JKR's Conception of Shipping : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
||
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10 |
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Now we know"
I just meant that staying entirely agnostic on the interpretation of anything and everything seems kind of sad to me. (Unless it's only shipping you refuse to believe the text about? But I can't see why shipping would be that important, so I have to assume you mean everything.) By "brave" I meant, don't let the fear of some bogeyman "twist" scare you away from deciding that you can, in fact, draw conclusions about events from the books! They're not a mass of wall-to-wall deception and trickery. Parts of them are a rather moving and sweet story about growing up. The books are trying to tell you a story. Let them!
Since Rowling IS setting up for a twist (in my opinion, she is), then of course, in her interview, she's going to reinforce the red-herrings she so carefully laid down.
*Shrug* So you won't draw conclusions from the books because it could all mean anything, and you won't believe a word of the author because she's deceiving us all to protect her deceptive books? (Except the bit about Emma Coad - appearently you took that at face value for some reason.) What can I say to that? If you'll really believe nothing at all, then there's nothing left we can discuss.
Re: "Now we know"
Let's thank God for small favors then and leave it at that, shall we? :0/
I'm just of the opinion that Rowling is not going to give any part of her book away in an interview. I see that she only reiterated what we already think we know from the books. She told us nothing people had not already read into book six... particularly her HeronChoco interviewers in the IoD.
You apparently think Rowling has no prob giving away some of her plots in an interview one book short of the series ending. I just don't see it. I think that would be crazy for an author to do that, especially one who has chosen to write her series the way Rowling has... keeping us guessing about the truth of the matter and constantly searching for clues.
And for the love of all that's holy, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. So I leave you to your snark and unwillingness to see anything any other way than what's directly on the surface.
As for me, I'll keep on thinking that Rowling might still be hiding all of her ending, and if I'm wrong, then I won't be completely devistated, because all I'm doing is looking beyond the surface of things, which I've learned to do from all of the previous books Rowling has written. If Rowling was being completely open about everything, then fine. I just happen to think she hasn't been.
Re: "Now we know"
Why would she bother with that if it were just a red herring? If she has no problem giving away red herrings in her interviews, WHY did she tell her interviewers to warn people not to read her comments if they hadn't finished the book yet?
Re: "Now we know"
And yet just a moment earlier you held up her "sinking" of Draco/Hermione as a model? That was an interview. That was "giving something away." It seems to me that when she feels like it, she will indeed give away things, and moreover that you know this; so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove changing your argument now into a blanket statement that even you don't evidently believe. You can't both hold up D/Hr as a model for how she sinks ships and also claim that she would never give anything away!
But anyway, it's kind of beside the point; as I've emphasized, she clearly thought in her interview that she was only reiterating what the reader who had gotten through book 6 already knew. She didn't seem to think she was giving anything away at all.
So I leave you to your snark and unwillingness to see anything any other way than what's directly on the surface.
"What's directly on the surface"? Look, there is no inherent virtue in making things much more complicated than they really are. My goal has been to try to find out the truth about what she's doing. If that truth is is very simple, so be it. If it's extremely complicated, that's fine. It seems it's somewhere in the middle. I think it's clear that her romantic pairings can't be that obvious, or there wouldn't have been any debate about it!
If you find a problem that you're trying to solve too easy, maybe it's time to find a harder problem, instead of pretending the one you've got is something other than it is.
If Rowling was being completely open about everything, then fine. I just happen to think she hasn't been.
"Everything"? Of course she hasn't been completely open about everything; she quite pointedly has refused to explain or discuss certain things about Snape, Dumbledore, and obviously the Horcruxes and so on. Remember all that? Her refusal to give away the conclusion to the main dramatic story has nothing to do with her acknowledging the way the romances are going.