How about when Pottermore contradicts interviews? (See for example Minerva's love life.)
Books take precedence over anything else. Any pet theory must fit with the books. When the fitting requires characters to be lying we need evidence at the very least that said character has a record of lying or that the character stated the opposite or there is something in the books that at least implies the opposite. (For example Terri's analysis of all what Albus has to say about the circumstances of his acquisition of the ring and the injury of his hand, vs all other evidence the books provide.)
I consider Pottermore/interviews as 'serving suggestions'. If they contradict the books I ignore them. If they add to world building I might consider them. Don't forget that the enchanted Hogwarts quill is almost entirely 'interview' construct. The only hints in canon are Albus' claim to Mrs Cole that Tom Riddle was registered at his school since birth (and we know he deceived her on other matters) and maybe what Hagrid tells the Dursleys.
If I knew Rowling went over her books before writing for Pottermore I would take the new revelations more seriously (and definitely over stuff she says on the spot in interviews). But since she claims she doesn't reread, well, it seems she is just randomly fanwanking herself. At most Pottermore reveals what she wants her characters to be like. Not necessarily what they are like.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 04:58 pm (UTC)Books take precedence over anything else. Any pet theory must fit with the books. When the fitting requires characters to be lying we need evidence at the very least that said character has a record of lying or that the character stated the opposite or there is something in the books that at least implies the opposite. (For example Terri's analysis of all what Albus has to say about the circumstances of his acquisition of the ring and the injury of his hand, vs all other evidence the books provide.)
I consider Pottermore/interviews as 'serving suggestions'. If they contradict the books I ignore them. If they add to world building I might consider them. Don't forget that the enchanted Hogwarts quill is almost entirely 'interview' construct. The only hints in canon are Albus' claim to Mrs Cole that Tom Riddle was registered at his school since birth (and we know he deceived her on other matters) and maybe what Hagrid tells the Dursleys.
If I knew Rowling went over her books before writing for Pottermore I would take the new revelations more seriously (and definitely over stuff she says on the spot in interviews). But since she claims she doesn't reread, well, it seems she is just randomly fanwanking herself. At most Pottermore reveals what she wants her characters to be like. Not necessarily what they are like.