What is Canon?

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 55944

Melissa wrote:
Canon is anything that actually happens in the books or that Rowling 
says in her interviews.

Kathryn replied:
Anyway - that's a debatable point actually. If it's in the book it's
definitely canon - if JKR says it, well it's probably true 
obviously, but is it canon? Apart from anything else she may change 
her mind about anything she says between now and finishing book 7 so 
then the books might contradict her interviews. Personally while I 
obviously pay attention to what she says (since it's her universe 
and all) if it ain't in the books it ain't canon - as far as I'm 
concerned.

Katy replied:
But i believe that the author's interviews/comments ARE canon
UNLESS they are contradicted by the books
<snip>
Level #1 - The Books
Level #2 - What that author says
Level #3 - The Movies
Level #4 - Comic books, cartoons and god knows what else they'll end 
up coming out with in the future ;)

I comment:
I am actually of the opinion that interviews are almost *more* valid 
than the books. <ducks rotten tomatoes careening at him.> 

Why? Because the interviews are direct from the horse's mouth. 

In the books, you're gonna have typos and contradictions and all 
sorts of minor errors that are generated as a result of the writing 
process. `International Federation' vs. `Confederation:' that sort 
of thing. When writing, she's got to worry about plot and 
consistency and character development and all sorts of other writer-
stuff. Same as the whole `first floor' vs. `ground floor' thing with 
Myrtle's bathroom in CoS.

For instance, in the first edition of GoF, she screwed up the 
reverse order of the spells in Priori Incantantem. We know that it 
was a mistake, because it was fixed in subsequent editions. This is 
an example of what I mean. A mistake like this doesn't *drastically* 
alter the series... even if it was left there, the only thing that 
changes is that we find out James died after Lily. Big deal. This 
is, IMHO, an example of oversight. And with the Weasley cousin that 
we'll probably never meet. She had to enlarge Rita Skeeter's role 
because something involving the cousin caused a plot hole in the 
middle of her first draft of GoF. But this stuff is not series-
altering. It's a minor thing that she didn't work out perfectly 
beforehand, and so caused a problem when the actual writing 
happened. But the plot hole with the Weasley cousin hasn't altered 
what's `going-to-happen.'

If I'm not mistaken, JKR has been quite clear in the interviews that 
she knows all of the important stuff that's going to happen already. 
In other words, all of the major plot points and developments have 
already been decided, she says that she knows who is going to die, 
and who'll survive, and all of it. I read the other day in an 
interview that she's even written the last chapter of Book 7 
already, in a kind of epilogue-style, so she knows not only the 
outcome, but what's going to happen to the survivors after the 
series is done. So, all of this has been worked out in her head, but 
not put to the page yet.

So, when JKR says something in an interview, I listen. Because the 
elusive `what's-going-to-happen' is canon for her already. You know, 
she knows this world so well that if she says it, and it contradicts 
the books, then I personally am inclined to take her word over the 
books. Why? Because she knows what's coming, and that makes all the 
difference to me.

I have this personal idea that I'm sure some others probably share: 
by the end of the series, a great deal of what we 
consider `canonical fact' from PS/SS and CoS is going to turn out to 
have been a bunch of hooey. And so, what we're calling `canon' now, 
as well as many of the arguments that we're presently making on-
list, are based on faulty information. This is why I agree with 
those who say that the books *in reverse order* (from GoF backwards) 
are actually canon `proper:' because each book will reveal something 
new, and is likely to contradict something in a previous book.

I believe that she has (and by her own admission) laid the 
groundwork for things to come through foreshadowing. This is one of 
the reasons that I buy Evil!McGonagall - but I don't think that's 
got a hope of being canon until the very end. So, until then, 
McGonagall is Dumbledore's trusted deputy, because that's what canon 
tells us. But when we find out that he suspected her the whole time, 
then that aspect of canon is inverted on its head and officially 
changed. In other words, I think that the red-herrings aren't simply 
contained in each book individually. They're, IMHO, series-spanning, 
and the revelations won't come until the very end.

I have this problem, for instance, with flints, and specifically the 
namesake of `flint,' Marcus Flint. I clearly read an interview in 
which JKR told someone that Marcus Flint stayed back a year. I've 
never read an interview where she admitted that it was a mistake. 
Now, I'm not saying that this second interview doesn't exist, simply 
that I haven't been able to find it. So, until I do read the 
interview where she says that his inclusion was a mistake, I'm going 
to insist that he stayed back the year, and that his staying back 
was not a mistake.

So, that's why I (and I believe I'm probably in a tiny minority 
here) am almost tempted to suggest that the interviews are *more* 
important than the books themselves, because of the `what's-going-to-
happen' factor, of which only the author is aware, but which has 
implications for what is contained in the books themselves. 

As a side note, the parallel with Star Wars is slightly different, 
because Lucas' approach was to give us the `what's-going-to-happen' 
stuff first. What we're seeing now is the preamble, and since we 
already know the outcome, nothing super-startling will arise. But 
with the books, all the stuff that's yet to come will take 
precedence.

Granted, this doesn't help us out now so much, because we've got to 
have something to nitpick on. :-) And so, I understand (and agree) 
with everyone who insists that the books (in reverse order) should 
be the first circle of canon, while retaining my right to secretly 
believe that if an interview contradicts the books, it's the 
writer's word that takes priority.

-Tom, who thinks that `HP and the Sorceror's Stone' is a far lamer, 
Americanized title than `HP and the Philosopher's Stone,' and who, 
like Annemehr, refers to that book as PS/SS when quoting it. :-)