JK Rowling & Stephen King
Aug. 3rd, 2006 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_haloSPOILER WARNING: Contains spoilers for the entire Harry Potter series
So I went to this thing called "Harry, Carrie, and Garp" at Radio City Music Hall last night. (In fact, I bought tickets months ago and nearly forgot about it; happily someone on LJ mentioned it and I remembered that afternoon!)
To my immense frustration, I learned that Jon Stewart had been there the previous night, but wasn't there the night I went. (WAH!!!)
However, I did get to see JK Rowling, Stephen King, and John Irving. They were introduced by Whoopi Goldberg, Tim Robbins, some actor I didn't know, and Kathy Bates. Each read a short amount, then answered a few questions (moderated by Soledad O'Brien, who I've only heard of because apparently Stephen Colbert has a crush on her).
Stephen King was very down to earth and funny. When asked what stories scared him, he answered that "Lord of the Flies" scared him as a child, and that the Death Eaters in Harry Potter scared him recently (in response Rowling exclaimed "I scared Stephen King!").
John Irving, who I've never read, was very articulate and thoughtful, and made me want to read some of his work. I wish the others had answered questions as sincerely as he did.
JK Rowling was rather quiet and apologetic (every time she gave a long answer she apologized, even though John Irving often rambled on much longer than her). She did announce that she had nicer shoes than the other panelists (they were pretty cool shoes). The other two had read stories involving vomit, so she apologized for not knowing that was going to be the theme, and instead read part of book 6 where Dumbledore first meets young Tom Riddle. She had noticed the audience cheering for Snape (during a video clip that introduced her) and said that while she could kind of understand us cheering on Snape, we should not cheer on Tom Riddle.
She was asked a few interesting questions. One wondered which of her characters she'd actually like to be real; she answered "Hagrid," (ick) then added "Because when I'm confronted with fundamentalist Christians, I could just say 'Would you like to discuss the matter with Hagrid?'" That I liked.
She was also asked what's up with Petunia Dursley, and responded that, yes, we'll learn something unexpected about Petunia in the next book (um, did someone not pick up on that foreshadowing?). She also was asked by a tiny, adorable, heart-broken little child how Dumbledore could possibly be dead, since he protected and believed in Harry. This actually caused her to cry, apologize, and answer that sometimes a writer must have a cold heart. She added that some interesting things might happen in the next book, but that we shouldn't expect Dumbledore to "pull a Gandalf."
The next question was one of those inane rambling theories about how Snape must be good (yes) and therefore Dumbledore must not really be dead (oh, for god's sake). (ETA: apparently the guy asking was Salman Rushdie, though). She seemed a little flustered by it, and then answered that she would just have to tell us that, yes, Dumbledore is definitely 100% dead. She explained that we needed to move through the process of grieving, so she was trying to help us get past the first step, "denial," but since she was afraid "anger" might be next, she wanted to change the subject.
(ETA 2: She did kind of say "You're right" after his question, but I don't think it was entirely clear that she was confirming that Snape is good, or just that there's more than meets the eye happening with Dumbledore [like say a talking portrait?] I mean, you could take it as her slipping and confirming that Snape's good, but I don't think that's the only interpretation. [Though FWIW I do think Snape's good.]).
At the end the three were asked which five of their characters would they most like to sit down to dinner with. Stephen King wanted to sit down with other people's characters, not his own. JK Rowling finally answered "Harry, so I could apologize," then added Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore (if she could take anyone, living or dead) and finally Hagrid. (Gaaaah!! How boring! People were yelling out "Sirius!" and "Snape!" of course).
This got me to thinking which five of her characters I would want to have dinner with: Sirius, obviously, and you can't have Sirius without Remus. Snape, for the conflict, and Tom Riddle, who'd be fascinating to observe. I was a little torn on the final slot--maybe Bellatrix or Draco. Probably Draco, actually, since he's a more layered, morally-ambiguous character than Bellatrix.
Anyway, it was pretty cool to see these people in person, and to hear them read from their stories. Wish the answers had been a little more interesting, though. I suspect JK Rowling will be a lot more interesting once the series is over and she doesn't have to worry about revealing spoilers with every answer.
