repeated repeatedly.
...
Also I facepalm in the "objectivity" tangent's general direction. There's no such thing as art if you're waving the "objectivity" flag. There exist no art atoms in universe, no mathematical formulas for the behavior of art have ever been discovered and nobody has witnessed a wild herd of arts in nature or struck a vein of art in the hills. There's some symbols on a bound stack of papers, or a bunch of overlapping sounds from various items, or a hunk of chipped rock, or a bunch of moving lights and sounds, or whatever other stuff and/or phenomena that humans call "art" on an undefinable whim.
This thing called "art" exists solely inside your head, such a thing doesn't and cannot exist without a mind that witnesses it. Therefore, art is "objectively" subjective by definition (assuming it even exists) and since the subject is you, only whatever is inside your head counts. Hence, "headcanon".

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 06:52 PM

I'm very confused by your position. Could you give me some examples of what you consider to be great literature?

literature? literature is a word bandied about by people who are more interested in being "deep" and incomprehensible than telling a good story that is actually interesting. speak not of it to me.

Edit: also thought is objective. its within the universe, or it couldn't interact with anything, therefore it exists, therefore it is a thing objective to the universe as anything else.

turkishproverb

2014-04-27, 06:59 PM

Headcanon is the expansion of the original work. For example, Sherlock's choice of headwear. There is nothing to "get". People are allowed to build upon established characters, and "canon" becomes what they communally believe to be true, whether or not it is. Ask 100 English speakers who this guy (http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/pr/silhouette-large.GIF) is and the large majority will say "Sherlock Holmes", a few may not know him, and I doubt anyone will say "a bad rendition of Sherlock Holmes with inappropriate headwear".

Ok, that's it. I get your point. but you are wrong.

Holmes did, at least sometimes, where a Dear stalking cap in the original stories. You see, Arthur Conan Doyle had a collaborator in many of the first printed versions, usually illustrator Sidney Paget. His work is wonderful, proto-pulp in places and classical in others. And it appeared in the earliest print versions of many, if not most, of Doyle's Holmes work. An example of the cap in Doyle's Sherlock Holmes comes in "The Silver Blaze, where it appears on page 2, 6, Arguably 8 (in hand as opposed to on head), 10, 12. In "The Boscombe Valley Mystery" he wears one on pages 1 and 10. There are more, buy I'm not re-reading everything in it's classic formatting to find the examples. He wore such a hat. When appropriate, not everywhere, but he wore it.

The Original Illustrated Sherlock Holmes. Look it up.

As to the rest of this debate, well....The Author has to be treated as dead, because their word means very little to nothing. How many times has Lucas changed what was "always" intended? Plenty. And other writers are more than known for similar attitudes. The author lies, or just changes their mind about things and sometimes doesn't realize it. Sometimes there are multiple authors, and they are unaware of what their collective writing implies, and harshly react against it. Sometimes there's a single author who does the same. Knowing the author's opinion is interesting, yes, even useful, but also unnecessary.

Mx.Silver

2014-04-27, 07:02 PM

You know, I thought this was the apogee of the thread -

- but no.

It's just perfect, isn't it?

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 07:03 PM

literature? literature is a word bandied about by people who are more interested in being "deep" and incomprehensible than telling a good story that is actually interesting. speak not of it to me.

people who are more interested in being "deep"

people who are incomprehensible

.

---

[Edit: also thought is objective. its within the universe, or it couldn't interact with anything, therefore it exists, therefore it is a thing objective to the universe as anything else.

By this logic, literally the entire universe is inside your head. All that matters to you and could possibly be conceived is in there. Ergo the universe is subjective.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 07:05 PM

---

By this logic, literally the entire universe is inside your head. All that matters to you and could possibly be conceived is in there. Ergo the universe is subjective.

No, the universe is outside your head, your apart of it. I am confused as to how you have possibly mistaken my viewpoint for solipsism. :smallannoyed:

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-27, 07:05 PM

literature? literature is a word bandied about by people who are more interested in being "deep" and incomprehensible than telling a good story that is actually interesting. speak not of it to me.

So you are utterly convinced that any changes to an original story are disrespectful, but cannot give us a single example of a story you consider both original and great? Is it because you now realise that there is no such thing as an original story? You seem to like Sherlock Holmes - but he is derivative of Poe's Dupin and Gaboriau's Lecoq. You also have a quote from HHGTTG - presumably, you only ever listen to the radio series? And are you aware that Adams was actually proud of the fact that the books and radio series totally contradicted each other?

GW

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 07:08 PM

So you are utterly convinced that any changes to an original story are disrespectful, but cannot give us a single example of a story you consider both original and great? Is it because you now realise that there is no such thing as an original story? You seem to like Sherlock Holmes - but he is derivative of Poe's Dupin and Gaboriau's Lecoq. You also have a quote from HHGTTG - presumably, you only ever listen to the radio series? And are you aware that Adams was actually proud of the fact that the books and radio series totally contradicted each other?

GW

I consider many stories original and great. but literature is a separate word meaning something different, and I would not insult what I like by calling them that.

Edit: and I know how this would go. you make me list some examples, then you explain how they're not really original, and then I will reply how the creative process works is that you steal so many ideas that you combine them altogether and smooth and design them out until they become original, which is all apart of my viewpoint on how taking ideas for building your own kingdom is good, but taking them and just wasting it by being derivative and unoriginal is bad, and we are back where we started again.

Mystic Muse

2014-04-27, 07:23 PM

King Lear I'd love to see in a play version. I saw it once before and would love to see again.

Romeo and Juliet I never want to read again, or see.

Twilight, I'd probably watch as a movie.

