Post #25,385
1/23/02 9:25:42 PM
|
Harry Potter in print (no spoilers).
Before you ask, no, I haven't seen the movie (but the trailer makes more sense now). Rather, I've read the first book (HP and The Philosopher's Stone) twice and the second book (HP and The Chamber of Secrets) once and have begun the third book (HP and The Prisoner of Azkaban).
They are actually really good books. JK Rowling has a knack for a) creating a story with b) strong, realistic characters, c) writing intelligently and not condescendingly, d) getting the suspense up and keeping it up and e) actually able to pull it off not just once, but clearly four times.
Probably the biggest benefit they have to children is one of encouraging them to read. The writing style is on par with people like Asimov or Feist. The books are real page-turners almost from the get-go and become harder to put down the further you get in. This is also true the second time you read them - which is why I deliberately read the first book a second time. This is no mean feat. And, typically, since Harry and his friends are basically kids at school (albeit a special kind of school), they do play fast and loose with the rules from time to time: some of these escapades make for quite tense reading, actually, playing on the "what if?" aspect for the reader.
The other major point is that each book (except perhaps the first) does not stand in isolation. I received the first and fourth book from my sister for Christmas. It was tempting to begin the fourth book after I finished the first, but I held off until I could purchase the second and third myself. It was worth it. JK Rowlings has clearly intended for the books to be read in order and has taken the time to build a setting (Hogwarts) and story-elements for the whole series.
I should probably go find some of my old Enid Blyton books for comparison. Enid Blyton wrote quite a few stories with kids at boarding school, but the problem is that I read them years and years ago. Back then, I, too, would have loved Harry Potter as much as many 10-year olds do now. The interesting question is whether Enid Blyton's writings are as good to me now (aged 31) as JK Rowlings' is.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #25,390
1/23/02 10:17:30 PM
|
Thanks - fine review.
I think yours is the most informative review I've seen, with just enough analysis to be useful (at least for the way my brian [sic] works)
I'll pass it on when asked by other er 'adults' about, WTF is this All About ??? (without spoilers ;-)
Hey.. you could moonlight on reviews for some local organ (?!)
Ashton
|
Post #25,407
1/23/02 11:50:08 PM
|
Some things I forgot to mention.
They are first and foremost fantasy stories. They just happen to be set in modern-day England... :-) That said, Rowlings has also plundered both popular fantasy and traditional mythology for many of the creatures: pixies, unicorns, hippogryff, etc. This, I think, is a good idea because many writers do, too.
I've also remembered that a lot of people seem to be upset that it is promoting the use of magic. That's not really true. Magic is a central premise to the story, but whilst the world of HP seems to intersect with ours, the magic itself is firmly in the realm of I-wish-it-were-real-but-I-know-it-ain't. Much adult fiction is also oriented around something-I-can't-have-but-would-if-it-were-possible, after all, and kids of the age to understand the HP books are better at separating fact and fantasy better than many over-vocal adults think.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #25,793
1/25/02 6:58:20 PM
|
Never understood the proscription of 'magic'.
Even by the tawdry mechano-view of all things (as practised by MBAs and other loosers) .. a sufficiently advanced culture ___ [they mean: techno advanced natch. Yawn] yada yada.
My view - to the extent that our metaphors of the day are just like those of yesterday (except now we know that the At.Wt. of Be is 9.013 'stead o' "9.02") - all non-material processes like homo-sap operations: Are 'magic'!
We don't understand any more 'about us' than we did long ago! [hint 1564-1616 are his dates]-- we just have a plethora of entertaining new stories to marvel at + a Great deal of new Noise.
My 2 Eloian Tribble-coins,
Ashton
|
Post #25,799
1/25/02 8:19:04 PM
|
Re: Never understood the proscription of 'magic'.
Ummm...
I think that in Willy's day you got your ass in a sling over *joking* about magic..
Was agin the kirk y'know...
I just got around to reading the first book last night. I thought it was a nice kids book. I'm going to get a couple copies for some nephews that I am trying to wean away from the blabber box. It may be entertaining enough to work. Probably won't be around in another couple centuries, but then, neither will I.
Regards,
Hugh
(who would hate to code the utilities for the owl network...)
|
Post #25,811
1/25/02 10:02:22 PM
|
General Question (for all)
Does anyone here remember the day you -realized- then: that You Could Read!! ???
That is, I can recall not some moment but ~ That Day when I announced to self.. and mater and anyone elso who'd listen or (not) ... Hey! I Can Read (anything next..) !
