JKR using OUR theories

[Steve Vander Ark]

No: HPFGUIDX 25863

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., hfakhro at n... wrote:
> Steve Vander Ark wrote:
> 
> She could have easily borrowed one of our explanations and never 
had 
> to admit any error at all.
> <snip>
> We were all very let down when the error was just fixed with no 
> comment whatsoever from JKR or the publishers.
> <snip>
> But I don't think she's a writer on par with C.S. Lewis or Natalie 
> Babbitt and that's okay.
> 
> I think I can understand where you're coming from in terms of the 
> disappointment (even though I am a post-GoF member, and really did 
> not know what it was like back then) - however, can we really 
expect 
> something like this from JKR? 

I didn't mean that she would actually use OUR ideas, just that it 
would have been possible for her to have explained the text just the 
way it was without just saying it was a goof. My point was that we 
proved that it would have been possible because we came up with 
plenty of perfectly good ideas. It was a bit disappointing when it 
was handled as non-creatively as it was. I think some of us, me 
included, had started to expect just a bit too much from her, and 
this incident brought us just a little bit back to earth. 

Please, don't any of you misunderstand my tone here. I'm not 
criticizing JKR, just relating a little history and maybe admitting 
my own errors. 

Can you just imagine the kind of pressure she's under to make OoP 
great? She knows now that she's writing for posterity, that her book 
will be analyzed and discussed people for years and years to come. If 
I were her, I would be second guessing myself all over the place and 
worried that things would be misunderstood. I don't blame her a bit 
for taking her time on this one. In retrospect, I'm sure she's 
wishing she could spend a little more time on GF!

Steve