Question for Potter fans

[Orrex]

If you were to discover that Rowling were a raving Neocon, would it affect your enjoyment of the books?

I grant that this scenario is about as unlikely as having the Potter series offered up as the book-of-the-month for the Family Research Council, but I'm curious about what impact, if any, the author's personality might have upon her readers' enjoyment.

For instance, fans of Orson Scott Card are rightly distressed by his sickeningly homophobic views and statements, and I know of a good number who have boycotted his writings as a result. Of course, a lot of Card's shit is unreadable in any case, whereas Rowling is by all accounts a fine storyteller, so perhaps the comparison is flawed...

[supernova]

1. interesting question Orrex

If JKR were a tory (yeah right), I might not have been as interested in her stories in the first place. There is something about conservative story telling that somewhat leaves me cold. I'm not sure what it is, but I was never enamored of the Narnia books for example. C S Lewis is the great christian apologist and you would think I'd love those books to pieces being xtian, but meh. I don't hate them; I can see the craftsmanship and they are solid stories, but they just don't *enthrall* me.

edit: Another example. Westerns were all the rage when I was little. I really just didn't get into them at all. Since I think now, most of the emphasis was on "law and order" and "men were men and women were women" nonsense that was very off putting to me as a child. So, I was extremely delighted when Sci Fi came along.

So I would say that if I found out an author was conservative, I'd be more likely to say oh maybe that's why I didn't get into them in the first place, without knowing why.

[dysfunctional press]

2. seeing as she recently outed dumbledore as being gay...

i kinda doubt that she has any neocon leanings. (although- she DID kill him off...hmmmmmm)

[Orrex]

3. Well, that's why I included this part

I grant that this scenario is about as unlikely as having the Potter series offered up as the book-of-the-month for the Family Research Council

It wasn't so much a matter of "I suspect that Rowling is a Rightie" as "how does an author affect the reader's involvement with a work?"

[quip]

4. Is it just me

or does it seem a little weird to embellish upon a story by the author AFTER the story has been written?

:shrug:

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

6. Yeah it does.

The series is over right.

[Orrex]

7. It's not just you

But every author who does a book tour does it. My view is that, if it ain't on the page, it ain't in the story.

[MrCoffee]

21. so who controls the canon?

does the author and creator of the story have no control at all after the word is published? what if (hypothetically) she wanted to make drastic changes to the as-yet unmade films? wouldn't she of all people have control over the "Potterverse"?

i'm still hung up about joss whedon killing shepherd book and wash in Serenity. don't even get me started (again) about the damn ewoks and jar-jar.

[Orrex]

22. There are several ways to look at it

There's the matter of intellectual property, of course, which frankly allows the creator to revise or retool her work in whatever way she desires, but it can be argued that this simply results in Work-1, Work-1A, Work-1B, Work-1C, etc. I believe that this is what's happening to the latest "definitive" release of Bladerunner, in which Scott attempts to impose his own interpretation on the viewer in a way that isn't necessarily consistent with the earlier versions. As such, it can be said that each revision is a work unto itself, and comments about (or interpretations of) each may pertain only to that revision and to heck with the others.

In terms of the work as a thing unto itself, it's changed every time someone reads it (or listens to it, etc.), inasmuch as some of the value of a work results from the interpretation and interaction with it. At least, that's my answer as it pertains to the artwork itself.

My own view is that, once the creator releases the work into the world, then the work should stand alone to the extent possible. If the creator thereafter issues a statement of intent or explanation, that's fine, but it isn't necessarily relevant; if it ain't on the page, it isn't part of the work. The creator can say "that's a reference to X" or "here's an Easter Egg," but if these couldn't have been inferred without the creator's revelation, then they ain't on the page.

At most, the creator can say "this is what I meant to say," and then readers can judge how effectively that intent was or wasn't conveyed by the piece. Any change to the work in the form of "here's what I was going for" constitutes a revision of the original, and the revised work must then be considered a revision.

Suppose that someone created an absolute piece of crap, such as the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Now suppose that Lucas goes on record with an extensive explanation of what he meant to get across, after which the trilogy seems much more effective. Does that change the quality of the released work? Nope, it's still a piece of crap. Lucas (in this example) has simply created a melding of the-work-plus-post-hoc-elaboration, which isn't the same thing at all. That's why I always cringe a little when, in a discussion of the awful film Attack of the Clones someone invariably says "well, if you read the Salvatore book, you'd understand it better." Sorry, but that's irrelevant to discussions of the film.

