What did/didn't JK Rowling plan out from the beginning

[oierem]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

That being written, there are two different things that we have to consider. The first is when the idea originated. The second is to how the idea evolved. Originally, Voldemort killed James and Lily to get the Philospher's Stone. Those two basic ideas (why James and Lily were killed and why Voldemort wanted the Stone) necessarily evolved after she hit upon the idea of a Macbethian prophecy.
.

I never knew that! When did she admit that the original reason was to get the Stone?

Anyway, I'd love to read the original drafts of all of the HP books and see how everything was created. I love this topic IMO, Rowling really did plan most of the main plots from the "beginning" (of course, they evolved from something), but changed/added small details and characters.

I'm sure Luna and Tonks were created for OOTP, for example.

And finally, I read that originally, Pettigrew was going to be the fake-Moody in GOF, not Crouch Jr.

[weasley9]

Originally Posted by oierem

And finally, I read that originally, Pettigrew was going to be the fake-Moody in GOF, not Crouch Jr.

Hmm... I remember hearing that too, but I can't remember when.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Alastor

And sadly the interactions between Jo and her editors are not the topic of this thread.

Shouldn't they be? One of the primary reasons why authors change things is because editors tell them to do so.

An example of this in a different medium is Babylon 5. After the first season, the producers decided that the primary protagonist (Sinclair) needed to go: they felt that the character/actor just wasn't commanding enough. J. Michael Straczynski had a basic 5-year outline that focused (in many places) around that character. JMS then had to move up the principle arc and shuffle a lot of things for the new primary protagonist (Sheridan).

Now, fortunately B5 was a multiprotagonist series, so this was not quite like an editor somehow sacking Harry! But JMS needed to reshuffle the plots a bit to maintain the story(ies).


If some of Rowling's ideas were nixed by editors, then she might very well have had to replot around them. What those might have been, we do not know: and as many people have noted, Rowling's stuff clearly was edited little (if at all) after Goblet.

We know of two examples. I seem to recall that the Weasley cousin was a 3rd example: she was supposed to provide information in Goblet, but the editor suggested that it did not make sense for a kid to know this stuff. Rowling agreed and invented Rita Skeeter instead.

Originally Posted by oierem

I never knew that! When did she admit that the original reason was to get the Stone?

I think that is on Rowling's website. There is a section where she presents some stuff that never made it into the books (like Dean's father) and stuff that got rewritten.

Originally Posted by oierem

Anyway, I'd love to read the original drafts of all of the HP books and see how everything was created. I love this topic

heh, as I noted above, a lot of Tolkien fans said the same thing. Then they got Bingo and Trotter…. *shudder*

Originally Posted by oierem

And finally, I read that originally, Pettigrew was going to be the fake-Moody in GOF, not Crouch Jr.

I had not read that, but it makes a lot of sense. She obviously changed Sirius' plotline a bit after Stone: Hagrid was going to return the motorbike then, but the fact that Sirius gave up the motorbike was a big issue in Prisoner. If what you write is correct (and I have no reason to suppose that it is not), then it also suggests that Marauders being animagi stuff evolved later, as well as the Marauder's map. Rowling would have retained the "disguised wizard who faked his death" for Pettigrew, which does suggest that she planned that he would need to be in hiding from a fairly early point.

That makes me wonder what she had planned for Prisoner initially: it seems implausible that she'd use hidden Pettigrew twice! (It is unfortunate that she used the "disguised wizard who faked his death" twice, actually...)

[gertiekeddle]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Shouldn't they be? One of the primary reasons why authors change things is because editors tell them to do so.

That wasn't what you did. You judged on JK's decisions to keep or dismiss editor requests of which we have, btw, only a very small valid knowledge about.

So that's indeed off-topic. Any further questions about thread logistics go via owl, please, to not lead this speculation thread about what JK might have planned or might not have planned any further off-topic. Thanks!

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

I think that is on Rowling's website. There is a section where she presents some stuff that never made it into the books (like Dean's father) and stuff that got rewritten.

The official site does have an "Edits" section (which contains the information about Dean Thomas that you referenced), but there is no note about her original intent of Voldemort killing the Potters was to get the Stone. I have also searched Accio-Quote for information on it (which does have some interesting origins of SS/PS, but only cursory (there are quite a few pages to sift through).

