Following canon :: Following the party :: Following multiple LJs

[heidi]

Three disparate subjects, eh?

I asked a question in someone's LJ this morning about canon. She posted "I do believe that R/Hr is canon..." and for the first time, it occured to me that I have no idea what she, herself, means when she says "is canon."

So I asked:

When you say, "is canon" do you mean that you think they're already snogging/dating/whatever bythe end of Book 5, or that you think Ron is interested in Hermione and they will snog/date/more in book 6 and/or 7?

Because when I read the phrase "is canon" I always think the person is saying the former, and I just realised that may not be the case.

And she replied, "by saying "is canon," I mean that I think Ron is interested in Hermione and Hermione is interested in Ron. Whether or not they'll ever get together remains to be seen."

And given all the debate/discussion/disaffected wanking in the past few weeks about ships being "canon" or not, it's probably time for me to just ask it.

What does "is canon" mean to you?



[Poll #269039]


This one is for all of you who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals - the Giuliani/Snowe/Pataki/McCains of the Republican party, those like Arlen Spector, who has done things I disagreed with while I was a constituent of his (see: Thomas hearings) but who has also done some brave and focused things while in office, and who are being targeted by right wing groups, funded in large party by Tom DeLay & his cronies. These Republicans, Salon reports, believe that only a loss by Bush will slow the continued encroachment of the party by these social conservatives.

Lincoln Chaffee was quoted as saying:

When George Bush was elected in 2000, moderate Republicans thought he was on their side. But that illusion was dispelled in his first few months of office. "When the president was elected, everyone was looking for a breath of fresh air -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- for the good of the country we wanted a bipartisan effort," Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., tells Salon. "We were all so weary of partisan trench warfare, and now it is deeper than ever."

"The president's agenda has been so different from his campaign rhetoric," Chafee says. "He is pushing an extreme agenda, from the abandonment of Kyoto, to banning access to abortions for service members overseas."

For a while, Bush's extremism was overshadowed by Sept. 11, and some moderates continue to support Bush because of the war on terror, despite being appalled by his domestic policies. Roger White, an associate professor of political science at Loyola University and self-described Rockefeller Republican, actually gave up his party membership four or five years ago out of disgust with the dominance of cultural conservatives like DeLay. Yet he supports Bush's foreign policy, and says, "I don't see the main danger as coming from cultural conservatives. I see the main danger coming from international terrorists."

But Bush has squandered much of his post-9/11 popularity by using it as cover to pass a right-wing domestic agenda.

"My values are not Mr. Bush's," says Susan Cosgrove, a 59-year-old lifelong Republican who owns a communications firm in Pittsburgh. "The Republican Party as I think of it -- the party of Rockefeller -- had a profound respect for character, and I don't think Mr. Bush is a man of character. I think his presidency is one of cronyism and pandering to the most radical wing of the party."

"What I see happening is a split among Republicans I know," she says. "A lot of them are becoming as alienated as I am, and a lot of them are moving in the same direction that the president is going. It makes for interesting dinner-table discussions."

Cosgrove isn't ready to leave the party yet. "There's something to be said for trying to change things from inside," she explains. Still, she's getting close.

"Maybe this is a lost cause. You try to change things from the inside and if you can't, it's time to step outside."

Meanwhile, she plans to volunteer for Kerry in the upcoming election. "I am in ABB mode," she says. "Anybody but Bush."

Now, to make it easy for all of us who're online, there's a Yahoogroup for Republicans for Kerry. If you're a Republican, and you think that this country is moving in the wrong direction under Bush, check the group out. Who knows, perhaps they'll have an LJ next...

...and speaking of LJs...

How many LJs do you have?
Two, this one and one which has no friends and has friended nobody, which I use as a food diary when I'm traveling.

Do you run any LJ communities?
hporlando, fiction_alley, chapter_owls and chapterowls, poa_nyc (for the June 4 weekend activities coordination in NYC), leaky_inc, fandom_history and fandom_lawyers, although I don't really do anything for the last two. I also hold custody of various birthday communities, which I should probably hand over to the people who they were created for...

