Ros, this is an area where our professional areas of expertise overlap, and I agree with you -- but from a different angle.
In the area of U.S. Constitutional law there is always a tension between treating the Constitution as it was "originally intended" by its authors, and treating the words as having changing meaning over time. There are problems with both methods. If you apply original intent, then you are stuck with meanings of rather broad and vague words that are 220 years out of date and entirely inapplicable to the world as it now exists. (The document is excruciatingly difficult to alter, and so we're pretty much stuck with the words that are there.) But if you treat the words as having changing meaning over time, then (it is argued) they have essentially no meaning at all.
The way I resolve this condundrum is to remember that the authors of the document didn't have a singular intent, but rather a collection of intents and interests that often contradicted each other. The only intent we know for sure they had, was to write these particular words. We also know that they were free to choose as specific or as vague words as they liked, and in some places they chose highly specific, technical terms. We should conclude, therefore, that where the words were more vague, they were vague on purpose, in order to allow future generations to reinterpret them as needed.
In the area of HP, JKR is unusual in that she actually had such detailed backstories and future stories for her characters. Not all authors need such things, but apparently she does. But I'm also certain that she changed her mind over time about those stories -- two famous examples are her decision to kill Remus & Tonks and her decision to "save" Arthur. Thus, JKR's "intent" as to what happens to these characters is not fixed, but fluid. The only thing that is fixed are the books themselves.
Having said this, I will admit that I rewrote the middle section of Minding the Baby after reading the LiveChat interview. Originally I had written Narcissa emphatically assuring Andromeda that Bellatrix was not Tonks's killer. JKR directly contradicted that, and so I rewrote the scene -- it was naturally much nastier as a result. Should I have stuck to my guns? Who knows?
no subject
In the area of U.S. Constitutional law there is always a tension between treating the Constitution as it was "originally intended" by its authors, and treating the words as having changing meaning over time. There are problems with both methods. If you apply original intent, then you are stuck with meanings of rather broad and vague words that are 220 years out of date and entirely inapplicable to the world as it now exists. (The document is excruciatingly difficult to alter, and so we're pretty much stuck with the words that are there.) But if you treat the words as having changing meaning over time, then (it is argued) they have essentially no meaning at all.
The way I resolve this condundrum is to remember that the authors of the document didn't have a singular intent, but rather a collection of intents and interests that often contradicted each other. The only intent we know for sure they had, was to write these particular words. We also know that they were free to choose as specific or as vague words as they liked, and in some places they chose highly specific, technical terms. We should conclude, therefore, that where the words were more vague, they were vague on purpose, in order to allow future generations to reinterpret them as needed.
In the area of HP, JKR is unusual in that she actually had such detailed backstories and future stories for her characters. Not all authors need such things, but apparently she does. But I'm also certain that she changed her mind over time about those stories -- two famous examples are her decision to kill Remus & Tonks and her decision to "save" Arthur. Thus, JKR's "intent" as to what happens to these characters is not fixed, but fluid. The only thing that is fixed are the books themselves.
Having said this, I will admit that I rewrote the middle section of Minding the Baby after reading the LiveChat interview. Originally I had written Narcissa emphatically assuring Andromeda that Bellatrix was not Tonks's killer. JKR directly contradicted that, and so I rewrote the scene -- it was naturally much nastier as a result. Should I have stuck to my guns? Who knows?