MSNBC News Article -- HP Encyclopedia

Apparently Rowling will be making an encyclopedia, I think probably for charity (otherwise she's milking the series by being a cunt). It'll discuss the characters and it looks like it'd be written from the perspective that it's 2016 (19 years later epilogue).

Also interesting (or not, depending on how interesting deaths are) is that Rowling has revealed Arthur Weasley would be the person to die but got a reprieve. That's too bad, really. Apparently One Big Happy Weasley Family just can't suffer losing Arthur. Probably why one of the twins snuffed it.

Also cool: Naomi Watts will play Narcissa Malfoy

In case you don't have a visual:


She's pretty hot. She's probably more recently known for her portrayal of Ann Darrow in the 2005 remake of King Kong.

Some interesting notes concerning Deathly Hallows:
- 15 million copies were sold world-wide on the opening day (33% more than Half-Blood Prince)
- 8 million copies were sold in the United States; 3 million copies were sold in the United Kingdom.
- JK Rowling cried while writing the HP-sacrifice scene.
- $20,000,000USD was wasted trying to keep HP secret; chapter images broke on the 13th, the full-copy broke on the 15th.

Interesting.

 

I'd tap that. Harry/Narcissia just became alot more visualy appealing in that sense.

 

Why? When she knew all along that he is gonna get up brushing off dirt?

BTW, Naomi Watts is perfect for Narcissa. Harry/Narcissa stories should go up after this announcement.

 

Turns out the Naomi Watts rumour was just a rumour, according to Mugglenet.

As for the encyclodepia, it sounds like JKR will be focusing mostly on character histories and futures. While that's all well and good, it's information about the wizarding world that I really want.

 

Character futures would not be so bad if the whole 19 year latter thing did not fuck everything up so bad.

 

MOAR ALBUS SEVERUS! Ahem. I second Taure, I hope she puts in less about the character futures and more about magic and the general wizarding world. Minor character backgrounds are interesting as well- I'd like to know more about minor Slytherins, etc.

 

Nah I think it's going to be completely character based ,and perhaps key plot points. She'll probably mention sons of characters we've already met plus new characters she never mentioned in the epilogue such as the headmaster of Hogwarts (who she stated was not Mcgonagall).



EDIT:
On a side note I'm surprised Mr.Weasley was the reprieved, based on her writing I thought it was Hagrid. Apparently after getting thrown out of school, having your house burned down, falling countless feet off a motorcycle, and being driven away by giant spiders only to materialize mysteriously unharmed wasn't a reprieve enough.

 

Screw all that. I want to know what happened to Ms. Norris!

>.>

<.<

What?

 

Someone from the light side probably snuck an AK in at her during the battle to make it look like she snuffed it from a DE's curse.

 

Well it does say, Encyclopedia... It could be a mix.

Magic and spells, and then characters all arranged alphabetically.

Unless she plans to release two books, one on The magical world and one on the characters.

Personally I wouldn't mind if She tried to write her own Version of Hogwarts: a History. Maybe a Hogwarts Yearbook? One page dedicated to each character with footnotes to relevant magic.

But its doubtful...

An encyclopedia would be best I suppose, no need to create another Quiditch through the ages. A book written about Harry potter, as a guides... would satisfy most of the fans.

Sadly. I'll probably buy it... Damn Rowling and her lucrative series!

 

I hope JKR answers the ultimate question that has plagued Potter fans for years, the question that makes us all run in fear because of repetitive arguments that bring no new answers the question; Who would win in a war, Muggles or Wizards?!?!?!?!?!?! Dun Dun Duuuunnnn.

Umm...yeah, anyway. I really want historical stuff. Maybe information about the founders, magical theory, chocolate card information, different branches of magic, etc. From what I hear she has crates of back history for the Potterverse, if that is true then the book will be huge.

 

No one really like Arthur Weasely anyway, so why keep him alive? I'd rather have him die than Dobby. Also, who was the muggle/squib that did magic late in life, or was that Hagrid?

 

Like I said in the Canon Questions thread, Rowling's doing a live chat on Monday, but considering the amount of questions she must be getting, I doubt all of ours will be answered. I've already submitted the Wizards vs. Muggles, but if you have any burning questions, there's the place to ask.

 

I just submitted two questions. They aren't really anything important, but I would like to know the answer to them.

1) If Dumbledore had become a Dark Lord would Voldemort ever have stood a chance against him?

2) How do the Founders measure up to Dumbledore and Voldemort in raw magical power?

 

Speak for yourself... Arthur Is my Home boy. While I do think his death would have been powerful plot material... I'm glad he's still kicking.

Wasn't the muggle squib question answered in HBP... I thought that was supposed to be Merope Gaunt. I keep hearing this and a couple other questions that I was sure were related to the previous book instead.

Maybee I'm confused but I'm pretty sure Rowling explained it where Merope just never got control/embraced her magic until after her father was imprisioned.

The person wasn't a Squib or Muggle but might as well have been with her lack of control. See Mugglenet Leaky Cauldron interview for HBP with Rowling... I'm too lazy to look it up.