Near-contemporary portrait of Richard III held by the Society of Antiquaries, and possibly copied from a lost original painted from life.
|
This failure to distinguish between canon and the merely canon-compatible extends into the real world, with serious repercussions for scholarship. What we know about the accession of Richard III, for example - the "canon" of his story - is that he appeared initially to be proceeding as expected with arranging the coronation of his nephew, the son of his late brother Edward IV and Edward's queen Elizabeth Woodville (whom Edward had wed in haste and semi-secrecy because she refused to have sex with him unless he married her first). Then a Bishop Stillington claimed that he knew that Edward IV's marriage to Woodville had been bigamous, because Edward had previously secretly married a Lady Eleanor Butler (who had refused to have sex with him unless he married her first, iirc, although it's possible that's my own forgotten assumption) and this first wife was still alive and still his wife when he married Woodville, making his children illegitimate. Some evidence we don't know about was presented to parliament, and parliament believed that evidence (or at least acted as if it did) and asked Richard to become king instead. Richard initially demurred but finally agreed to accept the throne, and the grounds for his doing so were set out in a legal act called Titulus Regius. This is canon - this is what we know actually happened.
There is a small amount of evidence that this story about Eleanor Butler was true. It was consistent with Edward's known behaviour patterns; Stillington had been treated by Edward as some sort of political hot potato for reasons which were never explained; parliament was convinced by his story, or at least found it convenient to be convinced; and the Tudor regime later suppressed the record of what Stillington had really said (just one summary of the real content of Titulus Regius survived the purge) and then circulated an edited version which claimed that Stillington had claimed Edward had married one Elizabeth Lucy - apparently because they could prove he hadn't been married to Lucy, but couldn't prove he hadn't been married to Butler.
Nevertheless, the evidence is rather weak and it is quite possible that Richard himself planned the sequence of events and put Stillington up to it, and Parliament went along with it because they didn't want a child king - that version of events is canon-compatible. But we have no evidence that Richard did plan it himself - although canon-compatible, that version of events is not canon. Yet almost without exception populist commentators describe Richard as having masterminded a coup - generally without telling their audience that there's even any other possibility, or mentioning that there was ever any question about the nephew's legitimacy. In scholarly historical research, as so often in Potter fandom, a canon-compatible fanon is being treated as if it were canon.
In the case of the Harry Potter books, the situation is complicated by the films, which have a certain amount of authorisation and input from Rowling, but which differ from the books so markedly not only in plot and physical layout but in the characterisations of Harry, Snape, Hermione and Hagrid that they have to be regarded as an Alternate Universe story. You could see them either as a very fancy fanfic or as a wholly separate, alternate set of canon, in the same way that there are, for example, many different and mutually exclusive retellings of the Arthurian mythos or the Robin Hood legend
In the books, for example, Hogsmeade is full of little thatched cottages and the station is a very long way outside the village; in the films, the village seems to be made up entirely of towering Black Forest-style buildings with high, concave multi-dormered tiled roofs, and the station is inside the village. Snape and the Marauders seem to be about fifteen years older in the films, relative to Harry, than they are in the books and the "present day" action is evidently shifted forward some years, because the Millennium Bridge (started in 1998 and not properly opened until 2002) appears in a scene which in the books happens in 1996.
Film Harry is a sweet, unassuming innocent who nevertheless hesitates and agonizes before giving up on the certainty of Tri-Wizard glory in order to save Cedric from the Acromantula, and who enjoys the star status which being the Chosen One gives him; book Harry is hard-boiled and semi-delinquent but he is badly freaked out by the idea that he might be the Chosen One, is almost totally devoid of self-interest, and rushes to Cedric's aid without a moment's hesitation. Film Snape is confident, emotionally-repressed, heavily-built and middle-aged; book Snape is skinny and scared, emotionally labile and barely into his thirties when we first see him. Film Hermione is po-faced and prim and proper; book Hermione has a pronounced streak of semi-criminal ruthlessness and is snogging an eighteen-year-old international sports star when she's fifteen.
It is very unwise to treat details in the films as canon in the book universe, or vice versa, as the two universes contradict each other at too many points. A whole extra layer of fanon has been added by people assuming that something which is true in the films - that Lily is especially kind; that the Death Eaters wear white masks; that Voldemort likes to torture people until they beg for death; that chocolate frogs are animated etc. etc. - must also be true in the books, even when in some cases it actively contradicts them.
