There has been many times when asked about something or just because, JK has said something about whatever that doesn´t actually appear on books or films, or just when asked sais something that seems new and sometimes even unfitting, like for example when she said that yeah, Hermione could perfectly be a black girl. And I have nothing against black people but if she ever thought about black Hermione for sure would have written it.

So, my question is, if it is not written, should we take her opinions as canon, or just another fan doing small talk.

My point is, JK has never seemed to me more than an average writer, I mean, her idea, her imagination was superb, but as a writer, the way she developed her idea is lacking, with the biggest examples being horrocruxes and deathly hallows, or wand loyalty, both appearing out of the blue in book 6 because she needed a way to close the story.
Considering that, things she said afterwards but didn´t write about because she actually didn´t care or didn´t pop in her mind, like the resemblance between Dumbledore and death, and the 3 brothers and Harry, Snape or Voldemort, shouldn´t hold more value than an average person.

What do you think? Does she own post books theories or them are free to be imagined

 

Its both. I mean, when she talks about character history- that's Word of God when it comes to canon. There's nothing stopping you from ignoring everything she says though.

The great and awful thing about writing is that once it hits the public, its not really your baby any more. As a fan, you can interpret any part of a book anyway you like. You can choose to ignore what the author says, because the reading experience is an intensely personal one.

 

Her opinions about HP are more valid than anyone else's, but that doesn't mean she can't be wrong.

 

Not at all really.

 

The bits I like are absolute canon. The bits I don't like are the ravings of a money hungry lunatic.

 

not relevant at all. She panders to the fans, a lot, so it's hard to take conflicting statements as canon.

 

Some of her recent stuff feels like bad fanfic. I'm not sure if her writing has gone down hill or if I just find some tropes and clichés incredibly toxic now days.

 

I am not writing Merlin as a Hogwarts student, Slytherin or otherwise.

 

Everything Rowling PERSONALLY creates is fully canon.

That's why movies and video games aren't.

 

Well Fantastic Beasts is canon she sayed so herself.

 

I call canon all seven books, UK edition. Translations, movies and all else are non-canon. What actually is canon belongs into another thread, imo.

 

She made Fantastic Beasts. That's different.

 

Fantastic Beasts is fine, it doesn't effect the main cannon story much at all, and gives a small look at how USA deal with their wizards (turns out, it's just about as screwed up as England, but in a new totally different way).

But as to her other statements? I take it or leave it, because it's all hindsite 'this would have made me more money' sort of things.

 

I think it’s best to think of Rowling’s post book declarations as opinions (I don’t consider the original movies to be canon considering how much contradictions they have to the books as well as the awful characterisation in them) akin to commentaries from a movie director. They are just opinions and they are not in the books and readers shouldn’t be forced to accept them. For example, I would consider a story where the Trio returned to Hogwarts after the final battle with Voldemort to be canon compliant. It’s also rather unfair to casual readers who wouldn’t have the energy to go through all of Rowling’s interviews to determine exactly what she said and what she didn’t.


There is also the problem of contradictions between what Rowling said in interviews and what she wrote. A good example would be Hermione’s middle name. In an interview before DH was released she said Hermione’s middle name is Jane, but then in DH it was explicitly stated her middle name is Jean.

[FONT=&quot]Totally agree with this. It’s absolutely fine to have a black Hermione in the play (where it is not unusual to have actors playing characters of different race anyways) but it’s something else to say Hermione could be black in canon. This is strange to say the least considering the fact that whenever a black character is introduced in the Potterverse, their skin colour is explicitly stated. Are we meant to believe that Dean, Angelina and Kingsley’s skin colour is specifically mentioned, but Hermione’s, who is a member of the Golden Trio, isn’t?[/FONT]

 

Well that´s the issue of the thread. What she says, but hasn´t written about, is canon just because she says so, or is just another fan opinion. Because my opinion is that there are many theories she has validated that I wouldn´t consider canon, just because she didn´t thought about them, and when introduced to her she thought, well that fits and is good, I´m gonna say is canon and go with it.

Fantastic beasts, Andrella wrote is canon because she made it. Well yes and no. She made a book for comic relief, a sort of encyclophaedia. She never EVER talked about obscurus. Those are inventions of the moovie. Like the beast with 4 wings that doesn´t appear in the book. Not to mention anything about Grindelwald, which is absolutely unbelievable (Grindelwald in USA, Grindelwald using subtlety and impersonation when he has an all oout war in Europe, Grindelwald getting caught by a plant)

So, the question is clearer than ever with this example you provide. Do I have to take Fantastic Beasts as canon, the existence of obscurus when Harry is considered a freak when performing accidental magic, which he tries to stop and NEVER was mentioned even the possibility of that turning bad, Grindelwald in USA using tactics completely opposite of the ones in Europe where he is in a war that for sure wouldn´t abandom, just because JK Rowling says its canon, even if it contradicts what she DID wrote?

 

The thing is she did write the screenplay for the movie. Also, I might be wrong but I don't think it's mentioned when exactly the war oficially started, and considering Grindelwald was finally defeated 19 years after the events in the movie took place, I don't see why he couldn't be in the USA.

Obscurus are in fact an invention, but they don't seem to contradict what Rowling said in the books. If anything they offer an explanation to what happened to Ariana and provide a reason for Grindelwald to be in the USA, as he knows what they can do, looking for them.

 

She claim Cursed Child was canon, even though it was written by two other people, IIRC. :fire

I mean, she approved it, but how closely is she even paying attention? She was probably too busy bulldozing the mansion next to hers, making way for her new garden and Hogwarts tree-houses, to proofread their shit.

 

Oh, I may not like it. But if she personally says its canon well then it's canon.

 

I personally don't follow 'The Cursed Child' and I don't consider it canon. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' while interesting, I don't consider it canon. Grindelwald appearing in the USA while already fighting in Europe is just ridiculous. The only thing I consider Canon are the Harry potter books.

 

Grindelwald is barely explored, and I dont know when the movie was set and when was he defeated, but I find higly unlikely he decided to start his rebelion against muggles in a country that is not his.
Plus, he was already wanted, so for that to be so, he needed having done something. Did he started something, quited, and tried in USA?

Come on. Obscurus are born when someone fears his magic and tries to repress it. Dont you think Harry Potter, who for years tried to stop doing freakish things, could have been one as well? Dont you think with that possibility in mind someone along the 7 books might have mentioned it?

Plus, is just plainly stupid, they just needed something to sail through the plot holes and invented that.

Must we take that as canon?