> bboy_mn asks:

> Can you tell me if the chess pieces are soft like molded toy soldiers

> or are they hard plastic?

> 

> 

> In case, you are thinking about buying one, they may be worth it for

> the novelty of having a Harry Potter Chess set. But I'm lead to

> believe the quality is not very good. You can by a pretty nice regular

> chess set for $10 to $15.

> 

> If you have one, what is your impression of it?

I have one, I bought it as soon as they came out (at Wal-Mart for $12).  The 
pieces are hard plastic, quite good quality hard plastic, very sturdy, I was a 
bit surprised at them.  The board, on the other hand, is a piece of junk.  
Fortunately I bought it for the pieces, not the board.  The board is cardboard 
and of course folds in quarters so it can fit in the box, which makes it very 
unsturdy and hard to lay flat.  I bought a glass board to put my pieces on and 
plan to set it up when get the spot cleaned off!  I also need to learn to play 
chess. . ..  Since then I've bought a computer chess game, found that too 
complicated, so I bought a children's computer chess game that teaches you to 
play chess.  Plus Chess for Dummies. :)

Anyway, for the price and the novelty of it I highly recommend the Wizard chess 
set.  Though I can't see how they get off calling it "Wizard" chess since the 
only thing that makes it Wizard chess in HP is the pieces breaking each other!  
And these, obviously, don't. :)  

Richelle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Dec 19 22:52:09 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:52:09 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Genevieve!
Message-ID: 

I hope everyone left the party decorations in good condition, because 
they're needed yet again.  Our birthday greetings for today go out to 
Genevieve Pratt!  Birthday greetings to Genevieve can be sent to the 
List.

Happy birthday, Genevieve, and I hope you have a lovely day filled 
with HP goodies :)

Mary Ann
(temp. Birthday Elf)

From zeff8 at attbi.com  Fri Dec 20 00:08:59 2002
From: zeff8 at attbi.com (zeff8)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:08:59 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harrry Potter Chess Set, anybody have one?
References: 
Message-ID: <00e601c2a7bb$fee15b60$2d03f50c@attbi.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: 

> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve   wrote:
> > bboy_mn asks:
> >
> > Does anybody have the genuine licensed Mattel Harry Potter Chess Set
> > that is a replica of the McGonagall/Voldemort/Philosopher's Stone
> > chess set?
> >
> > I've seen them advertised for $15, but it looks like Mattel is
> > discontinuing them.
> >
> >
> >
> > bboy_mn
>
> Steve,
>
> I just bought the second to last "wizards chess" set at Target.  The
> pieces look like they are replicas of the giant chess game at the end
> of PS/SS.  I honestly didn't even open the box, but put it in my
> usual hiding place for the christmas stuff.  (it's kind of like a
> silent alarm at my house; you open a box of something you don't want
> them to see, you can be sure they will come find you!!) Anyway, I
> didn't even consider what materials the pieces were made out of.
> I'll try to check it out tomorrow and let you know!  Although, I
> don't know if this is the set you are interested in.
>
> Happy shopping!
>
>  Anna . . .
>

I opened the box, and yes, they are pretty much as we saw them on the movie,
except for 2 things.
1. These don't move.
2. They don't break if you drop one, as they are made of plastic resin, not
cermic.

Join HP collectables Yahoo egroup. Share ideas, photos, pricing on various
HP collectable items. For more info:
Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPcollectables
Group email address: HPcollectables at yahoogroups.com

From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Fri Dec 20 00:23:10 2002
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 20 Dec 2002 00:23:10 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-OTChatter 
Message-ID: <1040343790.272.88336.w68@yahoogroups.com>

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-OTChatter group:

Who is your favorite Marauder? 

  o Sirius Black 
  o Remus Lupin 
  o James Potter 
  o Lily Evens (She counts...) 
  o Peter Pettigrew 
  o Who are the Marauders? 
  o Severus Snape (He counts, too...) 
  o None. I hate them all! I'M GLAD JAMES AND LILY DIED, AH HAHAHAHA!! 
  o Sexyness? Where? ::drools over the Marauders.:: 
  o I think they are cool, however, I don't have a favorite. I'm not a loser. 

To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/surveys?id=1016346  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

From faon_kameta at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 20 02:46:21 2002
From: faon_kameta at hotmail.com (xanniea )
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:46:21 -0000
Subject: Worf as Hufflepuff (was Wizarding Schools)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "lord1912 " 
 wrote:
>Worf, another Hufflepuff, I think. 
> Lady Tavington-Malfoy

I could not see Worf as a Hufflepuff for anything. I know him mostly 
from TNG (DS9 was on at 2:00am on my channels), and he, to me, is 
the absolute Gryffidor. Hufflepuffs value loyalty, while 
Gryffindor's value bravery. Klingons themselves value honor, which 
could be argued is a combination of the two (ie., honour is being 
brave enought to act upon one's loyalties) but I think that while 
Word is loyal, he is more likely to be brave and play hero to make 
him more "honorfical" (exuse the made up word), than help somebody 
when it could defame himself. Therefore, I believe Worf is a 
Gryffindor, though I do understand why you might place him as a 
Hufflepuff. 

-Xannie A. 

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 20 05:34:38 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 05:34:38 -0000
Subject: Harrry Potter Chess Set, anybody have one?
In-Reply-To: <00e601c2a7bb$fee15b60$2d03f50c@attbi.com>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zeff8"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 
> 
> > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve  >  wrote:
> > > bboy_mn asks:
> > >
> > > Does anybody have the genuine licensed Mattel Harry Potter 
> > > Chess Set ... ... ...

> > >
> > > bboy_mn
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I just bought the second to last "wizards chess" set at Target.  
> > ...edited...
> >
> > Happy shopping!
> >
> >  Anna . . .
> >
> 
> ... yes, they are pretty much as we saw them on the movie, except 
> for 2 things.
> 1. These don't move.
> 2. They don't break if you drop one, as they are made of plastic
> resin, not cermic.

bboy_mn responds:

Thanks everyone. I was at Target today looking for a set, but they
didn't have any. Maybe I'll try Wal-Mart. This close to Christmas, I'm
probably not going to have much luck.

bboy_mn

From mb2910 at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 20 13:04:56 2002
From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q )
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:04:56 -0000
Subject: Worf as Hufflepuff (was Wizarding Schools)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Xannie A:
*snip*
>>>Klingons themselves value honor, which could be argued is a 
combination of the two (ie., honour is being brave enought to act 
upon one's loyalties) but I think that while Word [Worf] is loyal, he 
is more likely to be brave and play hero to make him 
more "honorfical" (exuse the made up word), than help somebody when 
it could defame himself.<<<
*snip*

Me:
Worf is loyal, and honorable, he is a True Klingon, and I think that 
if he had to choose between playing the hero and helping someone (of 
course when his help is justifiable and honorable), he would chose 
helping someone. Remember that TNG episode where he discovers 
corruption in the Klingon government and he prefers being dishonored 
rather than plunge his homeworld into a civil war? He was shunned 
from his own society for doing what he considered honorable and 
right. I think that Worf's sense of honor goes beyond being strong, 
and getting medallions. His sense of honor encompasses also doing 
what's right, and not being afraid of being different (he is the only 
Klingon in Starfleet), and getting up and facing his own life rather 
than kill himself (after his injury, that he spent a lot of time 
doing physiotherapy and sulking and ranting and making Alexander (or 
was it Riker? or Picard? damn....) promise to kill him), which would 
have been the "appropriate" Klingon response to being so severely 
injured.

Just my 2 cents as a devoted Star Trek enthusiastic fan (don't like 
the terms "Trekkie" and "Trekker")
=/\=Meira=/\=

From bray.262 at osu.edu  Fri Dec 20 10:27:03 2002
From: bray.262 at osu.edu (Rachel Bray)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:27:03 +0000 (EST5EDT)
Subject: argh...so SICK of it.....
Message-ID: <1A855B1037A@lincoln.treasurer.ohio-state.edu>

All right....I need to scream at someone and this list is 
going to be my punching bag for a second....my apologies...

I'm surrounded by Lord of the Ring fanatics.  Which is fine 
because I'm a huge fan myself.  BUT...I'm getting SO SICK 
of them coming up and telling me how much BETTER the movies 
are to Harry!!!  I DON'T CARE!

YES, they are INCREDIBLE movies.  They've left me 
speechless!  I love, love, love them.  Merry and Pippin 
have been favorite characters of mine for almost 25 years.  
I love and adore Lord of the Rings.

BUT I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT'S ASS ABOUT BOX OFFICE 
SUCCESS!

The Harry and LOTR franchises are not competitors in my 
opinion.  I am proud of both franchises for their 
successes.

But if one more LOTRer comes by and says how much better 
TTT is to Chamber, I'm afraid I'm going to start throwing 
my stapler at them.  And it's a really heavy stapler.

*sigh*  I think I'm going to put up a sign that reads:

Lord of the Rings owns my imagination.  Harry owns my 
heart.  GO AWAY.

wibble

Rachel Bray
The Ohio State University
Fees & Deposits

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an 
angry, flying Ford Anglia.

From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Dec 20 15:44:29 2002
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:44:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] argh...so SICK of it.....
Message-ID: <29143579.1040399069022.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

Rachel Bray writes:

> All right....I need to scream at someone and this list is 

> going to be my punching bag for a second....my apologies...

> 

> I'm surrounded by Lord of the Ring fanatics. Which is fine 

> because I'm a huge fan myself. BUT...I'm getting SO SICK 

> of them coming up and telling me how much BETTER the movies 

> are to Harry!!! I DON'T CARE!

> 

> BUT I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT'S ASS ABOUT BOX OFFICE 

> SUCCESS!

> 

I understand completely.  Fortunately, most of the LOTR fans I'm around were 
let down by the first movie, being long time Tolkein purists, and greatly upset 
at any alteration in the story line.  Leaving things out they didn't mind, 
changing things, they did.  For that matter, my uncle refuses to go see the 
second movie in theaters.  He's waiting until it comes to tv, so he says.  
Though I'll buy the DVD and he'll probably watch that.  And this from someone 
who has read and reread the LOTR books for years!  He didn't have a kind word 
to say about it, really, thought they could've found better (looking) actors, 
etc.  Though in my mind, Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn cannot be beaten! 

Well, this too shall pass.  Of course, you could mention in passing that SS/PS 
opened with more than double Fellowship of the Ring's box office profits.  Or 
that when it was all said and done, SS/PS beat out LOTR: FotR by a few 
million.  Of course, perhaps this should wait until box office figures for 
LOTR: TT are in!

Richelle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 20 21:45:37 2002
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr )
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:45:37 -0000
Subject: CoS Video Games
Message-ID: 

Sorry if this has been discussed; I think I've read all the recent 
messages, but maybe I missed something.

Can anyone tell me of the relative merits of the CoS games for PS2, 
Gameboy Color and Gameboy Advance?  Are there even versions for both 
gameboys?  I did read the post earlier on that panned the PS1 version, 
so I'll be avoiding that one, but I'm sure the kids will be wanting 
*at least* one version eventually, and I'd really like to know which 
ones are worthwhile.  I'm interested in how well they play, and also 
how much they "feel" like Harry Potter, if you know what I mean!

Thanks much
Annemehr

From timregan at microsoft.com  Sat Dec 21 00:03:32 2002
From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:03:32 -0000
Subject: Pullman's beliefs
Message-ID: 

Hi All,

This isn't about JKR at all so counts as seriously off topic, but I 
know there are some Philip Pullman fans here too.

BBC Radio 3 starts a new series of their program "Belief" on Monday 
December 23rd at 21:30 GMT.

"A series of programmes in which Joan Bakewell talks to artists and 
thinkers about what they believe and why. In a society where the 
arena of belief has become increasingly personal and subjective, she 
explores in conversation with her guests the influences that have 
shaped them, the ideas they have about life's big questions and how 
what they believe affects both their personal and professional 
lives. [Monday] she speaks to writer, Philip Pullman."

BBC Radio 3 stream live on the internet and often save programmes 
for a week for on-demand listening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/

In a gratuitous attempt to make this a more on-topic post, did you 
all see the link from The Leaky Cauldron to the advert for a video 
showing "how completely occult is the world of Harry Potter"? 
http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp It contains the 
marvelous quote "I liked it when the bad guys killed the unicorn and 
Voldemort drank its blood." (July, age 13) and finishes with the tag 
line "Stop and think: what will these children do when invited to 
visit an occult website, or even a local coven?"

I know Philip Pullman feels that the popularity of the Harry Potter 
books has taken the religious flames away from his work, so it will 
be interesting to hear what he actually believes.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.

From melclaros at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 00:51:16 2002
From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:51:16 -0000
Subject: Sexiness. In General.
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, 

> Women all over the planet were drooling over Snape, and Lucius, and 
> Draco, and Tom, and Sirius and Remus and Harry of course, and Bill 
> and Charlie Weasley, and even Voldemort, long before there was 
*any* 
> HP movie. If yucky actors had been cast (and ugly is not necessary 
> unattractive, at least in males), people would just condemn the 
movie 
> for being wrong, not give up our crushes on the characters.
> 

Too true!
I rememeber two specific thoughts flying through my head when I 
learned it was certain the Potter books were going to be turned into 
movies. 
1. Oh **** they're going to RUIN them!
2. Who's going to play Snape?

I confess that although I am a long standing Rickman fan I honestly 
had my doubts about him as "my" Snape--only because of his age, I 
must guiltily admit now. I didn't doubt he could play the role, in 
every other aspect he's perfect--in particular his voice. Snape's 
voice is an INTEGRAL part of his presence. 

But I digress. 
Melpomene--Snape fan without the help of pretty visuals

From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sat Dec 21 01:46:21 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 01:46:21 -0000
Subject: Byronic heroes (from main list)
Message-ID: 

Hello, Chatter folks. I wanted to answer this thread from the main 
list, but I started to rove over the question of how we interpret 
works, the definition of the Byronic Hero in general, and then just 
plain ramble. So I posted it here. :-)

Marianne asked:

> Okay, help me out here. When discussing literary figures, in this 
> case heroes, subcatagory Byronic heroes, do the definitions of 
> Byronic hero apply to a reader's perception of a character, or with 
> how the other characters in the literary work view the subject?  To 
> continue with Snape as the potential Byronic Man, is he Byronic in 
> how we relate to him or in how he interacts with and is percieved 
by 
> the other Potterverse characters (I was a science major, okay?)

Porphyria (me):

Well, that's a good question. But I'd have to say that when you ask 
the question "Is character X a Byronic hero" you are necessarily 
directing that question to a reader who is looking at a character, 
because you are asking the reader to do a comparison between that 
character and several other characters from other works of fiction. 
You can't really expect a character to see himself or be seen by 
others as a Byronic hero from within the story world of the books. 
Most people don't see themselves as literary types. (Well, maybe a 
few. ) So I'd say it's a question of how we perceive him as 
readers. 

Plus, we also judge these things by how the author depicts the 
character: the words she uses, the type of mood, effect or genre 
she's trying to evoke. Often I suspect that JKR has other literary 
characters in mind when she writes about Snape (e.g. see my quote 
from Radcliffe below), and so we can only make that observation from 
the point of view of readers reading the text for clues, not from the 
point of view of other characters.

Marianne:

> So, does the fact that there doesn't seem to be canon support for 
> Snape's attractiveness negate at least that part of the Byronic 
hero 
> concept? Or is canon outweighed by the positive reaction to Snape's 
> attractiveness that lots of readers have?

Porphyria:

Well, in general I doubt if any one specific characteristic 
would 'negate' someone's being a Byronic hero as long as there were 
several other characteristics that did qualify, as they do in Snape's 
case. It's not like a mathematical proof; it's more of a basic 
overall judgment. Besides, since all literary characters are unique, 
we can't expect any one to be a 'perfect' example of any specific 
type.

In this case, contrary to what GulPlum stated, I'm not aware that a 
character has to be classically handsome in order to be a Byronic 
type. As eillim noted, Mr. Rochester isn't. Byronic 'looks' tend to 
run more towards the striking and memorable: dramatic, dark, 
mysterious, a little threatening. The Byronic hero was based on some 
villainous predecessors, such as Milton's Satan or Ann Radcliffe's 
_The Italian_:

"Among his associates no one loved him, many disliked him, and more 
feared him. His figure was striking, but not so from grace; it was 
tall, and, though extremely thin, his limbs were large and uncouth, 
and as he stalked along, wrapped in the black garments of his order, 
there was something terrible in its air; something almost super-
human. His cowl, too, as it threw a shade over the livid paleness of 
his face, increased its severe character, and gave an effect to his 
large melancholy eye, which approached to horror. His was not the 
melancholy of a sensible and wounded heart, but apparently that of a 
gloomy and ferocious disposition. There was something in his 
physiognomy extremely singular, and that cannot easily be defined. It 
bore the traces of many passions, which seemed to have fixed the 
features they no longer animated. An habitual gloom and severity 
prevailed over the deep lines of his countenance; and his eyes were 
so piercing that they seemed to penetrate, at a single glance, into 
the hearts of men, and to read their most secret thoughts; few 
persons could support their scrutiny, or even endure to meet them 
twice. "
-- From _The Italian_

He sounds familiar! Well, at least Radcliffe doesn't 
say "glittering." ;-)

In another reply, Irene said:

> Heathcliff and his ilk just does nothing to me but bore me to 
tears. This
> big archetypal
> romantic hero has to be rich and idle - as much money free  time as
> necessary to
> wander aimlessly all over Europe in search of his purpose in life, 
no?
> At least in Russian romantic literature it was an absolute 
requirement. 
> 
> Now Snape has a profession, and he is dedicated and very good at it,
> which for me is one of his biggest selling points and also 
something that
> disqualifies him from being Byronic hero.

Porphyria: 

So you wouldn't consider Goethe's Faust or Victor Frankenstein to be 
Byronic heroes? They were both passionate, ambitious career men whose 
dark, secret, past mistakes had to do with their drive for knowledge 
and power. I can't help but lump Snape in with them.

Having said that, I do agree that some Byronic types (like 
Heathcliff) are boring and that Snape's relationship to his job, both 
in his duty and in his (IMO) frustration, makes him particularly 
sympathetic and sets him apart from many stereotypes. In Snape's case 
its the odd combination, that he's a larger-than-life dark anti-hero 
who happens to be pinned into a schoolteacher job, that makes him so 
singular and makes any simple comparison to another character less 
than satisfactory.

The one thing that I think might stand in the way of Snape being a 
Byronic hero is the fact that he isn't actually the *hero* of this 
story. He's sort of secondary, as Byronic heroes go. They tend to be 
attention-hogs.  This probably explains why he seems more of a 
Byronic hero in fanfic, if the fanfic is in fact Snapefic, and 
therefore revolves around him. But we'll only find out at the end of 
the HP series how important, and in what ways Snape's own story 
influences the whole. 

I'm curious as to what other literary characters people consider good 
Byronic heroes, in addition to the ones mentioned on the main list. 
Because I think that the definition of a Byronic type depends a lot 
on what books we're considering 'count' as predecessors. Heck, I'm 
interested in anything anyone has to say about possible literary 
predecessors for Snape, Byronic or otherwise.

Thanks,
~Porphyria

From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Dec 21 03:37:55 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 03:37:55 -0000
Subject: The golden monkey speaks
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Alas, I have missed sending birthday wishes to Judy and 
Genevieve... I hope I haven't forgotten anyone...

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan " 
 wrote:

> We've seen on this list recently how many of the HP male baddies 
> are way sexier than the HP male goodies, 

It's not just the males -- there is widespread agreement here 
that Mrs. Lestrange is Dead Sexy.

From insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Dec 21 05:11:19 2002
From: insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk (Scott )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:11:19 -0000
Subject: The Two Towers (was Re: argh...so SICK of it.....)
In-Reply-To: <1A855B1037A@lincoln.treasurer.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: 

--I saw TTT last night and absolutely loved it. (Helm's deep is 
simply amazing...and as "nail-bitingly" exciting as the book) Then 
again, I'm merely a fan of LoTR and not a fanatic. If I was I the 
Arwen bits might've bothered me more (as it stands I thought they 
worked well even if it did seem a bit "desperate for romantic sub-
plot"). However...

