What is canon anyway?

[stgulik]

In eight or ten generations, after The Fall of Civilization, when humankind rebuilds itself from the ashes and the Harry Potter series supplants all major world religions, scholars will argue over canon in ways that make our bickering on LJ seem amateurish.

But until that fateful time, I'd like your opinion on movie canon. Is it as authentically canon as the books? When the movie version of HP7 Part 2 doesn't make it clear that Snape is not Harry Potter's father by Lily, does that idea become alternate history, or just a curiosity that ought not to be taken seriously as book canon?

Let's hear from you:

[Poll #1962449]

Do me a favor and share this poll around, because I don't have a lot of followers and I'd like some decent polling numbers on this, for science.

Comments

[lightofdaye]

Yeah, books are more canon. The films are less. if the books and films contradict. I'm never taking the film's word for it.

I think its interesting what view people take to information from films that expand upon the books without contradicting them. Though only two examples come to mind: Susan is often depicted as having red hair. The books only mention she wore in a plait but the actor in the films had red hair so it stuck.

The other is the fate of Lavender Brown. The books have her attacked and saved by Hermione and is left 'stirring weakly'. he film then depicts her dying of said injuries.

Now as a writer, I tend to take a broad strokes approach to canon. Books, interviews, films. I'll use any and all of it makes sense for the story. I'll even knick concepts from other books like the Dresden Files for magic if I want to. Because the aim is a fun piece of writing, not strict adherence to canon. (which of course people disagree on anyway)