Harry Potter and God

[Carol]

 md:
> > My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my choices in my world. 
> 
> Kemper now:
> As a reader, I don't think the writer has that right.  You could always keep a private journal that no one has the right to read.  Being a fan does not mean nor require constructive criticism.  If you have fans bitching about what you wrote or condoned, you would still have fans.  No need to be an ungrate writer to them.

Carol responds:

Right. That's what literary criticism (in the sense of literary analysis but occasionally involving evaluation as well) is all about. A writer's intentions, even insofar as the writer is aware of them and has expressed them, can only take us so far in the understanding of his or her works. Sometimes, as in JKR's statements about Christianity in the books or her describing Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness" or Harry as "pure" (and many more), many readers think that she failed to carry out her intentions.

At any rate, no two readers will read a book in exactly the same way, and no reader will see a book or its characters exactly as the author sees them. It's humanly impossible. Once the book is in print and in the hands of the readers, interpretation passes from the author to the readers. The author can say, "This is what I meant. This is what I intended you to see." But the reader is free to look at the same passage and interpret it differently. As I said on the main list, any interpretation that can be supported by the text itself is a valid interpretation, whether the author intended the book to be seen in that way or not.

And there's always much more to a book (unless it's a ten-page book for two-year-olds) than the author intends--values and beliefs that come through despite the author's intentions, reflections of a particular culture at a particular time, even mistakes and contradictions that undermine the author's intentions.

No two readers see Snape or Dumbledore or Harry or House Elves in exactly the same way. We react as individuals based on our own education and experience. JKR knew that when she allowed Cuaron to bring those annoying talking heads into his adaptation of her books. Too bad she forgot it later when she called Dumbledore "my character" and mistook the Dumbledore of her imagination for the Dumbledore depicted in the books, who is a different character for everyone who reads him. (He's also a different character for those who've read DH and those who've only read the first three books, but that's another matter.)

The Fair Use doctrine has been added to copyright law for a reason: the author does not control the interpretation of his or her own texts, and other writer have the right to interpret it as they see fit.

Carol, noting that authors need a thick skin because critics aren't always kind and can often be brutal, whether they recognize the author's intentions or ignore them altogether