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

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

You make a good point about the fan community vs. the actual canon that Rowling devised. I was in high school and early college during the books' real peak, and the community that was built up around discussing and appreciating them was one of the best I have ever come across. The sad thing really is less the poor quality of the books and more the fact that the fanbase as I see it has become less a warm and open one that enjoyed discussing and theorizing and more a closed, unfriendly one that cracks down on any dissent about JKR's writing abilities. What happened?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

What happened?

I've learnt a lot analysing the behaviour of the pro-Jo fan zombies and predicting their moves over the years. It's been a really interesting introduction to 'Psychology 101' for me.

You've got a couple of factors driving the pro-Jo crowd. First of all there's the basic reluctance in many people to admit to a mistake. Practically every feral fan I've encountered has ended up hurling insults and retreating rather than say "you're right, that was a HP/Rowling/DH error". (I came across one polite one who didn't do the insults, but still ran away at warp speed from any frank/objective look at the topic. "I say that HP constitutes 'good writing' and-now-I'm-banning-you-from-saying-otherwise-in-my-journal-and-making-up-reasons-why-I'm-not-an-intellectual-coward-for-doing-this-so-I-can-justify-it-in-my-mind".)

Then there's the 'idol' factor, which I liken to that Hans Christian Andersen "The Emperor's New Clothes" story. Once people hitch their wagon to a star they will fight tooth and nail to keep them there. Plus they'll support each other in a mob rather than be the first to break away, say "I'm wrong" and thus damn the rest of the sheep/friends.

Then, driving these basic responses, you've got 'cognitive dissonance' and "The Devil's Paradigm" (hmmm, I might be mislabelling the latter. I know 'devil' is in it though. The ability for people to denote an opponent as 'the enemy' so it can become and 'us and them' situation, where 'them' aren't worthy of respect or polite discourse or the inconvenience of defending their Jo) as various psychological processes which allow the fan zombies to persevere with their thou-shall-not-say-anything-bad-about-Jo mantras and still maintain a semblance of self-respect in their own minds.

It's been extremely interesting. There must be papers written about fandom psychology out there, I should really go looking for them.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That's really fascinating. If you find any such papers on fan psychology, please do pass them on!

[night-axe.livejournal.com]

First of all there's the basic reluctance in many people to admit to a mistake

Some of them may not even know they're mistaken. I've run into a few who liked DH and honestly thought it was good, not having the experience to know why it was bad. If someone points out DH sucked they're likely to take it personally, as saying they must be stupid or have bad taste.

In addition, many people get hostile when they feel someone's harshing their squee. This is a cross-fandom phenomenon. "Why do you even watch the show if you hate it so much? Why would anyone waste energy critiquing stuff they dislike instead of writing about stuff they enjoy?" The idea that some of us enjoy critique, and that this is a valid form of engaging with the source, hasn't sunk in.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It's the "taking it personally" thing which is one of the facets of this that I find so interesting. I understand it, of course; I feel the same if I've been happy with something and have attached my name/support to it and then someone comes along and shows that I'm in error. It's embarrassing.

But, for me, the (objective) truth means more than trying to prop up something that I now know is flawed. I have no respect for those who'll do everything and anything they can - run away, hurl insults, etc - to avoid simply saying "oh, yeah, I got that wrong". Ego versus sense of truth I guess.

I believe one sign of maturity is the ability to admit to an error, to concede defeat, to say "yes, I was wrong, and you're right". A lot of (adult) fans just can't do that.

The idea that some of us enjoy critique, and that this is a valid form of engaging with the source, hasn't sunk in.

For many of us it's the only way we can get our money's worth from our HP books. :-)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

The idea that some of us enjoy critique, and that this is a valid form of engaging with the source, hasn't sunk in.

I might be weird, but I personally find it almost as enjoyable to pick apart a bad book in the hopes of learning from the author's mistakes as to read a really good book instead. Both are useful and often fun experiences, just in a different way.