Alexandra Quick and the Deathly Regiment: Author's Notes

[inverarity]

Charming drawing by Becca, aka clabbert2101, of MNFF


I am actually rather agnostic about both the Word of God and the Author Is Dead, but I do believe that a story should stand on its own, without intervention, explanation, or clarification from the author. You may not care or want to know what Inverarity intended, what Inverarity was thinking, or how Inverarity feels about what he wrote. If that's the case, no problem, and if you still have critiques, lemme have 'em. But if you don't mind having your reading of the book "tainted" by the author's voice, this is my big rambling tl;dr Author's Notes on Alexandra Quick and the Deathly Regiment, in which I will answer questions (but not give any extra-book "canon" information) and discuss my reasons for doing certain things. All below the cut...

Above the cut, though, a special mention to people whom I've mentioned before but deserve mention again: my betas, Miles2go and swissmarg. They pointed out everything from typos to plot holes, and the result was absolutely a much tighter story. For those who say that my writing has improved since Alexandra Quick and the Thorn Circle, I'd point out that AQATTC was never seen by betas or anyone else before I posted it online.

Also, I neglected to mention (gotta fix that when I post revised versions of the entire story) that the reference to "dead man's finger" in the last chapter of AQATDR actually came from swissmarg's story Survivors, which is the only Snape/Hermione story I've ever read that didn't suck greasy hairballs. (I still think Snape/Hermione is complete mindfuckery, but seriously, Survivors is a good story.)

Second, a shout-out to anthonyjfuchs, the diligent maintainer of the Quickipedia, which I'm sure will be useful to those of you trying to remember who's who and what's what when you come back to Alexandra Quick after a year or more. Although it's a public wiki, and therefore open for anyone to contribute, almost all of the work has been done by Anthony. (I occasionally make small corrections, but otherwise try to leave it alone.) Yes, I actually named William's familiar in his honor. Anthony has recorded nearly every little detail about the AQ universe revealed in the books so far. (Though I notice you never did catch the passing mention of the names of two of the Pritchards' brothers. ;))

All right, on to the authorial pontificating...


I'm generally quite happy with the reactions to Alexandra Quick and the Deathly Regiment. So far, no one has told me it sucked or was a let-down after the first two books. It's actually a little daunting when so many people say, "You're getting better and better," because seriously, how many authors can maintain a monotonic improvement across a seven-book series? (Rowling didn't, in my opinion.)

But of course, the comments and reviews and feedback did not consist entirely of paeans to my brilliance. I got a fair amount of good, useful (sometimes bruising, but still useful) critique. Most of the criticism I found to be more or less valid, even if I might quibble about the details. A lot of it I was expecting (including a certain bombastic fan erupting over the Max/Martin revelation -- more on that below, and stop gnashing your teeth, fpb). Chapters where I knew not as much happened, relatively speaking, to advance the plot, were usually noticed and commented on. On the other hand, there were a few bits that I thought were among the weaker parts of the story, and no one commented negatively on them at all. (No, I'm not going to tell you what they are! :P)

So let me just go over all the topics I can think of, in no particular order.

The Deathly Regiment

I think I made it as explicit as could be in chapters twenty-nine and thirty, but the Deathly Regiment is a regime: like John Knox's Monstrous Regiment of Women (which referred to the notion of female rulers), the Deathly Regiment refers to the Confederation's pact with the Generous Ones, and the rule -- in fact, the basis of much of the Confederation's power and authority -- that results from it.

Actions have consequences

If there is one theme I am writing into my AQ stories, it is that actions have consequences, and all decisions have a moral weight. And since this is a magical universe, sometimes those consequences are supernatural in nature, and the moral weight that attaches to them can extend beyond simple cause and effect in the material world. I'm not talking about karma or an afterlife here: I'm talking about, for example, the fact that Rowling clearly implied in her books that certain magical practices can stain your soul. Why is the Killing Curse an Unforgiveable? Because it kills people? There are other spells that can do that. The Killing Curse has no other purpose than murder. Now, you can argue from a utilitarian perspective that sometimes war is necessary and why not use the most effective weapons to win that war blah blah blah, and that may be true in the real world, but I think the magical world imposes moral constraints that are less... utilitarian. Myths and legends are full of this sort of thing, and every religion has similar principles, from the Bible's "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" to the Three-Fold Law.

