Author Defense

[sistermagpie]

Since there's been some recent author attacks and author defenses I thought I'd set down, just for my own reference, what, to me, constitutes

By which I mean things that sound, logically, like a defense of the author. Something that makes the author look good, justifies them, guards them accusations of being unworthy etc. The type of thing that, if I were the author, I'd consider a defense.

So here are some things that are, to me, good defenses of the author:

• Making a mistake about a canon detail in an interview does not mean the author doesn't care about her work or is lazy. She just has a lot of things to remember and doesn't focus on all of them at once. Every author would probably make this kind of mistake, even ones with less complicated universes.
  
  I'm very sympathetic on this one. Fans sometimes thing it should be easier for an author to remember details than it is for them, but it seems to me it's harder. We, as readers, got our information in handy, organized book form. For the author it all came from scratch and it's got to be more difficult to remember which thing made it all the way to the book and which thing is just in your head. When JRR Tolkien switched Bingo to Frodo, it's not like Bingo moved out of his head completely. Susan Cooper, whom I love, has a sentence in her book where someone named Margaret suddenly appears in Will's house in the early morning. Presumably this is Barbara, with her original name. Not only did Susan Cooper make the mistake, I guess, but her editors didn't catch it. And that's in the book, not in some off-the-cuff interview--as far as I'm concerned, interviews really mean nothing. If the author puts something wrong in the book it's a flint. A slip of the tongue in an interview means nothing.



• The author isn't wrong for not writing the story you wanted.
  
  Uh, yeah. I'd think this would be obvious. Tangents and fancies you have while reading the books are not an ideal the author should be expected to work towards. In fact, most of the time if an author actually did what fans wanted, they'd hate it. If the story started out as a mystery/fantasy about character X, it's not unreasonable for it to end up as a mystery/fantasy story about character X and not a romance about characters Y and Z.
  
  Of course, this should not be confused with the idea that there is nothing readers can reasonably expect from the author because of course there is. If Voldemort was never mentioned in Book 7 fans would have good reason to say, "WTF?" after all the build-up. Similarly, somebody pointing out something they see in canon and thinking it should be resolved is not the same as their demanding the author to write the story to their taste. Bringing something up while having nothing to say can be honestly considered a flaw.



• Another defense that works for me: Don't say you could do better just because you write good fanfic.
  
  This is just a non-issue. Sure there are plenty of writers who write better than any number of authors, but what gets you the copyright is you created the universe and the characters. Writing a good fanfic that's popular really doesn't mean the books written by you would be just as popular on a global scale. Fanfic does take key issues out of fiction writing, after all. So yeah, maybe there are fanfic authors who could do better, but it's a non-issue because they didn't write this better version years ago before somebody else gave them the idea. Creating original fiction is rewarded more in publishing than doing good work with someone else's characters.



• Sometimes things come across differently in print or when taken out of context.
  
  Another reasonable defense. Yeah, they can.

So those, to me, are good author defenses. These defenses, however, confuse me:

• The books center around about three main characters. Supporting characters are as cardboard and should not interest you.
  
  Um, is that really what an author shoots for when populating a complex world? That nobody seem real except the main characters? Isn't that more often a criticism?



• If the author is dealing with controversial topic like bigotry or racism, it's stupid to suggest she's saying anything subtle about bigotry or racism.
  
  So the author should be applauded for having characters use made-up slurs and advocate genocide or constraining laws against certain other characters, but it's offensive to suggest the author would do something so daring and wise as to use a good character to say something about how insidious bigotry can be. To me this sounds like telling people to stop giving the author too much credit, which I, myself, usually consider a criticism and not a defense.



• If the story is centered around a complex, historical political situation with a terrorist organization and a leader that takes advantages of tensions within his society, you should NEVER take an interest in those tensions and where they come from because there is no reason. It just is cause they're bad bad bad.
  
  Um, again, how does this make the author look good? Didn't you just tell me that the whole story is built around a giant plot hole? That there's no meaning to this whole big war you keep leading up to and using to teach me Important Lessons? Does the idea the whole thing is arbitrary sound like a reason to admire the author or think less of her? I know what I think!



