So Roosh Valizadeh’s websites — Return of Kings, the Roosh V Forum, and his own blog — have been hit with DDOS attacks this week.
Roosh isn’t sure who’s to blame, but he has a few ideas. In a note on the DDOS attacks he posted to his site, he wrote:
I have so many enemies that it could have been organized by Canadian SJW’s, the American homosexual lobby, the Israeli Defense Force, or the nation of Denmark.
Denmark, huh? I always thought there was something sneaky about that country.
But I can’t imagine that many Danes are actually pissed at Roosh, really. After all, his Don’t Bang Denmark book explicitly suggested that his fans NOT visit the country. And generally speaking, the fewer Roosh fans in your country, the better.
I don’t think it’s Denmark, or any of the other suspects on Roosh’s little list.
There’s a much more obvious possibility: Toilet paper manufacturers.
@Drezden:
Yes, because the supplementary document is not part of the text itself. Once the text is published then the author has no more control over it than anyone else does. This is a basic tenet of modern literary theory.
The reason I’m grappling with this is that I think Jackie is coming from a literary standpoint in which this is not the case; in which case this is an utterly different literary theory and I want to try to understand it rather than just insist that she conform with the Western Intellectual Tradition.
I think Jackie and EJ might be talking past each other a little. To use the Harry Potter example, while the books and Pottermore are official canon now, you could make the case that Pottermore was headcanon for Rowling before it was launched. Or Dumbledore is not explicitly described in the books as gay, though many readers got that interpretation. When Rowling stated he was, she turned her headcanon into official canon.
(I just realised that sounds very insulting. That was really really not the intention here – I’m fascinated and am trying to learn. My apologies.)
And with EJ’s last message, I see I was wrong in mine as to the substance of the disagreement. Sorry all, carry on
It’s probably worth remembering that ‘canon’ was originally applied in relation to religious texts. The word was used to define which books, epistles etc were ‘official’ parts of church doctrine.
So the argument about what material you can consider when deciding where ‘truth’ lay is as old as the hills.
The first people to apply the term to literature generally were Sherlock Holmes fans. Were only Conan Doyle’s words relevant? Could you rely in the illustrations in The Strand magazine? What about stories by other authors that Doyle’s estate authorised?
[Sometimes ‘canon’ and ‘continuity’ get conflated, but that’s a different debate].
So establishing which sources you look at to glean ‘facts; is one thing, then you’re in to interpretation. How you interpret things may depend on what sources you consider ‘canon’.
Is Dumbledore gay? If you think only the books are canon, then it’s up to you to decide. If you think authors have the last say then the issue isn’t in doubt.
As to ‘death of the author’ Asimov often told of the time he say in a lecture that included an analysis of one of his own stories. Afterwards he approached the lecturer and said that while he found the talk interesting that wasn’t what the book was about. The lecturer replied: “Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it’s about?”
Test.
@EJ Would you still feel the same if we were referring to two works in a series? If Frodo’s hobbitness were not revealed until the second book, would it still be considered fact?
With regard to Harry Potter. there is an interpretation that everything is a coping mechanism in the imagination of an abused boy.
The books don’t actually end with “and then Harry woke up, and he was still in his cupboard under the stairs” but there is that bit about just because it’s all in his head it doesn’t mean it’s any less real. I think that’s a clue.
@Drezden:
If the two books were originally intended as a single text that happens to be divided across multiple volumes, then yes, Frodo is a hobbit. If they were written as separate pieces, then each must be examined as its own text (although obviously there may be a lot of shared stuff between them, much as all works set in the real world share a setting.)
An example of this might be the canon discontinuities and change of literary style between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. You have to examine each as its own work.
Thinking about it, the difference between Jackie’s theory of literature and mine might be that she’s invested in texts which are ongoing and may have parts still coming in the future, whereas I’m invested in texts which are finished and complete, and which can now be examined as a whole.
@EJ Let us for the sake of maintaining our example consider the Lord of the Rings to be separate pieces. Do I understand your position correctly as:
In The Fellowship, what Frodo is is open for interpretation
In The Two Towers, Frodo is unquestionably a hobbit
In the situation where the Fellowship was published as a separate novel, complete unto itself with no trailing-off links and which resolved its own plot and character progression: Yes, I would.
I think a better example might be to contrast The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, Gandalf is merely “a wizard.” In Lord of the Rings, he’s a lesser Valar, a deity from the first breaths of the world, unable to die and charged with the protection of the free peoples of Middle Earth. Likewise, in The Hobbit the Ring is merely a quirky little find from deep in the mountains. In Lord of the Rings, it’s an embodiment of Sauron’s power and malice.
My position here would be that in The Hobbit, the nature of Gandalf and the Ring are open for interpretation; but in Lord of the Rings they’re unquestionably defined.
@EJ Much better example, yes. Now, what are Gandalf and the ring in Middle Earth?
Middle Earth isn’t an actual thing, to my knowledge. It’s not a place. It’s a setting which is used for a series of literary works which I love very dearly. Thanks to Tolkien’s skill as a worldbuilder it’s easy to believe that Middle Earth is a real place, separate from the novels; but it isn’t. The Ring and Gandalf are characters within those texts and have no existence separate from them.
@EJ And that is where we differ. I believe, and from what’s been said I suspect Jackie does as well, that there is some value in meta-analysis of the setting. This is especially true of the issue with Samus as most of the opponents are largely using meta-analysis to dispute her trans status.
Where does it say in Lord of the Rings he’s a Valar? I’ve read them twice and don’t remember seeing “Valar” anywhere unless I’ve skipped something?
