WHAT DOES CANON-COMPLIANT MEAN?
I think this post is really necessary to clarify things because many, too many fans, seem to be unclear about the meaning of this term. And it largely stems from the problem with ATYD.
As you know, I'm writing a chapter-by-chapter review of the FF series, you can find the first two parts HERE and HERE.
In this review, I point out all the things that aren't consistent with canon. But I've noticed that many fans continue to consider it canon-compliant in good faith precisely because they have a distorted idea of ââwhat the term means.
For example, I read people who wrote this:
But the story is canon-compliant since the first war, which is canon, takes place, James and Lily become a couple, and all the characters who died in canon also die in the story, so it's canon-compliant.
First problem: to be considered canon-compliant, it's not enough for the characters who died in canon to also die at the end of this FF thus reconnecting to the saga. It would be like saying that a What If with Slytherin Harry is canon compliant because he ultimately defeats Voldermot and marries Ginny.
No, it's not.
The facts must be consistent with canon, the events and HCs inserted must be believable, and the chronology must be correct, as must the characterizations. But here are other often-used criticisms:
Canon compliant means it more or less follows what happens in the books, war/who dies, etc., not that the characters are IC (because there's no IC for school Marauders anyway).
Talking about OOC when we're talking about Marauders, who don't HAVE a book, is a bit absurd. You could simply say they've changed with age and the war.
No, Canon compliant doesn't mean it MORE OR LESS follows the saga, but that it must follow canonical events in their entirety. This superficiality is actually part of the problem.
Just like the next point, for the love of Morgana, yes, the characters must be IC, otherwise what are we reading?
An AU, OOC characters, which is fine, of course. Some wonderful stories are AU OOC, but they are tagged consistently. If I read Crimson Rivers, for example, which is practically Hunger Games, I don't expect the characters to be IC, and that's fine.
The problem is passing something off as canon-related, recommending it as if the characters were IC, and then finding something completely different.
And this too: "because there's no IC for Marauders at school anyway."
Once again, FALSE.
We know what the Marauders were like at school, we see them in memories, we hear about them, and on some occasions, they themselves tell us. Sirius, Remus, and Peter are alive in the saga. Three out of four, okay, we rarely see Peter, but Sirius and Remus talk to us, tell us what they were like, and tell Harry about it. It's not true that we don't know what they were like at school. We could say we have few details, sure, but what we do have must be the basis for the characterizations if they want to be IC.
Obviously, each author then gives their own personal vision, adds their own style, etc. That's the beauty of FF, but I repeat, IF you want to make it canon-compliant and IC, they MUST be credible.
And no "Well, they were kids, they might have changed over time" doesn't apply to a total distortion.
Let me explain, of course people can change, we saw it in the saga, but you have to show me a credible change and you can't start from something completely different.
Orphaned Remus (as he is in ATYD).
This isn't a canon complaint, and this fact necessarily influences his personality. He's angry, violent, abandoned, and grows up unloved. Practically like Tom Riddle.
With a background like that (completely invented and not canon compliant), you can't tell me he'll become the Remus we see in canon; it just doesn't fit.
The character of adult Remus in canon is motivated precisely by his childhood, by the fact that his loving parents gave up everything for him, that they became outcasts to be by his side. This is why Remus felt like a burden and pushed Tonks away for months.
The Fanon Remus of ATYD is COMPLETELY different.
What we experience influences us and can't be erased, only to then make a leap and transform us into totally different people.
But very little is known about Remus's parents, and it's not known when they died, except that they were probably alive when Remus was 4 years old. That's all. If Remus becomes an orphan in the fanfic at, say, 5 years old, it's considered canon compliant.
Still FALSE.
Many people don't know many details about the saga, and I don't blame them. Many details aren't in the books but only in in-depth articles, while others (like the chronology) have to be gleaned from a few sentences. So there's some confusion, but if you don't know the story in depth, I don't understand how you can confidently say a story is canon compliant.
I don't know The Hunger Games in depth. As much as I like the story, I don't remember the dates and chronology in detail, so I'm certainly not going to forcefully say whether any of the FF are canon compliant or not.
Why, in the HP fandom, does everyone feel like an expert without even having the basics?
I really don't understand this.
Anyway, let's clarify a few things:
Remus was bitten by Fenrir in 1965, both his parents were alive and well. His father, Lyall, tried to reverse the transformation without success. So, they moved from village to village when the neighbors began to notice their son's strange behavior. (SOURCE)
The two are alive even when Dumbledore goes to tell the family that Remus will be able to attend Hogwarts despite his condition, so at 11 years old, the two are alive (we're told this in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 18).