• The author created a flat, one-dimensional character. Stop seeing depth in him. Even the slightest shade is offensive.
  
  So anything in canon that seems interesting to me is actually a mistake on the author's part, or my giving her too much credit, even if it seems right there in the text. Good to know.



• And finally, It's really insulting to the author of a series of mysteries to suggest she might be planning any plot twists or surprises.
  
  So apparently she's a mystery writer, but I should remember she's a bad mystery writer if I want to be polite. Even speculating that there might be more than meets the eye that will later come to light is terribly rude. In a mystery, there's no room for anything that is not fully understood at first glance. Just think if Agatha Christie's fans had made such unseemly suggestions. Roger Ackroyd might have actually been murdered!

Like I said, I get the first defenses. The second ones, not so much. I can see them as arguments, certainly, like when some people just, for instance, disagree about whether or not it's bigotry for wizards to treat muggles like clever monkeys and screw around with their heads for their own good, but why would the author need defending from the idea that her presentation of bigotry was complex enough to include good guys? That I don't see so much as a defense.

Comments

[lotesse]

This is excellent and wonderful and clear and level-headed and should be required reading for everybody. Just, yeah. Has anyone told you recently how absolutle wonderful you are? Or what an absolute joy your posts are? Cause whether or no, I'm going to go all fangirly on you and tell you that just seeing a Magpie post on my flist is enough to make me perk up and get interested. You rock, babe.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

*bursts into tears*

Seriously, after the threads of wank today that was very unexpected and really really nice! *becomes wibbly*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh -_________-;;;;;
As far as the 'stop seeing depth in cardboard people' thing... um, I think it's an objectivist thing. Like, people who think because they perceive canon a certain way, and the author does, and so do all the people they know or whatever, that's 'the truth', and anything else is a 'lie' about canon, whether or not it's complimentary. Or something. I'm going to go now -______________-

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think you're right--but it's not really a defense of the author, is what's weird. I mean, I understand people getting frustrated when what they think is right there is still disputed, but still you'd think that, "Hmm, I see this character as more interesting than just being a jerk," could never be mistaken for, "This author sucks, man!" I think really with Draco it's more about ruining a hate object or something.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

On one of the second issues, I admit that what gets me mildly annoyed (and did, in some of the arguments on those threads) were some of the aspects about the arguments that the good guys are nasty too.

I think it's to Rowling's credit that she dares to have good guys who are deeply flawed. But there were enough slippery slope arguments on those threads to construct a fandom-sized Slip'n'Slide--not to mention the continual tu quoque invocations going on. The point of that pretentious statement: there are still profound textually-based differences between the White Hats and the Black Hats that any complete analysis is going to pick up on. It's reductionist, sloppy analysis to say that Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley are moral equivalents, because both have a patronizing/superior attitude towards Muggles.

That's not *really* related to anything you said specifically. But I felt like venting. :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know what you mean--and that is a totally pointless argument. Actually, that's why I get so frustrated when people act like I'm doing it because that's the only way you can like a character. Or that because you can't say the characters are the same you can't draw any similarities at all. Or just when people say they're different, but then get the reasons they are different all wrong.:-)

There are just so many ways I can get frustrated in conversations it's not funny.:-)

[saturniia.livejournal.com]

I think the difference between Arthur and Lucius is that Arthur at least tries to be an observer or a scholar of Muggles, while Lucius wants them dead, if former textural evidence is to be believed at face value. They're equivalent in relation to one value or characteristic, but quite different in another characteristic that modifies the first.

[moonlitpages.livejournal.com]

The author created a flat, one-dimensional character. Stop seeing depth in him. Even the slightest shade is offensive.