Rachel: 
"I'm surrounded by Lord of the Ring fanatics.  Which is fine 
because I'm a huge fan myself.  BUT...I'm getting SO SICK 
of them coming up and telling me how much BETTER the movies 
are to Harry!!!  I DON'T CARE!"

--Cinematically, I think, it *is* a better movie. (hmm...don't send 
a howler yet!) The special effects are better in TTT (and FoTR) than 
in HP, but this has a lot to do with the stories themselves. A 
complete fantastical world is a bit different than a Scottish 
boarding school (albeit a special one). I guess it doesn't help that 
some side by side comparisions are enevitable...(ie. Dobby/Gollum). 
But you really can't find two characters more unlike each other. 
(well in *character*, obviously they are both CGI). Buth then if 
someone can only look at these movies in *that* light...I think 
they've missed the point.

It's kind of like "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz". they 
are both incredibly amazing movies for the year in which they were 
produced, but they are 100% different, and have permeated our 
culture in accordingly different ways (don't you think?). They 
really can't be compared any more than HP and LoTR. Comparing either 
movie to the other only does a disservice to both. 

Does that analogy make any sense?

Rachel wrote:
 "Lord of the Rings owns my imagination.  Harry owns my heart.  GO 
AWAY."

--Yes, yes, yes! As much as I am fascinated by Middle Earth I don't 
want to go there. I don't find myself dreaming about it (well I have 
had nightmares involving the Nazgul, possibly the scariest things in 
literature, but I digress). When I'm in public I don't think..."ooh, 
that person looks like Frodo!" but I (often) say "oh my god there 
goes a Weasley!" Middle Earth is a great place to visit, but I 
wouldn't want to live there. It is as fantastical as fantasy can 
be...but Harry potter? For all I know I may've passed the leaky 
cauldron whilst walking down Charing Cross road. Harry Potter stirs 
that bit of me that still *really* believes in magic.

I...well you get the point (I think), although I'm afraid this post 
is a bit of a muddle.

Hmmm
Scott

From jenw118 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 07:10:56 2002
From: jenw118 at yahoo.com (jenw118 )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:10:56 -0000
Subject: Can anyone help me?
Message-ID: 

Hi everyone, sorry for the lack of posting.  I'm still reading 
though...

I need some help.  My best friend and I have a disagreement about 
JKR and the Harry Potter books.

My friend, Vicki thinks that the books involve REAL witchcraft.  She 
also believes that the books are coaxing children to explore real 
witchcraft further.

I completely disagreed with this, and I told her that I'd prove to 
her in some way that her thoughts were not based on fact.  I told 
her that I'd print out articles and interviews for her as much as I 
could in order to prove my point.

I tried explaining to her that the books deal more with good and 
evil and morals and values than trying to convince young children to 
become witches and wizards.

I said that all the Harry Potter books are is extreme entertainment 
by a talented author that has gotten many children into reading.  My 
sister being one of those children.  She wouldn't read much of 
anything, now she reads the HP books (is still working on GoF) and 
will read other stuff usually, only because of the fact that the HP 
books gently persuaded her into reading.  

My friend wants to see the movie, which is great.  I'm hoping to 
bring it with me next time I go visit for more than an afternoon.

Now what I need everyone's help with is: 

Can you provide me with links to interviews/links to articles that 
explain that the "witchcraft" in the books is anything but real.  
Also has there been any cases at all of children being more curious 
about witchcraft after reading the books-you know, the books being 
blamed as the cause for them exploring it?  

I hope this isn't too off topic for this list.  I'll be grateful for 
any help involved.  You can e-mail me off list with anything @ 
jenw118 at yahoo.com

From kcawte at blueyonder.co.uk  Sat Dec 21 07:16:45 2002
From: kcawte at blueyonder.co.uk (Kathryn Cawte)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:16:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Can anyone help me?
References: 
Message-ID: <3E04155D.000006.01165@monica>

I know JKR said in an interview somewhere that she makes the spells up (well
duh) but I don't know where. I'd do a link on Harry Potter in conjunction
with the Archbishop of Canterbury because I know he said the books weregood
and cited the struggle between good and evil. It was in a newspaper article
in the UK so I'm sure it'll be online somewhere. Sorry I can't be more help

K

From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Dec 21 07:37:52 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:37:52 -0000
Subject: Can anyone help me?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "jenw118 " 
 wrote:

> Can you provide me with links to interviews/links to articles that 
> explain that the "witchcraft" in the books is anything but real.  
> Also has there been any cases at all of children being more curious 
> about witchcraft after reading the books-you know, the books being 
> blamed as the cause for them exploring it?  
> 
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0001/reviews/jacobs.html is an 
article in a Religious magazine explaining that Potterverse magic is 
not occult.

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 10:29:26 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:29:26 -0000
Subject: Can anyone help me?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "jenw118 "
 wrote:
> ..snip... 
> I need some help.  My best friend and I have a disagreement about 
> JKR and the Harry Potter books.
> 
> My friend, Vicki thinks that the books involve REAL witchcraft.  She 
> also believes that the books are coaxing children to explore real 
> witchcraft further.
> 
> I completely disagreed with this, and I told her that I'd prove to 
> her in some way that her thoughts were not based on fact.  
>
> jenw118 at y...

bboy_mn responds:

I think if anybody needs to prove anything, it's your friend Vicki.
What evidence does she have besides the hysterical raving of a bunch
of religious fanatics that like to read their own name in the paper?

You can look most of the incantations up in any Latin dictionary.
While JKR has a great working knowledge of the English language, she
also teaches French and is knowledgable in the classic languages like
Latin and greek. So she Latinizes her incantations because that's the
ancient European Language. When I create Asian incantations, I use
Sanskrit, the ancient dead language of Asia. 

You don't need to be a witch to make these things up, all you need is
a Latin dictionary. Here I'll give you an incantation to bolt a door
so it's lock is unbreakable-

'Ostium Ictus Infragilis' (Door Bolt Unbreakable) but if you are a
really powerfull wizard, you might stand a chance of beaking it with a
very forceful 'Effringo' (break open).

Anyone who can't see that this is pure fantasy probably needs a
serious reality check. (No offense to your friend)

As far as leading kids to witchcraft, the closest thing we have to
witchcraft is the Pagan Religion. When kids do call to enquire, they
doesn't ask kids to join them. They tell them that Harry Potter is
fake. Most Pagan website have added disclaimers telling kids in
advance that their religious is not a fantasy to be played with, and
assuring them that (again) Harry Potter magic is all fake. 

Kids are more likely to go scrambling for a Latin dictionary to look
up all the incantations than they are to go looking for real witches. 

Actually, as I think about it, there is a real magic to the Harry
Potter story, and it's not tickle charms and jelly leg curses. The
magic is the way the books inspire us all. They inspire us to dream,
to care, to love, and to seek knowledge and truth. How many kids read
this and fail to see how much Draco's actions hurt Harry's feelings?
How many of those kids fail to turn to their own daily lives and see
that same hurt going on around them? It teaches us empathy; caring
about other people's feelings. 

Of course, people will claim that Harry is a bad role model because he
breaks the rules. But men of good conscience have always broken the
rule when the rules were wrong. Which is more important? Which is the
better moral choice? To follow the rules, or to do what is right? To
follow the rules or to selflessly risk your life to prevent the most
evil wizard who ever lived from getting the Philosopher stone and
beginning a new reign of terror. They may have broken the rules, but
they did a selfless, brave, noble, and morally right thing when they
broke them. Again, regardless of rules, and ignoring innocent childish
mischief like sneeking out to Hogsmeade, Harry always make the morally
correct choice. He always chooses the greater good over his own safety. 

Does this make kids think about witchcraft; yes. Just as it makes them
think about studing Karate after seeing a Jackie Chan movie. Just as
they think about being a soldier after seeing a heroic war movie. But
it not the witchcraft, the martial arts, or the soldier's life that
they want. What they are truly seeking is the heroic adventure, the
excitement, the epic quest, the struggle of good over evil, or put
more simply, they want to dream wonderful dreams. I find no moral flaw
in wanting to dream wonderful dreams. I find no moral flaw in being
inspired.

Most kids probably aren't as extreme as the fanatics at the various
Harry Potter for Grown-Ups groups, but I think they still serve as a
model for ways in which kids could be inspired to seek knowledge. A
few weeks ago, we were discussing the type of sword Harry would have
been likely to use. That sent several of us scrabbling over the
internet researching medieval swords. There was a long discussion of
the merits of thrust vs slash swords. Then the subject of wizards
clothes came up, and that sent several of us scrambling to research
period costume to determine what kind of clothes they really would be
likely to wear. 

I've done a lot of research on English culture and language, as well
as geography. I've never been to London, but I can tell you where
Chinatown is. I can tell you that there is a butchers shop just south
of Berwick Street Market (Fenn's of Picadilly). I know the highest
elevations in England and Finland. Knowledge I gained from trying to
determine where Durmstrang was. I know that Finland has 60,000 lakes.
I know where there is a small isolated moutain range in Romaina that
could hide a dragon preserve. I know that there are 120 Magic
Societies in Britain (stage magic). Things I would never know without
the inspiration of Harry Potter.

Speaking of stage magic, wouldn't it be more likely for kids to be
inspired to learn magic that they could actually do, rather than for
them to seek out strange witchly rituals that essentially produce nothing?

No; I can see so many great things that have come from the Harry
Potter books, so many ways in which people, young and old alike, have
gained; have been enriched. 

Can your friend show any tangable evidence of how people, young or
old, have truly lost or been deminished in any way? I think not.

Sorry, just felt the uncontrollable urge to vent. And sorry, I didn't
have any links for you. Thanks for listening; I feel better now.

bboy_mn

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Dec 21 10:32:56 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:32:56 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Martin!
Message-ID: 

Keep those party decorations up, folks, because we have plenty more 
December birthdays on the way.  :::::puts a large cake on the 
table:::::  Today's birthday person is Martin Smith.  Greetings can 
be sent to the List or to mediaphen at hotmail.com

Happy birthday, Martin, and enjoy your day!

Mary Ann
(temp. Birthday Elf)

From dianasdolls at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 12:23:32 2002
From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:23:32 -0000
Subject: Did anyone tape the Oprah Show with HP actors?
Message-ID: 

Did anyone tape the Oprah Winfrey show that aired on Thanksgiving 
day in the US?  It had the three stars of the HP movies, Daniel 
Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson.

My son and I missed that show and would really like to watch it.  If 
you do have a copy and would be willing to mail it to me, I'd be 
happy to return it to you after watching or pay for the cost of the 
tape plus postage in either case.  :)

I hope someone can help me with this request!  Thanks in advance.  :)

Diana
dianasdolls

From john at queerasjohn.com  Sat Dec 21 13:38:25 2002
From: john at queerasjohn.com (Queer as John)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:38:25 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] argh...so SICK of it.....
In-Reply-To: <1A855B1037A@lincoln.treasurer.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: 

Rachel Bray said:

> I'm surrounded by Lord of the Ring fanatics.  Which is fine
> because I'm a huge fan myself.  BUT...I'm getting SO SICK
> of them coming up and telling me how much BETTER the movies
> are to Harry!!!  

*grins* D'you know, in my first viewing of FOTR last year, that was exactly
what I was telling myself throughout the movie? "This is so much BETTER than
our movie!"

--John, being brief and looking forward to what Cuar?n will do to PoA
______________________________________

Queer as John || john at queerasjohn.com
          www.queerasjohn.com

AIM & YM @ QueerAsJohn

"There's nowt as queer as folk."
    --English proverb
______________________________________

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 13:53:34 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 13:53:34 -0000
Subject: argh...so SICK of it.....
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

 Rachel Bray said:
> 
> > I'm surrounded by Lord of the Ring fanatics.  Which is fine
> > because I'm a huge fan myself.  BUT...I'm getting SO SICK
> > of them coming up and telling me how much BETTER the movies
> > are to Harry!!!

Don't worry.  That's about to be remedied.

Amy
working on her anti-TTT rant right now

--at least, I *think* the movie was The Two Towers.  That was what it 
said on the opening credits.  It bore only a passing resemblance to 
the book The Two Towers, so I might be wrong.

From boredchocobo at attbi.com  Sat Dec 21 14:14:13 2002
From: boredchocobo at attbi.com (Chocobo)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:14:13 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: argh...so SICK of it.....
References: 
Message-ID: <000901c2a8fb$3db70f20$82647d18@Compuhon>

Yeah, I was kind of surprised how many changes they made to the story, when the first movie followed the book a lot more closely. It could have been much better if they didn't feel that had to add in more things to an already crowded story, especially when those new things add absolutely nothing positive (like seeing characters almost die, but wait no, they didn't really! adds more drama or something. whatever). I wish they spent more time explaining the things that did happen, I would have been lost if I didn't read the book.

Sort of an interesting-but-not-really thing I noticed... the powerful evil sorceror has a little nasty henchman whose name starts with "Worm"... I wonder if Rowling named her character after this one on purpose.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Amy Z  

  --at least, I *think* the movie was The Two Towers.  That was what it 
  said on the opening credits.  It bore only a passing resemblance to 
  the book The Two Towers, so I might be wrong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From firekat482 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 15:40:32 2002
From: firekat482 at yahoo.com (firekat482 )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:40:32 -0000
Subject: CoS Video Games
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

 wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed; I think I've read all the recent 
> messages, but maybe I missed something.
> 
>Can anyone tell me of the relative merits of the CoS games for PS2, 
>Gameboy Color and Gameboy Advance?  Are there even versions forboth 
>gameboys?  I did read the post earlier on that panned the PS1 
>version, so I'll be avoiding that one, but I'm sure the kids will be 
>wanting *at least* one version eventually, and I'd really like to 
>know which ones are worthwhile.  I'm interested in how well they 
>play, and also how much they "feel" like Harry Potter, if you know 
>what I mean!
> 
> Thanks much
> Annemehr

A word of warning before I answer this question - this is my first 
post to this group (I've been lurking for quite awhile) so forgive me 
in advance for any mistakes I might make.

About a week ago I rented the PS2 version of the CoS game. I managed 
to beat the game in two days. Mind you, I beat the basilisk in two 
days. There are other mini quests you can do through out. Like 
finding all 101 wizard cards, or earning enough points to win the 
house cup.

First, the bad points: I have to say I *hate* games that can be 
beaten within a few days. I mean, why would someone want to pay fifty 
bucks for that? A total waste of money. However, I've been gaming 
since the original Nintendo (not as long as some people, I know, but 
long enough that I'm pretty darn good at it, if I do say so 
myself :)) so the fact that I beat it so fast might not be the usual 
player experience. During the actual game play the only thing I have 
any real complaints about are the camera angles. There were lots of 
times I wanted the camera to spin around Harry so I could get a good 
look at the room he was in, but you couldn't do that. Even if you 
were to zoom in so you were looking through Harry's POV you couldn't 
turn his head to see anything. And when you're out sneaking around 
the castle at night, that can get a little annoying. Oh - I just 
remembered this. There are a lot of doors around Hogwarts, but most 
of them are locked and you can't get through (even with an Alohomora 
charm, I tried). Something small, but it bugged the heck out of me. 
If I can't go through it, then why bother putting it there?

Good points: You wanted to know how much this "feels" like Harry 
Potter. Well, this game does a pretty good job of that, IMHO. Almost 
all of the different "settings" (like classrooms, the grounds, and 
such) are nearly identical to what we see in the movie. The graphics 
are good (though it takes different sections of the castle awhile to 
load), the targeting system makes casting spells a lot easier, and 
it's fun to collect the famous wizards cards, just to see who else is 
famous in the wizarding world (and they honor some people for really 
strange reasons, let me tell you). Dueling takes sometime to get the 
hang of (Draco kicked my butt a few times before I finally beat him), 
but once you get used it, it's a lot of fun. The Basilisk, though 
relatively easy for a boss (IMHO), was fun to fight as well. 

All in all, I've played worse. My recommendation? It's a good game, 
but not worth the fifty bucks you have to pay because it can be 
beaten so fast. In other words - Rent it, don't buy it. 

Hope this helps
~Jean

From linkajarjarbinks at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 15:48:34 2002
From: linkajarjarbinks at yahoo.com (Matilda Trelawney)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Did anyone tape the Oprah Show with HP actors?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021221154834.16515.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey Diana!
 I happen to have the Oprah Winfrey tape, but I'll have to check to see if I have taped over it or anything. I'd be happy to mail it to you if I still have it! Let me get back to you on it, okay? 
Thanks,
Matilda
 "Diana "  wrote:Did anyone tape the Oprah Winfrey show that aired on Thanksgiving 
day in the US?  It had the three stars of the HP movies, Daniel 
Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson.

My son and I missed that show and would really like to watch it.  If 
you do have a copy and would be willing to mail it to me, I'd be 
happy to return it to you after watching or pay for the cost of the 
tape plus postage in either case.  :)

I hope someone can help me with this request!  Thanks in advance.  :)

Diana
dianasdolls

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sat Dec 21 16:52:02 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:52:02 -0000
Subject: argh...so SICK of it.....
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
> 
> Amy
> working on her anti-TTT rant right now
> 
> --at least, I *think* the movie was The Two Towers.  That was what 
> it said on the opening credits.  It bore only a passing 
> resemblance to the book The Two Towers, so I might be wrong.

Ah, yes. The script did rather have the appearance of the 
scriptwriters looking at the books and realising that a faithful 
adaptation of the books would mean that, in movie two:

a) Aragorn's major love interest will not appear *at all*.

b) Aragorn will have so many battles where he escapes heroically 
unscratched that he'll look like Bruce Willis with a sword.

c)The entire audience is going to end the second movie wondering why 
Aragorn doesn't marry that nice Eowyn.

d)Saruman is going to have to explain his battle plans to the 
audience by talking to himself. Plus we're going to have to hand out 
maps to the audience. 

e)The last minute cavalry rescue of Helm's Deep is going to be led 
by a character that no one's ever heard of, who hasn't appeared 
previously, and who will never be seen again.

f)Far from appearing to be in danger, Frodo and Sam are going to 
spend half the movie wandering in the woods, smelling the pretty 
flowers, being entertained to dinner by the charming Captain Faramir 
(who sends them on their way with kind wishes)...

g) Faramir will have a 'ring temptation scene' lasting all of 10 
seconds. If that. Which will suggest that the Ring can't be *that* 
bloomin' tempting.

h) Rather than being heroic allies, the entire Elven race will 
appear to have left the world of men firmly in the manure while they 
do a quick bunk to the Undying Lands.

[Grin]

That said, I preferred The Fellowship, and I hope they get back on 
track for Return of the King. But I don't think a faithful visual 
adaptation of Book 2 is actually *possible*.

And I did like the irony of Sam in Osgiliath, saying[from memory]: 
"A lot of things aren't right. By rights we shouldn't be here at 
all".
You never said a truer word, Sam ;-)

Pip

From rvotaw at i-55.com  Sat Dec 21 17:36:57 2002
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:36:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: CoS Video Games
Message-ID: <20511842.1040492217499.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

Jean writes:

> All in all, I've played worse. My recommendation? It's a good game, 

> but not worth the fifty bucks you have to pay because it can be 

> beaten so fast. In other words - Rent it, don't buy it. 

> 

> Hope this helps

> ~Jean

> 

Okay, dumb question here. Are the PS2 games that different than the PC games?  
I have the CoS PC game and I can't even cast a spell right. Am I doing 
something wrong, or am I just incredibly stupid?  Beating it in two days?  Err, 
at the moment I'm hoping I have this one conquered by the time the PoA game 
comes out on '04!!!   

