The materials on the websites directly written by JKR would probably count as addenda, won't they? Rather like satellite works to the "main canon" of the writer (following point 'c' of the quoted definition). It'd be similar to fables and stories being accepted as part of the "extended canon" of a scripture.

Should the fact that they were published on the internet preculde them from being part of the definition?

 

I'm sorry but no. Trying to argue that canon can only refer to written word is stupid and I've honestly lost respect for trying to do so. It completely misses the fact that canon has grown in meaning within the technecle jargon of internet culture. Canon is officially used in reference to the Star Wars franchise, for instance - books, movies, games and more. Language is a consensus truth and canon has a much broader meaning within our sub-community. Trying to enforce you definition limits the creative freedom of creators and that is something you should never do.

 

Huh, so did someone on iRC speak his name three times, or...?

Also, mknote got banned again? :facepalm What'd he do this time?

 

Exactly my point.

Lucasfilm has set out the Star Wars canon policy. It ranks everything in degrees. G-canon is the top. That's the movies and anything else George Lucas personally created. Below that is the T-canon. That's the TV series and similar. Below that is C-canon. That's the books, games and stuff like that. Below that is S-canon, stories which are no longer in continuity but some elements of which may still be canon. Finally we have N-canon, which is all offical Star Wars stuff which just does not fit into the main universe at all. A work form any level is 'canon' as long as it does not contract a work from a higher level of canon.

This is how canon works at the moment for Star Wars. Under Taure's definition, only the books can be considered canon. Let me repeat that, Taure is saying that the six films are not canon for Star Wars! He's trying to force a definition of canon which is just totally add odds with how the internet uses the term.

And let's say he wins the argument. Let's say Taure forces everyone to use canon only in reference to written works. So what? That just means we have to come up with a new word to mean what the internet has been using canon to mean. Total pedantic idiocy, hence why I've lost respect for him.

 

I must have missed the point at which the forum became Dark Lord Skywalker.

Equating a movie franchise with a book franchise and assuming that a concept applies to both in the same way is a bit retarded. Especially when the original definition regards written works (specifically, scripture).

Language is a wonderful thing: it can be stretched and expanded through metaphor and analogy, which is exactly what has happened in the case of Star Wars. An analogy is drawn between movies and books and the concept applied across the analogy, wherein the main movies are like the main books of a series.

The Harry Potter series, however, is not a movie franchise. It's a book franchise. There is no need to use an analogy. The original concept applies just fine.

With regards to respect, I never wanted yours and you're free to keep it. You certainly have never held mine.

 

Glimmervoid, the main point as I saw it from Taure's post was written work by the author is canon, which the script for the Star Wars movies was as far as I'm aware.
I got what Taure was saying from his post without issue, I don't understand how you didn't, considering a specific reference was made to literature. I will give you a seven for a decent argument but Taure's response is an eight or nine, therefore, victory Taure.
If I'm wrong on any point please correct me I'm both drunk and tired, and as such likely to make mistakes.

 

This isn't the Canon-fodder thread guys.

 

My point is written work is limited a creator. If Taure had just said work of Rowling I'd have no problem, but read the last two paragraphs in his original post. He's not saying 'everything Rowling creates' is canon. To be canon, he says it both needs to be created by Rowling and be written work.

Taure is explicitly saying that only Harry Potter material added by Rowling in a specific way is 'canon'. See his Pottermore comment. See the specific non-inclusion of interviews. Pottermore material is created by Rowling and yet because is it not published in a book Taure considers it ambiguously canon. That is stupid. Rowling is the author. She can add information to Harry Potter in any way she wants.

If she wanted, she could draw pictures and have them be canon. If she wanted, she could sketch a floor plan of the Burrow. That wouldn't fit into the 'works of a writer' definition - artist or architect, maybe, but not writer. And it would be canon. If she wanted, she could go on tore and expand the Harry Potter universe through improvised speeches. Say, go to Glasgow University and tell the story of the Witch Gladys who baked a magical cake. Then onto Imperial Collage London and tell the story of Tiberius Black, who earned the Order of Merlin for defeating a goblin uprising. That wouldn't be written works but they'd still be canon if Rowling wanted them to be.

