Are The Schoolbooks Canon? (Some TBAY)

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 38970

Abigail wrote:

> Oh dear.  I really thought this whole "Are the schoolbooks canon?" 
> business was a rather petty aside, and now it's ballooned into a 
>monster.  

That's OK.  Actually, it *is* rather interesting, don't you think?  
It never occurred to me that there might be a pecking order of 
canon -- that some things might be considered better established or 
more legitimate because they arise in the books rather than the 
schoolbooks.  So it is certainly worth discussing, IMHO.

Abigail wrote:

> Let me see if I can set things straight.  There seem to be two 
>issues here.  The first is canon support.  The second is canon 
>violation.    
> 
> Now, obviously, Jobberknoll doesn't violate canon - it is in fact 
>based on canonically true material.  However, you suggested 
>Jobberknoll as a way of getting around Elkins' claim that Reverse 
>Memory Charm theories involved a yellow flag violation (because, 
>for those of you keeping score, there has never been any mention in 
>the books of a charm/potion/spell/magical device 
> for retrieving memories.)  In my original message I wondered 
>whether this wasn't a yellow flag violation in itself, as I felt 
>that the schoolbooks were "weak" canon.

Hmmm.  Well, I suggested a Yellow Flag Violation as a term to 
describe supporting a theory by inventing a magical device or 
spell.  That's obviously a no-no.  But it's a fairly bright line, I 
think.  Either the person proposing the theory made up a 
device/spell/character or they didn't.  If the 
device/spell/character expressly exists in canon, there can't 
possibly be a yellow flag violation as I'm using the term.

<pauses to consider how strange it is that the term "Yellow Flag 
Violation" has taken on a life of its own in just a few days>

It sounds like you're objecting more on the ground that the 
Jobberknoll theory is less persuasive for you because of the 
decreased probability in your eyes that JKR will use something from 
the schoolbooks as the premise of an important plot revelation.  

I can understand that objection, but I just don't agree, I think.  
In fact, it seems to me *very* likely that the Fantastic Beasts in 
the schoolbooks would be the basis for a *minor* plot revelation 
(how the crime against the Longbottoms was solved and Neville's 
backstory) rather than a major one that JKR would like to keep 
secret.  So I figure all of OoP won't rest on Lethifolds (which only 
appear in FB), but some minor background revelation might.  Just 
MHO, though.

Abigail:

> You're right, of course, that if in a future book a Jobberknoll is 
>mentioned, however briefly, this would give a massive boost to your 
>theory and provide sufficient foreshadowing.  

I still don't see why the Jobberknoll theory (or any other theory 
premised solely on the schoolbooks) couldn't work in OoP absent a 
prior mention in that book or a prior book.

Here's an example of how the Jobberknoll could come up:

***************

Neville:  Geez, every time I hear a high-pitched noise, it reminds 
me of the night my parents being tortured.

Harry:  No way!

Neville:  Way!  See, Moody told me that the Jobberknoll was the key 
to solving the crime.

Harry:  Say what?

Neville:  The Jobberknoll.  Geez, Harry, don't you know what a 
Jobberknoll is?  We used to have one for a pet . . . [insert 
Neville's account of the Jobberknoll theory].

************

In other words, the Jobberknoll could be *central* to the Longbottom 
backstory even though it hasn't been mentioned in the narrative 
precisely because we haven't been told the Longbottom backstory yet.

Abigail:

>I think we're all agreed that in order for JKR to realistically 
>introduce a Jobberknoll potion (or any other plot point based on 
>the schoolbooks) she would first have to  reintroduce the 
>information in the books themselves.  

Weeeelllll, we're not all in agreement, because I don't agree.  :-) 

In our example, I think she could "introduce" the Jobberknoll potion 
at the same instant she introduces the Longbottom backstory.  This 
is what she did with the Timeturner.  Oh, I know what everyone is 
thinking -- "But she foreshadowed the heck out of the timeturner!"  
That's true, and she may have foreshadowed the time turner *too* 
much.  But she has rather indirectly foreshadowed the Jobberknoll by 
mentioning that the Longbottoms couldn't give testimony, by giving 
us a timeline that suggests Neville was too young to give testimony, 
and by making clear that the perps were apprehended.  I think that 
there is plenty of foreshadowing already for her to use a 
Jobberknoll in the manner I suggested, particularly as the 
Longbottom backstory is probably not all that important.

Abigail:

>Which means that the presence of a Jobberknoll in FB is of 
>absolutely no importance as far as canon *support* goes, because 
>we're still waiting for JKR to validate that mention in the books 
>themselves. 

I don't fully follow the distinction between canon support and canon 
violation.  I mean, conceptually, they're just two sides of the same 
coin, aren't they?  If you have a theory, you can be shot down if 
there isn't a reasonable basis in canon to support it (Reverse 
Memory Charm) or if, heaven forbid, you've overlooked something in 
canon that undermines the theory (ToadKeeper).  Either way, you have 
a noncanonical theory, right?  Conversely, if you a theory premised 
on something in the schoolbooks and not contradicted by anything 
else in canon, then you by definition have canon support, I'd say.

Whether the theory is wobbly on other grounds is always an open 
question, though.  ;-)

Oh, and here's a Yellow Flag, courtesy of Dicey:

|~~|
|~~|
|

Cindy (who thinks the Jobberknoll theory has *lots* of problems, but 
canon support for the Jobberknoll part isn't one of them)