Canon fanfiction and imaginary worlds a philosophical perspective

Canon, fan-fiction, and imaginary worlds – a philosophical perspective Henry Shevlin Thinking Serially – repetition, continuation, & adaptation CUNY Graduate Center, April 23 -24 2015

Some philosophical puzzles about fiction - There are long-standing debates in philosophy about fiction. - However, most philosophical debates about fiction focus on single works with single authors. - I think there are some interesting puzzles that emerge when we think about different kinds of fiction. - Today I’ll talk quickly about three puzzles arising from fan-fiction and imaginary worlds.

Puzzle one: who exactly is Harry Potter? - The name “Harry Potter” is a meaningful bit of language. - We can use it to refer to someone (admittedly, someone who doesn’t exist). - One view associated with Bertrand Russell is that names are actually a kind of covert description. - So maybe “Harry Potter” actually means “the boy who lived with the Dursleys and attended Hogwarts and defeated Voldemort. ”

Puzzle one: who exactly is Harry Potter? - But this can’t be the whole story. For one, I can write a piece of fan-fiction where Harry Potter is female, or never became a wizard, or was born 100 years earlier. - In other words, I could succeed in referring to Harry Potter even if I portray him entirely differently from how Rowling portrayed him. - That shows that fictional names aren’t just descriptions. - The main alternative view is the causal theory of

Puzzle one: who exactly is Harry Potter? - But again, it’s not obvious that this can be the whole story. Consider the infamous 50 Shades of Grey, which started as a piece of fanfiction (Master of the Universe). - The original fanfiction was clearly about Bella and Edward. The existing work is instead about Christian and Anastasia. - At some point the causal chain was broken. But how?

Puzzle one: who exactly is Harry Potter? - One suggestion is that it’s the author’s intent that matters: EL James intended to make the book about new fictional individuals, and thus it was done. - But maybe she did this for copyright reasons. What is E. L. James still secretly thinks of Christian as Edward. Does that mean that Christian really is Edward? Here’s another problematic case. The epic of Gilgamesh contains the story of Utnapishtim, who built an ark to save humanity from a flood, just like Noah may just be a Hebraicized version of Utnapishtim. -

Puzzle one: who exactly is Harry Potter? - However, Noah is not Utnapishtim. This shows that a causal chain of reference can break down, even when there’s no deliberate attempt to create a new story. - Can causal chains also converge? One possible case is that of Apollo and Helios. They started as different gods, but were rapidly equated. - As the Greek historian Walter Burkert says "Different names may refer to the same being, or else they may be consciously equated, as in the case of Apollo and Helios. “ But how is this

Puzzle two: canon and meaning - According to the dominant view of fictional content among philosophers, the meaning of a work consists of whatever the author intends to convey to the audience. - Canon is the ultimate determinant of what is true for a story or imaginary world. - Are they the same thing? Certainly, we take author’s statements to be canonical most of the time. - However, authors sometimes say things that are not directly supported by the text; consider J. K. Rowling’s claim that Albus Dumbledore is gay.

Puzzle two: canon and meaning - However, what J. K. says doesn’t contradict the text. It’s tempting to say that it’s canonical that Dumbledore is gay even though it’s not part of the content of the Harry Potter stories. - However, couldn’t J. K. publish a one sentence story: “One day, Dumbledore told everyone he was gay”? - That would undeniably place it in the realm of the stories themselves. Would that be any different? - Either way, there’s a worry about the power of

Puzzle two: canon and meaning - I think there’s some reason to think that an author’s statements about the world can simply be false. This is more likely in large multi-part works. - For example, imagine J. R. R. Martin says in an interview that “Jon Snow always keeps his promises. ” - An alert reader might point out that in Book IV, his actions contradict a promise he made in Book I. - This would seemingly be a feature of the work, and even of canon, even if it escaped the

Puzzle three: what are imaginary worlds? - A final question concerns imaginary worlds themselves. - What is it that makes a world “the Marvel Cinematic Universe” or “the Star Trek universe”? - One theory would be that it is the characters that anchor us in a world. Thus, the Star Trek universe is the world of Captain Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard. - But we could imagine that universe existing even if Kirk and Jean-Luc had never existed. - We can also radically change the history

Puzzle three: what are imaginary worlds? - Perhaps we should think of imaginary worlds as a separate sort of fictional object from the characters and events within them. - We might think that they are passed down from storyteller to storyteller via causal chains like names. - Of course, we have the same problems as those with names; why isn’t the universe of the Noah stories the same universe as the Gilgamesh universe? - Are there any limits to this? Could we imagine a

Conclusion: a few puzzles - I don’t think all of these puzzles are necessarily insoluble, though I don’t have easy answers to any of them. - But they’re all problems that are driven or sharpened by attention to works outside the traditional focus of philosophy. - Thank you!