But you cant do that. It either is canon or it isnt. You cant pick and choose. Well you can do what ever you want. But in terms of canon, you either take all of it, or none.

And I would take a thought out post on Pottermore over some random musing in an interview.

 

I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not.

 

He's not. Think about it. Unless the interview was scripted half the answers given in past interviews must have been off the top of her head unless say, she had given great forethought to the answer. Like Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation or something.

 

Her written materiel clearly takes precedence, or Dumbledore would be 150.

 

Wait what? There is a new age for Dumbledore?

 

She said in an interview that Dumbledore was around 150. Later on (DH?), this was retconned and the date of his birth was moved forward, so that he in canon died at something like 115.

 

Then he's an idiot, and doesn't understand how degrees of canon work. Strictly speaking, we don't have to accept anything in Pottermore as canon, because it's not part of the original work. Even allowing it to be true so long as it contradicts nothing in the books or in Word of God interviews is being generous. The longer this nonsensical bullshit goes on, the more inclined I am to write the whole thing off as a wash. The bit about werewolves was pure unmitigated horse shit that sounded like it was pulled straight from somebodies ass at three in the morning the day the article was due to be thrown up, and you fucking know it.

The interview that simply stated werewolf cubs don't exist and it was merely slander by Riddle to make Hagrid fit better as the person who set the Monster of Slytherin loose makes infinitely more sense than trying to shoehorn that shit into the canon like a D-Grade fanfiction writer. Given the choice between a ridiculously convoluted explanation that was never even alluded to be true in canon, and a simple and straightforward one from the author's own mouth that labels the (ONE SINGULAR) discrepancy as being nothing more than lies and slander, the choice of which is more likely to be true is obvious. And it's hardly the only example of Pottermore flunking out, either. Wizards just shitting and pissing where they stand and then vanishing it? First of all, what the actual fuck. Second of all, if that were true, why ever switch over to bathrooms, when you have an allegedly 'better' way that doesn't require large amounts of renovation and infrastructure, and you apparently don't seem to mind culturally or socially people literally shitting on the floor.

This is Lionheart-tier, and you can't convince me that it's canon. It's not. Fuck the person who wrote both of those articles (it almost certainly wasn't Rowling), and fuck anybody out there who supports it.

As it stands, the only thing from Pottermore I'm willing to consider truly canon besides some of the small tidbits of information we've been given that don't actually matter would be the information on wands and wand cores. That actually makes sense with what was shown in the books and what we were told to be true both in the books and by Rowling.

And hey, guess what? That's still being generous. It wasn't in the books, and it wasn't told to us first-hand by the author. A strong argument could be made that the whole body of work is, at best, optional, and at worst, thoroughly non-canonical.

 

So, between two options:

1. JKR's spur of the moment answer to a question that she didn't have time to prepare for, resulting in her pulling something out of nowhere without forethought, in a verbal conversation.

2. JKR's word of god appearing in written and edited material, published via an official medium, which she had plenty of time to think through, and which she has stated to be an "encyclopedia" of HP.

You consider option number 1 to be more reliable/superior canon.

Riiiiight.

I mean, say that you're ignoring something because you don't like it - fine. But don't pretend there's some kind of rational justification behind your personal preference.

 

Wow, look at all those sweeping assumptions. I'm disappointed in you, Taure.

First of all, by Rowling's own word, she has ridiculously extensive notes on her world that contain information we never actually got to see in the books themselves. She has stated this, multiple times, and even made a point to congratulate somebody when they asked her a question about something she hadn't thought about.

While you may perhaps have an argument about "spur of the moment" and "off the cuff remarks" on those specific questions, for the rest of it, you do not, unless you want to say that Rowling is a massive fucking liar and didn't have any such thing as notes.

So attempting to brush the interviews under the rug as being unreliable because they were spontaneous answers is not only a sweeping generalization, it's also a patently wrong one.

It's also highly hypocritical, because I've seen you cite information from them plenty of times. I guess the interviews to you are only Word of God so long as it's convenient for the argument you're making, and all other times, they're spurious and unreliable?

