Back in February, we told you Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling was a guest at the James Joyce Awards in Dublin, Ireland. Thanks to La Gazetter du Sorcier there is a new report online containing a many of her remarks at this event. Answering a range of questions, Jo again says she intends to “write an Encyclopaedia which would hopefully incorporate a lot of back story I couldn’t… or flesh out back story that wasn’t in the books.” JKR was also asked if she thinks of the actors when she writes. Jo said “to be honest no, the only actor or actress who has ever, ever intruded while writing was Evanna Lynch, who is absolutely perfect as Luna. And I must admit I have heard her voice in my head when I wrote the book.”
Specifically on the topics of the books, J.K. Rowling reflected on the theories that she heard while writing the series and mentions several in particular, notably ” when Neville visits his parents in St Mungo’s and his mother presses sweets wrappers on him, which I always saw as a poignant moment… There was a theory that she’s passing secret messages on the sweet wrappers. There have been loads of them. But Dumbledore being Harry from the future is definitely my favourite of all the insane theories. But then you have people, I had people as early as Prisoner of Azkaban, the third book. I remember a woman saying to me : “I think Snape loves Lily”. I was “Oh my God what the hell did I give away ?”. But so people, people got stuff very unnervingly right. Often. Yeah.”
Jo also says she would like to go back and tighten up “Order of the Phoenix,” (“I must admit I was feeling the strength of the pressure a bit during that phase, and I think it shows in the book”) and mentions one hurdle she had to deal with when writing the series, stating : “The one thing, the difficulty I did sometimes have was I made a rule so tight it was sometimes hard to navigate around it myself. So not being able to Apparate in and out of Hogwarts was a pain in the back. Because it was necessary, I had to put that limit to make it a safe place. But finding a way to get in and out of Hogwarts was always a bit of a challenge. I was quite proud of Aberforth again, the tunnel. I like Aberforth. And his goat. [laughing] Yeah, Dumbledore pales into insignificance.”
Of interest are her comments regarding the plot lines and several of the characters. The Harry Potter author said some of the less crucial story lines were not always planned right from the begining and evolved as she went along, “But the big ones, the Dumbledore storyline, the Snape storyline were always there because you — the series is built around those.” Further comments on the importance of Snape and Dumbledore came from a question about the development of their story lines. Jo said:
“with Dumbledore quite deliberately, you find out little about Dumbledore’s own private life because his interactions with Harry are always about Harry, which sets up the fact that in the seventh book Harry thinks “but why did I never ask ?” He’s gone now and he’s never even thought of saying : “so how about you ?” you know, at the end of one of those conversations which I think is something that happens after the grief, the regret that he didn’t ask. And I think also that Dumbledore had always been such an almost god-like figure to Harry in some ways, that he felt he couldn’t ask him personal questions.
Snape, on the other hand, I had to drop clues all the way through because as you know in the seventh book when you have the revelation scene where everything shifts and you realize why Snape was… what Snape’s motivation was. I had to plot that through the books because at the point where you see what was really going on, it would have been an absolute cheat on the reader at that point just to show a bunch of stuff you’ve never seen before, you know… “Oh by the way, in the background this was happening.” So I did know. It was a complicated plotting process but by the time Philosopher’s Stone was finished, I definitely knew all the big things about Snape and Dumbledore because in many ways they’re the two most important characters in the seventh book… Well, other than the trio, Harry, Ron and Hermione.
hey na,I think Ron/Hermione show charitable, selfless, altruistic, and unconditional love…....sry dont mind me im a R/Hr freak but i think they show true love
Anyhooo—I don’t know why, but after recently re-reading DH, I got the notion to read the series backwards. I’m just finishing HBP tonight and will start OoTP this weekend. We’ll see.
Rhiannon said: “Eeyore It is good to see you again. I thought you had left us.”
