[HPforGrownups] Re: What is Canon?

[Katy Cartee]

No: HPFGUIDX 56158

Tom wrote:

> 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 suppose the Lexicon would be that starting point, although i just looked at it for the first time today, so i'm not sure of everything it contains as of yet. Here is the URL for it if you want to check it out:
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/

I'm a little confused though. Steve, the writer of the Lexicon, uses the following as his list of "canon" sources:

1) the novels and the "school books" (Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages) 
2) the illustrations in the "school books" (which were drawn by Rowling herself) but not the pictures in the novels 
3) interviews with Rowling where her actual words are given 
4) sections of the film/games/etc. which are known to be written by or okayed by Rowling (so far the flashback sequence in SS/f showing Lily's death is the only information that fits this criteria that we know of)

I agree with #1 and #2 as being "canon," but #'s 3 and 4 i would only consider "pseudo-canon"...and that, only AFTER the series is complete. I believe that is the general consensus that we reached, but i could be wrong. 

> 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.

I absolutely agree.

> 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.

Agreed again.

> 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.

It was really hard for me to finally admit to myself that her interviews do not fit the definition of "canon" because it's so hard to distinguish between "fact" and "canon." But they ARE two different things. And while i'd LIKE to use a stronger word for JKR's spoken words than "pseudo-canon," it's the closest word i've come to that 'fits.' 

> 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.'

I agree that standards should be set for the fandom. Not to alleviate discussion - but to minimize confusion. For example, if there were a page of "facts" (some canon and some pseudo-canon), it would be nice if they were, say, color-coded...canon fact in blue and pseudo-canon fact in green or some such. And the green facts could have the source that they were derived from mentioned at the end of the statement. I'm not sure who would do this or where it would be kept..but i think it would be helpful.

> -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.

It is a fascinating subject, because it's different for each fandom. All fandoms based on novels would probably fit the canon definition we've arrived at here...but fandoms based on movies and tv shows are in a league all their own.

~Katy~

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