As for Hannah/Neville, I'm not wholly against the pairing, there is a BRILLIANT Hannah/Neville fic called Asking for Roses by Dogstar101... it's one of the absolute best on this site.

I don't care. She doesn't exist in my world.

I just don't see how JKR can think it would ever work. She did say in the interview she thought it was unhealthy - so why do it? The whole relationship would have so many undertones and what-ifs that they'd end up hating each other. And of course George would never be alright if he's with Fred's ex, wondering all the time if she's just with him because he's the best she can get in Fred's absence.

I can accept that George will never fully get over losing Fred. As JKR said, it would be like losing half of himself. But I think he would go on living and loving and laughing too eventually, because that's what Fred would want, because he's a brave man, because he's a Gryffindor, because he's a Weasley.

The idea of him being miserable, living with Ange as a second-best for both of them that's stopping either of them moving on, is just beyond horrible. How could she do that to him?

Edit because my typos are even worse than usual when I'm upset.

I don't like this Audrey either, whoever the hell she is. And Charlie SHOULD be married! That was just a bit of laziness on JKR's part, IMO. She didn't want to take the time to think of a wife for Charlie and decide how many kids they had, so she just shoved him off to one side (pretty much the way she did with Ginny in DH - and she's Harry's WIFE, for crying out loud!).

I'm really disgusted with Jo at this point. I've removed her website from my Favorites list and I don't want to read this so-called "dictionary" she's supposedly planning to write. I honestly don't even think I'd buy it now, if this is the kind of garbage that's going to be in it.

The woman really needs to shut up IMO, because she's losing fans with all these post-series revelations. Granted, she already has more money than God, but if she ever plans to publish another book, she'll need her fan base and she might be surprised at the way her sales fall off in light of her callous treatment of these beloved characters. What she doesn't seem to understand is that they're NOT exclusively hers, not anymore. Once you've put something out there, it belongs to the world. I'm sure she thought she would alienate some people with some of her decisions, but this woman is well on her way to alienating absolutely everybody.

Shut up, Jo! Shut UP already!

Charlie should be married - or at least have a steady girlfriend (as in my WW, though he marries her eventually) with at least a couple of kids. And (I know your secod gen families are smaller than mine), I don't buy none of the Weasley kids having more than three kids. I think kids from big families often have lots of kids themselves, adn that that would apply to at least one or two of the Weasleys.

I agree with you about everyone else making sure George was okay. They simply wouldn't let him not be. And I seriously think that if he really was never alright as Jo seems to want, he'd kill himself...

Audrey is just - weird. Why not at least marry Percy to someone we've heard of?

And I agree, they're no longer just Jo's characters. Too many other people have an emotional investment in them now.

Bleah.

If she's going to go into this much detail, she needs to write Book 8: Harry Potter and the Happy Ending. I know I'd have loved six or seven chapters in which Harry had no death eaters on his tail, never again had to go back to the Dursleys, had nothing to do but hang out with the Golden Trio become Quartet and figure out which broomcloset at Hogwarts was the most secluded. (censoring perfectly good Latin conjunctions! honestly!) But she didn't, and in the grand tradition of British Entertainment Phenomena (see Python, Monty or Fabulous, Absolutely), she decided to cut things short. Groovy; I understand. But for bleep's sake, if you're going to let things up to your fans' imaginations, do so. And if you're not, give us a timeline for book 8. This half-measure stuff is simply unsatisfactory.

Bleah again.

[/rant]

She wants to have her cake and eat it, and it isn't fair.

QUESTION: J.K. Rowling, does this Audrey person have any relation whatsoever to any of the characters in the first seven books, or was this simply a name you pulled out of your bum?