The closest thing I have found is this, from one of the scrapbook extras from the official site: "J.K. Rowling Official Site: "Very early page of Philosopher's Stone":

Transcript:    

---

HP-Lexicon, Guide to jkrowling.com, "Very early page of Philosopher's Stone" “So this Flamel bloke found the stone “ said Ron “No- he made it, “said Harry, “He was an alchemist. Which means “Someone who turns base metals into gold” said Hermione. She had that old proving- I- know- more- than- everyone- else look on her face, the other two noticed, “Of course. I read about this in Alchemy, Ancient Art and Science, by ### Argo Pyrites”. “I missed that one myself,” muttered Ron. “(and)—of course it's some of the most difficult magic you can do. And you end up not just with pure gold but also with a funny stone thing ---“ “Which is what I’m on about,” said Harry, the Philosopher’s stone, yes. And it works too. ### It kept Nicholas Flamel and his wife alive for about five hundred years.” “What?” “I know,” said Harry. “But it's true. He was spotted at the opera in Paris in 1762 and he was born back in 13 something.” ## Ron whistled. # “But he's dead now?” he asked. “Of course,” said Harry, “Someone stole his stone so he couldn't make any more Elixir of life, could he? It takes a while to make another stone and by that time, I suppose, he was just too old to live without his Elixir until a new stone was ready. “ And now I’ll tell you something else really weird that I haven't told you up to now- the stone was found in my parents safe at Gringott’s bank.” But instead of the interested noises Harry had expected, Ron and Hermione simply stared at him. #### “What?” said Harry. Ron cleared his throat, opened his mouth to speak but shut it again." “What?” Harry said. “Well, Harry,” said Hermione. “I mean...” “You mean what?” He stared at them both as they shuffled their feet and tried not to look him in the eye. “You don't think”, he said suddenly and rather angrily, “That my parents stole the stone?” “Um...” said Ron. “Look,” said Harry furiously, “That’s like saying they murdered Flamel...” “Oh Harry, we never thought...” “Not much, you didn't,” said Harry. “I don’t know how it got in there, but the stone wasn’t put there by them...” “Right,” said Harry Ron quickly. "### I’m sure you're right.” “There must be an # obvious explanation, “said Hermione. ### Harry wasn't at all convinced that they meant it, but at that moment the bell rang which put an end to the conversation.

Is this what you are thinking of? From this, I can definitely see how the early plan of Voldemort killing the Potters for the Stone could have worked. Is there a continuation of this somewhere?

Originally Posted by Wimsey

I had not read that, but it makes a lot of sense. She obviously changed Sirius' plotline a bit after Stone: Hagrid was going to return the motorbike then, but the fact that Sirius gave up the motorbike was a big issue in Prisoner.

How is this? I think it could be read in a way that Hagrid's comment about Sirius in SS/PS compliments the revelations in PoA. Sirius lent Hagrid his motorcycle in order to get Harry safely to wherever he needed to be. He "didn't need" the motorcycle anymore because he was going to confront Peter. To me, SS/PS does not represent a flaw/change of mind during PoA.

Originally Posted by oierem

And finally, I read that originally, Pettigrew was going to be the fake-Moody in GOF, not Crouch Jr.

From the same Scrapbook information, we know that JKR had earlier planned "Pettigrew" as the D.A.D.A. teacher in GoF:

jkrowling.com, Scrapbook, "More Idle Jottings (Page 1)" 1) Quirrell 2) Lockhart 3) Lupin 4) Pettigrew 5) Mylor person. Oakden Hobday

I am not sure how developed the plan of Pettigrew as the professor for 4 was. Based on this (there could be more information elsewhere), Pettigrew could be a different Pettigrew than Peter, or a replacement for Moody (and not Barty Crouch Jr.).

If anyone wants to know more about the Scrapbook page on jkrowling.com, J.K. Rowling's Official Website FAQs is a great place to go! There is quite a lot of information on JKR's preliminary ideas.

