The venerable roots of fanon
Oct. 8th, 2004 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
It's common for textual purists to disparage fanon, and I have certainly done that before. But it struck me, today, that fanon is, in it's own way, a venerable institution and deserves recognition for its tenacity, if not its precision.
Consider, for example, Gensis. Specifically, consider Eden, and the go-round with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent incites rebellion (by, I might note, telling nothing but the truth) and all parties get a really raw deal out of it, including labor pains, limblessness, and species enmity. There is not a scrap of textual indication that Satan or Lucifer, or any incarnation of the Devil at all, is present in any way.
The idea that the serpent was the Devil is fanon.
It's an extrapolation with no direct textual basis, running, I suspect, via Milton and the Romantics, and their various promethean reading of the Devil and a misconstrual of the name Lucifer (lightbringer being, as best I recall, a psalmic reference to Lucifer being as to Christ as Venus the Morning Star is to the Sun--herald or forerunner of light) whereby the fruit of knowledge is elided with the light of fire.
Not even going into the difference between the figures of Satan and Lucifer, though Satan's original role of Jehovah's Prosecutor General does connect to the idea of temptation and form another cross connection to the actions of the serpent.
The thing is, this is what people do. This is what people do with any text at all. They read it and take from it bits that make the most sense and extrapolate those bits into whatever form has the most meaning and accessibility to them. There's nothing heinously evil about this activity.
It's only when fanon becomes the basis for attempted textual explication that the perpetrator needs to be whacked one.
Consider, for example, Gensis. Specifically, consider Eden, and the go-round with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent incites rebellion (by, I might note, telling nothing but the truth) and all parties get a really raw deal out of it, including labor pains, limblessness, and species enmity. There is not a scrap of textual indication that Satan or Lucifer, or any incarnation of the Devil at all, is present in any way.
The idea that the serpent was the Devil is fanon.
It's an extrapolation with no direct textual basis, running, I suspect, via Milton and the Romantics, and their various promethean reading of the Devil and a misconstrual of the name Lucifer (lightbringer being, as best I recall, a psalmic reference to Lucifer being as to Christ as Venus the Morning Star is to the Sun--herald or forerunner of light) whereby the fruit of knowledge is elided with the light of fire.
Not even going into the difference between the figures of Satan and Lucifer, though Satan's original role of Jehovah's Prosecutor General does connect to the idea of temptation and form another cross connection to the actions of the serpent.
The thing is, this is what people do. This is what people do with any text at all. They read it and take from it bits that make the most sense and extrapolate those bits into whatever form has the most meaning and accessibility to them. There's nothing heinously evil about this activity.
It's only when fanon becomes the basis for attempted textual explication that the perpetrator needs to be whacked one.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:47 pm (UTC)As for Milton and the Romanatics. ARGH! The only thing I took from them was some bad poetry and a 38 hour stretch of doing a 11000+ words essay that came down to me living on four litres of coffee and oreos, and trying to pretend that I was being objective. Well, at least I passed the unit -_-;;;
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:53 pm (UTC)I did some light research a while back on the history of the Devil as figure and concept. It was fascinating, and now I can't remember the title of the best book. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:29 pm (UTC)But yes, need to do more resaerch. I have always been fascinated the Jews perspective of Lucifer.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:31 am (UTC)Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I've ever seen a Jewish perspective on Lucifer? (Satan yes, Lucifer no) I'd love to see what they'd have to say.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:38 pm (UTC)So, yeah. Hope this helped ^^;;;
no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 06:45 am (UTC)sort of ;) i do remember the Morning Star bit now, but I don't remember the whole situation. I should remind myself of some of this...
thanks!
k
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:53 am (UTC)*grinning* Nope, never.
*gazes into distance* Nietzche and Milton, hm? Wow, talk about two texts that deconstruct each other.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:24 pm (UTC)Exactly. But reading Nietzche's Superman ideal and Milton's Paradise at the same time... it was an interesting experience, their contradicting ideals helped me in understanding what the hell Nietzche was going on about. And Nietzche was hard to understand (at least for me).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:06 pm (UTC)How did you survive?
Marx as whole bored me, his ideals were too naive, and it is only made worse when it is studied at a historical POV. The problem, as my philosophy lecturer use to us, is that the philosophies are usually perfect (most of the time), and is based on the assumption that humanity as a whole is intelligent enough to do what is benefitial for all. However, that is a load of crap because people are selfish and dumb.
I so loved his lectures.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:01 pm (UTC)When it comes to fanon, the thing I reproach myself for most is following it blindly without asking where these tropes are coming from--even when I knew some of the prevalent GW characterizations weren't what I had seen in the series, I didn't even consider whether they were sprouting from doujinshi, or some canon source I hadn't seen yet (the manga, e.g.), or some random person's random thoughts. Not that there's some hierarchy to the origins of fanon, or anything. It's just interesting to me now to trace the way certain ideas can spread, and what affects people's willingness to run with someone else's interpretation.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:29 pm (UTC)I think I should probably go to bed before I get any sillier.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:37 pm (UTC)Oh, and don't get me started about the ridiculousness of trying to link Eve/Mary/and the woman clothed in blue with twelve stars. Metaphor, people, metaphor, do NOT use this as a basis for arguing Mary is the mediatrix! *froths at the mouth*
Err, was I raving?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:41 pm (UTC)Perhaps we can get a copy of the excellent Mr. Jenkins specifically to cram down George Lucas' throat. Now there's a man who doesn't understand the concept. How on earth does he think he can create a myth from anything other than common cultural property? And, supposing he succeeded, he wants to exert copyright over it? *shakes head*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 12:17 am (UTC)That made me think about Duo. I liked him, and I got to see him more in fanon. I say go for whatever satisfies.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:37 pm (UTC)I was fascinated, watching how tropes spread in FMA. I've been able to see it happen some in tenipuri, too, but not as much, having come on board later.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:33 pm (UTC)