(No, I don't believe this is true in the real world any more than I believe in magic.)

So anyway, the Confederation's Deathly Regiment has consequences. Alexandra's actions have consequences. Abraham Thorn's actions have consequences. Does that mean everyone always gets what they deserve, and the universe is ultimately fair? No, even the magical world isn't that just. But if you accept that sacrificing children is a Bad Thing on principle, then even if you can make a utilitarian argument for why it's necessary/justified, it's still a Bad Thing and that means Bad Things will happen as a result.

Death

Death has consequences.

I used to be a comic book fan, though I haven't really kept up with comics in quite a few years. One of the reasons I got tired of comics (superhero comics in particular) was the cheapness of death. It's axiomatic in comic books (as in a lot of TV, science fiction, and fantasy) that nobody stays dead. I am amazed how often Marvel or DC have these huge dramatic storylines where they kill off a major character, and fans actually take it seriously, as if there's even the slightest chance that that character won't be back.

So I understand why some people thought that Alexandra might actually be successful in her quest, but I made it clear from the beginning that the whole point of book three was that obsession and an inability to let go was doing nothing but causing Alexandra grief. I don't think death should be cheap, even in fantasy. If you do cheat Death, there will be a cost.

Who are the good guys?

So now that you know the dark secret at the heart of the Confederation (or one of them, anyway), you might still reasonably ask: who's worse, the Confederation or the Thorn Circle?

Abraham Thorn killed a lot of innocent people when he crashed the Roanoke Underhill, and he's likely to kill more if his insurrection continues. Probably more than have ever been sacrificed by the Deathly Regiment. Does that mean he's more evil than the Confederation? Is the Confederation's practice of sacrificing a child every seven years morally defensible if it has saved many more lives?

You can probably guess where I stand. But Abraham Thorn is, by any definition, a terrorist. Of course, that doesn't mean Abraham Thorn is wrong. A lot of revolutionaries were fighting very real evils... and they used brutal methods to do so, and often created regimes just as brutal as the ones they replaced.

In Harry Potter, the Ministry of Magic was corrupt and ineffective, but in a bumbling mostly well-intentioned sort of way. Voldemort, on the other hand, was 100% pure Evil, so there wasn't a lot of ambiguity in the conflict.

The public face of the Confederation is an inclusive, multi-cultural society governed by democratic principles. Under the surface, it's something rather different. But that doesn't mean that you can just write them all off as bad guys. What should you do about marauding Powers and magical beasties and a wizards' war? (Maybe not sacrifice children? But something had to be done...) This will be explored further.

Geming Chu and Abraham Thorn represent two different faces of the opposition to the Deathly Regiment, while Alexandra has yet to truly decide where her loyalties lie.

The Deathly Token and the Sacrifice

This was one of those things where I've worked out complex magical rules, never explicitly stated, and then find that something that's clear in my mind is not nearly as clear to the readers. So a lot of people thought, "Why did Darla still have to sacrifice herself after Alexandra closed the gate to the Lands Beyond with Death's token?" And, "Does Alexandra still owe the Generous Ones her life after Darla's sacrifice?"

The answer to the second question is yes. The Generous Ones are essentially performing a "service" for the Confederation when they send the seven-year sacrifice to the Lands Beyond. Tiow made it clear that they wanted Alexandra's sacrifice strictly for their own gain. Her bargain is not part of the Deathly Regiment.

As for the first, the deathly token satisfied the requirement to close the gate to the Lands Beyond, but it did not constitute a sacrifice. As of the closing of the gate, the Confederation still needed its seven-year sacrifice. (Darla probably didn't even understand how Alexandra closed the gate, but she knew that unless someone else went to the Lands Beyond, her sister would.) So, that's why tossing the coin didn't get either Alexandra or Darla off the hook -- it only prevented them from having to sacrifice someone right then to close the gate that the Generous Ones had opened.

Darla

Poor Darla. I do feel sorry for her, and I hoped that readers would too, even after I built her up as someone for them to hate. Everyone thought she was insane and/or evil, but really, she was neither, at least not at first. She just wanted to save her sister. She told Alexandra the truth when she said she never wanted to hurt anyone. The key word being wanted: as she proved, that didn't mean she wasn't willing to.

