The Canon LONG (was flying/ chaser or seeker/ spells/ on the Movie list)

[Aberforth's Goat]

No: HPFGUIDX 30205

Over on the movie list, Steve made some interesting remarks about certain
discrepancies between the film and the books:

About promoting James to seeker (instead of chaser):

> I would argue that the film doesn't have the authority to change him
> back. He's a Chaser until JKR says otherwise.

And later (about the incredible flying Quirrel),

> Clearly that was a bit of dramatic license on the part of the
> filmmakers, yet another indication that the film cannot be
> considered canon.

* * * * * * *

Something that fascinates me just now is the chemistry between the books,
the interviews and the film. A few weeks back, Dave and Steve started an
interesting discussion of canon (with input from Pippin and someone called
Frantyk). Now that I've experienced the film, I'd like to venture a few
thoughts:

The word "canon" is (etymologically) attached to the concept of measurement;
it was first used in its present sense by Jews and Christians. Both
movements (first Jews, then Christians) found themselves awash in conflict
writings and had to establish an authoritative core to preserve their
identity. This lead to the development a set of criteria including
authorship, antiquity, universality of acceptance and compatibility with
writings already considered authoritative. We Christians took a long time
about it (200+ years) - and indulged in a certain amount of theological and
ecclesiastical sausage-making.

Oddly enough, HP fans find themselves in a very similar situation. We also
have a huge list of questions we would like answered, can't always agree
with each other - and are inundated with (sometimes conflicting) sources.
The set of texts carrying at least some authority includes the following:

- UK editions of PS, CoS, PoA and GoF (unmarked 2nd edition). (1st ed GoF
has been ruled out; all translations, including US, and talking books should
be considered derivatives.)
- QA and FB
- JKR's press releases
- Direct interviews with JKR (printed and recorded). (Presently, I have
about 70
linked from my site - and these are only the ones I've managed to find on
the internet!)
- Indirect interviews with JKR (i.e., the authors says what Rowling told him
but doesn't give a direct quote.)
- The film, standard edition
- The film, director's cut (Not yet available; possibly never - but we can
always hope and petition)

*All* of these carry a certain weight and can convey new information from
JKR; OTOH, *all* of them have certain limitations. In a sense, all may be
considered canonical and at least somewhat authoritative - but not equally
so. I would suggest a sort of "onion ring" concept, in which we give
interpretative priority as follows:

Ring #10: Film, Director's cut.
-Strengths: It contains material we're missing in the cinema cut, and this
material might convey further thoughts about or development of the
Potterverse that Jo hasn't conveyed in the books.
-Weaknesses: It wasn't approved and may contain errors that would have been
corrected otherwise. In particular, Jo ruled out one scene - which we'd all
like to see precisely to discover what they got wrong!

Ring #9: Film
-Strengths: First, it enjoyed JKR's close collaboration, so it *does*
reflect her thinking. This means that it may provide new material. Also,
because it is more recent than any other sources (except for a few
interviews), it *may* actually reflect changes or corrections in JKR's own
conception of her world. (For example: the Hogwart's quidditch pitch - in
contradiction with the books - or the size of the student body - in
contradiction with the statement "there are about a thousand students at
Hogwarts" at http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.)
-Weaknesses: It also reflects the thinking of quite a few other people, and
they took cinematic license with the plot. So it's hard to separate the
wheat from the chaff. Further, it is, fundamentally, a PS derivative. Since
it had JKR's active involvement, it can't be classified with the translation
and talking books - but it's certainly not the source you'd want to base
your big interpretive coup on!

Ring #8: Indirect Interviews
- Strengths: Since I started collecting JKR's interviews, I've also run into
quite a few articles that seem to be based on a conversation with JKR - but
don't actually quite it. Occasionally, there's some interesting information
in them.
- Weaknesses: One just has to assume the reporter got his story straight.

Ring #7: Direct Interviews & Chats
- Strengths: Straight from the horse's mouth - or hooves, as the case may
be. (Goat polishes his own, lovingly.) (Hooves, I mean.)
- Weaknesses: True: it's JKR's world. But she's a human being, not an
encyclopedia on heels! Supposing some of her answers were just a tad
*speculative*? Supposing she (horrors!) got mixed up? And particularly in
chats, supposing she was under pressure to get something out of the keyboard
and didn't think the details through? (That's why I'm inclined to take the
1000 student quote with a pinch of salt and give the movie's interpretation
more weight.)

Ring #6: Press Releases
- Strengths: I've got at least one of those linked from my page, though
there's nothing exciting in the content. The difference here is that we're
getting information JKR has had time to present at her own pace ...
- Weaknesses: ... But it's not like she's gonna put as much HP-thought into
excoriating the press as she is into explicating the HP world itself; none
of the press stuff (including interviews) is directly connected to the
process of creating the Potterverse and hence speaks (in that respect) less
authoritatively.

Ring #5: QA and FB
- Strengths: See press releases; plus, they were directly connected to her
creative process.
- Weaknesses: They were written quickly, and they're derived from the plot
as it stands. Jo offered to write the books for charity and presumably
dashed them off very quickly. I wonder to what degree she was really trying
to explain the Potterverse, and to what extent she was just rattling along
for a good cause. (NB: nothing against the books - and I intensely admire a
woman willing to boil up a couple of books for homeless people! It's not
something I ever heard of Tolstoy doing ... )

Rings #4-#1: PS, then CoS, then PoA, then GoF
- Strengths: Hey, the books are what it's all about!
- Weaknesses:
First, she is still writing - and hence, the Potterverse is still open to
change and correction. For that reason, I would assume that, given any
contradiction between the books, we should generally give the later book
more weight. In fact, the film version of PS actually has a leg up over the
books themselves because it received JKR's input while she was already at
work on OoP.
Second, JKR isn't perfect. Sometimes she gets her facts tangled. In the Case
of the Wobbling Wand Order, she fixed the mistake. With the
descendant/ancestor problem (in CoS), she just made a joke about it. (Though
I believe it was eventually corrected in the UK - yes?) With Mr. Flint, our
text book case, she came of with a clever explanation. Most other problems
are still floating. In such cases, it is incumbent upon us fans to tangle
things up worse than they were to begin with ...

There. The onion is done. And it's rather big. And if I don't shut up,
somebody will make me eat it.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who really doesn't want to end up a LOON
and is rather hoping a proper one will annihilate his post just to reassure
him that he still isn't.)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
bravery...."