[HPforGrownups] Re: What is Canon?

[Katy Cartee]

No: HPFGUIDX 55987

Dan wrote:

> Taking our lead from Biblical scholarship, we could refer to anything 
> J.K. Rowling writes (or writings she has explicitly approved) about 
> Harry Potter as CANONICAL and anything that other people write about 
> Harry Potter as PSEUDO-CANONICAL. Thus, the (soon to be) five Potter 
> books, and the others that Rowlings has written (Quidditch Through the 
> Ages, et. al.) would be the CANON, and fan-fiction and the movies, and 
> maybe even the merchandise and video games, would be the PSEUDO-CANON.

Oh i would NEVER attach the word "canon" (even if it had the prefix of pseudo) to fan-fiction. A five year old could write a story that says "Harry Potter's favorite color is blue, because the sky is blue and it's pretty." There's nothing canonical about that. But i do like the "pseudo-canon" term. Since it seems a lot of people are resisting calling JKR's spoken words "canon" perhaps "pseudo-canon" would work better. But her words are the only things i would consider "pseudo-canon." I'll ignore your other responses to me Dan, because they were responses to old emails and ideas that no longer apply.

Rebecca wrote:

> See, I tend to think of HP as a "books-only" canon. 
> If it's not in the books, it's not canon.  Though it
> can (like Lily's last name) be generally accepted. 
> I'll accept it as fact, but not canon, if that makes
> sense.

Would you accept it as "pseudo-canon" then? Since it is an established fact?

Maria wrote:

> What I don't really understand is why people tend to dismiss the 
> schoolbooks as canon. Can someone explain that to me?

I would like to know the answer to that myself. It makes no logical sense to me.

Tom wrote:

> 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. 

After reading your reasoning, i would agree with you that the interviews are more 'important' than the books, but not 'more canon.' Do you get me?

bboy_mn wrote:

> I do take JKR's statements as 'gospel', but it is at times ambiguous.

She's no more ambiguous than the 'gospel' of the Bible is...in fact, she's much less so. Some of her words are open for interpretation, true. But after the series has ended, i believe we will know exactly what she was trying to get across. And at that point, i don't see how anyone could NOT accept her words as "pseudo-canon" at the very least.

Debbie wrote:

> 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.

Well that's understandable. You can find themes in everything if you look hard enough. I doubt that the writers did intentionally put the themes there. 

Debbie again:

> 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.

Now i see. That's what i was doing as well...equating verifiable fact with canon...when they are not one in the same. But now that i've got the term "psuedo-canon" to throw around (thanks Dan!), i'm a happy camper ;)

Debbie one more time:

> 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!

I hope to see you there as well! It all depends on tax money now...c'mon good 'ole IRS! Send me to Nimbus! ;)

~Katy~

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