Are the illustrations in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Illustrated Edition canon
Can we consider the illustrations in the newly released illustrated version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone canon? I.e. can we draw conclusions about some events, characters and similar based on the illustrations in the book?
(as a side note - I got the book and it is really fabulous) :)
Here some of the illustrations as requested:
Platform 9 3/4
Hagrid's Hut
Diagon Alley
harry-potter canon illustrated-story
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
add a comment |
Can we consider the illustrations in the newly released illustrated version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone canon? I.e. can we draw conclusions about some events, characters and similar based on the illustrations in the book?
(as a side note - I got the book and it is really fabulous) :)
Here some of the illustrations as requested:
Platform 9 3/4
Hagrid's Hut
Diagon Alley
harry-potter canon illustrated-story
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
3
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35
add a comment |
Can we consider the illustrations in the newly released illustrated version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone canon? I.e. can we draw conclusions about some events, characters and similar based on the illustrations in the book?
(as a side note - I got the book and it is really fabulous) :)
Here some of the illustrations as requested:
Platform 9 3/4
Hagrid's Hut
Diagon Alley
harry-potter canon illustrated-story
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
Can we consider the illustrations in the newly released illustrated version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone canon? I.e. can we draw conclusions about some events, characters and similar based on the illustrations in the book?
(as a side note - I got the book and it is really fabulous) :)
Here some of the illustrations as requested:
Platform 9 3/4
Hagrid's Hut
Diagon Alley
harry-potter canon illustrated-story
harry-potter canon illustrated-story
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
edited Oct 21 '15 at 11:20
vap78
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
asked Oct 20 '15 at 12:13
vap78vap78
12.9k870130
12.9k870130
3
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35
add a comment |
3
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35
3
3
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
To my knowledge (and the knowledge of the Horde), there is no official canon policy for Harry Potter. So really, my only answer can be:
[Shrug]
You could make a good argument for both sides. The illustrations were not done by Rowling herself, but by an illustrator named Jim Kay; that alone will make them non-canon in some people's eyes.
However, Rowling has approved of them, both publicly and privately; as the Telegraph reports:
Rowling has given it her public seal of approval: "Seeing Jim Kay's illustrations moved me profoundly," she wrote for the dust jacket. "I love his interpretation of Harry Potter's world, and I feel honoured and grateful he has lent his talent to it." She also wrote to Kay privately. "She sent a really lovely letter, and that's the first time it hit me that this was real," he says. "Imagine you’re a vicar and you find a Post-it note from God on your fridge. It was like that."
However, keen-eyed readers will note that Rowling very carefully says that Kay's illustrations are his interpretation; you might read that as approving of his illustrations without endorsing them as factual - like if she saw some fanart and said "wow, that's quite good."
However however, Kay did seem to go to a lot of effort to be true to the characters; later on in that Telegraph article, we read:
he took photographs of [the child models], in the positions he needed according to his preparatory sketches, and altered their features to fit Rowling’s descriptions.
Personally I wouldn't consider them canon, but in the right situations they might make a good addition to a conversation. But that's just my opinion, and there's enough leeway that you can happily form your own.
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105522%2fare-the-illustrations-in-harry-potter-and-the-philosophers-stone-illustrated-ed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
To my knowledge (and the knowledge of the Horde), there is no official canon policy for Harry Potter. So really, my only answer can be:
[Shrug]
You could make a good argument for both sides. The illustrations were not done by Rowling herself, but by an illustrator named Jim Kay; that alone will make them non-canon in some people's eyes.
However, Rowling has approved of them, both publicly and privately; as the Telegraph reports:
Rowling has given it her public seal of approval: "Seeing Jim Kay's illustrations moved me profoundly," she wrote for the dust jacket. "I love his interpretation of Harry Potter's world, and I feel honoured and grateful he has lent his talent to it." She also wrote to Kay privately. "She sent a really lovely letter, and that's the first time it hit me that this was real," he says. "Imagine you’re a vicar and you find a Post-it note from God on your fridge. It was like that."
However, keen-eyed readers will note that Rowling very carefully says that Kay's illustrations are his interpretation; you might read that as approving of his illustrations without endorsing them as factual - like if she saw some fanart and said "wow, that's quite good."
However however, Kay did seem to go to a lot of effort to be true to the characters; later on in that Telegraph article, we read:
he took photographs of [the child models], in the positions he needed according to his preparatory sketches, and altered their features to fit Rowling’s descriptions.
Personally I wouldn't consider them canon, but in the right situations they might make a good addition to a conversation. But that's just my opinion, and there's enough leeway that you can happily form your own.
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
|
show 3 more comments
To my knowledge (and the knowledge of the Horde), there is no official canon policy for Harry Potter. So really, my only answer can be:
[Shrug]
You could make a good argument for both sides. The illustrations were not done by Rowling herself, but by an illustrator named Jim Kay; that alone will make them non-canon in some people's eyes.
However, Rowling has approved of them, both publicly and privately; as the Telegraph reports:
Rowling has given it her public seal of approval: "Seeing Jim Kay's illustrations moved me profoundly," she wrote for the dust jacket. "I love his interpretation of Harry Potter's world, and I feel honoured and grateful he has lent his talent to it." She also wrote to Kay privately. "She sent a really lovely letter, and that's the first time it hit me that this was real," he says. "Imagine you’re a vicar and you find a Post-it note from God on your fridge. It was like that."