*chortles* For some reason, that just made me laugh. Probably because JKR herself seems to enjoy throwing down this card all the time, and I cannot understand why she is so adamant that Draco Malfoy has no depth when it only reflects poorly on her vision if he does indeed have no other layers than those that were apparent from day one. The natural reaction would be to cough and declare, "Why yes, of _course_ I meant for him to be interesting! How nice of you to notice! *coughcough scribbles notes cough*". That's why I'm still convinced she is bluffing. I will be convinced until he the day he and all the other Slytherins die as flat, one dimensional characters *laughs*. Don't rob me of my delusions, they keep me happy.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

This is one of my personal bugaboos with a certain author. She's becoming shrill about fans liking a certain "bad" character, event though she's told us to "keep an eye on him."
My theory is that fans have guessed what her Shocking Surprise for this character is and she's in a panic. To some extent I can understand this, but she should have kept her trap shut in the first place instead of spending tons of time trying to throw us off track.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the thing! I mean, it's a compliment. I completely understand correcting the wrong impression or just giving your own opinion--like I remember on Seinfeld there was a time when I think everybody got angry when they did the storyline where George's fiance died. They acted like the show had betrayed them because they loved all these characters as if they were good people when of course killing George's fiance was the show staying completely true to the characters and just going that extra step. So there I could completely understand the actors saying things like, "You think Elaine is a good role model? Um, why? These characters are all completely shallow."

Just the same I can completely see responding to somebody saying they wish Draco was there boyfriend with, "Um, why? He's a bigot and very cruel." But that's not the same as, "Nope, he's barely a character at all. Completely cardboard, see?" *knocks cardboard* Perhaps it's even more odd when she then goes on to talk about "people like Draco and Pansy" in real life, like they exist and they, too, are one-dimensional.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Logic and reason are the perfect antidotes to all the wank that's been flying around from both sides of the argument.


The books center around about three main characters. Supporting characters are as cardboard and should not interest you.

I nominate this for 'Most ridiculous argument ever' in the 66th Academy 'OMGWTF?' awards. Yes, because realistic background characters would, like, take away from the story. Or something.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I can't help but think as an author I'd be really tickled by supporting and minor characters getting their own little groups, since everybody has a story. Like, I can see an author appreciating being able to share little tidbits about a minor character and know that some people cared. It's like on NA, for instance--there you had authors that were responsible for just specific characters, so I assume they did appreciate it when people cared about them as much as the main ones.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Excellent. Now all you need to write is a fandom-sized guide to "One of these things is not like the other..."

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's very scary how I woke up this morning thinking about this, and the whole, "They're just like Draco himseeeellllf!" and realized how it does parallel canon. It may be ultimately amusing to me and give me a more positive outlook on wank, though, so I'm thinking about it.

[trobadora]

Another defense that works for me: Don't say you could do better just because you write good fanfic.

True enough - but the reverse is actually the "defence" that frustrates me most: "You shouldn't criticise the author because you couldn't do better yourself! Until you've published a fantasy series as popular as this your opinion doesn't matter!"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, this makes no sense to me on many levels. Occasionally there have even been people who have suggested that people can't critique fanfic unless they are fanfic writers, when literary criticism has always been a separate thing.

It's like...if somebody made a car that didn't work, would you have to be able to build a car itself to say it didn't work?

[(Anonymous)]

All hail Sister Magpie for she makes fandom a better place.
You really are one of the most sensible people in fandom. All hail.


"The author isn't wrong for writing the story you wanted"
-- Did you mean it that way, or did a "not" go missing? Either way, both works nicely with your arguments below :-)


And if Roger Ackroyd had actually been murdered, then the mystery genre would have gotten one of it's most controversial and interesting books that would have challenged readers everywhere, and that simply will not do! That's offensive! Heresy! Burn! Burn! Burn!

I'm sorry, I just got a bit giggly at the second list. They do kind of work as defenses for really-bad-but-kind-of-entertaining-books like, say, the Nancy Drew stories or something, but why would anybody want to use that as a serious defense?

- Clara

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

*accepts accolades*

*gets drunk on power*

*gets deposed*

Ah! Feel better now.:-)

"The author isn't wrong for writing the story you wanted"

LOL! Goes to edit...though you're right, people can get upset about getting the story they wanted too!

They do kind of work as defenses for really-bad-but-kind-of-entertaining-books like, say, the Nancy Drew stories or something, but why would anybody want to use that as a serious defense?