So, I think this means I technically consider Twilight better than Romeo and Juliet. :smalltongue:

((Still need to see play versions of Macbeth and Hamlet))

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 07:32 PM

Twilight, I'd probably watch as a movie.

So, I think this means I technically consider Twilight better than Romeo and Juliet. :smalltongue:

((Still need to see play versions of Macbeth and Hamlet))

You're in luck! Sort of! (http://youtu.be/IH3WEsfaoW8)

(Good clean fun, aye.)

lunar2

2014-04-27, 08:00 PM

Meh, I'll just agree to disagree here. If the Author says X is X, I firmly believe who am I to say "No X is actually Z". Doesn't matter if their writing doesn't fully portray things the way they want it to be, the fact of the matter is(to me) that the Author has that character, event, whatever, firmly in mind as X and X it shall remain, and no matter of arguing and pointing out of flaws by other people is going to convince me, or the author, otherwise, for the simple fact that IT'S THE AUTHORS CREATION(sorry for the caps, but I felt that needed to be emphasized). We didn't spend hundreds of hours crafting an entire world with in-depth characters, the author did, so they get to decide what is what, not us. Again, we can believe differently, but as far as I'm concerned, Word of God is the absolute final say, and if you are trying to argue something in an authors universe, if Word of God has spoken, then it's fact, and that's all there is to it.

there is a problem with this position, and i am going to use dragonball to show it to you.

word of dante (the Super Exciting Guide) is that super saiyan is a 50x multiplier throughout the series.

word of god (an interview with Akira Toriyama) is that it is a 10x multiplier.

however, the actual canon material (the manga itself) shows it to be at least 25x against frieza (goku's kaioken x 10, which explicitly multiplies his power by 10, was less than half of frieza's power), but no more than 3.5x against yakon (base goku is faster than yakon, and therefore more powerful, but as a super saiyan he is only 3.75x as powerful as yakon, since we get the actual numbers to compare them).

not to mention that super saiyan 2 gohan's energy was nearly half of what was needed to revive buu, but the 3 base saiyans had enough energy between them to finish the process. i went through the math once, a long time ago, and there is no way to make that work with super saiyan being more than a 2x increase (barring a healthy margin of error in the statements themselves).

so yes, both word of dante and word of god on the power boost given by transforming into a super saiyan are demonstrably wrong, because AT did the good deed of giving us actual numbers to work with in the manga.

warty goblin

2014-04-27, 08:01 PM

literature? literature is a word bandied about by people who are more interested in being "deep" and incomprehensible than telling a good story that is actually interesting. speak not of it to me.

I consider many stories original and great. but literature is a separate word meaning something different, and I would not insult what I like by calling them that.

I remember going through that phase. Then I grew up. Life has been so much better since then.

It's just perfect, isn't it?
Best two sentences I've read this week.

King Lear I'd love to see in a play version. I saw it once before and would love to see again.

Romeo and Juliet I never want to read again, or see.

Twilight, I'd probably watch as a movie.

So, I think this means I technically consider Twilight better than Romeo and Juliet. :smalltongue:

((Still need to see play versions of Macbeth and Hamlet))
I still have distinct memories of a really marvelous Macbeth I watched probably fifteen years ago now. They didn't have any sort of set beyond dark backdrops and red banners, but kept period costumes and props, and used these really floaty red silk streamers for blood. Combined with the austere stage and flat color palate, it made these incredibly stylized acts of violence incredibly vivid and eerie. The acting was spot-on, and the entire thing was just pitch perfect. One of my favorite ever stage productions of anything.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-27, 08:03 PM

I consider many stories original and great. but literature is a separate word meaning something different, and I would not insult what I like by calling them that.

Edit: and I know how this would go. you make me list some examples, then you explain how they're not really original, and then I will reply how the creative process works is that you steal so many ideas that you combine them altogether and smooth and design them out until they become original, which is all apart of my viewpoint on how taking ideas for building your own kingdom is good, but taking them and just wasting it by being derivative and unoriginal is bad, and we are back where we started again.

They want you to take a stance because you've contradicted yourself inside your own posts. You've given examples of stuff that you've found to be bad, and thus you have no problem with people's headcanon of it (Twilight) but you've yet to give out something you've found to be good.

Also the literal definition of literature is simply 'written works.' Yes that means you can call an essay a work of literature. Though yeah it has also been used to say that something is a particularly good story. Sometimes. It's not the most common usage of the term, at least in my life.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 08:28 PM

I remember going through that phase. Then I grew up. Life has been so much better since then.

oh no. don't start with the phase bull. I hate that word. its ugly. its demeaning, its stupid.

They want you to take a stance because you've contradicted yourself inside your own posts. You've given examples of stuff that you've found to be bad, and thus you have no problem with people's headcanon of it (Twilight) but you've yet to give out something you've found to be good.

Also the literal definition of literature is simply 'written works.' Yes that means you can call an essay a work of literature. Though yeah it has also been used to say that something is a particularly good story. Sometimes. It's not the most common usage of the term, at least in my life.

I have a stance, its just not a stupidly simple one that ignores nuance or the complexity of the world before me. it seems like a contradiction to you, only because the world is full of seemingly contradictory things when to have an accurate viewpoint of it, you must be able to incorporate them in a way that makes sense, which it does to me.

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

Coidzor

2014-04-27, 08:38 PM

oh no. don't start with the phase bull. I hate that word. its ugly. its demeaning, its stupid.