Thank you and no, I haven’t left. I actually check for news here every day. I don’t comment much anymore, but sometimes read through the comments. In reading through the comments on this one, I’m reminded of the reason that I am not active on the forum any longer. After I finished Deathly Hallows, it was so complete for me, and I found the ending so satisfying, that I had to stop reading all the criticisms from others. Yes, I had my little nitpicks, but they weren’t important enough for me to ruin the feelings I had at the end of my favorite series of books. And I read all the time, and have all my life.
I think that one of the things that bothered me the most was Harry’s use of the Unforgivables toward the end of DH. But when I started thinking about it, it was a vivid picture of the horror of war. They were fighting for their lives and watched others being tortured or senselessly killed, and they reacted in whatever way they could think of. War has a way of dehumanizing even the best of people. Was the use of Unforgivables right? No. But that does happen in war; good, moral people make bad choices that they would ordinarily never consider. At the very end, though, in facing Voldemort, Harry did not use an Unforgivable Curse. Instead he didn’t even use a curse that was intended to harm, but used a defensive spell. A spell that would protect him, and interestingly enough, it was a spell that he had first learned from Snape. Nice touch, that one.
I found Snape to be one of the most fascinating of Rowling’s characters, because he was the most complex and his story unfolded so slowly for us. But the clues were there from the beginning. If there wasn’t something hidden in Snape’s past concerning Harry, why would Snape hate him from the first book. It was in rereading POA, though, and especially in OP that I started to see that people who saw that Snape loved Lily were right. Snape always raged against James and Sirius, sometimes against Lupin by association, but never once said a word against Lily. Harry was the one who made those jumps, assuming that Snape also hated his mother.
Snape very much resembles the character of Sydney Carton in “A Tale of Two Cities” by Dickens (another literary character who is rather nasty to others and not very likeable), and once I saw that, I knew that Snape was on some sort of sacrificial path because of his love for Lily, just as Carton willingly sacrificed himself to save Lucy and her family. That book has the best redemptive ending of any book I’ve ever read.
Lily befriended Snape when he was younger and looked a bit odd, when Petunia saw him as “that awful boy” (the other thing that convinced me that Snape loved Lily). I was glad to see that Lily returned his friendship, and that it wasn’t completely one-sided. She tried to stand up for him, and was called a horrific name (the wizarding version of a racial slur), and she did listen to him later. But in the end, she chose her own path in life just as Snape did. She saw her childhood friend getting in deeper and deeper with dark wizards that she saw as being on an evil path, and even after she talked to Snape and tried to warn him , he refused to veer from his own chosen path.
It was one of the saddest things in the books for me. Snape, with his unhappy childhood, ended up being influenced by those in his house who were happy to use his considerable talent to their own purposes. I can’t imagine that they really liked him as a person, given that he was from a poor family and was not a pure-blood. But people who have been bullied for so long and pushed out sometimes will follow anyone who gives them the promise of power. And those who are bullied sometimes become the bully, which is just what we saw with Snape. Like Dumbledore, I have to wonder, would Snape have turned out differently had he been sorted into Gryffindor or Ravenclaw? (yeah, I can’t see him in Hufflepuff at all. LOL) I think it could have made the difference because he might have been more influenced by Lily and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to spend so much time with the Lestranges and future Death Eaters.
Once he knew that he was the one responsible for Lily’s death, he did repent (just as Sydney Carton did), and then Snape spent the rest of his life trying to atone for his part in the death of the only person he ever loved or respected. But he was still the solitary soul he had been as a child and he’d never learned how to reach out to others. He still saw any emotional vulnerability as a weakness because he knew how Voldemort would use it.
And what does Snape have every day of the term for seven years (well, six really)? He sees the face of the student who bullied him just because he could, and the eyes of the one person he loved. Instead of seeing that Harry was much more like Lily than like James, Snape is stuck in that adolescent hatred. Sirius was no better, as he was never able to let go of his hatred against Snape. Neither of them had the chance to “grow up” because of the circumstances surrounding the death of Lily and James. Because of that one tragedy, Sirius ends up in Azkaban for twelve years and then in hiding for two more; Snape ends up truly regretting the part he played and repents and does what is right in trying to protect Harry. But Snape was never really able to forgive himself.