Oh, absolutely true--I write series books and it's actually something you have to work at there--the characters can't change, there can't be too much development. But the whole point is that you're running in place, so it's really not a good defense for a story that's trying to go somewhere!

[ackonrad.livejournal.com]

The author created a flat, one-dimensional character. Stop seeing depth in him. Even the slightest shade is offensive.

Most idiotic 'argument' ever, together with the 'supporting characters should not interest you'. How anyone can come up with something like this and think it's a reasonable argument is beyond me.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I agree it's a ridiculous argument, but I tend towards a radical (and I hope also thoughtful) modification of it myself. That is to say: per structure, interview, and commentary, it's becoming increasingly clear that the story is going to be (and even already is) far more about the kids than the adults, and is indeed overwhelmingly about the title central figure. Knowing that, expecting the secondary figures to take main importance (or expecting it to be all about Snape) is a little like going to the opera and being surprised that there is a fat tenor on the stage singing. :)

This is, of course, not to say that one should not find supporting characters interesting--I love a number of them myself. But I also know that in the grand scheme of things, many of them are going to remain textually fairly one-dimensional, and most great expectations for them are going to be disappointed. Call me cynical, but I'm willing to read trends and adjust my expectations accordingly; no use in expecting what's been shot down. Now, on the other hand, I do enjoy being pleasantly surprised...

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the majority of these aren't usually intended to be defenses at all in the same way that the upper half are. It seems this is a subset of fans who don't want to see complexity beyond what is obvious to them (which may be completely different from what is obvious to some other fan) and who are insistent that what they see is what is right. In order for it to be right, it must be what the author intended (in this view). This subset is also likely to not stand for any criticism of the author, partly because criticism adds something more complex to the reading and partly because if the author is wrong, than what they've read as obvious and right could be wrong. Defending the author as an author is less important than defending her portrayal of the viewpoint important to them.

Basically, complexity is not, in and of itself, a virtue to these fans, and may be a drawback. This is not to say that these fans can't understand complexity, but they may simply like their books more straightforward. Alternately, they may have become particularly attached to a given moral theme (usually "racism is bad") and feel that this message can't be diluted, muddied, or made less clear, or the point of the books is lost. As such, saying that a "racist" character may be redeemable, or that good guys might also have racist feelings mixes up the racist=evil message and is an attack on that message, which is in turn an attack on the books and the author. I agree that that's not something that I find impressive about a book, and really find those arguments insulting to the author, but I could see where they would find them complimentary as its what enhances their reading of the books.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Wow--I think you put that exactly right. Because I do definitely feel in these discussions that the author isn't being defended--at least not when it gets into the whole, "All that complexity you're seeing is own your own fevered mind!"--because it's too emotional and too personal critical of somebody else's reading. Anybody in fandom knows how passionate people get about things like that. If somebody wrote a post criticizing JKR's sentence structure or claimed she was having an affair, I don't think it would get the same kind of defense--a defense, but not the same kind. People do tend to get sensitive at things that call into question their own experience of the books...which is why it's a shame they have to respond by attacking other people's, claiming that if you didn't have the same reaction they did you are lying or reading wrong. Once you accept people can have different reactions you have to accept you're just one more person having a reaction and not a Seer of Absolute Truth.

[fictualities.livejournal.com]

I live in a Fandom Happy Place where I just sit around reading fic and squeeing quietly to myself, so I don't have the slightest notion what all this is about. However: to judge from the tone of the comments, this is necessary: *hugs* Also, this:

The author created a flat, one-dimensional character. Stop seeing depth in him.

Hmmm. You know, this is the sort of debate where things start to look very strange to someone coming from LotR, a fandom where the canon is finished and thus fixed. In a fandom like that, discussions of the kind you seem to have been having can be both less controversial and less, well, creatively generative, for lack of a better phrase. Let's say someone wants to have a discussion or write a fic about Merry. She can talk about Merry's motives and character, try to work out his feelings, look at the events of the trilogy from his POV, and no one will turn a hair. She can even speculate (in fic or in discussion) on what would have happened if Merry had somehow found himself in possession of the Ring, and again, no one will turn a hair. This kind of rethinking of a source is sort of Fan 101; imagining an AU is one way to refine your understanding of the original and of the artistic and philosophical choices the author made in writing that original.

