JKR's Opinion

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179916

> >> 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?  
> > <snip>

> >> a_svirn:
> Oh, just think about all those changes of scholarly fashion:        
> Marxist criticism, feminist criticism, deconstructivism, Freudian   
> criticism etc. If you read proponents of these schools you learn as 
> much (and very likely more) about their own views and beliefs than 
> about authors they analyze.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, okay, I understand.  And sure, readers do bring their own issues 
to the yard. But they don't *have* to.  The writer doesn't have a 
choice, IMO. 

> >>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.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Funny you should say that. When many members of this very list have 
> spent literally *years* discussing the HP books, sometimes at the 
> rate of five posts a day. I call a pretty heavy investment. 

Betsy Hp:
It *can* be, but it doesn't *have* to be.  Also, readers can focus in 
on specific stuff that floats their boats.  The writer has to cover 
it all.  So I still think the author has more invested in general.  
(Plus, there's the more vulgar issue of income. This was JKR's 
living, while HPfGUs is a hobby for its members.)

> >>a_svirn:
> > <snip> ...I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than
> > UNconscious)...

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

> >>Magpie:
> I say unconscious. I read somewhere that's more accurate according 
> to something-or-other. It means the same thing. If you're not      
> conscious of something it's unconscious.

Betsy Hp:
Gah!  Just when I thought I had it all straight... :P

Betsy Hp