Thoughts on Pottermore So Far

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Sooo, I have a Pottermore account (I'm WatchHawthorn3475, if anybody wants to chat with me). I've only really been able to play it now that I've gotten back from school, since for whatever reason the settings aren't fully enabled on my school's computers (not even the laptops). So the first chapter I got to explore in full was Chapter 3. No matter.

First thing's first: my thoughts may seem a bit messy and disjointed. Hopefully you can still bear with me, since the website basically follows the plot of the books.



One thing I noticed by reading the comments was how a lot of the readers are apparently very easily amused. They're positively floored by the notion that Rowling might have worked out other backstories and bits of information that never actually appeared in the story, and that it makes her a great writer. Newsflash, I do that and I only write amateur fanfiction!

Also, according to Ollivander's wand shop, Ollivander is a special snowflake wandmaker who makes better wands than anyone else in any other country, to the point people go to him for wands and ignore the wandmakers in their own countries!

My wand is Phoenix feather and English Oak. This makes me feel special because Merlin’s wand was English Oak too (allegedly). Although, Phoenix feather is supposed to make a wand willful, while English Oak makes a wand loyal. That is counterintuitive. Though I guess it still makes sense--it'll be loyal to me and nobody else!

Also, the pet shop does a terrible job with naming its owls. For one thing, there is no such thing as a Brown Owl. Many owls are brown, but there is no owl with the species name Brown Owl (there is, however, a Tawny Owl). The closest I could find in my handy-dandy owl encyclopedia (HUGE animal-lover here!) is the Brown Wood Owl, but that owl lives in Asia. Anyway, this owl looks more like a Barred Owl, except that Barred Owls are North American! Continuing along this point, why is an English pet shop selling a screech owl? Screech owls are New-World owls only! The Old-World equivalent is called a scops owl! I could allow that this is an American localization, but I somehow don't think this site is that sophisticated. Does Wizarding Britain have an illicit pet trade?

Just imagine what pet shops in regions such as South America, Tropical Asia, or Africa are like. So many, many owls! I can imagine a Russian wizard looking uber-intimidating with a giant Eurasian Eagle Owl, while a wizard from Costa Rica could boast a snazzy Crested Owl. To say nothing of all the hilarious, adorable Tyto owls wizards in tropical Asia and the South Pacific could have. Imagine an Indonesian witch with a Sulawesi Owl on her shoulder. Just imagine!

Anyway, I didn't buy an owl at all; I bought a Siamese Cat because cats are actually smart and may actually want to play with you every so often.

In other pet news, Pottermore refers to Hedwig as a "white, snowy owl." I guess that's better than saying "white Snowy Owl," since that would just be redundant. But still, it's not like it's hard to find out that a Snowy Owl is white (or that it's an actual species of owl)!

Incidentally, anyone else think that the name "Whizz Hard" contains some really unfortunate innuendo? Given that this is Rowling, I wonder if that was intentional.

From a note on wizard clothing: “Anti-Muggles will often attempt to demonstrate their superiority by adopting a deliberately flamboyant, out-of-date or dandyish style in public.”

If she’s trying to suggest that Oscar Wilde was a wizard, I might just have to kill something!

Have I mentioned that people in the comments on this site seem very easily amused? A ton of people on the Hogwarts Express page were going positively gaga at the thought that they would actually be in King's Cross station for any sort of reason!

I've also read several of the character blurbs, among them Lee Jordan's. According to a comment, the actor who plays Lee Jordan now has a new gig (though I don't recognize it).

Percy's page has some really cute pictures. They all draw him with glasses. Does he need glasses in the books? Because he's never shown with them in the movies, is he?

The comments about Draco Malfoy are insane. Some people genuinely think he’s a complex character; others just think he’s hot (which, given that this is the first book, eew!)

You know how Rowling tried to sell that toads were an uncool pet? Several people who bought toads responded rather defiantly.

Once you finally arrive at Hogwarts, one of the comments says: “I’d give anything to receive a letter [to Hogwarts]” Yeah, well I sometimes think I’d give anything to go off and live in the world of Pokemon, where there’s no global warming or environmental strife other than that caused by obviously-evil villains!

I’m actually in SLYTHERIN!!!!!!111111 *SQUEE* I don’t believe it!!! Not gonna lie, I spazzed out a little at that one, I mean, I sorta thought I’d get something like Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. Quite honestly, though, given that I was subconsciously hoping I'd be in Slytherin I suspect that might have biased the answers to some of my questions. Oh, well, it doesn't matter now.

Of course, then they go on to insist that the snake is the wisest of all creatures. Um... snakes are really, really dumb!

Another highlight that I picked up on from the Slytherin introductory speech is that they claim that it's good to have a reputation for being scary. That's interesting because isn't that what most major Gryffindors were known for?

It appears that the house common rooms are like message boards where anyone in that house can go to hold conversations.

I’m intrigued by how special snowflake Harry wasn’t a Hatstall, but both Hermione and Neville were.

And... that's all I've got for right now. I have to admit, the interactivity of the site in general is nice, and that's probably the only reason I'm even bothering with it. Now I just wonder what'll happen once the plot actually starts.

