There has been considerable talk about the Harry Potter book series of late because J. K. Rowling recently revealed that Dumbledore was gay. Some people have taken this as proof that the series is unfit for Christian youth. Others have taken this as proof of Rowling’s sympathy towards diversity and applaud her efforts to provide a gay role model for today’s youth. Whether or not these interpretations are justified (since there are other interpretations one could make of this fact), at least they indicate an understanding of the authority an author has over their work.
What an author says about their work must be recognized as true. The author, more than anyone else, knows the intricate details of their characters. They might not, to be sure, know all the details that can be had if one were to analyze the story, but they would be the one who has the authority to determine if any given interpretation of their work is valid or not. Therefore, it has been rather surprising to see many of Rowling’s fans to deny her that right with her own books. They want to suggest she cannot say anything about her books, the stories involved in them, and the characters which are employed in those stories, which are not already clearly stated in those books. If she says something, it is just her opinion and it is of equal worth to the opinion of one of her fans who says they do not believe her. Such a sola scriptura methodology in dealing with the text is inexcusable at the best of times. When one finds Catholics arguing in this manner, it is as perplexing as it is indefensible. It is the kind of denial that one could expect from Protestants who reject any notion of a Magisterium or teaching authority behind the Christian faith, and not from Catholics who should know better. Moreover, it suggests that there is no such thing as a true interpretation; rather, there is only a complex matrix of opinions, none of which are necessarily correct. Such relativism can only come from a nihilistic hermeneutic, because it is only when one believes there is no truth can one suggest everything is mere opinion alone.
A good writer knows far more about the story and characters than they write down. The reason why they can put together a reasonably realistic and developed story is because they know details they do not tell the audience. The trick is to tell just enough to make the story believable. “It is important to learn to write just enough and no more; many an apple has been spoiled by being cooked too much or too little, so to speak,” August Derleth, On Writing (Boston: The Writers Inc., 1946), 138. The author must be the master of their story, and this includes knowing enough about their characters and the events surrounding their tale to make the storytelling self-consistent. If they do not reveal all the information in their text (and it is quite impossible to do so), they should be able to explain what happens. The only way to do this properly, without everything being arbitrary and falling apart, is to map out all that has happened and to know all the details, especially those which are not written down. Then they can easily justify their story if and when the time comes. If they have properly done their work, the fact that they know more than they reveal should more than justify the authority an author has over their text. Thus, what makes J.R.R. Tolkien’s works so believable comes from the amount of work and effort he put into developing the intricate details of Middle Earth, most of which did not make its way into his writings. They influence the outcome of the events within the stories, and if one would write an interpretation which contradicted the greater information Tolkien had of his own writings, Tolkien had more than a right to respond and correct such an interpreter, and as anyone who has read his letters knows, he more than once exercised that right.
This is not to say an especially acute reader might not gather a greater meaning to a text than the author. But if they are to do so, they must do so, as long as the author is alive, in relation to what the author says and judges about that interpretation. If the author says to a reviewer or critic that they have seen something in the work which they did not expect but nonetheless follows through with what has been written, the author than is exercising their authority over their work. Tolkien, sometimes, even if rarely, did indicate to his friends that they had indeed done just that (and when they did so while he was in the process of writing his stories, he would often use what he was told to enhance his own work and develop the theme or themes his friends noticed in the text). However, it is quite possible, if not more likely, that a critic misses out on some of the ideas an author puts in their book. If a critic writes something which is erroneous, the author has a right to tell them they are wrong. Moreover, if an author later reveals information about their work, one cannot tell them, “No, I do not agree: that is not found in your work.” Not only would such a person be showing hubris in asserting an authority over a work which is not their own, they might also be showing their ignorance over the text itself. C.S. Lewis once noted such a careful reading of his own texts was often lacking by those who reviewed his works. “The first thing I have learned from my reviewers is, not the necessity (we would all grant that in principle) but the extreme rarity of conscientiousness in the preliminary work which all criticism should presuppose. I mean, of course, a careful reading of what one criticises. This may seem too obvious to dwell on. I put it first precisely because it is so obvious and also because I hope it will illustrate my thesis that in certain ways (not of course in others) the author is not the worst, but the best, judge of his critics. Ignorant as he may be of his book’s value, he is at least an expert on its content,” C.S. Lewis, “On Criticism” pages 127 – 141 in C.S. Lewis: On Stories and Other Essays on Literature. ed. Walter Hooper (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishes, 1982), 130. Indeed, “A great many people start by thinking they know what you will say, and honestly believe they have read what they expected to read. But for whatever reason, it is certainly the case that if you are often reviewed, you will find yourself repeatedly blamed and praised for saying what you never said and for not saying what you have said,” ibid., 130-131.
