Are The Schoolbooks Canon?

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 38972

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:

> 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.  The problem is that it hasn't happened 
yet.  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.  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. 

Yes - and she *has* done so - at what point Voldemort told Wormtail 
that he was supposed to do an important task that some of his 
supporters would "give their right hands for"? Wasn't that in the 
very *beginning* of the book - they were *planning* to kill Harry 
during a massive event *after* the QWC. Wormtail objects that any 
other wizard would suffice...

What's this little chat, if not a foreshadowing? Or that milking 
Nadine would soon not be necessary?

> To summarize, there's nothing wrong with using the scholbooks for 
theorizing, 
> but the schoolbooks themselves don't provide canonical support.  In 
other 
> words, what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel Jobberknoll has 
any more or 
> less support in canon than any other flavor of Reverse Memory 
Charm.  

Schoolbooks for theorising-- Well, let's just say that it's almost 
certain that *any* magical creature in *any* role in the 7 books is 
in FB, but not all the creatures in FB need to be in the 7 books.
(Nothing to prevent Hagrid or someone else creating a *new* species, 
but the new species-outside FB- explaining a past event would be 
clumsy.)

Hope that helps,

-- Finwitch