Name five LJ people who:

You consider to be good friends:
epicyclical, gwendolyngrace, melissa_tlc, praetorianguard, folk

Make you smile: See above, plus copperbadge, taradiane, laughingirl, titanic_days

You have met face to face:Since I have such a huge list from Nimbus & other events, I'll just name the first five people who I met from the HP fandom, who are on LJ: epicyclical, folk, joyliveshere, ali_wildgoose, pot_pal_ashley. Of course, it's been coming on eight years since I first met traypup and then laughingirl in NYC, so they hold a special place in my RL-LJ dichotomy.

You want to meet: taradiane, notmollyweasley, copperbadge, lissinthecity and nostrademons.

You want to see again: Oh, heck, everyone I've ever met (given that I am among the lucky who didn't actually meet "S" or "D" back at the NY or London events back in 2001, whew).

And now, my stats:

Date created: 2002-02-11 09:17:45
Date updated: 2004-03-26 02:39:18, 6 hours ago
Journal entries: 1,083
Comments: Posted: 4,970 - Received: 9,880

Comments

[dragon-charmer.livejournal.com]

Canon to me is what we know from the books. For instance we don't know that Sirius and Remus had a relationship in canon as there hasn't been a reference to it, so it isn't canon. BUT there is some subtext that might point to it. But we do know that Bill and Fleur are involved as part of canon.

So if it isn't in the books, then to me it isn't canon.

Though, of course, we can read lots of things into canon subtext *g*

[anehan]

Came here through quickquote and though I'd as well throw in my two cents.

I agree with franlet, canon is something that we know from the books. James/Lily is canon, as, imo, is Riddle's mom/Riddle Sr. in a sense that they were involved even though the relationship ended. The relationship still happened at some point.

I don't consider Hermione/Ron canon, since it hasn't happened yet (or at least we aren't told about it). However, I consider Ron's crush on Hermione probably canon. 'Probably' because it isn't explicitely stated but is very likely.

As you see, I separate 'canon' and 'probably canon'. I think something is canon if it's there at the moment even though we don't know it yet, but as we don't know it yet we don't know for sure if it's canon. Bill/Fleur is a good example of 'probably canon'.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

They grey area for me is in interpretation. For instance, I consider canon to mean one character or both is interested in each other at the time a fic is set, which means some people will see Remus/Sirius as canon and some people not.

I don't necessarily need proof they are together in canon, but I think if somebody *thinks* the characters in the book are interested they are saying a ship is canon.

For me, it gets sticky when I consider the author's own views. To use H/D for example, I can see how that ship could be canon, meaning that it could evolve from the characters in canon. However, I don't think the pairing is currently canon. I also don't think--and I'm not sure how much weight to give this--that the author would ever consider it canon. So I know it will never be canon in terms of it happening, but I am still basing my ship on what I am seeing in canon.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I must say, I don't think "interpretation" could be considered to be even a grey area. People have different interpretations, and any reasonable writer should have understanding for that. No writer, no matter how good they are, can controll every reader's personal interpretations of their work, because the work should stand by itself, it shouldn't rely on the writer making an interview where he/she explains exactly how their texts should be read. And "being open for multiple interpretation", is generally a very good grade for any writer, at least I wouldn't want to be plump and "overobvious" (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm talking about the unsubtlety many Hollywood movies have).

So I guess I'm saying, though I can understand why you'd think authorial intent count for something, I still think that it's always subordinate to what actually comes across in the text.

So, to answer Heidi's question:

Canon= Objective facts presented by the text. Like the text says Harry's a wizard, that he spent ten years with the Dursleys, where he was mistreated, etc. It's usually hard to call someone's "crush" a fact, since it's more often a matter of interpretation (many people disagree with who Hermione crushes on, IF she crushes on any, Many pre-teen boys will tell you that Draco has an unrequited crush on Hermione, Ron's crush on Hermione seems pretty obvious, but we can't read his mind, so even that would be interpretation, IMO). Harry having had a crush on Cho for a couple of years would be Canon, because we read his mind, and he even says as much in OoP, but the depth of his feelings is open for interpretation.

