deathtocapslock | Rowling's Pottermore Notes

Entry tags:

Rowling's Pottermore Notes

I'm not a member of Pottermore, so I'm glad that some bloggers have been collecting Rowling's notes from the site. The notes don't have that many surprises, but a few things did jump out at me.

According to one of the Slytherin Prefects, Merlin was a Slytherin. I'm hoping that we're supposed to take this tidbit with a grain of salt since I'm pretty sure that Merlin lived several centuries before Hogwarts was founded, even in the Potterverse.

In a 2007 web chat, Rowling said that Quirrell was previously the Muggle Studies professor, probably because fans had been asking how Percy had had him as a teacher before if the DADA professor changed every year. But she says nothing about him teaching Muggle Studies in his backstory on Pottermore. I suspect the truth may be that she didn't figure out the details of the DADA curse until after PS was published.

I think some of the most interesting new information comes from McGonagall's Backstory. Apparently, like Severus, Minerva had a muggle father. Her mother kept her wand locked away and didn't reveal to her husband that she was a witch until after Minerva was born. Also, I'm guessing that Rowling must have said something in the past about Minerva being around 70 years old, for most fans seemed to have believed that Minerva's years at Hogwarts had overlapped with Tom Riddle's. However, it now appears from her backstory on Pottermore that Minerva didn't start at Hogwarts until 1947, two years after Tom finished, for she started teaching at the school two years after she graduated, and we know from OotP that she started teaching in December of 1956.

In a note on the history of the Sorting Hat, Rowling writes:

The Sorting Hat is notorious for refusing to admit it has made a mistake in its sorting of a student. On those occasions when Slytherins behave altruistically or selflessly, when Ravenclaws flunk all their exams, when Hufflepuffs prove lazy yet academically gifted and when Gryffindors exhibit cowardice, the Hat steadfastly backs its original decision. On balance, however, the Hat has made remarkably few errors of judgement over the many centuries it has been at work.

So, in other words, Slytherins really are all evil? I think it's rather disturbing that this appears on an official fansite where all members are sorted by a personality quiz into one of the four houses, including Slytherin.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

AHEM.

I think that it's JK who made the mistake, not the sorting hat. A person can be ambitious and cunning, but be selfless.
A person can be brave, but cowardly at times.
There isn't only one type of smart.
Hufflepuffs are also loyal and fair, which have no bearing on laziness. In fact, a flunking Ravenclaw could be lazy.

She's just now realizing how many "Slytherpuffs" and "Ravendors" there are, and that people don't just fall perfectly into four categories. If she'd back off of her universe a little bit and just say "the hat puts you where you'll do best, and nobody is good or evil" then there'd be no problem.

Again, Jo, very creative, entertaining writer, but you ruin it when you grip your darlings too tightly and refuse to admit your own fault. Nobody's going to hate you for saying you made a mistake/weren't clear/thought better of it on careful examination. Just own up.

Absolutely. You can be ambitious in your desire to make the world better, like wanting to end hunger or homelessness. You might be fine speaking in front of hundreds or thousands of people yet terrified of riding roller coasters. And some of the most creative people ever were poor students.

Also, there are brave people on both sides of any conflict. One can be brave in the name of an evil cause (see Bellatrix). Bravery does not in its own make one a good person nor one who by necessity makes the world better.

Similarly, once can be loyal to a group who is doing evil.

DAMN! Until you said that, I didn't realize how damned intwined bravery and goodness were in my head! But yeah... I guess so. If bravery and goodness were a package deal, then there would be no evil because the evil would be too cowardly to come out and make bad stuff happen.

I suppose there is some negatively-colored word to describe the daring and self-sacrificing people of the 'other side'. But whichever it is, 'they' use it for 'our' brave people. Whoever 'we' and 'they' might be.

----I suppose there is some negatively-colored word to describe the daring and self-sacrificing people of the 'other side'

Terrorists?

(deleted comment)

*Remembers Blackadder, all of 'em*

Let's pretend that JK was trying to do some subtle Brit humor in that style and her idiot fans were the ones that took it too far.

And Re: Danny_Sparks' comment... yeah, actually. I remember two DJs from New York were even speculating one day on their talk show about that. Ron Bennington, he said "What if I'm wrong and it's Bin Laden's God that's the real one? I don't know. Nobody does."

