Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research!

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 162754

>
> > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in
> her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence
> and by whom?
> >
> > Pippin:
> > I know she changed a CoS witch who had a harelip into one with a hairy
> > chin, apparently after being told that this was insensitive.
> > She has also responded to fans by correcting the famous wand order
> > glitch in Goblet of Fire, as well as numerous other errors of logic
> > or consistency that fans have pointed out (though many remain, or
> > are they clues?)
> >
> 
> klotjohan:
> Good observations, they may come in handy. Could you point me to places
> where I could learn more about this?

There are lists of changes and corrections at the Harry Potter Lexicon for
all the books. Here's a link to the one for CoS
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/changes_cs.html

Pippin: 
> > Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but
> > Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her
> > teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before
> > Rowling developed a fandom of her own.
> >
> 
> klotjohan:
> In what way do they remind you of fan fiction? I'm not too familiar with
> it I'm afraid.

Pippin:
Nymphadora's grandiose name, unusual magical talent, strangely
colored hair, physical awkwardness and romantic interest in an established
character are  typical of the sort of original characters  created
by beginning fan fiction writers (in the world of fan fiction they are
derisively labelled "Mary Sues.")

Luna, initially disdained, socially awkward and seemingly in a 
world of her own,  is another variation on the type. 
 
> 
> klotjohan:
> That's my sentiments as well. I'll try to expand a bit on Zipes later
> on, but for now I'd like to hear what you think about the
> "conventionality" and adherence to a pattern of the first books in the
> series. I agree that the expected can be soothing to the mind, but as
> you say it can be detrimantal as well. Did you experience any difference
> in this respect between the books, and if so was it a positive or
> negative change?

Pippin:
I started reading the series just after Prisoner of Azkaban came out
in paperback. I had gathered enough from skimming various 
reviews to know that there was something fascinating about this
Snape person <g> and as I read the first book I was puzzled by
all this interest in what seemed  to be a very ordinary
children's book villain. Of course I was floored by the ending.

Now it seems she's turned Snape back into a conventional
villain after all. But I don't believe it...<g>

 One thing I noticed is the way that Rowling treats female characters.
It seems that the women in the first few books are stuck in 
conventional roles. However, if you pay attention to the details, the
first four books refer to female textbook authors, business owners, dark
magic fighters (the witch who banished the Bandon banshee),
professional Quidditch players, Ministry officials and headmistresses,
and of course the villainess later identified as Bellatrix Lestrange.
Wizarding society is actually well-diversified. 

People also said that she depicts all marriages as conventionally
happy, and all women as good mothers, but we hear about
Hagrid's mother who abandoned him, and the failed marriages
of Hagrid's parents and Tom Riddle's.

It seemed to me that JKR was deliberately setting people up to
underestimate the role of women in magical society as a sort
of consciousness raising exercise. For example, you have to
read the description of the World Cup game very carefully to
find out that two of the Irish chasers are female. 

She likes to lead us into making judgements based on
our expectations and then show us that we were wrong.

Pippin