Interpretation: Subjective readings of the text, and not Canon.

Authorial intent: Matters when it comes to predict the future development of the story, but once the books are written, the author had better hope that his/her intentions come across in the text, because the text will now stand on its own.

[debellatrix.livejournal.com]

Ooh, the cannon question really made me think. And I should have said this in the comments to the poll, but I guess for me cannon is "author's intent". In other words, I think JKR "intends" to create some R/H in some form, whether it be a quick ending-crush (which I think we've seen signs of) or something that leads to dating.

*wonders who S and D were*

[ladyguenivere.livejournal.com]

ah, intent. yeah, that's a good way to put it. *ponders*

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

franlet pretty much said it. I think your D/H theory is interesting; and the OTWers have made a reasonable argument; but neither have been stated in such a 'What do you think?' obvious fashion as R/Hm, even if they haven't had their clues drop yet by the end of OoP.

We've four canonical married couples (other than all the implied ones, i.e. the rest of the students' parents), one of which ended badly -- the Potters, the Weasleys, the Malfoys and the Riddles. We don't know anything about the Tonkses or the elder Blacks yet except they've existed, but we could toss them in....

We've a few dating couples mentioned by name as lasting longer than one Yule Ball -- Percy/Penelope, Harry/Cho (and we know what happened there), Bill/Fleur by implication from the canon statement.

And other than the hovering cloud of heavy implication around R/Hm, I... think that's it, right?

Any other 'ships, no matter how much desperate wishing is involved ^_^ should, IMHO, be considered 'fun' and 'what-if's. EVEN R/S. I tease them and they tease back, but there is NO canonical statement they can point to which is more than interpretive evidence for anything other than a fraternal relationship which IS canonical.

Wow. More pedantic than I expected. :)

[cleverthylacine]

There's a towering cloud of implication that Ron is somewhat crushing on Hermione.

I don't see any implication, whatsoever, anywhere, that she returns his feelings (and I do think this is a good thing--I can't see that relationship ever being good for her.)

[freya]

Canon is something that is stated in the books.
Simple as that. Works also for romance.
Subtext is interpretation. If you can say it didn't happen in canon and no one can give you text to prove you are wrong then it's not canon.

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

Very interesting question. Until I read it I hadn't noticed that I'd been using "is canon" as shorthand for "I believe that these two characters will be romantically linked by the narrative whether or not they get together."

For example, I always say "I think Snape/Lily is canon" by which I mean, I think there are enough canon hints of him having a crush on her to justify the expectation that JKR will reveal this to be the case.

NM

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

If something "is canon" then it is text. Black on white, on your videotape, on your tv set, on your movie screen.

It is not the interpretation of what you see; it's what you see.

So it doesn't matter that Faith sends Buffy smouldering glances and dances more than suggestively with her (not to mention the whole obsessive "Buffy" whining) as long as neither Joss Whedon or any of the other writers let her say: "I like you that way." or "Fancy a horizontal tango?", Faith's crush on Buffy is not text, only the viewer's interpretation.

A novel allows more interpretations and readings then a movie or a TV show, but its canon is more one-dimensional, as the visual element is completely missing. So if Faith's crush on Buffy is not text despite Eliza Dushku's acting, why should I deem anything that is not black on white in the Harry Potter books "canon"?

[casira.livejournal.com]

May come off as slightly abrasive here, which I don't mean to. ;) This is just something that's irked me for a while....

Given that the official definition of "canon" (M-W, anyway: I'd grab the OED quote but it's at home) as we mean it here is "the authentic works of a writer" -- if it's not explicitly stated in the books, IT'S NOT CANON.

Why there's a debate about that, I honestly don't understand.

There are clearly hints at R/Hr potential in the books, but until JKR writes them as snogging madly in the stairwell, it's not canon. There's a lot of what one could read as R/S subtext in the books, but until Remus sits Harry down and has the "yes, I loved Sirius" conversation, it's not canon. Etc., etc. Everything else is us playing around in JKR's sandbox until the next book comes out.