Give the endangered reader in the land of passive techno some encouragement; I'd like to see every kid have a 'recognized' mini-holiday for his/her 'I Can Read' Day: maybe your local Corporate Bookstore could give such, a $x gift certificate? Lots better that some &^#$& BigMac Chinese toy-thingie..
Ashton Holiday Construction AG
|
Post #25,836
1/26/02 1:41:35 AM
|
For me, reading was weirdly constructed
When I first entered first grade, I was in a school that was using an experimental phonics system. (This must have been circa 1968.) Phonics was taught, but with a special character set. Halfway through first grade, my parents moved and I was jolted into another school system in which my teacher took at look at my spelling test and probably internally said "OMG" but publically said "Let's give him some time". :=)
Nevermind the other experimental program I was in when I was in 4th grade, by that time I was placed in the 6th grade reading class.
Before then, at home, I was reading from Cat in the Hat and so forth, but I'm not sure if I was really reading, or if I was just memorizing the words from when my parents read it to me.
Hell, given that I don't remember much before I was 6 or 7 years old, I don't really remember any given time when I couldn't read. There really was no one brilliant defining moment in time that I can declare as to being able to read. As far as I can remember, I've been able to read all my life.
Whatever experimental programs I may have gone through, and I damn the 60's and the teacher's unions and whoever else decided to throw the dice with kids like me, I wish everyone could have my experience: not really knowing when they learned to read.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #25,909
1/26/02 9:30:51 PM
|
Anyone remember those SRA reading comprehension modules?
I think it was SRA, not sure. Little plasticized things that had a story, then a questionaire at the end of it.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #25,910
1/26/02 9:38:30 PM
|
Yep, SRA. IBM owned them in the past...
when i took a speed reading course in the 1960s.
Looks like it's McGraw-Hill [link|http://www.sra-4kids.com/|now].
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #25,911
1/26/02 9:38:52 PM
|
Yep.
I loved them, because I could go ahead at my own speed.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #25,848
1/26/02 9:30:19 AM
|
After some thought, no.
I was raised in a house full of books and no television. My parents would read to me, and in return I would read back to them. My books were initially mostly pictures, I suppose.
After time, I could read the words of any book in the house, but the sometimes the concepts bored or eluded me. Sometimes they still do... But there was no watershed that I can define.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...
Hugh
|
Post #25,858
1/26/02 11:22:55 AM
|
No epiphany here.
I learned to read Ukrainian in first grade in a WW-II refuge camp run by the UN in Germany. At the time, my parents probably did not have a single book, at least not one I can remember. Consequently, they did not read to me. There were a few books in the family in the years that followed. I read those on my own.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #25,899
1/26/02 8:44:40 PM
|
Could read in Kindergarten
but it was the second grade that it took wings. LitComp class consisted of 2 page well written storiettes that had comprehension questions and were based on skill level. By the end of the year I was reading grade 6 work and that summer my father marched me down to the library on a rare day off and explained I could checkout anything in there including the adult section. Weird you hadda be in Jr High to check out non juvenile stuff.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,907
1/26/02 9:28:27 PM
|
Nope, not really.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #25,914
1/26/02 11:28:00 PM
|
I dunno, exactly.
I think it was in third grade when I asked the School Librarian about books for my age, probably from not understanding how libraries were laid out. The books she pointed to were not challenging and not wholly interesting, but they weren't beyond me. It took another year, during which the Library moved into a much more spacious building, before I became a bookworm.
Now that's not to say it came all at once. I had been generally in front of the class as far as words go since early kindergarten. Mum said she used to read to me lots when I was little and we have always had lots of books at home.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #25,937
1/27/02 6:02:45 AM
|
Second thought
Yes, I suppose it has to have been a gradual acquisition - and prolly did start with memorizing words before grokking sentence mysteries, much earlier - pre kindergarten.
So I guess my 'day' was more like a first vivid realization of what had been assembling itself. Kinda like first solo? (music, plane or cycle ;-)
Ashton
|
Post #25,942
1/27/02 10:04:18 AM
|
Pretty much like Harris, can't remember when I couldn't.
Vague glimpses of sitting on the floor laboriously spel-ling thr-ough so-me mag-a-zine, der Stern or der Spiegel (German mags, although this was after we'd arrived in Sweden); must'a been around five or six years old I think.
