How the hell there is no thread for this?

In October Bloomsbury will publish two new Harry Potter related books - "Harry Potter: A History of Magic - The Book of The Exhibition", and "Harry Potter - A Journey Through A History of Magic", the first exploring Hogwarts' subjects, the second bringing more information about the history of magic. Both will be released in October to tie into the exhibition "A History of Magic" that will take place in British Library, London from October 20th to February and present information about different subjects taught at Hogwarts.


Source


Guessing from the title and subject correlation "The Book of The Exhibition" will cover the info from the exhibition and " A Journey Through A History of Magic" will give us new content. Well, we will finally get the word of god on Arithmancy and Ancient Runes.

 

Yay, prepare for more canon-contradicting drivel from Rowling's cocaine addled mind. Thank god each book most likely won't be more than 10,000 words.

Also, pretty sure it's word-of-god that Arithmancy is Numerology, and Ancient Runes is just a script that wizards used to write in. She didn't say it explicitly, but it's strongly implied from the text.

 

As ChaosGuy so eloquently said on irc:

I'm not prepared for anything remarkable.

 

More? What retcons were there in Wonderbook, Pottermore, Fantastic Beasts etc. aside from the fact that Dumbledore knew and used Room of Requirements (and that is disputable, as we only had his anecdote earlier).

Actually, from what we know, Arithmancy is only... Arithmancy, which is only a branch of Numerology. But I want nice, hard description to quote.

 

It's not by JKR. Either way, she should stop endorsing all of these little thingies and write a real HP book if she is still so invested in the world she's created.

 

Brother, Harry Potter is worth billions and is immensely popular. Any new publication will undoubtedly garner a lot in revenue.

Still, I concede that you do have a point. In the meanwhile, I'll just reserve judgment for when I peruse these things.

 

There were many, many details that contradicted canon in her latest writings... actually, there were details that contradicted canon even in the original books themselves. I wouldn't call it retcon because I don't think Rowling is even aware she is contradicting herself.

 

I remembered only one more - the number of parselmouths at Hogwarts. And that was really good change. I think that in general, her post-series writings are better thought-out and more consistent than the books themselves.