[HPforGrownups] Re: What is Canon?

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 55957

Katy Cartee suggested:

It seems like it would be a good idea to establish some kind of "canon rule" for the HP fandom now, so that it doesn't get confused later on, when even more merchandise is released and more interviews are given.

I respond:

It would be good to have a single definition of "canon" for use in the fandom  . . . as long as it's *my* definition.  <g>  

I guess that won't work.

Seriously, I think the real issue with defining "canon" is that different people with different purposes use the word "canon" to mean different things.  Since not everyone is using the same definition, there will be different opinions of what qualifies as "canon".  And part of it is simply that some people find what JKR says to be more believable and reliable than others do. 

For example, my primary interest is the books themselves, and therefore, I limit my definition of "canon" to the novels themselves, on the theory that literary analysis should consist of analysis of what's within the covers of the books.  Even the schoolbooks are secondary to JKR's vision as expressed in the novels, though the schoolbooks undoubtedly elaborate and expand on certain facets of the world JKR created in the novels and provide useful information, for example, on the plight of werewolves, illuminating some of their themes.  Basically, I value what's in the schoolbooks because they were written with due deliberation and intended to be complementary to the novels themselves.

On the other hand, I find information contained in interviews and other JKR-approved sources to be uncanonical, even where the statement corrects an error in canon.  To me, it's not canon until the error is corrected in a subsequent edition.  (Tolkien was still correcting inconsistencies in LotR 15 years after it was published.) 

I'm reluctant to put much stock in anything JKR says in an interview because, among other things, (i) interviews are often part of a marketing campaign, and I think JKR is deliberately vague on many of her statements, and intentionally misleading on a couple (particularly when it comes to etymology), and (ii) until she finishes the last book she can change her mind.  That doesn't mean I don't believe, for example, that Lily's maiden name was Evans or that Mrs. Figg and Arabella Figg are one and the same.  However, I don't believe the name Evans has plot significance, and I expect Harry will find out who Mrs. Figg is in the first chapter of OOP, so it wasn't much of a giveaway.  But I don't put much stock in anything she says in an interview.  I certainly don't think those statements should impact my literary analysis.  For whatever reason, authors (such as Tolkien again) have been known to deny having written themes into their books that readers of those books find there.

On the other hand, a fanfiction writer (or Lexicon webmaster) might take a different view of what is canon, because they are interested in all of the details of JKR's wizarding world, whether or not they are essential or even important to an analysis of the novels.  A FF writer who wants to write a fic that is as true as possible to JKR's world and characters will want to rely on things she says about the wizarding world that they can use in their own fics. Accordingly, they will be more inclined to consider anything spoken or expressly approved by JKR to be "canon" (unless otherwise contradicted by later-published books), especially factual details given by JKR in interviews or in media that she is known to have approved.  And they are right that if JKR said these things herself, or if she approved them, they are not likely to be incorrect.  But they are using a different definition of "canon" than I am.  They are using "canon" to refer to what they feel is verifiably a component of the wizarding world as JKR imagined it, and not to refer to her works.

I could go on and on, but I think I'll save some of it for the "Canon vs. Interpretation" panel at Nimbus - 2003.  I hope to see you there!

Debbie

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