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

[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 ...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear! If the normal length is 12 to 14 inches, mine is abnormally short, as well as surprisingly swishy. It was 10 and 3/4 inches. (Larch and unicorn hair, as I think I said before.)

[sionna-raven.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, Mary. 10" is not abnormally short. Mine is 10", rowan, unicorn hair. We'd better not duel, just in case our cores are from the same unicorn ;).
IIRC wand lengths of 10 and 11 are mentioned in the books. Abnormally short must be much shorter, probably under 7 or 8.
BTW I could choose my house between Slytherin and Ravenclaw which seemed logical to me, but is very rare from what I've heard from others.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

Oh my... please note that I said: “From what I've seen I think.” :) For the purpose of writing my comment, I only looked over the Pottermore profiles of maybe 15 or 20 people, which indeed is not a representative sample. Just because they all happened to fall between the 12 and 14", doesn't mean that 10" couldn't in fact be the most usual and normal length of a wand in the HP world. From what we know for certain form the books (Harry 11", Ron 12", Hermione 10¾”, Voldemort 13 1/2", the Elder wand 15", ), 10" seem to be on the shorter side, but not really unusual. Although the medians on Pottermore probably differ from medians in the books, I believe you can safely assume that your 10" are outside the area of dishonorably short in any universe possible. :)

And since we're getting to know each other, mine is Redwood with dragon core, supple. And I'm a Slytherin. :)

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

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

[600ants.livejournal.com]

I believe that 15" was Harry's (?) estimation, somewhere in the books. The number is also mentioned on HP wikia in the article “Sirius Black's wand ”, but not where they found it. (In the future, please remind me to keep my jokes to myself. ;D)

Of course JKR doesn't see anynothing wrong with Sirius's character! Come on, if there ever was brave, noble, loyal, honest, virtuous, handsome and incredibly attractive upstanding individual, it was Sirius Black!!11! With a cool bike.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The only book in which Harry could have seen Sirius' wand was OOTP. The lexicon lists several wands mentioned in the series and there is nothing about Sirius', so perhaps the 15" wand is something added specifically to Pottermore.

[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".

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Well, the point I'm trying to make is THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! IT CONTRADICTS CANON!

And it's time for another episode of JKR Doesn't Know Her Head from Her Butt about Her Own Creation. On this episode: Her official Pottermore website says wand length usually correlates with character. Yet the supposedly Most Evil Wizard in a Century has a wand almost as long (13 1/2") as that of the Epitome of Goodness (15"), while minor villains have shorter wands than the Chief Bad Guy. What the hell?

JOANNE ROWLING! MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND! YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! EITHER WAND LENGTH IS A RELIABLE INDICATOR OF CHARACTER, OR IT'S NOT! PICK ONE OPTION AND STICK WITH IT!

Wanting to have it both ways is another indicator of Rowling's narcissism. She thinks she can state whatever "information" she wants, even if it contradicts facts she has already established.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Oops.

Still, it might not be good vs. bad character, but impressive vs. pathetic character. Umbridge is pathetic in her way, and Peter is definitely pathetic.

I mean, okay, Voldemort is fairly pathetic, too, but he's definitely not considered pathetic in-universe, and the others are.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

Well yes, dissecting Harry Potter usually comes down to this. :)

My personal opinion is that not the amount of one's goodness, but of one's coolness does the legth of one's wand indicate. However, when it comes to HP, I tend to be wrong for a lack of insight. :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

The only person in canon known to have an exceptionally short wand is Dolores Umbridge (though the exact length is unknown). The longest known wand is Hagrid's, and IIRC the next longest is Tom Riddle's.

[sunnyskywalker]

And Umbridge had enough magical power to cast a Patronus, however much that is. If a room full of kids can do it, I suppose it isn't as hard as advertized, at least under non-combat conditions. (There weren't actually Dementors in the room, iirc.) So... a short wand means she's what, only moderately powerful? Uncreative, magically speaking? And does the Ministry have wand-length requirements for certain jobs (Aurors' wands must be this high to ride, or something)?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Actually there were dementors - they were guarding the prisoners being interrogated. The Patronus was keeping the dementors out of the side of the room where Dolores and her staff were.

[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.