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

So is taking a stance of snobbishness out of ignorance, but acting that way invites such comments. :/

Thankfully that's mostly a thing in school settings, though taking the tack you did just muddies things up by acting immature and unreasonable serving to delay or prevent communication by obfuscating the subject, because you still haven't actually answered the question, instead deciding to quibble over one little word when it's your own fault that the context got to one where one could potentially confuse literature as a catch-all for literature as great works.

turkishproverb

2014-04-27, 08:38 PM

oh no. don't start with the phase bull. I hate that word. its ugly. its demeaning, its stupid.

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

I'm not a big fan of the literary establishment, have been a part of it to some small degree, and even I've never heard a definition that could fit that. Firstly because "nothing interesting happening" is rare in works put into the canon generally, especially works predating the last twenty years, and "real human stories" is such a vague term as to make me question if you mean non-fiction (in which case making it into literary circles is actually harder, or merely some attack on non-fantasist fiction (an area that gets coddled a bit when it comes to current-day works, yes, but that is largely an issue of labels beind disrespected anyway).

Shakespeare, worthless head-canoner that you think he is, has been part of the canon for over a century, and arguably part of it before that. Malory's Morte d'Arthur has been part of the canon for a startlingly long time, as have a dozen other fantastic works. Dickens has been a part of it for decades. Beowulf and Gilgamesh are staples as well. Today Poe is well established in the Canon.

It's a bit stodgy, and has some resistance to change, but to suggest what you did is...wrong, and on a pretty fundamental level.

SuperPanda

2014-04-27, 08:38 PM

I would like to voice a polite contention against this statement. This thread has been passionately heated, but remained essentially civil. "Rather intelligent" seems, well, pretty condescending.

I likewise concede that taken out of context of the rest of the post that phrase and term would be very condescending which was very much not the intent. The phrase was intended to be applied only to a very narrow range of comments on and about a term from literary criticism which is so often misapplied within the greater media of "the internet" that it leads to confusion between considerably intelligent individuals very much like that tangent of this thread. The "rather intelligent" was also intended as an understatement and it strikes me now that the combination of these two intents were not a good idea.

I would like to think that the focus of the offending phrase was clear in context but by my own post it really doesn't matter what I think, only what I managed to communicate. As such, I'm sorry if the post came across as insulting.

I had a somewhat ranty post following about the whole "Literature thing" but then I read Warty's response and reread the conversation so far and felt no more need for it. Might not have been the best way to say it, but the sentiment is understandable.

And then the conversation when on anyway (as I checked before I posted).

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

Beowulf, Gulliver's Travels, The Crucible, I, Robot, Farenheit 451, 1984, The Tempest, The Hobbit, and many other books would like a word with you.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-27, 08:39 PM

oh no. don't start with the phase bull. I hate that word. its ugly. its demeaning, its stupid.

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

Different lives I suppose. How I usually hear it used is something along the lines of "Go looking for scientific literature for your/this/my project."

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 08:47 PM

I didn't know those books were considered literature.

but whatever. I know how this song and dance goes. I list some examples and you will find a way to screw over my viewpoint because of them and I'll get angry and you'll go saying that you've been proven right, while if I don't you still get to say your right, I'm screwed either way. I might as well just leave, since you'll probably just say what I consider great as not being great or laugh at me or something, and then explain how I can't see what great literature really is and so on and so forth.

you win, I'm out.....

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 08:52 PM

I have a stance, its just not a stupidly simple one that ignores nuance or the complexity of the world before me. it seems like a contradiction to you, only because the world is full of seemingly contradictory things when to have an accurate viewpoint of it, you must be able to incorporate them in a way that makes sense, which it does to me.

So your stance is deep and incomprehensible? :smalltongue:

Lord Raziere

2014-04-27, 09:10 PM

So your stance is deep and incomprehensible? :smalltongue:

see? someone is already making fun of me, I'm out! :smallannoyed:

Kitten Champion

2014-04-27, 09:14 PM

In my opinion, a personal canon is inevitable. We see it on this forum all the time, every movie, book, television show, or what-have-you presents a narrative which doesn't explain everything completely -- sometimes you can infer logically from what's presented, other times you have to stretch to make a story work to cover up seeming logical inconsistencies, plot holes, or simple lack of establishment -- often you find yourself doing more than passively ingesting media, you have to do some of the creative work to make the story flow naturally. As we've seen countless times here, those inferences people make can be completely at odds with one another, and utterly change the perspective one has on any given work.

Beyond that, stories focus on characters and events to the exclusion of everything else. Background characters in My Little Pony have entire fanbases with completely non-canon and elaborately developed characterizations based off of the inertia of the internet, and if watching it with that in mind makes the work feel more rich and increases their enjoyment, why not? Chances are they aren't going to be significant to the plot, they're simply the chorus to the play and are interchangeable for the most part. If you want to give Rosencrantz and Guildenstern body and life, go ahead.

I do both all the time with old-school JRPGs, where the plot is paper thin, characters are basically just sketches of cliches, and the setting is ludicrously compressed into what can be done with basic memory storage. I like to invent more to the world, extrapolate based on what's shown, give the characters deeper personalities and motivations, give a history and sense of day-to-day life of game sprites. I'm spending hours in this world, I want it to feel more involving than just fulfilling mechanical requirements. It creates a more satisfactory experience, and that's all I really care about.

As to actually changing the established canon, as in what's directly presented, I don't. Imagining new ways works could be done is an interesting and fun creative exercise, there are plenty of writers who've made a career out of re-imagining existing concepts -- but I acknowledge at that point I'm authoring my own fiction and not supplanting or editing the original.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-27, 09:32 PM

T-O-E

2014-04-27, 09:55 PM

oh no. don't start with the phase bull. I hate that word. its ugly. its demeaning, its stupid.

