|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 8, 2009 0:00:57 GMT
No, see, if JKR wanted Dumbledore to be gay and didn't think it would fit to just announce it in the story, then she could have given clues throughout the text, able to be picked up on by people who are looking. That's what a good writer does. If he/she gives absolutely no indication, and then afterward has to say "Well, this and this and so and so, only you didn't know that because I didn't tell you," then, well, he or she failed. Failed to include it in the work, failed to convey it with the work.
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Jan 8, 2009 0:53:52 GMT
In the case of Dumbledore and his sexual preferences, I believe JK Rowling said, in a response to a reader question, "Well, I always pictured Dumbledore as gay."
She is not saying he IS gay - just that she viewed him that way. It is her own interpretion of the work, which just so happens to be her's. And she, like anyone else, should be allowed to interpret the story as she likes. It's not like she wrote a HP Ultimania that has a whole chapter on why Dumbledore is gay. She just stated her own opinion, but since it came from her, people took it as canon, neverminding the fact that it was never hinted at in the books.
For the most part, I too agree with Vulcan. If you have something you feel needs to be said, put it in the story, whether outright or through little hints. I don't mind if authours attempt to clarify something, but like Pied (Pied? I think so, apologies if I'm wrong) said, people take the ADs they like and turn them into canon, and ignore the ones they don't.
Look at the Ultimanias, for example, which are basically giant ADs (hooray for brevs, Moira). A lot of the Ultimanias talk about Cloti stuff, so a lot of Cloti fans call it canon because it supports what they think, nevermind that most of these supposed Cloti moments were never mentioned anywhere in the original media.
TL;DR: Authours, like anyone else, should be allowed their own opinion on their own works, and that's what authour declarations are. If it wasn't shown one way or another in the ORIGINAL PUBLISHED text, then it doesn't matter if God himself comes down and yells it - it's not canon.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 8, 2009 1:12:53 GMT
Yes, YAC, both of those things are true. 1.) That an author is as entitled to a personal interpretation of his work as the fans are, and 2.) that personal interpretation is not canon.
|
|
|
Post by piedflycatcher on Jan 8, 2009 13:29:22 GMT
No, see, if JKR wanted Dumbledore to be gay and didn't think it would fit to just announce it in the story, then she could have given clues throughout the text, able to be picked up on by people who are looking. But she did, in the seventh book. There are hints which indicate that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was not platonic. Author declarations are not just opinions. Sometimes they might be, but I find it hard to believe that when Tolkien wrote the Appendices, he intended them to be only his personal opinion rather than part of the LoTR canon.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 9, 2009 1:31:41 GMT
But she did, in the seventh book. There are hints which indicate that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was not platonic. Then he's gay, and the text says so for the people who want to see it, and we don't need her ramming the correct interpretation down everyone's throats. As others have pointed out, Tolkien's Appendices were actually written before the story proper, and were included with the original publication. This makes them part of canon, not an afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by thatgirl on Jan 9, 2009 3:01:20 GMT
Woah there's a debate on the shipping wars going on?! i should go check that out. but anyway lol...
i'm kind of neutral about this so maybe i shouldn't be posting in this thread but i think everyone on each side of this argument has made good points. Vulcanelf you make points really well and before i came into this thread i never looked at this 'author declaration' that way. thanks for making me look at things both ways lol!!
I think it depends on the situation really. sometimes it can be good, sometimes it can be bad, but i think with the the case of ultimanias, it really just depends on what you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Jan 9, 2009 14:21:40 GMT
Then he's gay, and the text says so for the people who want to see it, and we don't need her ramming the correct interpretation down everyone's throats. But if YACCBS is right about where the quote comes from then someone asked her to ram it down their throat, which kind of comes back to what I said before - fans ask for clearer information about things that are hinted in the book. As Pen and Moira have pointed out sometimes that's really annoying, because the original was better left ambiguous, but still, it happens all the time. I agree with you that it's not up to an author, or any kind of artist, to tell others how to interpret their work, but I don't think that the author should be blamed for providing an interpretations if fans ask for it. *Help a noob time* Can anyone tell me what TL;DR means?