[snapes_witch]

I think she had Severus Snape's story plotted from the beginning, in particular that he would kill Dumbledore. Also in an interview after the release of DH, Alan Rickman said he'd asked JKR for one thing that would help him portray Snape and she told him that Snape loved Harry's mother.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

I think she had Severus Snape's story plotted from the beginning, in particular that he would kill Dumbledore. Also in an interview after the release of DH, Alan Rickman said he'd asked JKR for one thing that would help him portray Snape and she told him that Snape loved Harry's mother.

Yeah she told him that like around the first few movies i think.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Yeah she told him that like around the first few movies i think.

Before the first movie JKR offered to talk to the adult actors about their characters. I assumed it was this first interview when she told Alan about Snape and Lily.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

I have also searched Accio-Quote for information on it (which does have some interesting origins of SS/PS, but only cursory (there are quite a few pages to sift through).

Cool! I never had read that. I'd only read the cursory synopsis, i.e., that Voldemort went after Harry's parents to get the Stone. So, it seems that the "History of Harry Potter" would have quite a bit of an alternate developed.

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

How is this? I think it could be read in a way that Hagrid's comment about Sirius in SS/PS compliments the revelations in PoA. Sirius lent Hagrid his motorcycle in order to get Harry safely to wherever he needed to be. He "didn't need" the motorcycle anymore because he was going to confront Peter.

It is contradictory, not complimentary. In Stone, Hagrid declares that he is taking the bike back to Sirius. In Prisoner, Hagrid recounts that Sirius told Hagrid to keep the bike.

This is a fairly minor detail with no effect on the plot. Rowling could easily go back and change Hagrid's line to "I'm off for a nightcap" for all the difference it would make. However, it does show that 1) she had Sirius in mind as someone who would have been near the Potter's after the accident; 2) that he was young; but, 3) he was heading off on a slightly different trajectory at that point. Whether it was substantially different or not, who can tell.

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

From the same Scrapbook information, we know that JKR had earlier planned "Pettigrew" as the D.A.D.A. teacher in GoF:

Ah, I had forgotten that. Yes, it might be that Pettigrew is the Trotter to Crouch Jr.'s Strider here. The question is, when did Pettigrew as we know him originate? Did he evolve from the Book 4 Pettigrew? Did that diverge into both Pettigrew and Crouch Jr.?

At some point, I am sure that we'll get the initial story and plot synopses for the individual books. This hints that the original purpose of Prisoner was to introduce Sirius, and that perhaps her ideas of how to do that evolved quite a bit after even the finishing of Stone.

[oierem]

The way I understood it, Rowling's plan was to use Pettigrew as the DADA teacher while she was writing book 3, so it was just the same Pettigrew as we know. She just created the whole story about Crouch when writing book 4 (which I think, was part of the big "plothole" she found while writing).

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by oierem

She just created the whole story about Crouch when writing book 4 (which I think, was part of the big "plothole" she found while writing).

I thought that the "plothole" was the 11-year old Mafalda having all the information about the trials, etc., from the past. I've read both that an editor called it and that Rowling herself called it (it might well have been "both"). In truth it is less a plot hole sensu stricto (contradictory events) than just weak planning: why would an 11 year old from a father who had renounced the wizarding world know these things when Hermione had not read them?

However, Mafalda probably was planned fairly early: we read Ron's comment about his relative who became a wizard and ceased to be mentioned by the family!


Still, this goes a long way towards explaining the close parallels between the Pettigrew plotline and the Crouch plotline. It is too bad that she could not have come up with something more radically different: 3 years ago, people were positing that every supposedly dead character was going to come back because Rowling just loved the "faked death and in hiding" plot!

[oierem]

I always thought (I don't know why lol) that the "plothole" was something related to Crouch and the main plot, from the way Jo describes it. Also, remember that in the first edition of GOF, in chapter 1, Voldemort and Wormtail talk about "another murder" to get to Harry Potter. That was later changed to "another curse", and was released as that in the US. It is very possible that when Rowling started writing that book, she had another death in mind (Crouch Sr. in my opinion), and suddenly changed it while she was writing.

Another issue... I read that book 2 was going to be titled "Half-Blood Prince", and that part of the plot from book 6 was originally supposed to be in 2. Anyone knows what was it?

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by oierem

Another issue... I read that book 2 was going to be titled "Half-Blood Prince", and that part of the plot from book 6 was originally supposed to be in 2. Anyone knows what was it?

