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

[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.