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Jan 9, 2009 14:50:42 GMT
TL;DR means "too long, didn't read", Hope. Don't worry, I didn't know what it meant for the longest time ever either.
At an interview someone asked JKR if Dumbledore ever loved someone. JKR "hesistated, then said, "Well, I always pictured Dumbledore as gay."
I wouldn't call that ramming it down anyones throat. She responded honestly to a question asked of her, and I see no fault in that.
|
|
|
Post by Woodster on Jan 9, 2009 16:43:34 GMT
I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I've never heard of the term 'Author Declaration' before the other day, so all I know about it is what has been mentioned here, but let me try and explain my thoughts on the subject. Taking Pen's original definition at face value, I interpret AD to mean anything other than the original work. So that would mean that in the HP-verse 'Fantastic Beasts...' and 'Quidditch through the Ages' would count as AD's as they elaborate on aspects mentioned in the original works. I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't personally have considered them as AD's, but on reflection, maybe they do. I doubt Rowling would have ever considered writing them before her books became so successful, and, I'm not certain, but weren't they a reaction to fans asking about the creatures of the HP-verse and wanting to know more about Quidditch? So from what I've said above, I've also included fan response into the definition. So then I look at 'The Lord of the Rings'. Flicking through the Appendices, most does come across as AD in content. For example, Appendix A provides information about the Kings and Rulers of Middle Earth, and adds details to points made throughout the main work, such as the 'Tale of Aragorn and Arwen', and the comparison with Beren and Tinúviel, which is mentioned in the books. But these differ to the other works of Rowling in several ways. Firstly - as I've mentioned before in another post - much of the work included in the appendices were written before and during the 16 years in took Tolkien to write 'LotR'. All that remained by the time he had finished the story itself was to organise the notes into something more readable. Secondly, they were not included as a response to fans demands as Tolkien had planned to include them within the book for some time, even before having his work accepted by the publishers. And thirdly, Appendix B - 'The Tale of Years' - is a timeline of the history of Middle Earth. Would that really count as a Declaration? Personally, I don't think so, as it just organises the events contained within 'The Hobbit', 'Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion (the first draft) into an easy to read chronological timeline. It does not elaborate on any point - just contains the facts already on paper. And now the definition has grown to also include when the declaration was made in relation to the original work and content. So what about interviews? Well, alot of the things mentioned in an interview is often in response to fans, whether the interviewer is a fan themselves, or just asking on behalf of the fans. Also, most interviews are done after the initial work, and is often based on the works just released or already written. But it also depends on the content of the interview itself. If Rowling had said in an interview that Crookshanks was a "ginger cat that especially liked bread dipped in warm milk", then you'd take the eating habit as an AD, but not the fact that he was a ginger cat, as that has already been mentioned in the books themselves. It the same way, if Rowling had mentioned before the seventh book was released that Dumbledore was gay, and then clearly mentioned it within the final book, then I wouldn't count that as an AD either. Translating all this across to the realm of FFVII, I am of the opinion, that the Ultimanias/etc are Author Declarations because they're often written in response to fans and are commentaries on the games themselves. Most of the content is elaboration on points that happen with the games. Most of the interviews are also AD for the reasons listed above: they are a response to fan questions, they are made after the game itself has been released and unless they mention a point made in the game itself, then its some new information that can't be proved as 100% canon. As for the short stories such as Maiden, etc, I'm unsure as to whether or not they count as AD's, because they are stories within their own rights, like sequels or are creations made to fill in gaps within the main storyline. But then again, the same thing could be said of Rowling's 'Quidditch' or Tolkien's 'Tale of Aragorn and Arwen'. Anyone have any views on this? TL;DR: In my opinion, when deciding what counts as an Author Declaration and what doesn't, we also need to consider: - Is the point said/written in response to fan reaction, - When the point was first made - before, during or after the writing/creation of the original work, - And the content of the point itself - is it new information specifically relating to the point raised or is it created just as a companion piece (such as Tolkien's Appendices). Anyway, there are probably a million things wrong with my post, but I mainly wrote it to get my head round this whole Author Declaration term thats so new to me, and to just use it as a sounding board to clarify some of my thoughts on the topic. Let the picking apart begin!
|
|
piratesrox
SOLDIER Third Class
The use of words expressing more than that of their literal intention! Now that. Is. Irony.
