Spoiling the fun

[annemehr]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> > So then what *is* the reason, do you think, Kneasy?  If Jo's not
letting info slip in order 
> to direct people away from "unfruitful" pursuits, then why is she
leaking info?
> 
> 
> You tell me.
> But I don't think that the possibility of pissing off a few hundred
thousand
> fans has much to do with it.<snip>
> 
> Could be a combination of things - clearing the decks and damping
down fan
> expectations. It's a possibility (no more) that although the basic
plot thread
> was right there from the start, minor threads and sub-plots weren't,
were added
> to provide the required complexity/depth - but that what at one time
seemed 
> like a nice bit of background/detail/minor action has come back to
bite her on 
> the bum, metaphorically speaking. It might be obstructing the
resolution of
> something else that's more important to the books.


I wonder if a simple explanation might be a big part of it.  She's
discovered this whole online community having fun (with her baby, no
less), and she'd like to play, too.  Only, of course, she can't
theorise.  So she participates by dropping hints and explanations
while still trying to keep enough secrets for the final book.  She can
even shut of lines of inquiry that bore her.

As for being willing to piss off fans, she doesn't mind if it's
because the plot doesn't go their way. But I bet she would mind if she
left whole groups of readers thinking "Is that it? Is that all there
is after all?" -- so, yes, maybe she does want to dampen expectations
a bit.

Or not.

Anne