I don't remember that it was actually going to be called 'The Half-Blood Prince', but she definitely planned that some of the plot was going to be in CoS. JKR didn't reveal what, but I suspect it was the horcruxes.

[CurseCruciatus]

^Yeah, probably horcruxes, because the first horcrux appears in that book. She probably decided it was too early to introduce them, though.

[oierem]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

I don't remember that it was actually going to be called 'The Half-Blood Prince', but she definitely planned that some of the plot was going to be in CoS. JKR didn't reveal what, but I suspect it was the horcruxes.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/book_cs.html

If that's true, then the Half-Blood Prince was obviously Voldemort.

[Fhaps]

Hey, guys! Did u really never read this...?

JKR said that she originally planned Hedwig to be the one who catched the snitch on book one, so she could open it at the close. That proves that she planned, since the first book, all the Hallows thing:

"I had to work quite hard in finding a very particular way for that snitch to be caught because I knew I was going to do that later; initially, as my British editor can confirm, I had Hedwig catch that snitch. She wanted that changed, and I thought, 'Oh, God, back to the drawing board.'

Actually that's what sealed Hedwig's fate, because the plan was for Hedwig to open the snitch, because touched it first, but, by making it Harry, then it was time too kill her earlier. I think she was going to die anyway, eventually."

[oierem]

Originally Posted by Fhaps

Hey, guys! Did u really never read this...?

JKR said that she originally planned Hedwig to be the one who catched the snitch on book one, so she could open it at the close. That proves that she planned, since the first book, all the Hallows thing:

Wow, if that is true, the Hallows were (at least partially) created from the beginning.

[KlausBaudelaire]

Originally Posted by oierem

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/book_cs.html

If that's true, then the Half-Blood Prince was obviously Voldemort.

Yep, that makes sense, The Diarycrux could have been the HBP book, and Merope Prince instead of Merope Gaunt and all that stuff...but with this amount of information the series should have ended with the thid book

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by oierem

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/book_cs.html

If that's true, then the Half-Blood Prince was obviously Voldemort.

No ~ Snape was alwys going to be the Prince.

JKR said she took the entire HBP plot "out" of CoS. I believe originally she was going to contrast Tom Riddle's Diary with the Prince's Potions Book, but changed her mind because she didn't want Snape's story to come out that early in the series.

From her Official Site

The plot of 'Prince' bears no resemblance whatsoever to the plot of 'Chamber', nor is it an off-cut of 'Chamber'. The story of 'Prince' takes off where 'Phoenix' ended and does not hark back to four years previously. True, mention is made to events that happened in 'Chamber,' but of course, mention is also made of events that happened in 'Stone', 'Azkaban', 'Goblet' and 'Phoenix'.

'The Half-Blood Prince' might be described as a strand of the overall plot. That strand could be used in a whole variety of ways and back in 1997 I considered weaving it into the story of 'Chamber'. It really didn't fit there, though; it was not part of the story of the basilisk and Riddle's diary, and before long I accepted that it would be better to do it justice in book six. I clung to the title for a while, even though all trace of the 'Prince' storyline had disappeared, because I liked it so much (yes, I really like this title!). I re-christened book two 'Chamber of Secrets' when I started the second draft.

The link I mentioned between books two and six does not, in fact, relate to the 'Half-Blood Prince' (because there is no trace left of the HBP storyline in 'Chamber'.) Rather, it relates to a discovery Harry made in 'Chamber' that foreshadows something that he finds out in 'Prince'.

[gertiekeddle]

Originally Posted by oierem

Wow, if that is true, the Hallows were (at least partially) created from the beginning.

I think SIP posted some interview from years ago, where JK mentioned the Hallows already. So I believe there was no doubt anymore that the Hallows weren't an very early idea. It's probably more about in which way they were planned and what changed on the way to DH.

I think it's so mind-boggling for most of us because DH is so rich on plotlines, and the Hallows are likely the most unexpected. While we actually often get major hints to later plot turns in early books, for the Hallows we hardly get them. Even James' cloak is rather low in that sense imo (at least in rates of JK, who just spoiled us with great plot devices all over the series).