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

[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?

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

You obviously haven't heard about how angry she got at fans who objected to her negative descriptions of Snape in interviews, or complained when she didn't call him heroic. She made it clear she thought them crazy, unable to distinguish good characters from evil ones, etc. She got defensive when Harry was criticized for torturing somebody, too, famously dismissing protests by saying, "Harry's not a saint." OTOH, she positively gushed when Oprah, in that infamous interview, cooed over the "message" of HP, agreeing when Oprah said the best thing about the books is that love triumphs, and the books are all about love. *gag*