Sorry, I accidentally hit "publish" well before finishing that comment, so you've responded to an incomplete version of it here. The finished one is up now.

This is the best, most textually substantial response I've gotten, so thanks for that. I will look into it more whenever I have a copy of The Deathly Hallows on hand again. For now I can only go by what I can find on the Internet.

She also wrote about three to four thousand pages of actual storytelling, but somehow couldn't get around to mentioning it there for some reason. Whispering something behind the scenes and mentioning it in interviews is not writing it.

First laugh of the day for me. Thanks.

Few names in video games are more storied than Thief. The series more or less invented the stealth-simulation genre back in the 90s, and after a decline in quality over the years, felt ripe for a triumphant reboot. When word arrived that a new Thief game was being made by Eidos Montreal, the same studio responsible…

Kat, thank you for this. It's a perfect example of why I love reading you and why I love arguing with you. We do have some fundamentally different base level biases when it comes to engaging reality — I put not the slightest fraction as much faith as you in what's on paper because governments as I know them are…

As a writer of fantasy and speculative alternate history myself, I know that this is far easier said than done. No human work can't be fault found like this, and I've never once thought badly of Rowling for not managing to engage the whole fictional cosmos in her work. That isn't possible in a lifetime, much less…

That's nice of you. Thanks. I don't do much fan fiction, and I'm working on an original fantasy novel, so maybe I can just recommend to you after I get it published? I love taking luck like that for granted in my imagination, heh.

Which would be incredibly interesting to know something about from the canon. But none of that is there. And since it is such rich soil for storytelling and such an intrinsic issue to including the religions in the world, it borders on irresponsible inconsequentialism to insist they were there and then leave it out.…

This is an excellent point. You have to concede that it just isn't present in the writing even slightly, though, and the process by which the wizarding world resolved it would have been insanely fascinating to have in the canonical world.

Definitely wasn't my intended tone, but okay.

Dude, you got seriously serious in several threads already.

All right, and now we're at shitty, angry, personally-offended "me me me" level argumentation, so I guess I'll leave it alone. If you believe the individual has dictatorial power over the swath of reality their life touches, I guess there's an a priori irreconcilable difference between how you and I interact with…

This is either hilariously naive or offensively dishonest by way of semantic manipulation. I didn't recognize your attitude as American because of your citizenship, and changing your citizenship won't suddenly erase those attitudes or alter their origins. You'll still be the person who holds those attitudes and bears…

You'll never stop being an American, though, just like you'll never stop being the child you once were. I'll quote Joseph Conrad for this one, since it feels futile trying to make the point better than he did:

This is the problem with that, though — you (and Kat) are using variety and exceptions as the basis for the idea of religiously Jewish/Christian/Muslim witches and warlocks, and then simultaneously treating the hypothetical Jewish/Christian/Muslim witches and warlocks as if they would be a monolithic entity that would…

Not only was it established there were gay people in existence, since, you know, Dumbledore was not a retconn. To the people who say that, I say go back and read harder, because the subtext is definitely there.

This is a lot of wishful thinking and projection, though. I mean come at me with something other than just you selectively interpreting things to be what you want them to be and mean what you feel they mean.

Again, that's you.

I don't understand what point you're making. Because you imagine it and there is no proof against it, it can be fairly considered canon? Knowing something and entertaining yourself by imagining it aren't really the same thing, especially in the context of the Tweet announcements you're referring to.