Want to change the world? Write a book. Don’t believe me? Look at J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Suzanne Collins, George R. R. Martin, Shakespeare, and even (dare I say it) Stephanie Meyer. Regardless of your personal feelings about any of these writers, you know their names for a reason. You know what they wrote and in some cases, you’ve spent years of your life (or are still spending years of your life if you’re a Game of Thrones fan) waiting for what comes next. So what exactly is the role of an author? Do they have agency? Are they masters of their characters fates? Or do their characters become entities of their own at some point?
In English critical theory, there is a postmodern argument for “The Death of the Author.” In 1967, Roland Barthes argued that an author’s history, intentions, and biography are irrelevant when reading a text. According to Barthes, all that matters is what a piece actually contains. He essentially believes that once an author finishes his or her creation, it’s done and the author does not plan a role in the interpretation of his or her piece. The meaning of any story is what a reader takes away from the text, not what the author intends or intended by it. This is a very watered-down version of this particular critical theory, but you’ve got the essentials.
This raises all sorts of questions about the agency and role of an author. While some may argue that divorcing a text from its author is an act akin to murder, others think that reading too biographically and contextually obscures the true essence of a text. I come down somewhere between the two. I don’t think that you can take an author completely out of the picture, especially because most stories are autobiographical or self-indulgent to some extent (Sylvia Plath anyone?). But I also don’t believe that you should let an author’s story obscure what appears on the page. So, I’ll argue that the death of J. K. Rowling’s mother influenced her decision to make Harry an orphan (she has said so), but I won’t agree that the whole series is a retelling of the story of Christ just because Rowling has said that there are “religious parallels” and that she has struggled with faith and life after death. (In case you’re unaware, there’s a HUGE debate about whether or not Harry Potter is a Christian allegory).
Authors, despite being very powerful, are beholden to their readers. The passions of an audience are impossible to ignore, even if an author holds to their own vision. Some writers, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, caved to the whims of his readers, which is why Sherlock didn’t actually die after going over a waterfall. But I think there is a danger to giving readers too much power, because it can change the original vision and integrity of a story. As I’m sure you’re aware, Sherlock has been reincarnated into many forms—movies, TV shows, young adult novels, you name it. Doyle is most certainly rolling over in his grave. He originally killed Sherlock off to prevent others from misappropriating his creation.
Other authors resist what English majors call the “postmodern death of the author.” The most famous and current example of this is J. K. Rowling. If you’ve been on Facebook recently, you know that J. K. Rowling revealed in a recent interview with Wonderland Magazine (the full interview can be found in the issue released on February 7) that “I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really.” According to a Sunday Times article, “For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron.”
Rowling is aware of the fan outrage that such a statement generates: “I know, I’m sorry. I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people’s hearts by saying this? I hope not.”
Now there’s currently a lot of buzz going around about this article, so a few quick things need to be clarified. At this moment in time (without the full text of the Wonderland interview) Rowling NEVER says that Hermione should have wound up with Harry. She only states that Ron may not have been able to make Hermione completely happy and that they likely would have needed “relationship counseling.” She acknowledges that the reason Ron and Hermione ended up together had a lot to do with her original vision for the plot, but everyone publishing articles will headlines suggesting Rowling said Hermione should have married Harry are WRONG! She has not stated this as far as anyone knows.
Which brings us back to the agency of authors. Obviously Rowling, as the writer of Harry Potter, has the right to reveal whatever she wants about the series. She can talk about her original vision for the series, reveal that characters are gay (like she did with Dumbledore after the release of Deathly Hallows), and even talk about how her perceptions of the series have changed. However, depending on which camp you ascribe to (death of the author or authorial agency), you’re free to interpret Rowling’s recent reveal in whatever light you’d like.
Just because Rowling now thinks that Ron and Hermione may not have been the best match long term, doesn’t change the fact that they wind up together in the Epilogue. For Barthes, the story ends there and everything Rowling says to the contrary is irrelevant. However, you may feel it’s not quite that black and white. Personally, I think it’s fitting that Ron and Hermione got married, because they went through so much together (and we sat through several books worth of tension and conflict between the two because they were destined to wind up together). Rowling’s comments don’t change the story she envisioned or even the one she wrote. Hindsight may be 20-20, but 19 years later, Ron and Hermione are together at the end of Deathly Hallows. So if you love Ron and Hermione, remember they got married and as far as we know they’re happy. If you think there’s more to the story, check out the Wonderland interview with Rowling, but remember, there’s a difference between the story she wrote and the one she thinks she should have written.
I love the Harry Potter series (I’m writing my thesis on it and I still LOVE it) and for me, Rowling’s fear of being killed off by critics like Barthes occasionally makes her reveal more than I think is necessary. It took me awhile to come to terms with the Epilogue when I first read Deathly Hallows, I thought it was way too much of a bow ending (with all the ends neatly tied up). After a few more re-reads, it seemed a lot more fitting. Ron and Hermione were meant to be, if only the story books and for me, their story, like Harry’s and all the others, ended with “all was well.”