I stumbled over a discussion Forum topic "JKR: Canon oder fanon" on another HP site and I have ended up into debates related to the topic, so I decided to write this opinion Artikel - this isn't about anyone oder anything in particular about the Bücher regardless of the examples. The point in them is for the general matters (:
"What all is canon to you? What do Du personally keep, tweak oder disregard in your head?"
To me...
Canon is the author's image. This of course means also whatever she announces anywhere outside the books, is canon. She wrote her view into the books's content and it's bound to Zeigen in it, in one way oder another. Of course there are things she has sagte that do not come up in any way in the Bücher and also do not make sense anyway. Those I disregard. Such as that Death Eaters are not able to conjure Patronus? Why in the world not? They're only human and bound to have at least one happy memory in their lives! Plus, most of them probably were quite gifted in magic. Chances are Jo has become to see that too but what's sagte is said. So I feel no need to stick to an illogicness.
So, anyway - in a way canon is the literal information in the Bücher and in the most simpliest and practical matters such as healths and deaths it can be enough - BUT mostly I think it's just as essentially how the literal information in the Bücher is laied out + the most logic interpretation that can come out of all that, when everything essential is looked into and not over and then seriously analyzed.
As in, the literal text alone is only pieces of, the mere surface of the canon - because if Du write only based on the literal parts and/or even if Du try to look into but over-look maybe even essential details/elements, chances are Du end up weighting Mehr on fanon than canon.
For an example;
Sirius states that Barty Crouch Sr. didn't get to know his son and that it was because of working too much. Many people think that because it literally reads in the book, it makes it a fact and so canon. But there happens to be Mehr to it - the how that information was laied out; if Jo had meant that literal statement to be a fact, the exact truth - she most likely would not have put those words into a mouth of a stranger - (Sirius isn't known oder even likely to have known the Crouch family what-so-ever) - who also hates the person in talks (Barty Sr. threw him into Azkaban.) So, here the literal is not the canon for the Crouch family but only for Sirius's opinion on them.
For an example 2;
People think it's likely canon that Barty Crouch Jr. and his father were distant and had a really bad relationship, because pretty much everything literally written in the book lets on such image. But pay attention to the full picture's essential elements; We always met them and heard their opinions in extreme situations, such as in the trial's emotional drama and shocked atmosphere whereas in a courtroom you're never Schauspielen your regular family way anyway. oder a mentally ill and emotionally horribly twisted Junior expressing himself. oder the stranger&hater speaking his opinion. Hence, Jo never let us interpret them on their own land (at home), on a neutral base (like on the streets on free time) and Von their regular behavior and communication with each other. Hence, Jo does NOT shine the light on the family's true feelings and she does not let us know anything certain oder crucial on their life style either. So while we can not be sure of what is her exact image, I think it's safe, sicher to assume it at least is not what the literal content makes it seem like.
So I'm not sure how likely it is that a reader could ever view the exact canon as there is usually Mehr oder less room for so many different interpretations and what Du see depends on how your mind is set to interpret things. And chances are the Autor did not write everything about their view but just leads us on the right path if we only read the essential signs. (Hence, my example number 2.) So some Fans are bound to get closer to the true canon than others but no one can be sure just how close they've got in the big picture.
It's a strength and a sign of a great character/relationship if the way it's described in the literal content of the Bücher has the depth to withstand differences of opinion and interpretation but everything withstands it only so far. Because there can be only one truth hidden in between the lines and in the way it's laid out. And I believe Du get the closest to it if Du hold the 'how' in as high importance as the 'what' and at some points in even higher impotance.
So, she says Dumbledore is gay so it's canon even though the Bücher don't literally say that - but because chances are she does imply it in her Schreiben in some way - even if whatever does it, can be interpretated some other way too, depending on how your mind is set.
The real canon is the author's image. The literal content is it's surface that we have to break and look under it with genuine interest and attempts to interpret if we wish to find it.
I personally am Mehr into "serious" and indepth writing. And so I prefer and enjoy firstly to dig and interpret into the author's image as deep and certainly as I possibly can, and then - depending on how much I Liebe what I came to see - either write regarding it and only it, oder write in an evident AU view as long as it makes sense and stands it's ground without making the character (essentially) OOC. Unless it's a joke/parodie of course oder in some other way lighthearted little spoof. (:
I guess this is why I have in all my years, only written about Peter Pan and Barty Crouch Jr.! I don't have the energy nor interest to do that process on every character I love.
EDIT.//
I've been now told that I confuse Canon Versus Fanon Versus Authorial Intent, and something about factoids... Well, I personally don't think I do.
Because the Frage was what do I keep, tweak oder disregard in my head when it comes to canon. And I keep all the author's words in my head. I don't disregard them. So I just sagte that to me the author's intent is the canon because I feel it's strongly and meaningfully connected to the book-content canon-ness.
Du see, she doesn't necessarely put it into words directly, but blends it into the story on a realistic level - leading us close to it if we look at the story as if we were interpreting real life. After all, basically, ficrion mirrors real life and not only it's author's views.
Hence, Sirius's biased opinion may not be the author's intent at all as it is - it's just something someone in Sirius's situation might say in real life. Of course Sirius didn't make it up completely and probably was partly right, but the point is, he did not know enough about them, to be able to tell the exact truth, plus his hate probably affected it too. And the Crouch family we never see in their own land, on neutral base, and in their regular behavior and communication with each other. In real life, that should make a person consider that things may not be what they seem.