Sometimes I wish people would learn to take the books at face value. ;)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wish people would learn to take the books at face value. ;) '

Ah, but then what about texts that are about the thing that isn't said? Because an author can certainly choose to give us information in a subtle way that some people will pick up on and other people won't.

[ladyguenivere.livejournal.com]

I feel obliged to respond being the "she" in question. ;)

Canon is difficult. It can be interpreted many ways. What I see, someone else wont see. (For example, people who ship R/Hr and H/Hr sometimes use the same evidence to point to as support for their ship.)

I think most people agree that there's some sort of tension between R/Hr, but that tension can be translated totally different. Sexual Tension? Crush? Annoyance? Friendly? But Tension between R/Hr is canon, imho. Whether or not they'll have a great t00by love is unknown to me.

It's up to the reader, obviously. Even though JKR seems (to me!) to say R/Hr exists, she's never blatant and each side goes, "A-ha! See?! She supports H/Hr-R/Hr!"

It's difficult. Very difficult.

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

This is the issue I have, and I even like R/Hr and think it has a good possibility of happening in canon -- it has not happened yet. There may be mountains of text you can point to that says 'Ron like Hermione and Hermione likes Ron', but there is nothing at all that indicates they currently have or have ever had a romantic relationship. They may have one, it is even very likely that they will. However, they do not have one now.

You would not declare any future events in the books canon, so why would you declare a romantic relationship that has not happened canon? Why is shipping special? Feelings may be canon, but the relationship is not canon.

I think this whole notion of 'canon shipping' and of 'canon thumping' on SHIPS of all things has led to the biggest wanktastic mess in teh fandom. More canon than thou.

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

I have a different definition of "canon," which I have chosen simply because it is far more unwieldy and open to debate and, hence, irritating.

For me, canon means it is so very very obvious.

So yes, all of the actual romantic relationships in the book -- Arthur/Molly, Penelope/Percy, James/Lilly, etc. -- are canon. With a couple of exceptions, however, they are also not very interesting. To me.

In addition:

H/D is not canon, but Draco being sexually obsessed with Harry is. Because while we know that Harry and Draco are never going to get it on, it just so obvious that Draco has a sad little crush on Harry. It is so very very very obvious.

Ron/Hermione is canon.

As is Kreacher/trousers.

Lucius/Draco.

Sirius/Remus is canon. But so is Sirius having a crush on James, as kids. I mean, why did JKR bother to tell us that some girl was trying desperately to catch Sirius's eye in the Pensieve flashback scene, just so that he could ignore her in favor of James. What was the point of this detail? Why include it? Answer: HUGEBOYCRUSH.

Etc.

:D

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

Canon discussions push all ye olde lit-crit buttons and make me want to rant about the impossibility of authorial intent and assigning a dominant "meaning" to a text and blahbitty-blah-blah.

But I'm-a gonna shut up about that.

Canon: What's explicitely stated in the original text. Not inferred, but stated. Ron is a boy. Hermione is a girl. Ron is preoccupied with Hermione and shows classic signs of adolescent lurv. So does she, to a lesser extent. This is canon. Ron/Hermione? Not canon. Not yet. Maybe not ever.

Draco is a boy. Harry is a boy. Draco is obsessed with Harry. This is canon. The reasons behind his obsession are open to interpretation. And while interpretation is what brings a text to life, it ain't canon. So no Draco/Harry... yet. Probably not ever.

Sometimes, I must confess, canon is a bore.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Draco is a boy. Harry is a boy. Draco is obsessed with Harry. This is canon. The reasons behind his obsession are open to interpretation. And while interpretation is what brings a text to life, it ain't canon. So no Draco/Harry... yet. Probably not ever.

Sometimes, I must confess, canon is a bore.

Yes, exactly! The fact that Draco is obsessed by Harry is Canon, because we can see him exhibit obsessive behaviour right there in the books, but we reasons behind said obsession, is only something speculate about. It's open for interpretations, multiple interpretations at that. Canon, can not be argued over, interpretation can always be argued over. Interpretation is what's between the lines. Canon is what's on the lines. Hence, interpretation is usually what's fun to discuss.

