How could you NOT cry when Dobby died? *cowers* I suppose I’m sort of half-elvendork. I feel an impostor to fandom sometimes, actually, because I’ve done less full-on obsessing and next to no ‘shipping…but I did spend my last year of college writing a paper on Harry–that’s got to be worth some major points. :]

This was a fun read. Personally, I think I’m in favor of JKR actually *not* doing prequel/sequel work, at least not with this particular cast. Maybe start from some in-passing character or plot line, and develop that. The Harry canon, as-is, just does so much already I’m not sure it would be a good thing to try to make it do more…or even to share the back-stuff she already “knows about.” Hmmm…I guess I haven’t fully formed my opinion on this. A space-triology type of turn (rather than a full-blown Simarillion universe move), though, might be wonderful–do something quite different, but not completely unrelated and definitely not soul-less.

*shrug* 800 words is a nice little nibble, either way. :]

Great examples, Arabella. I think herein lies the problem for Jo: write more HP or try to totally break away from it. It’s kind of like what Dan Radcliffe is attempting to do as an actor, establish himself as an actor proper & not just Harry Potter. Certainly Equus was a tremendous choice in trying to set himself apart as just that Harry Potter actor. And from all accounts he’s played the part well. So, I think he’ll have a good future in film. Hopefully, Jo will be able to do the same thing, without being too dramatic of an image shift.

Rowling’s quandary reminds me of Louisa M. Alcott and L.M. Montgomery (Anne of Green Gables, etc.). Both wrote family-friendly literature, enjoyed by all ages (though not at Rowling’s level, certainly). Both attempted to break new ground through writing adult novels; though good, these never achieved the popularity of their earlier works. Fans wanted more stories with their favorite characters. Poor Montgomery came to practically dislike Anne.

Though I love Potterverse, I’ll admire Rowling if she’s able to successfully move beyond it. I bet she has loads of stories like the Non-Prequel. She could write a short-story collection which could provide great backfill and not tie her down to a huge narrative arc.

I agree with John—she used her power (her Potter characters) for the best good (raising oodles of charity cash).

The Non-Prequel was interesting (name/term-wise) and highly entertaining. How teenage—gotta have the showy T-shirt! Tweak authority! Very “I Get Around/Fun, Fun, Fun.”

How does one spot an Elvendork? Did you cry when Dobby died?

Well, there you are.

-ZR

There is a Star Trek/Star Wars variety called Vulkendorks – you probably know a few.

-ZR

It’s obvious isn’t it! Elvendork.
A past master of the Elves before their enslavement as house-elves by the pure blood movement in the Wizarding World.
Unisex? I won’t go there.

David

Okay, help me down from that soapbox… Sorry, Red Rocker; you just touched one of my buttons. I’m responding to your, as always, thoughtful and challenging comments above in a proper post about prequel/sequel possibilities.

Disclosure notice! Be forewarned: as a Potter Parasite who stands to profit from Potter-mania reaching new heights, I am half-obliged to argue and to hope there will be new Wizarding World novels, with or without Harry.

I love Wikipedia: the lazy man’s solution to doing his research!

I am reminded of Arthur Donan Coyle, who killed off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to get on with writing other things:

‘This (lack of customers for his opthalmology practice) gave him more time for writing, and in November 1891 he wrote to his mother: “I think of slaying Holmes… and winding him up for good and all. He takes my mind from better things.” His mother responded, saying, “You may do what you deem fit, but the crowds will not take this lightheartedly.” In December 1893, he did so in order to dedicate more of his time to more “important” works (his historical novels).

Holmes and Moriarty apparently plunged to their deaths together down a waterfall in the story, “The Final Problem”. Public outcry led him to bring the character back; Conan Doyle returned to the story in “The Adventure of the Empty House”, with the explanation that only Moriarty had fallen but, since Holmes had other dangerous enemies, he had arranged to be temporarily “dead” also.’

And then we have Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot:

‘By 1930, Agatha Christie found Poirot ‘insufferable’ and by 1960, she felt that he was a ‘detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep’. Yet the public loved him, and Christie refused to kill him off, claiming that it was her duty to produce what the public liked, and what the public liked was Poirot.’

Better for JKR, I believe, to let Harry Potter go. She has given his story an uncommon resolution: death, followed by resurrection. I think she – and we – should be content with that.

One possibility (which this 800-word snippet) keeps alive, is that JKR will write of Potterverse without Potter. I think she might be toying with this, not because of public demand but because she has spent so much time building that world, and building it well. I’m sure that the resulting works would be best-sellers months before publication – as soon as they were announced. I would buy and devour them myself. But again, I don’t think this is such a hot idea. If she went back to Potterverse, she would be blocking herself in the children’s fantasy genre even more than she has already (if that’s possible!) Something tells me she’s ready to start writing for adults. She couldn’t do this in Potterverse, for many reasons. And to stay in a genre which you’ve outgrown – that would be a waste of talent, I think.