And why I believe that is the way JKR wrote, is that she did make Harry ponder if BCJ really was guilty and Dumbledore for one, truthfully say that he can not know. She clearly wrote in character point of Ansichten Mehr oder less, and had them express their interpretations in psychologically realistic/real life way.
"What all is canon to you? What do Du personally keep, tweak oder disregard in your head?"
To me...
Canon is the author's image. This of course means also whatever she announces anywhere outside the books, is canon. She wrote her view into the books's content and it's bound to Zeigen in it, in one way oder another. Of course there are things she has sagte that do not come up in any way in the Bücher and also do not make sense anyway. Those I disregard. Such as that Death Eaters are not able to conjure Patronus? Why in the world not? They're only human and bound to have at least one happy memory in their lives! Plus, most of them probably were quite gifted in magic. Chances are Jo has become to see that too but what's sagte is said. So I feel no need to stick to an illogicness.
So, anyway - in a way canon is the literal information in the Bücher and in the most simpliest and practical matters such as healths and deaths it can be enough - BUT mostly I think it's just as essentially how the literal information in the Bücher is laied out + the most logic interpretation that can come out of all that, when everything essential is looked into and not over and then seriously analyzed.
As in, the literal text alone is only pieces of, the mere surface of the canon - because if Du write only based on the literal parts and/or even if Du try to look into but over-look maybe even essential details/elements, chances are Du end up weighting Mehr on fanon than canon.
For an example;
Sirius states that Barty Crouch Sr. didn't get to know his son and that it was because of working too much. Many people think that because it literally reads in the book, it makes it a fact and so canon. But there happens to be Mehr to it - the how that information was laied out; if Jo had meant that literal statement to be a fact, the exact truth - she most likely would not have put those words into a mouth of a stranger - (Sirius isn't known oder even likely to have known the Crouch family what-so-ever) - who also hates the person in talks (Barty Sr. threw him into Azkaban.) So, here the literal is not the canon for the Crouch family but only for Sirius's opinion on them.
For an example 2;
People think it's likely canon that Barty Crouch Jr. and his father were distant and had a really bad relationship, because pretty much everything literally written in the book lets on such image. But pay attention to the full picture's essential elements; We always met them and heard their opinions in extreme situations, such as in the trial's emotional drama and shocked atmosphere whereas in a courtroom you're never Schauspielen your regular family way anyway. oder a mentally ill and emotionally horribly twisted Junior expressing himself. oder the stranger&hater speaking his opinion. Hence, Jo never let us interpret them on their own land (at home), on a neutral base (like on the streets on free time) and Von their regular behavior and communication with each other. Hence, Jo does NOT shine the light on the family's true feelings and she does not let us know anything certain oder crucial on their life style either. So while we can not be sure of what is her exact image, I think it's safe, sicher to assume it at least is not what the literal content makes it seem like.
So I'm not sure how likely it is that a reader could ever view the exact canon as there is usually Mehr oder less room for so many different interpretations and what Du see depends on how your mind is set to interpret things. And chances are the Autor did not write everything about their view but just leads us on the right path if we only read the essential signs. (Hence, my example number 2.) So some Fans are bound to get closer to the true canon than others but no one can be sure just how close they've got in the big picture.
It's a strength and a sign of a great character/relationship if the way it's described in the literal content of the Bücher has the depth to withstand differences of opinion and interpretation but everything withstands it only so far. Because there can be only one truth hidden in between the lines and in the way it's laid out. And I believe Du get the closest to it if Du hold the 'how' in as high importance as the 'what' and at some points in even higher impotance.
So, she says Dumbledore is gay so it's canon even though the Bücher don't literally say that - but because chances are she does imply it in her Schreiben in some way - even if whatever does it, can be interpretated some other way too, depending on how your mind is set.
The real canon is the author's image. The literal content is it's surface that we have to break and look under it with genuine interest and attempts to interpret if we wish to find it.
I personally am Mehr into "serious" and indepth writing. And so I prefer and enjoy firstly to dig and interpret into the author's image as deep and certainly as I possibly can, and then - depending on how much I Liebe what I came to see - either write regarding it and only it, oder write in an evident AU view as long as it makes sense and stands it's ground without making the character (essentially) OOC. Unless it's a joke/parodie of course oder in some other way lighthearted little spoof. (:
I guess this is why I have in all my years, only written about Peter Pan and Barty Crouch Jr.! I don't have the energy nor interest to do that process on every character I love.
EDIT.//
I've been now told that I confuse Canon Versus Fanon Versus Authorial Intent, and something about factoids... Well, I personally don't think I do.
Because the Frage was what do I keep, tweak oder disregard in my head when it comes to canon. And I keep all the author's words in my head. I don't disregard them. So I just sagte that to me the author's intent is the canon because I feel it's strongly and meaningfully connected to the book-content canon-ness.
Du see, she doesn't necessarely put it into words directly, but blends it into the story on a realistic level - leading us close to it if we look at the story as if we were interpreting real life. After all, basically, ficrion mirrors real life and not only it's author's views.
Hence, Sirius's biased opinion may not be the author's intent at all as it is - it's just something someone in Sirius's situation might say in real life. Of course Sirius didn't make it up completely and probably was partly right, but the point is, he did not know enough about them, to be able to tell the exact truth, plus his hate probably affected it too. And the Crouch family we never see in their own land, on neutral base, and in their regular behavior and communication with each other. In real life, that should make a person consider that things may not be what they seem.
And why I believe that is the way JKR wrote, is that she did make Harry ponder if BCJ really was guilty and Dumbledore for one, truthfully say that he can not know. She clearly wrote in character point of Ansichten Mehr oder less, and had them express their interpretations in psychologically realistic/real life way.