ANSWER: J. K. Rowling: Actually, you all don't know this yet, and I really shouldn't say anything for the sake of The Scottish Book, but, Audrey is actually the secret love child between Bellatrix Lestrange and Lord Voldemort. It's a very mysterious bit and only Percy is daft enough to pass up Penelope for someone who hasn't a nose. You see, I'm saying all this to hint at an eighth book which I shall never write. Oh, and by the way, Voldemort's not really dead, Harry's gay too and ran off with Ron so that Hermione and Ginny could have their way with one another, Molly Weasley commited suicide at the age of 58, Rodolphus Lestrange was a woman, Charlie is a heavy proponent of ** and is the writer of Men Who Love Dragons Too Much, and married Norberta in 1998, but Romania didn't recognise the marriage. Rose grows up to marry her brother, Hugo, and they had seven-hundred and twenty thousand children, all with names that I pulled out of my arse. Albus Severus wasn't accepted at Hogwarts and that whole bit at King's Cross was a mix-up, he went to Beauxbatons instead and had to defeat a now ancient Voldemort and Percy's wife, Audrey Riddle. Lily Luna enjoyed her visits with her middle-name's sake perhaps a little too much, but Luna and Lily always got on a little better than was, perhaps, proper. James II killed Harry on his nineteenth birthday with a toothbrush and blueberries - making everyone feel a little blue. But that all doesn't really matter, it is my universe. Anyway, I think that should answer your question, maybe. Did it? Perhaps I should tell you that Arthur abused Ginny when she was younger, too? Did you know that? Oh, I suppose it was obvious, I've always seen him as an abusive man.

BTW, have any of you been receiving nasty anonymous reviews from an idiot who calls him or herself "Blue?" Bad Mum and I have received several of these unpleasant little rants in response to the very mild (IMO) comments we made about the SU philosophy. We both intend to address it in the form of author's notes as this is the only way we can respond to anonymous reviewers. If you want to read more about it, take a look at the latest chapter update of Great Expectations, which I plan to post within the hour. Cheers, everyone!

Special Author's Note from Cassandra's Cross

I want to begin with profound apologizes to all my wonderful readers and even more wonderful reviewers for the fact that this is NOT an update for my story, though I promise one is coming very soon.

The reason I am posting this instead of a chapter update right now is because of an anonymous reviewer who calls him or herself Blue and who has been subjecting me and at least one other fanfic author to a series of abusive posts that I do not feel I can continue to ignore. Because this individual insists upon delivering his or her rants anonymously (which strikes me, quite frankly, as both craven and cowardly), I cannot respond with a private message as I would prefer to do rather than subject all of you to this nonsense. I also can’t report these messages as abusive because this site does not permit me to report anonymous reviewers. The only alternative would be to block all anonymous reviews which I don’t want to do because I have some fantastic anonymous reviewers whose comments I cherish and with whom I have developed a kind of “relationship” that I would be seriously loathe to end. Therefore, I have decided to respond this way, and I will leave this post up for a couple of days, after which it will be followed by an actual chapter update. For all my legitimate reviewers, please accept my sincere apologies for this departure from my normal practices. I really do regret any disappointment you might feel at not seeing another chapter of Great Expectations though, as promised, that chapter is on the way.

What follows is for Blue alone. The rest of you please just go back to talking amongst yourselves.

Blue: Please re-read the comments on my profile page. Read them carefully this time. I think you will find that you are mistaken about many of your assumptions. I never said that Jo was a drunk. I merely commented on the fact that another author made a joke which, I will admit, I found amusing. I do occasionally laugh at the foibles of public figures. So sue me.

I don’t agree with all of J.K. Rowling’s recent decisions, but I do respect her for what she has done and I find it hard to believe that she would approve of the kind of harassment to which you have subjected me, and other fanfic writers on this site (yes, we do compare notes!) in her name. I would remind you, however, that she is a billionaire who has been amply rewarded for her efforts and is, therefore, not above criticism. Fanfic writers, on the other hand, receive compensation only in the form of reviews which you are spoiling for some of us with your persistent diatribes. I write my stories for two reasons: because I enjoy it and because quite a few people seem to enjoy reading what I write. Those are the only reasons I do it and, unlike Ms. Rowling, I will never receive a dime for anything I post on this site, so I think I might be permitted a little latitude for anything I might say in the heat of a moment.

You claim that you have “read and enjoyed” my stories, but I don’t recall ever having received a single review from you in the past. I don’t need your comments and I really don’t need your attention, as there are plenty of others who have something constructive to say, whether in the form of praise or literary criticism, both of which I take very seriously. Your posts, on the other hand, are neither constructive nor necessary, and I will continue to delete them as quickly as possible, without being read, so that your remarks will simply be spewed forth into the ether. Please find something worthwhile to do with your time. I have better uses for mine.