I have a stance, its just not a stupidly simple one that ignores nuance or the complexity of the world before me. it seems like a contradiction to you, only because the world is full of seemingly contradictory things when to have an accurate viewpoint of it, you must be able to incorporate them in a way that makes sense, which it does to me.

and what I've heard "literature" being used for is "works that are purely in the Real World about Real Human Stories With Nothing Interesting Happening."

The argument you're supporting is the simplistic one. What you're advocating pretty much makes discussion impossible and reduces art to propaganda and masturbation.

Legato Endless

2014-04-27, 10:57 PM

I would like to think that the focus of the offending phrase was clear in context but by my own post it really doesn't matter what I think, only what I managed to communicate. As such, I'm sorry if the post came across as insulting.

No, thank you for explaining. This thread rather immediately diverged into several different directions after the second reply, and that made understanding somewhat more ambiguous than the norm.

SuperPanda

2014-04-27, 11:42 PM

No, thank you for explaining. This thread rather immediately diverged into several different directions after the second reply, and that made understanding somewhat more ambiguous than the norm.

Ah Jolly good then.

I sometimes fear I'm on the verge of becoming an old man ranting at people to get off my lawn in internet discussions (and I'm only 30) because I get irked by things which likely shouldn't irk me. I think its the teacher in me that just feels like shaking people when I see someone eloquently explain what "Death of the Author" is and should be, but use that explanation as their reason for strongly disliking the term because the term has been misused and misapplied so much that the prescriptively wrong uses are now more accurate descriptions of the term in general use.

On the actual topic: I'm mostly with Warty on not really getting the use of "Head-canon" except when re-purposing a fictional universe for my own uses. If I was going to write a Star Trek campaign for my role-playing group I might discount the events of Enterprise and Voyager entirely (and definitely would Into Darkness) but if/when the third 'NuTrek' film comes out I'd equally complain about them ignoring events in Into Darkness because they happened - even if I find some specifics stupid.

The Director of X-Men Days of Future's Past has said he wants to rewrite continuity to get rid of alot of (he feels) bad choices made in X-Men 3 but at the same time feels obligated to treat X-men 3 as having occurred (This was part of the inspiration for time travel shenanigans).

On re-watching (NuWho) Doctor Who with a current girlfriend I've recommended skipping some episodes which are not plot relevant and generally considered poor. I fully plan to skip a good part of 10's infamously drawn out death. I will do this not out of some pre-conception that it didn't happen but because A) I know she gets frustrated with drawn out drama scenes like that, B) There are potential spoilers for Torchwood Season 3 which she hasn't seen and wants to watch... just later, and C) the one part of that I personally wish wasn't there is not in any way important to any plot elements which come before or after (Martha's scene). That segment adds nothing (positive) to the episode and I feel our enjoyment of it will be better without it. I will tell her I'm skipping stuff and I'll tell her what we are skipping because it is rather silly to pretend it is something it isn't. I will still skip it because I find it even sillier not to maximize my enjoyment of a product by excising a small, unessential, and objectionable element of it. In contrast thought I won't skip River Song's arc despite feeling very similarly about it and Martha's moment in End of Time Part 2. River's arc is plot essential, it shapes and reshapes thing that will come and came before. I might not like it, but that doesn't change that it happened.

Entertainment is a form of communication and communication always takes two.

huttj509

2014-04-28, 12:10 AM

Coidzor

2014-04-28, 12:20 AM

On the actual topic: I'm mostly with Warty on not really getting the use of "Head-canon" except when re-purposing a fictional universe for my own uses. If I was going to write a Star Trek campaign for my role-playing group I might discount the events of Enterprise and Voyager entirely (and definitely would Into Darkness) but if/when the third 'NuTrek' film comes out I'd equally complain about them ignoring events in Into Darkness because they happened - even if I find some specifics stupid.

I mostly run into it when it's in the early stages of developing into fanon myself, where it tackles things that were glossed over, unexplained, or simply not addressed in the work itself (yet), and there it seems self-evident as to why it's there and what it's for as a natural result of "here there be dragons" and people being invested in a work or universe.

Just... head-canon on its own... mostly seems to be either a Tumblr idiosyncrasy or something mentioned as a quip or in-joke in terms of the uses I encounter it in on a day-to-day basis.

Legato Endless

2014-04-28, 12:33 AM

Speaking of communication...

(Posted off my phone, and is less paragraph and more a series of quick responses)

Also I facepalm in the "objectivity" tangent's general direction. There's no such thing as art if you're waving the "objectivity" flag. There exist no art atoms in universe, no mathematical formulas for the behavior of art have ever been discovered and nobody has witnessed a wild herd of arts in nature or struck a vein of art in the hills. There's some symbols on a bound stack of papers, or a bunch of overlapping sounds from various items, or a hunk of chipped rock, or a bunch of moving lights and sounds, or whatever other stuff and/or phenomena that humans call "art" on an undefinable whim.
This thing called "art" exists solely inside your head, such a thing doesn't and cannot exist without a mind that witnesses it. Therefore, art is "objectively" subjective by definition (assuming it even exists) and since the subject is you, only whatever is inside your head counts. Hence, "headcanon".

Intersubjectivity says...

Hi.

Objectivity is not wholly physical. It simply means without bias.

Language and math are both interpretive constructions.

Just because something lies within someone's mind does not mean it has no existence for you to contend with. The political boundary between two nations is imaginary no? It has no physical existence. It exists only as a communal idea, like so much of culture. Yet there can be very real measurable consequences if you cross the invented boundary that only exists in some people's minds.

Art, is to certain people, a means of communication. This is not subjective in the way you define it.

Objectivity and Subjectivity are not a dichotomy. They are two points on a continuum.

Blah blah, myth of the isolated mind, blah.