One note here, I haven't tried it yet on my new, much faster computer, so that 
could have something to do with it.  Or else I could just be dumb.  Both are 
equal possibilities. :)

Richelle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From melclaros at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 21 20:28:19 2002
From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:28:19 -0000
Subject: Can anyone help me?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "jenw118 " 
 wrote:
> Hi everyone, sorry for the lack of posting.  I'm still reading 
> though...
> 
> I need some help.  My best friend and I have a disagreement about 
> JKR and the Harry Potter books.
> 

Try this one...buy her the book if need be:

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s02100035.htm

Melpomene

From Malady579 at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 21 22:24:39 2002
From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:24:39 -0000
Subject: argh...so SICK of it.....
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Now, I know the script was shifted a bit, and Peter Jackson did take
some liberties *but* come on-

The Two Towers is a beautiful movie.  All the grandeur and majesty
*was* there.  Granted I am not as much a Tolkien canon purist as I can
be with HP, but the movie was a good movie in its own right, in my
opinion.  Had I not read the books, I would have just watched it and
said, "Wow."

But, since I have read them, I do sit at the end and wonder why they
shifted Faramir's character when I liked the fact he was not seduced
by the ring as his brother was.  I also wonder why Aragorn does not
have Anduril (I hope I got that name right) with him.  Seems that
sword is the central part of his tale after all.

I guess I feel, as an *adapted* movie, it was wonderful, but as a
*faithful* representation of what Tolkien envisioned, he might of been
a little disappointed to say the least.

Maybe I am just easily swayed by a sword and a cape, or maybe I just
love epic movies in their own right, but I did like Two Towers and
will admit it.  I think the wonder of the first one is what we all
remember.  This time around the authentic look of prosthetic elf ears
and the unbroken New Zealand landscape are not as seducing as before.

Or maybe I am wrong, and Two Towers was not even a shadow of what Lord
of the Rings deserves.  I personally think it was the best we can
*ever* hope for from Hollywood.  I must say I am a bit fearful about
what they will do to our PoA.

So say what you will, like I fully expect y'all to , but even with
a shifted script, Two Towers is all I want in an epic *middle* story.
 Though I am still a bit lost in how Aragorn survived that fall and
was seemingly brought back to life by Dream!Arwen.  *That* annoyed me.

Melody

From cindysphinx at comcast.net  Sat Dec 21 23:09:07 2002
From: cindysphinx at comcast.net (Cindy C. )
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 23:09:07 -0000
Subject: Twin Towers Without The Book (Spoilers) (WAS argh...so SICK of it.....)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

I saw Twin Towers last night.  My reaction, in a word, is "Huh?"

As best I can figure, tree people simply, uh, walk around.  Slowly.  
Unless they catch fire.

Like Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons, characters can survive falls 
off cliffs.

The Gollum character is schizophrenic.  

Everyone wants this ring, but no one will just snatch it off of 
Frodo's neck.

Those Org things?  They're not too bright.

Fantastic special effects, for sure.  But I liked the first movie 
better, I'm afraid.  ;-)

Cindy

From rvotaw at i-55.com  Sun Dec 22 04:23:02 2002
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:23:02 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Can anyone help me?
References: 
Message-ID: <017201c2a971$d1b565c0$22a2cdd1@RVotaw>

jenw118 writes:

> My friend, Vicki thinks that the books involve REAL witchcraft.  She 
> also believes that the books are coaxing children to explore real 
> witchcraft further.
>
> I completely disagreed with this, and I told her that I'd prove to 
> her in some way that her thoughts were not based on fact.  I told 
> her that I'd print out articles and interviews for her as much as I 
> could in order to prove my point.

Well, that depends.  Is your friend a Christian?  If so, Connie Neal has two books, one is "What's a Christian to do With Harry Potter?" and the other "The Gospel According to Harry Potter."  The first I don't have (yet), but it's a response to the "HP is evil" from Christian extremists.  The second I have and am about 3/4 through, it points out many, many instances which can be interpreted as (and for all we know may be intended as) Christian symbolisms.  If you're interested I can give you a run down of a few key ones for you.  Some of them I'd never even noticed, but when they were pointed out it left me with a "Wow!" effect.  

>
> Can you provide me with links to interviews/links to articles that 
> explain that the "witchcraft" in the books is anything but real.  
> Also has there been any cases at all of children being more curious 
> about witchcraft after reading the books-you know, the books being 
> blamed as the cause for them exploring it?  

None that I've ever heard about.  There are a few instances where JKR has said a child came to her and said they were trying the spells and she assured them nothing would happen.

Richelle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From zeff8 at attbi.com  Sun Dec 22 05:00:56 2002
From: zeff8 at attbi.com (zeff8)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:00:56 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Can anyone help me?
References:  <017201c2a971$d1b565c0$22a2cdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <004101c2a977$1c97ada0$9c01f50c@attbi.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richelle Votaw" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Can anyone help me?

> jenw118 writes:
>
> > My friend, Vicki thinks that the books involve REAL witchcraft.  She
> > also believes that the books are coaxing children to explore real
> > witchcraft further.
> >
> > I completely disagreed with this, and I told her that I'd prove to
> > her in some way that her thoughts were not based on fact.  I told
> > her that I'd print out articles and interviews for her as much as I
> > could in order to prove my point.
>
> Well, that depends.  Is your friend a Christian?  If so, Connie Neal has
two books, one is "What's a Christian to do With Harry Potter?" and the
other "The Gospel According to Harry Potter."  The first I don't have (yet),
but it's a response to the "HP is evil" from Christian extremists.  The
second I have and am about 3/4 through, it points out many, many instances
which can be interpreted as (and for all we know may be intended as)
Christian symbolisms.  If you're interested I can give you a run down of a
few key ones for you.  Some of them I'd never even noticed, but when they
were pointed out it left me with a "Wow!" effect.
>
> >
> > Can you provide me with links to interviews/links to articles that
> > explain that the "witchcraft" in the books is anything but real.
> > Also has there been any cases at all of children being more curious
> > about witchcraft after reading the books-you know, the books being
> > blamed as the cause for them exploring it?
>
> None that I've ever heard about.  There are a few instances where JKR has
said a child came to her and said they were trying the spells and she
assured them nothing would happen.
>
> Richelle

I tell you this, from my lifes experiances. There are people who do not want
to be confused with the true facts, because they already have their minds
made up. You cannot reason with these folks. You cannot carry on intellegent
conversations that are purpindicular to their line of thinking. You cannot
even suggest that their opinions might be incorrect without offending them.

It's best to just leave such people alone, for they have closed themselves
off from a majority of reality. As such, their potential for furthering
their intelectual base, is severly limited. And thus, they are a waste of
time.

From theo_kestrel at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 07:32:36 2002
From: theo_kestrel at yahoo.com (theo_kestrel )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 07:32:36 -0000
Subject: Will there be an announcement for Book 5 before 2003?
Message-ID: 

I know everyone's on pins and needles waiting for news on OotP, and
must be sick of everyone asking when it's going to be out, so let me
take a slighly different tack.

Back around the time when the CoS movie was premiering, I recall
reading a short interview with JKR on BBC Newsround, in which she
revealed that there would be 38 chapters, and she needed time for
tweaking the book-essentially stating that she's done but wanted to
fine-tune it.  I think I even remember something about it taking some
weeks to do so.  Now, the tweaking part I wasn't too excited about-I
vaguely recall similar comments around the August-September timeframe,
so to me it sounded like more of the same.  But the revelation of the
number of chapters and the "weeks" portion (if I'm not totally
dreaming up this whole thing) made me think that we might get an
announcement that she's handed in her manuscript before the end of the
year.  Does anyone have any thoughts on the likelihood of such an
announcement?  Even if she did turn in the manuscript to the publisher
for editing and whatnot, would they even publicly release that
information?

I'm just curious, since I'm also eagerly awaiting the next book in
George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series, and he's been
pretty accessible to fans about the whole thing, giving glimpses into
the process and even giving some insights on his struggles to finish
the book(he has a website he updates every couple weeks or so).  He's
also read select chapters (not finalized of course) from "A Feast for
Crows" (his next book) at various Cons.  It's interesting to see the
contrast between two very different authors writing two very, very
different stories.  I realize that Harry Potter has a much larger
following than ASOIAF could ever achieve, and thus JKR is under a much
bigger microscope than Martin, but at times it seems that JKR is
almost too tight-lipped about the whole process.  In the time since
GoF was released, I wouldn't have minded if she just came out and said
"Hey!  OotP isn't going to be out for a long, long, time, so please
stop badgering me about it."  But instead, we have numerous "release
dates" given out by Amazon and other various booksellers, which were
never publicly refuted to be wrong until it became obvious that it
just wasn't possible-contrasting that to GRRM, who states quite
clearly on his site that he has no idea where Amazon got the publish
date and page count, since he's not done and hasn't handed anything in
to his publisher yet-and he's also quite candid about missing target
dates.

This isn't intended to be a flame for JKR-I love her stories, and
greatly admire her persistence in getting her stories written and
published.  It's just that I wish she had handled the "between time" a
little differently, so that the wait wouldn't have been as painful.

theo_kestrel

First Post-hope I don't get too much flack for it.

Winter is Coming-House Stark

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 07:56:00 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 07:56:00 -0000
Subject: argh...so SICK of it.....
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Pip teased:

> Ah, yes. The script did rather have the appearance of the 
> scriptwriters looking at the books and realising that a faithful 
> adaptation of the books would mean that, in movie two:

{snip summary of the actual events of TTT . . . well, just a bit 
distorted for rhetorical effect}

Hee!  I'm tempted to do a point-by-point refutation.  The *movie* is 
the thing that plays up the idea that the Elves are just taking off.  
Including Arwen!  Poor Aragorn, off to battle with the impression 
that his fiancee's decided to opt for eternal life and he's never 
going to see her again.  Unlike in the book, where she's already 
pledged to marry him (if he survives and becomes king, that is--ok, a 
wee catch, but when your dad's older than Middle Earth, you pay him 
some respect).  In the *book* you know why he isn't going to marry 
that nice Eowyn:  because he's ENGAGED to SOMEONE ELSE.  In the 
movie, he's just pining, or magically intuiting that Arwen is going 
to change her mind, or something.

Frodo and Sam walking in the pretty woods?  I thought I saw an awful 
lot of that in the movie (the closer they get to Mordor, the nicer it 
is).  And as for Faramir . . . oh, forget it, I already wrote three 
pages about all this so I'm just going to post that.  Hang on a 
second.  (You didn't really think a Lupin lover was going to tolerate 
a slander on noble Faramir, did you?)

> And I did like the irony of Sam in Osgiliath, saying[from memory]: 
> "A lot of things aren't right. By rights we shouldn't be here at 
> all".
> You never said a truer word, Sam ;-)

I burst out in giggles at that point.  

Seriously, if the moviemakers looked at book two and thought it 
wouldn't make a very good movie, then perhaps they shouldn't have 
made it into a movie.  I personally didn't think the first half of 
the book The Two Towers made a very good book, but it was genuinely 
Tolkien's book, not a bunch of updated Hollywood fantasies* with his 
name plastered on the cover.

Amy Z

*that snowboarding bit is going to be deliciously dated--I look 
forward to my children laughing at it 15 years from now the way we 
laugh at alien women with beehive hairdos on Star Trek.

From strijkg at xs4all.nl  Sun Dec 22 08:03:46 2002
From: strijkg at xs4all.nl (Riet Strijker)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:03:46 +0100 (West-Europa (standaardtijd))
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Will there be an announcement for Book 5 before 2003?
References: 
Message-ID: <3E0571E2.000004.53409@xbwesrtn>

Hi all,
As I do have a subscription to Publishers weekly ( and daily) I thought I
had to share this with you all.

>From Publishers weekly:

"Waiting for Harry V? Keep Waiting - Pub Says Summer At Least

After some speculation that Harry Potter V could come out in the
spring, Scholastic now says that it does not expect HP and the Order
of the Phoenix to be released before its next fiscal year, which
begins June 1. The publisher has still not received the manuscript
from author J.K. Rowling and company spokesperson Judy Corman said it
will take five to six months to prepare the text for publication.

Although Scholastic does say it expects to receive the manuscript
soon, it does not plan to rush the book into print. "We have to go
through the editing process, we need a cover design, it just seems
likely that it won?t be published until the next fiscal year," Corman
says.

The Potter juggernaut has been showing some cracks recently
(relatively speaking). Potter sales this past quarter were  $25
million, down by $20 million from last year's second quarter. While
Potter sales last November enjoyed a boost from the release of the
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone movie, Scholastic did not see a
similar lift for Potter sales when Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets movie came out last month, resulting in lower-than-anticipated sales
and higher returns.-Jim Milliot"

 Riet
Words are like money, there is nothing so useless, unless when in actual use
(Samuel Butler, writer, 1835-1902)
-------Original Message-------

From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: zondag 22 december 2002 08:32:43
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Will there be an announcement for Book 5 before
2003?

I know everyone's on pins and needles waiting for news on OotP, and
must be sick of everyone asking when it's going to be out, so let me
take a slighly different tack.

Back around the time when the CoS movie was premiering, I recall
reading a short interview with JKR on BBC Newsround, in which she
revealed that there would be 38 chapters, and she needed time for
tweaking the book-essentially stating that she's done but wanted to
fine-tune it.  I think I even remember something about it taking some
weeks to do so.  Now, the tweaking part I wasn't too excited about-I
vaguely recall similar comments around the August-September timeframe,
so to me it sounded like more of the same.  But the revelation of the
number of chapters and the "weeks" portion (if I'm not totally
dreaming up this whole thing) made me think that we might get an
announcement that she's handed in her manuscript before the end of the
year.  Does anyone have any thoughts on the likelihood of such an
announcement?  Even if she did turn in the manuscript to the publisher
for editing and whatnot, would they even publicly release that
information?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com  Sun Dec 22 09:30:34 2002
From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:30:34 -0000
Subject: LoTR movie
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Amy said:
> at least, I *think* the movie was The Two Towers.  That was what it 
> said on the opening credits.  It bore only a passing resemblance to 
> the book The Two Towers, so I might be wrong.

I loved Lord of the Rings when I read it back in junior high school,
which was, um, over 25 years ago. I have now forgotten almost the
entire plot. (Perhaps this is a good thing, if the movie is as
unfaithful to the book as people say.)

On the other hand, I read "*Bored* of the Rings" just shortly after
reading LoTR, and can still quote huge passages of it from memory:

"An Elven Maid there was of old,
A Stenographer by day.
Her hair was fake, her teeth were gold,
Her scent was that of cheap sachet...."

Any other fans of "Frito" and "Goodgulf" here? 

-- Judy, who's not sure she's allowed to say what Bilbo Baggins is
named in the satire, which is a shame because she's sure it would
amuse John. 

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 11:01:01 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 03:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
Message-ID: <20021222110101.14957.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>

Warning: contains spoilers for all of LoTR

Ill decline to declare which is better, LoTR or HP:
the Respective Movie, even if I thought any of you
cared.  Its apples and oranges, because I love both
series and enjoyed all four movies, but my reasons for
loving each are too different to really compare them. 
But what I wanted in both of them was for them to be
faithful to the booksnot letter for letter, but in
the important ways.  The Fellowship of the Ring was
*very* faithful.  It omitted some scenes, some of
which I didnt miss (Bombadil) and some of which I did
(what Sam sees in Galadriels Mirror, the full Council
of Elrond), but omissions are necessary and they
mostly chose well.  With a few exceptions, it caught
the feeling of the book and was faithful to its
meaning:  the themes, the characters, the sense of
time and history came through.

Thats why I was stunned when I watched The Two
Towers.  It was so different from the book that it was
hard to believe it was made by the same people who
made Fellowship, at the same time and as one seamless
piece of art, to boot.  It seemed as if it was made by
someone with a completely different philosophy of
adaptation.  Im not talking about small changes, or
the kind of juggling they did in order to begin and
end it in a way that worked well for them (e.g., it
chooses a different spot to break between TTT and
Return of the King); Im talking about huge added
scenes that had no resemblance to what happens in the
book and/or go up against the books themes in some
way.

(1) Aragorns near-death experience.  It was
unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
undermined the impact of Gandalfs death, and the
one that parallels it in much smaller scale, Sams
belief that Frodo is dead at the end of The Two Towers
(in the book; the moviemakers have left it to #3).  It
reminds me of what Cassandra Claire writes in her
summary of Draco Sinister:  Everyone dies at least
once.  In fanfiction, this is clever and funny.  In
LoTR, its an insult to the author.  

(2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks shes going
off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
change this?  Isnt it enough that the chances of his
ever seeing his fiance again are infinistesmaldo we
have to call into doubt whether shell marry him as
well?

(3) Speaking of elves, that whole thing with the Elves
showing up to help at Helms Deep?  And the rivalry
between Rohan and Rivendell that it resolves?  Theyre
completely made up.  Nothing whatsoever along those
lines in the book.  Rohan isnt ticked at Gondor,
either.  Apparently the moviemakers didnt think there
was enough conflict in the book and decided to
introduce a bit more.

(4) All that stuff with Frodo and Sam almost getting
caught at the gate of Mordor.  Huh?  Again, the movie
wasnt exciting enough without that?  I always thought
it was a bit thin that Frodo was going to walk right
in the front door, but I like the scene in the book
because its as if Gollum didnt really believe they
were going to Mordorwhich fits in very well with an
important thematic point, that Gollum never puts two
and two together about what theyre going to do with
the Ring.  He keeps saying Dont give it to him!,
but if he gave it a moments thought hed know Frodo
intends no such thing, because why would Frodo go to
all this trouble of *walking to Mordor* when he could
just hold up the Ring from anywhere in Middle Earth
and yell Here it is, Mr. S! and a Nazgul would fly
by and pick him up?  It is perfectly obvious what he
must be up to, but Gollum is so enslaved to the Ring
that he cant conceive of anyone willingly destroying
it.  (And hes right; no one does.)  In the book, the
little scene at the gate is an interesting turning
point, where Gollum really takes seriously their
desire to get quietly into Mordor, really, we mean it,
even if we cant do it any way but via Cirith Ungol.

(5) Theodens release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
under a spell in any magical sense.  Thank heaven.  He
is under the sway of evil advice from Grima (and
therefore Saruman), and when he stands up and is a man
and a leader, the tide turns (which is a bit
irritatingly macho and far from my favorite scene, but
at least its about character).  The movie turned it
into just a magic trick.  Saruman has him under a
spell, Gandalf comes in waving his wand, he *drives
out Saruman* as if Theoden has been possessed by a
devil (yeesh!), and lo, Theoden is young and bold
again.

(6) Faramirs temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
hes tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
being that the movies way has more dramatic tension. 
The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
 A good actor can let us see that hes tempted and
resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
words and a few seconds.  We dont see a heck of a lot
of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
that he doesnt make this painful choice with ease. 
We have his brother for context.  Boromir wasnt a
power-hungry bad guy; he was a brave and noble future
Steward of Gondor who was motivated by his
responsibility to his people (intermixed with less
lofty motives, to be sure) to want to use the Ring to
save them.  Faramir struggles with the same dilemma,
but rightly concludes that there is no way to use the
Ring for good.  We dont just think hes an angel; we
see the struggle.  Thats because JRRT gives us some
dialogue.  But this is an Action Movie and Action
Movies dont have too much dialoguethe audience might
get bored.

And what exactly was accomplished by dragging them to
Osgiliath, other than allowing Sam to utter the
oh-so-true line, were not supposed to be here?  And
as my dh pointed out, in the book he feels the
presence of the Nazgul king when the latter first
rides out and is a mile off.  Thats really powerful: 
that Frodos wound aches and he feels faint even when
he so much as sees the Nazgul at a distance.  Here he
has to come face-to-face with a flying Nazgul to get
the full effect.  Which approach gets across the
terrifying power of Saurons servants better?

