What is canon (from movie list)

[hp_lexicon at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 28630

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., foxmoth at q... wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote:
> 
> > So is canon what is actually stated in the books?  Or is it also 
> what we deduce from them? 
>     
> IMO,  the term 'canon'  should be reserved for   texts of the 
books 
> and interviews with JKR. We rely on the machinery of the 
> publishing and journalism  industries to authenticate these, 
> although there's always a possibility we're being Skeetered. 
>    However, as to interpretations,  no one (not even Steve, bless 
> him!)

Certainly not me over anyone else. I didn't mean to imply that 
somehow I get to decide. Sorry, see where I gave that impression. 
I'm really not that arrogant in real life, I promise. I have just 
had to sort of create my own working definition of "canon" for the 
sake of the Lexicon and that working definition has been more or 
less accepted around here. Reading these posts has gotten me 
thinking again about the whole question. I hate it when my house of 
cards is toppled. 

 has the authority to determine what is an orthodox 
> interpretation and what isn't. So although Steve may hold that  
> deductions from canonical information are themselves 
> canonical, I respectfully disagree.  

I think that some deductions are obvious enough and fit the Potter 
world closely enough that we can consider them canon, although I 
realize that they can never be as "proven" as things which are 
stated outright. 

>     We can't rely on deduction because we can't assume that the 
> Potterverse is logically consistent, in fact we know it is not. It 
is  
> "catastrophic": subject  to  the whims of  its creator rather than 
to 
> natural law.

This is a wonderful point. And a universe where paintings can 
be "alive" but not alive compared to armor, which can sing Christmas 
carols but apparently have no actual personality, isn't inherently 
logical even in and of itself. So no, we can't assume that things 
are absolutely true. But I do give JKR a lot of credit for creating 
an amazingly consistent, logical world with rules that do get 
followed for the most part. So we can, I think, make SOME careful 
assumptions within her world and call them canon. Or do you think 
that ANY assumption, no matter how well indicated and supported, 
cannot be called canon? For the Lexicon, I just can't be that narrow 
in my definition.


> 
> So the syllogism:
> All Hogwarts students receive an owl in the year they turn eleven.
> (JKR interview)
> Hermione is a Hogwarts student. (PS/SS et sequelae)
> Therefore Hermione received her owl in the year she turned 
> eleven.   
> is flawlessly logical, and yet may be false, because  logical 
> consistency is not a property of the Potterverse. 

JKR never said that ALL Hogwarts students receive an owl. She was 
only describing the system in general. She never suggested that 
there are never exceptions to the system. But I take your point and 
it's an excellent one.

I understand what you're saying (and what others have said too) but 
it doesn't change my mind enough to change my definition of canon. 
But please note that it's just MY definition, the one I use to 
decide what to put in the Lexicon as fact. And since Dumbledore 
refers to Hermione specifically as being 14 in PA, although he may 
just be in the habit of refering to third years as being 14, I take 
that as stated and therefore canon until JKR states otherwise. You 
can take it however you like :)

Steve "NOT the Canon Boss" Vander Ark
feeling more like cannon fodder this week, let me tell you