[aome.livejournal.com]

Canon to me is something where it is either factually stated in the books (the people are known to be dating or married), or I believe JKR has set something up *deliberately*, even if all there is to go by is subtext. For instance, I believe R/Hr is currently canon. It doesn't mean I think they've secretly been snogging on the side in Book 5, nor do I expect to see them fall madly in love, snog, shag, and live happily ever after either in or after the books. If they do, fine, but it's not required. It means I think JKR has deliberately written them to have something going on, with both of them having crushes on each other, but not admitting it to anyone, not even themselves at this point. They are the only 'subtext' based canon ship I believe in. Anyone else - not canon. It would be nice to theorise, and there are some ships that could probably go either way, either that they *were/are* really going on, or not, but R/Hr is the only one not factually stated which I consider canon - based on my perception of author intent.

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

I think joked a bit with some of answers, but really, married couples and people we know to currently have or to have previously had a romantic something or other. That would mean R/Hr is NOT canon. Ron's crush is definately canon, but their relationship beyond friendship is not. I can see where peole might say R/Hr is canon. I can see where people might say H/D is canon (Draco is certainly obessed with Harry), but the SHIP isn't.

Sirius/Remus might be canon. It seems very much implied that they had a relationship during OotP, while a CURRENT relationship beyond friendship between R/Hr is not implied. There are good odds that there will be a relationship, but they currently do not have one. This is why I am slightly bitter towards the Sugar Quill. This whole nonsense of declaring ships 'canon' and being 'canon thumpers' has really poisoned R/Hr and H/Hr shipping.

You wouldn't delcare anything else that hasn't happened in the books canon, would you? Why a ship? I'm not going around declaring Ron=DD canon, and I believe that will happen even more than I believe either R/Hr or H/Hr will happen.

****

Politics... I am at the ABB point myself, but to be honest... I think Kerry will be just as bad, just in different ways.

While I am/was against the war in Iraq, the notion of bowing to international bodies absolutely sickens me. The notion of leaving the Iraqi people in the lurch also sickens me. This cannot be done half assed, and I get the impression that Kerry will do just that. Terrorism is still a real threat. I don't think Bush has handled any of this well at all, but I get the sense that Kerry will do NOTHING. I am not sure which is worse -- fuck it up, or do nothing.

Kerry is not for gay marriage. His one saving grace is that he doesn't want to alter the Constitution. I don't think he's a great champion for Individual Rights. Neither is Bush.

My issue with both parties is that neither stand for real principles anymore, nevermind principles I agree with. They are both terribly dangerous in my eyes. The real issue for me is determining which is the most immediate threat, which will have the most lasting effect, cause the most harm in the short or cause harm that will be lasting.

[hailebop.livejournal.com]

Canon to me is either what explicitly has been mentioned in the book as happening or having happened (e.g. Percy and Penelope, Lily and James, Molly and Arthur).

However, canon is what's in the books - and we all know there are a lot of ways in which canonical events can be interpreted. One can easily argue that in canon Ron has a crush on Hermione (citing evidence of the infamous fight scene) and say it's canon because there is evidence of it - but I think that's blurry. If at the end of book 7 it turns out that the Ron/Hermione shippers were right in their intepretation of GoF, then they could claim that Ron in canon did have a crush on Hermione in GoF - but at this stage when we don't have all the evidence, it's impossible to tell exactly what's going on that isn't explicitly mentioned. So you can argue something is canon, but you can't really prove it, if that makes any sense at all.

Hailey

On canon...

[dreagoddess.livejournal.com]

To me there are three distinct types of canon.

1.) Past canon - characters have been linked in the text at some point, but aren't now. Harry/Cho and Ginny/Michael would count. If you only THINK they were linked but it wasn't in the text, it's not canon.

2.) Present canon - characters are linked in the text as of the last book out. Bill/Fleur would be an example of this, as we were told they were dating and never that they'd broken up. Again, if you only THINK they were together, it's speculation, not canon.