Posts: 712
|
Post by piratesrox on Jan 9, 2009 16:59:06 GMT
I hereby endorse Wood's post, and subscribe to her newsletter.
SHE EVEN PUT A TL;DR FOR ME!!
YAAAAAAAAAAAY!
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Jan 9, 2009 17:12:22 GMT
As for the short stories such as Maiden, etc, I'm unsure as to whether or not they count as AD's, because they are stories within their own rights, like sequels or are creations made to fill in gaps within the main storyline. But then again, the same thing could be said of Rowling's 'Quidditch' or Tolkien's 'Tale of Aragorn and Arwen'. Anyone have any views on this? I don't think the stories count as AD because they are continuing to tell part of the same story, rather than elaborating on what's already been told. They were released a long time after the original, but sometimes there are long gaps between the various installments of a series. There was just as much time before AC was released and AC isn't considered AD. I can understand why, to an extent, because there were probably far more people involved in its making than in the novellas, but I'm sure the Case of's and Maiden would still have had to be approved by Square Enix. I don't think Rowling's 'Quidditch' fits into the same category because I don't think it's continuing the story, but elaborating on something that appears in it (although i don't know for sure because I haven't read it). I haven't looked at the LOTR appendices in a long time, but doesn't the 'Tale of Aragorn and Arwen' describe what happens to the characters at the end of the story? If so then it's continuing the story, just like the novellas, so I wouldn't consider it author declaration. YACCBS - Thanks for the definition. Sometimes I feel like I'm learning a new language!
|
|
|
Post by Woodster on Jan 9, 2009 20:44:14 GMT
I don't think the stories count as AD because they are continuing to tell part of the same story, rather than elaborating on what's already been told. They were released a long time after the original, but sometimes there are long gaps between the various installments of a series. There was just as much time before AC was released and AC isn't considered AD. I can understand why, to an extent, because there were probably far more people involved in its making than in the novellas, but I'm sure the Case of's and Maiden would still have had to be approved by Square Enix. That was part of my thinking, as well, but I wanted to see other peoples views on the matter. I thought so at first, but then I considered it from a different angle: although its not continuing Harry's personal story, or even any of the other main characters, it is still telling a story in HP-verse; It tells the story of the founding of the sport. Then again, the latter half of the book does become a bit more reference-guide-like. It does, and you're right. But at the time I was just working through my thoughts and didn't realise until you mentioned it that I had used it as an example of AD. Like I said, you guys are my sounding board!
|
|
|
Post by t3hmaniac on Jan 11, 2009 17:49:27 GMT
do Author declerations really make that much of a difference to some people though? The creators can launh as many torpedos at certain ideas made from misinterprettation but some of those definitley are not going to be swayed.
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Jan 12, 2009 11:22:04 GMT
do Author declerations really make that much of a difference to some people though? The creators can launh as many torpedos at certain ideas made from misinterprettation but some of those definitley are not going to be swayed. You're right, but it can still be frustrating, especially if the author declaration is long after the original work. If you'd read a book that left you to make up your own mind about the ending, and then five years later an author declaration tells the world that the ending was the opposite to your interpretation it would be a pain, not to mention those kinds of fans that feel the need to constantly tell you that your version is not the 'correct' one. Even if your interpretation was the same as the AD it can still be irritating to have the story so closed off. My view of the LTD was pretty much the same as what was said in the Ultimanias, but I still find it irritating that they're so Cloti centred. I mean, what was the point of setting up the triangle in the first place? It was one of the most incendiary things in the game, and theorising and debating who Cloud loved was fun. I felt that the Ultimanias tried to take out that whole element of the game, which was a real shame. In short, I think they do make a difference, not neccessarily because they're going to change anyone's minds, but just because they're kinda frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvaltaya on Jan 12, 2009 13:49:30 GMT
It seems to me that everything in the Ultimanias might be rather Cloud/Tifa centered, because Tifa is the one who is still alive.
If AC was about Cloud moving on, then why keep Cloud stuck in the past with all the regrets he's already carried for too long?
|
|