Further, what happens if some reader comes up with a more compelling interpretation than the author intended? Does authorial intent trump reader interpretation simply by fiat? How so? And, if so, what happens when we interpret an anonymous work?

As far as the as-yet-unmade Potter films are concerned, these will be works in their own right, so readers' current expectations are wholly irrelevant (except to the extent that the film's creators choose to incorporate them). But once they're made and released, then the creators have terminated their ability to offer definitive explanations of that version of the work.

[quip]

38. Right on, Orrex!

Further, I believe that once Work-1 is released, it is in the hands of the readers who are then free to interpret, speculate, etc. The author must then step back, let go, and move on.

The sign of an excellent book is when readers come to the author for answers, not the other way around, and certainly not so soon after a Work-1 is published.

[quip]

39. Short answer-- We do! (readers)

ooou, you mentioned Serenity. I had never seen an episode of Firefly until a friend let me borrow his box set. I loved it! Not knowing better, I watched Serenity FIRST!!, thinking that it was the pilot movie-- D'OH!

I could've watched 5 years + of that series....:-(

[unpossibles]

19. but who's to say that's what she was doing?

I just mean, she very well could have meant for him to be gay from the beginning, as she had detailed notes on the various characters and their relationships between each other, even though not all of that came out (no pun intended) in the books. She was asked a question, and she answered it, and said that it explains some of the ways Dumbledore interacted with Grimwald (or whatever his name was), if I am not mistaken.

Actually, I really admire the fact that she has a well-respected gay character who is just a plain human. Well, other than being a wizard. I mean, she did not ever make an issue out of it in the sense that he is not stereotypically gay the way most mainstream shows and stories do, such as Will & Grace.

Not sure if I said that right. I am kinda sleepy today. I guess on the other hand it could be argued that Dumbledore got to where he was because he was in the closet. Damn it. I had not thought of that side of it. I don't know.

[China_cat]

5. I don't believe she could have written what and as she did

if she were a raving Neocon. (Witness shit like the 'Left Behind' books)

And your assessment of Card's books is right on. I gave up on his writings long before I ever learned of his politics. Or, take a look at Anne Rice's ramblings since she went fundy.

[Orrex]

8. I'd like to offer a disclaimer

I think that a really solid writer could indeed write something in contrast to (or independent of) his or her own political views, just as an accomplished actor can portray someone of differing view (as in Bob Roberts, for example).

But you're right on target about Rice, too. Blech!

[bbernardini]

14. Ah, but would a "raving neocon" do such a thing?

I think her liberal politics are so integral to the books that it would obvious if she were faking it. As we all know, raving neocons would rather die that write anything that sounds remotely liberal.

[XemaSab]

9. I think it would definitely taint my enjoyment of the books.

On the flip side, learning that one of Rowling's personal heroes is Jessica Mitford, noted communist, it greatly enhanced my liking of the books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Mitford

[Orrex]

10. Why, exactly?

I'm not being flippant--I'm actually greatly interested in the effect that authors have upon their work.

Would you, for example, enjoy the Potter books more if the author were entirely unknown?

[XemaSab]

13. I like knowing who the author is.

I like knowing that she's just a normal person with an incredible gift, ya know?

And when the first book was going to be published they made her go by JK so it wouldn't be readily apparent that it was a woman author. There's something sad about that, but she managed to overcome and KICK ASS, and I the beauty of it is that she's totally deserving.

Back more to the books, I think she's got a really good understanding of human nature and what motivates people. It's something that I don't think I've seen in any other book. Each of the characters has their own flaws and their own desperate struggles, even the "bad" ones. Very few of the characters are all good or all bad, and I think that's a politically liberal view of people. (I'm also a Lakoff fan, so there you go. :P )

What do you think?

[Orrex]

32. Nothing wrong with learning about an author!

As long as one doesn't allow that information to taint one's critique of the author's work.

Rowling's own story is heart-warming and laudable, the culmination of terrific effort under really dismal circumstances. But if the finished product were crap, then it would be crap regardless of the extremity of her life.

Not that I'm suggesting that it's crap, mind you.

I find it greatly satisfying to review draft-editions of a work, if they're available, or to see the preliminary sketches that resulted in an impressive artwork. But it's a mistake to let those glimpses of the early stages affect my appreciation for the final product, because to do so is to fail to critique the final work on its own strengths and weaknesses.