 

Just reading through and I get Taure's point. JKR might have all sorts of background ideas and references for her world, but only the stuff published for money has to go through an Editor. What she spouts as 'I had this idea...' hasn't been vetted for consistency and continuity.

Similarly, what Steve Kloves wrote for the movies was reviewed by Rowling, but not from a point of consistency- she was guiding him away from blatant mis-characterization, but overall just wanted a 'Classics Illustrated' version of her work to make it onscreen. Even less scrutiny was applied to the video games, as they had to be tuned for playability.

BTW- the very notion of canonicity being argued, with a mix of personal insults and guarding of pet concepts- very much consistent with the history of scripture's canonification. It's like a Model Council of Trent.

 

Never mind.

 

Psss... The only guy who can be drunk, write at the same time and still be awesome is Joe. But Joe's drunken awesomeness can't be copied. He's like MattSilver in that regard, they are way out of your league lesser mortals.

 

How much does a Hogwarts education cost?

Room and Board must be expensive. The professors, I think, would be paid nicely. Add in the cost of: books, robes, whatever else I forgot; It can't be cheap.

It must be subsidized by the Ministry or how would the Weasley's afford it?

This also makes me wonder how much control the Ministry has over Hogwarts as it seems to employ some influence. Is Hogwarts a private school (as it must have been when founded), or is it a nationalized institution? I also know that Hogwarts has a board which also has power.

edit -- did a search and according to centives.net it would cost $42,000 US/yr. The Weaslys' had 5 kids going to Hogwarts at the same time for at least a year!!

 

Well, the elves supply a bit of labor that would normally raise tuition costs to upkeep. And I remember something about Hagrid growing vegetables, but that might be fanon. And Hogwarts's magic is rather complex, so they might be able to avoid costs such as furniture and creating homes for staff.

It is said to be the best magical school in Britain, and I imagine such a thing would not be said if it were not cost-effective.

 

I always believed that Hogwarts was more private than public. However, like Muggle private schools the government (the Ministry of Magic) does set a standard for the education of Hogwarts' students.

As for the cost, I've been under the impression that all magical children are offered a place at Hogwarts. Those who straight up can't afford it (Tom Riddle) attend on scholarship, those who can only pay so much (the Weasleys) pay what they can with the excess on a loan sort of system, and the rich just pay as they would for anything else that requires galleons.

 

I always figured that while JKR put a lot of thought into her world as a warped vision of muggle Britain, that she never really paid much attention to the economics of it. The size of population to support having a school like Hogwarts and a civil service the size of the Ministry's, who pays taxes and how, and where all of the missing children are, don't seem like questions which JKR ever developed proper answers to. Maybe she did and I'm not giving her enough credit.

It's one of those logic holes we all politely ignore until someone like Taure comes along poking holes in everything.

 

From reading the books, it seems that Muggle borns who enter Hogwarts fall under 2 conditions: either being financially well-off enough to pay the tuition (ie: the grangers), or poor enough to be offered scholarships (ie: the Creevy's and Tom Riddle). In the latter case, I would assume Hogwarts offers scholarships based on some sort of draw each year for better PR. If so, that may explain why the ratio of wizard:muggle born is so skewed in the novels. Under this scenario, the annual yearly tuition would be roughly the cost of an top class private school in the muggle world.

 

It seems that nobody pays school fees and expenses are fully covered by Ministry/magic of Hogwarts/charity/labor of House Elves/Hogwart's investment fund.

 

Of course Hogwarts education is free. After all, the entire point of the statute is to keep muggles ignorant of magic. If you demanded money for education, then not everyone would be able to afford it and they would become a danger to the statute. Having uneducated muggleborns around would be quite a problem.