As a Dane I can neither confirm nor deny our involvement.
I believe it’s in one of the appendices that he’s a Maiar, which are the order of lesser Valar (to which Sauron belongs, as well as the five wizards.) I could be wrong though.
@Pandapool
Technically, Gandalf wasn’t a Vala, he was a Maia, one of the ‘lesser’ class of Ainur (spirits) of which the Valar were the greater (kind of like angels/ archangels). As for where it says, it’s either in the LoTR appendices or in the Silmarillion. *removes useless trivia geek hat*
Okay, I’m pretty sure the fact that Gandalf is a spirit was not at all mentioned in any of the books nor the appendices. I would remember reading that because I have read the appendices more than I have read the main series.
I have not read the Silmarillion so it must be in that.
So, why would a whole different book that was finished by his son and publish after his death be considered canon if it isn’t actually stated in the story? By EJ’s logic, the Silmarillion wouldn’t count because none of the information presented was in the main body of work, that is The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Gandalf is just a wizard, not an archangel person thingy inspired by Tolkien’s Catholic upbringing.
So, what is the difference between the Silmarillion or even the appendices tack on to the end of the book than, say, what a creator’s blog states? The fact that one is published and one isn’t?
Archangel is a pretty low rank in angelic hierarchy. It’s only one above entry level, so basically, Lance Corporal.
Jackie,
Actually, I think EJ’s position is that there is no canon, at least not in an overarching sense as it pertains to the Middle Earth setting. Gandalf is a wizard in the Hobbit, still a wizard but with slightly more importance in the Lord of the Rings, and a Maiar in the Silmarillion.
As I understand it, he is examining each as an independent work. “Facts” established in a work are only relevant within that work. From this view, a statement in the creator’s blog is only relevant in the blog.
(EJ, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Your analysis seems to be one of looking at a character in the larger context of the mythos. “Facts” established in one work within mythos are established as fact through the entire mythos. From this view, a creator’s blog is simply another piece of supplementary material.
I think EJ has the right of it in wondering if this difference comes from the type material we’re involved in. Living works benefit greatly from analysis that view the works as a collective whole rather than independent works that share a setting.
Hi, I’m driven to post again due to a bronchitis break and my LotR fanatism.
I read the LOTR trilogyn and after that the Silmarillion. Regardless of canonity, I’m not messing with that, Gandalf himself claims to have been “Olórin” in “his youth in the West that is forgotten”, that is, pre-middle Earth Valinor, home of the Valar and th “lesser” Maiar.
Olórin is mentioned by the end of the Silmarillion, in the chapter on the Third Age, as a Maiar who would not abandon Elves nor Men, and stayed with them as a guide and to spread wisdom among them, and was more powerful than them so it’s essentially a Wizard.
So I get the objection on the Silmarillion for being something put together after Tolkien’s death, but then again, Olórin is mentioned right there in LOTR, and the allusion to the “West… Forgotten” makes sense in the context of the Silmarillion and does not deny the LOTR interpretation of him being a wizard, IMO.
Again, not touching the what-is-or-isn’t-cannon thing, just sharing my knowledge with the group
Yes, that’s what I’m saying, thank you.
Although I don’t think “living works” is really all what I’m arguing about here. I mean, the Bilbo’s ring in The Hobbit was Sauron’s ring even if it was just mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. Vampires were created when a spirit possessed the Pharaohs even if this fact was just brought up in The Queen of the Damned. Harry Potter was a Horcrux the entire time even if it was just mentioned in The Deathly Hallows.
You have the main body of work which slowly reveals facts about its setting and canon over time, yes, but you also have supplementary materials out of the main story that fills in things here and there, such as The Silmarillion or Pottermore or whatever the hell Anne Rice does (I don’t keep up with her).
As someone who has no training in literary analysis, it appears to me that LA is more concerned with the medium, each book and its self contained story, than with the world contained within the books, the canon. The world itself cannot be divorced from the author unless they give permission or are dead, whereas the interpretation of the story and its ties to the larger culture can aka Death of the Author. There is of course the differences between mediums of videogames and books and how they are interacted with and just how much interpretation you can do to each, with there being far less within videogames.
In light of this, Samus being trans* is a huge boon to the trans* community as it is a representation of a trans* protagonist within an official canon. There may be stories out there that can be interpreted as talking about or representing trans* issues, but that is a different thing from being truly represented by a mainstream work. Its the difference between the subjective interpretation of the themes within a story and the objective facts about a setting.
Speaking of canon, only the author has authority as to what’s canon and not to a setting. This is why the Silmarillion is still canon, all the information was already written down by Tolkien as notes, his son just cobbled it together into a cohesive whole and published it.
Another example is Homestuck, that webcomic about trolls and a thousand thousand other weirder things, in that Hussy, the head creator, has taken things posted to the forums or other creative fanworks and incorporated them into the setting, making them canon. Headcanon is just fan “canon” about a setting with unresolved or missing areas, which may be overturned or made official depending on if the author ever explains that issue. Sometimes headcanon also takes areas of literary analysis into account too, to change the theme of the canon, such as all of the setting being in the dream of a character. It’s all very confusing and intermixed.
As far as i know, it goes like this:
Canon – what the author puts in their work and approves of as fact in their world and characters (Frodo is a hobbit)
Headcanon – what you personally think would work within a world and characters (Frodo’s favorite color is blue)
Fanon – a largely accepted headcanon that is not actual canon but fandom treats it as such anyway (Frodo is in love with Sam…that’s pretty popular, right?)