The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Drakul/Dracula- Blood of the Dragon.
g33k:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on January 29, 2020, 10:26:56 PM ---I think WoJ should be considered at least as authoritative as the texts (unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, like he said something before book X and the opposite happens in book X).
On the other hand, I'm not willing to say that someone who says "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen is wrong." The tv tropes link is just to demonstrate that this is a belief people have (including literary professor types).
My point here is that Jim has basically stated that he is often an unreliable narrator even if he isn't intentionally being deceptive. This admission could be evidence in support of the WoG isn't canon position or as support of a "we need to be cautious about it" position.
--- End quote ---
TYVM for clarifying!
I'm gonna go ahead and reiterate, though, that we DO reliably know the origin of BCV's. We have sets of interlinked and mutually-reinforcing indicators that all go the same way; and it's rather clear that this is a substantive and significant bit of backstory/setting. I think it's very clear inside Jim's head.
I don't think it's subject to some of Jim's occasionally-multi-streamed ideas about some of the books.
I'll freely admit, however, that it's still possible that Jim is actively lying in order to blindside the fans alongside Harry...
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: g33k on January 30, 2020, 05:29:10 PM ---TYVM for clarifying!
...
I think it's very clear inside Jim's head.
--- End quote ---
You're welcome.
My main point was that "what's inside Jim's head doesn't matter until it's on the page" is a valid interpretive model. I just disagree with that model. Mostly.
What's in Jim's head matters more now that it would if he wasn't writing anymore DF books because it is likely to inform where he's going. He still can put whatever's in his head in the new books. But some pronouncements from authors strain credulity. For example, I don't put a lot of faith in pronouncements from J.K. Rowling that "that character was always [insert most recent political fetish] even though I didn't put a single thing in the books to indicate that."
g33k:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on January 31, 2020, 04:53:03 AM --- My main point was that "what's inside Jim's head doesn't matter until it's on the page" is a valid interpretive model. I just disagree with that model. Mostly.
What's in Jim's head matters more now that it would if he wasn't writing anymore DF books because it is likely to inform where he's going.
--- End quote ---
Well, here's the thing: Jim has his own "headcanon" of stuff that's going on, simultaneously with the DF stories he writes. He narrates the Harry-POV account of events (or sometimes other narrators, in the shorts), cackling insanely as he DOESN'T write down the narrations of the Evil Genius'es who are operating undetected, behind Harry's back and right under Harry's nose.
But that stuff really DOESN'T matter to those already-written books. The books stand as they are (until/unless Jim goes back to do a re-write / re-release, to eliminate Early Installment Wierdness, to alter some clue-drops to more accurately reflect what Harry would have known, etc etc etc); they are bound volumes, with no headcanon enclosed. I DO admit that it's GOING to matter in future books (although by that time, "today's" Jim-Headcanon may have evolved into something very different!).
Except it DOES matter, right now... to a few obsessive fans who analyze and dissect and WAG about it, and write way too much, way too often, in dingy little forums (with apologies to @Griffyn612) deep in the bowels of the Internet. ;D
One of our chief problems, frankly, is Jim: we're trying to dissect Jim's headcanon. It's like the game Battleship, where we make our guesses and WAGs, and call them out on AMA's and Con events and bookstore events &c. And sometimes Jim answers, and sometimes he doesn't, and sometimes he overtly lies, and sometimes his headcanon actually changes: he moves his ships around on the board!!!
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on January 31, 2020, 04:53:03 AM --- ... For example, I don't put a lot of faith in pronouncements from J.K. Rowling that "that character was always [insert most recent political fetish] even though I didn't put a single thing in the books to indicate that.
--- End quote ---
Speaking as someone who read the books as they came out (well... I was a year late to begin; but otherwise ...), and someone who's a straight male raised before the days when very many folks accepted gays: I found the "Dumbledore is gay, and he & Grindelwald were a couple" to be 100% on-point; it settled the character, resolving issues I had found odd and/or incongruous. Some of the other pronouncements from Rowling... yeahNO, not really feelin' it, very WTFish!
I was shocked that "Dumbledore is gay" caused so much uproar, because I found it such a "well, duh, of course he is!" element.
Bad Alias:
I don't really pay attention to Rowling. I'm mostly assuming it goes way past just the Dumbledore is gay thing because of the meme. For examples see https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/30/how-jk-rowlings-endless-updates-harry-potter-became-meme/; https://mashable.com/article/jk-rowling-no-one-meme-harry-potter/.
--- Quote from: g33k on January 31, 2020, 06:53:40 PM ---Except it DOES matter, right now... to a few obsessive fans who analyze and dissect and WAG about it, and write way too much, way too often, in dingy little forums (with apologies to @Griffyn612) deep in the bowels of the Internet. ;D
--- End quote ---
(Emphasis added). Basically the same reason I argue for positions I don't even agree with.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version