If we turn to back Harry Potter, this seems to be the case with regards to Dumbledore. A careful reader of The Deathly Hallows will note in Dumbledore’s backstory his unseemly and unhealthy connection to Grindelwald. We are told some of that relationship; it is very clear Dumbledore and Grindelwald have an effect on one another. Grindelwald puts Dumbledore’s motto, “For the Greater Good” on his banner. Dumbledore’s attraction for power and pursuit of the hallows comes from his relationship with Grindelwald. While a reader might assume it was merely a close friendship, one must understand the story we are told is incomplete. Rowling’s revelation, in relation to what was actually written, makes what was obscure very clear, and fits precisely with the events in the story. She did not need to tell those details to make her book effective: which is why, following the tradition authors follows, she did not reveal this information in the book. But this does not mean she just made up what she said on the spot and that this extra information should be ignored. Because what was said in The Deathly Hallows not only make more sense after this revelation, but actually provide a rather sophisticated way for us to understand the good and the bad within Dumbledore, we must not only accept Rowling’s revelation but see it was actually thought out before she wrote the seventh book in the Harry Potter series. And any future interpretation of the Harry Potter series must now take this revelation into account. The interpreter has no authority over and above Rowling in dictating what has happened within the story she has created.
While I would be willing to grant an author’s interpretation of their work a privileged status, I’m afraid I can’t agree that whatever an author says about their work must be recognized as true. I see no reason, for example, to give an author’s reports about the meaning of a work more authority than we would give to a person’s reports about their own beliefs or desires. Yet we do not say that whatever a person says about their own beliefs and desires must be recognized as true. A person could be lying, for example, or could be mistaken or confused about what they really want or believe. There are also cases where we would wish to say, to a person’s purported interpretations of their own statements “you may have meant to say x, but in fact what you said was y.”
Mr. Karlson’s argument would seem to imply that if Rowling said on Tuesday that Dumbledore was gay, and on Wednesday that he wasn’t, that Dumbledore would both be gay and not gay. At the risk, then, of being accused of nihilism, relativism, or even protestantism, I must disagree with his conclusions.
But we could take what you said further, Blackadder. The book itself could be lying. Thus, for example, Severian should not be trusted in Wolfe’s novels, but Wolfe in his interpretation and explanation of the “Book of the New Sun” should. Of course Wolfe or any author could, in theory, lie about their interpretation; but when they do so, then, we are not disputing the author’s understanding and authority over a work, but we are saying they are lying. That’s a different issue.
Do you think Rowling is lying? That’s a rather bold claim to make.
Moreover, once you begin this way of looking, that is, with a heremeneutic of suspicion, you must begin to take it to its fullest limit. That is we can’t trust what anyone says and it does lead to the nihilism and relativism I suggested. Thus, Protestants could say “tradition could lie, so ignore it and just follow Scripture” and “The Pope could lie, so ignore him as well.”
Henry, not necessarily. Once the book is written, the book belongs to the audience not the author. I have to tell you, in all my years of studying literary criticism I have never heard the argument that the author has the right to impose her view on her readers. I frankly did not get the whole Dumbledore is gay from my reading and it really is not relevant to the story at all. The author has the right to say whatever she wants but must provide textual evidence.
There are many literary critics who find something in a book and the author disputes it is there, yet if it can be backed up with the text it is as good as the next person’s opinion. The author is not a critic. She is an author. If she wanted Dumbledore to be gay, she did a crappy job.
What an author says about their work must be recognized as true.
Why is that? After the fact, she can decide to tell us anything her little heart desires.
