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]

A bit more about the Pottermore experience - the sorting quiz was interesting, and I ended up in Ravenclaw, as I expected. But -

If you mention Slytherin in a positive way, question anything, or say anything sarcastic (I've done all three), your comment awaits moderation. If you are straightforward, say something positive, or express enthusiasm, you get the message that your comment will appear soon. I've seen that message too.

Controlling, much?!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Are you serious? What kind of forum doesn't allow dissent? Oh wait, one controlled by rabid fans or people employed by the author.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Only if the fans are dittoheads and/or the author's a narcissistic control freak. On the Warriors site, the forums have plenty of dissension, including fans saying they hate the heroes and love the villains. There's even a thread making fun of how certain minor characters are males in some books and females in others, or die in certain books, then are alive again in subsequent books. The authors admit that, with dozens of books and hundreds of characters, they make mistakes, and ask fans to let them know when they find a mistake so it can be corrected in future editions. They even make fun of their own mistakes. Horrors!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

See, that sounds like a fandom that is actually healthy. There are quite a few things that I consider myself to be a fan of, but I don't usually get threatened when people say that they dislike them. Unless they are one of those annoying kinds of "haters" who just say that something sucks without being willing to expand on why they don't like it, I actually enjoy that kind of debate.

Maybe it just comes down to maturity. Which is weird, considering how many HP fans are at least a few years older than I am. (not that I am trying to gloat about how mature I am or anything)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Maturity has nothing to do with age. People can be stalled at all different levels of development no matter their age. For example, if someone is a drug addict, alcoholic, or abuse victim, their psychological development stalls at the age they were when they first became addicted or were abused.

That's one reason Harry seems so unpleasant: His development stalled when his parents were killed, so he's a pubescent child emoting like a toddler. An example is his being happy Mrs. Figg's leg was broken because it meant he could go to the zoo. Marionros is right that that's a disgusting attitude for an eleven-year-old to take, but it's perfectly appropriate for a fifteen-month-old.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

I suppose that means that those who end up in Slytherin will get a real feel for how the house was actually treated with suspicion.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I continue to find that selective censorship fascinating. Both in how it's technically done - how does the computer know that your message did "mention Slytherin in a positive way, question anything, or say anything sarcastic"? Such that it knows to put it in the moderation queue?

And then, secondly, it's lovely corroboration of what was mentioned once or twice about Rowling's never-ending set of lecture-interviews post DH; i.e. that questions were submitted in advance and had to be approved.

The Pottermore censorship is no doubt there to protect the kids, and that's fine ... but your criteria isn't exactly inimical to children. Just the HP canon. :-)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! I, too, found it fascinating that some comments awaited moderation, while others didn't. How does the system even know, and what criteria are they using? To be fair, I think it's perfectly fine to "protect the kiddies", and some pro-Slytherin comments have gone through. But I didn't see a single one that questioned canon.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

I think that all comments "await moderation" after you post them. Even comments as innocuous as stating your wand's wood and core. At least that's MY experience. :)

Speaking of wands, this made me shake my head in sad disbelief (quotting Pottermore): "However, abnormally short wands usually select those in whose character something is lacking, rather than because they are physically undersized". IOW if you have a "short wand" (crooked teeth, shoe size too small, a wheelchair...), apparetly there's something wrong with your character... sums up the attitude of HP books nicely... (Yeah I know it's already been discussed a million times over :))

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Surely they're not telling kids that after the site assigns them a wand, are they?
Please tell me Pottermore doesn't tell you how long your wand is, just the wood and core ...

[600ants.livejournal.com]

Wish I could, wish I could.

Although to be fair, I don't think you can actually get one of those extremely short wands on Pottermore, From what I've seen I think that their size range is pretty small - like 12 to 14 inches, so everyones gets almost the same, "normal" length. For example the wand I got is 13'' long. (Nowhere near Sirius' manly 15, but good effort for a humble female, eh? :))

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Thanks for letting me know!

Somehow I'm only slightly less horrified, though, that kids are being told they're 'normal' before hearing that there's something wrong with anyone who isn't the same. It's definitely better than telling a kid that there's something wrong with *them*, but it still seems pretty evil ...

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

Sirius' wand is 15"? I suppose that means JKR did NOT think he was lacking in character? Geez!

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Speaking of wands, this made me shake my head in sad disbelief (quotting Pottermore): "However, abnormally short wands usually select those in whose character something is lacking, rather than because they are physically undersized". IOW if you have a "short wand" (crooked teeth, shoe size too small, a wheelchair...), apparetly there's something wrong with your character... sums up the attitude of HP books nicely...

Surely they're not telling kids that after the site assigns them a wand, are they?
Please tell me Pottermore doesn't tell you how long your wand is, just the wood and core ...