Rodin

2014-04-28, 01:09 AM

Honestly, I'm no longer sure what "head-canon" is.

Which of the following would be an example of head-canon?

1) Interpretation (Oh, Evangelion was an allegorical treatise on confronting loneliness and uncertainty in the adult world)
2) Deletion (The Matrix was great, too bad they never made any sequels)
3) Limiting the scope for discussion ("Let's limit this to what Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes...or at least what he put his name to.")
4) Shipping/fan-fiction (PotterXDresden OTP)
5) Other?

While definitions will vary, my personal thoughts:

1) Yes, but only if you are against the majority opinion. Interpreting the last arc of OOTS as being focused on family - hard to argue with. Interpreting it as the dream of Blackwing trapped in front of the rift by half-Celestial Haley, that's pretty firmly into head-canon.

Edit: I should add, even the majority opinion should be able to justify it within the work itself. If everybody thinks that all of OOTS is Belkar's fever dream, they're still pretty firmly off in their own world. That would tend to say the author did a poor job of conveying their story though.

2) Definitely head-canon. I pretty much have that head-canon about the Matrix sequels too. I don't get it, that joke only works if they made any.

3) That I would define as "continuity" or "levels of canon". This one comes down to a case-by-case basis, and even depends on the topic. If a forum topic is on the ACD Holmes stories, it really isn't fair to insist that actions performed by Robert Downey Jr. have any relevance. If you're talking about the continuity of the movies, it isn't really fair to say that something couldn't have happened because it didn't happen that way in the books. Different mediums, etc.

4) Possibly head-canon. If you deviate sufficiently, I would say that you can no longer even qualify for head-canon (like bringing in your own original characters or doing a cross-over). Harry ending up with Hermione is head-canon. Harry killing Dumbledore and going on to become the new He-who-must-not-be-Named is an entirely different matter.

Kitten Champion

2014-04-28, 02:41 AM

Well, in my view, head-canon pertains to the reshaping events in a narrative based on one's personal preference.

Honestly, I'm no longer sure what "head-canon" is.

Which of the following would be an example of head-canon?

1) Interpretation (Oh, Evangelion was an allegorical treatise on confronting loneliness and uncertainty in the adult world)

Is not head-canon. You are interpreting a work based on its subtext and themes using evidence from the work. Death of the Author relates to this, the "meaning" of a work is subject to some degree of interpretation and doesn't rest implicitly in its creators, so long as you've got textual evidence. That's criticism based on what's depicted, and while it might change your perception the work is objectively left unaltered.

2) Deletion (The Matrix was great, too bad they never made any sequels)

Can be. For a fairly common instance, it was very ambiguous whether Paul McGann was a Doctor Who incarnation largely due to the rather inglorious appearance in the much maligned American television movie from the mid-90's. He has since been canonically verified, and saying otherwise is clearly head-canon due to dislike of that movie, but the choice was largely up to you at first.

Comics have this a lot, what happened or not can often be retroactively changed, so it might not be or can be head-canon depending on which way the wind is blowing. I sincerely doubt Tony Stark was a weapons manufacturer during the Vietnam War, the man is still in his late 30's or maybe early 40's at most.

3) Limiting the scope for discussion ("Let's limit this to what Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes...or at least what he put his name to.")

It depends on the context. If you're examining from a critical standpoint, I'd say no. If you wanted to discuss Sherlock Holmes, you'll probably want to establish which iteration you're focusing on since there have been so many with considerable differences between them. There isn't much value in discussing a character when you lack a common source to discuss it.

If you're just trying to cement certain text as valid while invalidating others based on your own preferences, yeah, it would be.

4) Shipping/fan-fiction (PotterXDresden OTP)

Not really head-canon unless you're reinterpreting events based on how they occurred in your or another's fan-fic.

5) Other?

Well, there are some others. For instance, artistic license - where events can't transpire the way they occurred and you can either reinterpret them to be more convincing or double down and simply say the it works since it's fiction. Technically your canon could be greatly different than the author/artist intended simply because they hadn't understood the significance of their decisions.

You might conclude, canonically that warp speed is X fast based on evidence X,Y, and Z, but the author in truth only vaguely understood the dimensions of space and the actual figure wasn't important so long as they get where they're going at the speed of plot. Is the literal interpretation canon or head-canon? You could argue either way.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-28, 08:15 AM

Honestly, I'm no longer sure what "head-canon" is.

Which of the following would be an example of head-canon?

1) Interpretation (Oh, Evangelion was an allegorical treatise on confronting loneliness and uncertainty in the adult world)
Not really, unless said interpretation requires some of the events to not have happened in-universe (which they wouldn't, in this case). To go back to Romeo and Juliet, the original version was a morality play, while more famous version is about romantic love. Pointing this out (or telling me that I'm wrong, which given the gross oversimplification, I am) doesn't change the stories themselves. But if the allegorical treatise requires that everything happens as told (inc. angel attacks), except the "everyone turns into OJ" ending, which is only the breaking of the fourth wall to show the audience the allegorical consequences of loneliness, then it is head canon. As I understand it, the authors of Evangelion keep rewriting the ending so your guess is as good as mine as to which parts are head canon.

2) Deletion (The Matrix was great, too bad they never made any sequels)
Definitely Head-canon

3) Limiting the scope for discussion ("Let's limit this to what Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes...or at least what he put his name to.")
Not head-canon.