3.) Future canon - the characters will be linked together in the text as of the last word of the last book in the series. (Getting together in Book 6 and breaking up in Book 7 would still count for future canon, though it would become past canon as soon as you reach that paragraph in Book 7.) Ron/Hermione, IMO, counts as future canon. Voldemort/Giant Squid would probably be a pure speculation ship, not something that's going to appear in the text. *g*

When I generally refer to something as "canon", I mean either past or present canon. James/Lily and Arthur/Molly are canon. Sirius/Remus, sorry, is not, no matter how clear some people (myself included) think the hints are! Future canon still counts as speculation -- I wouldn't have predicted Bill/Fleur at the end of GOF, personally -- but I'd refer to it as "R/H will be canon, as in I think by the time we've read "scar" at the end of Book 7, that relationship WILL appear in the text.

Some ships are a little more complex. Harry/Cho is canon (past canon) insofar as they were dating on Book 5 and broke up, but if you're predicting their getting back together in Book 6 or 7, it's future canon.

...Did that make any sense? :)

[piperx.livejournal.com]

For me, the confusion lies in the "ship" part of the equation rather than the "canon". I consider "canon" to be anything that has definitely happened in the books that we know for a fact, no reading of subtext required.

I consider R/Hr to be canon but no, I don't think they've been snogging in the Astronomy Tower all along. What I consider to be canon is their feelings -- I've seen overwhelming evidence that Ron likes Hermione and almost equally strong evidence that Hermione likes Ron. Their relationship is currently ruled by romantic feelings for each other. They just haven't acted on those feelings yet.

So if the definition of a ship must include some kind of physical romantic activity, like a kiss, then R/Hr would not be canon. (The good luck kiss doesn't cut it.)

[angua9.livejournal.com]

"Canon" is something that is written right there in black and white in the original book or movie. A relationship is "canon" if we have seen it happening in canon, if we have seen a relationship plot, if we have seen the two characters relate in a romance-forming way.

Technically, I suppose, any married couple must be assumed to be a "canon ship," but I only use the term for relationships we see forming or in action. Thus, James/Lily is a canon ship, while Frank/Alice is just a background fact.

I consider Ron/Hermione and Hagrid/Olympe and Harry/Cho to be "canon ships" because we have seen them begin on the page. We have seen the two characters interact as part of a romance plot, with atttraction, jealousy, misunderstandings, etc. Any of these relationships could fail romantically - as Harry/Cho apparently already has - but they still will have been "canon ships."

I do not currently call Harry/Ginny a canon ship, but I expect to be able to do so in the future. I do not call Sirius/Remus or Fred/Angelina or Snape/Lily a canon ship either, because the indications for these relationships are too inconclusive or subtle.

I do not call a one-sided attraction such as Hermione/Lockhart or Ron/Fleur or Harry/Ginny or Harry/Myrtle or (possibly) Harry/Draco a canon ship, no matter how explicit the evidence of the attraction is. The two characters must be seen to be involved in the "mating dance" in actual published books, before I call it a canon ship.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I would associate the words "is canon" with authorial intent as well as what is actually written specifically into the five books. For example, we could read Harry/Draco subtext from the five books, but from JKR's interviews, I would say that it is nigh on impossible for her to ever write that into the books.

To be the words "is canon" are as confusing as the words "in character" and "out of character". I've seen Harry/Draco fics being called IC fics. To be this seems improbable with the literal definition of IC being that it is reasonably forseeable that it would happen to the actual characters in the actual books. I personally think that before the fifth book came out, Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny were reasonably canon ships. They are also IC ships. Now, frankly, I have to say that the latter is seeming less and less likely, whereas the former still has a possibility.

But you would think with the obsession of the fandom with canon!ships and canon!fics we would have come up with a workable defintion by now. Eh.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Canon is the text, and the text only. It is not what you, or other readers may or may not read between the lines.
Yes, it's true that some writers depend on what the readers are able to gather and conclude between lines. Hemingway is a primary example of this, he will only let the readers in on "the tip of the iceberg", and he relies on the readers being able to pick up the rest. Because he's a skillful writer, this works, or rather, it works with the readers who are "intelligent" enough, or have enough experience of reading similar works, or are attentive enough, to pick up on the subtext. His work also depend on his readers having enough knowledge of the world he writes about, because if they don't, they may not be able to pick up on "the rest of the ice-berg", no matter how intelligent, attentive or experienced readers they are. The point is: in Hemingway's work, it's only the tip of the ice-berg thast is Canon!

