据BBC报道，罗琳在推广新书的访谈里提到有两本书写得急促了，应该再多一年完成才好。现在重读，有修订重写的念头。当被问及是否指晚期的两本，答道：一本早期一本晚期。
如果是补补bug，小调整下还可以；如果改动大到人物形象、命运（像金庸改写自己的作品），那就不是明智的选择了。 作品是有生命成长轨迹的，大动作品就像已经走上工作岗位的成人要重回小学，再来一个轮回一样荒谬。
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19711553
以上是BBC访谈原址，有视频，感兴趣的同学可以看看。顺便附一篇反对重写的评论。


A Director's Cut of HARRY POTTER? No, Thanks
by Edd McCracken
In an interview with the BBC last week JK Rowling revealed she toys with the idea of doing a director's cut of the Harry Potter books. She said an extra year to finesse some of them would not have gone amiss. Let me be among the first to warn her off. The last thing the world needs is a literary George Lucas.
For those uninitiated with the tinkering ways of Lucas, James Cameron, and Ridley Scott, a director's cut is when an auteur, usually of the cinematic variety, revisits a previous work and re-edits it. Scenes are added and deleted. A laquer of whatever special effect is in vogue at that moment is generously applied. Meanings change. Emphasis shifts.
Sometimes this tinkering is justified. The classic example is Scott's Blade Runner. When it hit the cinema in 1982, it was a truncated ball of frustration. Studio execs, the Dementors of the movie world, demanded a happy ending and voice-over. Oh, and the removal of the unicorn scene, which is kinda the crux of the whole film. Scott's edit, 10 years later, swatted away the former and reinstated the latter. And Deckard is definitely a Replicant, by the way.
But Scott was justified in his re-edit. He was peeling back the hackery and poorly fitted add-ons to reveal his original vision underneath. The George Lucas school of directors' cuts comes from a different place.
This is a place of over-caffinated, fidgety billionaires who DON'T KNOW HOW TO LEAVE A GOOD STORY ALONE! With Star Wars, cloth-eared Lucas only listened to the first half of Leonardo Da Vinci's apocryphal adage that art is never finished, only abandoned. He has spent decades bothering Star Wars, and with it, eroding any sense that he was once a confident, decisive director.
To be honest, I don't think Rowling will re-edit Harry Potter. Her comments seemed off the cuff, rather than deep-rooted. Although, looking at how the novels ballooned over the series, I can sympathise with Rowling's desire to go back and prune. But more importantly, unlike Lucas, she is sure of her vision. Hogwarts will not be updated to include references to smart boards and cyber bullying.
Plus, as Rowling no doubt knows, previous attempts to return to and rewrite popular novels have at best been awkward, at worst dishonest. It is a pursuit of the damned.
Take for example the work of children's author Enid Blyton. In the 1990s, in an attempt to make some of her work more culturally sensitive, authors removed all mentions of the N-word and swapped golliwogs for elves. A noble endeavour, but very uncomfortable.
Books are written in and are a record of a certain time and place. We read books to visit these fixed points. So, to change passages years later is to warp history. In Blyton's case, it gives the impression that her time was free from racist language and stereotypes. It is a deeply unhelpful edit. How can we strive to reach ever higher if we don't know how low we started?
The Harry Potter books are indelibly linked with the fin de siècle and the new millennium. They are a perfect fit for the time, a literary marker for the ages. Let's follow Da Vinci's advice and happily abandon them there.

读完了……也晕了~

就是这段：
Rowling: There were a couple of the Potters and I definitely knew that they needed another year. There's one towards the beginning and there's one towards the end, that I definitely felt that about. I had to write on the run and there were times when it was really tough. And I read them, and I think "Oh God, maybe I'll go back and do a director's cut". I don't know.