Then there're the films Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and its sequels and the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. The stance taken by the Harry Potter Lexicon after the release of the first FB film was that the original script of FB was canon because it was written by Rowling herself, but any differences between the script and the film(s), and any details which aren't in the script and which aren't compatible with the books, belong to the film universe. This however has been complicated by the second film, The Crimes of Grindelwald, in which Minerva McGonagall apears in her 30s in 1927. We know from what she says to Umbridge in OotP that McGonagall began teaching at Hogwarts in 1956, and the long essay on her back-story which appeared on Pottermore clearly showed her finishing school only two years earlier, placing her birth in 1935/36. Even Rowling's original and vague estimate that she was about 70 in GoF would only place her birthdate circa 1924. Harry's Minerva did have a great-grandmother called Minerva, according to Pottermore, but she would have to have been born no later than circa 1880, and she was on the mother's side, the magical side, so it would be a colossal coincidence if her surname just happened to be McGonagall too. So at least the second FB film, and probably all of them, can only exist in the film universe, and that must apply to the scripts too.
The status of Cursed Child is even more complex. Since it has a black Hermione it cannot be in the same universe as the films, unless you divorce the story being told from the actors telling it. Rowling has said that it should be regarded as canon, suggesting she thinks of it as being in the same universe as the books, but the plot of the play hinges on at least three major plot points about the way Potterverse magic works which are diametrically opposed to the way magic works in the books. Even if you can square a black and, importantly, black-haired Hermione with the description of her in the books as having brown hair and as looking white or pink when very stressed, it's difficult to think of a way round these other much more important and glaring anomalies, or with the way in which the play trashes most of the characters to give us thick!Hermione, whiny!Harry, evil!Cedric etc..
So, either it's just a glorified AU fanfic, or the play represents a third universe, so different from the other two in its underlying structure that you can't even say that anything similar could have happened in the book universe. This, at least, means this can't be the Hermione of the books, so it really doesn't matter whether she matches book-Hermione physically or not, so long as she has her trademark bushy hair.
Another complication is JK Rowling's poor maths skills, which can result in flatly contradictory information. For example it's absolutely categorically stated in the books that Harry's second year at Hogwarts begins in autumn 1992, which definitely places Dumbledore's death in 1997; but because Rowling has difficulty thinking about the eight-month offset between the academic and calendar years, on her website she originally had Dumbledore dying in 1996, and she drew up a Weasley family tree which had Fred dying in 1997. She also initially announced that young Albus Severus Potter was starting at Hogwarts on 1st September 2016, until the Twitterati pointed out that she was a year early.
Now Dumbledore's death has been corrected to 1997 on Pottermore but they've got the date wrong - unless they're saying that Snape faked Dumbledore's death but he died a few weeks later anyway. In HBP Ginny was revising for OWLs as they "moved into June", and then the events which lead up to Dumbledore's death happen on "one such evening", so at least a few days have passed since the start of June. But it's still before the exams, which normally begin during the second week of June, and there are still three term-time Saturdays (during which Harry expects to have detention with Snape) to come before the end of the summer term, which normally occurs on the last weekend in June or first weekend in July. "'You still got detention with Snape this Saturday?' Ron continued. // 'Yeah, and the Saturday after that, and the Saturday after that,' sighed Harry."
It's unlikely Harry would be serving detention on the last weekend of term when they are all preparing to catch the train home, so there must be three weeks plus at least one day (because today must be at least one day before that first Saturday) to go before the end of term, and even if the end of term is a few days into July, as sometimes happens, the day of Dumbledore's fall from the Astronomy Tower cannot be any later than the second week in June and preferably early that week, since it's before the exams start. So Dumbledore fell and presumably died between about the night of 3rd/4th June and the night of 7th/8th June 1997 - yet Pottermore gives the date of his death as 30th June.
The research behind some Pottermore articles is also sometimes wildly off. This is what Paul Johnson of Quora has to say about Pottermore's article about the origins of the Hogwarts Express:
[According to Pottermore] it's a 4-6-0 Hall Class steam locomotive, model number GWR 5900, said to have been built in *Crewe* by Muggle railway engineers in *1827*. The Hall class locomotives were designed in *1924* by Charles Collett, chief engineer with the GWR, and built at the GWR works at *Swindon*. Crewe was the site of the LMS works, deadly rivals of the GWR, who would never have been allowed to work on a GWR engine, and the Crewe works wasn't even built until 1845. So we have a GWR locomotive, built at the LMS works and painted in LMS colours, built 97 years before it was invented and 18 years before the factory existed.