Darla was Alexandra's dark reflection; her mission paralleled Alexandra's. Self-centered, obsessed with a well-intentioned, one might even say noble goal, but willing to lie, mistreat her friends, and play with Dark Arts to get what she wanted, Darla might not have been quite as talented or clever as Alexandra, but she was definitely far more underestimated. The real difference between them was revealed in the climax: Alexandra, for the second time, discovered there was a moral boundary she wasn't willing to cross. (You, the readers, may have known right away that Alexandra was never going to kill someone to bring back Max, but she had to work that out in her own mind.) Darla had no such compunctions.

I definitely do not think Darla was a hero. No matter what her intent, what she did was obviously unforgivable. She never wanted to hurt anyone, but she spent too long staring into the abyss. If she wasn't damned after killing Ms. Gale, then killing her own familiar certainly took her past the point of no return. (Not that killing a cat is worse than killing a person, but Ms. Gale really was an accident, whereas she killed Mr. Whiskers -- her own familiar, a creature who loved and trusted her completely -- with deliberate intent.)

Alexandra Quick is dark and depressing

One of the criticisms I get most often is that AQ lacks the light-heartedness and the sense of fun that Rowling's series has. Some have said that AQ is just too depressing, and I did get one review in which a reader basically told me that s/he wasn't going to continue reading because I abuse Alex too much and don't let her win enough.

Umm, guilty as charged. And I make no promises that this will change.

Okay, that's not entirely true. First, this is one of those points I'd quibble with -- I think Alex does win a lot, but never easily, and rarely is it a free and clear "Win!" where she walks away victorious and unscathed. But the last two books, in particular, have been pretty serious downers, haven't they?

Well, I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that I think you'll find books four and five less depressing, and more school- and character-oriented, and with Alexandra (having grown up quite a bit in book three) being less of an annoying brat and getting to claim a few more victories. And since being told that the American wizarding world isn't as interesting or creative as Rowling's does sting a bit, hopefully you'll see a bit more magic and sensawunda in the next book.

The bad news is that this doesn't mean it will stop being a darker story than HP, or that I'm done being mean to Alex. As for the sense of fun, I've tried to inject humor and wonder into the story, but let's face it, I'm not JK Rowling, and what you see is what you get. I know what kind of story I want to tell, and how I want to tell it. I'm open to criticisms with regard to the quality of my storytelling, but "I wish Charmbridge was more like Hogwarts and AQ was more fun" is kind of like "OCs suck and I don't like American wizarding world stories." That's a perfectly legitimate preference -- there are plenty of other writers who write what you're looking for.

If you keep in mind that I think Rowling pulled her punches and let everyone off too easily in the end, then you shouldn't be surprised that my stories are not full of wonder and squee. By the same token, I'm not trying to be all grimdark and morbid. I've seen HP fan fiction that goes all the way into adult dark fantasy, and while that, too, is a legitimate storytelling preference, it's also not where I'm aiming to go. But as I've said before, if you're expecting an Epilogue where Alexandra basks in the coziness of her nuclear family, you're going to be disappointed.

Max/Martin

So, I've already been accused of Dumbledoreing Max, as well as falling back on the Dead Gay trope.

Let's address the first one first. Rowling took a lot of flack for announcing that Dumbledore was a Friend of Dorothy. The complaints mostly boiled down to (1) it was unnecessary and smacked of a publicity stunt,and (2) why didn't she say it in the books if she thought it was important?

I take Rowling at her word when she says that she always envisioned Dumbledore as gay. I know some folks claim that she just made it up after all the books were published because she wanted the attention, and I think that's both unlikely and a pretty cheap accusation. Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

Point 2 is more valid -- while there isn't necessarily any reason that Dumbledore's lavender leanings should have come up in the books (because let's face it, how many teenagers want to even think about their hundred-something-year-old headmaster's sexuality?), I do think that if Rowling thought it was important enough, she could have found a way to mention it, or at least hint at it much more strongly than she did. I think she didn't because she just didn't want to deal with the outrage it would have provoked. Once the books were all published, she could say whatever she liked, because there wasn't actually any of the Teh Gay in the pages. I think it was a bit of a cop-out, but given that there wasn't a compelling narrative reason for her to have included it, I don't blame her too much.

Now, wrt Max and Martin: when I first created Max, I knew two things very early on. The first, of course, was that he was going to die. The second was that he was gay.

