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

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

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.

...

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 ...

Ugh. Blech. *Looks for regurgitation receptacle*

I suspect the 'sycophancy factor' of Pottermore would drive me crazy very very quickly. Sort of like the few times I've happened across the forum at The Leaky Cauldron. (Although I think someone here has mentioned that there *are* anti-canon areas on that web site, the couple I've come across were mostly full-on 'how wonderful is our authorgod Jo' places of worship. *stomach rumbles*)

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

Hermione for Ravenclaw and Neville for Hufflepuff, I guess, but I'm surprised that Harry wasn't?!? When the book clearly tells us that the Hat was undecided between Gryffindor & Slytherin?

Reading this summary - thank you for that! - I find that I'm totally cold on Pottermore. I guess the end of the series - the *bad* end of the series - has ruined HP for me, maybe? I just can't get enthusiastic over these 'starting game' bits and pieces, back in the first few books where Rowling was doing anything she liked, at a whim, when I know that she had no clue how to pull everything together at the end ... and that most of her readers, and the critics, were going to let her off on that, give her a free pass. It's *easy* to dream up owls and wand combinations if no-one is going to hold you accountable for the hard stuff in the writing!

(Also I might be too old for this interactive stuff, maybe. The things I've heard about mixing potions and duelling ... meh. I'd rather read a (good) book. Or post some (negative) comments. :-))

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Pottermore gives a rather shallow view of the book. After collecting everything the only thing to do is brew potions and duel. Sorry not interested. This week we got to unlock our textbooks to read a paragraph or two. Big effen deal.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Harry wasn't a hatstall because it was Voldie's soul piece that the hat was reading, not really Harry.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

I think that Harry wasn't a Hatstall because, after all, that can only be a compliment to someone who *doesn't* end up being a Gryffindor. :-P Okay, McGonagall was one, too, between Gryffindor and Ravenclaw, but that's because she's a teacher, and a Gryffindor teacher should really be every bit as smart as a Ravenclaw, or they wouldn't be the best, and Gryffindors *have* to be the best, right?

[xerox78.livejournal.com]

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?

I don't think he wears them in the movies, but he's described in the books as wearing "horn-rimmed glasses" several times.

[oryx_leucoryx]

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!

Yet the students of 2 years managed to find wands while he was spending time in the Malfoy dungeon.

Re: owls - I recall a screech owl mentioned in the books. And Hermione says Hedwig is not a local owl. There probably is international trade in pets.

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.”

Confirming that Twinkles was anti-Muggle.

Several people who bought toads responded rather defiantly.

Well, that's a start.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"There probably is international trade in pets."

That would explain it in-universe. Who wants to bet that the real reason is that Rowling is zoology-illiterate and wouldn't know the difference between a screech owl and a scops owl if her life depended on it?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

That soul piece is certainly a bit of inconsistent magic, isn't it? Let's see:

• Harry is protected (by Lily's wave-the-hands inexplicable 'old magic') against Voldemort, and his simple touch burns Quirrel to a crisp. Yet the Harrycrux happily resides INSIDE that burning protection for 17 years;


• The Harrycrux is tough enough to withstand Harry's near-death in CoS, despite basilisk venom being one of the guaranteed ways to destroy a Horcrux;


• Harry's thoughts of 'love' are enough to repel Voldemort - the real Voldemort - at the end of OotP. However the Harrycrux sits right inside Harry's head and doesn't have a problem;


• Yet the Harrycrux is sensitive enough to pick up Voldemort's mental newsflashes and feelings from hundreds of miles away, and transmit same - with pain - to Harry;


• And the Hat can 'read' it easily?

Where did you get the information that the Hat was reading the soul piece? Given how totally impervious the Harrycrux was to all Horcrux-destroying magic I find it difficult to believe that it was so easy for the hat to read?

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Well, originally JKR said in an interview that was the case and all the other bad things Harry did were caused by the soul piece, but I understand she's saying something different now. The soul piece isn't actually a horcrux because Voldemort didn't do the nasty business of casting the curse and the soul piece just latched onto the only remaining living body--Harry. That's according to JKR also.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But in that case, shouldn't the soul-bit be more vulnerable than a typical Horcrux? The nasty stuff is what makes the other Horcruces hard to destroy. The Harrycrux should have been easier.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

I have no idea.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Heh, I had a list of three or four points showing just how robust the Harrycrux-not-a-Harrycrux was - sitting happily inside Harry for lo, all those years, when we're shown how basilisk venom can destroy it, how his love of Sirius can drive out a Voldemort possession, how his merest *touch* can burn and destroy Quirrell - but, yeah. Rowling.

It's so typical of a wave-your-arms-in-the-air-and-guess author to whip up something like the Harrycrux, isn't it? Wow, gee, it has all the 'good' attributes of a Horcrux - it anchored Voldemort to this life - but none of the bad traits. Just sitting there until it was needed for the convenience of her story.

Or - if it really wasn't a Horcrux, like Rowling is now preaching - does that mean that Dumbledore was wrong in planning Harry's death? That the huge climactic reveal/surprise at the end of the series ... wasn't?

Sigh.

I wonder just why she felt the need to embellish her canon with these Harrycrux retcons? Rowling said it was what made Harry so cranky in book 5, right? And now he was a pure Gryffindor, the only Slytherin part of him was the Voldemort soul fragment. Why the need to dabble, to change, to adjust?

Well, that's okay ... Rowling's new guesswork only goes to support my theory that it was, likewise, the soul fragment which was the 'chest monster' independent agent within Harry that was attracted to Ginny. Which makes perfect sense ... only an EVIL PERSON could 'love' Ginny Weasley, I tells ya! :-)

[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

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, since science is my thing, I crosscheck every animal fable against zoological fact. Owls are really dumb too, and there's no way in hell they'd ever be smart enough, let alone strong enough, to carry anyone's mail long distances ;)

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

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

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

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

You're probably thinking of RL zoology. In European mythology, from Greece to Great Britain, snakes are considered symbols of wisdom, immortality, and fertility. The wisdom and immortality angles come from the practice of snakes shedding their skins. The fertility angle comes from both the serpentine resemblance to the penis and the fact male snakes have two penes. Imagine what Rowling would have done with that tidbit of info if she'd known it. ;-)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

The deleted comment was the same as the one posted above but without the last sentence. I tried to edit it, but I wasn't allowed to. When I tried to delete and repost it, it took several minutes, so sweettalkeress had a chance to reply before I could repost my amended comment. Stupid crappy LJ! >:-(

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh, but these are magical owls! That explains everything! BTW, are owls dumber than pigeons? They've been used for mail delivery for centuries.

Re snakes, Druids were referred to as "adders," so that's another reference to snaky intelligence, albeit a metaphorical one.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Yes, owls are MUCH dumber than pigeons. Pigeons have shown ability to memorize pictures and sequences (or something) and owls are regarded by ornithologists as some of the least-intelligent birds, considering their eyes are so big there's hardly any room in their head for their brains!

[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!

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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*

[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.

[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.

[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]

So, isn't the Harrycrux just giving him a free pass to be as jerkish as he wants to be? Oh, it wasn't him, of course, who was cranky and selfish! It was just the Harrycrux influencing his behavior!

I wonder what his excuse would be after it was removed.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

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

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I dare say Rowling would deny that he was 'cranky and selfish' in the first place, or otherwise proclaim that he never was again after losing the Harrycrux.

Even though his behaviour right after the battle - avoiding the supposed love of his life, denying her any comfort in favour of looking for a nap and a sandwich - would knock that assertion for six.

And naming all of his children after his side of the family was pretty selfish too.