In my recent post about reconsidering JK Rowling's writing of romance in the Harry Potter series in light of the additional information from her later works, I declared myself puzzled by the following words of Rowling's:

What I will say is that I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment.

I wrote:

And it is not quite clear why Ron/Hermione was "wish fulfillment." Did she unrealistically wish that two such different people could grow to be happy together? Or was she unrealistic in thinking that she could satisfy readers with a platonic relationship between the hero and the most important female character? Or was it something else? I really wish Watson had asked her what she meant instead of jumping into a discussion of the characters as people.

A conversation I was having with torrent56 in the comments of that post prompted me to mull further on this somewhat mysterious comment and now I believe I know what Rowling meant. At least, it's convincing to me though it may not be to anyone else.

( Click here for my theory!Collapse )

I remember back when I first heard about the "Cursed Child" play, I was hardly excited at all. I saw it as kind of a local thing for people who live in London or are visiting there, kind of like the Harry Potter musical (there was something like that, wasn't there?). One of the reasons I wasn't too interested was because it was supposed to be about something that happened to Harry when he was living under the stairs before he got his Hogwarts letter. Interesting, sure, but it couldn't have been too important if we never heard about it in seven books.

( sorry I forgot to cut this at firstCollapse )

J.K. Rowling ‏@jk_rowling 10h ago
All I've done so far this week is change three characters' genders and I still don't know whether their current genitalia are permanent.

This is a post I've been meaning to write for a little while and J.K. Rowling's tweet today is too good of a lead-in to miss. I'm using my Lockhart icon not to indicate that I'm using this post to toot my own horn (I mean, no more than every post has that ultimate purpose) but to reflect that it will include more than the usual recommended daily allowance of self-quoting from my past posts.


Ten years ago, I was interested in the formation of the critical assessment of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which was beginning to emerge with the publication of the next-to-last book and in anticipation of the final book. I was curious about how (if at all) the discussions, jokes, memes, rants, and enthusiasms posted on the internet by us, the "original fans" of the series, would contribute to the future critical consensus. My opinion--possibly outrageously Lockhartian--was that we, the fandom, would have some effect. Here's how I put it in an essay I posted in the Scribbulus section of the Leaky Cauldron website:

while the critical consensus is bound to change and evolve over time, we--the original Harry Potter readers--are providing the starting point. We are bending the twig from which the tree of critical response will grow.

And in a discussion on my LJ with a fellow fan of more Slytherfen-ish sympathies, I said the following:

go_back_chief: I also think there are some weaknesses now, that will no doubt improve when she's written more; it's something you can notice from book to book sometimes, but we should remember that this is the only story she's written so far, even though it's six books.

angua9: I feel that I will be in a much better position to judge Rowling's strengths and weaknesses as a writer when (if) I have the opportunity to read other works by her. It isn't clear to me now which things are HP (or Harry, even), which things are due to the intended audience, and which things are Rowling. It seems to me that I can see improvements in her writing abilities so far (especially in the early ones), but there's not much she can do at this point to change or improve her initial vision.

And, of course, judging an unfinished work is always tricky.

Well, the work is no longer unfinished. And I have since read four other books written by J.K. Rowling, five if you count The Tales of Beedle the Bard. In addition, we know a fair amount about an upcoming movie (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) scripted by her and an upcoming two-part stage play (The Cursed Child) created with her approval and collaboration.

So how about it then? What do we think now of the topics we were hotly debating in 2006 and 2007? Are her books unfeminist, fat-phobic, full of plot-holes and bad messages, "Calvinistic" in morality, unsatisfying in romance, and supportive of slavery? Or, more specifically, does our NEW information provide any resolution to our OLD debates?

Obviously, this discussion will involve some degree of spoilers for The Casual Vacancy and the Cormoran Strike books, but I will try not to say anything too revealing. I definitely won't reveal the identity of the murderer in the three mystery novels.

( I See You've All Bought a Complete Set of My Books--Well DoneCollapse )

Well, this is plenty long for an LJ post and I've only covered my first subject (and the most interesting one to me), feminism. So the other subjects of debate will be covered in a subsequent post or posts.

SQUEEEEEEEE...!

JKR's US Tour has brought forth its first fruits!

And I'm going to post them without cuts because there is no such thing as spoilers in the HP universe any more.

...like in the novels themselves, it was the great question of Severus Snape that brought down the house. A wide grin across her face, Rowling said she delighted in the fact that, even after "Deathly Hallows," there was still some speculation as to the true leanings of the erstwhile Potions Master.

"Snape is vindictive, he's cruel. He's not a big man," she insisted. "But he loves. I like him, but I'd also like to slap him hard."

Mmmmm ... me too!

Earlier, Rowling said she was particularly pleased with how Snape's story played out throughout the course of the series, contrasting his character arc with that of Dumbledore.

"Although [Dumbledore] seems to be so benign for six books, he's quite a Machiavellian figure, really. He's been pulling a lot of strings. Harry has been his puppet," she explained. "When Snape says to Dumbledore [toward the end of 'Hallows'], 'We've been protecting [Harry] so he could die at the right moment' — I don't think in book one you would have ever envisioned a moment where your sympathy would be with Snape rather than Dumbledore."

Could too!

Rowling struck a conversational tone during the Q&A session, with quick asides for loud audience reactions (never louder than when she mentioned Lupin and Tonks, two casualties of book seven — their names elicited a deafening "Awww" from the collected readers).

Awwww!

When one girl came up to the microphone holding a plush Hedwig doll, Rowling thanked her for bringing the owl back to life, expressing shock that after "Deathly Hallows" was released, most early commenters were upset she killed Harry's pet. "And I murdered a human in the first chapter!" she laughed.

Her laughter proves she's evil!

But fans waiting for yet another chapter in the life and times of Harry Potter may have to wait long, she said. Regarding a long-rumored "Harry Potter Encyclopedia," Rowling told reporters that "It's not coming along, and I haven't started it yet. I never envisioned that as being the next thing I did. I wanted to take a break and a step back and then [do that] in due course."

Awww!

But that doesn't mean she won't be writing something soon, she exclaimed.

"I will always write," she said. "I want to fall in love with something the way I fell in love with Harry."

Yayyyyy!!!


Please, may I have some more?