[HPforGrownups] film vs. inteviews as canon

[Aberforth's Goat]

No: HPFGUIDX 42180

Steve wrote,

> As sources go, the interviews with the author definitely take
> precedence over the film, so I agree with you, Heather. Where's the
> problem there? James was a Chaser--JKR said so. What the film says
> is completely immaterial. The film is chock full of things which are
> inconsistent with the Harry Potter universe which we see in the
> books. It's clearly not part of the canon.

Hmm.

I agree that the film takes many liberties with the text, many of which are
completely gratuitous. However, I still find it a bit of an over
simplification to say that the film is clearly non-canonical.

I say that becuase I still find it quite likely that the film actually adds
authoritative corrections, glosses and foreshadowings to the text. In all
three cases, I'm thinking of details which Jo may have well have
authorized - by corrections I mean places where she has smoothed over
inaccuracies; by glosses, extra background material she already had but left
out of the books; by foreshadowings, details which may be based on material
she is currently preparing for later versions of the books.

BTW, Magister Foran's questions about an unknown character called Amanda
just *might* be an example of the last category. Suppose that Jo
intentionally authorized that character because she had realized that she
needs an "Amanda" for some scene of smoldering passion in OoP?

No, it can't be proved - but it would make sense!

Especially for those of us who know the *real* Amanda.

(BTW, I wrote more about the in an essay I've put up on my site:
http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/canon.htm.)

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

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