1827 was two years before the Rainhill Trials, before even Stephenson's Rocket had been built, and so the construction of the Hogwarts Express locomotive, as described in the text, is pretty much the equivalent of getting the Wright Brothers to build a Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet in their bicycle shop at Kitty Hawk.
|
There's no doubt in the books that The Leaky Cauldron is either directly on Charing Cross Road or at the near end of one of the side streets leading off it, because we're told three times that Harry is on Charing Cross Road, looking at the pub. But a so-called Leaky Cauldron fact file on Pottermore says that the pub is on Drury Lane - which is 500+ yards from Charing Cross Road, and parallel to it, so there's no way Harry could stand in Charing Cross Road and see anything in Drury Lane.
Another disappointing development is that essays posted to Pottermore after about June 2016 cannot really be considered even secondary canon, or at least its pronouncements are optional. This is because from summer 2016 onwards Pottermore has abandoned the distinction between the books and the films. Essays published after that point, therefore, are trying to fit in with a universe in which The Burrow was both destroyed and not destroyed; in which Lily and James died both at 21 and in their 30s; in which HBP starts both in 1996 and in 2002+; in which Snape died both in the Shrieking Shack and in the boathouse; in which Hogsmeade station is both at the centre of the village and a 20-minute walk outside it, and so on.
This page lists some common ideas about the Potterverse which are often assumed to be canon and therefore "really true" (allowing for the fact that the whole thing is fiction!), but which are actually fanon, as well as some standard plots which depend on fanon-based situations. It examines what canon evidence exists for or against each fanon idea. More items of fanon will be added as I think of them or people suggest them. There is a certain amount of repetition because some points (such as the reasons why Snape might be Neville's Boggart) relate to more than one fanon idea, and I have to allow for the fact that readers may look only at particular fanons which interest them, rather than reading the whole article.
The article also looks at some instances of alternate pairs of fanon, where characters tend to be portrayed in extreme ways, saintly or evil, instead of the mixed, ambiguous characters they nearly all are in the books. Often this comes about when fanwriters take sides between characters who are at odds in the books, so you find that many people who like James portray Snape as evil, many people who like Snape portray Dumbledore as evil and so on.
A disproportionate number of the fanon points listed below have to do with Snape. This is in part due to the fact that he's my favourite character (closely followed by Luna and Neville) and was actually based on a friend of mine, and so I read more fanfic and come across more fanon about him than about other characters. But it's also because his true loyalties are pivotal to the spy-thriller aspect of the story, and so a sense of mystery and uncertainty is deliberately created around him right up until Harry reviews "The Prince's Tale", and fan writers have rushed to fill in the blanks.
The mystery element means that much of what is going on in the story in general, and in Snape's arc in particular, only becomes apparent with hindsight, and many people never re-read and revise their ideas in the light of new knowledge. Many fanon ideas about Snape came about because Rowling deliberately presented misleading information about him early on in the series, and some fanficcers became so wedded to it that they couldn't give it up even when it was clearly canon-shafted by later books and revealed to have been misleading. So we have ficcers still convinced that e.g. the cause of the enmity between young Severus and James was that Severus was jealous of James's popularity and sporting prowess, because Remus Lupin said so in PoA, and they became so used to thinking of that as canon that they haven't processed the fact that developments in later books show that Remus was lying, because we see that it was James who first started to pick on Severus, and that he did so just because Severus wanted to be in Slytherin (and was working class and friends with an actual girl, possibly).
In the same way many ficcers seem to have been reluctant to accept that Dumbledore was gay, some out of prejudice but some because they had written him as McGonagall's lover, and had become so wedded to their own portrayal of him that they couldn't accept that it had been canon-shafted. And you have to get all the way to the seventh book to learn that Snape's instant dislike of Harry in the first book probably was as much due to the fact that, to a Legilimens, the Horcrux-bearing, snake-whispering kid smelled like the next Dark Lord as it was to his resemblance to James.