假如喜欢看电影，会发现一般情况下director's cut要比影院版长，往往有更多细节，甚至会改变故事的重心、节奏。我想正因为罗琳用了这个词，才引起我引的评论者质疑吧。

反正总之，罗琳想改写就改写吧，我相信她预期中应该有的样子与咱们读者已知的情形都不会差老远。无非是为了精益求精嘛。
这以系列如果她认为没啥可改写的也行。看她自己情况好了，如果有觉得什么其他好点子，单独另起炉灶也好，与现有系列相关也罢，自然也不见得一定多糟糕。

楼中楼都没了。。。
国内媒体扭曲报道很正常，或是因英文不过关乱译，或是为造轰动效应夸大，纠正也纠不过来。所以看新闻还是尽量找源头，免受误导。

我的理解就是重校？还有前几天听到的消息是临时空缺之后罗琳想写针对六七岁儿童也不排除写别的的小说，怎么变成这个了

重写乃至续写HP什么的，全仗中国媒体扭曲夸大事实，网上一转十十转百，辟谣都来不及。
其实我觉得罗琳在采访里就提了一下而已，不像认真的，McCracken的文章里也说是"off the cuff"。看BBC完整版的采访倒数那几个问题，罗琳先是回答有关TCV的，巴拉巴拉，说写TCV不像以前经历过的那样，总觉得还需要一年时间改稿润色。做采访的Gompertz顺势接话问道：以前什么时候经历过？ 罗琳答，巴拉巴拉这个那个，说不定我还真有可能回去剪一部导演加长版。Gompertz列的采访提纲里多半没有这个问题，很像是即兴发挥的，罗琳的回答也是。

但是看McCracken采访问的问题，挺有引导性的，不露声色从罗琳那里套话，说得难听点就是挖个坑等被采访者跳。
-----
It seems incredible to me that as a writer you've created a portfolio of characters which connect with millions, maybe even billions of people. And those characters have got plenty more story in them. Surely to goodness, as a writer, you can't leave them be.
------
说了很多好话，最后貌似还用的陈述句，这种提问方式比较微妙，好像罗琳不会抛下HP的事实已经板上钉钉了……显然罗琳不太可能把话说得太死，“门是半开着的”，“有了好点子我就会继续写”，这些话说了等于没说啊！但是有的媒体就喜欢曲解被采访者的意思，抓到一点点料就添油加醋，等到翻译成中文就更不得了了。

微博上疯传罗琳要续写HP，这么多年了这种新闻不是一次两次，其实故事构架已经完成，再去写也是画蛇添足，没完没了只会落入俗套，只能希望罗琳能坚持自己的原则，当年说的七本书完结，说到做到才好。话说若当真有续集出版的那一天，估计也会有八成以上的哈迷都抵挡不住这份吸引力，间隔了十年八载累积下来的期待值是绝对会爆棚，包括我自己都没办法忍着不去看。
M兄所担忧的人物形象、命运的大改动，其实我们现在看到的也不见得就是作者原先预想的那样，真心觉得改改也无妨，某些炮灰掉的人死得太冤了，除了在第一次看到结局的时候狠狠虐了读者一把之外没有任何意义（比如弗雷德）。再说这部小说时间跨度很长，在后期罗琳在写作的时候也多少迎合了市场的需要而修改了人物命运，有些人物的感情转折突匹（例如哈金），甚至还有一些情节虎头蛇尾每个交代（至今对第五集小天狼星之死感到莫名其妙，大家知道他是领便当去了，但死在神秘事物司里也不能死得太神神秘秘吧？诸如此类疑问略去三万八千字……）
最后问候一下许久不曾现身的M兄，辛苦您老人家把采访原文搬运过来，还给言简意赅的翻译了一通，让我这等懒得查字典的英盲不必那么费力，拜谢鸟

我看到的新闻是说罗琳要写哈八，把我吓一跳。原来罗琳是这么说的哦…就说了嘛，故事已经很完整了，不需要画蛇添足了，搞不好最后变得不伦不类的。国内新闻真是害人。

魔二代继续孽恋情深么？继续观望。。