JKR's Opinion

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179899

> 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.

a_svirn:
Oh, yes, a scene or an event can "babble" from out the subconscious 
(at least, I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than UNconscious), 
but in order to fit it into your plot, in order to make the whole 
thing work, you'd have to work pretty consciously. Moreover, the very 
process of writing up of whatever has just bubbled from the depth of 
your subconscious you'd have to impose some structure on it, and this 
is a sort of work where your mind is involved pretty closely. At 
least, it should be, or it wouldn't make sense. I expect Sarah 
Monette didn't just discuss the scene in question with her editor, 
because they exhausted other conversational gambits. 

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their 
subconscious 
> than the reader. 

a_svirn:
Why "of course"? Can't a reader be at the mercy of his or her own 
subconscious, rather than an author's? And hasn't the history of 
literary criticism proved that poor authors can be at the mercy of 
critics' (or more broadly readers') subconscious? 

> Betsy Hp:
 The author is the one doing the creating after 
> all.  
 
a_svirn:
So? You can't DO anything with your subconscious; at best (or worst) 
you can make Freudian slips when it starts to play tricks with you. 
In order to write (or paint, or compose etc.) you'd need to have a 
pretty clear idea of what you are doing. 

> Betsy Hp:
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:
It's not just characters. It's pretty much everything. You respond to 
everything you experience (works of art including) in a certain way 
because of what you are, and that includes both your conscience and 
your subconscious. Why do you think that you can control the latter 
better than authors you read? 

> 
> > >>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:
I haven't seen the film, but judging by what you've said, it was a 
failure (at least in your view, sorry if I misunderstood what you are 
saying). Failures happen. What exactly does it prove? I'd say it is 
counterproductive to judge creative process by failures. 


> 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.  

a_svirn:
Who exactly is saying it? I know I didn't. I said that in order to 
say "Rowling failed to make Ginny funny and spunky" you'd have to 
acknowledge that she had the intention of doing so, and that it 
wasn't just a half-formulated something that bubbled in her 
subconscious, but a very clear idea of what Harry's mate should be 
like. Only then you can say that she failed to meet her objective. 
But that would mean that her intent matters very much indeed. If it 
hadn't there wouldn't have been the sense of failure, as far as 
Ginny's funniness and spunkiness are concerned.   

> Betsy Hp:
> 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.

a_svirn:
Why should it? But your interpretation is based on Rowling's intent. 
Remove the intent, and there won't be anything left to interpret. You 
can't say that Rowling failed to convince you that Ginny is funny, if 
you don't know that she wanted you to think Ginny funny. 

a_svirn