Pottermore leak

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Pottermore, if the yahoo info below is true apparently it's a online game...why am I not surprised - IF it is a game, who wants to take a wild guess they want us to pay to play it.

http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/792-report-j-k-rowling-to-unveil-harry-potter-online-game

Comments

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

I think we'll be seeing more of this type of thing in the future, too. There will be desperate attempts to boost flagging interest in the franchise from time to time, after the last movie is over and done with.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

There will be desperate attempts to boost flagging interest in the franchise from time to time, after the last movie is over and done with.

YES. It's practically INEVITABLE in my opinion.

The HP bandwagon is such a colossal cash cow, I'm sure the people at the top just can't bear to let all of that consumer interest fade away. These are the people, after all, who chopped the last movie into two just to string it out. (Movie #8 is the shortest of the lot, I believe. I haven't seen DH #1 yet so I don't know how much of it was 'filler' (like the scenes from the novel on which it was based)).

I'm certain that a television series must surely be in the works. Maybe a cartoon or CGI series (something which will guarantee that Ginny Weasley will be rendered this time as a beautiful girl, matching her most important canon characteristic). One Hogwarts year per season. Keep the hooks in with the kids and ensnare a new generation.

And meanwhile, to keep people's interest going, things like this 'Pottermore' to keep all those customers busy, to maintain a profile for HP (and to bring in more cash).

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Do you think that JKR will ever try to write something not HP-related? Of course, with all of the praise she has gotten, it isn't very likely to be good. I wonder if her criticism-immunity would hold over to a new series?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I don't know. She's a billionaire, she never has to work again in her life.

When I ponder the matter I find that sense of 'shared embarrassment' interfering again. If I were her, I'd be so ashamed of the last two books - certainly the last one - I wouldn't want to raise my head again. If I wanted to write - and all good writers do, I gather - I'd do it under a different name.

But that weird feeling interferes with another of my primary questions these days - was Rowling even aware of her egregious mistakes? Was she simply incompetent? Or did she discern some of the problems with DH, but simply not care?

I wonder if her criticism-immunity would hold over to a new series?

Did Rowling ever get any 'real' criticism? From bona fide critics or other writers? I've seen HEAPS of criticism in the fandom, but I don't know how many of her professional peers dared to comment negatively on her work. Most/all of the newspaper reviews of DH were positive (I have no doubt that's because they couldn't afford being seen as 'wrong', opposing the commercial success that DH was before it was even printed. Or written). Stephen King praised her work (even the last book). I recall some pundits publishing harsh comments on her "not shutting up" during all of her interviews, but nothing else much.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

was Rowling even aware of her egregious mistakes? Was she simply incompetent? Or did she discern some of the problems with DH, but simply not care?

That is a question that I would very much like to know the answer to. You would think by simply putting in that many thousands of hours to develop the series that she would have some sort of awareness of her flaws, but by the end she was so popular that she probably figured that she could write anything and have it sell well no matter how bad it was. And that's pretty much what happened. I admit to being a part of the crowd who lined up at midnight to get their copies. Everybody expected it to be great, and millions of copies sold before there was even a chance for somebody to review the book. Of course, at the time I had apparently convinced myself that it was actually a good book. I am still ashamed of the glowing review I immediately posted on Amazon after reading it.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

- by the end she was so popular that she probably figured that she could write anything and have it sell well no matter how bad it was. And that's pretty much what happened.

Most certainly. We know from the documentaries and interviews and other publicity that Rowling's writing of the books was a solo effort and that she eschewed all but the most basic of editing. She knew anything she'd write would sell. Similarly I can understand why most/all newspaper reviews and the like of DH were positive - they couldn't afford to be known as 'the newspaper that got it wrong!'. And DH was known to be a blockbuster success before a single page was printed.

But I wonder if Rowling really knows how many mistakes are in the series, how bad the last book was. Her 'oh, maths!' personality suggests that she wouldn't attach much significance to the fact that her wand lore machinery is broken and fails the entire series, for example. Logic just doesn't mean much to her. So I really don't know if she simply doesn't see it (if she's that thick or that far removed from matters of common sense and reasoning in her fictional world) or did and just didn't care. I picked up vibes suggesting the latter with some of her post-DH publicity parties.

I am still ashamed of the glowing review I immediately posted on Amazon after reading it.

Hmmm, there's probably a certain number of posts you have to make here in deathtocapslock as penance before your soul is redeemed, then, I'd say. :-)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

So I really don't know if she simply doesn't see it (if she's that thick or that far removed from matters of common sense and reasoning in her fictional world) or did and just didn't care.I picked up vibes suggesting the latter with some of her post-DH publicity parties.

As a would-be author I find that incredibly sad. How can someone spend that much time working on developing a world but not even try to see it through enough to ensure it makes sense, let alone is unique or interesting? What's the point of writing then except to make money? That ought to be the least of an author's concerns if they are worth anything. Is there no love for writing in and of itself? Uh... excuse the rant.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe she doesn't see the errors, or does see them but relegates them as minor issues. Certainly many of her fans do the latter. As long as Harry lived and married Ginny they didn't much care if a deus ex machina wand had to be invented to do the job with inconsistent wand lore created out of nowhere.

Maybe in that respect Rowling chose her readership well; primarily children who don't have the sense to know better, who'll accept whatever is placed before them.

