On Canon, Authorial Authority, and Queer Representation

Meta
Title:	On Canon, Authorial Authority, and Queer Representation
Creator:	idvo
Date(s):	January 2, 2013
Medium:	Tumblr post
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS, Supernatural, Harry Potter
Topic:
External Links:	On Canon, Authorial Authority, and Queer Representation
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

On Canon, Authorial Authority, and Queer Representation is a 2013 essay by idvo.

Some Topics Discussed

• canon vs. interpretation
• authorial intent
• queer representation in media and books
• Harry Potter, Star Trek: TOS, Supernatural
• the essay The Footnote

Excerpts

To me, canon is what is explicitly shown in the text, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is interpretation and up for discussion and/or debate. I’ll use my OTP, Kirk/Spock, as an example here. I’ve been a shipper practically all my life, and in all those years, never has a non-canon couple seemed more plausible to me than Kirk/Spock. There is just so much stuff to analyze about them, and a lot of the more obvious hints are from their creator, Gene Roddenberry himself.

[Roddenberry is] pretty much saying that if the “Greek ideal” was popular in the 23rd century, Kirk and Spock would be bangin’. It doesn’t get much more blatant than that (other then them actually bangin’, of course, which didn’t happen in the show or movies unless you count “Amok Time” I’m not sayin’ I’m just sayin’). Roddenberry also went so far as to create a Vulcan word, t'hy'la, to describe Spock’s feelings for Kirk, a word that, when translated, can mean friend, brother, lover. Now, could Spock be thinking of Kirk as just a friend and/or brother? Of course. But did Roddenberry need to include “lover” as a definition of the word? No. Did he anyway? Yes.

I still think it’s amazing that Roddenberry never (at least to my knowledge) flat-out denied the possibility of a romantic relationship between his two most iconic characters, especially in light of the time period in which he created them. And, more than that, he deliberately dropped hints about a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock, hints that never came across as mocking that potential aspect of their relationship (like many modern shows do). It’s all just there, and we’re free to make of it what we will.

However, even with the staggering amount of evidence that points towards a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock, I still don’t think of their relationship as canon. Now, that might sound confusing and contradictory, but hear me out. My definition of canon isn’t what can be inferred from a text, but what the text actually is. Kirk and Spock never explicitly state that they’re a couple in any of the episodes of TOS or any of the movies; none of the other characters ever acknowledge them as a couple; therefore, they are not a canonical couple according to my definition of canon.

JK Rowling can say what she likes about Harry Potter, but unless she writes those opinions down and includes them in her texts, they aren’t canon, they’re interpretation. They are the author’s interpretation, sure, but they’re interpretation nonetheless. Down in the comments on the article, there is an in-depth discussion about the canonicity of Dumbledore being gay. JK Rowling said he is, so that means he is, right? But in the HP books, she didn’t actually include any information referencing his sexuality in any explicit (and some would say even implicit) way, so how can he be? How can something be canon if it’s never in the canon of the text? I would argue that it can’t be, and when it comes to queer representation, this is very important to take note of.

Unfortunately, there’s this heterosexist habit in society that teaches us to assume that someone is “straight until proven gay,” unless the person in question shows some sort of stereotypical behavior and/or enters into a queer relationship. This is particularly true in media. Rowling may say that Dumbledore is gay, but her saying that doesn’t magically change the text and make it explicit, or even relevant. (It kind of comes across as her wanting brownie points for including a gay character without actually including a gay character, but that’s a whole other story.) When someone creates a non-LGBTQ themed story, or a film, or a TV show, if they want a character to be anything but straight or cisgendered, they need to come right out and make that explicit in the text, otherwise, the majority of the audience won’t see it, and there will be no queer representation.

...I like it when the canon allows its audience room to interpret the text how they want. That’s part of what makes me consume media, part of what makes fandom fun for me. I wouldn’t want everything to be up for interpretation though, because we’d never get anywhere, especially when it comes to queer representation. Some things just need to be stated outright. If there’s a way for someone to interpret a character as heterosexual or a same-sex relationship as strictly platonic, then that character or relationship cannot count as queer representation. Only when that is the only true interpretation, according to the text’s canon, can it count.

I’m not trying to say that interpretation is bad. Far from it. Interpretation, to me, is the point of fiction. Why read or watch something if you’re not allowed to have your own opinion of it? But canon is important, too, especially when it comes to queer representation and representation of other marginalized groups. And as much as I love fanworks and meta celebrating characters and relationships that don’t get the attention they deserve from their sources, I really, really want the sources to start paying attention to these characters and relationships in the text, too. It’s about damn time.