But AFAICR, although it was somewhat lab-or-ious, I already had the confidence that I could do it by then.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #25,972
1/27/02 7:19:33 PM
|
Addendum
After 4th grade, my family moved (again) and I was in a "normal" school and was nearly bored out of my mind. Fortunately Mr. Rohr's classroom had a rack of books up front that I read when (as always) I finished up my work early. I was the first student to score 100% on the science tests. Every science test through the entire year. (They probably should have skipped me a grade, but... nah, this was a normal school.)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #25,981
1/27/02 8:51:50 PM
|
Can't remember that far back
Except for a few short bits that made a big impression on me, I can't remember anything from before I could read.
Some of my first really clear memories are sneaking out of bed and camping out by the nightlight with The Hobbit, LOtR and Asimov's books.
My mother always encouraged me to read, to the point of giving me some books that where way over my head. The first time I read Dune I was probably on 8 or 9, and it didn't make a bit of sense to me. It wasn't till the second time I read that it, that I appreciated the complexity of the story.
Jay
|
Post #26,907
2/1/02 4:20:27 PM
|
That was some day!
My grandma taught me (5 years old) my (Russian) letters using a preface in a book for teachers. After 2 months of it I knew how to read words (Russian reading rules are much, much simpler than English), but I had not a slightest inclination to read on my own. Then I happened to come across a real book for children. I'd read it through in a few hours, and when my mom came back from work, she found me in a state of the most unbelievable excitement. I could not stop telling her that I had read _a_whole_book_! That was a big day in my life, for sure.
|
Post #26,957
2/2/02 5:10:20 AM
|
Think I know
whatcha mean!
It was of a higher class of High than when.. managed to get going on a slightly too big bicycle - with no idea how! I was gonna get off it when it stopped = ran out of straight-ahead space. ('Turning' is the advanced course) Hey! the skinned knees didn't even hurt.) But *reading*...
{sigh} Imagine our wasting that ability to Read Anything! - on some *#$%*$ a-hole's *AD* for some piece of crap which nobody needed before and still doesn't :(
(That's how far: we have fallen from grace)
Nice story. Spaceba!
Ashton
whose first learned phrase was, Tui! grosnya kapitalistichiskaya svinya !! :-\ufffd
My multilingual friend coached me on the nuances of pronunciation - it's fun; love the subtlety that can be added by a small inflection -- as when "hurling the above invective"! Next: the Ukrainian version (?)
[I live for the day of face-time with Billy + the above]
Well.. sorta; he's such a boring little twerp, mute or speaking: lifeless eyes.
|
Post #27,261
2/4/02 5:04:08 PM
|
Oops. :)
Not "gr_o_znaya svinya" (menacing swine) but "gryaznaya svinya" (dirty swine), Otherwise - almost perfect. Spacibo. :)
|
Post #27,265
2/4/02 5:26:18 PM
|
Thanks! That helps me as well.
Now "gryaznaya", I could almost make sense of.
Filthy capitalist swine 'R Us.
Alex
"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
|
Post #27,288
2/4/02 6:56:20 PM
|
Obviously: = "Greasy"!
|
Post #27,346
2/5/02 8:59:35 AM
|
Toosend tak
She did pronounce it as you spell it; think I must have screwed up the 'transliteration' spelling all by myself :(
(It's fershure a more effective *sounding* snip in Russ. than in English words! IMO)
Gotta go work on the Cyrillic, next
Cheers
A.
PS Akshully, and if speaking to Billy - the former might be more appropriate an adjective! :-)
|
Post #26,914
2/1/02 4:57:57 PM
|
Earliest reading memory for me...
I was walking home with my brother one day and looked up at a triangular yellow sign.
I asked him, "What does that sign say?"
He said, "Yield."
I had an inkling of what it meant as I'd heard the word before.
I was 4-ish I guess. I have no idea why that memory has stuck with me so long....
The earliest memory I have of being exicted about reading was in 2nd grade or so when a Bookmobile came to school and I was able to order some obscene number of books on dinosaurs and the like. It was fun. :-)
But I don't remember any epiphany about being able to read specifically.
I do remember being terribly frustrated on going to a new school in 3rd grade. My class was working on cursive writing and it took me a long time to get the hang of that. :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #26,958
2/2/02 5:27:16 AM
|
Looks as if it's just Arkadiy & moi who can
pin it to a Day. I suspect we both had most of the pieces in place, no doubt did some deciphering er 'reading' all along.
