Are The Schoolbooks Canon?

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 38953

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> cindysphynx wrote:
> > Abigail wrote: 
> > > Are the HP Schoolbooks canon?
> > 
> > Hmmm.  I was always pretty sure that they are canon.  There is no 
> > question that they were written by JKR, after all, which is the 
> > definition of canon.  

> When using canon myself, I always use this as the main guide (with 
> Steve's Lexicon in 2.5). To answer the original question, Yes, I do 
> think that the schoolbooks are canon and No, I don't think there are 
> major inconsistencies between them and the regular Harry books.

I don't think I made myself clear.  I'm not suggesting that the schoolbooks 
are not canon in the sense that they are not true within the Potterverse, 
or that they conflict with the books - this is obviously not the case.  I'm 
simply pointing out the following:

(a) JKR has a tendancy to lay out the foundation for any major plot point 
well ahead of time, albeit in a subtle way.

Cindy suggested three exceptions to this tendancy:  Hermione's Time-Turner, 
Moody's magical trunk and Voldemort's Revival potion.  In the case of the 
Time-Turner I think it was so obvious what Hermione was doing that all the 
readers needed was a name for a phenomenon they had already observed.  
It's not as if Hermione suddenly remembered a time-travel spell - the entire 
book from the minute the trio arrive at Hogwarts is pointing out, in big bold 
letters, that she is traveling through time.  Moody's trunk is, in my opinion, a 
minor detail.  I mean, it's hardly important where Crouch Jr. is keeping Moody, is 
it?  The foundation that JKR needs to lay out in GoF is for the revelation that 
Moody isn't who he says he is - and she does, including having him confess to 
entering Harry in the tournament in front of Dumbledore, we just misconstrue 
the facts.  

The Revival potion is another matter.  Personally, I find it the most unsatisfying 
element in all four books precisely because there is no foreshadowing, no mention 
of dark revival rituals (except for a few cryptic comments from Wormtail at the 
beginning of the book.)  However, one mess up, however big, in four books still 
does not disprove the fact that JKR has a strong *tendancy* to lay her foundations 
well ahead of time.

(b) FB and QttA were certainly not part of JKR's original seven-book-plan, and 
were probably conceived of and written after GoF was completed.

JKR was originally told by her publisher not to expect any royalties from the PS, 
and she figured that 2000 pounds a year for seven years would allow her to 
work only part-time and spend more time with her daughter.  Even if she thought 
the book might be a success, there's just no way she ever imagined how wildly 
successful it would be.  FB and QttA were a charity venture, and while I don't know 
exactly whose idea they were, I do know there was also a Bridget Jones companion 
volume that came out in time for Red Nose Day, 2001, so is it a fair assumption 
that both Helen Fielding and JKR were approached by a Comic Relief representative 
with the idea, and not the other way around?  In that case it makes no sense for 
JKR to plan a plot point based on information contained in books that she had no 
idea she was going to write when she first planned the series out.

Taking these two pointss into account, I just can't reasonably imagine a plot point in 
some future book that involves the sudden revelation of information from FB or QttA 
*without* having that information previously mentioned in the book itself (in much 
the same way that the description of an Animagus is repeated at the beginning of 
PoA even though we have both seen and heard a description of them in PS.)  I would 
consider it sloppy writing.  And we can't very well hold ourselves to a lower standard 
than JKR, right?

Abigail