So in Tolkien fandom you can do that kind of thing without raising too much of a ruckus. In HP, y'all are in a different position though, because no one can say with absolute certainty what will turn out to be AU and what not. As a result, fics and discussions based on many different scenarios can and do thrive. And not just thrive, but inspire people in a way that the purely hypothetical discussions in a closed-canon fandom might not. People wonder why HP fic is so bloody fantastic; why it seems to have attracted so many great authors -- well, I think part of the answer lies right there, in the opportunity for (relatively) free-wheeling speculation, for characterizations that pick up on strong hints in canon and take them where various fan authors think they are most likely to go. The result is this enormously rich and diverse body of work, both in fic and in commentary, that frankly impresses the hell out of me.

But: many fans seem to have trouble with the idea that speculation, in fics and in dicussions, is what they're doing -- their minds long (to paraphrase Johnson) to rest in the stability of truth. They seem to want the certainty of a closed-canon fandom, rather than the uncertainty of what they've got. On one level I guess I can understand that; everyone gets attached to their own interpretations. I've got a theory about where Rowling's going to take her story, and another, quite different theory about the kind of story I personally would like to see, and I'd love to be omg right about at least one of those theories. But the fact is that we're two books away from the series' conclusion. I don't know what will happen, and won't for years. In the meantime, the best thing to do with the fandom's collective uncertainty would, IMO, be to celebrate the creative ferment that it produces.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! (((You))) back.:-)

I think you're right about the speculative nature--I think it was skelkins who referred to it being like a game of "guess where the author's going," which is fine to play but not all of us want everything reduced to that. In fact, I think a lot of people assume that some interpretations and readings of canon depend on speculation more than they do. When it comes to minor characters, they might never get a big resolution where everything becomes about where the author was headed. Some of it is, of course, but it's frustrating when you're not making any guesses and people start putting words into your mouth based on their own speculation.

Occasionally you can still rock the world of some Tolkien fans, of course, if an interpretation hits a personal button. The other funny thing with Tolkien is that people tend to get offended when the characters are described as one-note. TheWagner on TORC used to talk about how Tolkien didn't like modern character development and liked characters to be more like types--we don't know if Frodo has personal reasons for proving himself in the quest, or any of the other hobbits. They do what they do because it is right, first and foremost. But however Tolkien intended it I think you can see more complex personalities in his work, especially with hobbits. Maybe people will tell me there, too, I'm making up things that aren't there, but then why does canon support it so perfectly? It's like somebody mixing eggs, butter, flower, etc. together, putting it in an oven and baking it and then refusing to call it a cake because they weren't intended to bake a cake, they were just mixing this stuff together and heating it.

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

Really, nothing much to add here, except that I've just waded through all the wank (the stuff that hasn't been baaaaleeted, that is, and WHY do people keep on doing that to me?), and I just wanted to let you know that you have the patience of a saint.

No. No, really. I mean that. Your exchange with some particularly noxious screaming lunatic over on one of those threads left me speechless with admiration. You are awesome, you know that?

Ugh. Sometimes I think that this sort of wankage was just the reason that over time, I started finding it harder and harder to engage with the fandom. I was just exhausted from the act of being polite.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much! Seriously--that exchange was so incredibly draining yet I still felt compelled to answer it. And you think once it's over you'll just forget about it but you still feel sapped afterwards. Well, it's just what you described--it's too exhausting being polite! Especially frustrating for me is when peple are just making things up. I keep thinking if we could just stick to the facts they'd see there's no reason to be this upset...but how often does that happen in fandom?

