[HPforGrownups] Re: What is Canon?

[Katy Cartee]

No: HPFGUIDX 55553

Barb wrote:

> The statement about Harry and Hermione being platonic friends, for 
> instance, could refer to the time of GoF, when that seems to be a 
> perfectly adequate way to describe their relationship.  This doesn't 
> mean it will always be true. 

Agreed.

> After GoF came out, for instance, she talked about having to rewrite 
> large parts of it because she needed a conduit for information 
> between Hogwarts and the rest of the wizarding world, and finally 
> decided to use Rita Skeeter for that, although she'd initially had a 
> Weasley cousin in mind.  If she'd said ahead of time that we were 
> going to see a Weasley cousin in GoF and then we discovered that we 
> got Rita instead, I'd just think she'd changed her mind and decided 
> that Rita worked better.  

Also agreed. We would all be missing out if JKR was not allowed to change her mind.

> That's one reason I'm a bit reluctant to call her interviews canon, 
> except as they explain confusing bits from the four (soon to be 
> five!) extant books.  I think of the interviews as being more 
> like 'guidance,' especially for my fanfiction writing.  But until it 
> appears between the pages of an actual Harry Potter book, in that 
> she has the right to change her mind about what she says--indeed, 
> has an obligation, if the story would be better written a different 
> way--I'd rather not treat tidbits gleaned from her interviews as 
> carved in stone.  They're helpful, certainly, but IMO, not canon.

I agree that AT THIS TIME, her interviews/comments are not canon. But i believe that they SHOULD be considered canon once the series is complete - as long as what she said does not contradict the completed series.

> I prefer to ignore a lot of the merchandizing, so I don't have other 
> things on this list.  Should I consider the depiction of Harry on my 
> daughter's cherry liquid hand soap (this is really sitting in my 
> bathroom!) to be canon? 

Well there's nothing canonical about a picture unless, for instance, it depicted Harry's scar as being on his cheek instead of his forehead. In that case, we would most certainly choose the forehead as being the correct placement "in canon." But pretend that the picture depicted Harry reading the book "Pride and Prejudice" and had a caption underneath it stating "Harry, reading his favorite book." If nowhere in the completed series are we told what Harry's favorite book is, i would take this caption as being "canonical fact" as there is no reason not to!

> Should I regard the (terrible) Quidditch 
> board game as canon? 

If there are facts found there that are not found (or contradicted) in the completed series, then YES! I don't know about you, but i want to learn as much about the characters and the Potterverse as i possibly can...and if some of that knowledge comes from a card in a game, then so be it!

> These things don't cut it, in my book. 

At this point in time, they don't cut it in my book either. BUT once the series is complete, there's no reason to discount other licensed sources (not just any old body) as canon as long as they do not contradict the completed series.

> Except that her name would probably be "Sherbet Lemon" in the 
> British version. God, that would be an awful name. ;)

LOL :)

> To get back to the difference between the author saying things about 
> the published works vs. the unpublished works, she said at one point 
> that James' Quidditch position was a Chaser.  Subsequently, in the 
> first film, she either a) allowed Kloves to make him a Seeker; or b) 
> didn't have much of a choice, not having discovered it until 
> changing it would have inconvenienced a huge number of people; or c) 
> didn't care one way or the other and originally gave the 
> answer "Chaser" to get someone to leave her alone and ask her 
> something sensible. <g>

So are you saying that if it is never 'written' in the book series which position James played, that you will throw out JKR's answer of Chaser as non-canon? There would be no sense in that!

> If she ever decides that Hermione's birthday is NOT September 19th 
> and that Ron's is NOT March 1, by putting the actual dates in a 
> future book, I don't think people should jump all over her for 
> changing her mind.

Oh i absolutely agree! If she says one thing now and then later puts something different in the book, that is her perogative and nobody should fault her for that. But the things that she does say now that, for whatever reason, don't show up in the books at all, should be considered canon (in the future) in my opinion. Because, again, there is no good reason to discount them.

~Katy~

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]