Replies, Replies, Replies

[Debbie]

Carolyn:

> On the Pettigrew or Neville magic ability, I think they belong 
with 
> character rather than here, even if they are in-depth discussions. 
> Having just sorted through the Peter ones myself over the last few 
> days, I know exactly what they contain, and feel sure about it for 
> him anyway.
> 
> Debbie - what do you think about Neville?

Debbie:
I'm only 40 or so posts into Neville, but I agree that those kinds 
of posts belong first and foremost with the character.  If the 
number of posts gets too unwieldy, as with Harry, we can create 
subcodes under Neville.

Debbie (earlier):
> -There are numerous works that could be coded to more than one
> category (e.g., fairy tales and children's fantasy lit). The actual
> coding was a bit arbitrary, especially between fantasy lit and
> children's lit. It might make the decisions easier if we made
> Children's Classics disappear altogether. We could move the
> children's fantasy to Fantasy Lit, move the children's classics
> (Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc.) to classic lit and kick
> any leftovers to the general category, or to What genre/Are these
> kids' books.
> 
Carolyn: 
I dunno. This is the essence of the NY Times bestseller list 
> argument, isn't it? That you can't distinguish - the book either 
> sells or it doesn't, and over time either drops into oblivion, or 
is 
> seen as capturing eternal truths. I dither - re your examples 
below. 
> I am more comfortable with Lewis Carroll or Pooh as classics, than 
> Roald Dahl or Oz. I would be very seriously annoyed to find the 
> dreadful Diana Wynne Jones anywhere near Virginia Woolf under the 
> W's...  What do others think?

Do not fear.  Diana Wynne Jones can be tucked into fantasy.  So can 
Dahl and Oz, if need be.  If fantasy gets too crowded we can give 
the biggest contributor(s) its own subheading.  Lewis Carroll is 
indeed classic in my book, but is only a handful of posts.  The 
fairy tales could go to myth/legends, where the toad-as-sexual-
symbol posts were stashed.

Carolyn:
Well, now, grammar. If it goes back anywhere near 
> narrative style, I insist it has it's quarantined under its own 
sub-
> heading. Before we do, could we hear from Jo, who is tackling 
4.1.2.1 
> Capitalisation, punctuation ? I think there is more of the same 
there.

Debbie:
This one could be broadened, I suppose, as I suggested in my other 
post.

Carolyn:
> Hm, detracts from the series? How so? 

Debbie:
Perhaps I've just done too much editing, but the grammar glitches 
got in the way of my enjoyment.  I wanted to pick up my red pencil 
and fix it.  It was most noticeable in PS/SS (still my least 
favorite of the books).  I don't object to nonstandard grammar when 
it's being used for effect, but I think JKR was just sloppy, and 
wonder whether her editors really earned their pay.   

Carolyn:
> I caught this unbelievably crass comment on the main list the 
other 
> day: 'If we want the child reader to have a hero that is a good 
> example I don't think that we want him to be someone with poor 
> grammar and low morals.' 

> Give me strength....

Debbie:
Be assured I don't subscribe to this, or I wouldn't be here.  Or to 
the sentiments expressed by Kevin Kimball (post #33582 - "Harry 
Potter:  A Worthwhile Series?"), who claimed to make his kids read 
literature with a red pencil and mark all the bad grammar.  Talk 
about sucking all the enjoyment out of literature . . . .

 Barry:
> As a Sci Fi purist I'd hate to see it disappear - however there 
are 
> very, very few worthwhile influences/parallels between HP and the 
> pure stuff.

Debbie:
Very true.  If you remove the Star Wars (and most of the posts 
concern its fantasy/hero's journey aspects, not anything to do with 
sci-fi), there's not a whole lot left, except some posts asserting 
that JKR's magical world doesln't meet sci-fi standards, and a 
couple of stray references to sci-fi authors.  But I'll hold off 
doing anything for the time being.  The category is not large, and 
would be easy to deal with later.
 
Kathy W:
> I see it now. Eva takes a name out, Anne puts it back in. I come 
along and take it out again....Ginger passes by and chops the entire 
post!!  OK that works.

Debbie:
I shuddered every time I added a new category (outside my own 
categories), certain that I'd only restored something that had been 
carefully considered and deleted.  

Anne:
> I do think we should keep a very few off-the-wall posts in the
> catalogue, just because they are part of the flavor of HPfGU, but 
only
> ones that are truly amusing.  Either that, or make the "just for a
> laugh" category available.

Debbie:
I've been very generous with very early posts because they tend to 
show evolution of thinking.  Like the very first "So do you think 
Neville could have a Memory Charm?"

Boyd wrote:
> Tonks is clearly up to something. Consider her introduction: 
clumsy,
> heavily-accented, appearance-changing, at cross purposes with ol' 
Mad Eye.
> Too much detail for a character who has done nothing yet in this 
story. Also
> won over Harry far too quickly.
>
> Definitely fishy.

Debbie:
Either too fishy or too PC, as in Look!  Young career woman in the 
Order eschewing traditional feminine roles!   Because the other 
women in the Order are either wives of other order members or 
they're invisible.  Hestia Jones, anyone?

Carolyn: 
The twins are more or less the only 
> characters in the whole sorry saga that give me pure pleasure. 
They 
> are a force of nature, sufficient unto themselves, sharp, savvy, 
> totally focused, but discerning enough to lend a helping hand to 
> those that are worth the trouble. 

Debbie:
It's their decisions about who's worth the trouble that bothers me.  
Harry is worth the trouble, from the moment they see him on the 
platform.  But their brothers are not.  Perhaps Molly's worst error 
was not her career focus, but her lack of focus on their repeated 
humiliation of Percy.  I actually didn't find most of their jokes 
very funny.  This is undoubtedly, however, a subversive reading of 
the text.  I am sure your reading is what JKR intends.

Carolyn:
Unfortunately, they are boys and 
> will be eternally hobbled by vague guilt about upsetting their 
mother 
> (she'll make sure of that), but hopefully it won't stop them. 

Debbie:
I doubt they have any guilt toward Molly.  ;-)
 
Carolyn:
> I think Talisman is extremely accurate as to what is wrong with 
> Molly - she is a wrecker and a destroyer of ambition and dreams. 
> She's been stupid enough to define herself and her life only as a 
> mother and wife, and forgotten her own identity. It is a 1950s 
> caricature that it would be nice to see demolished, although 
Kneasy 
> is probably right that JKR has no such plans.

Debbie:
Nah, I don't think she does, either.  I think JKR is portraying her 
sympathetically, while not glossing over her flaws.  (All mothers 
have flaws.  We make bad choices and sometimes our kids suffer from 
them.  Molly does her best, as she sees it.) 

Carolyn:
> The drive-by back up, simply boggling at the thought of Talisman 
as 
> either a ballerina or air-hostess. 

Heh.  It works both ways, you know.  My parents gave me no career 
guidance whatsoever, and I still ended up in law school.

Debbie
who was a Girl Scout and took ballet, remembers excellent, real 
camping adventures and nothing else about Girl Scouts, but danced 
like an elephant