4) Shipping/fan-fiction (PotterXDresden OTP)
Definitely Head-canon

5) Other?
Case by case basis, I'm afraid. Rule of thumb: is what you think happened different from what actually happened? Head-canon. The devil's in the details, as always. The more versions you get of a particular story, the more head-canon you get (e.g. those like me that don't attempt to separate LotR into book and film, and rather prefer to think of both of them telling the same story from two PoV, we tend to have headcanon over what pieces each got "right" - see my example here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?344655-On-quot-head-canon-quot-and-whether-or-not-it-s-appropriate&p=17376320&viewfull=1#post17376320)).

Grey Wolf

Pronounceable

2014-04-28, 11:03 AM

Objectivity is not wholly physical. It simply means without bias.
I refuse that. It's literally impossible for anyone to be "without bias", so any definition of objectivity must include the physical/measurable/irrefutable. I might declare that Mona Lisa isn't art because insert subjective argument here and nobody can prove me wrong. But if I declare Mona Lisa to not be a picture with a woman in it, it'll be pretty easy to prove I'm objectively wrong.

Acting upon things that do not actually exist is the very basis of humanity. These imaginary things can be simple ideas like good, evil, truth, mercy, justice, jealousy, greed, etc; or extremely complicated bundles, such as culture, laws, morals, politics, religions, ideologies, etc. None of such things actually exist anywhere aside from inside people's skulls, none of those mental constructs do anything. It's always humans who do stuff influenced by whatever ideas infesting their brains. Philosophers and academics and whoever else might argue there could be a sort of mental universe beyond the physical where ideas and concepts actually exist, but that's as much "headcanon" as that Dragonball/Macbeth fanfic is. It's the fact that the things we do have reasons beyond fulfilling the basic needs of survival and species propagation that makes us human. Objective human is as much of an oxymoron as a giant dwarf.

After that, you could filibuster (with some exaggeration) until "having headcanon on art" seems like a synonym for "being human". It'd be ludicrously silly, but it can definitely be argued for.

Legato Endless

2014-04-28, 12:33 PM

I refuse that. It's literally impossible for anyone to be "without bias", so any definition of objectivity must include the physical/measurable/irrefutable.

It's the definition of the word in English. It does not solely lie in the material or empirical. Calling for an objective observer is valid usage, not an oxymoron. Bias is multi dimensional. You might be biased in an area, but that does not mean you are equally biased in all things. That's the definition, that's how it was largely utilized in the thread. You may not like the usage, but it's perfectly valid.

Furthermore, that was semantic quibbling on my side, not actually my point, and the least important of what I wrote.

I might declare that Mona Lisa isn't art because insert subjective argument here and nobody can prove me wrong. But if I declare Mona Lisa to not be a picture with a woman in it, it'll be pretty easy to prove I'm objectively wrong.

Philosophers and academics and whoever else might argue there could be a sort of mental universe beyond the physical where ideas and concepts actually exist, but that's as much "headcanon" as that Dragonball/Macbeth fanfic is.

The original argument involving objectivity was in regard to interpretation. This is not wholly defined by the individual. The existence of a metaphysical platonic ideal is irrelevant to my point.

Acting upon things that do not actually exist is the very basis of humanity. These imaginary things can be simple ideas like good, evil, truth, mercy, justice, jealousy, greed, etc; or extremely complicated bundles, such as culture, laws, morals, politics, religions, ideologies, etc.

Precisely, you live in a shared partially constructed world.

None of such things actually exist anywhere aside from inside people's skulls, none of those mental constructs do anything. It's always humans who do stuff influenced by whatever ideas infesting their brains.

Which you can not actually fully disentangle, so making large declarations of sole definitive expression is practically irrelevant. The Coriolis Effect is fictional. It does not independently exist. It still frequently factors into sniper's and meteorologists' calculations.

None of such things actually exist anywhere aside from inside people's skulls, none of those mental constructs do anything. It's always humans who do stuff influenced by whatever ideas infesting their brains.

Sure, but it's not just your mind that matters, which is how your initial defining of subjective came across. Just because these things would vanish if we all dropped dead does not negate their potency. My personal belief in racism does not alter whether or not I am discriminated upon.

A story is a shard affair. It is a communication. It has accepted terms. When we speak of objective in this context, it is invoking a neutrality. An "objectivity" reached by consensual terms and definitions.

In the Tarkin Arc of Order of the Stick, Elan experienced character development. This is not a particularly subjective opinion. What exactly that means, what it implied to you, those things are open. Whether it was executed believably, is intensively subjective. But if you accept the defined idea of character development, Elan meets the measurable requirements.

When objectivity was used, it was used initially in an interpretive sense. Art is a convolution, and one whose definition is extremely nebulous. My argument lies with the former, not with the latter.

Knaight

2014-04-29, 04:05 AM

You know, I thought this was the apogee of the thread -

- but no.

I'd have put that earlier. The whole "It's disrespectful to mess with the hard work of an author, but anything that's bad doesn't count as hard work" argument stood out even further. You've got to love an argument about head-canon that basically comes down to the specious "head canon should only be used on works bad enough that someone might want to use it", presented in some bizarre fashion about respecting authors.

Raimun

2014-04-29, 02:24 PM

There is no head-canon.

If you alter a story, even within your own head, it's not the same story anymore. It will become a different story.

Let's say I would really like Romeo and Juliet, expect for one minor detail: the ending. If I would decide that they actually faked their death and live happily ever after somewhere, would it still be the same story?

And yes, adaptions are also different stories from the original work. This is pretty evident with LotR and The Hobbit. The books have Tom Bombadil , endless amount Shire & hobbits and they explain why eagles won't solve everything. The films lack those things and add characters like Lurtz, Legolas surfing on stuff and the pacing is most of the time more fluid.