Many of her adult fans state that Rowling is a 'good writer' while focusing only on a subset of her work. They ignore the bigger picture or the 'oh, maths!' details. The fact that the thing as a whole doesn't fly doesn't worry them. I can't respect that point of view - it seems childish to me - and I thank the Lord that those people aren't in charge of nuclear reactors or national budgets! - but if Rowling is like that then I guess she's not the 'sad' person you see, she *does* think she did a good job, that it made sense. Maybe those vibes I picked up back then were more impatience over people not agreeing with everything she said, or irritation with those who were picking fault, rather than personal ennui in her world.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I guess I just like to feel bad for people then. She's an adult. I guess she walked into it with both eyes open. ;-)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

(forgot to add)


Did Rowling ever get any 'real' criticism? From bona fide critics or other writers?

Good point. I certainly don't remember any from the heyday of HP's popularity. Being the rabid fan that I was, I definitely would have noticed. ;-)

I recall some pundits publishing harsh comments on her "not shutting up" during all of her interviews

I really am curious about the story behind this. What was it that she wouldn't shut up about? The books? Herself?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I really am curious about the story behind this. What was it that she wouldn't shut up about? The books? Herself?

There were a number of people - critics, authors - who came out blasting Rowling's inability to 'let go' of her HP world - i.e. the books. All those interviews for the 6+ months after the publication of DH where she kept supplying 'new' HP information on top of DH. Material that fell into two categories -

1. Her word-of-mouth pseudo additions to the official canon - who married whom, childrens' names, careers, that sort of stuff. We were told that Neville married Hannah Abbot, Luna married Scamander, the names of all the third-generation Weasleys, that Harry became chief Auror, etc. Dumbledore had a homosexual relationship with Grindlewald. Dumbledore became an asexual after he broke up with Grindlewald (something like that).

2. How people should read her books - Harry and Ginny were 'soulmates', really and truly! Harry was the epitome of 'goodness', a woman couldn't quite be as 'good' (I'm fairly sure something like that was released). Comments on the purity of Snape's 'love' for Lily. Why James giving his life to protect his family was an 'animalistic' response that wasn't as pure or powerful as Lily's sacrifice.

A definite subset of the fandom were getting really tired of Rowling going on and on with all this, and the occasional article would come out from a professional critic or author saying the same thing - "shut up already Rowling" (only more politely phrased :-)). The problem with #1 was that she was limiting her readers' freedom of imagination. The problem with #2 was that it was overbearing lecturing on "read it Jo's way or else" or otherwise poor attempts to try and explain away the errors in her books.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that definitely would be annoying. I have heard it said before that once you release a book to the public they ought to be able to decide what they want about it without your interference. The fact that she can't let the books speak for themselves (and apparently has a really different idea about what they conveyed than many readers do) says a lot. At the very least, it seems to say that she can't trust people to make up their own minds.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

mmmarcusz posted a reply to my comment with the names of some luminaries who criticised DH.

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

Did Rowling ever get any 'real' criticism? From bona fide critics or other writers?

Harold Bloom, AS Byatt, UK LeGuin and Anthony Holden all criticised it.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Really? I totally missed them in all the furore. I'll have to go look them up. Thanks!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

So did Madeleine L'Engle - and L'Engle and LeGuin are two of my literary heroines. LeGuin famously said the books were mean-spirited; L'Engle said that there just was no depth to them - they lacked substance. I think both of them were right, in retrospect.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, definitely. I always loved their work and had the feeling from how they dealt with issues in their own stories that they wouldn't buy into the hype, but my respect for them just continues to increase. LeGuin in particular is a huge heroine for me ('The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' will always be with me.)

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

It sounds a bit like she's still writing stuff for the Potter books. The new info about the site suggests she's going to be giving more info that she's been hording. I even thought one site I just looked at said for each chapter she's going to give info.

Either way if she is giving more info I guess this is going to be her version of an encyclopidia.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Either way if she is giving more info I guess this is going to be her version of an encyclopidia.

Well, I guess that means she needs to go reread her books then.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess that means she needs to go reread her books then.

LOL! Maybe thats it! the writers are doing a read through and all this mysterious info thats supposedly being horded is really going to be the corrections.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I'd buy that, sadly.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Maybe a cartoon or CGI series

I actually think that a decent Japanese anime company would do a much better job with the story than WB has, or any adaptation involving fleshware actors.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Something that will guarantee that the Ginny Weasley character materialises into something actually awesomely beautiful when the time comes, right? :-) Removing the risk of betting on how child actresses will grow up.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Something that will guarantee that the Ginny Weasley character materialises into something actually awesomely beautiful when the time comes, right? :-)

Well being Japanese anime, she'll have huge, round doe-eyes, a bust that will need the assistance of a magikal brassiere to lift, and a skirt the width of a measuring tape... :-P

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well being Japanese anime, she'll have huge, round doe-eyes, a bust that will need the assistance of a magikal brassiere to lift, and a skirt the width of a measuring tape... :-P

Hmmm. I'm wildly positive about one of those attributes, so-so with another and disapproving of the third. But I think it would still be an improvement on the looks of the movie version. :-)

Heh. When/if they do a non-live-actor series we'll have to record images of Ginny before and after her overnight ugly duckling transformation from the end of fifth year to the start of the sixth, and see if they make it as painfully contrived as Rowling's books.