What Rowling is doing now is writing fan-fiction about her own invented universe. It's quite different from continuing to write sequels. She can do what she wants, but I don't find this admirable.
I must distinguish this, however, from two situations where I find post-publication authorial interjection entirely desirable: 1) Polite responses to enquiries asking, not for more information outside the books, but clarification and expansion on what's in them; 2) Less-polite rebuttals to critics who think they know better than the author what the book means. Critics can say what they're reminded of, or what they see in the book, but when they declare what something in the book actually is or really means, they're trespassing into territory where the author's word should be law. We got this a lot from critics who said that Tolkien's Ring was an allegory for the Bomb.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-03-12 02:40 pm (UTC)I must distinguish this, however, from two situations where I find post-publication authorial interjection entirely desirable:
1) Polite responses to enquiries asking, not for more information outside the books, but clarification and expansion on what's in them;
2) Less-polite rebuttals to critics who think they know better than the author what the book means. Critics can say what they're reminded of, or what they see in the book, but when they declare what something in the book actually is or really means, they're trespassing into territory where the author's word should be law. We got this a lot from critics who said that Tolkien's Ring was an allegory for the Bomb.