Aedilred

2014-04-29, 08:39 PM

Broadly speaking, I subscribe to death of the author theory, although it does wind me up occasionally when people insist on using it to justify twisting every piece of literature they read to be all about their pet topic. But then, given that I feel that way about excessive Freudianism, and so forth, I think that's more of a problem with such people than with the theory.

Essentially, I think the author's opinion about what the work is mean to say should be respected. But that doesn't mean that's what the work actually says. If the author comes back and re-edits something to change the ending, change an element or whatever, that's not a correction, that's a new version, and both versions can be considered independently (which isn't to say that both versions should necessarily be considered independently, because sometimes it's just not worth it, and trying to do that with all the various versions of Shakespeare would just be a nightmare, for instance. But you can if you want to and it's equally valid).

A personal bugbear of mine, since we're on the topic, is Gay Dumbledore. As I'm sure we all know, a few years ago - many years after the Harry Potter book series concluded - JK Rowling made it known that Dumbledore was gay. Many people praised her for having the courage for putting a gay character in a popular children's book.

I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, Dumbledore's sexuality is what comes across from the books, and that sexuality is "irrelevant". Dumbledore's being gay is just one interpretation of the character, and that it's the author's doesn't mean that that's what's on the page or necessarily true. Nor do I think it was "courageous" of her to put a gay character in the novel, because as far as I'm concerned she didn't: she put in a character whose sexuality was never really alluded to and then later told people her intention was for him to be gay. In fact, the cynical part of me would say that's the opposite of courageously adding a gay character - it's trying to crib credit for raising gay awareness without running the risk of actually saying it where it matters.

Like some others, I struggle with the idea of canon, although I end up getting roped into it just like everyone else. I read rather a good article on why the idea of a fictional-universe-canon is an exclusivist mentality, and I was inclined to agree with it. So when it comes to head-canon, I say go for it. Just, again reiterating what others have said, bear in mind that you're the only person for whom that is canonical.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-04-29, 10:11 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Dumbledore's sexuality is what comes across from the books, and that sexuality is "irrelevant". Dumbledore's being gay is just one interpretation of the character, and that it's the author's doesn't mean that that's what's on the page or necessarily true. Nor do I think it was "courageous" of her to put a gay character in the novel, because as far as I'm concerned she didn't: she put in a character whose sexuality was never really alluded to and then later told people her intention was for him to be gay. In fact, the cynical part of me would say that's the opposite of courageously adding a gay character - it's trying to crib credit for raising gay awareness without running the risk of actually saying it where it matters.

Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald is what blinded him for what Grindelwald truly was, and in developing that relationship, Dumbledore went into a dark place that he spends the rest of his life trying very, very hard to stay away from. Yes, Dumbledore was powerful enough on his own to take over the wizarding world without even breaking a sweat, but it was his brush with Grindelwald's intolerance, disguised as higher principles and "the greater good" that made him fear and respect power (and why he explicitly refused to ever become minister for magic). Dumbledore would have probably seen through Grindelwald if he hadn't been head over heals in love.

Yes, 80+ year old Dumbledore had little in the way of sexuality, scarred as he was from his one love, but the point of the constant revelations about Dumbledore is that he wasn't always the saintly genius Harry knew him as.

This is all straight from the books, with a bit of between the lines reading. No actual head canon involved (in that I didn't add anything; you may of course disagree with my between the lines reading). JKR's confirming Dumbledore's sexual orientation only confirmed what many already suspected after reading book 7.

Grey Wolf

Aedilred

2014-04-29, 10:46 PM

Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald is what blinded him for what Grindelwald truly was, and in developing that relationship, Dumbledore went into a dark place that he spends the rest of his life trying very, very hard to stay away from. Yes, Dumbledore was powerful enough on his own to take over the wizarding world without even breaking a sweat, but it was his brush with Grindelwald's intolerance, disguised as higher principles and "the greater good" that made him fear and respect power (and why he explicitly refused to ever become minister for magic). Dumbledore would have probably seen through Grindelwald if he hadn't been head over heals in love.
Oh, sure, I get all of that, and the revelation that Dumbledore was gay makes perfect sense as an interpretation. But that's still all it amounts to. The text itself doesn't go any further than establishing that Grindelwald and Dumbledore were great friends and that Dumbledore was so swept up in the excitement of his charismatic new friend that he ignored the hints that maybe there was something wrong with him. I mean, that's hardly uncommon in completely platonic relationships. I've had a few friends like that myself, especially when I was at that sort of age.

When somebody suggested to me that Dumbledore was gay, I could see it immediately, based on that relationship. But I didn't get that from the text itself. It's never explicit. It's barely even implicit. Is the word "love" ever used to refer to his feelings (and even that could be ambiguous?) And that's what grinds my gears about it. I don't have a problem with things being left unconfirmed and requiring reading between the lines. I have a problem with things being left unconfirmed and requiring reading between the lines and being treated as indisputable fact on the later say-so of the author.

It's the difference between:
"Dumbledore was always meant to be gay" (right on, but maybe you could have made it a bit more obvious)
and
"Dumbledore's gay" (well, that's your opinion.)

And it doesn't seem right that everyone acquiesced in giving credit for the latter when what actually happened was the former.

This is all straight from the books, with a bit of between the lines reading. No actual head canon involved (in that I didn't add anything; you may of course disagree with my between the lines reading). JKR's confirming Dumbledore's sexual orientation only confirmed what many already suspected after reading book 7.
But this, for me, is where the whole thing of "canon" runs into serious problems when it comes to material that doesn't exist in isolation, and it's been a problem for as long as there's been a concept of canon at all (without wanting to get into a religious discussion). At least where the author's actually dead you don't have the problem of their popping up and saying "oh, actually what I meant was..." - which is one of the reasons it's useful to treat all of them as figuratively dead at all times. When it comes to Harry Potter, what actually is the canon? Is Pottermore canon? What about Quidditch... and Magical Beasts...? What about something JK says in an interview (which is what this was, iirc)? The material on JK's website? What about the films? Cos it sure as heck wasn't in them. What counts as "canon" is already a pretty personal thing. The only definition that makes sense, for me, is the narrowest one possible: i.e. the books, and everything else is apocrypha. Not necessarily poor quality apocrypha, but not "canon".

