Pottermore-
Apr. 14th, 2012 11:45 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mary-j-59.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockOkay - 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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-23 11:45 am (UTC)Please tell me Pottermore doesn't tell you how long your wand is, just the wood and core ...
no subject
Date: 2012-04-23 09:44 pm (UTC)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? :))
no subject
Date: 2012-04-24 10:59 pm (UTC)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 ...
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 05:23 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 07:45 pm (UTC)And since we're getting to know each other, mine is Redwood with dragon core, supple. And I'm a Slytherin. :)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 08:45 pm (UTC)However, there's the minor problem with Hagrid's 16“ and the Potter family's 11“ - probably residuals from the times when JKR still thought that the wands matched their owner's physique rather than psyche. :)
(all data taken from HP Lexicon)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-30 05:55 am (UTC)I've seen quite a few complaints about the moderation of comments in the Common Room chat. OTOH they allow newly sorted members to complain about their house. I suspect they moderate/delete replies to these whinings, because it's unlikely that nobody reacts to it.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-28 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 08:05 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-30 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 01:51 am (UTC)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. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 04:22 am (UTC)http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/wands.html
no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 01:20 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 05:24 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 08:21 pm (UTC)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. :)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 09:39 pm (UTC)