So I went to this thing called "Harry, Carrie, and Garp" at Radio City Music Hall last night. (In fact, I bought tickets months ago and nearly forgot about it; happily someone on LJ mentioned it and I remembered that afternoon!)
To my immense frustration, I learned that Jon Stewart had been there the previous night, but wasn't there the night I went. (WAH!!!)
However, I did get to see JK Rowling, Stephen King, and John Irving. They were introduced by Whoopi Goldberg, Tim Robbins, some actor I didn't know, and Kathy Bates. Each read a short amount, then answered a few questions (moderated by Soledad O'Brien, who I've only heard of because apparently Stephen Colbert has a crush on her).
Stephen King was very down to earth and funny. When asked what stories scared him, he answered that "Lord of the Flies" scared him as a child, and that the Death Eaters in Harry Potter scared him recently (in response Rowling exclaimed "I scared Stephen King!").
John Irving, who I've never read, was very articulate and thoughtful, and made me want to read some of his work. I wish the others had answered questions as sincerely as he did.
JK Rowling was rather quiet and apologetic (every time she gave a long answer she apologized, even though John Irving often rambled on much longer than her). She did announce that she had nicer shoes than the other panelists (they were pretty cool shoes). The other two had read stories involving vomit, so she apologized for not knowing that was going to be the theme, and instead read part of book 6 where Dumbledore first meets young Tom Riddle. She had noticed the audience cheering for Snape (during a video clip that introduced her) and said that while she could kind of understand us cheering on Snape, we should not cheer on Tom Riddle.
She was asked a few interesting questions. One wondered which of her characters she'd actually like to be real; she answered "Hagrid," (ick) then added "Because when I'm confronted with fundamentalist Christians, I could just say 'Would you like to discuss the matter with Hagrid?'" That I liked.
She was also asked what's up with Petunia Dursley, and responded that, yes, we'll learn something unexpected about Petunia in the next book (um, did someone not pick up on that foreshadowing?). She also was asked by a tiny, adorable, heart-broken little child how Dumbledore could possibly be dead, since he protected and believed in Harry. This actually caused her to cry, apologize, and answer that sometimes a writer must have a cold heart. She added that some interesting things might happen in the next book, but that we shouldn't expect Dumbledore to "pull a Gandalf."
The next question was one of those inane rambling theories about how Snape must be good (yes) and therefore Dumbledore must not really be dead (oh, for god's sake). (ETA: apparently the guy asking was Salman Rushdie, though). She seemed a little flustered by it, and then answered that she would just have to tell us that, yes, Dumbledore is definitely 100% dead. She explained that we needed to move through the process of grieving, so she was trying to help us get past the first step, "denial," but since she was afraid "anger" might be next, she wanted to change the subject.
(ETA 2: She did kind of say "You're right" after his question, but I don't think it was entirely clear that she was confirming that Snape is good, or just that there's more than meets the eye happening with Dumbledore [like say a talking portrait?] I mean, you could take it as her slipping and confirming that Snape's good, but I don't think that's the only interpretation. [Though FWIW I do think Snape's good.]).
At the end the three were asked which five of their characters would they most like to sit down to dinner with. Stephen King wanted to sit down with other people's characters, not his own. JK Rowling finally answered "Harry, so I could apologize," then added Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore (if she could take anyone, living or dead) and finally Hagrid. (Gaaaah!! How boring! People were yelling out "Sirius!" and "Snape!" of course).
This got me to thinking which five of her characters I would want to have dinner with: Sirius, obviously, and you can't have Sirius without Remus. Snape, for the conflict, and Tom Riddle, who'd be fascinating to observe. I was a little torn on the final slot--maybe Bellatrix or Draco. Probably Draco, actually, since he's a more layered, morally-ambiguous character than Bellatrix.
Anyway, it was pretty cool to see these people in person, and to hear them read from their stories. Wish the answers had been a little more interesting, though. I suspect JK Rowling will be a lot more interesting once the series is over and she doesn't have to worry about revealing spoilers with every answer.