|
Post by Rincewind on Oct 31, 2007 8:30:22 GMT -5
Well, fair enough, it's not canon unless written down. Of course, neither is any reader's interpretation of things.
In any event, I would disagree with the assertation that every aspect of a character needs a function. That's just plain not real life- an odd thing to mention in the context of a fantasy novel, but still. People will have all kinds of traits which may make no difference upon their behaviour within the narrow context of a story. I don't think mentioning them is neccessarily bad writing- although "classics" which go on and on and on about trivial details which don't really matter to the story annoy the heck out of me. See: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, or Mellville's Moby Dick, and you'll know what I mean.
Anniehoo, I still don't think it's wrong for her to respond to a question about Dumbledore's love life and say how she's always pictured the character. So she didn't put it in the books, so what? By the rule stated above, she shouldn't have anyway. Dumbledore's dead, let's let the old girl rest in peace.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Oct 31, 2007 11:12:28 GMT -5
Amen to letting Dumbledore RIP. And she can certainly say how she interpreted the character - the issue may be more of one with the fans taking it as gospel. So now I think I'll let this lie as well.
And the books still were awesome!
|
|