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.

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。

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。