Are there any perfect characters in Harry Potter? No. That is the brilliance of the books. Jo gave us heroes and villains who are all flawed and so very human. Just as we are all flawed and very human. Jo gave us something much better than cardboard cut-outs of good guys and bad guys. In giving us realistic characters, she has also given us the opportunity to explore how people in real life interact. And she has pointed the way for seeing the wrongs in our own world through not resolving all the issues in hers.
Sorry to run on so long. I promise I won’t do it again. Well, I’ll try to refrain from it anyway. ;-)
@tintanktonks: in my opinion, Peter Pettigrew was responsible for James’ and Lily’s deaths. He was the one to tell Voldemort the secret to lift the Fidelius charm. Snape had no idea by the time he told Voldemort about the prophecy how the latter would interpretate Trelawny’s words ! And then ultimately of course, Voldemort was responsible – he was the one to direct his wand against the Potters.
@pigwidgeon: I couldn’t agree more! The films do not really take Dumbledore’s and Snape’s importance into account at all. Hope they’ll do better in HBP and DH. There is a bit of hope though that they realize what the storyline is about: I was very happy to read that they are including Regulus Black! I think his turn from a young Voldemort follower to a person willing to give his life for bringing Voldemort down is almost as remarkable as Snape’s story and shouldn’t be ignored.
’@ Carlye: I think you are much to harsh on Snape. He was a human being, after all – I do have full understanding for his vindictive fury. And, after all, he never does anything REALLY nasty to Harry: it’s just a couple of silly detentions really!!!
@ James and eeyore: Couldn’t agree more !! I was very happy that Rowling acknowledged the two most important characters – although stating the obvious. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated – if only to make people happy …
As for Aberforth: I love him and the way he saves the trio from the Death Eaters with his Goat Patronus. The passage is brilliantly read by Stephen Fry !!!
Yes, Evanna Lynch is brilliant. Thank you for posting about “Termoneckin” – it sounds like the perfect living place for the Lovegoods actually!!
eyore good not agree with you more. na you really are off the mark about alot of things. by your own admission you didnt read all the books completly you might try that first before totally condemming them!!! as for snape i really liked his character not all good charaters are good people but he did do the right thing in the end. as for the trio not saving him and just watching him die that is again so off the mark hermione isn’t a healer after all. and that junk about all the bad people being in slytherine house another oops i geuss you missed that part of the book too. example slughorn was in slytherin he was also head of the house 2 times but he was not evil in fact he was there fighting you know who at the end something else you missed . also there is the statement that DD makes about thinking that they sort to soon. he was refering to snapes bravery. the people who are sorted into slytherin are put there for there ambitions to be powerful even though they tend to have a fasination with the dak arts it doesn’t mean the all were death eaters even regulas who was definatly a death eater realised that you know who was nuts. even wizards with the pureblood mentalty knew voldy was not ok and now the pat about kreacher bringing harry a sandwich saying he was treating him like a slave . what a bunch of crap harry never treated him likea slave. thats like saying if i was tired and sick and my husband brought me a sandwich or a cup of soup i was treating him like a slave. as eyore said sorry i ra on so long but i couldn’t help myself .
i worked out that snape was a good man in his own way .. i just love snape ..he is the best thing that happened to the world
i love jk rowling for the hp books .. imean our lives with no potter to read is not that cool
Carol – I completely agree with you. Harry never treated Kreacher like a slave. And also the part about not all Slytherins being bad. Snape was not exactly a nice person but he was not evil. He ended up doing the right thing. And Slughorn was definitely not evil as he fought Voldemort and the death eaters. One part that I really disagree with Na about is when Harry used the cruciatus curse on Carrow in DH when Carrow spat on Mcgonagal. Na said that Harry only used the curse bcz he spat on her, but thats not really true. Carrow had done MUCH worse than just spitting in Mcgonagal’s face. He had also tortured and killed. It wasn’t as though Harry was doing this to an innocent person. I think Harry may have also been thinking of all the evil Carrow had done and this was just the last straw. Anyway- that’s my opinion. I think Harry was justified in his actions. Sorry I went on for so long.
