dissatisfaction with corrections to GF

[Steve Vander Ark]

No: HPFGUIDX 25854

I have been reading with interest the reactions to my apparently 
heretical remarks about GF. Someone asked what was so sloppy about 
the book. Someone else asked what was wrong with the way the wand 
order problem was corrected. Someone even wrote messages "in defense 
of Joanne Katherine Rowling"! 

Believe me, you don't need to defend JKR from me. My comments have a 
historical basis, and in order to understand them, you need to 
understand something of where this list has been.

If you weren't part of this list when GF came out, you don't realize 
the mood around here. We were all giddy and excited from lack of 
sleep and incessant re-reads of the book. And when some of these 
errors came out, we all leaped to JKR's defense, inventing plausible 
explanations for what the book said. Frankly, it became personal. We 
were so excited about how clever she had been with other surprises in 
the books that we just KNEW that this was one more clue to something 
wonderful that was waiting for us in book five. Some of our theories 
were a bit weird, others were just plain brilliant. She could have 
easily borrowed one of our explanations and never had to admit any 
error at all. The media got a hold of the story and one or two of our 
list members were interviewed for news stories. This was a Big Deal 
around here. (Incidentally, that page in the Lexicon about who killed 
James and Lily was written about that same time, as was my proof of 
why Arabella Figg and Mrs. Figg were the same person...which turned 
out to be right, I might add). 

We were all very let down when the error was just fixed with no 
comment whatsoever from JKR or the publishers. I know it sounds a bit 
odd, but hey, we're fans and fans are, by definition, fanatics. 
Although we couldn't really dispute it when the official word finally 
did come down, it was a bit of a blow, to be honest. We wanted 
something more. We wanted so badly for it to be something more 
exciting that just a goof. Again, several list members were 
interviewed by mainstream news reporters, but eventually the whole 
thing just dropped off our radar. 

However, some of us who've been here a long time have never quite 
gotten over it. Our cynicism might come trickling out now and then. I 
don't write elaborate explanations or lists of proof passages 
anymore, for example. I honestly do see, amidst the delightful 
storytelling and brilliant imagination, some tendencies toward 
simplistic characterizations and stereotypes. Slytherins are all ugly 
and nasty, Hufflepuffs are all a bit tubby, Molly believes Rita 
Skeeter's cruel article over common sense simply to generate a mildly 
humorous bit (Your mom doesn't read Witch Weekly, does she?). I see 
it because it's there. 

Good grief, some of you seem to be taking offense that I say this. 
But it's me, guys, the editor of the Lexicon. I'm not going over to 
the Dark Side or anything here. I've just become a bit more realistic 
as time goes by. That doesn't mean I like the books any less or that 
you need to defend JKR against me. I'm not attacking her! But I don't 
think she's a writer on par with C.S. Lewis or Natalie Babbitt and 
that's okay. Hardly any writers are. That doesn't mean that only 
those few writers who are at the absolute top of the pile are worth 
reading. Not at all. But by the same token there's nothing wrong with 
being realistic about it and calling it like it is.

Steve