The Internet and Potterama

[justcarol67]

Nirjhar Jain wrote:

>     I have been wondering if Harry Potter would have been the
phenomenon it is today if there were no Internet?
> 
>     Would Harry Potter have become so insanely popular if it were
not for  all the HP discussion groups and fan sites on the internet.    
<snip>
>     Also, as a result of this do you think Jo Rowling's writing of
> Harry Potter was influenced by this? Do you think Book 7 would be
> different if Harry Potter had not been this popular?
<snip>
>     I do not think that Book 4 would have been allowed to be that
long and  dark if it were not for the fact that Harry Potter had
become popular.
> 
>   I think the success gave Jo Rowling and her publishers the
> confidence  to make Harry Potter more edgy and dark.
<snip>

Carol responds:
I'm sure that the Internet played a role in the popularity of the
books, as did the films, but I have no idea to what extent. I heard
about them by word of mouth, went to see the first film, and decided
to read, or at least try out, the first book to see if it was as good
or better. From there, I read the whole series as far as it went, and
was desperate to see what happened after GoF, which I loved. I found
HPfGu, which operated as a kind of support group to get me through the
wait, and became addicted to it as well. I don't know how my
experience compares to anyone else's, but for me, the Internet is a
way to share my passion for the books (and my fascination with Snape).
It didn't cause me to read the books or see the films.

As for the effect of the Internet on Rowling's writing, I don't think
it affected either the length or the darkness or the books. Surely,
she planned the three important deaths we've encountered so far from
the beginning, along with the pivotal restoration of LV to his body in
the fourth book--surely always intended to be dark, with the
kidnap/murder plot, the Death Eaters, the Unforgiveable Curses, and
the murder of Cedric Diggory.

We do know that JKR reads certain websites (I don't know whether HPfGu
is among them, but it ought to be!), and she's made a few small
corrections of inconsistencies pointed out to her by fans (Percy's
silver Prefect badge being "identical" to Ron's scarlet and gold one,
for example. I don't think to this day she understands why "We haven't
won the cup since Charlie left" is inconsistent with "We haven't won
the cup for seven years" if Charlie is three years older than Percy.)

I also think she's made one or two small concessions to her readers.
For example, complaints about the "sexism" of the DEs Crucioing "the
Auror Frank Longbottom and his wife" led to the statement in OoP that
both Frank and Alice were Aurors. And she *may* have responded to
readers' complaints about DD tolerating the Dursleys' abuse of Harry
by adding some criticism of their actions to his speech near the
beginning of HBP.

However, I don't think that the Internet or reader reaction in general
has had any effect on the main plot or the deaths in DH, two of which
were apparently unplanned (as is the one reprieve). I think that she
let the characters control the action as she wrote (which happens to
the best of authors when they're drafting a chapter), liked the
result, and kept it because it didn't affect the outcome of the series.

I think that the publicity would have been different, the number of
books sold would have been considerably less (as would JKR's income),
but I think the books themselves would be largely the same, except
that Tom Riddle might still be the "ancestor" of Salazar Slytherin and
a few other inconsistencies and infelicities might not have been
ironed out.

Carol, just giving her own opinion and quite sure that others will
think differently