She can tell us that Dumbledore was a demon from the planet hhrr’ccc’tcch who used it’s innate power of illusion to seem human. She could tell us that Dumbledore was a homophobic, neo-nazi skinhead whose flowing silver locks were a wig.
We don’t have to assign any more credence to her words, after the fact, than anyone else.
Henry,
So you’re bringing New Sun into it now. Of all the fiction books I’ve ever read, I don’t think I’ve ever found one that was as difficult to understand. And yet, it was a rewarding book.
Instead of it being an either-or proposition, perhaps we can concede that Rowling’s single opinion carries the greatest weight of anyone’s. Not only is she the author, but she indulged in considerable world-building around Harry Potter–she’s made no secret of this. Most sf and fantasy authors see this as essential.
Dumbledore’s homosexuality seemed obvious to me when I was reading the book. I vaguely recall my wife giving me a curious look as we read the chapter on his relationship with Grindelwald. Could the story exist without Dumbledore’s SSA? Sure it could, but it gives a more intense emotional feel to his young life. It also gives a more convincing reason why the young Dumbledore would be attracted to a wizard who would otherwise give the rest of the wizarding world the creeps.
It is important to remember we’re talking about fiction. Dumbledore’s SSA makes it better fiction. The book of Genesis includes people who acted on their immoral sexual impulses, taking things a whole step beyond Potterdom. Are they decrying the depiction of OT immorality? Rowling’s critics have a lot more to back up than she does.
So all those who say the audience is free to interpret — why does this not also includes the Bible? Or does it?
Interestingly enough, the arguments being used to denounce the author have been arguments used to deny Apostolic Succession, Apostolic Tradition, and authority in the Church in general.
It also follows the modern individualistic desire to have no authority, and with it, no truth. Post-modernism, and the criticism which has come from it, is, in this instance, erroneous.
Matthew
And yes, Wolfe’s works are some of the most difficult to interpret. I don’t think I have done so properly yet.
Henry,
Of course an author could lie in a book. Happens all the time. Lying in a work of fiction is a somewhat different matter, since the whole thing is made up, but you can have unreliable narrators and the like.
As for the analogies to Sacred Scripture, I would simply note that Harry Potter is not a religious text, and that the way one interprets Sacred Scripture might not be an appropriate method of interpretation generally (just as the way one interprets a restaurant menu need not be the same way one interprets a poem).
Blackadder
Except, of course, the arguments used to make an author no longer the authority (ever notice those two words and their connection?) could be and have been used for Scripture and Holy Tradition. That is a part of the point: when there is no sense of authority in the world, all things become equal and therefore nothing is no longer true. This is a part of the post-modern deconstruction of authority and, while there are aspects of truth to it (such as the fact that a reader could see implications in a work the author did not foresee), the author of a text is still a master of its content and context. We live in a society which wants all people to be invididuals with autonomous authority — even if it means rejecting the rightful authority in a place or situation. This methodology in literary interpretation is just a manifestation of that greater problem (and explains why many so-called Catholics follow Protestant methodologies with Magisterial texts and yet ignore the authority of the Magisterium to interpret them).
On other thing. Whatever the merit’s of Henry’s view, I’m not sure it’s the view of C.S. Lewis. Here is Lewis from On Criticism:
“I have said vaguely ‘meaning’ or ‘intention.’ We shall have to give each word a fairly define sense. It is the author who intends; the book means. The author’s intention is that which, if it is realised, will in his eyes constitute success. If all or most readers, or such readers as he chiefly desires, laugh at a passage, and he is pleased with this result, then his intention was comic, or he intended to be comic. If he is disappointed and humiliated at it, then he intended to be grave, or his intention was serious. Meaning is a much more difficult term…
“The nearest I have yet got to a definition is something like this: the meaning of a book is the series or system of emotions, reflections, and attitudes produced by reading it. But of course this product differs with different readers. The ideally false or wrong ‘meaning’ would be the product in the mind of the stupidest and least sensitive and most prejudiced reader after a single careless reading. The ideally true or right ‘meaning’ would be that shared (in some measure) by the largest number of the best readers after repeated and careful readings over several generations, different periods, nationalities, moods, degrees of alertness, private pre-occupations, states or health, spirits, and the like canceling one another out when (this is an important reservation) they cannot be fused so as to enrich one another… Of a book’s meaning, in this sense, its author is not necessarily the best, and is never a perfect, judge.”