Just didn't realize what had happened - or especially - the implications (wouldn't have known that word, too).
(Hmmm for some it might take the form.. 'when did you first find yourself out-of your body? Another thread..)
\ufffdthereally,
Ashton
|
Post #27,349
2/5/02 9:29:45 AM
|
Can't remember when I couldn't
By the time I was in kindergarten I was reading. By second grade, when they expected everyone to be reading well enough to do book reports -- on the little 25-page children's books -- I was reading Hardy Boys books. Some of my book reports seemed to be longer than the books other kids were reading. The school library ran out of them before I finished the grade.
I think I remember my mother saying once that my older brother (two years older) read to me before he was in school, so we both started really early. She doesn't seem to recall how early he started. But I am sure that my parents made a conscious decision not to "baby talk" to us, so our verbal skills were definitely advanced. Fluent conversation with adults by the time I was ~3 or 4.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #27,384
2/5/02 11:53:31 AM
|
(wince) baby talking
I have an aunt who goo-gooed and baby talked so much that her sons were pretty messed up for a while. If you've never seen the results, it isn't pretty.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #25,983
1/27/02 9:06:11 PM
|
Get inside their world view
The complaints about promoting magic seem very strange on the surface but if you get inside their worldview it suddenly makes a fair degree of sense.
People that object that these sorts of books promote magic are almost always extremly conservative christians. These are the sort of people that believe that God takes a direct hand in manipulating this world, that prayers can cause God to take action, and so on.
The obvious counter point to that is that they also believe that you can invoke the other power also. And since, in their world view, there are only two powers, if your not invoking the first you must be invoking the second.
They think books like this are dangerous for exactly the same reason we would think a book showing kids being raised in a Nazi boarding in a positive way would be a bad thing.
The faults of this world view are many, but from their world view it is certainly self consistant and resonable.
Jay
|
Post #26,012
1/28/02 2:22:40 AM
|
But even given that, there's no justification...
Jay points out: The obvious counter point to that is that they also believe that you can invoke the other power also. And since, in their world view, there are only two powers, if your not invoking the first you must be invoking the second. Naah. Where in the books does it say that it *is* "the other power" they're calling on? What's to say it isn't *"God"* that makes their magic work??? Fuck, they claim to believe he *actually* did it for Moses and people like him -- burning bushes and the like -- so why shouldn't *that* be what these fairy tales are portraying? Naah, sorry, Jay... But their world view is certainly NOT "self-consistent and resonable"; on the contrary, it IS just stupid narrow-minded bigotry. That's inherent in the concept of religion, I think; it's just that it only comes to the fore this starkly when you overdo it. Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #26,019
1/28/02 3:43:47 AM
|
Rah Rah CR!
Stupid narrow-minded bigotry isn't *quite* descriptive enough, but it'll do.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #26,022
1/28/02 7:37:51 AM
|
Sorry, they are being consistent
The Bible warns against false prophets, etc.
And, obviously, anyone who who has a world view they don't share can't be prophesying Truth, so they cannot be representatives of God.
So in their world there is only one thing to call it.
Call it narrow-minded, arrogant, bigoted, etc, etc, etc as much as you want and I will agree. But it is at least a consistent narrow-minded bigoted arrogance.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #26,222
1/28/02 11:54:21 PM
1/28/02 11:54:48 PM
|
Either/or, black/white: one could call it er, 'digital' :-\ufffd
|
Post #25,558
1/24/02 3:56:43 PM
|
Sorry, but AFAICT Blyton totally sucks once you're past ~14.
|
Post #26,021
1/28/02 6:06:17 AM
|
Addendum: I've now seen the movie! [spoiler warning]
... and it is definitely worth it! 4 and a half stars.
My biggest gripe is that they had to drop so much to make it a reasonable length movie. What I missed most was the various lessons Harry and friends learnt through the year, and as such the characterisations of the teachers were rather incomplete. There was also no reason I could see at all for dropping the potion puzzle with Hermione and Harry in the dungeon (it would have taken maybe 10 minutes of screen time). Apart from that, there was lots that would have been nice to see, but not missed so much.