Secondly, assuming these notes exist, they are what the books were written with. They are also what all interviews given were using, excepting the questions where Rowling admits she had not considered that particular question. Therefore, we can safely say that those notes are what everything we call Harry Potter canon is derived from. They are, in other words, the super-canon. We also have yet to actually see these notes ourselves.

The argument could be made that Pottermore is those notes. However, there's a problem with that. Some information given in Pottermore runs in a different grain compared to what we were shown in the books and told in interviews, and some information in Pottermore outright contradicts it.

Since Pottermore has come after the publishing of all seven books and the various interviews Rowling has given, and it presents information that clearly contradicts previously stated facts, that means one of three things.

1.) Rowling is doing the writing, but isn't following the notes.

2.) Rowling didn't do the writing. It's somebody else.

3.) Rowling is doing the writing, and has radically revised her notes from what they were while she was writing the books and giving interviews.

In all three instances, a strong argument could be made that Pottermore isn't as pure a canon as the main books, the side books, or even the interviews, as it came afterwards and provides contradictory and strange information that doesn't mesh well with the established world. However, in the case of three, a counter-argument could be made that Rowling is engaging in retroactive continuity, which, while severely frowned upon, would still lend Pottermore some air of legitimacy.

So, which is the right answer? Well, believe it or not, we're actually told what the right answer is in Pottermore itself.



"New Writings from J.K Rowling: Learn more about the world of Harry Potter as you discover exclusive new writing from J.K. Rowling."

These are new writings by J.K. Rowling. These aren't her notes. This isn't the information that was used during the interviews or to create the seven main books and two side books. It's new. Pottermore does nothing but confirm what we were already aware of, which is that this is Rowling creating new content that didn't exist when the books were written or the interviews were given for the purpose of maintaining interest in her series. This is not the posting of the never-before-seen notes. This is the publishing of entirely new information that was only recently created.

And that newly-created information doesn't jive with what we already know. It contradicts quite a bit.

Therefore, if we take those notes that the main body of work was created by as being canon, then Pottermore is, by definition, not canon, because it's not those notes, and was not created using those notes. It says it's not right there on the cover page.

 

Wow, that's the most desperate reach I've read in an argument in a long time. You've elevated writing notes to some kind of godlike entity, with the same epistemic status: nothing about these mythical notes can be proven or demonstrated, and you can safely attribute to them whatever properties will make you right.

Notes are notes. They are not the finished product. They can be, and often are, contradictory, because authors regularly revise their information. The class list that JKR showed in a documentary contains students who she later removed. The timeline she showed of Order of the Phoenix is massively different to the final book. Hermione and Draco used to have different names. These notes are not authoritative, and they are most definitely not canon.

Nor do we have any idea how extensive or comprehensive the notes are. JKR says she has boxes of them, but who knows what topics they're on or how much of them are redundant due to revisions. Knowing JKR's preferences, and clusterfucks like the wizarding numbers problem, one suspects that they're mostly character and plot information, with some rather superficial worldbuilding.

Even if they are extremely comprehensive, it's almost certain that eventually someone would ask her a question in an interview that she hasn't thought of before. And we have no idea which interview questions are backed by notes and which aren't. But more importantly, even if they are questions on topics she has notes on, it means shit. As I said, notes are informal. They're rough ideas which an author is free to change -- which she has changed numerous times. Dumbledore's age is an example. She said one thing in an interview, then did something different in the books.

Are you going to say that a statement in an interview, which may or may not be based on rough notes, is more authoritative than the content of the actual books?

If her notes say one thing and Pottermore says another, Pottermore wins. The material on Pottermore isn't informal rough ideas, it's published. But even if you say that it's informal out of some archaic idea that publishing on the internet is less real than in a paper book, it's still more recent informal information than 10-year-old notes that she can revise whenever she likes.