Now, I am not one of those writers who believes that my characters "speak" to me or decide things about themselves. My characters don't tell me that they're gay or straight: I decide they are.

With Max, though, it wasn't the case that I thought, "Hey, it will be cool and extra-tragic if Max is gay!" Rather, I was thinking about him and his relationships quite a lot, and while my characters don't tell me, "Hey, I'm gay," sometimes things do just fall into place in a way that intuitively makes sense (I believe some authors call this "inspiration"), so I can't tell you exactly how I came to that conclusion, but it just made sense to me and fit everything else I had envisioned about his character. Max was gay.

No sooner did I realize this, than I thought of the aforementioned Dead Gay trope. Yes, I remember the great upheaval in Buffy fandom when Tara died. (Now c'mon -- in fairness, Joss Whedon always kills off happy couples! You should've known Tara was a goner as soon as she got with Willow.)

What to do? Well, while I think writers should be conscious of what they write, I also think they should be true to what they want to write. And take the hit, if it pisses fans off. This will not be the first time I write something that pisses some readers off.

As for how I revealed the relationship: there, I have to plead guilty. Yes, the final scene in AQATDR was sort of a gratuitous insertion because I wanted it there, in the text (in "canon," if you will), that Maximilian was gay. What if I hadn't written it and just mentioned it in one of my LJ author's notes? Then I'd have been accused of pulling a Rowling.

FWIW, both of my betas told me that they thought the scene seemed a little gratuitous and didn't add much. Which is true -- no one needed to know Max was gay, it didn't make any difference at all in the story. This was one of those rare cases where I went ahead and did something to satisfy an authorial indulgence, because you can get away with that in fan fiction. If I'm at fault for anything, it's for not finding a more clever or organic way to drop the info in somewhere along the way. (There were some very subtle clues in AQATLB, but since the story was told from Alexandra's point of view, it just wasn't something she was likely to notice or think about.)

And there you have it. Didn't like the revelation? Too bad -- I'm not sorry. Think I could have written it into the story better? Yeah, I do regret that. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Who Stunned Alexandra in the basement?

Someone with a wand.

Alexandra Quick and the Stars Above

I have a vague, general outline of AQATSA in my head, some notes scribbled down on paper, and the first chapter written. As is always the case with my stories, I know where I want to go, and a few key events along the way, but everything in-between has yet to be filled in, and those intermediate events will probably change a lot.

Alexandra Quick and the Stars Above will be about escaping your fate or choosing it, and also about vengeance and forgiveness. Alexandra will uncover more secrets and lies. Her world will get a little larger. You will learn more about Cultures. There will be Native American wizards. Also, werewolves. And Ozarkers. Lots of Ozarkers. And someone will die.

Naturally, all of the above is subject to change.

Do feel free to comment and ask questions. I'll continue posting stuff on this here LJ, mostly book reviews and random writer's musings, but it will probably fall back to the frequency level it was at before I finished AQATDR.

I will be working on AQATSA -- it's not like I'm putting it on the shelf or anything. But I will be dividing my time more than I did in the case of books two and three, which is why I'm estimating that I won't finish until some time next year. Still, as long as I average one book a year, I'm keeping up with Alexandra's in-universe timeline (and also doing better than Rowling did), so I think that's a pretty reasonable pace.

Comments

Re: Second point, re: the Generous Ones

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

You are pretty close, when you say the Generous Ones are agents. ;)

Everyone says there's no such thing as ghost sickness (including ghosts). But Ms. Murphy did mention that Innocence had been harmed by her contact with the jibay.

Re: Second point, re: the Generous Ones

[(Anonymous)]

You are pretty close, when you say the Generous Ones are agents. ;)

But are they Death's agents, with whom the Confederation must perforce deal, or are they the Confederation's agents, and act thus because they were conveniently at the right place and time with the right connections and magical ability?

--Geneva

Re: Second point, re: the Generous Ones

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

For that, you'll either have to draw your own conclusions, or wait until a future book.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I betaed for kennahijja, who, apart from being another genius, is far more distant from my views than you are (she is a German Socialist, you work it out); and I don't think there has been any issue with that, even though the actual item I betaed was in total contrast with my views of heroism and Harry Potter. When I am dealing with someone else's work, I make it a point not to force my views on it.

