One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[colebiancardi]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > I highly recommend it because it's clever and because it
> articulately expresses a point of view that perhaps has not occurred
> to JKR, who seems to view her books and characters as her own
> exclusive property, not realizing that propietorship over the
> interpretation of a character ceases with publication. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Really? So who controls the interpretation of Albus Dumbledore at
> the Harry Potter theme park to be? Sorry, but the characters don't
> just exist inside your head, they've been franchised.  I for one am
> very glad that JKR asserts control over how they are portrayed, not
> some corporate hack.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm not talking about the theme parks--which will no doubt present the
> Warner Brothers versions of the characters, sets, and costumes--or the
> films, for that matter. I'm talking about the process of reading, the
> relationship between the reader and the book, which is also what the
> writer of the article was discussing. I'm also talking about the
> effects of JKR's post-publication announcements on *any* reader's
> interpretation of the books, not just my own. (Do you see DD
> differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you
> do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love
> question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship,
> both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the
> books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or
> rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she
> presents as "fact.")
> 
> BTW, you mentioned on the main list that JKR's message includes
> questioning authority (which, of course, most of us picked up on
> whether we agree with that message or not). I meant to include that
> remark in my previous post but forgot, so I'll bring it in here
> instead. Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless
> *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters
> as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she
> mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements
> are also subject to question?
> 
> Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read
> it if she hasn't already done so
>
colebiancardi:

JKR can still come back & write more on the WW if she chooses so. 
They ARE her characters.  And her opinion, whether I agree on it or
not, still holds more weight than my own on the character itself.

They are hers - not ours.  We didn't create that world, she did.  And
yes, if she states DD is gay, then he is gay.

That article, imho, is just one pissed off reader who didn't want DD
to be gay, as if that makes a difference.  I am glad you posted it,
but it just goes to show that some people don't understand that just
because JKR WROTE something and has "finished" the series, doesn't
mean she still CANNOT dictate who or what the characters are.

I totally disagreed with JKR's interpretation of Snape, but that is
just me.  I would NEVER tell JKR that she shouldn't write Snape or
describe Snape in any way she sees fit - as JKR was the one who
created him and she can destroy him as well.