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

[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.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with you: I find it very interesting to know what an author intended and what inspired them. So I don't think I would ever succeed in "not telling" to the extent Megan Whalen Turner does. But I still find her attitude much healthier than Rowling's. To her, once they are written, the books belong to the fans/readers, and not so much to her any more. I can respect that attitude.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're right about that. I feel sorry for Rowling's kids. She must be an inordinately controlling mother. Narcissists see everyone, particularly their children, as extensions of themselves, and the more they see you as an extension, the more they want to control you. I know all about that.