C.S. Lewis, “On Criticism” pages 127 – 141 in C.S. Lewis: On Stories and Other Essays on Literature. ed. Walter Hooper (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishes, 1982), 139-40.
You misunderstand Lewis; Lewis is very clearly saying an author’s intention might not be manifested well in he book. And he is talking about interpretation in relation to how a person reads the book and whether or not the author’s intent is manifested in the mind of the reader. He is not saying, however, that the author has no authority over the text (as the rest of the essay reveals; indeed he points out that this is the only place where the author is not the full authority; but not when it comes to the text and context of the plot, characters, etc). Thus you are equivocating.
Henry,
Suppose that before he had died Shakespeare had transfered his interpretive authority to a successor, and that this successor had done the same down to the present day, where it resides in a guy named Bob. Does anyone think that we would be bound to recognize Bob’s interpretation of Shakespeare as authoritative? Does anything think that denying this authority to Bob somehow undercuts the Church’s authority to interpret scripture?
Henry,
An author has authority over the text in the sense that he decides what words will appear in the text and in what order. But Lewis did not say that he has authority over what those words mean, still less does he have authority over any subject or character touched upon in the work. Lewis says that an author is an expert on what is in his work (and note that he says “an expert,” not “the definitive authority”), but he immediately clarifies, saying that “I don’t mean ‘what is in it’ in any subtle or metaphorical sense (there may, in that sense, be ‘nothing in it’) but simply what words are, and are not, printed on those pages.”
From here:
Yes, I read that excerpt, Stuart. It still shows the nihilism which is fundamental to the rejection of the authority of the author with their work. Of course, as has been said, meaning can be understood in a greater sense through an interpreter than the author originally knew (even as a theologian can shed light to the dogmas of th faith), but as a whole, the author, with more expertise in the subject and with knowledge not revealed will be able to affirm or deny others interpretations.
It’s like saying, “page 10, I had this interpretation; having read it, the text is now mine. How dare the text in page 100 contradict my interpretation; it has no right to.” The author in revealing more of the story, whether written or unwritten, is revealing new light which one must then use in interpretation. It’s why all interpretation looks to the author’s understanding as a foundation. Again, there can be no chaos of “opinion” even if post-modern nihilism rejections authority.
Blackadder
You can continue to argue for textual relativism; I bet you believe your opinion of Lewis’ text is of greater worth than Lewis’ understanding of what he wrote.
Moreover, Blackadder, the reason why the Church can continue to be the authority over the Scripture is that the Church is the One Holy Church which put them together – this is her claim to authority; if the Church died and didn’t exist, then there would be no ability to translate that authority. Therefore, your analogy fails, because there is no transfer of authority to another source.
Moreover your continued argumentation here continues to demonstrate the moral relativism in which you live, and explains a great deal of your defense of the indefensible in other areas. The nihilism ot our culture has sucked you in.
Of course an author has authority to interpret his own works. If he does not, then why do any of you other commenters take the time to comment. By writing a blog comment, you become (in some small sense) an author. Suppose that you write a comment, and then someone, responding to your first comment, mis-interprets what you said. Do you not have the authority to correct that mis-interpretation? How could we hold ordinary discourse if that authority didn’t exist? Of course, words are limited and artistic talent is even more limited. It may be that an author actually fails to convey what he thinks his words ought to convey. And this may be what some of the commentors are saying.
Of course, the analogy between Sacred Scripture and other books does break down somewhat on the point of interpretation. For one thing, Sacred Scripture is a work not only of men but of God. Thus, for example, I think it unlikely that the human author of Isaiah had some kind of clear mental picture of Christ’s passion in mind when he wrote Isaiah 53. But, God most certainly had Christ’s passion in mind when he inspired the human author to write Isaiah 53. Thus, while we can’t ignore what the human author meant (I’m sure that that particular chapter actually was meant to apply to Israel in some way by its human author) we can’t ignore what the divine author meant. Furthermore, because God is in a very real sense the author of Sacred Scripture, and because God cannot die, the dialog between author and readers, which ordinarily ends at the death of the author, will in fact never end, but will continue on down into eternity itself. Of course, in this age, the main vehicle of that dialogue is the Church’s Magisterium. Nonetheless, even this breakdown in the analogy is helpful for Henry’s point. An author does have authority to interpret his own words, an authority that ceases when he is dead. But God (as many biblical scholars seem to forget) is not dead, but is alive eternally. And the Church, which is the body of Christ, does have the God-given authority to interpret God’s words to us in Scripture.
