Pottermore-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Okay - I confess; I joined Pottermore, out of sheer curiosity. I want to know if, by any strange chance, I will sort to Slytherin, and also what sort of wand I get. Still, some things struck me at once (I've spent about 20 minutes exploring the first chapter):

When describing Number 4, Privet Drive, Rowling said that she chose the number four because she disliked that number, finding it hard and unforgiving. I believe those were the exact words! Do you suppose that feeling is limited to the number four, or might it extend to other numbers?

On a more serious note, she based the look and floorplan of the house on that of a house she lived in herself - and got wierded out because, without discussing it with her, the filmmakers got the floorplan exactly right.

And - this is fascinating! - she had to argue with the publishers, who wanted to convert all the British measurements into metric ones. She also said that Wizards can do complex calculations magically. Can they, really? Then why did we never see them doing this?

Oh, dear. Maths.

But I'm very glad that she talked the publishers into keeping the old fashioned measurements. Can you imagine a metric Wizarding World? I can't.

Comments

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

I agree that way Harry is considered perfect whatever he does (including GBH and torture) seriously creeps me out about this series.

Ironically, though, he is right in this case. He is, in fact, the centre of the WW universe (just ask JKR) and when the weather doesn't match his mood it is because its creator is setting things up that way deliberately.

:)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Harry as Zaphod Beeblebrox!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

No, you are totally right to be creeped out by this. Really, the whole WW is built on self-centeredness and narcissism. I mean, who cares if there are starving Muggles in the third world who could use the food and clean water we could effortlessly multiply and send their way. Let's play some Quidditch!

Does JKR seriously not think these things out?

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I mean, who cares if there are starving Muggles in the third world who could use the food and clean water we could effortlessly multiply and send their way.

But, but--those are just Muggles! Who cares what happens to them? It would be better for the world if some of them died out and their verminous population was reduced anyway.

Really, the whole WW is built on self-centeredness and narcissism.

That's hardly surprising, considering its creator seems to be a world-class narcissist. The wizarding attitude towards non-wizards reminds me of the way aristocrats felt about peasants in pre-revolution France. Considering that, it's not surprising magicals were killed by Muggles: It wasn't Muggle fear of their magic that got them killed, it was their own snotty attitude. I agree with what Mark Twain wrote in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: When people condemn French peasants for the Reign of Terror, they forget that for every drop of aristocratic blood spilled then, a barrel of peasant blood had been spilled in the past by aristocrats. In the same way, people who want to condemn Muggles for killing wizards should remember the Muggle-baiting, Obliviation, and other abuse suffered by Muggles who were mostly powerless to fight back in the pre-technological age.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/I agree with what Mark Twain wrote in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: When people condemn French peasants for the Reign of Terror, they forget that for every drop of aristocratic blood spilled then, a barrel of peasant blood had been spilled in the past by aristocrats./

I wonder if people on both sides said the same things about the Russian Revolution centuries later.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'both sides,' but it's certainly true that the Russian peasantry had been treated atrociously for centuries prior to the revolution. Also, every previous attempt at uprising had been brutally crushed. Just google "Stolypin's neckties" for a taste of what happened after the 1905 revolt. Even after the revolution of 1917, you still had members of the gentry complaining to the provisional government about the actions of the peasants 'who you insist on calling "human."'

None of which means the peasants were saints. The gentry above were complaining about the fact that the village communes they had essentially kept enslaved for hundreds of years were taking over their estates by force, while allowing the nobility to escape with little more than their lives (if that). Even earlier you had Pugachev's rebellion, a bloody rampage that scarred the psyches of the nobility for generations.


Er... right, Harry Potter. I think if we learn anything from history it should be that as satisfying as revenge may be, it lowers you to the level of the original oppressors. Any thoughts on modern technology that might be able to restrain/imprison wizards if necessary without resorting to summary execution? For the weaker ones disarming them and keeping their wands secured should be sufficient. For the more powerful ones though I'm having trouble thinking of anything besides sedation, since they could likely use wand-less, nonverbal magic if their wands were confiscated. Have we seen anything that would let us put some upper limits on the extent of wand-less/nonverbal spells? As far as I can recall the canon there really weren't any besides the strength the wizard or witch in question.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I wish that JKR had written that story. It would be far more interesting and balanced.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

This is why I will almost always side with the muggles. JKR's wizards are, on the whole, cruel, elitist and narcissistic and-- dare I say it-- almost deserve to be killed. Why would she expect me to feel sympathy for monsters like that?