Other readers have tried to imitate Hemingway's style, and they've failed, because according to the critics "the rest of the ice-berg simply wasn't there". But it's a matter of interpretation! For readers who, for whatever reason, don't get Hemingway, "the rest of the ice-berg" isn't there either. And, admittedly, the writers who tried to imitate Hemingway, but were criticised of not having been able to convey the subtext they wanted, must have thought themselves that the rest of the ice-berg was there, and it's even possible that some of their readers thought so. But in these cases too, only "the tip of the ice-berg" was Canon.

What's true for both Hemingway, and his imitators, is that "the rest of the ice-berg" had no way of appearing, outside the meeting between the text and the reader, and that makes "the rest of the ice-berg" interpretation and not Canon. Interpretation is never uniform, or universal. Canon always is. Canon does not depend on the reader. Canon is always there, even without the reader. Interpretation never is.

And no, prediction of future Canon is no more Canon, than interpretation is. Predictions may of course become Canon one day, but until they're there, in clear writing, they're not. Like interpretation, prediction only occurs in the meeting with the reader. And an unfinished Canon is always open for alternative predictions, we won't know for sure which one is right, until the series is over.

Yes, R/Hr and H/G may very well be Canon one day, but currently it is not. Ron telling Harry that Ginny fancy/ied him, is. H/D is certainly not Canon. And no, neither is Draco having a crush on Harry. It is an interpretation, an interpretation, that may be made with good arguments, admittedly, but still only an interpretation.

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

I read canon as canon-plausible, which is the most ambiguous term ever. Well, not the most, but it must be close.

If somebody can justify that it *could* happen in canon, I'm happy. Otherwise I don't really like it. Ginny getting pissed off because she was ignored as a child, running off and joining the DEs and meeting Bellatrix and having femmeslash? Plausible. Ginny becoming a prefect and finding Hermione in the prefect's bathroom and deciding 'what the hell?' Not so plausible (unless it's written well--that was simply the most absurd thing I could come up with on the spur of the moment).

Even if it's unlikely, if it's plausible, then it's fine.

Pure canon would have to be, yes, absolutely defined pairings. And that would limit us all dreadfully, so please excuse me as I ignore it.

[luminousmarble.livejournal.com]

Urg. Canon is:

1. Things that have happened, to the best of Harry's knowledge. James/Lily, Lucius/Narcissa, etc.

2. Things that we're pretty sure happened, like the date of Nearly Headless Nick's birth.

3. Things that JKR says are going to be true, even if she hasn't written that part yet (however, since interviews aren't included in the books, and she could be lying, I'm fine with ignoring them).

There are other things that are very likely to be true, like Ron/Hermione. However, I base that somewhat on my reading of canon plus her statements about how Harry was conceived. He was her creative baby, and I don't think she wants to marry him (if I assume Hermione is modeled after her). I also think that, given the crummy time she was having with her husband, the old friend/flame from the past was probably looking pretty good, and thus, Ron was born. I went from shipping Hermione/Percy to Hermione/Ron, and never stopped off at Hermione/Harry, so I could be biased.

Not canon, yet.

[dramaturgy.livejournal.com]

I think if a pairing is canon, it simply means that it is either confirmed or shown in the books or by JKR in other sources (chats, etc.) that they have dated/shagged/etc at some point in the books or in the backstory. By my definition, James/Lily, Harry/Cho, Percy/Penelope, and Arthur/Molly are all canon. Ron/Hermione, Sirius/Remus, Justin/Padma, and Dumbledore/Giant Squid are not.

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

Personally, I consider the text of the books canon.

Not only did I meet "S", Carole and I had dinner with her. She seemed like such a normal person. :-(

question about leaky_inc

[baine.livejournal.com]

Hello! I was wondering if I can be added to the community for leaky_inc? I got the link after visiting The Leaky Cauldron today.

Please let me know.

Thanks ^.^