Some of the arguments you provide are just absurd:

1. A ridiculous analysis of the phrase "new writings". Firstly, "new writings" means "not published before", which her notes weren't. Secondly, "new writings" does not necessarily mean "new information". It could also mean information in her notes written into a form that the public can consume, as her notes are likely disparate and contradictory. This is a perfect example of you using the idea of the notes to be whatever you want them to be.

2. Pointing out that I've used information from interviews in arguments. Yes, this is true. While interviews aren't canon, they're still word of god. So long as they don't contradict published work from JKR, one might as well take them in good faith.

 

We can also say that they aren't canon.

However much significance or worship you wish to personally ascribe to Rowling's spur of the moment interview responses, or the unseen 'notes', they aren't canon. Not according to the definition of the word.

From dictionary.com the most appropriate definition for 'literary' canon is this:

Interviews of Rowling aren't a 'work of the author'. They're not published material of J. Rowling. They're not canon.

The seven/nine Harry Potter books are clearly published 'works' of the author. They're canon.

I don't much like the idea of Pottermore being 'canon', but shucks, Rowling's bits and pieces there probably had just as much editing and quality control as her last few HP books (i.e. zero). Pottermore is a 'work of the author', even if it doesn't have an ISBN. It's canon of the internet age.

Answers to questions raised by reporters aren't 'works of the author', so they aren't canon. Even if you'd like them to be.

There's no chance at all of unseen unpublished 'notes' being 'accepted as authentic works of the author' when no-one other than Rowling has ever seen them. The notes can't possibly be canon.

 

I personally have no problems with declaring that Pottermore is canon. After all, even if it would contradict not only the interviews but the books themselves then we can just assume it is retconning. There's nothing wrong with retconning.

 

Maybe they don't have to shit on the floor. They might just have a spell to vanish waste from their bowls without excretion. Which is better than toilets. So why switch? Seems like she fucked up on that one.

 

Or maybe it was hyperbole utilised for comedic effect.

 

I suppose that makes sense. But it seems like a strange way to use an encyclopedic platform.

 

Personally I feel as though only the books themselves are canon, as much as I hate the last 2, they ARE canon...

I don't really care for anything the author has created or clarified after the series has ended. It restricts freedom of interpretation for often no reason other than "this is how it is because I say so now". I don't see it as part of the books.

If anything I'd call it canon+.

Yes there are a lot of things that were not explained that have now been explained, but did they really need explaining? Allowing people to come up with their own opinion for things, from trivial things that don't really matter (plumbing, who cares?), to important plot related matters (like how much Dumbledore "manipulated" Harry), is far more interesting than trying to give the answers to these questions once everyone's finished the series.

Even worse if the theories were made up AFTER the series was over, and not just what the author was actually thinking at the time. There's just no need for that.

You COULD argue it as canon (if you do you DO have to take it all, as someone pointed out). But I don't think it is.

 

I just went to Pottermore today and learned that they are finally opening up Diagon Ally in Orlando. To be honest this revelation is not enough to make me go back there. I personally thought Universal ruined the HP experiance.

Also the more time that goes by the more disappointing I find Pottermore I don' t think they have done a good job with. My example is that you collect more stuff and can't do anything with it. I want to interact with the HP world more.
I just wonder how many others feel the same way as I do?

 

I like it, I think a lot of people expect it to be a bit for like a MMORPG, but its not, its a story with interactive parts.

 

So, the second half of GoF has opened up. Some nice artwork, a few bits of pointless information about owls and pensieves, and one kickass explanation of illness and wizards. I'm feeling pretty vindicated right now, because JKR has finally come out and made a statement about the nature of magic. And that is:

"... broadly speaking, wizards would have the power to correct or override 'mundane' nature, but not 'magical' nature."

To pull something from my own headcanon document:

:awesome

It also strongly implies that magic doesn't, as some people say, work with nature, like a form of undiscovered physics that ultimately fits in with Muggle understanding. Rather, it's something completely separate from "mundane nature" and can override it.

In other news, wizards are basically immune to Muggle poisons and Muggles are able to catch magical diseases, it's just the Statute of Secrecy generally means they don't.

 

Could you perhaps quote the information so that others can view it?