(7)  One change didnt make sense even within the
movie.  The way the scene at Helms Deep and the
Entmoot are intercut, the clear cinematic message is
that the Ents are going to save Rohans bacon.  In the
book, this is in fact what happens, indirectly (the
Ents persuade the Huorns, who have an even lower
opinion of men than the Ents do, that Saruman and the
Orcs such a threat to the trees that they must act to
help the Rohirrim.  It was sad to lose the scene where
the Rohirrim ride out and see a forest that was never
there before, but you cant have everything, so thats
okay).  But in the movie, all that buildup never
delivers.  The Ents overthrow Isengard (I loved,
loved, loved the flooding sceneall those Ents
standing in the waterit was just gorgeous) but that
has nothing to do with Helms Deep.  Its not as if
Saruman was about to send out another army or
anything; the battle is underway and will not be at
all affected by what happens in Isengard.  I dont
know what the heck the director was thinking.

I do have good things to say about the movie.  The
sets, costumes, etc. were fabulous, just as in the
first one.  The Dead Marshes were amazing, for
example.  Just so damn scary and right in every way.

A couple of character changes were interesting and Im
still mulling them.  One is that Sam is actively
intervening when Frodos tempted by the Ring.  This
alters their relationship quite a bit, in ways that I
like but that may be ultimately OOC.  Im not sure,
but I think I would rather that they again left it to
the actorhe could show us that he sees Frodos
struggles with the Ring and is worried, without
actually having to wrestle Frodo away from the thing. 
Sean Astin, who has so far struck me as the best actor
in the ensemble, could pull it off.  

Likewise, Gollum is great and really made into what he
is, a very complex character rather than a cartoon.  I
love the way they show him talking to himself, with
the great cuts to make it look like two people (Cindy,
he *is* schizophrenic, that is, he has warring
impulses that express themselves as Gollum and
Smeagol, Stinker and Slinker, corrupted self and old
sad hobbit-self), except that the bit where he
banishes Stinker was very pop-psychology-ish to me. 
Again (Amy turns on broken record), they have a great
actor working thereexcise the lines that spell out
whats happening inside him and let him *show* us.  I
also cringed at the pop-psych bit where Frodo calls
him Smeagol and Gollum Discovers A Sense of Self and
Inner Dignity (I rush to defend JRRTs honor by
informing anyone who hasnt read the books that that
isnt in there).  However, I appreciate that they are
trying to include Frodos empathy and the changes it
works on Gollumit will be interesting to see whether,
as in the book, it will be Sams refusal to see Gollum
as redeemable that causes him to send them to Shelob.

Christopher Lee has grasped the essential thing about
Sarumanhis voice works magic without any spells at
alland has developed a voice thats worthy of the
role.  That scene where hes addressing the orc
troopswow.

Grima was over the top, but he is in the book too.  I
thought he was fun to watch.  Id like to nominate him
for a role in HP (why not Sirius?  He seems to have
made a career of playing scary dudes, but one of his
first roles was a very sympathetic one, the stuttering
kid driven to suicide by Nurse Ratched in One Flew
Over the Cuckoos Nest).  However, hes American, so
that wont fly.

I was really, really looking forward to seeing the
Ents and was both pleased and disappointed.  On the
one hand, the voices were great and they really looked
like trees.  On the other hand, their legs are too
long or somethingbetween that and the cute eyes, I
felt like I was watching Muppets, and although the
Ents are very funny, that feel wasnt quite right to
me.  But I cant for the life of me figure out how
Ents *should* be constructed so as to look properly
serious and still get across the countryside (I could
redesign their eyes, though, no problem).

Amy Z

=====
It's better than Malfoy's . . . It's NIMBUS 2003
Florida, July 17-20, 2003
Register at http://www.hp2003.org/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 11:08:19 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:08:19 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Judy quoted "Bored of the Rings" and asked:

> Any other fans of "Frito" and "Goodgulf" here? 

Yep!  Don't ask me to defend this, because I know it's incredibly 
juvenile, but the word "Nozdrul" reduces me to a quivering mass of 
giggles.  I also like the map, with Tudor and Fordor and such.  And 
we can't forget Frito's kin, Moxie and Pepsi, nor the aptly named Tom 
Benzedrine.

> -- Judy, who's not sure she's allowed to say what Bilbo Baggins is
> named in the satire, which is a shame because she's sure it would
> amuse John.

Ah, sure, we're all grownups here.  Or rather, we're *not* grownups, 
which is why we find jokes like this so amusing.

Did you know that in early drafts of LoTR, Frodo's name was Bingo?  I 
am not making this up.  I wonder if it would have become a classic of 
English literature if JRRT had stuck with that idea?

Amy Z

From ression at hotmail.com  Sun Dec 22 14:14:21 2002
From: ression at hotmail.com (ER )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:14:21 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Judy " 
 wrote:

> 
> Any other fans of "Frito" and "Goodgulf" here? 
> 

Indeedy! Though I'd forgotten about it. I've just turned the 
bookshelves upside down looking for it, but not a sign ... you might 
think it would be next to LOTR, but oh, no, that would be too easy :)

I do remember such delights as -

    they breakfasted meagrely on nectar and ambrosia

High time somebody did something similiar for HP! I'm sure JKR 
wouldn't mind, though no doubt her publishers would throw a wobbler. 
Do I get lynched for suggesting that here? 

Now I'll spend the rest of the day looking for BOTR ...

ER

From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Dec 22 14:26:30 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:26:30 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Bored of the Rings?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <035001c2a9c6$1eede0c0$2401010a@Frodo>

> 
> High time somebody did something similiar for HP! I'm sure JKR 
> wouldn't mind, though no doubt her publishers would throw a wobbler. 
> Do I get lynched for suggesting that here? 

No lynching - and her publishers haven't done anything about it. It's
called Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody
(http://www.barrytrotter.com/) and in the US, you can't do anything to
prevent the creation and sale of parodies, all because of the wonderful
2 Live Crew case (the one involving Pretty Woman) from a few years back,
which Supreme Court ruling includes Justice Souter discussing the
wonders of bass riffs. Cool dude, that Souter. 

And if you want to see more parodies of various things HP, you can start
clicking at random at http://www.riddikulus.org/authorLinks/. I
especially recommend Minerva McTabby's Seussian works -
http://www.riddikulus.org/authorLinks/Minerva_McTabby/.

> 
> Now I'll spend the rest of the day looking for BOTR ...

Before you do, check out The Very Secret Diaries by Cassandra Claire:
http://diaries.diagon.org/

Am not just praising them because it was a slightly tipsy comment from
me that became the Gap of Rohan arc.

Heidi

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec 22 16:49:56 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:49:56 -0000
Subject: LoTR movie
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Judy 
"  wrote:

> 
> Any other fans of "Frito" and "Goodgulf" here? 
> 

Oh, yeah! The first time I read it, way back when, I was an Tolkien 
fanatic. I can still recite large passages of The Hobbit and  LOTR 
by heart, which is a good parlor trick. 

And I enjoyed TTT too, though a few times I wondered exactly 
what the filmmakers thought they were doing. Tolkien, of course 
thought that fantasy, what he called fairy story, should not be 
dramatized at all, though he made an exception for the 
"cinematograph." 

That  "Aragorn falls of the cliff" subplot  seemed to have 
wandered in from an Indiana Jones pic. I wondered if he would 
come back for his hat...

Anyway, once long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and 
people were still wearing love beads,  I bought the BOTR parody 
and settled down on the front steps of the Art Institute of Chicago, 
which was a well-known hippie (remember them?) hang out. I 
started laughing so hard that people kept coming up and asking 
if they should call Acid Rescue.

Pippin
wondering if she needs to explain what Acid Rescue was...

From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 17:30:31 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:30:31 -0000
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: <20021222110101.14957.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Amy Z  wrote:
> Warning: contains spoilers for all of LoTR
> 
> I'll decline to declare which is better, LoTR or HP:
> the Respective Movie, even if I thought any of you
> cared.  It's apples and oranges, 

I completely agree.  The only things LoTR and HP have in 
common are they that they both feature wizards and can 
be categorized as fantasy.  The latter is the main reason 
for all the (occasionally quite snarky) comparisons.  Hollywood, 
while it frequently produces science fiction (or at least a 
certain variety of sci-fi) hardly ever makes fantasy films 
- not live action one geared to a large adult audience anyway.  
To have two fantasy movie series come out at the same time 
simply begs comparisons where none belongs.  Add to that the 
perceived underdog status of LoTR, and you get a recipe for 
endless "my movie is better than your movie" flame wars.  

Having said that, and in the interest of full disclosure, I fully 
admit to being a lover of both book series.  I liked the FoTR 
movie very much, hated both HP films, and since seeing TTT on 
Thursday, my feet have yet to touch the ground.  It was, 
without a doubt, the best film I've seen all year, and possibly 
for much longer than that.  Oddly, or maybe not, a lot of the 
things that bothered Amy also bothered me, but they simply 
didn't get in the way of my enjoyment.

> (1) Aragorn's near-death experience.  It was
> unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
> undermined the impact of Gandalf's "death," 

I'm with you all the way on this one, Amy.  I saw a copy of the 
visual companion or whatever they call it in the bookstore the 
other day, and it seems that Aragorn's tumble off the cliff was 
supposed to be part of a longer arc.  Something to do with 
Theodred's horse, who is driven mad with grief and is released 
by Aragorn.  It is this horse who rescues Aragorn and carries 
him to Helm's Deep.  My mother made a comment after seeing 
the movie that might explain why this arc was added.  She said 
that the feeling of deep kinship the Rohirrim feel with their 
horses is absent from the film.  You don't really get the feeling 
that these are horse-lords.  Maybe the Aragorn-Theodred's 
horse bit was supposed to expand on that.  It also allowed a bit 
more exposition of Eowyn's growing feelings towards Aragorn, 
which I hardly think was necessary.  Either way, as the movie 
stands I don't think this really works.

> (2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
> her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
> becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
> Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks she's going
> off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
> Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
> change this?  Isn't it enough that the chances of his
> ever seeing his fianc?e again are infinistesmal?do we
> have to call into doubt whether she'll marry him as
> well?

Well, yes.  The Arwen scenes exist here for the same reason 
that she's the one who rescues Frodo and brings him to 
Rivendell instead of that other elf whose name I've forgotten 
in FoTR.  Because you simply cannot have your romantic hero 
marrying a girl who is completely absent between her 
introduction in the first book and her wedding in the third book 
and has no lines in either one.  Forget Feminism and strong 
female characters, it simply isn't good storytelling (and yes, 
when I finished reading TTT, I wanted Aragorn to marry Eowyn).  
Don't forget, the movie viewers don't have the appendixes 
(appendices?) in which the story of Arwen and Aragorn's 
meeting and courtship is fully explained. 

The same reasoning holds for Arwen's decision to stay in 
Middle Earth and reject immortality being made on 
screen (or not having been made yet, actually.  
Unfortunately, I forsee an emotional scene with Arwen 
standing on the boat at the Grey Havens looking wistfully 
into the East before deciding to Follow Her Heart, but I guess 
it can't be helped).  This decision is a big deal.  She's 
giving up immortal life - a woman who has been timeless for 
millenia.  She's choosing to be parted from everyone she 
knows and loves.  This is not a decision that you make 
off-screen, not if you follow the cardinal rule of film-making 
- show, don't tell.  It can't be an easy choice, it can't be a done 
deal - it would be meaningless if it were.  And frankly, I think 
the fact that Aragorn tries to talk her out of staying with him 
needs to be there too - what sort of man would prefer to 
see the woman he loves wither and die just so that 
he won't be parted with her?

So yes, it's sappy.  There is romance that isn't sappy, but I don't 
think we should be looking for it in fantasy films.  Certainly 
we shouldn't expect that romance be taken for granted, which 
is what Tolkein did.  And anyway, if the Arwen scenes didn't exist, 
we wouldn't have the gorgeous tableau of a still-young Arwen 
grieving for Aragorn.  Wasn't it beautiful?  It looked as if it had 
been plucked out of a medeival tapestry.  (It also serves to 
highlight that, at that point, no one, Arwen included, has even 
considered that Arwen might give up immortality to be with 
Aragorn, which I suspect will make her choice to do so all the 
more important in RoTK.)

> (3) Speaking of elves, that whole thing with the Elves
> showing up to help at Helm's Deep?  And the rivalry
> between Rohan and Rivendell that it resolves?  They're
> completely made up.  Nothing whatsoever along those
> lines in the book.  Rohan isn't ticked at Gondor,
> either.  Apparently the moviemakers didn't think there
> was enough conflict in the book and decided to
> introduce a bit more.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that Jackson is trying to make 
the theme of TTT one of hope against impossible odds - a 
theme that exists in the book, certainly, but perhaps not to 
the extent that it is the focal point of the entire movie.  In 
RoTK, we'll get to see what happens when one gives in to 
despair (already salivating at the thought of Denethor, 
especially if he's played by someone as fine as the actor 
who played Theoden).  I don't mind that the elves as a group, 
as well as Arwen as an individual, get their own arc.  
Certainly it seems a waste to have people like Hugo Weaving 
and Cate Blanchete in your cast and yet only have them show 
up for the celebrations at the end of RoTK (although, in my case, 
I admit I just can't accept Weaving as Elrond.  I keep expecting 
him to don an earpiece, dodge bullets, and start looking for 
Morpheus, but that's just my disfunction).   

> (4) All that stuff with Frodo and Sam almost getting
> caught at the gate of Mordor.  Huh?  Again, the movie
> wasn't exciting enough without that? 

Can't say as that scene did anything to me one way or 
another.  I was much more upset at the fact that the 
elf-cloaks' chameleon properties hadn't been properly 
introduced in either movie before that point.  

> (5) Theoden's release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
> under a spell in any magical sense.  Thank heaven.  He
> is under the sway of evil advice from Grima (and
> therefore Saruman), and when he stands up and is a man
> and a leader, the tide turns (which is a bit
> irritatingly macho and far from my favorite scene, but
> at least it's about character).  The movie turned it
> into just a magic trick.  Saruman has him under a
> spell, Gandalf comes in waving his wand, he *drives
> out Saruman* as if Theoden has been possessed by a
> devil (yeesh!), and lo, Theoden is young and bold
> again.

Yes and no.  I wasn't too crazy about Exorcist!Saruman 
either, but my displeasure was mollified but the truly glorious 
cut between Theoden's hall in Edoras and Saruman's chamber 
as Gandalf casts him out.  That was stunning, and certainly a 
step up after the surprisingly poor editing that FoTR suffered 
from.  However, I think it's unfair to say that Gandalf taps 
Theoden with his staff and then he's fine.  In fact, I was 
expecting you to offer the opposite complaint - that rather 
than regaining his (emotional) strengh and riding off to Helm's 
Deep with no doubts, Theoden spends the entire film on the 
brink of despair - a despair brought on in no small part by the 
death of his son (am I the only person who was praying, right 
after Theoden was revived, that he would somehow *know*?  
That no one was going to have to tell him that his son had 
died and he had all but slept through it?  His scene at 
Theodred's grave was heart-breaking).  Gandalf may have 
removed Saruman's direct influence, but Theoden isn't fully 
healed until the end of the movie.  

There are problems with this approach, of course.  It comes at 
the expense of Eomer, who is one of my favorite characters in 
TTT.  Almost all of Theoden's lines in the movie belong originally to 
Eomer.  However, Pip is right when she points out that, unless 
Eomer is put in Erkenbrand's place, the battle in Helm's Deep is 
won by a character who is not seen before it or after it and has 
no lines.  Hopefully the relationship between Eomer and Aragorn 
can be more fully fleshed out in RoTK - I'm anticipating a 
man-to-man talk about Eowyn. 

> (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension. 
> The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
>  A good actor can let us see that he's tempted and
> resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
> words and a few seconds.  We don't see a heck of a lot
> of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
> that he doesn't make this painful choice with ease. 

I wasn't thrilled with the Faramir-Osgiliath bit either, although, 
once again, I was appeased by the stunning shot of the Nazgul 
(I picked up my copy of TTT after coming home from the movie 
to read the battle of Helm's Deep scene, and was tickled to 
discover that the Nazgul-steed in the movie looks exactly like 
the one of the cover.  I suppose it makes sense, as the artists 
who have been associated with LoTR over the past decade(s) 
had a lot of input into the look of the movies) facing off with Frodo, 
in a blatant yet still ever-so-cool rip-off of every action movie I
 can think of (the one that comes most readily to mind is True 
Lies, but I'm sure there have been others).  Also, the 'don't you 
know your Sam?' exchange and Frodo's Bilbo-like moment of 
madness were neat.

As for whether having Faramir decide to take the ring to 
Gondor cheapens his character.  I'm not certain.  I was 
underwhelmed by the movie Faramir before he did this - 
probably because I remember Sean Bean's wonderful turn 
as Boromir in FoTR.  This guy, whatever his name is, is leaving 
me cold by comparison.  

> But this is an Action Movie and Action
> Movies don't have too much dialogue?the audience might
> get bored.

Sorry, I just don't think it's fair to make this claim about a movie in 
which, halfway through, the action is suspended so that an elf 
chick who actually has nothing to do with the plot can recite in 
Elvish.  Or one in which the general gets a ponderous, deeply 
sad monologue as he prepares for battle.  TTT has a great deal 
of action movie in it, and frankly that's almost entirely in keeping 
with the book (the True Lies Nazgul rip-off notwithstanding), but 
it ultimately a movie about hope and perseverence even when 
there is seemingly no reason for it.  Jackson may have chosen 
to spell out some of his character arcs rather then allow the 
viewer to guess them, but sometimes that's just a valid 
scriptwriting decision, not pandering to the lowest common 
denominator.

> (7)  One change didn't make sense even within the
> movie.  The way the scene at Helm's Deep and the
> Entmoot are intercut, the clear cinematic message is
> that the Ents are going to save Rohan's bacon.  

I didn't get that feeling at all, but maybe I was just so thrilled 
by the fact that at least one of the Hobbits who isn't Frodo or 
Sam had been rescued from Comic Relief hell that I wasn't 
paying very close attention.  Frankly, I don't see the climax 
working if the two scenes had been seperated - the attack on 
Isengard before Helm's Deep or the other way around.  There 
comes a point where you're simply banged out.  Plus, as far as 
screen time is concerned, the attack on Isengard is quite short 
- two, maybe three scenes - it wouldn't have worked on its own.  

> I do have good things to say about the movie.  The
> sets, costumes, etc. were fabulous, just as in the
> first one.  The Dead Marshes were amazing, for
> example.  Just so damn scary and right in every way.

Oh yes.  I was a bit disappointed, though, to see that the dead 
in the marshes didn't really have candles.

> Likewise, Gollum is great and really made into what he
> is, a very complex character rather than a cartoon.  I
> love the way they show him talking to himself, with
> the great cuts to make it look like two people 

Yes, yes, yes.  Someone needs to take the HP movie people 
and tape them to some chairs and force them to watch those 
scenes over and over until they understand what a CGI 
character should be.  Gollum is the Yoda to Dobby's Jar-Jar.  

Someone should also tape shut the mouths of all the people 
in the audience when I saw the film who were laughing during 
that scene just because it's an animated character ('look, it's 
a cartoon!  That means it must be funny even if it's about a 
person struggling with his own inner monster!').

> it will be interesting to see whether,
> as in the book, it will be Sam's refusal to see Gollum
> as redeemable that causes him to send them to Shelob.

Hmm, I always felt that, while Sam certainly wasn't helping Gollum 
along on his road to recovery, it was Frodo's perceived betrayal of
 Gollum that truly drove him over the edge - which is pretty much 
what happened in the film.

> I was really, really looking forward to seeing the
> Ents and was both pleased and disappointed.  

Considering that I was half-convinced there would be no 
Ents at all, I was rather pleased by what we got.  I thought 
their legs didn't look right, though.  In my imagination, Ents 
are walking trees, and Jackson's Ents looked like that from 
the 'waist' up, but the illusion was broken by the legs.  I 
guess I should have expected that , though.