However, keen-eyed readers will note that Rowling very carefully says that Kay's illustrations are his interpretation; you might read that as approving of his illustrations without endorsing them as factual - like if she saw some fanart and said "wow, that's quite good."
However however, Kay did seem to go to a lot of effort to be true to the characters; later on in that Telegraph article, we read:
he took photographs of [the child models], in the positions he needed according to his preparatory sketches, and altered their features to fit Rowling’s descriptions.
Personally I wouldn't consider them canon, but in the right situations they might make a good addition to a conversation. But that's just my opinion, and there's enough leeway that you can happily form your own.
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
|
show 3 more comments
To my knowledge (and the knowledge of the Horde), there is no official canon policy for Harry Potter. So really, my only answer can be:
[Shrug]
You could make a good argument for both sides. The illustrations were not done by Rowling herself, but by an illustrator named Jim Kay; that alone will make them non-canon in some people's eyes.
However, Rowling has approved of them, both publicly and privately; as the Telegraph reports:
Rowling has given it her public seal of approval: "Seeing Jim Kay's illustrations moved me profoundly," she wrote for the dust jacket. "I love his interpretation of Harry Potter's world, and I feel honoured and grateful he has lent his talent to it." She also wrote to Kay privately. "She sent a really lovely letter, and that's the first time it hit me that this was real," he says. "Imagine you’re a vicar and you find a Post-it note from God on your fridge. It was like that."
However, keen-eyed readers will note that Rowling very carefully says that Kay's illustrations are his interpretation; you might read that as approving of his illustrations without endorsing them as factual - like if she saw some fanart and said "wow, that's quite good."
However however, Kay did seem to go to a lot of effort to be true to the characters; later on in that Telegraph article, we read:
he took photographs of [the child models], in the positions he needed according to his preparatory sketches, and altered their features to fit Rowling’s descriptions.
Personally I wouldn't consider them canon, but in the right situations they might make a good addition to a conversation. But that's just my opinion, and there's enough leeway that you can happily form your own.
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
To my knowledge (and the knowledge of the Horde), there is no official canon policy for Harry Potter. So really, my only answer can be:
[Shrug]
You could make a good argument for both sides. The illustrations were not done by Rowling herself, but by an illustrator named Jim Kay; that alone will make them non-canon in some people's eyes.
However, Rowling has approved of them, both publicly and privately; as the Telegraph reports:
Rowling has given it her public seal of approval: "Seeing Jim Kay's illustrations moved me profoundly," she wrote for the dust jacket. "I love his interpretation of Harry Potter's world, and I feel honoured and grateful he has lent his talent to it." She also wrote to Kay privately. "She sent a really lovely letter, and that's the first time it hit me that this was real," he says. "Imagine you’re a vicar and you find a Post-it note from God on your fridge. It was like that."
However, keen-eyed readers will note that Rowling very carefully says that Kay's illustrations are his interpretation; you might read that as approving of his illustrations without endorsing them as factual - like if she saw some fanart and said "wow, that's quite good."
However however, Kay did seem to go to a lot of effort to be true to the characters; later on in that Telegraph article, we read:
he took photographs of [the child models], in the positions he needed according to his preparatory sketches, and altered their features to fit Rowling’s descriptions.
Personally I wouldn't consider them canon, but in the right situations they might make a good addition to a conversation. But that's just my opinion, and there's enough leeway that you can happily form your own.
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
edited 31 mins ago
Gaultheria
10.3k13059
10.3k13059
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
answered Oct 20 '15 at 12:37
Jason BakerJason Baker
143k34795704
143k34795704
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
|
show 3 more comments
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
Great, now I'm getting Buzzfeed flashbacks.
– Rogue Jedi
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
@RogueJedi Sorry; I couldn't resist
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 14:28
1
1
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
Basically this all sounds like a "no" to me, much like the new "from our own correspondent" stuff on Pottermore.
– Valorum
Oct 20 '15 at 14:38
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
4.bp.blogspot.com/-oX95GP0mBnQ/UxDuQht7k-I/AAAAAAAAQCI/…
– StuperUser
Oct 20 '15 at 15:10
1
1
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
@ThruGog Well I found this tweet where she argues that the new musical should be considered canon; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable saying that she's declaring it as canon, though. It reads more like she's trying to inform fan opinions, rather than setting out an explicit policy
– Jason Baker
Oct 20 '15 at 19:21
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105522%2fare-the-illustrations-in-harry-potter-and-the-philosophers-stone-illustrated-ed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Can you add an image of the newly released illustrated version, so we can easily see your reference?
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 16:06
@TylerH all the links I found are of commercial sites selling the book. Linking these might be considered an (unapproved) advertisement.
– vap78
Oct 20 '15 at 16:41
@vap78 I think that what TylerH was asking for is an example of a picture that might allow you to draw conclusions about events and characters, as you suggested. You wouldn't have to link to a site that sells the book, just show a picture from it, as is common in many SciFi.SE questions.
– Thunderforge
Oct 20 '15 at 17:07
@vap78 Indeed, like Thunderforge said, I meant something like this: i.imgur.com/YkTOmpS.jpg not simply a link to an e-commerce site.
– TylerH
Oct 20 '15 at 17:35