[sunnyskywalker]

It would be better for the world if some of them died out and their verminous population was reduced anyway.

Scrooge was a wizard, then! No wonder he lived such a solitary life... can't go mixing too much with those Muggles and his dratted Squib nephew (but making a living overcharging them is fine and dandy, so long as Secrecy isn't breached, I guess - maybe things were different in the 19th century). Though in his case a wizarding ghost and probably some other wizard(s) seem to have worked to change his mind about all that. Perhaps Dickens was a Muggle with a wizarding relative and had some opinions on these issues...

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

it seriously creeps me out to see such a worldview being sold as 'the best child lit this century'.

Oh, that is so true!

There have been so many better children's books in the last century. Heck, even old (early 1960's) Spider-man comic books were better, and they were supposed to be 10-cent throw-away trash.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of afraid of what the books are teaching kids to think about the world- and as a library science grad student who strongly opposes censorship, that's saying something.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

While it might be kind-of cheating to mention a video game here, even Pokemon is better at doing what it's been doing than Harry Potter (and I suspect the same is true of the manga as well, so there)!

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Most things I can think of are better, so I guess the bigger challenge is to think of something that's worse. Maybe Grimm's Fairy Tales? According to Wikipedia, "although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children". Many of us here would doubt the suitability of HP, too.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

That's not a fair comparison, though, because they were never intended to be children's stories. The Grimm brothers were historians who were collecting folklore for posterity before the stories died out. Nothing but adult bigotry towards fantasy and supernatural stories caused people to regard them as "children's stories." A lot of stories that were never intended to be children's stories have been classified that way out of what I call book bigotry, e.g. Jack London's dog novels and Black Beauty. Those stories are about animals, so they have to be kids' books, right? The latter is actually a social protest novel about cruelty to carriage horses. No decent Victorian lady would have put graphic descriptions of animals being shot, mutilated, burned to death, or dying of abuse in a children's book.

In addition, the Grimm stories teach a much healthier worldview than HP does. For example, they teach the importance of being kind to everyone, no matter how insignificant they may appear to be; that hard work and perseverance are necessary to success; that people who are fawned over and pampered by authority figures become lazy, self-indulgent failures who expect everything to be given to them just because they're so wonderful, while people considered by the powerful to be no-account losers are the real heroes/heroines because they exemplify the virtues of kindness, hard work, and perseverance.

It just occurred to me while writing that, but I think that's a big reason so many fans see Snape as the real hero of HP: He fits the trope of the despised character who succeeds because he works hard and perseveres (although he's not kind, unfortunately). Harry and the other designated good guys mostly fit the trope of the favored children who fail because of their laziness, selfishness, and conceit. And in fact, the only reason they did succeed was because of divine authorial intervention. In a universe based on fairness, they would have failed spectacularly. Harry et al are like the scions of a rich and powerful family who are never allowed to fail because Mommy and Daddy always come along and bail them out when they make mistakes (e.g., old fashioned European royalty, or the modern Bush and Kennedy families).

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Interesting ideas. Thanks. There is indeed an unfortunate prejudice against Imaginative Fiction in our culture. And yes, now that I think about it, Grimm's Fairy Tales do teach some sound moral lessons, unlike HP. Although JKR makes an attempt at a moral message about racism and fascism, it's very clumsy and it misses its target IMO (in fact, I think it would be fair to say that it shoots itself in the foot).

Yesterday I heard a talk by the sci-fi author Robert J Sawyer on how to write good Imaginative Fiction, and without launching into a major essay here, I noticed that HP failed on every point. All the characters (with the exception of Snape, and possibly the Malfoys), and the wizarding world itself, end up pretty much the same as they started out, with no real change at all.

I like your observation that Harry et al. are like the scions of a rich and powerful family who are never allowed to fail … That switches them into the position that JKR no doubt intended Draco to occupy. Fascinating.