Is Dumbledore gay? Most likely. Is he canonically gay? I'm going to have to go with "no".

I've got a bit confused and rambly (it's late) but essentially, I'd be happy to junk the whole concept of "canon" when it comes to fictional media (when it comes to non-fiction, that's a different matter) as fundamentally non-useful. That allows for arguments on the basis of "is this a good interpretation?" rather than "is this canonical?" The latter is narrow and closes discussions down, the former is inclusive and opens discussions up. So essentially it wouldn't matter whether the statement about Dumbledore's being gay was canonical, only that it was a valid and sensible interpretation (which it is). What wound me up was that it was treated as being indisputable fact (or "canonical" if you will), when in fact a valid and sensible interpretation is all it actually is - if it was supposed to be more than that, it should have been in the damn book.

warty goblin

2014-04-29, 11:19 PM

On the Dumbledore thing, lemme put it this way. If Grindelwald was a woman, would we even be wondering if Dumbledore was straight?

Aedilred

2014-04-30, 11:43 AM

On the Dumbledore thing, lemme put it this way. If Grindelwald was a woman, would we even be wondering if Dumbledore was straight?
Well there's a slightly separate issue there, of course, in that there's a widespread general presumption that fictional characters (and indeed real people) are straight unless indicated otherwise - which I'm almost certainly guilty of myself as a reader and writer and indeed person in general. So were Grindelwald female there'd be pretty much nothing in there (save for Dumbledore's celibacy) to suggest that he wasn't straight and it would probably be taken as read. But I still don't think there was anything in the text to suggest that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship was anything more than a close friendship regardless of gender, especially given that we already have a platonic male-female relationship front and centre in the novels in the shape of Harry and Hermione.

And in fact - although it's obviously less a relationship of equals - we also have an example of Harry's overlooking the character flaws of an ally because of general feelings of (platonic) affection in the case of Sirius. I don't think Grindelwald as presented is sufficiently different from other relationships in the series for Dumbledore's feelings towards him to be obviously romantic in nature.

I don't mean to derail the thread, mind; it's just a well-known example of application (or not) of death of the author and the question of canon.

Coidzor

2014-04-30, 02:47 PM

Aedilred

2014-04-30, 03:32 PM

Legato Endless

2014-04-30, 04:08 PM

No, Dumbledore is fairly on topic. It's a decent examination of reception theory. Which is basically what everything else here has sprung from. For what it's worth, I certainly assumed they were romantically entangled, but the circumstances were weak enough to make it ambiguous fanon on my part.

I think regardless of whether it was inherent to the interpretation, Rowling's timing of clarification has some…potentially unfortunate and arguably pandering/exploitive implications. But that is off topic, so I'll leave my thoughts there.

Nekura

2014-05-02, 03:05 AM

I used to think I disliked the whole Dumbledore is gay as retcon thing because the after the fact justifications are incredibly weak, then I realized that I just dislike the idea of J.K. Rowling getting credit for it when she more or less only made the revelation as an accident from what I can recall and it's not part of the story in enough of a meaningful way, even accepting the arguments of the Affirmative as all factual, to really count as a gain for LGBT individuals.

It's kind of funny, really, that my reaction has basically evolved to "yeah, sure, whatever, I don't care and that's the point."

I don’t blame her for not being able to depict a believable Dumbledore/Grindelwald romance because she was just plain bad at romance in general. But what I don’t get is why it give her props as pro LGBT to begin with. The way she explains it, it sounds like his gay love is what lead him to evil and him rejecting such “unnatural” feelings brought him back to the light. That seems more offensive to me then helpful.

That and it is silly when you consider no matter how much she insists Dumbledore is good now it’s obvious at heart he was still the evil man who seriously wanted to take over the world as he still does despicable acts “for the greater good”. It might just be very different morals or her just failing to get across in her writing how she insists her characters are outside of it. I’ll just stick with what she actual wrote in the books then how she says they are and I don’t really consider that head canon.

Grey_Wolf_c

2014-05-02, 07:25 AM

I don’t blame her for not being able to depict a believable Dumbledore/Grindelwald romance because she was just plain bad at romance in general. But what I don’t get is why it give her props as pro LGBT to begin with. The way she explains it, it sounds like his gay love is what lead him to evil and him rejecting such “unnatural” feelings brought him back to the light. That seems more offensive to me then helpful.

That and it is silly when you consider no matter how much she insists Dumbledore is good now it’s obvious at heart he was still the evil man who seriously wanted to take over the world as he still does despicable acts “for the greater good”. It might just be very different morals or her just failing to get across in her writing how she insists her characters are outside of it. I’ll just stick with what she actual wrote in the books then how she says they are and I don’t really consider that head canon.

I believe I disagree with every single unsupported "fact" you just stated. No, it does not "sound like his gay love is what lead him to evil". No, "rejecting such “unnatural” feelings" did not "bring him back to the light". Nothing she wrote about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship was in any way offensive. No, Dumbledore is not "obvious at heart still the evil man who seriously wanted to take over the world as he still does despicable acts “for the greater good”." In fact, everything you said sounds very much like your head canon.

But also, this is not the thread to discuss it.

Grey Wolf