Daniel Radcliffe has the distinct potential to be overshadowed by everything - even his own character. Fortunately, he isn't: I presume he must have been directed like that. Of the other characters, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid absolutely shines ("I should not have told you that" :-). I thought Maggie Smith was a bit ordinary as McGonagall, which surprises me now that I think about it, but perhaps she didn't really have a lot to work with. Even in the books, McGonagall is not given much depth until the fourth book. Dumbledore, too, doesn't come across quite fully, either, but then his friendly and understanding attitude towards Harry at the end only hints at what he is like, again, something that only really comes out in later books. On the other hand, Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy really does not work. The effect is that Draco comes across as too much of a wannabe when in the book Harry, Ron and Hermione perceive him as much more of a threat. This, again, may be a case of simply not enough scenes for him.
Hogwarts itself is magnificent. Whilst it is hard to say it was what I imagined it to be from reading the book, I could certainly say it definitely does it justice. It and places like Diagon Alley give a delightful feel to how the wizarding world lives, and is one thing I like very much about the books. It is a curious mix of medieval with modern - witness Ollivander's wand shop, chock full of wands in cardboard boxes. Similarly is the students in wizard robes - over ordinary school uniforms!
Everyone comments on the Quidditch match. It was certainly very cinematic, but I felt not having seen Harry practise meant it lost something. But then, that would have been very difficult to put into the film.
It is tempting to compare HP with The Lord Of The Rings, but the two movies are intended to achieve different things. The most obvious difference is that the stories are very very different. A rather more subtle difference is that the role of magic is also vastly different. This does, in a way, exemplify everything that is different between the two. In the Harry Potter movie, magic is an everyday fact for people like Harry and learning how to do it is the point of Harry going to Hogwarts. In the Lord of the Rings, magic works very very differently and the story is one of ridding the world of a most dangerous magic. About the only thing in common with the two movies is the genre.
A reviewer on IMDB made the point that the confrontation with Voldemort seems to have overshadowed the fact that it was Harry's first year at Wizard school. This is a tricky balance. Rowling manages it very well in the novels and her involvement in making the movie probably helped make it work (I think) in the movie. IMO, movie makers will rarely do this, preferring to favour one story (usually called the "A" story) over the other (the "B" story). How Harry defeats Voldemort a second time is, I think, a very clever story device. If you've seen the movie but not read the book, then I can tell you that the explanation Dumbledore gives is pretty much exactly the same. (I can also assure you that Rowling finds a better way to describe it!)
I'm seriously interested in how well Warner et al bring the second book to the screen.
Wade.
PS. I have by now read all four books. Rowling gets better! If you found the first books un-put-down-able, you'll find the later ones impossible to stop reading! Harry Potter is top-drawer fantasy fiction.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #26,129
1/28/02 4:53:23 PM
|
Definitely agree re Malfoy
I was expecting him to be much more Crabb or Goyle-looking, not some little weedy guy.
Everything else in the movie was just as I imagined it to be, however.
On and on and on and on,
and on and on and on goes John.
|
Post #26,916
2/1/02 5:41:12 PM
|
Contemporary/medieval?
I think that was the worst failing of the movie. You see, magic in it is a bit too magical. It's too obvious that the movie is done by a muggle. Wizards in the book are no more awed by magic than you are awed by an electric bulb. In fact, they are more awed by an electric bulb. The movie leaves a taste of super-powerful demi-gods in my mouth, while in the book magic is simply different technology, to be studied and employed like ours. Remember "Where Wisards Stay Up Late"? That would be the closest non-fiction.
|
Post #26,939
2/2/02 12:01:59 AM
|
I dunno.
You're right about wizards being in awe of technology like electricity - that comes through even stronger in later books. But I didn't think magic in the movie came across like you suggested. IIRC, the students were in awe of the older wizards, but only because they had learnt more. (Even Hermione - with two muggle-born parents - was not surprised at the magically shifting stair cases.) And I don't remember any of the adult wizards showing the least bit of surprise at magic.
OTOH, there was a subtle muggle-ness about its POV. Harry was, after all, raised as a muggle. :-)
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #27,264
2/4/02 5:13:10 PM
|
I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder...
For me, the first scene, where Dumbledore uses put-outer, sets the tone for the whole movie. It's not a "flick-flick-flick" of cigarette lighter, it's a complex weapon for killing lightbulbs. I guess I should try to ignore that one scene and see where it takes me.
|
Post #34,557
4/6/02 12:56:42 AM
|
Just finished #4.
Agree with all your points. Magically too (!) she writes as interestingly for adults as for children; there's enough er silliness for the rilly young, then utterly authentic school one-upmanship sub-plots to seamlessly cover the older kids too. Suspense as Hitchcock would applaud.