@na, just to put my oar in too, re (firstly) the “dead/asexual” nature of the books’ one gay character, Dumbledore: I notice that none of the teachers (with the exception of Hagrid) are ever written as ‘sexual’ creatures, regardless of what their sexual preferences may be – this is presumably because the story is about Harry and does not concern itself with the lives of the Hogwarts teachers, except insofar as Harry has dealings with them.
Secondly, I disagree with your comments that, whilst not explicitly gay, the character of Gilderoy Lockhart is nevertheless “effeminate” and “ineffectual” and thus supports a heteronormative and homophobic message. To my mind, Gilderoy Lockhart represents not effeminacy or “gayness” but the shallow cult of celebrity, the person who will stop at nothing to get on to the front pages; also, his winning smile seems to be chiefly for the benefit of the ladies. To lump effeminacy and “gayness” together in the manner in which you did merely stereotypes homosexuality and may point to your own sensitivities and/or prejudices.
Thirdly, whilst I agree that the predatory Fenrir Greyback operates to some degree as a metaphor for paedophilia (but not in toto – he also bites adults, such as Bill Weasley) we should remember that he bites girls too, so would be a poor metaphorical vehicle for the spread of the AIDS virus by homosexuality. I am not an expert but I find it more likely that Jo Rowling took the werewolf myth and added in the nasty twist of a werewolf that prefers to bite children in order to differentiate him from Lupin, and to stress the horror of Greyback’s nature (rather than just his condition, which Lupin of course shares); furthermore, it makes him a more threatening character, considering that the primary intended readership is children.
I agree that to some extent the books do take a traditionalist tone, in many ways they are set at least 40 years ago, particularly when we are in the wizarding world, with its steam trains, Ford Anglias, knitted jumpers, the wonder of electricity, and so on. However, Rowling often has characters challenging certain traditions and norms, such as slavery and blood (ethnic) prejudice, and thus utilises the books to highlight both the erroneousness and the stubbornness of those practices. Indeed Hermione, who is of course herself a Muggle-born of supposed ethnic inferiority, spends much of her time trying to argue against house-elf enslavement. Admittedly, despite sympathy from others, notably the fair-minded Arthur Weasley, she makes little real headway in her campaign, though she makes a start. To me, this put across a great message – that causes are worth taking up even if (or especially if) they are not easy ones that are quickly solved (hence when choosing her NEWT subject, she ponders taking SPEW, or something like it, further). If Jo wished to promote a pro-slavery viewpoint, why give that plot to Hermione, when, if she’d wanted to be dismissive about it, then surely a slightly zany character like Luna Lovegood would have been an obvious choice? No, she gives it to determined, sensible, tireless Hermione. Come to that, why would she have bothered bringing in SPEW at all?
Lastly, I don’t see the females in HP as sitting about waiting for males to marry them and make them pregnant (or however it was put). What about McGonagall? What about the other female teachers? What about Madame Maxime, who turned Hagrid down? The women and girls in HP are often highly independently minded and no more particularly inclined to relationships than their male counterparts. However, there is nothing wrong, inferior, or somehow anti-feminist about spending some of ones time having children. I have a child, I am also a PhD student and a feminist, and I consider myself neither inferior nor superior to women who undertake childless employment, exclusive mothering, or lesbianism.
