JKR's Opinion

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179873

> >>Carol:
> > Authorial intention is problematic for a number of reasons, among
> > them that much of the writing process is unconscious,

> >>a_svirn:
> Is it though? I wonder how it can be possible.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
A scene or an event bubbles up from the unconscious, the author 
writes it down, and then it somehow ties into the whole in a way 
unplanned or looked for.  Sarah Monette describes that happening with 
a scene that turned out to be pivotal, though at first it seemed a 
strange diversion when she and her editor were discussing it.

> >>Carol:
> > so an author is not always aware of her own intentions, not to   
> > mention that the intentions may change as she writes. Even if    
> > she's aware of her own intentions, she may not have succeeded in 
> > conveying them to the reader.

> >>a_svirn:
> Here you give three contradictory statements at once.

Betsy Hp:
I think they're all true however.  That's the glory of literature (or 
any art I suppose), in my opinion.  The best stuff has wonderful 
layers to it, and I think some of it can surprise the artist 
themselves.

> >>a_svirn:
> The first one seems to me rather patronising – obviously you exempt 
> literary critics from the charge of not knowing one's own          
> intentions. It's only poor authors who are at mercy of their       
> subconscious and cannot account for theirs.

Betsy Hp:
Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their subconscious 
than the reader.  The author is the one doing the creating after 
all.  Readers are just observing, but the writers are putting 
themselves out there. (Though I will say, a reader's subconscious can 
certainly play a role in their response to books.  Certain characters 
may warm or repulse a reader for subconscious reasons.)

> >>a_svirn:
> <snip>
> The second statement suggests that authors do know their intentions
> (hooray!), but their natures are notoriously fickle – they change
> constantly. This has certainly been known to happen, but it does   
> not – normally – mean that the final product is incoherent.

Betsy Hp:
Neil Gaimen, when asked about a certain reading of his "Beowulf" 
movie, responded that he couldn't (or wouldn't) say because (among 
other things) he had drafts and rewrites in his mind that the viewer 
never got a glimpse of.  IOWs, his view was skewed by his own 
changing intentions.  The viewer would therefore have a purer view of 
the finished project.

> >>a_svirn: 
> <snip>
> The change of an author's intentions is not something unimportant   
> it is what makes their works even more interesting to contemplate.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, of course!  And I agree it can be fascinating to see what the 
author was trying to, or thought they did, achieve. (JKR's statements 
about Dumbledore being such a great guy, for example.)  However, the 
author's view doesn't (and I think shouldn't) count heavier than the 
readers view.  The author said what they were going to say in their 
work.  The work should ultimately speak for itself.

> >>a_svirn:
> Unlike the first two of your statements your third suggestion is not
> so much a general statement on literary work, but an assertion that
> it can be at times unsatisfactory. *Shrug* . Obviously it can. But 
> it doesn't mean that an author's intentions don't count. Even to   
> state that Rowling has failed to make Ginny "spunky and funny",    
> you'd have to recognise that she had this intent in the first place 
> and presumably was aware of it in her own mind. Otherwise we can't 
> even hold her responsible for her own failure.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but to say the reader should see Ginny as "spunky and funny" 
because in an interview JKR said this was how Ginny was supposed to 
be is, IMO, to give far too much power to JKR.  And she's already in 
a powerful position to begin with what with being the one who wrote 
the book.  If she wasn't able to convince me of the "spunky and 
funny" nature of Ginny by what's in the book, I'm not going to be 
convinced because of something she said in an interview.  And that's 
how I see JKR's intent or opinion as not mattering.

Yes, I can certainly agree that JKR had a certain intent with regards 
to Ginny.  The intent is clear within the books and on top of that, 
JKR has shared her intentions in various interviews.  But JKR's 
intent doesn't trump or invalidate my interpertation.

Betsy Hp (obviously not speaking for Carol -- just to be clear <g>)