But what I was most pleased to note is.. she is using her now worldwide bully pulpit to Educate! More than clever, the words she puts (in esp. Dumbledore's) mouth at crucial moments are as good as a parable or a Sufi saying - yet coming not even close-to sounding preachy. She is distilling some Gems of Wisdom for the little tykes / and any older tykes who have forgotten.
And {Cackle} kids *will* recognize the title-besotted, egotistical fools like Fudge - whose insouciance sets the scene for the coming battle with the best-armed opponent ever. Surely Middle-Earthian calibre, even if the philosophical details may be more muted, less discussed? in HP.
I simply can't imagine a parent (or a Church?) who could take offense at the ethical messages played out. Particularly stunning was, I thought - where Harry might well have killed.. Wormtail (nee Scabbers-the-rat) in the deserted house in the village. Given the plot and the significance of this character's Evil behavior affecting HP personally - no one would have considered the "ridding of this scourge" other than a Good Thing for all concerned.
But he didn't, and with no sub-rosa ratiocinations or other foolish efforts to 'explain' what appeared to be either something of mercy or about an absolute reluctance to kill at all (see? we Don't Know.. nor does it matter that we don't).
I deem this to be as Large a Universe as Middle Earth. The problems to be solved are, as with all good fiction, perfectly transplantable into our tawdry daily lives (or at least motorcycle weekends..). As you observed, they are quite different, as are the authors' styles and storytelling devices.
And as always: it IS about the "world of duality" as must-be, ever to be believable. 'Good' is meaningless without unGood / Evil (or Microsloth). Sacrifice is meaningless if.. there's even a hint of self-gain in the action or expected approval.
Now Nice that - at least 3 more shall appear. She should be prevented from riding in Pintos, VW- old-Beetles or ANY UAV: for life. (Were I elected dictator).
Also * * * * 2/3
When's #5? Huh? huh? when...
A Rowling Fan, Now.
|
Post #34,558
4/6/02 1:15:19 AM
|
I had to re-read my original post!
Last things first: book #5 is due out in June or July this year. IIRC, it's called HP & The Order Of The Phoenix.
Re continuity and fore-shadowing: there are numerous elements setup but never touched for several books. It is a tribute to the effort Rowling has put into the world design that enables this to not only happen, but for it to be seamless. I cannot pick what incidental things are in the existing 4 books that will turn out to have set the stage for book 5!
You also reminded me of something most curious. Before I had read the books or even seen the movie trailer, I heard a friend of mine at church talk briefly about them. Although I agreed with most of her comments, the one that struck me as a bit "What did you say?!" was that the later books contained more detail about the magic. Er, no, they don't. Not really. Rowling plays with popular mythology well - down to potion ingredients and spell components - but kids are not in danger of trying to use them to do "real magic". And if adults wanted to try, reading HP is definitly the wrong place. (How do I know? Call it research. :-)
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #34,560
4/6/02 1:59:09 AM
|
Magic research results:__ the empty set.
Despite the many pins in the Billy Doll, his surliness is undiminished despite what must be, many patches of extra-sensory arthritis? (and that's from just One pin-inserter).
Now whether my ersatz defenestrator can suck the *bugs out of the authors of XP-J The Jerk's Edition.. remains next project.
* or perhaps insert some Interesting new scaly-clawed ones, into the pineal gland.
Ashton Bumbledore
physics or meta- use what Works
PS - as someone mentioned to me, Rowling wrote this-all (?) at a local coffee shop, while living on 'welfare' pittance. It seems clear that she has mapped out the entire saga. I can imagine (at home) some humongous chalk-board with circles, arrows and scribbled plot notes. It just *has* to have been conceived as a whole, before the first \ufffd was begun in final prose.
I heard also - that the accommodating Shoppe has received some Welfare from the well-earned windfall. :-) Well, ya can't write about altruism well, unless you know how to practise it.. Neat lady.
(Real Justice would be: that as Billy's fortune sags \\ Her's passes.. / the little twit's!)
|
Post #34,580
4/6/02 11:09:34 AM
|
Re: Despite the many pins...
according to Jay Leno, a possibly questionable source, Billy is anticipating his third child, a daughter. Jay's comment was he wondered if Billy said to his wife "We'll have to watch our spending now, maybe try to get another 20,000 miles out of the Hyundai.". :)
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #34,597
4/6/02 4:55:08 PM
|
When ya gots all the money - what's left 'sides procreation?
(I mean, of course - in the mercantile miniscule-view of the world)
|