All in all, I'm a bit tickled by the people who are only now 
remembering to be concerned about the liberties Jackson 
has taken with his source material.  Did you not notice 
that most of the first quarter of FoTR was just cut out of 
the movie?  The Crickhollow scenes, which include Merry 
and Pippin actually *choosing* to come with Frodo, the 
Barrow Wights, Tom Bombadil (OK, that one's a good thing), 
almost all of Bree.  By comparison, the changes made to 
TTT are practically cosmetic.  The difference is that when 
it came to TTT, Jackson mustered up the courage to try 
to offer his own spin on the material (remember, most of 
the editing of TTT was done after the stunning reaction to 
FoTR).  He tried to streamline the story in order to 
highlight what he obviously felt was the most important 
message in the book.  There are no doubt differing 
opinions on whether he should have done this and whether 
he succeeded, and we all have things that we would have 
done differently had we been in charge (this message is 
being written by someone who has not yet recovered from 
the fact that, in the first movie, Moria was supposed to be 
a living dwarf colony)  but it's important to give him props 
for courage, as well as to acknowledge that, even if the 
letter of the book wasn't all that strictly adhered to, its 
spirit was deeply honored.  Anyway, we all know what can 
happen when a filmmaker sublimates himself to his source 
material, don't we?

Abigail,
Who, like John, is really looking forward to Cuaron's version 
of PoA, and hopes that he is given the same liberties with it 
that he was given with A Little Princess.

From zorb47 at cox.net  Sun Dec 22 18:05:41 2002
From: zorb47 at cox.net (zorb47 )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:05:41 -0000
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: <20021222110101.14957.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

Yes!  You said it all better than I ever could, Amy.  I adored TTT, 
and will certainly see it again, but I just could not believe how 
much of the plot was changed.  They got all the Big Points in the 
right places, but the details were scrambled.

One change that I did like was with Eowyn.  I absolutely cannot stand 
her in the book (Ginny Weasley reminds me of her), but the added 
expository scenes with Theodred (well, his body), Eomer, and Grima 
Wormtongue gave her more of an initial character, rather than 
introducing her as the ice queen with a crush on Aragorn.  With that 
change, I think it was necessary to add the Aragorn/Arwen business, 
so that the audience isn't completely ready to thwack Aragorn upside 
his pretty head and tell him to marry Eowyn.

The Ents got shafted.  I can never get a clear image of them in my 
head, so the visual aspect didn't bug me much, but I did have issues 
with how they came off as stupid and ignorant.  Ah, well, Merry and 
Pippin made up for it.

The only things I can't forgive are the treatments of Faramir and 
Gimli.  Change the plot all you like, but keep my characters true to 
themselves!  I greatly missed my intelligent, enlightened Faramir 
(and Eowyn's supposed to like this guy???), and poor Gimli was 
reduced to comic relief.

Of course, there were a thousand and one fantastic things about the 
movie to balance out the bad.  I basically adored anything not 
mentioned here, specifically Frodo, the visuals, Helm's Deep and 
Isengard, Gollum, the Marshes, Aragorn and Legolas...I could go on 
for a long while, and I can't wait for RotK.

In the meantime, I'll continue my nth reread of the books, including 
the much-enjoyed BotR. ;-)

Zorb

From ression at hotmail.com  Sun Dec 22 18:51:40 2002
From: ression at hotmail.com (ER )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:51:40 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings?
In-Reply-To: <035001c2a9c6$1eede0c0$2401010a@Frodo>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy"  
wrote:

> No lynching - and her publishers haven't done anything about it. 
It's
> called Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody
> (http://www.barrytrotter.com/) 

V. funny! Have ordered copy. Will investigate others later ...

ER

From boredchocobo at attbi.com  Sun Dec 22 18:44:08 2002
From: boredchocobo at attbi.com (Chocobo)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:44:08 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
References: <20021222110101.14957.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002801c2a9ea$1ec69f50$82647d18@Compuhon>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amy Z" 
To: 

> (1) Aragorn's near-death experience.  It was
> unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
> undermined the impact of Gandalf's "death,"

Agreed. This was a complete waste of time in an already long film. Why not
use that time to explain some things that the movie seemed to be saying
"well they've read the book so it'll make sense"?

> (2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
> her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
> becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
> Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks she's going
> off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
> Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
> change this?

Eh. As a movie that stands alone from the books, I can't say it hurt to add
a little doubt as to what Aragorn would end up doing.

> (5) Theoden's release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
> under a spell in any magical sense.

I actually agree with this change. The book had plenty of time to explain
that Theoden had been convinced, through years and years of Wormtongue's
advice, that he's useless and that Wormtongue's decisions are good, and so
on. It would not have made a lot of sense if left unexplained in the movie
(Gandalf shows up, sudden change in the character of Theoden), so why not
make it something simple and easy to understand? Not that I'm a fan of
changing the "real" story but this seemed harmless.

> (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension.

Yeah really. It seemed like this only existed so that Frodo could say "this
happened to your brother too".

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sun Dec 22 20:32:13 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:32:13 -0000
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: <20021222110101.14957.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Amy Z  
wrote:

> Warning: contains spoilers for all of LoTR

Pip: Warning: I cannot *believe* that I'm about to defend a movie I 
didn't actually like that much...

> 

Fellowship of the Ring was
> *very* faithful.  It omitted some scenes, some of
> which I didn't miss (Bombadil) and some of which I did
> (what Sam sees in Galadriel's Mirror, the full Council
> of Elrond), but omissions are necessary and they
> mostly chose well.  With a few exceptions, it caught
> the feeling of the book and was faithful to its
> meaning:  the themes, the characters, the sense of
> time and history came through.
> 
> That's why I was stunned when I watched The Two
> Towers.  It was so different from the book that it was
> hard to believe it was made by the same people who
> made Fellowship, at the same time and as one seamless
> piece of art, to boot.  It seemed as if it was made by
> someone with a completely different philosophy of
> adaptation.  I'm not talking about small changes, or
> the kind of juggling they did in order to begin and
> end it in a way that worked well for them (e.g., it
> chooses a different spot to break between TTT and
> Return of the King); I'm talking about huge added
> scenes that had no resemblance to what happens in the
> book and/or go up against the books' themes in some
> way.
> 
> (1) Aragorn's near-death experience.  It was
> unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
> undermined the impact of Gandalf's "death," and the
> one that parallels it in much smaller scale, Sam's
> belief that Frodo is dead at the end of The Two Towers
> (in the book; the moviemakers have left it to #3).  It
> reminds me of what Cassandra Claire writes in her
> summary of Draco Sinister:  "Everyone dies at least
> once."  In fanfiction, this is clever and funny.  In
> LoTR, it's an insult to the author.  

Um. I think you've actually explained why they invented scenes where 
Aragorn is believed to be dead. There is a 'false death' in each of 
the books. Gandalf, book one, Frodo, book two, Eowyn, Pippin, Frodo, 
Sam (I may have left some out) in Book Three. 

By deciding to move the ending they provided an excellent 
juxtaposition of the Tolkien theme that the huge, set piece battles 
are ultimately not as important as the battle between good and evil 
that is going on within each of the characters. The magnificent 
victories may prove worthless - simply because little Smeagol has 
just *lost* his own personal battle, and has decided to betray Sam 
and Frodo.

However, the false deaths in Books One and Two have the important 
link that in each case, characters decide to carry on having just 
lost their leader. The Fellowship have to go on without Gandalf. Sam 
thinks he has to go on without Frodo.

I'm not sure they were hugely successful in changing it to 'Legolas 
and Gimli think they have to continue without Aragorn' (with a side 
helping of 'Aragorn has to go on without believing that Arwen will 
come back to him'), but it is in keeping with the themes.

> 
> (2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
> her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
> becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
> Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks she's going
> off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
> Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
> change this?  Isn't it enough that the chances of his
> ever seeing his fianc?e again are infinistesmal?do we
> have to call into doubt whether she'll marry him as
> well?

Simple. The story of Aragorn and Arwen is dramatic, moving, 
ultimately tragic. It is the most important event in Aragorn's life. 
He's spent his entire life preparing for the Kingship of Gondor in 
order to win Arwen, and the events of the War are the final 'win or 
lose' battle for him.

It also unfortunately (from the movie point of view ) takes place 
mostly *before* the start of Fellowship of the Ring. By the start of 
the war the love story is settled. Arwen and Aragorn have made their 
decision. Arwen will give up her life for Aragorn, if and only if he 
can survive the war and become the healing king.

The problem is, there is no conflict between Aragorn and Arwen in 
this (or very little). The love story is settled, finished, they're 
engaged. It's not dramatic.

Drama equals conflict. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no story. A 
film or a play is not a novel. A film or a play cannot survive 
without conflict. Novels can.

Think back to any film or play you have seen. Did *any* of them have 
no conflict? Were there *any* bits where the characters had no 
problems to overcome? Or did that just come at the end of the story?

So, Aragorn and Arwen have this deeply moving love, which is also 
(in film terms) deeply boring, because all the drama and tension in 
it happened years back. IF the scriptwriters decide that this story 
is so important to Aragorn's character that it MUST be included 
(which they did, and they were right) then they have two basic 
choices. 

They either choose to tell it as Aragorn being all misty eyed and 
going into flashback every so often, or they choose to bring the 
events of years ago forward into the film's present, and portray the 
hard choices and decisions that the two characters have made as 
going on right now, and being made right now.

Dramatically and filmically the correct choice is the second. Arwen 
becomes a much more interesting character because she has to make a 
choice between immortality and love. She becomes 'worthy' of the 
film's major hero. And the audience is not *told* this, they're 
*shown* it, which is another cardinal rule for films - show, don't 
tell.

Plus, had the scriptwriters chosen to stick faithfully to the book 
and leave Arwen out of movie 2 (cause she ain't there in the books) 
then they would have had to make Eowyn a much less sympathetic 
character. Because one of the great plots of drama, a staple since 
the time of the Romans, is the plot where one character starts the 
play *engaged to the wrong girl*.

Leave Arwen out, and you're in real danger of the audience 
subconciously assuming that she IS the wrong girl. Because Eowyn is 
nice, Eowyn is brave and Eowyn would in fact have been an entirely 
suitable Queen of Gondor if Aragorn hadn't already fallen in love 
with someone else. And the audience knows that 'wrong girl' plot by 
heart.

> 
> (3) Speaking of elves, that whole thing with the Elves
> showing up to help at Helm's Deep?  And the rivalry
> between Rohan and Rivendell that it resolves?  They're
> completely made up.  Nothing whatsoever along those
> lines in the book.  Rohan isn't ticked at Gondor,
> either.  Apparently the moviemakers didn't think there
> was enough conflict in the book and decided to
> introduce a bit more.

Darn right. Novels aren't plays, or films. In the book you can find 
out through the occasional line that the events we see are just part 
of a world wide conflict, and (for example) the Dwarves are fighting 
a huge battle in front of the Lonely mountain.

In the books you can find out from odd lines or appendixes that 
Legolas's kindred are fighting battles in Mirkwood. In a film it's 
best to show the elves fighting battles. In the confines of a budget 
it's a lot better to show the elves fighting in the battles you 
*have* to stage anyway. So they turn up at Helm's Deep. In reality 
they were covering Rohan's back by keeping Orcs occupied in 
Mirkwood. Not a huge difference.

And the Rohirrim *are* suspicious of elves. It's in the book. 

As for the bitterness of Theoden King with Gondor - a scene where 
Theoden comments that Gondor would help if they could, but they've 
got their own problems is a *lot* less exciting than one where he's 
bitter about the fact that he's got no-one to come to his aid. 

It's back to 'no conflict, no drama, no story'. Don't *tell* them 
Theoden can't expect any help, *show* them by staging an argument 
between Aragorn and Theoden. This is a lot more likely to keep the 
audience awake than a scene where Theoden pulls out a map and 
says "you see, Gondor's tactical position..."

> (4) All that stuff with Frodo and Sam almost getting
> caught at the gate of Mordor.  Huh?  Again, the movie
> wasn't exciting enough without that?  

Don't tell.
Show.
Film is a visual medium. Dialogue is secondary.

The gate at Mordor is dangerous. Don't use dialogue to *tell* it, 
*show* it, with guards nearly catching Sam and Frodo. Then the 
audience will know deep down that Sam and Frodo haven't a hope if 
they go through that gate.

> 
> (5) Theoden's release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
> under a spell in any magical sense.  Thank heaven.  He
> is under the sway of evil advice from Grima (and
> therefore Saruman), and when he stands up and is a man
> and a leader, the tide turns (which is a bit
> irritatingly macho and far from my favorite scene, but
> at least it's about character).  The movie turned it
> into just a magic trick.  Saruman has him under a
> spell, Gandalf comes in waving his wand, he *drives
> out Saruman* as if Theoden has been possessed by a
> devil (yeesh!), and lo, Theoden is young and bold
> again.

You don't find anything magical about Theoden's incredibly sudden 
recovery in the book? I did. I always assumed Gandalf had released 
him from some kind of spell. 

Again, it comes back to the fact that film is a visual medium. Pre 
Gandalf, Theoden is enslaved by Wormtongue's words, thinks himself 
old, weak, helpless. Post Gandalf he is again a vigorous decisive 
king. Even in the novel some physical changes are described; in a 
film it is much more effective to show the entire change physically. 
So Theoden is shown as a visibly old, weak, helpless man, Gandalf 
comes in, there is a visible change to a vigorous, decisive man. 
Theoden feels younger, he is shown looking younger.

It's incredibly effective; it also saves several pages of dialogue 
where everyone goes 'Gee, hasn't Theoden changed' - because you SEE 
he's changed.

> 
> (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension. 
> The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
>  A good actor can let us see that he's tempted and
> resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
> words and a few seconds.  

Uh, yeah, I know. I have some experience in conveying a lot with 
very few words. ;-)

We don't see a heck of a lot
> of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
> that he doesn't make this painful choice with ease. 
> We have his brother for context.  Boromir wasn't a
> power-hungry bad guy; he was a brave and noble future
> Steward of Gondor who was motivated by his
> responsibility to his people (intermixed with less
> lofty motives, to be sure) to want to use the Ring to
> save them.  Faramir struggles with the same dilemma,
> but rightly concludes that there is no way to use the
> Ring for good.  We don't just think he's an angel; we
> see the struggle.  That's because JRRT gives us some
> dialogue.  But this is an Action Movie and Action
> Movies don't have too much dialogue?the audience might
> get bored.

My problem with arguing against this is that I do actually think 
that the scriptwriters made the wrong decision here. I think they 
changed the book's plot so drastically at this point because they 
wanted to establish that Gondor (in the shape of Boromir, Faramir 
and Denethor) are tempted by seeing the Ring as the weapon that can 
save them. Plus they wanted to establish in advance that one of 
Faramir's other temptations is that his father has always seen him 
as the second-best, and now he, not Boromir can be the one who 
brings the Ring to Gondor.

They also wanted to establish that Gondor is up that famous creek 
sans paddle, and since this is a moving picture rather than a 
European style talking picture, they needed to (you've guessed 
it) 'show, not tell'. So we got dragged along to the battle of 
Osgiliath.

Whatever they did, they would have had to expand Faramir's 
temptation scene a bit. Ten seconds equals 'this is not a big 
problem'. The Ring is a BIG problem. Again, it's back to 'no 
conflict, no drama;no drama, no film.'

Myself, I think I would have done it by having Faramir find the Ring 
earlier than in the book, and somehow making a shrewd guess what it 
was. That would have given him a much longer internal struggle. Plus 
when he was discussing Gondor's tactical position you probably would 
have been able to see a good actor thinking 'if I just take the 
Ring'... 
> 

And
> as my dh pointed out, in the book he feels the
> presence of the Nazgul king when the latter first
> rides out and is a mile off.  That's really powerful: 
> that Frodo's wound aches and he feels faint even when
> he so much as sees the Nazgul at a distance.  Here he
> has to come face-to-face with a flying Nazgul to get
> the full effect.  Which approach gets across the
> terrifying power of Sauron's servants better?

The second. You can't see the Nazgul when they're a mile off [grin].

Seriously, in a film the terror of the Nazgul is going to be mostly 
conveyed by the reactions of the other characters to them. Which 
means, technically, you have to establish that the Nazgul *are* in 
the same scene, which means you have to *see* them (visual medium, 
remember), which means they can't be small, unidentifiable dots in 
the distance.

If you can't get any visual impact from them being a long way off, 
you can get a heck of a lot of visual impact from them hovering 
right over Frodo's head...

Doesn't apply in books, of course. In a book you can show two 
characters being interconnected at any distance you like. Being able 
to terrify people when you're a mile off is really scary in a book.

> 
> (7)  One change didn't make sense even within the
> movie.  The way the scene at Helm's Deep and the
> Entmoot are intercut, the clear cinematic message is
> that the Ents are going to save Rohan's bacon.  

 But in the movie, all that buildup never
> delivers.  The Ents overthrow Isengard (I loved,
> loved, loved the flooding scene?all those Ents
> standing in the water?it was just gorgeous) but that
> has nothing to do with Helm's Deep.  It's not as if
> Saruman was about to send out another army or
> anything; the battle is underway and will not be at
> all affected by what happens in Isengard.  I don't
> know what the heck the director was thinking.

I do. He was thinking while in the books Saruman is a secondary 
problem, in the films to date Saruman has had the most screen time 
and is effectively the main villain of the first two films. 

This means that while he wants the victory of Helms Deep to be a 
climatic event at the end of film two, Saruman's defeat must also  
come in the last part of the film (otherwise the film has an anti-
climax, not a climax). This means the Huorns don't have *time* to 
get to Helm's Deep. Saruman's defeat will have to be seen as a thing-
in-itself - a satisfying ending for the film; the effective 
destruction of a major villain.

And the flooding scene *was* gorgeous.

> A couple of character changes were interesting and I'm
> still mulling them.  One is that Sam is actively
> intervening when Frodo's tempted by the Ring.  This
> alters their relationship quite a bit, in ways that I
> like but that may be ultimately OOC.  I'm not sure,
> but I think I would rather that they again left it to
> the actor?he could show us that he sees Frodo's
> struggles with the Ring and is worried, without
> actually having to wrestle Frodo away from the thing. 
> Sean Astin, who has so far struck me as the best actor
> in the ensemble, could pull it off.  

No, I think in the books Sam is 'intervening' by providing moral 
support. He's the unquenchable optimist, who keeps determinedly 
trogging onwards when Frodo would have given up long since, and it's 
largely this which is helping Frodo in his struggle with the Ring. 
Evetime Frodo's spirits start to sink, you find Sam will say 
something cheerful and optimistic, and heartening, and will thus 
strenghten Frodo's will to resist.

However, in films, you go back to the point that it's a lot easier 
to show than to tell. It's a lot easier for the actor to convey that 
he doesn't want Frodo to put on the Ring if he's allowed to actually 
grab Frodo's hand and physically stop him. If he's not allowed to do 
that, because it's not in the book, then he's fighting against the 
fact that what the audience will *see* him doing is well, nothing. 
Frodo will be having these dreadful struggles, and Sam will be 
sitting there doing nothing with a worried look in his eye.

Well, why have I spent all this time defending a film I didn't like 
very much? 

Because a film is not the same thing as a novel, and you shouldn't 
expect it to be. A novel is based on words on a page. A film is 
based on pictures. A novel can tell you what a character is 
thinking. A film has to show you. A novel can have pages and pages 
of events without conflict. A film lives by conflict, whether 
between characters, between a character and the world, or in a 
character's own internal life.

A novel is words.
A film is pictures.

A novel is a story.
A film is a drama.

Some novels are naturally dramatic. Dickens frequently transfers to 
the screen without any major alterations - he's a naturally dramatic 
author. Austen is also a natural dramatist. Her characters are 
generally in conflict with either circumstances or themselves.

Tolkien is a descriptive writer, a writer capable of conveying an 
entire world, and of handing us characters whose stories started 
long before the novel's opening pages, and continue in appendixes 
long after the novel's end. When I say he isn't a dramatist I'm not 
insulting him - he has no need to be; there is absolutely no 
requirement for any novel to have dramatic form.