Exactly, Matthew.
Otherwise I am free to say Blackadder says I am correct and his post affirms all I have said and I can’t be wrong, even if Blackadder intended the opposite. ;)
Henry,
The Church didn’t author sacred scripture. The most that can be said is that it decided what was to be included in the Canon and what wasn’t. That no more makes it the author of scripture than it makes the person who puts out a compilation of Hemingway’s short stories the author of the stories contained therein. The Church has the authority to interpret sacred scripture not because authors have absolute authority in interpreting their texts in general, but because God has given Her this authority.
Insults are a poor substitute for argument, by the way.
Blackadder
You have proven my point. Thanks.
Matthew,
The question is not whether an author has any authority to interpret his own works (the first sentence of my first post on this thread conceded this). The question is whether this authority is to be absolute. Suppose I were to say that my comments here haven’t been about interpretation at all, but about motherhood and apple pie. Would that mean that my comments really were about motherhood and apple pie?
Henry,
Assertion isn’t a good substitute for argument either.
Blackadder,
Once again you have proven what I have said! Nicely done! Thanks!
It’s “nihilism” to say that fictional characters don’t really exist?
Blackadder,
I had not interpreted your first comments as a grant of authority. I do now.
Obviously, we are laboring within the criteria of intelligibility, here. If I start to say that all my previous comments are really arguments that purple people eaters exist on the planet Zorax in the 5th dimension, then you can readily conclude that I’m crazy or that I’m messing with you. An author can authoritatively interpret his work, but he can’t do so outside of reason, outside of what I have called the criteria of intelligibility.
So all those who say the audience is free to interpret — why does this not also includes the Bible? Or does it?
Because J.K. Rowling is not an infallible teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit.
Tony
That doesn’t answer the question. If a book is a free for all, the Bible would be as well.
Henry,
Who said that a book was a free for all?
Blackadder
Once again, all you have said just affirms my point. Thanks!
Henry,
I guess you’re right. I had thought it was absurd to think that if Rowling were to say that Harry Potter was really a purple people eater from the planet Zorax that this would make it so. But your brilliant arguments have convinced me that unless I accept this, I must embrace nihilism, protestantism, and cannibalism. And since I, as author of my comments on this thread, have complete authority over what they mean, I hereby decree that they all retroactively now advocate your position, and affirm everything you’ve said here.
This may be a little off the point, but Leonard Pitts, secular newspaper columnist, has described Rowling’s delayed revelation of Dumbledore’s sexual orientation “deceptive genius” ie a masterful method of getting young people to re-think any lingering hesitation to confirm and approve of homosexuality, whether celibate or no. Rowling is employing a political technique. I am thinking that this is the crucial issue. Whether or not authorship allows her to add post-publishing revelations, or inherently validates them, is I think left unconsidered by many people in their objection to the content of Rowling’s revelation. I think many readers simply object to the outing of Dumbledore, and it is comforting for them to deny that a statement of Dumbledore’s homosexuality can be true, a denial which allows continued endorsement of the Harry Potter series as purely innocuous fiction. These readers are not considering authors’ rights, only readers’ rights not to be swindled or manipulated. I really believe this is the real issue for us as Christians — how innocuous are the Harry Potter books for our children when Rowling employs such “deceptive genius” to influence them and, in her own words, aims to “get them to question authority?”
The Bible is not a book, only. It is the living Word of God, not limited solely to the written pages in that it is an opening, a door to Christ Himself and thus interpretable by God Himself, ie in the authority He gave to His Church, ie the Magisterium. This is why I think any analogy to human authorship rights and privileges fails, as the source of authorship is not comparable, so we cannot say that if a human author does not have sole post-publishing interpretive rights, God also does not.