Media hype of course operates on many levels, one of which is that it encourages women to imagine that they are somehow “letting the side down” if, as part of their lives, they choose to marry and dedicate themselves to being mothers. On some levels this sort of feminism can support the consumer-driven economy by implying that empowerment and employment are inextricable. So there are arguments both ways, my point being that whether we are thinking about feminism, hetero-normative ideals, the standardising ideology of individualism, or issues of traditionalism and so-called ‘radicalism’, such subjects are rarely straightforward.
As a final point on the matter, and as an example of how over-simplifying issues can lead us in directions that are not always as enlightened as we might hope: I can’t help but feel that despite the fact that billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Pagans, Liberal Christians, and others around the world believe in reincarnation, I doubt that many would agree with you that the death of ones child would be like a walk in the park, merely because on some literalistic level, this is what you envisage it to entail. I would venture that on this occasion anger and, perhaps, inexperience, is blinding you to the possibilities of real compassion or understanding.
These are just my thoughts. Like Eeyore, I do not especially wish to get drawn into some protracted debate, but I hope that you feel I have addressed some of your points in a satisfactory way that also explains at least some of the exasperation and offence that some have expressed concerning your posts.
Thankyou Ogdensnut you said everything I wanted to say but was too annoyed or frustrated to put into words. I guess many minds really are better then one : )
As much as i hate to admit it. I thought Snape was evil until after book 6 and then I started to doubt myself. I honestly still dont’ think he’s a “good” guy. I mean regardless of what we found out, he was still a bad person. That’s the main reason it didnt work out between him and Lily. But he’s not JUST a bad person. Thing I like the most about Snape is that he has alot of layers. He’s not just one thing. He’s bad, he’s “good,” he’s vindictive, he’s weak, he’s strong, he’s brave, he’s scared, and the list goes on. I think that’s why he was such a difficult character to figure out. I really hope he’s in movie 6 alot more, but I also hope Alan Rickman plays him a little meaner. I think Snape has been too tame thus far in the movies and he’s not. He’s an angry guy. He lost the woman he loved and still loves and he’s now protecting the child of his only love and the man he loathed. He should be pissed!
I have enjoyed the HP series but there are a lot of things that do not add up. JKR could have done a better job with the books. I’m very disappointed specially with the last book. It is so monotonous, except for the end perhaps. (They spend most of the time in the forest while a lot of interesting things are happening). Hopefully “The Scottish book” will make up for the several holes that are scattered throughout the books. And could JKR slap some sense into WB and FINALLY make them see that they should give more screen time to Snape since he is So important. He is one of the most interesting characters of the book (the closest to human nature we have), yet he gets put aside time and again. I like me some Harry-Ron-Hermione, but there is no need to dedicate the entire 2+ hours to teenage angst when so much more is happening.
If i Hear One More GAY PRIDE Comment on Dumbledore i am gonna puke
we all know he and Grindawald had a Messed up Relationship
so we dont realy care wether or not he did have sex with him (making his actions homosexual)
Dumbledore was a much more complicate charator and Sad man with many happynesses later in life
he was 16 when he was in his tragity and evil like Voldamort
and about 116 when he was Headmaster in the first Books
So yes Dumbledore Made Mistakes Get over it
but he Loved People More then Himself
so He Denied himselfs Things like Romance and Hopefully finding a Wife
and having Children
he had his Students
and Snape to Worry about Plus alot of friends and Enemys
i would Even Say mabey He was a Slytherin if i could because
That would mean He Was Right about It not being our Ability who define who we Are
but its our Choices
Wrong or Right
i will be an Example for the Lord
Amen =]
God Bless you Dumbledore
Ignore the Rita Skeeters of the World who Post lies and Half Truths
"Albus Dumbledore is the greatest headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. Dobby knows it, sir. Dobby has heard Dumbledore's powers rival those of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named at the height of his strength. But, sir" -- Dobby's voice dropped to an urgent whisper --
hey na,I think Ron/Hermione show charitable, selfless, altruistic, and unconditional love…....sry dont mind me im a R/Hr freak but i think they show true love