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

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

When describing Number 4, Privet Drive, Rowling said that she chose the number four because she disliked that number, finding it hard and unforgiving.

Four is hard and unforgiving? That is weird.

On a more serious note, she based the look and floorplan of the house on that of a house she lived in herself

The Dursley house is her house. Petunia is JK Rowling!

[kahran042]

Well, if it matters, in Japan four is considered an unlucky number due to associations with death. So it's not all that weird.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That's interesting! Of course, some numbers have cosmic significance in all societies. But, so far as I know, the number four has no particular associations in Britain-?

[kahran042]

You're right, of course. I just wanted to point out that little fact.

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, in Western culture, four is associated with the earth/ the material plane (4 geographic directions, 4 elements (fire, water, earth, air), 4 "humors" = blood, phlegm, yellow and black gall...) as opposed to the three which symbolizes heaven/ the spiritual plane (the phases of the moon, countless triadic deities, the Christian Trinity...). But I've no idea whether that stems from Christianity or some other source.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I think that it is in China as well. I wonder if she was aware of this.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! But she's also Ginny - or, worse yet, Fred. One of the things I didn't mention is that she joined the society of weights and measures specifically to annoy her sister. This society is strongly anti-metric, and she said she looked forward to how angry her sister would be. The sister did not disappoint her, it seems, and Rowling was delighted - even more so at her sister's anger at being teased.

Then there's her sister's comment about Dumbledore - Rowling reports that her younger sister said, "He's cold, like you." Interesting!

In any event, it's absolutely clear from the site that Rowling does push one rather simplistic interpretation of her books. The section on Petunia and Vernon was especially annoying to me - I think Oryx, or someone else, has already reported on that, so I won't go into detail here. Still, the good thing about the site is that it does convey some of the energy and joy I found in the early books, before I really began thinking about them. I've enjoyed shopping in Diagon alley, and I can now report that my wand is larch with unicorn hair - which I like! The quiz to get your wand was good fun.

Summing up: Pottermore seems geared to children, primarily older children who are passionate fans - rather the way I was about "Star Trek" through my teens. Rowling hasn't mentioned a single thing that would lead me to find any deeper meaning in the books.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Why would any adult go through the trouble of joining a society just to annoy their sibling?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Because, it seems, they are the sort of adult who finds this funny. Rowling was enormously amused by her sister's anger. It's no wonder that she describes the twins as "funny" and "popular", not as the jealous, vicious bullies they are.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I think the real problem with JKR's sister is that she's the Aberforth to Jo's Albus, i.e., she doesn't think the sun shines out of Jo's butt. As I know from experience with my own sister, nothing sets a narcissist off more than not kowtowing to them. You can give in because you think they're wonderful, or you can give in because you're afraid to defy them, but you have to give in. The sister's perspicacious remark about Jo indicates she's entirely too insightful about Jo. That means she has to be crushed. If she can't be beaten down directly, then her causes have to be thwarted. It's pure childish spite. I've been subjected to the same crap from my sister--and she's seven years older than I am.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that you should mention this, because it drives home the point (which has been raised by other members of the comm, I think) that a narcissistic worldview seems, at bottom, to be a childish one: like a child who hasn't yet been taught morality or empathy they believe they're the most important thing in the world. The big question is: are the Harry Potter books a narcissist's view of the world disguised as a children's book, or are they a book geared toward children, whom Rowling assumes will have thought processes in common with a narcissistic person, so she plays along? Or is Rowling simply an adult child? None of these options present Rowling or the series in a positive light.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Going by the interviews I can't say that I buy the 'meant to be narcissistic because it's for children' view. I don't really see Rowling as being that on-the-ball about the series, whereas the other interpretations sadly hold up better when compared to her public demeanor.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that you should mention this, because it drives home the point (which has been raised by other members of the comm, I think) that a narcissistic worldview seems, at bottom, to be a childish one: like a child who hasn't yet been taught morality or empathy they believe they're the most important thing in the world.