Fan Comments

[littlehollyleaf]:

This is an excellent commentary on relevant fandom issues :) I might question the definition of ‘canon’ as essentially 'that which is explicit in a text,’ what with my epic debate a while back about how 'canon’ is perhaps a broader term that actually covers subjective interpretations and implications of the text as well because there is no single canon to anything. But that’s nitpicking. The point is, whether you call it the 'canon’ of a text or not, all literature has stuff that is EXPLICIT that no one (or few) can deny, and stuff that is IMPLICIT that is open to debate and can often be ignored or outright not noticed, and queer representation, I’m coming to understand, pretty much always falls into the IMPLICIT category if it’s lucky. Which is the problem.

[snipped]

The author is not the 'god’ of a text. Author (and ACTOR) interpretation is still INTERPRETATION (not that it doesn’t make it still absolutely FASCINATING to know an author’s and/or actor’s interpretation of course).

The issue of Dumbledore being gay is not one I’ve ever felt has much of a baring on my life personally, not being a major HP fan or gay, so I’ve never discussed it, I’ve never felt it was my place. But I have always felt… 'eh’ about it since JK’s reveal. Not about JK saying that’s how she interprets Dumbledore, that’s fine, but the way so many take it as FACT when it’s not actually IN THE TEXT. I’ve seen people, some of them on tumblr, yelling about 'what did you expect her to do, dress him up in rainbow colours and have go on a gay pride march? it wasn’t part of the story!’ And my thinking is always… well, no, I wouldn’t want him doing any of those things, of course not, but the truth of his sexuality could have EASILY been written into the story in some small, subtle way. The only reason it was never part of the story is because she never MADE it part of the story. Not that I personally think JK was trying to pal up to the LGBTQ community retrospectively by her comment, I think she probably DID have Dumbledore as gay in her mind pretty much all the time and not writing it in wasn’t a political statement or because she was afraid or whatever, it was because she just didn’t think about it. But the fact remains that you can read the whole series and not suspect Dumbledore is anything but straight and that means him being gay is very much a subjective thing, which means the level to which his character is a representation of a gay man in literature is… debatable.

[snipped]

I like ambiguity too. I like it massively! But this ^ There needs to be some concrete facts or there is no story and, in the case of queer issues, no representation.

I will also add that ambiguous aspects to a plot can’t go on forever. In short stories or films, or even TV shows with a limited run, leaving an element of the plot ambiguous can work, can in fact be the POINT of a story (see the end of Inception), but with a longer story, like a book series or a long running TV show, the text HAS to come down one way or the other on the things it’s leaving open. Because at some point the readers/audience are going to get FED UP with not knowing for sure about this element of the story (which is the point I think a lot of people are reaching with regards to Dean’s sexuality and Dean and Cas’ relationship - we don’t necessarily care if Dean is officially bi or straight or Dean and Cas are secret lovers or just good friends, we just WANT TO KNOW DAMNIT because the uncertainty is driving us nuts!).

[arora-kayd and response from idvo]:

Very very good read.

As you may or may not have noticed from some of my longer, rambly posts, gay rights mean a lot to me. It’s really the one subject that I feel passionately about and will actually get into confrontations about (I’ve more or less lost contact with the cousin I was closest to because of it [more so because of comments by her friends and husband, but anyway]). So I very much agree with the above author’s comment that LGBTQ relationships and characters need to be implicitly stated in a work’s canon.

But, on the other hand, I almost want my various ships to stay fanon/not implicit in canon. I’m not totally sure why. Part of it is I’m afraid that once it becomes canon the relationship will turn crap (it’s happened lots of time to hetero couples on shows), another part is that my OTP is special to me, and I kind of want to “keep it secret, keep it safe” and only share it with like minded people who love it as much as I do.

OMG I feel the same way about my OTPs. I want there to be a lot of queer relationships in mainstream media, like, really, really want there to be. But I’m afraid that after all the hints and teasing with regards to various couples, TPTB might mess them up, I guess? And that a vocal group of fans might be all “WTF is this” about it and maybe scare off other shows from doing the same thing?

I think this feeling comes from us wanting our ships to be treated with the same amount of care and respect that we treat them with, so we get nervous when something canon might actually come out of all the subtext. We just want everything to reach it’s potential.