So damned true.
I don't wanna be "that fan" who looks into things too closely and speculates and makes assumptions about the author's beliefs and overcomplicates/runs things, but being "smart" ought to be more than being good at learning in the sit-down-and-listen way. Just about everyone proves himself/herself to be brilliant learners if they're presented with the material in the right way. Like audio learners, tactile learners, visual learners.

*Totally O.T here, you'll forgive me*
I know some ridiculously-old fashioned people will insist that some kids are "just lazy, that's why they don't learn" and that will think that these new methods of presenting material is a bunch of "hippie liberal bullshit" but they couldn't be any more wrong. People's brain chemicals and chemistry are different. Just like lactose intolerant people aren't "just being stubborn" when they get sick from drinking milk. There are lazy kids, sure, but it seems to be just as lazy to write every single one off as "lazy" without first trying to see if a diet change or a change in the way they're allowed to study would cure their behavior.

"A person can be ambitious and cunning, but be selfless."

And then there's people like the villain from the fourth-generation Pokemon games (a textbook Slytherin), who honestly thought he was being caring and selfless but made tons of trouble for everyone.

This was touched upon in a previous post, where someone suggested that Rowling isn't smart enough to understand or write about true cunning, so she just makes her "cunning" characters more selfish than the standard to compensate.

Are you talking about Team Aqua or another team? I know Team Aqua is trying to awaken a (Kraken-like Pokemon? Cthulhu?), and I'm not sure why they're doing it, but it probably isn't because they're trying to destroy the world. Yanno, 'cause... if you're gonna destroy the world, you'd better have a place to stand, right?

*Absolutely arbitrary direction* There really is no truly evil human being, as someone in a previous post said. Nobody thinks themselves "evil", even in H.P's world. Even the worshipers of the arguably most sinister God (and my personal favorite) Cynothoglys, the Mortician God... all summoning her does is bring her, "a shapeless, multiform entity with a single arm used for catching those who summoned it and bringing them painless, ecstatic death." That's not hurting anyone.

Actually, I'm talking about the leader of Team Galactic. Team Aqua (along with their counterpart Team Magma) is from a different generation entirely. What Team Galactic's leader Cyrus wants is to destroy the universe and rebuild it again from scratch, but that's because he honestly thinks that in doing so he could remove the problems that plague the world.

Wow, nice distinction there. The "ambitious, cunning, yet selfless" thing makes me think of that famous Bible passage about being as wise as serpents, yet as innocent as doves. Was that sort of what you were thinking of?

I wasn't, though that would be a very appropriate passage. I was mostly just thinking about how unfair it is to just pigeonhole someone. (Made a Gaia thread about it and got some beautiful testimonials, including those from self-identified Gryffindors who were annoyed with the favoritism).

It's just very interesting that a woman who, when she wrote these books, had been on welfare and struggling. You'd think she'd think a little bit more about grouping people together and resigning yourself to how they're "just going to turn out".

But for our own sanity, let's just say that she realized that people were stupid and wanted things in absolutes and so she was just giving the half-thinking masses what they wanted.

So baby Minerva mind-controlled cats? But she is not a Dark Witch? IOIAGDI?

COS suggests she had no idea about the previous opening of the chamber. If she started teaching 2+ years out of school (she started teaching in December, not at the beginning of the school year, according to OOTP) then she was even younger than Severus when he started teaching. (This kills my idea that normally there was a policy to keep new teachers from teaching those who knew them as students.)

Born Oct 1935, turned 11 Oct 1946, started at Hogwarts Sep 1947, left school Jun 1954, started teaching Dec 1956 at the age of 21.

I expected her to be younger than Tom because of the implied familiarity with Augusta Longbottom. We know Augusta's mother-in-law was born in 1915 (Black family Tree) and Frank must have been born in the mid-1950s (or earlier) if he was already a famous and popular Auror in 1981.

We have evidence that Albus still taught Transfiguration in the 1950s if he was her Transfiguration teacher. (So either Dippet died in 1956 and Albus moved directly to the position of headmaster, or in 1956 the DADA teacher died/left, and Albus took his place until Dippet's death sometime later to prevent Dippet from offering the DADA position to Tom. The third possibility, that Albus switched to DADA for this very reason in 1945 is dead.)

We also have Pomona some 5 years younger than Minerva - at school from 1952 to 1959 (which means she was at school with Minerva both as an older student and as a young teacher).

I roll my eyes at Minerva sharing her father's 'cast iron moral sense' and her 3 month love affair at 18 as 'the only time she lost her head'. But Rowling doesn't read her own books, so... you know the rest.

