SHIP: JKR Interview (what she said and what she didn't say)

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 52066

Hi --

Angua:
<<<<Huh?  The interview was not given "pre-GoF."  The interview was 
given "post-PoA," in connection with the US publication of PoA.  
There is nothing whatever in the question or the interview as a whole 
to imply that GoF was the point of reference.  The interview was not 
about GoF -- in fact, GoF was barely mentioned.  Of the twenty-two 
questions asked and answered in that interview, almost all referred 
to the series as a whole or to JKR's personal life, etc.  Only TWO 
questions referred to "the next book" (GoF, as it was later named), 
and in answering BOTH of those, JKR CLEARLY and CAREFULLY specified 
that her answer referred to GoF.  She did not do this in the "date" 
question.  She used the same form in answering it as she did for 
questions such as "will Harry ever turn into a shape changer like his 
father?"  In other words, she answered it with NO time qualifications.>>>>

Well, I should preface by saying that I've been completely unable to access the entirety of the interview in question.  *Strangely,* for such an *important* interview from the R/H perspective, noone has seemingly transcribed it.  Hmmm.  As my toddler is asleep in the room across the hall, I'm certainly not willing to turn on the speakers and listen to it at this point.  So, with that caveat:

1.  It seems unlikely to me that anyone would have been asking questions about the previous 3 books.  We already know what happened in those books.  So, saying it's "post-PoA" but not "pre-GoF" is a bit nonsensical in my book.  Her post-GoF interviews gave hints of what was to come in the next book by and large -- like Jim, I don't see her giving too many far-ranging series-wide hints or answers in these chats.  The interviews she gave after PoA and before GoF were mostly GoF-focused IMHO.  

2. I still say that the *question* makes no sense unless you add on an implicit *in the 4th book* to the end of that question.  Angua later commented that the question was clearly written by a child (or not-very literate adult).  I agree.  A child would be focused, however, on the next book, not on broader issues.  I do disagree Angua that the questioner was asking whether they would have a date *ever*!  LOL.  If you wanted to ask whether they ever have a romantic interest, you wouldn't ask if they have a *date* -- you'd ask if Harry and Hermione are ever going to get together.  Oh!  Wait.  Oh, right.  Someone *did* ask that once.  Oh *YEAH.*  Geez.  How could I forget?  <g>  [Scholastic, Feb 2000]:

Q: Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is he going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley?
A: In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-) 

Now, *that's* an appropriately-worded question, isn't it?  Yep.  So.  Let's see.  If she thought "Man, these people are dense.  Did they not *hear* my answer to this back in October?!  For crying out loud......Harry is *never* going to fall in love with Hermione," WHY didn't she say so?  It would have been soooooooo easy, wouldn't it?  I mean if you were clear in your "intent" that Hermione would never figure in Harry's love life at all, why wouldn't you say: "In Book IV, Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny.  As I said last October, Harry and Hermione are very platonic friends.  However, Harry's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind about other girls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink."  

Eh?  Now *that* would have slammed H/H and bolstered the flagging H/G, right?  But, no.  That's not what she said.  She left the door wide open for Harry to change his mind about *either* Hermione or Ginny or someone entirely different for that matter.

She's had some opportunities to be explicit, Angua, and she *hasn't* been.  I think it's pretty obvious that she has her reasons for not being explicit.  

So, back to the October 1999 question.  I do think it was written by a child who was focused on the next book.  I think we can trust that JKR understood that too.  She received a narrowly-worded question, and she gave an appropriately narrowly-worded response.  :::shrugs:::

<<<<Anyway, she clearly "intends" Harry and Hermione to be "very platonic 
friends" in Books 1-4 and thus she portrays them as such.  If she 
intends them to NOT be "very platonic friends" in later books, she 
will have to change the way she portrays their characters.>>>>>>

Well, of course she does.  They are 11-14 in the first 4 books.  *All* the characters Harry's age are in platonic relationships at that point.  Appropriately I might add.  

<<<<What R/H means to *me* is that JKR has planned these 
books so that Ron and Hermione will be a romantic couple and Harry 
and Hermione will be platonic friends.  I do *not* believe that Harry 
and Hermione are "excellently suited to be partners for life" -- and 
I think it's abundantly clear in the books that they're not.  To be 
quite honest, I think that your idealistic romanticism in that regard 
is preventing you from reading these books as JKR intended them.>>>>>

*Ouch*!  That was a bit harsh, if I do say so myself.  You see, here at HP4GU, we usually do allow that everyone may bring a slightly or even widely different interpretation to various canon questions, and we believe there isn't really a "right" and "wrong" interpretation to be put on any canon point.  JKR's *intent* is very, very tricky business.  

Reading these books as JKR intended them.  Yeah, that's er.......that's ........tough.  You see she hasn't come out and said what her intent is on much of anything, and well, even if she *did*: so what?  So, I as a reader am not allowed to bring my own perspective to her work?  Isn't that the whole *point*?   You haven't been following Elkins' excellent discourse on this topic, have you? 

<<<<And, come on, let's state the obvious -- her name will be Ginny 
Weasley.>>>>>>>>

Well, it may be *obvious* to you, Angua.  What's obvious to me about Ginny is that she is a background character of little importance at the moment.  She isn't even mentioned, not once, in the last 400 pages of GoF (not again after the Yule Ball).  She's not mentioned as eating lunch with everyone on the day of the Third Task when Molly and Bill come up to support Harry.  She's not seen in the stands during the Third Task.  She's nowhere to be seen in the post-3rd Task scenes in the hospital.  She's not on the train with them coming home.  Where is she?  If JKR were going to be setting her up as the ultimate love interest of our beloved hero, don't you think she ought to spend just a wee bit of time here and there mentioning Ginny every so often so the reader doesn't forget who she is?!  I personally think the H/G ship is sinking, sinking, sinking ........ but whatever.  

As for the "fairy tale" ending that OBHWF theorists long for, well, I just can't buy it.  And, no, Pippin, it isn't because I don't appreciate that adults can derive enjoyment from and gain something from reading fairy tales.  And, it isn't because I don't like fairy tales (can't wait for my daughter to be old enough to enjoy them in fact!).  It's because I don't think JKR is writing these books as fairy tales.  But, more importantly, *I* think it very likely that one of the 4 characters involved in the OBHWF theory will be dead before the end of the series.   

Penny  

  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]