Hee! Elkins said I'm awesome!:-D

[alula-auburn.livejournal.com]

The idea that even minor characters can't and shouldn't be considered complex just befuddles me. Maybe it's because I write, and I almost always start with characters in search of plot (rather than plot first, which makes me hesitant about writing fanfic--it seems to me that if I'm borrowing someone else's characters, I should at least have a solid idea of something for them to do), but I always know tons about my characters that never makes it to the page. Sometimes it's totally irrelevant--I'll read a book and think, "Wow, so-and-so would love this passage," and maybe 1 out of 10 times, some reference slides into the text. But I have trouble believing someone who seems to have put as much energy into planning out her universe as JKR has would be easily content with a lot of solely "functional" characters, especially since she's been living with them so long. (I don't want the series continued, but I do rather hope she'll publish a compendium of notes or something after she's done; I think it would be fascinating).

My pet peeve in "defenses" is when people say things like "JKR is too totally original and creative to use archetypes!!!" if you dare to reference anything. I just don't get it--how do people who've taken high school English get the idea that universal themes and archetypes are unoriginal? I had an unexpectedly nasty dialogue with someone who proposed as a theory--not a fanfic idea, but a theory--that Dumbledore had Memory Charmed Harry between the battle and their conversation in OotP, because Harry was so grief-stricken he had to be put in restraints and sedated. I objected on the grounds that once you Memory Charm Harry, you've got an unreliable narrator situation going on, and then anything could have happened, and I doubted JKR would make that kind of abrupt leap in her narrative strategy--and she just escoriated me for not understanding how creative JKR was, and how she was way too original to follow "literary conventions." Okay.

I'm also troubled by the anti-complexity/moral ambiguity argument, but it seems to me like it's less a defense of the author as a defense of the reader. I can't quite put my finger on what it is about the books that makes it so possible for some people to read them as Harry & Co. as universally Good and anyone who disagrees with them to any degree as obviously Evil, and for other readers to see so much evidence of nuance and ambiguity. I don't know if it has to do with Harry's POV, or some inner battle in JKR between wanting a morality tale, and knowing as a writer that complexity is simply more interesting, or pressure to over-delineate the issue on grounds that it's a "children's book" (although other authors have definitely pulled it off) or what.

There are times when the ambiguity is so extreme I have trouble believing it's simply byproduct: Hermione adapting the spell that creates the Dark Mark? Dumbledore flat-out admitting he knew Harry's life with the Dursleys would be miserable? Ron and Harry and Hermione being totally complacent about a possibly permanent, mind-altering injury inflicted on a Slytherin by the twins?

I also feel like the books have gone more to extremes throughout the run of the series. One of the things I liked about PS was that we saw via Snape that being Good wasn't just about being nice and favoring the hero, or so I thought. But that lesson seemed to have totally evaporated by the time next term started, and it never sticks.


(OT: Whee! I finally negotiated a username with myself. You don't know me, but I've popped up to post anonymously every once in awhile (most recently about the Ripley books, and I was also the anon desperately defending Percy on arclevel's journal a while ago. May I friend you?)

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

not a fanfic idea, but a theory

I always see these theories people post (some of which are so completely cracked out you wonder how they even think this is going to be canon) and wonder why they don't just write a fic instead...

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I know I tend to say things like canon!Draco is cardboard, but I don't mean by that that you shouldn't try to flesh him out. I think Draco has lots of possibility, and if I were to write HP fic, he'd be the one I'd want to write about most. I just mean that fannish characterizations are not canon. Maybe Draco will do something in the next two books to make himself a little more three dimensional. We won't know until they're written. But as it stands now? No. That goes for lots of characters, though, not just the so-called villains.

That's one of the problems working with an incomplete canon. As someone mentioned above, with LotR, for example, we have what happened, and whatever else we come up with, interpretations, etc. is all speculation. But with HP, people get confused as to whether they want to write fic or play a guessing game as to what JKR is going to do. It will be interesting to see what the fandom's like once book 7 is published, it really will.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I suspect you probably aren't using these arguments at all as defenses of the writer, just from knowing your posts.:-) I mean, the funny thing is there's nothing wrong with saying Canon!Draco is cardboard--many professional critics complained about just that after OotP. And certainly some characterizations *are* uncanonical. No matter how people flesh out a character in fanfic, if it's not there in canon it's just a possibility.