But when you translate the written medium of the novel into the 
visual drama of film, don't be surprised if changes have to be made.

Pip

From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com  Sun Dec 22 22:04:11 2002
From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:04:11 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings?
In-Reply-To: <035001c2a9c6$1eede0c0$2401010a@Frodo>
Message-ID: 

Pippin said:
> I bought the BOTR parody 
> and settled down on the front steps of the Art Institute of
Chicago, 
> which was a well-known hippie (remember them?) hang out. I 
> started laughing so hard that people kept coming up and asking 
> if they should call Acid Rescue.

Hmm, you'd think if someone actually needed Acid Rescue, they wouldn't
be able to *say* they needed Acid Rescue.

Heidi mentioned:
> Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody
> (http://www.barrytrotter.com/) and in the US, you can't do anything 
> to prevent the creation and sale of parodies,...

I bought Barry Trotter, but it was only so-so.  The best stuff was the
first chapter, available free on the website.  The author seems to
have been *too* influenced by Bored of the Rings -- he filled Barry
Trotter with hippy and druggy references that were funny when Bored of
the Rings was published, but are pretty dated now. 

On the other hand, I read Mad Magazine's parody of the CoS movie, and
it was pretty good.  (Pippin mentioned it, offlist. Thanks Pippin!  I
wouldn't have known about it otherwise.)

It would be fun if *we* wrote a book-length Harry Potter parody.  I
think Sirius Black should be named "Curious Yellow". 

Judy

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 22 22:08:51 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:08:51 -0000
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

(Rachel, sorry.  The obsession continues.  Feel free to skip)

Great post, Abigail!

> The only things LoTR and HP have in 
> common are they that they both feature wizards and can 
> be categorized as fantasy.  

> To have two fantasy movie series come out at the same time 
> simply begs comparisons where none belongs.  

Yep.  I can't completely complain about this (il-)logic, though, 
because it's what got me to read HP.  I was pressing His Dark 
Materials on someone who, after I described it, said, "Have you read 
Harry Potter?"  I repressed an eye roll and said no, grumbling 
silently about the fact that not all British fantasy is the 
same . . . but I accepted the loan of the tapes and the rest is 
history, if The Annals of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder count as 
history.

> it seems that Aragorn's tumble off the cliff was 
> supposed to be part of a longer arc.  Something to do with 
> Theodred's horse, who is driven mad with grief and is released 
> by Aragorn.  It is this horse who rescues Aragorn and carries 
> him to Helm's Deep. 

Ah!  That would have added something interesting, yes.  I thought it 
was really funny--you dream you're being kissed and wake to find it's 
a horse.  I'm not sure the humor was intended.

> The Arwen scenes exist here for the same reason 
> that she's the one who rescues Frodo and brings him to 
> Rivendell instead of that other elf whose name I've forgotten 
> in FoTR.  Because you simply cannot have your romantic hero 
> marrying a girl who is completely absent between her 
> introduction in the first book and her wedding in the third book 
> and has no lines in either one.  

You misunderstand me.  I wasn't complaining about the insertion of 
Arwen--I figured they'd do that and it's okay.  As you say, putting 
in the backstory of her decision is not only okay, it's essential.  
No, the change that bugged me was that Aragorn, riding to Helm's 
Deep, thinks she has decided to go to the Grey Havens.

>(and yes, 
> when I finished reading TTT, I wanted Aragorn to marry Eowyn

Oh yeah.  She's a much more interesting character than Arwen.  But 
then, I like Faramir too, so she'll be very happy.

> 
> The same reasoning holds for Arwen's decision to stay in 
> Middle Earth and reject immortality being made on 
> screen (or not having been made yet, actually.  
> Unfortunately, I forsee an emotional scene with Arwen 
> standing on the boat at the Grey Havens looking wistfully 
> into the East before deciding to Follow Her Heart, but I guess 
> it can't be helped).  This decision is a big deal.  She's 
> giving up immortal life - a woman who has been timeless for 
> millenia.  She's choosing to be parted from everyone she 
> knows and loves.  This is not a decision that you make 
> off-screen, not if you follow the cardinal rule of film-making 
> - show, don't tell.  It can't be an easy choice, it can't be a done 
> deal - it would be meaningless if it were.  And frankly, I think 
> the fact that Aragorn tries to talk her out of staying with him 
> needs to be there too - what sort of man would prefer to 
> see the woman he loves wither and die just so that 
> he won't be parted with her?
> 
> So yes, it's sappy.  There is romance that isn't sappy, but I don't 
> think we should be looking for it in fantasy films.  Certainly 
> we shouldn't expect that romance be taken for granted, which 
?	is what Tolkein did.  
?	
?	
>And anyway, if the Arwen scenes didn't exist, 
> we wouldn't have the gorgeous tableau of a still-young Arwen 
> grieving for Aragorn.  Wasn't it beautiful?  It looked as if it had 
?	been plucked out of a medeival tapestry.  

Yes, gorgeous. 

(It also serves to 
> highlight that, at that point, no one, Arwen included, has even 
> considered that Arwen might give up immortality to be with 
> Aragorn, which I suspect will make her choice to do so all the 
?	more important in RoTK.)

Yeah, I thought that was really interesting.  I kept waiting for 
Arwen to say, "DUH, Father, I'm not going to mourn forever?I'm going 
to do what human women do and die myself.  Maybe even *before* my 
husband."  (Of course, she could stay immortal instead, and marry 
someone else after Aragorn dies.  Much better option, IMO.)

> (although, in my case, 
> I admit I just can't accept Weaving as Elrond.  I keep expecting 
> him to don an earpiece, dodge bullets, and start looking for 
?	Morpheus, but that's just my disfunction).   

LOL!  Now, the only thing I'd ever seen him in was The Matrix but I 
loved him as Elrond.  The man must've been born with pointed ears 
because he looked perfect, IMO.

> I was 
> expecting you to offer the opposite complaint - that rather 
> than regaining his (emotional) strengh and riding off to Helm's 
> Deep with no doubts, Theoden spends the entire film on the 
> brink of despair - a despair brought on in no small part by the 
> death of his son (am I the only person who was praying, right 
> after Theoden was revived, that he would somehow *know*?  
> That no one was going to have to tell him that his son had 
> died and he had all but slept through it?  His scene at 
> Theodred's grave was heart-breaking).  Gandalf may have 
> removed Saruman's direct influence, but Theoden isn't fully 
?	healed until the end of the movie.  

True, true, and I knew it when I typed "and lo, Theoden is young and 
bold again," but I couldn't resist the rhetorical flourish.    The 
real issue is not that he is healed entirely (he isn't, either in the 
book or in the movie), but *how* he is healed.  For all my love of 
fantasy, I prefer emotional transformation to magic.  Or magic *as* 
emotional transformation.  This seemed like magic *instead of.* YMMV.

> Also, the 'don't you 
> know your Sam?' exchange and Frodo's Bilbo-like moment of 
?	madness were neat.

Totally.  And they do happen in the book---several chapters later, in 
RoTK, but this was a fine place to put it, so long as they leave 
themselves something to build up to.

> 
> As for whether having Faramir decide to take the ring to 
?	Gondor cheapens his character.  I'm not certain.  

I don't mean cheapens, exactly.  I just thought it was unnecessary.  
They were trying to get at the key issue, I think?that Faramir sees 
potential for rescuing his beleaguered city--and that's good.  I 
think they could've done it without the side trip to Osgiliath.  I 
mean, it's just not the resort town it used to be, ever since the 
rise of the Dark Lord just down the road.

Me:

> > But this is an Action Movie and Action
> > Movies don't have too much dialogue?the audience might
> > get bored.

Abigail:

> Sorry, I just don't think it's fair to make this claim about a 
movie in 
> which, halfway through, the action is suspended so that an elf 
> chick who actually has nothing to do with the plot can recite in 
?	Elvish.  

  Fair enough.  I retract my snarkiness.

> it ultimately a movie about hope and perseverence even when 
?	there is seemingly no reason for it.  

Sure.  I just hope (and persevere) that it'll be about more than 
that.  It's not a theme that really lights my fire (though I love 
your injection about Denethor, one of my favorite characters?that 
exploration of despair is fantastic, I agree), and the book has so 
much more to it than "never say die."

> maybe I was just so thrilled 
> by the fact that at least one of the Hobbits who isn't Frodo or 
?	> Sam had been rescued from Comic Relief hell

They sent Gimli to it in their stead.

?	Frankly, I don't see the climax 
> working if the two scenes had been seperated - the attack on 
> Isengard before Helm's Deep or the other way around.  There 
?	> comes a point where you're simply banged out.  
?	

Yeah, that is a problem.  Maybe as long as they were changing things, 
Treebeard should've dispatched some of the Ents to beat up the orcs 
at Helm's Deep.  Then it would all have held together.  But maybe I 
was the only one who thought it was anticlimactic for the Ents to 
have nothing to do with Helm's Deep.

> Someone needs to take the HP movie people 
> and tape them to some chairs and force them to watch those 
> scenes over and over until they understand what a CGI 
?	character should be.  

LOL!  Well, Dobby just isn't as complex a character.  I can take some 
cartoonishness with him.

Me:

> > it will be interesting to see whether,
> > as in the book, it will be Sam's refusal to see Gollum
> > as redeemable that causes him to send them to Shelob.

Abigail:

> Hmm, I always felt that, while Sam certainly wasn't helping Gollum 
> along on his road to recovery, it was Frodo's perceived betrayal of
>  Gollum that truly drove him over the edge - which is pretty much 
?	what happened in the film.

Oh, right.  I was thinking of RoTK:  not his first thought of Shelob, 
but the scene where he is being nice to the sleeping Frodo and Sam 
goes ballistic.  We are privy to the fact that Gollum is repenting of 
his plan to get them eaten, but takes it up again with a vengeance 
when Sam calls him a sneak. 

> Considering that I was half-convinced there would be no 
> Ents at all, I was rather pleased by what we got.  I thought 
> their legs didn't look right, though.  In my imagination, Ents 
> are walking trees, and Jackson's Ents looked like that from 
> the 'waist' up, but the illusion was broken by the legs.  I 
?	guess I should have expected that , though.

Yeah, that was my problem exactly.  The problem is, the way I picture 
Ents, they don't exactly have legs, so how do I imagine them 
walking?  They'd kind of glide, and that wouldn't work.  It's a 
tricky problem.  They were pretty good.

> All in all, I'm a bit tickled by the people who are only now 
> remembering to be concerned about the liberties Jackson 
> has taken with his source material.  Did you not notice 
> that most of the first quarter of FoTR was just cut out of 
?	the movie?  

Notice it?  Heck, I applauded it!  OK, that was just about Tom 
Bombadil and I mostly did it to bug Tabouli.    But seriously, 
omitting scenes is one thing, adding them is another.  I am much more 
tolerant of the former liberty.

> when 
> it came to TTT, Jackson mustered up the courage to try 
> to offer his own spin on the material (remember, most of 
> the editing of TTT was done after the stunning reaction to 
> FoTR).  He tried to streamline the story in order to 
> highlight what he obviously felt was the most important 
?	message in the book.  

> it's important to give him props 
> for courage, as well as to acknowledge that, even if the 
> letter of the book wasn't all that strictly adhered to, its 
?	spirit was deeply honored.  

That all depends on what you think the most important message in the 
book is.  When we get to RoTK I'll know whether he offered his own 
spin on it or got it all wrong, both of course according to MHO.  
Others' mileage may vary.

This is reminding me that I meant to post here about something 
someone said about Sauron on the main list a couple of weeks ago.  
I'll see if I can find it.

Amy Z
who sees that Pip has replied and will get to it later.  This is like 
playing tennis against two people at once.  Wheee!

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sun Dec 22 22:30:19 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:30:19 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Play: Mirror of Galadriel
Message-ID: 

Dear HPFGU members,

I attach another short report from the rehearsals of the Hogwarts 
Christmas play, The Lord of the Rings.  I asked Ms Skeeter to tell 
me the identity of the cast members, but she seemed in the grip of a 
superstitious fear that something bad would happen to her if she did.

Ever yours
Frankis & Stein
Infurn Alley

------

Scene: Lothlorien, at night.  Enter Galadriel and Frodo, and Sam.

Galadriel: Empty your mind, my dear, as you gaze into the Basin.  
Tell me, what do you see?
Frodo: Er, I see, er, Gandalf
Galadriel: Is he looking very mangled? As if he'd come off worse in 
a fight with a Balrog?
Frodo: No, he's walking along a road... he's gone now... oh! It's 
gone all black!  Oh, and now - oh no, it's looking for me!

Enter Merry and Pippin.

Galadriel: I know what it is you saw.  Alas, it is seeking all the 
time, drawing nearer and-
Merry: Oh for goodness' sake! Not that ridiculous Eye again!  
Honestly, it's quite preposterous!  As if an eye could ever hope to 
put on a ring!  How can he just be an eye?
Pippin: cough*Akallabeth*cough
Exit Merry, followed by Pippin

Galadriel: Alas, I knew that one of your number would fail the 
test.  I fear your quest is doomed.

Curtain falls

From obby at blueyonder.co.uk  Mon Dec 23 03:22:08 2002
From: obby at blueyonder.co.uk (Richard Thorp)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 03:22:08 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <44796059265.20021223032208@blueyonder.co.uk>

Sunday, December 22, 2002, 10:08:51 PM, Amy wrote:

Thought I'd chuck in my 2 pence on TTT, since everyone else is ;)

I loved the film, moreso than the first one, but this could well be
down to the very fact that I haven't read the books :)

As Pip said (In an *excellent* post that should be used whenever the
book-to-film debate happens!) films are inherantly different than
books, and thus various bits need to be removed and added..

Personally, I loved Comedy!Gimli :) The scene on the battlements was
classic, as were Gimli's comments on being wasted on cross country...
Main reason I liked this was because I identified so well with Gimli
like this, he does all the things I would do in the sitatuions he was
faced with - make ironic, almost self-deprecating (is that even a
word?) comments, to lift the mood of the situation :) And jumping into
the uruks about to attack Aragorn after the wall explosion was
excellent. There did seem to be a disproportionate amount of comedy
injected into the situation, tho (but this is very much needed in a
'no-win' battle situation, joking keeps the morlae up!), with Gimli
and Legolas counting kills at each other, and such.

Gollum. I loved Gollum too, he was *amazing*. I went into the movie
thinking he'd be Jar Jar Binks bad, and annoy the hell out of me, but
he actually stole *every* scene he was in. Especially when he was
doing his dance after exorcising "Gollum", kicking the blankets around
in the process. Andy Sekiris' (sp?) delivery of the 'Stupid, fat
hobbit' line was perfect, too :)

Has anyone here seen any of Jacksons other films? Specifically
Braindead? The ents reminded me TOTALLY of the monkey in Braindead
(and a lot of the other things in it, too).. I can't be the only one
who saw this comparison can I? :) Treebeard has one of the best lines,
too.. "Hmmm, well I don't understand, but then again, you are very
small." made me laugh, anyway!

Did anyone else think that the noise one of the Uruks made when
Legolas shot out the ropes of one of those siege ladders could be
roughly translated as "Oh bugger", too? :)

Also, looking at IMDB, the ratings it's getting are amazing - it's
already in the top 10 of the top 250 movies of all time, and I think
it stands a very good chance of getting the top spot by the time it
gets to about 40,000 votes or so :)

-Rich

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec 23 04:07:11 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:07:11 -0000
Subject: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak 
"  wrote:

Amy:
> > 
> > (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> > he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> > being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension. 
> > The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
> >  A good actor can let us see that he's tempted and
> > resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
> > words and a few seconds.  

> We don't see a heck of a lot
> > of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
> > that he doesn't make this painful choice with ease. 
> > We have his brother for context.  Boromir wasn't a
> > power-hungry bad guy; he was a brave and noble future
> > Steward of Gondor who was motivated by his
> > responsibility to his people (intermixed with less
> > lofty motives, to be sure) to want to use the Ring to
> > save them.  Faramir struggles with the same dilemma,
> > but rightly concludes that there is no way to use the
> > Ring for good.  We don't just think he's an angel; we
> > see the struggle.  That's because JRRT gives us some
> > dialogue.  But this is an Action Movie and Action
> > Movies don't have too much dialogue?the audience might
> > get bored.

Pip:
> My problem with arguing against this is that I do actually think 
> that the scriptwriters made the wrong decision here. I think they 
> changed the book's plot so drastically at this point because 
they  wanted to establish that Gondor (in the shape of Boromir, 
Faramir  and Denethor) are tempted by seeing the Ring as the 
weapon that can save them. Plus they wanted to establish in 
advance that one of  Faramir's other temptations is that his father 
has always seen him as the second-best, and now he, not 
Boromir can be the one who  brings the Ring to Gondor.
> 
> They also wanted to establish that Gondor is up that famous 
creek sans paddle, and since this is a moving picture rather than 
a  European style talking picture, they needed to (you've guessed 
> it) 'show, not tell'. So we got dragged along to the battle of 
> Osgiliath.
> 

The filmmakers also needed to establish that Gondor is half in 
ruins, that it has fallen far from its former glory. They did it in 
FoTR with the ruins at Parth Galen, but the scenes Tolkien used 
for this in TTT -- Frodo's sight of Minas Morgul and the ruined 
statue at the crossroads-- are all set after Frodo encounters 
Faramir.

 I understand why it was done, but the sequence in Osgiliath 
seemed rushed. Also, not sure about this, but did Gollum hear 
that Frodo is trying to destroy the Ring? That's *very* different 
than the book and changes the whole dynamic between Frodo, 
Sam and Smeagol.

I think the comic relief with the horse smooching Aragorn was 
intentional.  Tolkien isn't above poking, very gently, at  Aragorn's 
occasional pompousness. The film lost the bit about Aragorn 
being so high and mighty about leaving his sword against the 
wall, then trying to persuade the guards to let Gandalf keep his 
staff.

Pippin
who agrees with Judy that the songs were the best part of BoTR 
and would love to update some of the refrains

And since that day tis said by all
In story, lay and poem
Only trust an Elf or Dwarf
As far as you can throw 'em
Sing porta-pac, bric a brac, NASDAQ and SCUD
As far as you can throw 'em.

Pippin

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 23 04:34:31 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:34:31 -0000
Subject: Apples vs Oranges vs Pumpkin Pie
Message-ID: 

I'm not sure which thread to respond to. There are a couple of really
good threads in the Us vs Them, Apples vs Oranges, CoS vs TTT(LotR);
"Argu...so sick of it..." and "What I didn't like about TTT, and a
couple of things I did".

Let's start with Apples vs Oranges-

Exhibit A.) The story of a long epic quest.

Exhibit B.) The story of a school boy at school. OK.. a wizard school boy.

Well, of course.... I see it now, they're practically the same
story... NOT!

The Films-

Exhibit A - a long epic journey; wide panoramic shots of beautiful
country side, long epic battles (several); long epic walks across the
plains, through the mountains and vallleys, across fantastic lands. 

Emphasis on the words LONG and EPIC.

Exhibit B - the day to day life of a British wizard schoolboy; the
classrooms, sneaking out at night, the nasty caretaker -bane of all
students, schoolboy taunts, schoolgirl crushes, teachers who are evil
(aren't they all*), teachers who are idiots (aren't they all*), and a
few rare teachers who are friends (thankfully there are some*).

Emphasis on the words NOT Long and NOT Epic. 

[ * Note: as seen throught the eyes of a student.]

The Movie vs The Other Movie-

LoR has the luxury of conveying substantial amounts of the books in
very broad epic scenes. 

CoS has a LOT of story to tell in a very short time.

Summary - LOR - Long drawn out epic scene, long drawn out epic scene,
some dialog so you know that the long epic scenes are about, long
drawn out epic scene, more set up dialog, more long epic scenes.

Summary - COS - scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene,
scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene,
scene, scene, scene, ... panting heavily, stops to catch breath..., 
scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene,
scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene, scene,
scene, ...no time to end movie ...everybody hug Hagrid ...fade to black.

