Welcome to Gaia! ::

I believe readers' interpretations are just as important and valid as the authors. I like knowing that Tolkien intended the LoTR trilogy to be applicable rather than allegorical, but that (in my opinion), doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong to find allegory in it.
Similarly, if Rowling has simply stated outside of the books that Dumbledore is gay (forgive me, I haven't actually read them yet), I find it perfectly acceptable for readers to draw their own conclusions based on what was in the books.

When it comes to "what the book really means" or "what the author is trying to say," I tend to fall back on what an art teacher once told me. She told the story of a time in which an admirer of her work complimented her piece, "Ego Alter" by saying "I just love what your saying here! We all need to put our egos on the alter!" My teacher had created the piece as an alter to her ego, not as a way to sacrifice her ego. But she didn't correct the person; she just thanked her, because didn't think that there should be any one "right" way to look at art.
So, for me, just because an author says something about his/her book, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Fairgrass: That's fascinating about the art teacher. I have to disagree when you said "just because an author says something about his/her book, doesn't necessarily make it so." They are the author and creator of the books, yes? So I trust that anything they have to say about it is indeed true, but our interpretation can differ. Our thoughts on the matter will never change what they hold to be facts over their own work.

Minerva: The whole discussion of Rowling's supposedly Satanic work is, to me, also very silly. The same could be said of any author who has ever written about magic. Yes, that was a good example of how the author's intentions override reader interpretation, though people are still free to think otherwise.

Snow: I sort of made the connection, too, but it seemed like such a last-minute detail that it was hard to take in. It also makes me feel that if I reread the series, everything about his character would be distorted somehow. I'm not against the orientation, but it's placement in the series is what bothers me and makes me question it, and in turn makes me question her intentions.

Nicky: It's not so much there being one set meaning, but taking into account what the author was thinking or intending during their writing. Of course readers are free to interpret, but I don't think the creator of the work should be cast aside so easily.

@ Eternally: I'm Christian, and do not think J.K. is trying to do anything but tell a story. I can sit down and accept that I cannot say words, wave a stick and summon fire, and I'm pretty sure she is, too.
So... that's generalizing, too, by saying (or suggesting) that all Christians interpret it as a book promoting it.


But that interpretation can be applied to every single book about magic, can't it? I think J.K. just gets the most blame because she's so popular.

Harry Potter: Dumbeldore's gay? Really... Never would have noticed, but it makes sense... who cares. Promoting Witchcraft? If people feel it's a crime for their children to read books they assume promote witchcraft, that's fine. Just don't let their children read it, get a note for school, etc... Don't try to enforce your opinions on the rest of the world.
Did not know Pullman made a statement about "Dark Materials," but I think his intention was to make people a bit more proactive with their own lives and independent... not just praying to god for a miracle to happen every time something goes wrong... he's not the fairy godmother, but some people treat him that way... and some religions revolve their lives around god rather than living for the moment... I think that's more what he intended. We were given life to live... not to spend it sacrificing to some omnipotent being... but that's just my opinion. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.
That's what people tend to forget about things like books and art. Unless it's non-fiction stating strictly facts without opinions... there is likely to be conflict. Everybody thinks differently, so it's obvious we'll all interpret things differently.
Personally, I always failed this part in AP English. Whenever I was supposed to get a metaphor out of the book, I got something literal. When I totally enjoyed the book because I looked at it metaphorically, I was supposed to take it literally. "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad was the worst. I saw the entire thing as a metaphor of the human soul or something like that... here, it really was about a man who literally went into the depths of the jungles where primitive cultures lived. I guess my mind just works completely differently from everyone else. I did the reverse with "1984" by George Orwell, taking it literally when it was a huge metaphor. I'm sorry, I read science fiction and fantasy regularly, so I'm used to taking it literally. This is why I could never pass college English unless I got to choose the books. Some authors I just don't get... or else society decides there is only one interpretation for a book (even if the author - who is dead and gone - just wrote it for leisure!) and they think everyone should get the same impression. In fact, that is exactly"1984"!! Big Brother wants to control the way we think and interpret literature, without regards to the author's original attentions. I bet half these authors didn't plan on their books become lecture pieces and just wrote them for fun, but someone decided to interpret it a certain way, so that was what it became. It's just like the Bible!
Oi... I just can't stand the whole concept. I read because I enjoy escaping in a book. I read fiction for pleasure. If I wanted to learn something, I'd read non-fiction. I don't want to have to think when I read. It's a very sore topic with me, obviously. I'm sorry my brain doesn't fit the cookie-cutter mold society expects from me. scream