Well, this shows what a morally corrupt person I am. I didn't even think about poor suffering kiddies hating themselves because their wands were inadequate. All I thought was, "Wait a minute. If that's the case, surely this is common knowledge in the Potterverse. So how was anybody ever fooled by Tom Riddle? They could have just looked at his wand and said, 'Uh oh, look at that wand. It's only 6 inches long. Obviously, this chap's a rotter, and we should stay away from him.'"

Of course, there are always bigots and losers who'd be attracted to somebody like him anyway, but most people would have avoided him, particularly people with money, power, and influence, like, oh, the Malfoys and Blacks. And how were the teachers fooled by him? Wouldn't they have looked at students' wands the first thing when funny stuff started happening? For example, when Myrtle died, they would have said, "I know it looks bad for Hagrid, but his wand is eighteen inches, so obviously he can't be guilty. That Riddle boy, on the other hand...That short wand of his always made me suspicious."

I guess this also means Albus "epitome of goodness" Dumbledore has a magical yardstick. It also lets him off the hook for concealing Tom's dangerousness. It's not his fault nobody else noticed how short Riddle's wand was and drew the obvious conclusion. ;-)

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

You might think, but no. Riddle's wand was 13 1/2 inches. Harry's is shorter. It seems much more like power, rather than morals. (Except for Hagrid.) ...Oh, and Bellatrix's wand was apparently 12 3/4".

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/wands.html

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

You might think, but no. Riddle's wand was 13 1/2 inches. Harry's is shorter. It seems much more like power, rather than morals. (Except for Hagrid.) ...Oh, and Bellatrix's wand was apparently 12 3/4".

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I would expect that all comments would await moderation - after all, the site is mostly for younger fans. And negative or sarcastic comments do get through, I believe. But it has actually been my experience that I've gotten two different messages, with my more questioning-type comments 'awaiting moderation', while the more positive ones 'will appear soon'. I would not have believed it had it not happened to me! How do they even know?!

And - well, the only person we know of in the Potterverse with an abnormally short wand is, I believe, Dolores Umbridge. She is morally weak, but not, as far as I can see, magically so. And her moral weaknesses are shared by at least a couple of the 'heroes', I believe.

But you're right - it is strange. Worse, in a way, than the sorting hat. 11-year-old Dolores gets her 7-inch wand, and everyone says (in theory) "Watch out for that one; she's no good." Has the wizarding world never heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Peter Pettigrew's is also relatively short, based on the info at the Harry Potter Lexicon. 9 and a fraction inches.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Exactly. This business about character correlating to wand length just reiterates the worst aspects of the Sorting routine within the 'Slytherin = evil' framework: the idea that you can measure someone's moral character at the age of 11 and assign them some sort of simplistic life-long measurement that says everything you need to know about them! It's disgusting.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Has the wizarding world never heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Are you kidding? They don't even believe in normal prophecies. ;-) And they've probably never even heard of the self-fulfilling kind.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was more worried about what it teaches to the "real life" kids, on a subconscious level. But you are absolutely right about this being yet another WW's way of corrupting children via prejudice and discrimination. And of course what conwiramurs said.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

The implications of that are pretty unsettling, no? JKR really needs to think these things out better.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I just read this lovely thought on Ta-Nehisi Coates's blog, and thought I'd share. He's speaking of his own writing:

The art I love is open, and I think this what we mean when we say "timeless." It does not foreclose the imagination. You don't need to have lived in Poisson's time to understand the horror depicted above. And what I see may not be what you see. I have no idea what he intended me to see. Does it matter?

When I go out and talk about my memoir, I'm always interested in other people's read. I made that book with some specific things I wanted to say, but with little thought of what I wanted you to hear. Once it was published, it no longer belonged to me. It probably was never mine in the first place.

This is the problem of didacticism. It is a dishonest selfishness. It pretends to give you something. But what it really wants is to make hostage of your imagination and march you at the point of a bayonet down some predetermined road.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That is lovely! And true. Of course, when (if) I get published, I may well find myself shocked at some readers' interpretations. You can never tell in advance how you will react. But I sincerely hope that my reaction will be more in line with this man's than with Rowling's. It is the reader's job to create the book along with the writer. The writer's part is to tell the story the reader is interpreting; the reader's is to interpret. That's not the same as controlling the reader's response!

(Another person I hope to emulate, at least in this regard, is Megan Whalen Turner. She is famous for responding, 'not telling' when readers ask her questions about her books. As far as she's concerned, the readers can see the characters however they want to, and it's not her job to tell them what to think.)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

See, now, that just annoys me when artists do that. I want to know what an artist intended when they created a certain work. I find it enhances my appreciation of it because it gives me the original perspective from which it was written, and often a greater admiration for that artist's creativity. For example, knowing that Trent Reznor wrote "Hurt" about a friend who died of a heroin overdose doesn't prevent me from personalizing that song, or having my own interpretation of it. I esteemed the Beatles songs even more when I learned what inspired them. And one of the things I like best about Harlan Ellison's books is the alternately snarky and sensitive introductions he writes to the stories telling where they came from.