What is Canon?

[maria_kirilenko]

No: HPFGUIDX 55786

Mysmacek said:

> Please no :-). Even the movie is not reliable. I do not recommend
> believing merchandise at all. That we do not know otherwise does not
> mean that it's a truth (truth at least in Potterverse, I mean)

Katy replied:
Again i must ask, WHY NOT? Nobody has given me a good reason thus far 
as to WHY we should refute facts retrieved from objects other than 
the books if they do not contradict what is in the books! 

Me: 

Because JKR does not have complete control over the merchandise and 
the movies. For example, she may "guide" Kloves, but ultimately, 
Kloves himself, and Columbus as well, will insert whatever subtext 
they wish into the movie. 

The same goes for spells. My CoS computer game, for example, has a 
spell called "Mimblewimble." Should we consider it canon, then? I 
don't think so. JKR didn't invent it.

Another good example is robes. Honestly, did you have the Movie!Robes 
in mind when you first read the books?

Katy continued:
Here's one good reason why we SHOULD accept them as fact 
(or "canon"): so far, we've been told that JKR is only writing 7 
Harry Potter books. SEVEN. #5 is about to come out and then only 2 
more to go. What then? What else will we have to turn to to satiate 
our thirst for Potter-knowledge? I'll tell you - OTHER licensed 
sources. I don't know about you, but it would thrill me to learn more 
facts after the series is complete. 

Me:

It would thrill me to find out more of the facts from Rowling. If she 
doesn't write anything else after Book 7, I'll be content with what I 
have, but I won't regard other sources as canon. But that's just me, 
you're, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

Maria