"Scene, scene, scene, scene,..."; that's how COS had to be made to get
the story to fit in the available time. Which brings up one of my
biggest complaints about the two movies. How come 2.7 hours for COS is
called 'butt numbing' and 3 full hours or possibly more for LOR
doesn't rate any comment? One review said that despite it's length
(re:COS), he never left a movie so desperately wanting more. That
despite all that was crammed into "scene, scene, scene, scene,
scene,..." it was hardly enough. This reviewer thought that COS was a
4 to 4.5hr movie crammed into 2.7hrs. I agree.

I say, it is an absolute CRIME to make these movies any less than 3
hours. If people can sit for 3 hours through LOR without the world
ending, then they can certainly sit through 3 hours of HP. I saw COS
at a Saturday matinee, before the movie, the place was noisy, kids
running around talking, laughing, throwing popcorn, screaming... you
know, being kids. When the movie started. Dead silences.... except for
laughs and applause at appropriate times, and a standing ovation at
the end. There wasn't a single kid there who was bored. There wasn't a
single kid there who wasn't totally enraptured by the story. I say,
there wasn't a single kid there who wouldn't have love another 0.3
hours of movie.

0.3 hours = 18 minutes. 18 minutes of screen time can literally be
decades of story time. The COS story could have been fleshed out with
so much more plot and character developement. It could have been paces
so much better, and been so much greater a movie than it was (Ron
might have even gotten to keep some of his best lines). I see no
failing in the story, but much in the execution with COS.

LOR-TTT, on the other hand, I haven't read the story, but I found what
I saw to be well developed, emotionally moving, and visually stunning
(which is easy to do when you can endlessly show broad panoramic views
of beautiful New Zealand. I also found the scenery of Britain to be
visually stunning.), with great special effects (they get Gollum,
armies of 10,000, walking trees, fantastical creatures, and we get one
short Quidditch match, an elf, and a snake).

I love both movies, each in their own right, but, despite what I have
done here, I see no need to compare them. They each did what they did
well, but, in my honest opinion, HP-COS could have some so much more
with an additional 18 minutes.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

bboy_mn

From dradamsapple at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 23 05:56:26 2002
From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (dradamsapple )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 05:56:26 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings? /Suess-musings
In-Reply-To: <035001c2a9c6$1eede0c0$2401010a@Frodo>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy"  
wrote:
> 
> > 
> >
> And if you want to see more parodies of various things HP, you can 
start
> clicking at random at http://www.riddikulus.org/authorLinks/. I
> especially recommend Minerva McTabby's Seussian works -
> http://www.riddikulus.org/authorLinks/Minerva_McTabby/.
> 
> > 

> Now I'll spend the rest of the day looking for BOTR ...
> 
> Before you do, check out The Very Secret Diaries by Cassandra 
Claire:
> http://diaries.diagon.org/
> 
> 
> Heidi

Just a side note;
Just read Minerva McTabbys'  HP 'SAM I AM' parody:(Warning: it's 
Slash)
I have no words to describe it!  Anyone who has ever read Dr.Suess 
should go read it now!!
TOO funny!!

Anna . . .

From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Dec 23 06:03:20 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:03:20 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Bored of the Rings? /Suess-musings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <03f701c2aa48$ff32ed10$2401010a@Frodo>

I posted: 
> > Before you do, check out The Very Secret Diaries by Cassandra
> Claire:
> > http://diaries.diagon.org/
> > 
> > 
> > Heidi
> 

And I should note that new VSD entries are posted at
http://www.livejournal.com/~cassieclaire first, and won't likely make it
to the site above until the new year.

heidi

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Dec 23 11:06:01 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:06:01 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Jen!
Message-ID: 

:::::hangs up new balloons and streamers and puts another cake on the 
table:::::

Goodness, the December birthday greetings just keep on rolling 
along!  Today we send HP birthday wishes to Jen Faulkner.  Jen can be 
greeted on the List or at jfaulkne at sas.upenn.edu

Have a lovely day, Jen, and here's hoping for lots of HP goodies!

Mary Ann
(TBE)

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Mon Dec 23 11:07:52 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:07:52 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Play: Fangorn Forest
Message-ID: 

Dear HPFGU members

The Hogwarts production of The Lord of the Rings is nearly upon us, 
and there remains alarmingly much to be done!  Rita Skeeter's latest 
intelligence is below.  She refused to say who has the part of 
Treebeard, muttering something about how 'we flying animals' (or 
animata, or something like that) need to stick together.

May the Force be with you
David Frankis
Frankis & Stein
Infurn Alley

Enter Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard

Pippin: and can you tell us your name...?
Treebeard: Hoom, vroom, vroombrmbrmmmmgrrRRRRmbrrm
Merry: Have you seen the way his eyes glow?
Pippin: What is he?  He looks as if he's been in the Forest a long 
time.
Merry: Honestly, Pippin, didn't you read anything at Rivendell?  
He's a-

Enter Gandalf

Pippin: Look out, it's Saruman!
Merry: No, it's Gandalf
Gandalf: No credit to Brandy Hall for being an insufferable know-it-
all, Brandybuck
Pippin: But, Gandalf, look how tall Merry's grown!
Gandalf: I see no difference.

Enter Legolas and Gimli

Gimli: Look, it's Gandalf!  What's that greasy-haired slimeball 
doing here?
Legolas:  Aye, laddie, another old friend popping up when least 
expected.  Constant vigilance! 
Treebeard: Poop-poop

Curtain falls

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 23 11:12:25 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:12:25 -0000
Subject: Comedy Re: What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: <44796059265.20021223032208@blueyonder.co.uk>
Message-ID: 

Richard wrote:

> There did seem to be a disproportionate amount of comedy
> injected into the situation, tho (but this is very much needed in a
> 'no-win' battle situation, joking keeps the morlae up!), with Gimli
> and Legolas counting kills at each other, and such.

If there's a disproportionate amount of comedy, Tolkien will have to 
bear the blame for that part.  The counting kills bit is his, and in 
fact the script doesn't have as much of it as the book does.

Amy Z

From bray.262 at osu.edu  Mon Dec 23 11:25:40 2002
From: bray.262 at osu.edu (Rachel Bray)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:25:40 +0000 (EST5EDT)
Subject: daily calendar
Message-ID: <1F151686EF4@lincoln.treasurer.ohio-state.edu>

Anyone have the Harry daily calendar?  Look at tomorrow's 
picture (24th).  Wonder why they left that scene out of the 
movie/deleted scenes section?

(It's of Harry on Christmas morning holding the flute that 
Hagrid made him.  Very cute picture.)

Oh well.

Eager to start next year's calendar......great pictures. 
(But still really stupid captions.)

Rachel Bray
The Ohio State University
Fees & Deposits

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an 
angry, flying Ford Anglia.

From john at queerasjohn.com  Mon Dec 23 16:35:17 2002
From: john at queerasjohn.com (Queer as John)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:35:17 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What I didn't like about TTT, and a
	couple of things I did
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Abigail wrote:

>> (although, in my case,
>> I admit I just can't accept Weaving as Elrond.  I keep expecting
>> him to don an earpiece, dodge bullets, and start looking for
>> Morpheus, but that's just my disfunction).

Amy replied:

> LOL!  Now, the only thing I'd ever seen him in was The Matrix but I
> loved him as Elrond.  The man must've been born with pointed ears
> because he looked perfect, IMO.

So...am I the only one who has a stronger picture of Weaving as a drag queen
from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert than from the Matrix?

("No, Berna--er--Frodo, you can't go to Mordor, *sweetheart*!")

On the "Hahaha! Gimli is short!" running gag --

I was talking about this with Cassie and after our second viewing we decided
that the Hahaha! Gimli is short gags are still funny. Gimli, however, is
rescued from Comic Relief Hell (Comic Relief Purgatory? Limbo?) by the fact
that he is very handy with that axe of his.

In general -- I have to say that I simply adored TTT. I've never been as
much of a fan of LOTR as HP, but I do consider the LOTR movies as
spectacular works of cinema. (So far, anyway, and unless they get Chris
Columbus for ROTK, I doubt it'll change :D)

*wishes HP had had Cuaron earlier..."Riding in Flying Ford Anglias With
Boys", anyone? ;)*

--John, who knows exactly how BOTR, er, sticks it to Bilbo Baggins
______________________________________

Queer as John || john at queerasjohn.com
          www.queerasjohn.com

AIM & YM @ QueerAsJohn

"There's nowt as queer as folk."
    --English proverb
______________________________________

From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec 23 17:32:22 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:32:22 -0000
Subject: Bored of the Rings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:

> 
> Did you know that in early drafts of LoTR, Frodo's name was Bingo?  
I 
> am not making this up.  I wonder if it would have become a classic 
of 
> English literature if JRRT had stuck with that idea?
> 

It would have made LOTR filk-writing easier

B-I-N-G-O
B-I-N-G-O
The R-I-N-G-O he threw into the flame

   - CMC

From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 23 18:38:58 2002
From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda the *B*Witch)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: OT-My Net Friends
Message-ID: <20021223183858.10937.qmail@web13709.mail.yahoo.com>

Mult-posts to get to you all!i

My Net Friends You are my very special friend You mean the world to me. You make me feel so special When I really need to be. I laugh with you, I cry with you, I suffer and rejoice. And yet I've never seen your face,( unless you have webcam) Or even heard your voice.(unless you have a microphone) And though I've never touched your hand Or held you in my arms. You've helped me through the hard times, And turned my storm to calm. And due to circumstances We may never be together. But always know that you will be My special friend forever. 

MERRY YULE TIME (Christmas, Kwanzaa, and a very late Hanukka, FOR SOME OF YOU) AND MAY WE ALL HAVE A VERY MERRY NEW YEAR!

All of Us Malletts here in Revere, Massachusetts extend this to all of you all over the World! May there be PEACE for us all no matter where we are. May you all have your health and family around you. For those of you who lost a loved one, they will be with you in Spirit. Happy memories keep them with you always. Keep the humor flowing, laughter is just one of many great medicines to get you through whatever is ailing you! Also helps when things are not going right! Hold your heads up and be proud as to who you are and always reach out to your neighbor or someone in need. As the saying goes, what comes around always comes back to you. We have always helped others as best we could. May you all have a wonderful Holiday Season! I will! I have my 3 Stooges, aka Muggles 100% aka Hobbits and One Cranky Dwarf to aggravate! Just think, a whole year of totally zaniness! 

Love to all of you out there and Peace of mind too!

Wanda (the *B*Witch), Roy (the cranky one) and our Merry Hobbits, William and James 

"When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and
are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things
will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be
taught how to fly."......Unknown.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From ression at hotmail.com  Mon Dec 23 23:05:14 2002
From: ression at hotmail.com (ER )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:05:14 -0000
Subject: Potter Parody (was Bored of the Rings? /Suess-musings)
In-Reply-To: <03f701c2aa48$ff32ed10$2401010a@Frodo>
Message-ID: 

So, all we need now is "The Secret Diaries of Harry Potter, aged 14-
1/2". Or the private journal of Hermione - ought to be much scope for 
angst-ridden humour there! And, at possible risk of getting lynched, 
The Diary of a Nobody (but won't say who, as definitely would be 
lynched :)

ER

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Mon Dec 23 23:41:50 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:41:50 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Pip wrote:

> Drama equals conflict. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no story. 
A 
> film or a play is not a novel. A film or a play cannot survive 
> without conflict.

This seems so, um, definite.  How can we be sure?

> Think back to any film or play you have seen. Did *any* of them 
have 
> no conflict? Were there *any* bits where the characters had no 
> problems to overcome? Or did that just come at the end of the 
story?

> So, Aragorn and Arwen have this deeply moving love, which is also 
> (in film terms) deeply boring, because all the drama and tension 
in it happened years back.

It does worry me that there is an element of circularity in our 
collective experience here.  In effect our moviegoing habits train 
us to find some things (such as bits of history) boring and others 
(such as conflict) dramatic (Are 'boring' and 'dramatic' polar 
opposites?  Challenge for dramatists and filmmakers: bore your 
audience with such guile that they thank you for the experience).  
Because we are so trained, it then becomes difficult for directors 
who choose not to accept these simple equations to make headway.  

David

From urbana at charter.net  Tue Dec 24 03:40:20 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 03:40:20 -0000
Subject: HP fan fic recommendation
Message-ID: 

I don't have time to be a niffler but the recent all points bulletin 
searching for new nifflers got me reading more Harry Potter fan 
fiction on Schnoogle.com. So right now I want to recommend a HP 
serial I just read this weekend. It's called "Darkly Inclined" and 
was written by Stacy Hart. It's a very angst-y and somewhat romantic 
serial that picks up where GoF left off. Stacy does a good job 
writing the dialog "in the style of JKR" but this is a much darker 
fic (IMO) than the 4 novels have been so far. Here's synopsis info 
from Schnoogle:
Set during Harry's fifth year. Everyone in the know about
Voldemort's return is preparing for war. But there is, of course, 
romantic chaos of all varieties: Snape and his old flame, who has 
been playing dead for fourteen years; Sirius and Remus (SLASH), who 
have relationship troubles as only they can; and of course our 
intrepid trio, as they start to figure out why dating your best 
friend is sometimes a very bad idea. Pairings among the younger 
characters are fluid; the current (as of ch. 14) forecast is H/H.

Stacy introduces a very interesting original character who adds a 
great twist to the *hypothetical* HP backstory. And the romantic 
involvements seem very plausible to me. Anyway ... I rarely read 
stories on Schnoogle because I don't want to spend that much time 
reading fan fics, but this one really grabbed me - I started reading 
it Friday afternoon and read all 14 chapters (so far) by late 
Saturday night :) Be prepared to invest some time watching this story 
unfold -- at Chapter 14 we're only up to mid-October of fifth year!

http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/S_Hart/Darkly_Inclined/

Anne U
(thinks JKR herself might enjoy this one)

From kelleythompson at gbronline.com  Tue Dec 24 05:38:41 2002
From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:38:41 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Jen!
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann " 
 wrote:
> :::::hangs up new balloons and streamers and puts another cake on 
the 
> table:::::
> 
> Goodness, the December birthday greetings just keep on rolling 
> along!  Today we send HP birthday wishes to Jen Faulkner.  Jen can 
be 
> greeted on the List or at jfaulkne at s...
> 
> Have a lovely day, Jen, and here's hoping for lots of HP goodies!
> 
> Mary Ann
> (TBE) >>>>>>>>>>

Oo, just getting in under the wire.  Happy birthday, Jen!!  Hope you 
had a great day and got loads of terrific gifts!

--Kelley

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Tue Dec 24 09:09:18 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:09:18 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "David " 
 wrote:
> Pip wrote:
> 
> > Drama equals conflict. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no 
> story. 
> > A film or a play is not a novel. A film or a play cannot survive 
> > without conflict.
> 
David:
> This seems so, um, definite.  How can we be sure?

Well, strictly, we can't. We just have to go by the fact that the 
play, as an artform, is at least 2500 years old (given that the 
oldest surviving playscript dates from around 490 BC). Over those 
2500 years, the form of the play has changed a lot - but the rule 
of 'no conflict, no play' has stuck.

That suggests 'Drama = conflict; no conflict = no drama = no play' 
is inherent in the artform. 

> 
> It does worry me that there is an element of circularity in our 
> collective experience here.  In effect our moviegoing habits train 
> us to find some things (such as bits of history) boring and others 
> (such as conflict) dramatic (Are 'boring' and 'dramatic' polar 
> opposites?  Challenge for dramatists and filmmakers: bore your 
> audience with such guile that they thank you for the experience).  
> Because we are so trained, it then becomes difficult for directors 
> who choose not to accept these simple equations to make headway.  
> 

"Waiting for Godot" (Samuel Beckett)is quite a successful play; 
despite it being so (deliberately) boring that a good production is 
signalled by less than a third of the audience leaving at the 
interval [theatre joke]. 

But even Godot has dramatic tension and conflict at its heart. Pozzo 
and Lucky aren't sure that Godot's going to come, or that they 
really want to wait for him. The boredom is partly created by the 
fact that the conflict is kept at a deliberately low level - but 
it's always there.

Films (I mean 'fictional story films')are also a dramatic artform. 
Hence the carry over from plays of the rule of 'Drama = conflict; no 
conflict = no film'. 

The visual moving picture is actually an excellent format for 
presenting history - but since 'presented history' has proved *not* 
to be a dramatic art form, it's been given the title 
of 'documentary' - a new art form in itself.

There is also the crossover art of 'drama-documentary'; 
unfortunately that tends to follow the 'no conflict - no film' rule. 
Viewers often find that there's an awful lot more drama than 
documentary, and rather more fiction than they should expect.

Pip

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Dec 24 09:28:15 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:28:15 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Catriona!
Message-ID: 

Gather 'round, folks, for we have another birthday to celebrate!  
Today's birthday wishes go to Catriona, aka Incitata.  Greetings can 
be sent to the List or to hyria at yahoo.com

Have a lovely birthday, Catriona, and enjoy your day!

Mary Ann
(TBE)

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 10:08:36 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:08:36 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Pip wrote:

> "Waiting for Godot" (Samuel Beckett)is quite a successful play; 
> despite it being so (deliberately) boring that a good production is 
> signalled by less than a third of the audience leaving at the 
> interval [theatre joke]. 
> 
> But even Godot has dramatic tension and conflict at its heart. 

Exactly.  Conflict, dramatically speaking, doesn't have to involve 
battles or rivalries or even outright arguments.  It can be as 
subtle a matter as a single human heart trying to assimilate a 
painful belief.  So we might travel up this thread a couple of steps 
and wonder how we got to the pronouncement that The Lord of the Rings, 
as written, has insufficient conflict to sustain a film.

Amy
who loved My Dinner with Andre

From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 12:14:07 2002
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:14:07 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
Message-ID: 

  As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared on 
another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself 
smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the feeling 
that the author missed the point in several parts of their message.  

  What are your feelings?

  Brian:-)

http://groups.msn.com/TheMagicalWorldofHarryPotter/toooldforhp.msnw

From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com  Tue Dec 24 12:55:30 2002
From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:55:30 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Brian said:
>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared
> on another board of some interest.....  
> [link to article critical of Harry Potter fans]

Oh, my!  The person who wrote that essay really hasn't read the books,
has s/he? If I may quote:

"JK would be the first to agree that [her books] are children's books,
that they are successful precisely because they appeal so directly to
the childish imagination, address the problems and questions of
childhood, enact the hopes and dreams of childhood. Now this is a
completely different set of questions from those that mesmerise us in
adult life.... 
...[in adult books] there are sexual tensions in the evil, there is a
dubiety between the good guys and the bad, there is an understanding
of complex human psychologies... There is no such psychological
understanding in children's novels"

If this person ever reads the books, s/he will be quite embarassed!

-- Judy, who for the record also really likes Disney movies, and goes
to them despite having no children 

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Tue Dec 24 15:51:19 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:51:19 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cordova 
"  wrote:
>   
> 
>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared 
on 
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself 
> smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the 
feeling 
> that the author missed the point in several parts of their 
message.  
> 
>   What are your feelings?
> 
>   Brian:-)
> 
> http://groups.msn.com/TheMagicalWorldofHarryPotter/toooldforhp.msnw

Ahhhh, just tell the elitist bastard to go piss up a rope!

Lady Tavington-Malfoy

From urbana at charter.net  Tue Dec 24 15:52:02 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:52:02 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:
< Conflict, dramatically speaking, doesn't have to involve 
> battles or rivalries or even outright arguments.  It can be as 
> subtle a matter as a single human heart trying to assimilate a 
> painful belief.  So we might travel up this thread a couple of 
steps 
> and wonder how we got to the pronouncement that The Lord of the 
Rings, 
> as written, has insufficient conflict to sustain a film.
> 
> Amy
> who loved My Dinner with Andre

I'm avoiding all of the LOTR-movie discussion, since I probably won't 
see it for at least another week. But I have to agree with Amy (with 
whom I seem to agree on numerous topics) that My Dinner with Andre 
was a *wonderful* movie which had no "action" in the traditional 
sense. IIRC it has literally a handful of characters and basically 
just one set, but it's one of the most engrossing movies I've ever 
seen. Despite being one of the "smallest" movies ever made, it's got 
one of the biggest hearts.