Incidentally, I like your observation about the way a liberal viewpoint is more tolerant of nuanced characters--I think that you're right on target.

[XemaSab]

33. If you go to Rowling's website you can find Easter eggs

with handwritten draft versions of some stuff. Also her sketches of the characters, who look more like what I imagine them to look like than the movie versions. :P

[northzax]

11. If the books were the exact same?

No relevance at all. Art is art, and can be appreciated irregardless of the creator, although more knowledge about that creator can be helpful in context. good art represents itself, the creator is not neccesarily part of that context. . Do you appreciate music less if the singer is an asshole?

[Orrex]

12. You and I seem to be of approximately the same view

I confess that my sense of text-independence is probably imperfect, in that I wouldn't care to read (knowingly) the fictional musings of a child molester, but you're right IMO that the art and the artist are not inextricably intertwined.

Similarly, many DU'ers seem to enjoy Bill Maher (or Mahar, if you're impersonating him), even though he's well-known to be a consummate asshole.

[Maine-ah]

15. I'd be disappointed but it wouldn't diminish my love for the

stories and the characters.

[dembotoz]

16. if jk were a neocon

voldemort would have won
all in the name of homeland security

and harry under an imperious curse would be doing the keynote at the next republican convention

[Aristus]

17. Not to worry, friends. J.K. Rowling describes her political views in a recent issue of EW.

"I'm left-wing". Word-for-word quote. She also describes the Harry Potter series as a prolonged plea for tolerance. Plus, the books are filled with examples of liberal values like love, friendship, compassion, teamwork, uniting for the common good, fighting evil, self-sacrifice, etc.

Not a lot of red meat there for the me-me-me conservatives...

BTW, my wife, a self-described conservative, loves the books and views with contempt the so-called "Christian" backlash against the Potter series.

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. No, I'm more mature than that.

I would never let an artist's personal politics affect whether I enjoy their art (though if their politics becomes a major part of their art, such as Ayn Rand, then I likely wouldn't like the art - but it would be because I don't like the art, not because I don't like the artist).

[mzteris]

20. I'd be very upset about it.

I quit reading OSC when I found out what a raving rightwing loon he was.

It really tainted my impression of books I thought I'd liked. Knowing his POV really changed the entire book/characters and meaning into something nasty.

[TZ]

23. If her beliefs didn't creep into the book fine...see Terry Goodkind

He is a fantastic writeer (Sword of Truth). He is also a RW nutjob, obviously so. His last few books make that clear. In one book his hero goes out and slays the "evil" and "pathetic" anti-war protesters (Iraq war protestors obvioously-this was written in 2003) and in another book his main villians...corrupt and evil political leaders who are very thinly veiled versions of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Suffice to say I stopped reading him because of this....

[Orrex]

27. Didn't know that about Goodkind, but I don't read him

I'm embarrassed to admit that I read Piers Anthony into my early twenties, when his rampant sexism and breast-worship finally started to become unbearable--and I'm not exactly averse to breasts, either. For that matter, I can't even say for sure that Anthony's own fetish was creeping onto the page, but it became so annoying pervasive that I couldn't take it anymore.

I later learned that he's quite liberal in his views, and he's done great work in support of new and aspiring writers. Still, his chapter-length narcissistic "author's notes" at the end of each book, and his inability to describe a female character without mentioning her breasts, makes his stuff all but unreadable to me.

I glanced at a volume recently and can say with some confidence that I wouldn't care to read his style even if the above weren't true, but his manner certainly didn't inspire me to explore his writings further.

So I guess it can work both ways: an author's politics may be sufficiently objectionable to make it impossible to enjoy his or her work; and anothe author's politics may be laudable but insufficient to overcome bad writing.

[TZ]

31. I used to really like Mr. Anthony as well...

But he definitely had this thing for barely legal girls in his story lines that definitely bothered me....

[Evoman]

40. The later books in the Sword of Truth series are disgusting.

I can't believe I wasted all that time on them. I don't think Goodkind is a very good writer...he just tells a good story. But the later books were atrocious. At the beginning, the characters were at least semi-lifelike...the woodsman Richard was kind of goofy but clever,Zedd was wise, and Kahlan understandably was cold as the Mother Confessor. But then his characters started becoming mouth pieces for his idiotic Randian philosophy. Richard cuts the head off a peaceful protester, Zedd becomes a moron whose presence is only meant to show how Richards so much smarter with "magic", and Kahlan becomes just another captured princess.