Re: On a completely unrelated matter...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There is a reason why I did so on my own LJ. And why I took the debate there to begin with. I'll let you work it out.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really have a live journal and generally hold my tongue until the end of the series; but I do actually have some questions about your story line, and your reasoning behind some of your characters actions...

1. Alexandra:

Why exactly hasn't she joined her Daddy's little club?-other than the fact I don't think Abraham would allow it- She sees herself as being victimized and marginalized, she has a temper, has demonstrated a power-thirst and an inclination towards the Dark Arts(even just in the minute "Why doesn't anyone teach these spells?""Oo let me see this obviously dark spellbook"). She has, basically, demonstrated everything that would lead me to conclude that she wants to throw in with her father. Now; at the end of Deathly Regiment, she even has the sense of OMG I'M JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING AN EVIL.

I think, maybe, it has something to do with her friends. On the friendship ground, however, I don't know that it is very sincere based on the facts of the story. Alexandra frequently withdraws from her friends, uses them( citing the elves specifically), and at times acts like they are simply nuisances.

I don't mean this as a criticism but at times it seems like you put a bit too much of your own authorial power to work here; you need a heroic character, if Alex murdered Darla(Like I am still slightly surprised she didn't) you couldn't really hold her up as the hero.

Also, I might be totally off my rocker here(and most likely should have just started a new section dedicated to Mr. Thorn); Was Abraham's decision to have a child with a muggle reflective of Mr. Chu's decision? Essentially, was it based around the hopes of having a child he could grow close to and actually be a father to, without fear of needing to sacrifice said child?

2. The story over all:

Was the Confederation's deal inspired by The Lottery, or The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? I could certainly see an influence from both in that one... And definitely a concept I would like to see play out in the series.

3.

I have been reading your stories over the course of a couple of years now; I have enjoyed all of them(Not just the AQ ones, I also liked your Houses Divided story) and look forward to reading the next ones.

I personally haven't found the stories overly dark(certainly darker than the HP stories) but not gratuitously so.. There is a meaning to the darkness rather than it being dark just for the sake of appearing edgy and kewl-on-teh-internetz.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the above person because apparently I can't just edit an initial post:

Going back to the why Alex hasn't thrown in with her father:

What struck me most about the graveyard scene wasn't OMG MAX IS GAY it was Alex's statement about her father:""I wasn't enlisted by my father, and I'm not joining him. I don't like what he does, and I don't think his way of fighting the Confederation is right."

I couldn't even read the last part in the voice I have come to associate with Alex.. Why doesn't she think her father is justified? In the past Alex has always been the kind to punch first and talk later, much like her own father. It seems to me her mind would have gone "The confederation has treated me like crap AND they kill babies? Time to fight." I don't know that even her move to save Darla and grow up in that respect is enough to justify the above statement x.x. .Anyway.. Really wanted to see you discuss that at a bit more length

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Alexandra does have a lot in common with her father. What sets her apart from him is that she also has a sense of morality that (so far) won't quite let her go all the way over to ends justifying the means no matter what. And you're right that her friends are a tempering influence on her, and that she's rather inconsistent about listening to them.

There probably was some influence from those stories, though I wasn't consciously thinking of them when I created the Deathly Regiment.

Something Mr. Chu said is sticking in my mind....

[(Anonymous)]

(this is a different Anon than above)

So, when Mr Chu and Alex are discussing the Deathly Regiment in the dorm room at the end of Chapter 30, Mr Chu first says that Darla intended Innocence to be the sacrifice, then wound up being the sacrifice herself, to save her sister.

But just a few paragraphs later, he says that the sacrifice must be "a pureblood child, one too young to have a wand." This strongly implies that the sacrifice must be younger than 11 - but at the least, must not have been chosen by a wand.

If the sacrifice must be too young to have a wand, doesn't that DISqualify both Darla and Innocence? OK, I can buy that maybe Darla didn't know the part about "too young to have a wand," so she thought that any pureblood child would do. But Mr Chu says that Darla turned out to be the sacrifice - and Darla, even if she doesn't know it (being old enough to have a wand), is disqualified. And if so, doesn't that mean the sacrifice hasn't really been made? What does that mean for the Confederation?

That little nit having been picked, I really enjoyed AQATDR. Especially Innocence, what a hoot! You said there will be more Ozarkers - will we meet any more Pritchards? Will David ever make the Quidditch team? And - hmmm - I wonder if little Mary Elizabeth will come to Charmbridge while Alex is still there?