----The third possibility, that Albus switched to DADA for this very reason in 1945 is dead.

I'm kind of disappointed that this possibility is dead. It was my favorite of the options.

I wonder if Dippet taught defense as well as being headmaster between 1945 and 1956, so, when he died, that left both the defense and the headmaster positions open.

"I roll my eyes at Minerva sharing her father's 'cast iron moral sense' and her 3 month love affair at 18 as 'the only time she lost her head'. But Rowling doesn't read her own books, so... you know the rest."

Kinda reminds me of what she said about Dumbledore when she discussed him and Grindlewald. She's good, really! She just fell for the seductive wiles of an evil man once- 'cause she's totally good but all fallible and stuff....

Kinda reminds me of what she said about Dumbledore when she discussed him and Grindlewald. She's good, really! She just fell for the seductive wiles of an evil man once- 'cause she's totally good but all fallible and stuff....

Oh, you mean like Snape and Voldemort? At least Snape never plotted to torture and enslave millions, unlike St. Albus. As for Snape's alleged Dark Arts practice, IIRC, the only people who accused him of that were his enemies, who had every reason to lie about him.

And all they really say about him is that he was a bit precocious. Considering how Hermione knows to use at least 2 curses in 1st year (the Leg-locker curse she picked up from Draco and Petrificus Totalus) - so Severus knew a handful more, big deal. And with the jury being out as to whether he invented Sectumsempra or merely copied it down from some obscure source there really isn't much 'meat' to the accusations.

Not only that, but even if we concede that he did know a lot of curses, that doesn't necessarily mean anything nefarious. Many people collect guns or knives but don't use them to commit crimes. People in law enforcement study crimes and criminals so they can combat and prevent crime, just as scientists study diseases so they can prevent and cure them. Snape may have studied Dark magic because he wanted to combat it, or to figure out why and how people were seduced by it so he could prevent people from falling into that trap. Without knowing why he was interested in Dark magic, we can't know if his alleged interest was unhealthy or altruistic.

J.K's not good at math and really should just stop trying to micro-manage the universe.

Didn't Rowling claim in some interview that Minerva never found love or something along those lines? Which means Rowling is now making up backstories she wasn't aware of when she wrote the series? And with not reading her books she adds to the inconsistencies.

I just skimmed the site, and the Petunia backstory is funny, if only because it's all 'Poor Lily was hurt by Petunia's cruel rejections' even though the book has Petunia still sending Lily gifts that Lily then makes fun of.
Oh, and how James would make fun of Vernon to his face, but it's all cool, because later he'd feel slightly guilty. (Story of James' life - mocking the inferior, then demonstrating his superiority with mild flashes of conscience.)

But he's not superior enough to actually apologize because that would mean acknowledging it's not okay if a Gryffindor does it.

I love the way James is supposed to be so brave, but he completely lacks the moral courage to ever admit he's wrong. Unlike that other guy Lily hung out with--uh, what was his name again? You know, the greasy sleazeball?

Apparently this site should have been called, "For JKR Ass-Kissers Only." But I guess that would have been too long a name, not to mention the naughty language involved. ; )

I was afraid it would be "For JKR Ass-Kissers Only." - which is why I haven't been real interested in it.

Being a Gryffindor means never having to say your sorry.

That's because you're so sorry by definition, no amount of apologizing can be enough! :D (Not true, I know, but I couldn't resist.)

"Also interesting that apparently McGonagall was married at one point, but kept her own name being 'something of a feminist' - Rowling wading into new waters...?"

Honestly, Rowling has been touting her books as "feminist" literature for as long as they've been around. And then she goes and makes every female character play second fiddle to a male one, and the most powerful women in the series antagonists!

Indeed. Minerva needed Albus' tutoring to become an Animagus, James and Sirius managed on their own.

Heh, I guess I saw her as the type who wouldn't want to use the actual label 'feminist', like it would sound too man-hating or something!
I know she did that body image rant (the one 'for girls' about how females are responsible for each other's poor body image, and how 'well-adjusted' males are baffled at the depths of viciousness to which we'll sink...) and the closest she'd get to mentioning feminism was of course, the more negative term - she doesn't like 'Stupid Girls'.
Like, she obviously really did want to express that women should be more confident about their variety of shapes, and more concerned with personality over appearance, but being who she is, she couldn't express it without making it about men's opinions being the foremost issues, and how useless Hollywood (female, of course) celebrities are in comparison.

