What Does Canon Mean to You?

[Prof. Maxim Trevelyan]

It has been just over 20 years since Harry Potter came to life. From that point on, we got a lot of lore to peruse from all kinds of sources imaginable.

I am curious how people decide what is and is not considered “canon” in regards to the Harry Potter series. For example, someone might say only Rowling’s written work is canon, but a tweet of hers is not. Others might say what she produces is only canon if it does not conflict with what fans accept.

I do not mind getting the canon from almost any kind of medium, such as books, graphic novels, whatever, as long as it is from the author or author approved. However, I refuse to think of it as canon if it completely erases or changes the previous canon established by the author. That is why I will never believe that Cursed Child is canon, no matter who says it is. Or whatever Rowling tweets about.

So, is there some standard you follow, or is it all preferential? Do you only consider the original seven books as canon? Maybe everything author says or approves? What about the movies or other media?

[Prof. Sky Alton]

For me, it's the original 7 books carefully supplemented with info from the additional books like Fantastic Beasts (and maybe some facts from Wizarding World/Pottermore if I desperately need them for HOL purposes). Usually I'd take anything said by an author as canon but with Harry Potter I really struggle because there's so much contradiction and retconning that goes on. I had to make a decision a while ago to disasociate my experience of the 7 books (which I adore) from the fandom as it is now because it just frustrates me when something I've accepted since I was a child is disrupted. I'm satisfied with the information I have and would rather leave gaps unfilled or fill them with my own imagination.

While I'll happily watch a Fantastic Beasts film and might even watch Cursed Child if the chance came up, I'll appreciate them for their own sake and not as a continuation of those 7 books as otherwise it compromises my enjoyment of both. I'd rather acknowledge that the books were flawed and showed a definite evolution than let someone try to paper over the cracks or re-write the timeline a decade on. But that's me: I know people who love the expanded universe and I'm delighted for them. Once a story is out in the world, it means a million things to different people (which is why I love the title you chose for this discussion).

One thing I do really mind though (and probably get disproportionately grumpy about) is that the Harry Potter Wiki insists on treating it all as cannon, even when bits madly contradict. You cannot reconcile the books, the films and all the various games so that they happily co-exist in the same universe because that was not the intention. You can display them in parallel and maybe draw some conclusions about which bits of information are true across some or all of them but you can't make wildly disparate adaptations cohere into a whole.

[February Fortescue]

I think Sky has summed up my opinion as well. To me, the 7 books are canon, plus Quidditch Throught he Ages, Fantastic Beasts and Where to find them, and Beetle Bard.. I enjoy all of the rest and will use them from time to time, but they often contradict each other, and in some places seem rather silly. Rowling wrote articles on Pottermore that I trust, but there were contradictions on that site as well. They couldn't even figure out the order of the House tables in the Great Hall! But Pottermore worked. Now that that company has left and another company has taken over Wizarding World, it isn't even a source of useful information anymore, unless you find JKR's old Pottermore articles. They've even added back in Sorting Hat questions the previous company knew were irrelevant and had gotten rid of. I've left out the names of the companies.

To me, canon is the 7 books plus those 3. I'll include the rest if I think it fits or is useful.