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: 2012-04-29 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. :)