-Jblakew

Re: Something Mr. Chu said is sticking in my mind....

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

The conditions Mr. Chu described are the requirements for children chosen by the lottery. That doesn't necessarily mean that someone too old (or not pureblooded) couldn't become a sacrifice, just that the Elect have set up the lottery so that only young pureblood children are chosen.

Or, maybe you are right, and the Confederation is in fact now one sacrifice short...

That little nit having been picked, I really enjoyed AQATDR. Especially Innocence, what a hoot! You said there will be more Ozarkers - will we meet any more Pritchards? Will David ever make the Quidditch team? And - hmmm - I wonder if little Mary Elizabeth will come to Charmbridge while Alex is still there?

Maybe. ;)

Re: Something Mr. Chu said is sticking in my mind....

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, but nowhere did you make a distinction between what the treaty with the Generous Ones (or whoever) says and the system that the Elect set up between themselves. As a matter of fact, given the characterization of the Configuration figures we know about, I highly doubt that they would have chosen to sacrifice their own children. It's much more likely (and much more human nature) that the Elect would decide that becoming one of the Elect would exempt their children from the lottery - no one is going to put their own child at risk if they can put some other person's child at risk.

Also, you strongly implied that non-pureblooded children couldn't or wouldn't be sacrifices - when Alex accuses Mr Chu of having married a Muggle for that very reason. The pureblood predjudice of the people running the Confederation would not allow them to sacrifice a "valuable" pureblood child when a "lesser" non-pureblood child would do.

Is it possible that the Elect are so self-sacrificing as to behave differently? Not impossible, I suppose, but I don't buy it. If they really were that kind of noble people, I doubt that even Abraham Thorn would have taken up arms against them. They are written too much like regular stereotypical Muggle politicians: Looking out for themselves first, their families second, their backers third, and the rest of us not at all.

So, the only thing that makes sense is that the treaty requires a pureblood child of the Elect - otherwise, they'd sacrifice some other, lesser person's child.

-jblakew



PS - Not that I'm asking you for the answers to some of the questions that I (and others) have posed (although we wouldn't mind :)), can you tell us if we will, at some point, find out the answers to some of them? (JKR, after all, did promise that we would eventually find out the reason for the gleam in Dumbledore's eye after the Triwizard Tournament, although it took almost to the end of DH to actually find that out.)

And another thing...

[(Anonymous)]

Jblakew here again. One more thing: If the sacrifice can be made by going directly to the Lands Beyond (as Darla allegedly did), why bother going through the Lands Below to the Generous ones to begin with?

Re: And another thing...

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously, if readers have questions like this, then it's unsatisfactory for me to expect that an explanation here will be adequate. So the "canon" answer may or not be clarified in a future book. Readers can also draw their own conclusions (since there is more than one possible explanation), but here is mine:

Darla wanted to do things "right." She was working off of incomplete information, and she probably learned more about the sacrifice once she arrived in the Lands Below and treated with the Generous Ones (which happened before Alexandra arrived). Did it occur to her beforehand that maybe just opening the gateway to the Lands Beyond herself, handing Innocence a Seal, and tossing her through would be sufficient? Possibly (since she was hoping it would work when Alexandra went through), but how could she be sure? She learned from Alexandra that the Generous Ones were the ones who usually performed the sacrifice, and for all she knew, only they could do it.

When Alexandra stopped her, though, she became desperate. She tried to sacrifice Innocence, and then sacrificed herself, not knowing for certain whether she was, in fact, saving her sister. We only find out from Mr. Chu afterwards that she did.

Re: Something Mr. Chu said is sticking in my mind....

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Well, I certainly hope I won't leave any major questions unanswered by the end, though some things will always be left up to readers to infer. I have my own answers to all these questions, but there is more than one possible explanation for some of them, and I don't necessarily believe that the author's explanation has to be the only one. But if it's a plot hole or mystery I've left open, I certainly intend to answer it eventually.

Another hint from AQATLB that is unresolved

[(Anonymous)]

Consulting Chap. VIII of AQATLB, I noticed that the following part of her vision with the Mayan Brazier wasn't yet experienced in real life, and will probably play a role in a future book:

And she no longer saw Maximilian. Instead, she saw that wall in the basement, painted with bears or cats, and people and birds. Even as the painted stone wall filled her vision, her skin continued blistering; the pain hadn't lessened at all. She wanted to remove her hand, but then the pictures began moving and she wanted to see this, too, though she didn't know what it meant.