One thing that really annoys me is that the comments this idiot has made on my stories have just been copied and pasted wholesale from what he/she/it has said to Cassandra. Several of the points I'm accused of, I never even made!

And the whole "I've read and enjoyed your stories in the past" line is just garbage, since if they had they would know that some of the things they've accused me of are just plain WRONG!

As for "It"s copy-pasting flames, I must say that it really doesn't shock me that this person doesn't have the mentality to actually flame freshly each time. It annoys me that "It" can't even make valid complaints...

I love the idea that it doesn't have an email addy because it likes to communicate personally. So give me your phone number...

Or do you think they'd be too shoocked by that?

why can't she use these interviews to say things like "No, Remus and Sirius were never bloody in love with each other"? Argh.

I'll be back to rant later ;).

Mine from earlier:

K. Here's my vent for Neville/Luna. They were PERFECT for each other! They were both the sweet, innocent souls at Hogwarts who were nothing but teased but managed to make it anyway. They spent loads of time together during Neville's final year at Hogwarts and would have had plenty of time to slip into a romance. JKR has said that "It was too neat" - yeah, so was Ginny/Harry and Hermione/Ron... Ginny was a character made specifically for Harry in many regards, why can't Nevie-poo have his Loony Love?!!!

We're definitely right, though. They fit together so well.

Okay, this is entirely off topic, but I'm frustrated, and need to vent about the way some reviewers review. I don't mind the 'Squee! Update soon!!!" crowd. I don't mind the people who correct minor points of cannon when they give a thoughtful review. I don't even mind people saying, "I hate your story. You should never write again."

I do mind people who never have anything good to say about your story who continue to read it. Why review? If you don't like my characterization and keep NOT liking it, don't read. Please. All you do is waste my time. I do try to stick to cannon as much as possible, but my views are that fanfiction is a way to creatively treat characters lives after cannon events.

I am currently involved in a project where Snape survives book seven. That is NOT canon. I have taken liberties with his feelings toward a certain werewolf (not slashy, just regretful.) A certain review whom I will not name, continues to berate me in every Snape story that I've written because I think Snape and Remus could have been rather good friends if the situation were different between them.

Another reviewer has problems with any number of things in my Snape story. I have an entire series set in this universe (began before the whole JKR releasing dribs and drabs about who the characters ended up with) This reveiwer has not bothered to read the other stories which set the Snape story up,so she brings up points that have already been covered as ''being non-cannon." (eg Sectumsempra not cutting bone, which I'm really not sure about, but okay.) I'm frustrated with both of these reviewers and generally just thank them for their reviews. Right now, I feel like telling them both off. Both are huge Snape apologists. They feel Snape can do no wrong and he was justified in everything he did. I just can't write a rounded character where the person I'm writing about is perfect.

I know this is the wrong place to put this. If this makes anyone angry, just delete it. I just needed to rant. A lot.

Tambra, that's a suck situation. Reading your vent (which is, as you say, off-topic, but we're a *really* lax bunch around here), I'm reminded of a line in a South Park episode, where someone decided to make a kick-** World Of Warcraft character and beat up on everyone else, thereby ruining everyone's fun: "Then we're faced with a dilemma. For how can you kill... that which has no life?" (insert dramatic music to taste).

Thanks for your kind words. I haven't seen that episode. Now I'm going to have to watch it. But first, I must put my nose to the grindstone and get out another 'non-cannon' chapter. Darn, I'm just a glutton for punishment.

Oh and far as the real topic of this forum: I really hate how things were relayed by JKR on the whole issue of who went with whom. I think she should have just ended the books and let the reader decide who got together. Oh, and I"m still mad about Remus and Tonks. Their deaths were just so unnecessary.

I really hate how things were relayed by JKR on the whole issue of who went with whom. I think she should have just ended the books and let the reader decide who got together.

I agree, if she wanted everyone to know who was with whom she should have wrote it in the books.

