[HPforGrownups] Re: What is Canon?

[Dan Delaney]

No: HPFGUIDX 55913

On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Katy Cartee wrote:
> 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!

I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand what the word "canon" means. 
It's a matter of definition.

The word "canon" is most often used in relation to religious writings 
as an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture. In the 
case of Christianity, that would be the Old Testament and New 
Testament. Other gospels and letters that have been found over the 
years, as well as all of the writings of the early church fathers are 
NOT canonical (they are referred to as either "pseudo-canonical" or 
"apocryphal").

In this context, however, the word 'canon" refers to the authentic 
works of a writer, in this case, J.K. Rowling. The four books up to 
this point, the fifth when it is released, and the other books she has 
written to supplement the series (the Quidditch and Monster things) all 
comprise the official Harry Potter Canon. Everything else is 
"pseudo-canonical".

Canon can also be writings that were commissioned and approved by the 
author to be a part of his or her creation. Take the Star Wars saga, 
for instance. Lucas writes the main stories and creates movies out of 
them. But he doesn't consider himself a writer, so he hires 
professional sci-fi novelists to write the novel versions of the 
movies. He also approves other novels by other writers that expand on 
the stories of the original Star Wars universe. All of those official 
Star Wars novels are canonical for the Star Wars universe, because 
Lucas himself (the creator of the Star Wars universe) allows them to be 
official. Rowling could very well hire someone to write books six 
and/or seven of the series. She may decide that she just doesn't have 
to time to finish them (what with the new child and all) and just hire 
someone she trusts to finish them up. Those two books would still be 
canonical, because she would have to approve them before they got 
published.


> 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!

It would only be canonical if Rowling herself created the picture and 
caption, or if she approved it as accurate. Just because somebody 
states something about Harry Potter and nothing in the book refutes 
that statement, doesn't mean that it's canonical fact. I could state 
right here and now that Harry Potter hates grape jelly. Just because 
the book doesn't mention Harry's attitude toward grape jelly doesn't 
make that statement I just made canonical fact, now does it?


> Here's one good reason why we SHOULD accept them as fact (or "canon"): 
> ...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.

Licensing has nothing to do with it. Licensing is a legal term for 
BRANDING purposes only. It is to determine who gets to make and sell 
something with the Harry Potter name on it. It would thrill me too to 
have official stories produced after Rowling finishes book seven. But 
they would only be "canon" if they were written by Rowling herself, or 
if she hired someone to officially write something about it and 
approved the writings.

--Dan