The timeline on the DVD *confirms* canon; SHIPping Attitudes

[pennylin]

No: HPFGUIDX 55849

Hi --

<<<<<<<Jo Serenadust wrote of Ebony's acceptance of
the timeline as canon:
>I can't agree here, since signing off on a timeline
>someone else wrote isn't really in the same category 
>as developing one yourself, or making public
statements
>in an interview, vague or otherwise. 

Eileen said: <<<<To which I can only say Amen.>>>>>>>>>

While I do agree with Eileen's point that unless WB releases an official statement confirming JKR's involvement with the timeline (or if JKR were to confirm this in an interview or chat) the proof of Rowling's involvement is a bit suspect, I should say that the Leaky Cauldron is not just reporting that Rowling *approved* the timeline; they are reporting that she *made notes on* and otherwise *changed* the timeline.  

If you've been following Lexicon Steve's discussions lately, then you know that he strongly suspects that someone from WB lifted his timeline out of the Lexicon and that someone (presumably Rowling) altered the timeline to add in a few things, such as Hermione's birthdate/age.  

This *suggests* (though doesn't prove) the sort of direct author involvement that would in fact confirm Hermione's age as canon (though I agree that it's always wise to distrust or view with suspicion news reports).  In historical research and genealogy and certainly academia in general, they are *not* primary sources.  

Jo Serenadust then wondered:

<<<<OK with me.  I still don't see Hermione's age having any real plot 
importance, unless it's just not been revealed yet.  I really didn't 
care until this DVD timeline issue came up, and I still don't get 
why it is so very important to you that she be younger by a matter 
of months rather than older.  Did I miss a post explaining that?  If 
so, please direct me to it because I have a feeling that I'm missing 
*something*.>>>>>>>>>

Well, I think it may be somehow important to some shippers for reasons that escape this particular shipper.  I know Angua has been quite vocal in her belief that Hermione was *older* by 10 months.  I can't speak to why that would be important to the shipping positions as it's not to mine, but.......

I do think that Hermione's age gives us some clues as to how the Magical Quill operates, which is why I've always found the topic of interest.  Of course, I thought that it operated on a calendar year, and Barb quite rightly pointed out that this can't work with Cedric.  Which takes us back to the Magical Quill operating on: the fall equinox, some other autumnal date or that Hermione was just a quirk in the system.  So, unfortunately, we're still not completely happy with the new "canon" on that particular score (to the extent you consider the DVD timeline to be "canon" that is).  

Shifting to SHIPping:


I said: > If true, then I'd say Rowling as
> the author might be making a bigger statement since
> Harry's first memory of female affection comes from
> Hermione's giving him a hug.    

Eileen: <<<<LOONish quibble here. Wouldn't Harry's first memory of
real female affection be Molly giving him a hug?>>>>>>>>

Nope, hon.  LOON'ing right back at ya: Derannimer is correct.  I was referring to Hermione's hug from the end of PS/SS.   :--)

Petra challenged:

<<<<<<So...do you see that "certain feelings between the three of them" also proves nothing and disproves nothing?  No 
death sentence being signed here?  No  death knell being tolled?  No swan song being sung?>>>>>>>>>

Er........*YES*!  I thought I have been abundantly clear, but apparently not.  I don't quite understand the animosity in tone (sarcasm) of your recent posts, Petra, but let me try to explain my position a bit more clearly.  

We can't know for *certain* what exactly Rowling was referring to with her statement that "certain feelings between the *3* of them are foreshadowed."  True enough.  In theory, I suppose it's possible that she was trying to be fiendishly clever and vague on this score, though watching the interview doesn't lead me to think that she was choosing her words all that carefully or that her answer was rehearsed in any way.  

But, leaving that aside, all I think it does is give one definite grounds to suspect that the "they are platonic friends" quote may not be as all-encompassing as some shippers have argued for the last couple of years.  My *personal* view is that this DVD interview very possibly signals FITD or some other love triangle or some other "complication" that involves Harry in the Trio's shipping (beyond a change in their overall friendship dynamics), but that's just *my* personal opinion.  Obviously, other interpretations will vary.  <g>  I did use the word "trump," but substantively, all I mean is that the *scope* of the "platonic friends" quote must surely be called into question a bit based on DVD interview quote.  It should make the reasonable shippers raise their eyebrows a bit, *I* would think.

<<<<<<<Because to be specific now is to spoil the future books.  JKR cannot possibly wish to spoil Books 5-6-7.  Therefore she's going to be truthful without actually 'trump' any ships.>>>>>>>>

*EXACTLY.*  Exactly.  So, the "platontic friends" quote is *likewise* not a spoiler of "forevermore" scope.  Right?

Overall, I think we must agree on one thing: the interview and chat statements are subject to multiple interpretations and really can't be taken to mean anything definitive on shipping by one side or the other, especially as we consider the point that Petra hammers home again and again: it's not in Rowling's interest or desire to spoil the later books on plot points.  

Penny  



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