Also, the gay Dumbledore thing. I think she could have alluded to it in the books without riling too many people. I actually like the idea of him being a powerful wizard and also gay. It just was so random the way she released it. Like it was an afterthought rather than a true part of his character outline.

Like it was an afterthought rather than a true part of his character outline.

It was an afterthought. That's why it was annoying. She didn't tell the script writers until they sent her a scene for corrections. Harry and Dumbledore were having a conversation where Dumbledore starts going on about some girl in his past. (I'm not even going to ask where that made up conversation is supposed to take place in HBP.) And then she decided to tell the world when a child at a reading asked her if Dumbledore had ever been in love. You'd think these kind of information leaks would've been planned and deliberate and would enhance the story. Actually, I think if she'd written it into the last book (which, IMO, should've been more about Harry's parents and his heritage than the mentor who left him nearly clueless), it would've made a lot more sense. It makes more sense to me that Dumbledore had trouble deciding between the approval of and plans with someone he was in love with or taking care of his siblings than if he was trying to decide between world domination with a friend. It made him come off as kind of a (I'm pretty sure that word would be censored) and it's a little more understandable if I read it in that context that his heart was involved. It makes him seem more human and susceptible to his emotions and less like a second-rate, earlier generation Voldemort.

I didn't read any of her interviews about the characters until February of this year and I choose to reject most of it either because it does seem random and sometimes silly or because some of it contradicts those "obvious" clues she's spoken about. Imagining things about your characters after the story is over is something most writers do, but most times we know to let things go after they're gone. Bury the story when it's dead! That's why I'm not too enthusiastic about this encyclopedia, whenever she finishes it. She could rewrite half the HP universe over the next 5-10 years and say it was all "derived" from the books and there are clues to all of that stuff. Potential to be fascinating or endlessly irritating. Or maybe both.

I think she could have alluded to it in the books without riling too many people.

I actually thought Dumbledore was gay in the first book and all the other books since I kept thinking that he was. I don't mean to sterotype right now, but in the first chapter of the first book when Dumbledore was wearing purple and high heeled boots I just thought he was gay. Then the whole reading the knitting magazines in HBP, there's more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

That's why I'm not too enthusiastic about this encyclopedia, whenever she finishes it. She could rewrite half the HP universe over the next 5-10 years and say it was all "derived" from the books and there are clues to all of that stuff. Potential to be fascinating or endlessly irritating. Or maybe both.

I really don't want to read the book, but I know my curiousty will get the best of me and I'll read it, most likely get peeved and want to through the thing out the window.

I have a bit of a gripe, or rather just something that i've noted throughout the books that I find a little disturbing, for lack of a better word. Has anyone noticed that the comic characters (Sirius/James, Fred/George, Tonks and perhaps, to an extent, Gideon/Fabian - though little is known about them, but I think most people were left with the impression that the Weasley twins took after their uncles) tend to get dished out painful, agonizing, definitive and ultimately terminal retribution? It's something that really irked me by the end of DH. We kind of joke about the comedy bloke being up for the noose in media, especially in Hollywood flicks, but it's precisely this western cultural reference, grown out of folktales and Aesop's Fables, and now rooted in our media, that kind of ruined the last book for me as it took away from the realism of the story and became a little too much of a soap opera.

that kind of ruined the last book for me as it took away from the realism of the story and became a little too much of a soap opera.

Word. Tonks's and Fred's deaths were completely redundant. If she needed to off a Weasley, she could have gone with Percy. Personally, I picked him or Ron for the "red shirt".

And Tonks was supposed to realize the error of her ways in marrying Remus and run away with Harry.

Word. Tonks's and Fred's deaths were completely redundant. If she needed to off a Weasley, she could have gone with Percy. Personally, I picked him or Ron for the "red shirt".

Yeah, while I would have preferred the Weasleys to be left alone entirely, I think Percy should have been the one to pop his clogs - not because I dislike him, because I don't, he's one of my favourite characters. But his backstory kind of fell by the wayside and ended rather lamely to say the least. It would have been nice to see him get a little redemption.

And Tonks was supposed to realize the error of her ways in marrying Remus and run away with Harry.

Haha! Here, here!

