JKR's Opinion

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179901

> >>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)...

Betsy Hp:
Yes, subconscious, sorry. <g> 

> >>a_svirn:
> ...but in order to fit it into your plot, in order to make the     
> whole thing work, you'd have to work pretty consciously.
> <snip>
> I expect Sarah Monette didn't just discuss the scene in question   
> with her editor, because they exhausted other conversational       
> gambits. 

Betsy Hp:
Well, that's actually what I'm talking about.  The scene occurred to 
Monette, she wrote it (which is obviously a conscious undertaking) 
and her editor queried it because it seemed unnecessary to the plot 
of the first book.  It was a diversion, and Monette recognized that.  
But she felt, for some reason, that it was important and fought to 
keep it.  It wasn't until she was writing the second book that she 
realized how it fit into the plot there.  So that's an example of the 
subconscious and conscious working together in the creative process.  
A conscious plot outline is important, but allowing for organic 
growth (which often comes more subconsciously, I think) is also 
important.  A good author, I think, allows for both.
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their 
> > subconscious than the reader. 

> >>a_svirn:
> Why "of course"?

Betsy Hp:
Because they're doing the creating.  And I think part of the creative 
process is taping into your subconscious, allowing that organic 
flow.  (I think that's where JKR screwed up, honestly.)

A reader doesn't have to engage like that if they don't want to, but 
I feel like the author must to a much deeper extent.

> >>a_svirn:
> <snip>
> 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:
Hmm, not that I've seen, really.  Could you provide some examples?  
(I'm asking this honestly and without malice.  I'm not sure I 
understand what you're saying here, so an example or two would be 
helpful.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > (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? 

Betsy Hp:
Because I don't have as much invested as the author.  Not if the 
author is any good anyway.  So I feel I can detach from the text in a 
way the author should not be able to.  (Though a good author will try 
and detach I think before doing a rewrite.  Give themselves the space 
to take a clear-eyed view of what they've written to make sure 
there's conscious order to their creation.)  As a reader, I don't 
need to become that attached in the first place.  (Though as a reader 
I *want* to become attached.  But that's before I try and think 
critically about the text.)

> >>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).

Betsy Hp:
On the contrary, I enjoyed the film. <g>

> >>a_svirn:
> Failures happen. What exactly does it prove? I'd say it is 
> counterproductive to judge creative process by failures. 

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  That's why I used the above examples as they are of works I 
enjoyed.  I think Monette's a brilliant writer, tackling issues JKR 
wishes she had the strength to take on, and creating characters with 
a depth of soul that make Harry so much cardboard.  And I think a big 
reason for that is Monette's willingness to allow for organic 
growth.  But *also* Monette's willingness to rewrite and rewrite and 
rewrite.  So there's the combination of subconscious and conscious 
there. 

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
The original poster that prompted my post.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179857
> >>Lesley:
> <snip>
> I am sure plenty of people will disagree, even knock
> Ginny, but I love the H/G ship. I think they are perfect
> for each other, as did the author of the books. And it is
> her opinion that counts.

Betsy Hp:
I'm saying that the author's opinion counts least, because she can't 
properly judge whether or not her attempt to put a certain character 
across in a certain way actually worked.  That's the readers' job.

> >>a_svirn:
> 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:
Ah yes, this I agree with.  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > 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. 

Betsy Hp:
Right.  It's JKR's opinion that doesn't matter.

Betsy Hp