Comments

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

I guess that's what happens, when a lot of your fans are non-readers.
Especially non-fantasy readers.
They have no idea how reading books(and forget about writing!) even works, so they believe every little obvious thing is pure genius or something.
I read a discussion somewhere, where fans were outraged at Terry Pratchett's remarks about 'Saint Rowling, Who Got Children Reading again, but didn't realize she was writing fantasy'.
They also had no idea who that man is, so the consensus was, he can't be anywhere near as great as their idol.
Terry Pratchett.
Personally I liked those cretins better, before they learned reading with Rowling.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can beat that. I was in a Books-a-Million recently. (That's a chain of huge bookstores. This one must have been at least 10,000 square feet/3,000 square meters.) I looked all over it and and couldn't find anything by Harlan Ellison. I looked in regular fiction, literature, and science fiction. Nothing! When I checked out, the clerk asked me the routine "did you find everything you were looking for" query. I told her no and why. She clearly had no idea whom I was talking about, a conclusion I came to in part because she talked about his "book." I was tempted to give her a mini-lecture--published hundreds of books, career of more than 50 years, won the Hugo and Nebula Awards multiple times each, the dean of American, and possibly world, SF--but I didn't bother. I figured it would just make her angry and embarrassed and make me look like a pedantic, supercilious jerk.

BTW, many years ago, in the intro to one of the stories in his book Shatterday, Ellison wrote, "Now I conceive of all of you as the noblest, wittiest, most intelligent audience in the world. Otherwise you'd be off reading ka-ka like that proffered by Judith Krantz and Sidney Sheldon, to name only two of the creative typists masquerading as writers." (page 244) I've never read his opinion of Rowling, but how much do you want to bet he'd consider her a "creative typist" also? : D

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

This reminds of a collection of Sci-Fi mysteries I read. In the introduction Issac Asimov wrote that a friend had told him there couldn't be good Sci-Fi mysteries, because when it came to the end the hero would simply pull out - (insert sci-fi gaget) and mystery solved. Which would be unfair to the reader. Asimov admitted the temptation to do that was there but you could write a good Sci-Fi mystery. All you need to do was remember two rules ---
1. Establish the ground rules of your world.
2. Don't change the rules!

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you win.
Always fun to find professional, well educated people selling stuff they're interested in, isn't it? /sarcasm.
And yes, Rowling is very much a 'creative typist', no question about it.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Ooh, where did Terry Pratchett say this? I think I'd like to read the full story.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Pratchett's (rather generous) review of the HP series at the time POA was released can be found in his collection of short stories, essays and other tidbits - Once More* (with footnotes). (Yes, Pratchett has a footnote as part of the book title) I haven't seen his opinion of the HP series at later times. I think he decided to be silent because he couldn't be nice ... (Mention of HP in Pratchett fora is often considered bad manners.)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I think he decided to be silent because he couldn't be nice ...

A relaxation of this principle is warranted when the critic's target has made a billion dollars out of the bad writing, I think. A little bit of not-nice truth couldn't really be criticised, yeah?

(In other words - I would so love it if the literary world gave their true opinions of Rowling's (total) work. Without being influenced by the "world's greatest literary commercial success" thing. Or breaking ranks.)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, two literary giants did express their opinions. I will try to find exact quotes, if you like. But I admire both these ladies tremendously, and I think they were dead on the money - especially L'Engle. Madeleine L'Engle famously said that the Potter books were shallow, while LeGuin said they were mean-spirited.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

That's great to know, that at least some influential people actually examined HP on its (lack of merit). Thanks!

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I know. I'm really happy in particular that LeGuin spoke up, because she is someone I genuinely respect.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Here"s an interesting link concerning the L'Engle quote: http://culturalnomad.livejournal.com/22164.html

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Another true believer! Thanks!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see the quotes for that. :-)

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Pratchett made one very gentle comment about Rowling striking poses of not knowing, she was writing fantasy before a unicorn popped up, iirc.
The rest was me, being bitchy, because I just had that kind of discussion with someone. That Rowling got kids reading again and that alone makes her totally awesome. And it's better than Twilight, so there.*eyeroll*

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'm not totally sure my recollection is accurate here, but I do vaguely recall reading something that showed that kids weren't actually reading more after HP, because they weren't branching out into other books - they read HP and just that. Which, if so, make a crock of the 'kids are reading more' argument. Sigh.

My whole feeling RE the general attitude towards Rowling bears a strong similarity with the feeling engendered by rereading the Emperor's New Clothes, without the patience.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

At the risk of making half the literate world hate me, I can't but point out that in my opinion, Pratchett's own writing is kinda pretty pathetic, too. ;) Certainly not as pathetic as Rowling's, mind you, but no work of a genius either. If you look closer: shallow, cheap, prejudiced, very far from original or even intelligent – and that's just ideas, don't let me start on their execution. It might take a while before more people notice the obvious, but I'm sure they will. :)
Don't get me wrong, I'm as justly enraged by the most undeserved glorification of HP and JKR as the next person, but I also think that Pratchett's a fine one to speak when it comes to overrated authors, and I bet my lonesome prairie campfire that his words were said more outta envy than of concern for we poor readers. :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

I have no idea how far you kept up with Pratchett - he did evolve a lot. Though to some degree he is a bit too in love with his own creation of late. Not sure which prejudices you think Pratchett endorses rather than makes total fun of.