Are The Schoolbooks Canon?

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 38959

Marina wrote:

> But using this material as the basis for a major plot point in the
> novels *without providing the necessary information in the novels
> themselves* would be very sloppy indeed.  So if, say, the death 
cry of
> a Jobberknoll provides an important plot revelation in a future 
novel,
> I would expect to see an explanation of the Jobberknoll's nature
> somewhere in that novel, or in one of the previous novels.  To omit
> the explanation because it's already been given in FB would be 
sloppy
> writing, IMO.  

Yes, but, the Jobberknoll theory doesn't violate any of these 
principles at all.

The whole Jobberknoll theory is that the Jobberknoll figures into 
the torture of the Longbottoms.  We have not yet been told exactly 
what happened that night, although I suspect we will be told in the 
next three books.  So in OoP (or Book 6 or 7), JKR could easily have 
Neville (or Moody or Snape or Dumbledore) tell us the tale, 
explaining right then exactly what the Jobberknoll is and even 
revealing that the Longbottoms had one. 

So how would that be a canon problem or violate JKR's foreshadowing 
tendencies?  Obviously, she would have to explain in OoP what a 
Jobberknoll is, but I don't see how that fact undermines the 
Jobberknoll theory at all.  Can someone explain that to me?

Now, if I tried to explain some FLINT in the first 4 books using the 
schoolbooks, well . . . maybe there would be an argument that it 
might be a misuse of canon (although I still don't think it would 
be).  But if we're speculating about what we might learn later about 
an open canon question, and if we know that the schoolbooks 
definitely concern aspects of the wizarding world as devised by JKR, 
I see no reason why we can't theorize using something in Fantastic 
Beasts or QA.

Abigail:

>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'm still rather puzzled.  In GoF, the Dark Mark gets fired into the 
sky.  We have no idea at the time what it is supposed to mean; it 
comes out of nowhere, IIRC.  It is a very important plot point.  JKR 
explains it to the reader *after* the whole scene in the forest.  So 
that is another example where JKR just puts a magical concept out 
there and explains it for us later.  

As for Jobberknoll, isn't it a simple matter for JKR to have a 
character in OoP mention a Jobberknoll and have another character 
ask, "What's that?" followed by an explanation?  That's exactly how 
JKR handles the Dark Mark.

I'm puzzled, I really am.

Puzzled!Cindy