I hate Terry Goodkind.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

41. I feel exactly the same way.

While his idiot political stances were somewhat quiet in the first four books, after that, something chagned.
I summarized it like this for a friend.
Book 5: Soul of the Fire or Goodkind's rant against democracy in the face of an obvious danger (and a bizarre hatred of the Clintons)
Book 6: Faith of the Fallen or Goodkind's rant against socialism by using the largest strawman argument since The Wizard of Oz
Book 7: Pillars of Creation or Goodkind's rant against the media who's painting George Bush Richard Rahl in such a negative light
Book 8: Naked Empire or Goodkind's rant against those who oppose the Iraq Invasion and oh boy did I get turned on when I got to write about the hero hacking and slashing his way through people chanting anti-war slogans.

When I got to that paragraph in book 8, I literally threw the book across the room. Didn't touch it for a day.
See, I heard that Mr. Goodkind had thought his own series got off track with book 7, so he was taking an extra long time and reviewing the entire series to get everything back on track with book 8. Boy was I fooled.
There's even an entire essay on his own website that pretty much states "Goodkind's stories have always been like this and you're an idiot for thinking his writing style and the story has changed so f-off."

I won't touch anything with that Randian dipshit wannabe philosopher's name on it anymore. If I want to see what a pure Ayn Rand-like society will be like, I'll play Bioshock.

(edited for clarity)

[Connonym]

24. yes it would

I would still be able to appreciate it but it would be diminished and I would probably only borrow from the library rather than purchase.

For moral reasons I won't watch anything with Woody Allen because of my revulsion for him.

[Orrex]

25. Woody Allen's a good example

He has a few films that I think rank among the finest in the American canon, and more than a few stinkers. But I just can't watch anything from the last fifteen years or so, once he really started to go creepy.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

26. I can enjoy people's art no matter their political leanings.

If you really can't, then you aren't as open minded as you think you are....
(You here is used in general terms)
Duckie

[Orrex]

28. I think that's true but...

Some here have correctly pointed out that when an author's political views start to compromise the quality of the text, then it's entirely reasonable to judge the work based in part on how those views inform it.

But you're right--the character of an artist need not have any bearing on the quality or enjoyment of that artist's work.

[Connonym]

35. only if their art is good enough to make you forget your revulsion of them

I don't think it's a matter of being open minded or closed minded so much as whether there is enough talent to make you forget that you find the person personally offensive. I'll cite another example -- Christopher Buckley's latest book Boomsday. I don't like his politics but the book was so entertaining that I was able to enjoy it and not think about his politics. My previous example of Woody Allen -- I used to enjoy his work but I find his personal life repulsive and for me his work is not good enough to make me forget my revulsion.

But perhaps I am closed minded and in denial of it because there are certain people who could perform a masterpiece and I would never be able to appreciate it simply because of the source -- if W wrote an amazing novel or Condi Rice an astounding piece of music, I don't think I would ever be able to appreciate it. So I guess maybe I just disproved my initial statement -- I probably AM closed minded in some regards but I can live with that.

[barb162]

29. No way. I care about "War and Peace" for itself, not Tolstoy's politics.

A novel should stand on its own.

[Orrex]

30. Pre- or post-edit, I think that you've said it nicely

Biographical criticism is a hopelessly inferential undertaking, doomed to taint a work with the researcher's own prejudices based on whatever paltry facts are uncovered about the author. Honestly, I don't know anything about Tolstoy's personal life or his politics, and I don't care. The writing is the writing.

[Scooter24]

34. Unless it's a autobiography,

it wouldn't make a difference.

[cemaphonic]

36. If you require all your art to be produced by really nice people,...

you'll miss out on a lot of great art. I'm pretty sure that Cormac McCarthy could be described as conservative (though not a neocon) and he is awesome. I liked Mark Helprin's A Winter's Tale, and he is a DC insider Repubican.

OTOH, I hate polemical axe-grinding in fiction. Authors that set up strawmen characters just for an excuse for a lecture irritate me no matter what the political leaning of the author. From what I've seen of Card, he does this a lot. Plus, I didn't like his writing to begin with, so it's fun to bag on his loony politics.

[jgraz]

37. Many of the artists I love are total creeps

Miles Davis for example. Of course, none of them are neocons.

I submit the question is moot. I doubt any neocon would have the intellectual capactiy to produce anything of value.