"I just skimmed the site, and the Petunia backstory is funny, if only because it's all 'Poor Lily was hurt by Petunia's cruel rejections' even though the book has Petunia still sending Lily gifts that Lily then makes fun of.
Oh, and how James would make fun of Vernon to his face, but it's all cool, because later he'd feel slightly guilty. (Story of James' life - mocking the inferior, then demonstrating his superiority with mild flashes of conscience.)"

I read Petunia's story. It reads like a segment from a children's storybook, the way it keeps beating you over the head with the idea that Petunia mistrusts magic and wants to associate only with people who don't do magic.

Incidentally, it talks about Petunia not believing that witches and wizards can cross water. Was that ever in the books? Because I don't remember seeing that anywhere.

----Incidentally, it talks about Petunia not believing that witches and wizards can cross water. Was that ever in the books? Because I don't remember seeing that anywhere.

I'd missed that when I skimmed the note earlier. It's not mentioned in the books, but kaskait had a theory a few years ago that suggested that this was why the Dursleys had hid themselves on the island. Actually I like her explanation better than JKR's.

I hate how contemptuous JKR is of the Dursleys. (http://kaskait.insanejournal.com/150387.html)

That's interesting. Because that might lend some credence to the idea that Rowling has run out of ideas and so is ripping off of her fans- if it really wasn't in the books, but originally a fan theory.

Slytherin!Merlin: Oh dear, maths.

Maybe "Slytherin" was once a generic term for Parselmouths which was later confused for Salazar's surname due to his fame and the epithet's strong association with him.

The thing that caught me about the McGonagall backstory was that it said she was offered a Transfiguration job under the head of the department, Dumbledore - which makes it sound like at this time Hogwarts was doing the sensible thing and having more than one teacher per subject. Maybe they did have a population crash at some point, although I'm no longer convinced it was war-related (since it doesn't seem to have been much of a war). Old inbred Pureblood families declining in fertility and dying off?

Slytherin!Merlin: Oh dear, maths.

Maybe "Slytherin" was once a generic term for Parselmouths which was later confused for Salazar's surname due to his fame and the epithet's strong association with him.

I once suggested Slytherin might originally have been the highest-status house because it carried on the spiritual legacy of the Druids, who were called "adders." Pre-Christian Britons considered snakes symbols of wisdom and fertility. It wasn't until Christianity took over, with its inherited prejudices against snakes, that snakes came to be seen as negative.

Oh, I like that! Slytherin House preserving Druidic knowledge, which apparently involved at least some magic (not that we have super-reliable sources...). And you would have to be ambitious to take on a 20 year course of study, I would think. This presumes that they kept Druidic traditions alive in some form for centuries after the island was supposedly converted, but especially in the Potterverse where you can have ghosts to advise you about things that happened ages ago, this doesn't seem too hard to manage.

"Salazar" was a Basque surname. The Arabs called them "majus," wizards, and they apparently had some sort of snakey deity called Sugaar and a sea serpent deity called Herensuge. So maybe our Salazar Slytherin's father was a Basque priest/wizard who moved to Britain and married into a family with equivalent status to his, one of those Slytherins/Druids.

That would make a great fanfic!

Re Sugaar, this is from Wiki: In one myth Sugaar seduces a Scottish princess in the village of Mundaka to father the mythical first Lord of Biscay, Jaun Zuria. This legend is believed to be a fabrication made to legitimate the Lordship of Biscay as a separate state from Navarre, because there is no historical account of such a lord.

So there's a Scottish connection there already. Interestingly enough, Sugaar is a fire deity who makes thunderstorms with his mate, Mari. Since they combine fire and water, they're sort of a Gryffindor/Slytherin hybrid.

Fire/Water - very nice!

Interestingly, one version of the Jaun Zuria story comes from "15th century warlord Lope García de Salázar." Distant cousins?

Another thought I had: Seamus' mother is an 'out' witch, or at least more 'out' than Minerva's mother was - she follows the Prophet, goes to the QWC and lets her son fly a broom somewhere (before he started school). I'm pretty sure the comparison with Minerva's mother (who kept her wand hidden even after coming out to her husband) suggests Seamus' parents are no longer together.

Those are good points.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rowling's Pottermore Notes

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Implications for Mr Finnigan

Re: Implications for Mr Finnigan