Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 180340

> SNIP very thoughtful comments 
> 
> I always like that JKR really, really, really knew the background
> of all these characters & events, so that she could respond quickly
> with an "Oh, no, that's not the case, because...." or "Well, 
> actually, I'm not going to be able to fit in Dean's backstory, but 
> I can tell you that...."  She KNEW the details and so she could 
> respond seriously or she could say truthfully, "Well, I'm afraid 
> that just isn't something that plays out in the story" (Mark Evans, 
> Alice's Droobles wrappers, the precise fates of Harry's 
> grandparents, etc.), because she KNEW.  
> I liked that she seemed to respect the questions as being sincere, 
> she tended to respond to them with respect for those who'd studied, 
> noted and/or theorized.  
> 
> But what doesn't feel right to me is the kind of response we got 
> about the 24 hours... a sort of "Oh, you know, I might have made a 
> mistake, and if I did, maybe I'll need to make something up quick, 
> heh heh heh."  THAT feels flip and, frankly, a little 
> disrespectful.  An admission of "I messed up my maths again!" 
> wouldn't feel that way, but saying, essentially, "Eh, I'll make 
> something up real quick so you all can be happy" doesn't.  
> 
> If you didn't think of it already, Jo, then don't make something up 
> NOW.  Some of us thought a lot about that and what might have been 
> going on during the 24 hours.  If JKR **had thought that out but
> just elected not to include it,** then I'd want to know what The
> Answer was.  But if she didn't think it through, then she doesn't
> really have The Answer, does she?  And that's what I'm not liking 
> about the interviews.  I wish she'd stick to revealing things she 
> know but didn't elect to include in canon and admit things she
> might have muffed or forgotten, and NOT move into "Oh, maybe I'll 
> make something up for that" after it's all over.  That doesn't feel 
> true to me, nor fair even.
> 
> But that's just me. 
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan
>

Another example is her pairing up of characters after the book, and 
giving them children.  Someone asked her if Neville got together with 
Luna, and she basically said that was a good idea.  Then, we get the 
marriage of Luna to some Scalamander many years later, and the due 
production of two children (yay normalcy).  And all I have to say 
is... why?  Is this really the canon version of Luna's story, or just 
a flippant elaboration?  Was she being coy with the original 
questioner post-DH, or had she just not conceived the story yet?

Pre-DH, I understand that JKR was misleading in her interviews, but 
now I resent her baiting people with "this will be important" answers 
which turned out to be red herrings.  Red herrings are one thing in 
the book, but in interviews?  I say this as someone who was captured 
by her world and its possibilities, to the extent I devoted quite a 
lot of my time to thinking about them after OOTP.  Even so, I started 
trying to disregard her interview comments after the publication of 
that book because they were somewhat mean-spirited and arrogant.  
(They only got worse after HBP, with anvil and delusional comments.  
I was never an uncritical member of the Cult of Rowling, but rather, 
was a critical reader of her books.)  It was my choice to get so 
involved in the HP fandom, inspired by the potential of her work, but 
she did also keep my interest alive with hints of more to be 
revealed.  The more turned out to be less for me.

I am glad she thought DD was gay, but it was really irrelevant to the 
story (which worked with friendship for me) and, in any case, was not 
explicitly in the books, unless colorful clothes and love of knitting 
patterns means you are stereotypically gay.  The gay DD revelation 
was just another interview tease, part of her schtick, of which I've 
grown very tired, personally.  Frankly, she was asked if DD had ever 
been in love, and she didn't really answer that question, but came 
out with a quotable comment instead.

I respect JKR's accomplishment, but became uneasy with it after book 
6 and disappointed with it at the end.  Why do I still talk about 
it?  I still find the work interesting, if not admirable.  There are 
other authors whose talent and moral viewpoints I respect more, but 
no similar communities for discussion.

As for criticism, when JKR speaks thoughtfully and thoroughly about 
her work instead of issuing flippant remarks from a pedestal of 
superiority and smugness, then I will respect her more.

JMO,

lealess