By the way, off-topic but before I forget have a great New Year mate - or as we in bonnie Scotland call it, Happy Hogmanay! I'm already onto the whiskey. XD

And a good New Years to you as well. Or is that Hogmananny?

Yeah, while I would have preferred the Weasleys to be left alone entirely, I think Percy should have been the one to pop his clogs - not because I dislike him, because I don't, he's one of my favourite characters. But his backstory kind of fell by the wayside and ended rather lamely to say the least. It would have been nice to see him get a little redemption.

Statisically, it wouldn't have made sense for all the Weasleys to survive. With nine of them (ten if you're counting Fleur), I think they were pretty lucky to only lose one with people being killed left, right and centre.

And I stand by my feeling that Percy getting it - and preferably redeeming himself in the process - was just too obvious. I hate the fact that Fred died, but that sort of random unfair death is what happens in wars.

Statisically, it wouldn't have made sense for all the Weasleys to survive. With nine of them (ten if you're counting Fleur), I think they were pretty lucky to only lose one with people being killed left, right and centre.

Perhaps, but I still disagree that killing either of the twins was a good idea. They essentially acted as the heart/soul/balance of the family, which was, in essence, the heart of the books, and I've never understood about JK's point in not killing off Arthur, because his death would have had the same effect on the family (or in terms of Ron losing his innocence) that Fred's did due to his role within the Weasleys.

And I stand by my feeling that Percy getting it - and preferably redeeming himself in the process - was just too obvious.

Well, I agree that Percy snuffing it would have been painfully obvious, but I don't think it would have been any more obvious than Fred's, Tonks, Snape's, Remus', Dobby's etc. etc., and as it stood, the conclusion to Percy's story felt rushed for me, as if JK had only just remembered it at the last moment. Personally I would have liked some sort of more subtle redemption for him, because when it gets right down to it Percy is a good person; he strikes me as the type of character who's so positive that the world can move in a more orderly fashion (if only he could alphabetise it) and he was frustrated because his family couldn't see that. Perhaps it would have been good to have seen more of Percy & Arthur at the end, as Arthur's relationship with his children was always less focused on than Molly's.

I hate the fact that Fred died, but that sort of random unfair death is what happens in wars.

I don't think Fred's death was random at all; I found it painfully cliché and that's one of my major gripes about the last book. Forgetting the Joseph Campbell/Vladmir Propp rants, the 'break up the twins' plot has been overused in media and due to his specific archetype (comic relief, alongside tragic hero, the lovers, the unlikely hero, the animal etc. - all types used to get a quick emotional response out of the reader) it was never random and a little bit too perfect, therefore the 'harsh reality of war' didn't come across as well; it felt like a fictional story. That's the biggest criticism I hear from people and I really do agree with it. Also, sometimes I tend to think the more subtle an author is when writing great tragic scenes, the stronger the effect.

Phew, anyway there's my two cents. ^^ HAPPY NEW YEAR!

George: New ear? Why, how thoughtful!

Phew, anyway there's my two cents. ^^ HAPPY NEW YEAR!

George: New ear? Why, how thoughtful!

Oh dear. That was simply uncalled for.

Glad to see you've recovered nicely :-)

While I liked Charlie because he seemed like a cool character, I thought he should have died. He was barely in the books, I never saw much point to his character except to make the Weasley kids seven. JK used him in book one to get rid of Norbert and we meet him in book four and he comes back in book seven for the wedding and now she says he never marries. I just think if they had to kill off one of the Weasley children, then it should have been him. But maybe she didn't do it because he is such a minor character and didn't think fans would feel for his death as much as they would for Fred's.

I think killing Charlie would have been a cop-out. No one except loonies like me who love writing him in fanfic would have cared very much, and it would have been like she'd just invented him in order to kill him.

If she was going to kill a weasley - and I think she had to - then it had to be one of them that we knew and cared about.

I thought it would have been Percy personally. He's the one we love to hate and so people would have had more interesting emotions regarding his death rather than just "Oh no how will we survive he's so amazing oh nooooooo!" or whatever they thought about fred. And it would have been pretty cool/tragic to have him die like right after he's been all lovely again.

But thats just my sense of romantic melodrama showing though.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions including language and content must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)