I think I get frustrated sometimes with Draco because I feel like, odd as it sounds, people look at his canon self and see *less* than what's there, as I see it. You'd think with a character like that it would be impossible to see less, since he's so one-note, but there's times where people still say things insisting this is the way he's written where it's like, "Well, he may be one note, but it's not that note.:-)

But you're right, it gets very complicated when people start bringing speculations into it. I guess that's why sometimes it seems like you'll try to talk about a character in books 1-5 and people will jump to thinking you're speculating about their future, when you're not.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

It would be nice if JKR thought that her "minor" characters were important. That is probably my biggest peeve about the series, apart from it not being completed yesterday. ;) It may also be the reason for the HP books inspiring so much fanfiction, apart from the rich world she's created. Want to see the "real" Draco? Write a fanfic about it! And don't worry that it isn't Canon!Draco, who's far less interesting... Honestly, I think what she doesn't understand is that the Draco many people really love is Fanon!Draco, who isn't her creation at all but the character many people WANTED her to create, so they've done it themselves. Would it really be a crime for a villain (Tom Riddle, for instance) to have a fully-fleshed-out background that explains (not excuses) his motivations? To make him a real, 3-D person, rather than dismissing the idea that he could ever have loved anyone? When all is said and done I think the books would be far more interesting if she didn't relegate so many people to cardboard-cutout status, including martinets like Umbridge or power-hungry types like Fudge. Tom Stoppard really did have a point. (See "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.")

And while I understand that Sirius had to die for literary reasons and people do often die in this world for no reason at all (crossing the path of a terrorist), I don't understand why, when people ask her about things like Harry's grandparents and what happened to THEM, she responds by saying that that isn't important. Somehow we're just supposed to say, "Okay, it's not important, moving on..." How is it not important when it's the reason that Harry has had to live with his horrid aunt and uncle all of these years? It's really not very common for two people as young as James and Lily to both be orphaned AND to be married to each other. If she'd at least blamed Death Eaters it would be something, and make sense in the overall scheme of things, but the assessment that this is not important doesn't make sense at all.

In other words, I agree that it is no defense at all to say that we shouldn't care about the minor characters she hasn't bothered to flesh out; other authors manage to do it. But an author has to WANT to do it and she clearly does not.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh--that's true, she really had to kill off a lot of people to get Harry with the Dursleys! Though I can see her sort of thinking, "Oh no, now I've got to worry about even more characters I thought I took care of!"

The thing with Draco is it's understandable he'd get interest not even because of himself but because of his situation. He's the kid growing up in the evil camp who hates Harry and has DE meetings at home instead of Order meetings. He might become a DE. He's in the mysterious evil house. It's only natural fanfic authors would see him as a handy character to use to explore all those things--what it's like in Slytherin, how they understand these beliefs themselves, what the DEs are like. He's strategically placed in a very interesting place for fanfic writers, so it's not surprising they use him to explore a story about making choices from the other side.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

So many delightful & insightful posts in a span of less than a week! That's a record for even you!

I have nothing to add except for this(pls don't hex me to oblivion if it's clear as the day): I think the "defenders" in your 'confusing' category consider their defences defences, because they are arguing against readers who criticize Rowling's writing, and thus going against the notions the critics bring up= defend. Sometimes it has nothing to do with logic, just where you stand?

A: If Draco (or any other supporting character) doesn't get to be written more like a human being, it's bad writing.

B(automatically): Noooooo you are wrong Draco is not supposed to be written like a human being it's intended that way and hence not a flaw!

Hm. Hopefully I have not just built a strawman- I hate it when people do that, so maybe it's best I talk about this with a Rowling apologist :P

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

No, I think you've come up with the most logical way for these things to be defenses. What surprises me is when people don't even do that. I mean, it would be a legitimate defense if I said that the books sucked because Draco wasn't developed and somebody pointed out that he's a supporting character and isn't supposed to be because it would distract from the story. What amazes me is when somebody says, "Well, I think Draco comes across like this..." and somebody says, " HE DOESN'T COME ACROSS LIKE ANYTHING BUT A FLAT CARDBOARD BULLY! ANYTHING GOOD YOU SEE IS ALL IN YOUR MIND!" That's when you think...huh?

And thanks for the compliment.:-D