And during his student years, Remus used a hypothetical illness of his mother, Hope, to justify his long absences from school. Now, we don't know if Hope was actually ill; we're only told that she was already dead in 1981, but she was certainly alive during his Hogwarts years. So she certainly didn't abandon her son after he was bitten, as ATYD would have us believe. As for Lyall, the father, we know he loved his son very much (he certainly wasn't as violent as depicted in ATYD). He lovingly protected him, we're told in Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Remus Lupin" at HarryPotter.com. He even prepared to homeschool him, since, as mentioned above, he thought he wouldn't be able to attend Hogwarts. Lyall is widowed (so once again ATYD doesn't comply with canon, since it says he died when Remus was little, while Hope is alive and perhaps remarried).
We also know from canon that after graduating, Remus continued to see Lyall from time to time, which made his father happy.
We don't know when Lyall died, we're not told whether he outlived his son or whether he ever met his grandson Teddy, but the one described in ATYD is certainly NOT canon compliant.
And no, Remus was never an orphan, nor was he ever raised in an orphanage.
There may be some points where the chronology is incorrect or certain facts are incorrect. It's fanfiction written as a hobby, not a treatise. đ
No, there can't be points where the chronology is incorrect.
For God's sake, if you want to write something Canon-compliant, you have to respect the chronology.
I agree that FF shouldn't be judged as published novels, because they are, in fact, free and the fruit of the authors' passion, of course.
The FF we can read are gifts the authors give us, and we should be grateful for that.
The problem is when, as in the case of ATYD, some fans use it to distort the canon. And permissive attitudes like these, who are certainly in good faith, still cause problem because they convey the idea that the canon-compliant tag can be used for practically anything.
I'm writing a FF set in the Marauders era, centered on the Snape Gang, and you have no idea how much time I spend researching and piecing together canonical information to make everything canon compliant. Even small eventsâthe minister's deposition, a news story barely touched upon in the blurbs, details between the linesâI try to incorporate them into the story.
Making it canon compliant means taking canonical facts to heart and placing them in the correct chronology.
Then again, of course, some things are also the product of the author's personality, which obviously influences the narrative. But canonical facts are unquestionable. If you don't want them to be relevant, that's fine, but tag the story as "diverging from canon," AU, etc., and no one will criticize you.
(If they do, call me and I'll fix themđ )
It's not a fanfiction with small inaccuracies/liberties that causes harm. Anyone who relies on fanfics to learn the canon is foolish, and if they go around arguing about it thinking they know more than others, they're just ridiculous. Fanfiction is very long, many details will differ from canon for plot reasons, but if it generally follows the main storyline, the canon-compliant tag is fine. We're talking about fiction, not degree theses; there's no need to be precise down to the last detail. đ
Aside from the fact that, as I've already said, these aren't "small inaccuracies/liberties" but rather serious distortions that either demonstrate lapsed knowledge or a genuine desire to distort, as indeed happens in many fictions where characters are actually swapped and the script intentionally mistyped to change events. Fanfiction is incredibly long; many details will differ from canon for plot reasons, but if it generally follows the main story/storyline, the "canon-compliant" tag is fine.
No, the length of the story can't be an excuse to distort things, especially if it's then said "for plot reasons," but when? Sorry, then I'll start writing a FF Dramione in which "for plot reasons" I make Ron a misogynist since I need him to get out of my way, and then I'll call it canon-compliant because in the end I'll have the epilogue happen like in the saga and describe the Dramione phase as just a phase. Come on, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.
Another point often brought up is: But "canon-compliant" means that the story connects to the canon saga and that is acting as a link.
And once again, NO.
Canon compliant doesn't mean that, otherwise we'd have to consider canon even a hypothetical FF in which Tom Riddle lived like a Muggle until he was 50, became a lawyer, was a model citizen, and then at a certain point in 1960 he returned to the wizarding world and became Voldemort.
What do you say?
It's not canon compliant because it doesn't respect the canon information we have and isn't consistent with his character? And how can you say that?
We don't know what Tom Riddle was like as a young man. Sure, we've seen him in some memories, and some people have told us about him, but you know, people change.
And chronology, well, it doesn't have to be respected to call a story canon compliant... how boring you are.
Do you feel that shiver of annoyance? Do you feel it?
No, it doesn't work like that. Fandom is wonderful, vast, and multifaceted, and I'll always say it.
It's about freedom, but to respect that freedom, you have to respect certain rules, and tags are important. I know there are people who are more permissive and simply shrug their shoulders at this, but doing so undermines the efforts of thousands of writers who truly try to write something canon-compliant, putting them on par with, or even below, OC writers who are saddled with canonical character names, completely distorting the story, and that's not right. Tag your stories correctly, have fun writing whatever you want, but be honest when you talk about a story.
And please, please learn the actual meaning of the terms you use.