That's true. Both narcissists and psychopaths are extremely immature emotionally. They're not just infantile, though; they're infants in extreme survival mode, obsessed with getting what they need no matter who or how much it hurts.

As for whether Rowling is consciously pandering to children with her HP worldview, I think it's pretty clear she's acting unconsciously. I infer that from these facts: (1) She seems unaware of the series' subliminal themes when confronted with them by fans; (2) she sees only one way of interpreting the books--hers (lack of empathy is characteristic of narcissists); (3) she gets angry, defensive, and controlling when people don't agree with her official interpretations (more lack of empathy, plus narcissists' insecurity makes them controlling). Besides, I've read a lot of children's books, and JKR is the only children's writer I can think of who presents such a twisted worldview.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Has she ever expressly gotten angry with a fan who presented an alternate interpretation of her world? I've seen her trying to add in her own interpretations after the fact, but has she directly contradicted a fan who didn't agree with her?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wouldn't argue with most of this. Clearly, Rowling identifies with Harry. She'd like to think she is him. But - she's actually Petunia, IMHO!

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

it's whom you favor. (which is, according to Jo herself, a very Slytherin attitude)
Which goes to show, once again, that Gryffindors, far from being the opposite of Slytherin, are simply Slytherins, that get away with it...

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

This is wonderfully said. It's such a breath of fresh air to be able to say these things without being attacked by fans, isn't it? The few times I have met anti-fans in real life, they have always said it tentatively, as if they were afraid of my reaction. Of course, in truth I would almost like to hug them, just for solidarity's sake. ;-)

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

No, not her maths teacher, it was that nasty chemistry teacher who was always calling on her!! "I'll get even with him; he's going to be the evillest teacher at Hogwarts and he's just so mean to Harry!! Yes, that's what I'll do!"

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That makes a lot of sense. I didn't know that she shared a birthday with Harry, though. Kind of surprised that the fans haven't picked up on that yet. I mean, it seems to clearly point to Harry's status as an author's darling. (to use Limyaael's term for it) I don't usually say negative things about an author (as opposed to their works), but dear Lord is this woman immature! And what's worse is how so many people seem to embrace her worldview.

Also, I kind of wonder what her parents think about the books.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

To be fair - while Harry's birthday IS the same as Rowling's - it is also a rather important date in the Celtic Calendar (the 'eve' before Lughansa) and one that makes a great deal of sense in a story universe that often uses these dates (especially Hallow's Eve).

I do however agree that she ALSO wanted it to match her own birthdate (even if it might be subconsciously) - otherwise Harry would have been born on Aug 1st. with the prophecy referring to 'born as the 8th month rises' or something of the sort.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Nice point about the other significance of the date. I'm not sure I entirely agree with you about Harry otherwise being born in August, though; the number seven is significant in our culture. JKR even drew on it for the horcruxes, in a completely separate move.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The number 7 appears so many times in the HP series - 7 years of education, 7 players of Quidditch, Lockhart's 7 required books, 7 as the age by which typically wizards display magical ability, Bellatrix asked Severus 7 questions (Spinner's End), the 7 'Potters', the 7 potions in Severus' riddle, 7 protections of the Philosophers' Stone - that's what I remember at the moment.

There were several 7s that became 8: Tom intended to split his soul in 7 parts, but ended up splitting it 8 ways. Neville displayed magic only at the age of 8. And Hermione (and maybe some others) ended up completing her magical education 8 years after her initial arrival at Hogwarts. Harry's birthday could have worked either way, I think - either as a straight 7th month or 'should have been 7th but turned out to be 8th'.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

dear Lord is this woman immature! And what's worse is how so many people seem to embrace her worldview.

Well, there are a lot of narcissists in the world. There are also a lot of people who can't think independently. I'd say, "Narcissists unite!" except that would never happen because narcissism is the essence of selfishness. :D