Definition of canon, was Re: [HPFGU-Movie] (unknown)

[Amanda Geist]

Jazmyn wrote

> Thank you for posting this. Its close to the article I was trying to
> find again to show people on the 'literary' list just how much input
> Rowlings had in the script, thus proving that yes, the movie can be
> considered 'canon' as the books, due to the author's input and how much
> she has had to have told them for the actors to understand the
> characters so well as to portray them so beautifully.

*ahem* Most of the people on the "literary" list have read this article and
most anything else they can find, usually within a day of its appearance
(usually thanks to the Cauldron). They love Harry Potter in all its venues,
and many of us enjoy discussing the ramifications of what happens in the
movie just as much as you do. Why would we have made another whole list for
the movie if we didn't enjoy talking about it?

The point of the division is that the main list is for discussion of the
books. *This* list is for discussion of the movie. Why is that a problem?

And I'm sorry, the movie is not considered canon, and would not be unless
JKR had actually *written* the screenplay. I refer you to the Lexicon,
bastion of all things Harry Potter, for the working definitions of canon as
we use them on these lists:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/site_sources.html

I'd have copied you a bit, but Lexicon Steve has some cool thing working
that alerts me that it is copyrighted and won't let me lift text. Since I
have to type it, I will do only the most pertinent sentence: "Information
which has come directly from JKR in either written or spoken form is
considered canon." That's pretty much it.

~Amanda