What is Canon?

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 56005

Steve wrote:
The problem with interviews is 
that JKR's answers aren't always
clear-cut. <snip>
So what happens then? We are 
stuck with the same problem we 
have with many of the issues in 
the book, we have to use reasonable 
analysis and the application of our 
imaginations to create a reasonable 
extension or interpretation of the 
wizard world. The problem is, we 
frequently do not reach the same 
conclusions from analysing the same 
information, and of course, that's 
what makes our discussions so lively.

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

I wrote previously:
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. 

Katy replied:
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?

I respond:
Yup, Katy, I gotcha, and agree totally with both of you. :-) Thanks 
for the distinction, btw.

For the purposes of our list here, I totally concur that we 
definitely need an established set of materials that we can accept 
as `what-is-the-case,' so that we can debate and reason from there 
forward.

I don't dispute that canon should be the four books, in reverse 
order. I'd actually argue that this should be considered canon 
*exclusively,* with movies, games, and merchandise considered `pseudo-
canon,' to use someone's term from earlier this discussion.

As for fanfiction, as far as I'm concerned it's fun to read/write, 
but has no credibility whatsoever. I'm not ragging on the fanfic 
community out there, incidentally. What I'm saying is that the 
possibilities that people come up with are interesting, but I don't 
accept them as in any way indicative of the truths of the Potterverse 
as we know them.

And as for the interviews, I like Katy's distinction: `more 
important' vs. `more canon.' In that sense, I agree – the interviews 
can reveal stuff that is to come, and that we might never see in a 
book. In that sense, "importance" is a very good way to describe how 
I feel about the interviews. But when it comes down to it, can they 
be hard-core canon? I'm not so sure.

No matter what, they're not the books themselves. I think you're 
right on the money here. To have group dialogue, we need standards, 
and as Steve points out, the interviews aren't coordinated or 
consistent enough to warrant treatment as `established fact.'

-Tom, who thinks that the rules of `canon' that our list has 
established are fantastic, and who is fascinated by this discussion 
as he has never been involved with other `fandoms' prior to this one.