The terrible thing with wings, looking more like some flying monster than a bird, opened its mouth and screamed as it descended from above and carried one of the hapless human figures away. The four-legged beasts chased the other humans, who ran for their lives.

I wonder what that will turn out to be about.

--Geneva

Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh no I did not. What I did say is that the insertion, apart from being inept as writing (JKR is always totally inept where male human beings in love are concerned, whether men or women) and actually anti-gay and demeaning (homosexuality is associated with existential failure), is an attempt to move the series away from the basically conservative connotations it had acquired against JKR's own well-known Labour beliefs. If you disagree with that, argue against that, but to say that anyone who finds JKR's account of her retconning dubious can only have meant that she is a "lying attention whore" strikes me as a classic instance of your habit of finding the worst possible reasons for things you disagree with. My final statement of my arguments is here: http://fpb.livejournal.com/265751.html

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose it occurred to you that I wasn't actually addressing this entire post specifically to you, did it?

I have my own problems with Rowling's making Dumbledore gay. But if you (general "you" again) believe that she only did that as a retcon, then it follows logically that when she says she envisioned him as gay all along, you believe she's lying. And I have seen a lot of people (here's that "It's not all about fpb" concept you're having such trouble with, again) say that she only did it to get more publicity, and more than one who actually used the words "attention whore."

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I suggest you go back to my post on the dead gay boy trope and re-read the responses, because the irony in you of all people taking this position is really fantastic. So, now, YOU are telling ME that I shouldn't take this to be addressed to me specifically? As a matter of fact, I did not think it was addressed to me at all. My point was rather: please don't indulge in this kind of unpleasant generalization, since in my case I am certain I do not share in it. If you had said: "some people say, etc.", I would not have bothered to put in a response. But your statement is as follows: I know some folks claim that she just made it up after all the books were published because she wanted the attention, and I think that's both unlikely and a pretty cheap accusation. Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore. Did you even admit there was more than one possible explanation for her having made it up after the event? No. Does that imply that you can think of no other such reason? It sure does. And in that case I feel more than justified in pointing out that other explanations are perfectly possible, especially with a person whom we know to have certain political convinctions. Far from thinking that it had anything to do with me, it was your complete ignorance of the viewpoint I had set forth that led me to set it forth again.

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Parse the phrase "I know some folks claim that she just made it up after all the books were published because she wanted the attention" with particular attention to the clause after the word "because" (which I have helpfully italicized for you above).

I know there are other theories for her alleged retconning. If you believe she did it for PC reasons, fine, you don't think she's an attention whore, but you are still calling her a liar.

I don't know why you suddenly got a bug up your ass about this days after I thought the sniping on this thread was done.

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That's because I hadn't noticed that sentence before - having had it out with you about the dead gay trope earlier, I may not have read that passage with much care. I happened back on it now and it leapt out at me. When you publish something, you leave it out there for anyone to look at, and you never know when you will get a response.

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I think there is a difference between lying for attention (apart that I have never known JKR to look for attention anyway) and trying to take one's life work back from a group of people whose opinions oppose yours. It's still lying to some extent, I suppose, but I see a vast difference between the two. At the very least, the one is gratuitous, the other motivated by loyalty to one's views - however ill-conceived. I think the association between the adverb lying and the noun whore is what I find unacceptable - indeed, what set me off.

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, when you get "set off" because you didn't read carefully (even though the sentence you didn't read carefully was italicized and quoted in your response), it's usually appropriate to apologize, rather than continue to lecture.

P.S.:

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You do not improve your argument by bringing insects in inappropriate anatomical areas.

Re: Basically, you're calling her a lying attention whore.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Apologize for what? For having failed to see an arguable and poorly stated assertion the first time around? Certainly. I should have attacked your statement earlier, and perhaps more forcefully. For failing to do that, I apologize.

deathly regiment

[(Anonymous)]

quick question (no pun intended)... Abraham said that Maximillian joined the deathly regiment, but he wasn't part of the 7 yearly sacrifice, was he? otherwise why would Darla have to sacrifice herself the following year?