One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Tonks]

Carol said:
At any rate, since she didn't include these "facts" in the books
themselves, she really has no right to force us to accept that
after-the-fact information as canonical, or to see the same message
that she sees in the books. I am simply saying that any statement 
made by JKR that reshapes our thinking of the books ought to have 
been made in the books themselves or not at all.

Carol, who is not talking about sexuality here, only about JKR's
attitude toward her "author"ity and her attempt to claim ownership of
characters that now belong to the world.

Tonks:
Amen, Sister!!  The characters are ‘their own men’ now. It is like a 
parent - child relationship. Yes the parents create the child, but 
the parent does not own the child. The child is his/her own person. 
The child forms relationships with other people who see and 
experience aspects of the child's personality that the parent may 
never know or understand. And so it is with the characters of the 
books.
 
> Carol:
> There's also, of course, the question of whether sexuality of any 
kind belongs in books for young readers at all. ((snip)> 

Tonks:

I don't think it has any place in a children's book. And even if 
adults are reading it and the reading level has changed since book 
3, it is still a book read by children of age 8 and up. 

Carol:
> And JKR might say, "That's how I imagine him, yes. But it's up to 
the reader to imagine the relationship for him or herself." (She did 
say that children would imagine it as a friendship. Apparently, she 
didn't realize that many adults would also see it as a friendship, 
in my case, as an intense intellectual friendship in which each saw 
the other as a mirror of himself.)
> 
Snip)
> It's not about prejudice; it's about people's comfort levels and 
their expectations for a particular book. And it's about the author 
not knowing where her "authority" ends and not respecting canon-based
> interpretaions that don't incorporate her post-publication remarks.
> 
> Carol, really wishing that people would not assume that a person 
who disagrees with them is a bigot and would consider the 
possibility that > the other person might actually have legitimate 
concerns
>

Tonks:
THANK YOU >>> THANK YOU >>> THANK YOU!!
I don’t know why everyone wants to label anyone who is against the 
idea of DD being gay as a bigot. I like the way you would have had 
her handle the question. I think that she was very tired by the end 
of her trip here and just not thinking carefully. At least I would 
like to give her that out. Otherwise it seems like self defeating 
behavior or disrespect for the readers, many of whom have almost as 
much psychic energy and years invested in Harry and his world as she 
does. 

I was grateful at the end of book 7 that Hogwarts was left standing. 
I would have liked DD to still be alive so I could rest assured 
every night that ‘DD was at Hogwarts and all is well with the 
world’. But I can at least say 'DD is in his heaven and all is well 
at Hogwarts'. And that gives me great comfort. 

Tonks_op