Anne
(who thought My Dinner with Andre gave new meaning to the 
phrase "talking heads")

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Tue Dec 24 16:26:26 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:26:26 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:
> Pip wrote:
>  
> > "Waiting for Godot" (Samuel Beckett)is quite a successful play; 
> > despite it being so (deliberately) boring that a good production 
> > is signalled by less than a third of the audience leaving at the 
> > interval [theatre joke]. 
> > 
> > But even Godot has dramatic tension and conflict at its heart. 
> 
> Exactly.  Conflict, dramatically speaking, doesn't have to involve 
> battles or rivalries or even outright arguments.  It can be as 
> subtle a matter as a single human heart trying to assimilate a 
> painful belief.  So we might travel up this thread a couple of 
> steps and wonder how we got to the pronouncement that The Lord of  
> the Rings,as written, has insufficient conflict to sustain a film.
> 
> Amy
> who loved My Dinner with Andre

Because while LOTR has dramatic moments, it's not dramatic 
throughout.

Going back to Aragorn and Arwen again: Arwen's canonical part in the 
FIRST film, as written by Tolkein would consist of:

INT SCENE: THE HALL AT RIVENDELL. A FEAST IS IN PROGRESS. ELROND IS 
AT THE HEAD OF THE TABLE, ARWEN BESIDE HIM. 

You can't even add:
ARWEN GLANCES AT AN EMPTY CHAIR [ARAGORN'S]

which would convey volumes in film terms, because Tolkien, IIRC, 
doesn't have her doing anything like that.

In the second film, with a bit of extrapolation you could include:

INT SCENE: ARWEN'S ROOM AT RIVENDELL. SHE IS SEWING. AS THE CAMERA 
MOVES IN WE SEE THAT SHE IS WORKING ON ARAGORN'S BANNER. SHE 
EMBROIDERS THE SILVER TREE.

INT SCENE: ARWEN'S ROOM AT RIVENDELL. SHE IS STILL SEWING. AS THE 
CAMERA MOVES IN WE SEE THAT SHE IS EMBROIDERING A GOLDEN CROWN.

INT SCENE: ARWEN'S ROOM AT RIVENDELL. SHE IS STILL SEWING. AS THE 
CAMERA MOVES IN WE SEE SHE HAS REACHED THE STARS ABOVE THE CROWN.

I'm sure Jackson could have made this look absolutely beautiful, but 
even the most lyrical of 'arthouse' style film directors would stamp 
his or her foot at this point, and demand to be able to include 
something non-canonical, but deeply symbolic of the underlying 
dramatic tension, such as:

SCENE: ARWEN'S ROOM AT RIVENDELL. SHE IS EMBROIDERING THE CROWN 
ABOVE THE TREE. SUDDENLY THE THREAD SNAPS. ARWEN LOOKS AT THE BROKEN 
THREAD. HER FACE CRUMPLES, AND WE SEE THAT SHE IS TRYING NOT TO CRY. 

(Oh, and there's the ARWEN STANDS AT WINDOW GAZING INTO THE 
DISTANCE. A SINGLE TEAR TRICKLES DOWN HER CHEEK scene, which is 
another good one.)

Do you see my point? Even if you go for the lyrical 'Arwen sits 
sadly at home wondering if Aragorn will ever return' approach you 
will *still* have to break away from what is actually in the books - 
because otherwise all you get is shot after shot of the poor girl 
sitting sadly sewing [but luckily not shirts for soldiers].

If you leave Arwen out entirely then you have the problem that while 
you and I know that Aragorn is engaged to Arwen, a strictly faithful 
approach to the books means that the filmmakers can't actually 
mention this little fact. 

IIRC, Aragorn [and all other characters] never actually *mentions* 
the engagement until Arwen turns up to marry him. [Though it is 
referred to obliquely on many occasions].

Again, unless you put a line on the poster saying "Warning: you must 
read the books before you see this film",  you will have to break 
away from strict faithfulness to the books - otherwise the audience 
is going to have great difficulty realising that Aragorn *has* got a 
girl back home.

Meanwhile the scriptwriters (and the actors) are hopping up and down 
in the frustrated knowledge that Tolkein did write a dramatic story 
for Aragorn and Arwen which would come across on film very well - 
but they can't use it, because it happened fifty (or so) years 
previously to the events of the War of the Rings, and it only gets 
mentioned in an Appendix.

[and you wonder why I think Tolkein isn't a dramatist ? ;-)]

Pip

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec 24 17:22:29 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:22:29 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak 
"  wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "David 
" 
>  wrote:
> > Pip wrote:
> > 
> > > Drama equals conflict. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no 
> > story.  A film or a play is not a novel. A film or a play cannot 
survive  without conflict.
> > 
> David:
> > This seems so, um, definite.  How can we be sure?

Pip: 
> Well, strictly, we can't. We just have to go by the fact that the 
> play, as an artform, is at least 2500 years old (given that the 
> oldest surviving playscript dates from around 490 BC). <<<

Oh, I think we can. Just borrow a baby and plop her down in front 
of a TV set. See what holds her attention. Conflict. Chases. Tom 
and Jerry cartoons, and their myriad successors. 

The point is, we can appreciate those things *without* training. 
That's important if the filmmaker is trying to reach a wide 
audience and sell lots of tickets to pay for those big budget 
special effects. The people who put up money for films like to 
think they are going to get something back for their investment, 
as  ars pro gratia artis translates into, "We're going to be 
severely arsed if we don't make money." 

Now granted, you can tell an epic story without an epic budget. 
The first Star Wars film is a case in point. All you need to 
simulate the vast depths of outer space is a sheet of black velvet 
and a pin. But Tolkien didn't set his epic  in outer  space, or 
clothe his hero warriors in off the shelf cricket gear. 

We could have an art-house version of LOTR, but it wouldn't have 
all that handmade armor, "bigatures" the size of a football field, 
scenes shot multiple times with little people stand-ins for the 
Dwarf and Hobbit characters,  helicopter shots of scenic New 
Zealand, etc.

Pippin

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 21:13:02 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:13:02 -0000
Subject: The mysterious missing Arwen
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Pip wrote:

> If you leave Arwen out entirely 

No one is suggesting leaving Arwen out!  Nor claiming that incidents 
that only happen in the Appendix shouldn't be included in the story.  

I'm not that difficult to knock over even when *not* turned into 
straw, you know.  Go on, give it your best shot!

Amy
*about* to get a lot harder to knock over 

From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 21:50:09 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:50:09 -0000
Subject: Drama (was What I didn't like about TTT)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z "  wrote:
> Pip wrote:
>  
> > "Waiting for Godot" (Samuel Beckett)is quite a successful play; 
> > despite it being so (deliberately) boring that a good production is 
> > signalled by less than a third of the audience leaving at the 
> > interval [theatre joke]. 
> > 
> > But even Godot has dramatic tension and conflict at its heart. 
> 
> Exactly.  Conflict, dramatically speaking, doesn't have to involve 
> battles or rivalries or even outright arguments.  It can be as 
> subtle a matter as a single human heart trying to assimilate a 
> painful belief.  So we might travel up this thread a couple of steps 
> and wonder how we got to the pronouncement that The Lord of the Rings, 
> as written, has insufficient conflict to sustain a film.

to which Pip replied, very correctly:
>Because while LOTR has dramatic moments, it's not dramatic 
throughout.>

And then offered a very fine breakdown of the Aragorn-Arwen 
romance and why it contains no conflict whatsoever.  I'd like to 
point out that this is hardly the only place where LoTR lacks 
drama.  I think this ties in to something Amy said when replying 
to my message upthread.

I wrote:

> All in all, I'm a bit tickled by the people who are only now 
> remembering to be concerned about the liberties Jackson 
> has taken with his source material. Did you not notice 
> that most of the first quarter of FoTR was just cut out of 
? the movie? 

to which Amy replied:

>Notice it? Heck, I applauded it! OK, that was just about Tom 
Bombadil and I mostly did it to bug Tabouli.  But seriously, 
omitting scenes is one thing, adding them is another. I am much more 
tolerant of the former liberty.>

It occurs to me that there were quite a few added scenes in 
FoTR, which addressed another sort of conflict that Tolkein was 
very short on - character conflict and emotional arcs.  There 
are very few characters in LoTR who can be said to be 
conflicted, or who go through an emotional arc.  Frodo is the 
most obvious one, as his journey is almost entirely one of spirit 
- ultimately, it's his decision to carry the ring to its destination 
that is meaningfull, not his ability to cast it into the flames - 
which in fact he lacks.  Gollum has so much emotional conflict 
that he is of two minds about everything.  Eowyn might be 
said to have an emotional arc, but I've always found its 
resolution - 'oh, look!  A cute guy likes me!  I will cast off my 
crippling depression and abandon my death wish, embracing 
life and matrimony!' - rather unsatisfying.  Of the three 
characters who make up the book's holy trinity of heroic 
protagonists - the boy coming of age, the warrior/romatic 
hero and the sage/general of war - only Frodo can be said 
to be emotionally available to the reader, and to experience 
emotional conflict.  It is through this conflict that we learn 
about characters, and learn to understand them, which 
means that as much as I love Aragron and Gandalf, they 
will always feel less real to me then Frodo.  

So let's look at the scenes Jackson added to FoTR which have 
to do with Aragorn.  Obviously there's all the Arwen stuff - 
meeting her in the forest, most of their tryst in Rivendell.  In 
that same scene, however, Arwen tells Aragorn that he is 
'Isildur's heir, not Isildur' (the importance of this message is 
emphasized by an interaction between Elrond and Gandalf 
where Elrond voices his millenia-old disappointment with 
Isildur's failure to destroy the ring).  Boromir and Aragorn 
have a stilted exchange before the shards of Narsil, both 
obviously feeling awkward and cagey.  At the council of 
Elrond, Aragorn demurs before Boromir, only to have 
Legolas proclaim his lineage for all the world to hear (I really 
hated this the first time I saw it, but much like Aragorn and 
Arwen's engagement, I understand why it had to be there) 
- Aragorn himself makes no further comment.  After Frodo 
escapes from Boromir at the end of the film, he meets 
Aragorn, and persuades him to let him go alone to Mordor.  
Aragorn acknowledges that he would eventually try to sieze 
the ring, and vows to Frodo that if it weren't for this, he 
would have gone with him to Mordor despite his desire to go 
to Gondor.

The image that emerges here is of a man riddled with self-doubt.  
Aragorn wants to be king, but has no idea if he's made of the 
right stuff for it.  He also wonders if he would succumb to 
temptation as his ancestor did.  None of this exists in the book.  
If Aragorn ever wonders if he's capable of walking into Gondor 
and just siezing the reigns of power, we never read about it.  
There's no doubt, there's no conflict, and Aragorn becomes less 
interesting and less believable to the reader as a result.

On the flip side, where Aragorn is made a little less perfect, 
Boromir is raised in the viewers' esteem - all of his added 
scenes (with the exception of his first meeting with Aragorn) 
are geared towards making him more likable.  Where Aragorn 
is practically stand-offish at times, Boromir is jovial and 
friendly (except when he's lusting after the ring, of course).  
His relationship with Merry and Pippin is more fully fleshed 
when we see them mock-swordfighting.  After Gandalf's 
death, Aragorn insists that they keep moving, but Boromir 
cries 'for pity's sake, give them a moment!'.  His last stand 
is fully depicted - which I admit has nothing to do with 
emotional conflict, but it is such a wrenching scene that I 
just had to mention it.  It is followed by his dying speech to 
Aragorn, which is the mirror image of their first meeting.  
He acknowledges Aragorn as his king and pledges his 
allegiance to him.  This scene ties together both character 
arcs - Aragorn learns to see himself as a king only when his 
subject does.

So, to sum up, there are scenes added to FoTR, and they 
do try to shore up the story where Tolkein is weak - 
character exposition.  I realise that the additions to TTT are of 
a less emotional nature - I'm still not defending Aragorn's fall 
off the cliff - but I'm certain there were reasons behind them.  
I'm going to see TTT again on Saturday (and I plan on renting 
FoTR and watching it beforehand, whee!) - I'll try to pay more 
attention to the Osgiliath scenes, maybe I can figure out what 
Jackson was trying to do with them.

Abigail

From enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 22:38:10 2002
From: enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com (jamie burger)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021224223810.5838.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com>

I could not bring myself to finish reading that. I'm sixteen, yes, a minor, but I still think that people who can write something like that need a life. Honestly. Harry Potter, althought read by any children, is most certainly not a children's book by any means. Hello. GoF anyone? Very graphic. No one is ever too old to have an imagination, sorry bucko. Stupid jerk guy, writing rude stuff. (In regards to the man/woman who wrote that article.) This is meant to offend you, blah blah blah. If you're out o make people mad, then you have n heart and should be burned and beat repeatedly with fish. And if adults do read HP, whose business is it but their own? NO ONES! Stupid cow person. Get-over-it. What if they were reading LotR? What would you say then? Nothing? Oh, ok, because then there is no reason to say anything? Fantasy is fantasy, I think, and it is a good way to get out the real world for a moment and relax. You know, relaxation. Or maybe the guy who wrote that article never heard of it? Let me explain then: taking a break from the busy life and just enjoy having a life in the first place, let your mind wander aimlessly for a bit, look at the sky and marvel at it. Yeah. Hm. As I've mentioned, I'm 16, and I get made fun of for reading HP. And I not too old as well, Mr. I think I'm the ruler of the adult universe? No, I do not think I am too old to read Harry Potter because I saw more than a children's book in the writing. I saw pain, happiness, lonliness, bravery, and love. And these books are very qualified to be read by adults. If I recall, there were about four deaths in Gof, right? Four or five, I don't feel like thinking. And weren't each of those fairly graphic? And the ending of each of these books has some horrible thing happening. CoS- Harry nearly DIED for Pete's sake. The fang is STUCK in his ARM and he is being POISONED?  And Ginny's life is like, sucked out of her?Hm. Yeah, I'll just let my (non-existant) five year old go read this now. No. Harry Potter is not a child's book, but one for adults and teens as well, thank you very much.
-Jamie
 "Brian Cordova "  wrote: 

  As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared on 
another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself 
smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the feeling 
that the author missed the point in several parts of their message.  

  What are your feelings?

  Brian:-)

http://groups.msn.com/TheMagicalWorldofHarryPotter/toooldforhp.msnw

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 24 23:10:27 2002
From: enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com (jamie burger)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Will there be an announcement for Book 5 before 2003?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021224231027.63068.qmail@web14511.mail.yahoo.com>

I completely agree on the whole waiting issue. JKR, though a very brilliant writer, has handled the waiting time very  poorly. I only read all the book in summer, 2001, but I know what waiting for a book is like. Stressful. Meg Cabot, autohor of The Princess Diaries, also has two other series that she is working on. So, three differents series in all. And she has produced at least one book from each of them a year. Although they are smaller books than what JKR puts out, that is still a lot of progress. And I'm sure that there is not much to be tweaked. I would take it right now if I could, tweaked or not.
 "theo_kestrel "  wrote:I know everyone's on pins and needles waiting for news on OotP, and
must be sick of everyone asking when it's going to be out, so let me
take a slighly different tack.

Back around the time when the CoS movie was premiering, I recall
reading a short interview with JKR on BBC Newsround, in which she
revealed that there would be 38 chapters, and she needed time for
tweaking the book-essentially stating that she's done but wanted to
fine-tune it.  I think I even remember something about it taking some
weeks to do so.  Now, the tweaking part I wasn't too excited about-I
vaguely recall similar comments around the August-September timeframe,
so to me it sounded like more of the same.  But the revelation of the
number of chapters and the "weeks" portion (if I'm not totally
dreaming up this whole thing) made me think that we might get an
announcement that she's handed in her manuscript before the end of the
year.  Does anyone have any thoughts on the likelihood of such an
announcement?  Even if she did turn in the manuscript to the publisher
for editing and whatnot, would they even publicly release that
information?

I'm just curious, since I'm also eagerly awaiting the next book in
George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series, and he's been
pretty accessible to fans about the whole thing, giving glimpses into
the process and even giving some insights on his struggles to finish
the book(he has a website he updates every couple weeks or so).  He's
also read select chapters (not finalized of course) from "A Feast for
Crows" (his next book) at various Cons.  It's interesting to see the
contrast between two very different authors writing two very, very
different stories.  I realize that Harry Potter has a much larger
following than ASOIAF could ever achieve, and thus JKR is under a much
bigger microscope than Martin, but at times it seems that JKR is
almost too tight-lipped about the whole process.  In the time since
GoF was released, I wouldn't have minded if she just came out and said
"Hey!  OotP isn't going to be out for a long, long, time, so please
stop badgering me about it."  But instead, we have numerous "release
dates" given out by Amazon and other various booksellers, which were
never publicly refuted to be wrong until it became obvious that it
just wasn't possible-contrasting that to GRRM, who states quite
clearly on his site that he has no idea where Amazon got the publish
date and page count, since he's not done and hasn't handed anything in
to his publisher yet-and he's also quite candid about missing target
dates.

This isn't intended to be a flame for JKR-I love her stories, and
greatly admire her persistence in getting her stories written and
published.  It's just that I wish she had handled the "between time" a
little differently, so that the wait wouldn't have been as painful.

theo_kestrel

First Post-hope I don't get too much flack for it.

Winter is Coming-House Stark

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Dec 24 23:11:04 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:11:04 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Play: Doom
Message-ID: 

Dear HPFGU members,

Here is the last of Rita Skeeter's reports from the rehearsals for 
the Hogwarts play, before Professor Dumbledore announced its 
cancellation, after Lord Voldemort's withdrawal owing to his 
objection to appearing to "lend support, however tangential, to any 
production which seeks to propagate the belief that there is good 
and evil, rather than power, and those too weak to seek it".

Season's Greetings
David Frankis
Frankis & Stein
Infurn Alley
Mordor

Scene: Mt Doom

Enter Frodo, followed by Gollum and Sam.

Frodo: I have decided I will not do the thing I came for (puts on 
ring and vanishes)

Gollum rushes up and begins to struggle with Frodo

Gollum: Give it to Smeagol. Nice hobbit must not lose Smeagol's 
Precious

Suddenly Gollum pulls away, shrieking with joy.  He has pulled a 
sock off Frodo's foot and is waving it over his head.

Gollum: Smeagol is free!  Nice master has set Gollum free!  Now 
Gollum can open his own sportswear boutique!

Sam: Tha's not righ'.  Hobbits don't wear socks!  Tha' should not 
have happened.

Enter Sauron

Sauron: At last I get a line! Give me my ring, Frodo Baggins.

A struggle ensues, in which Sauron flails ineffectually at Frodo but 
can't seem to get hold.  Eventually Frodo takes off the ring and 
tries to put it on Sauron's finger.  It drops through his finger, 
rolls along the floor and into the Crack of Doom.  Sauron's head 
tips sideways off his neck, there is a crash of thunder, and the 
curtain, together with its rod, falls onto the stage.  Exeunt omnes 
for Christmas lunch.

From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Tue Dec 24 23:20:44 2002
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:20:44 +1100
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <3E09867C.13009.6E9FDB@localhost>

On 24 Dec 2002 at 12:14, Brian Cordova blessedbrian at ya wrote:

>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared on 
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself 
> smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the feeling 
> that the author missed the point in several parts of their message.  
> 
>   What are your feelings?

Well, obviousy, I don't agree with it - but besides anything else, I think he missed a 
fourth group of readers - voracious readers, who read more than that his 'regular 
readers:

"The third group are the Regular Readers, for whom Harry is sandwiched between 
McEwan and Balzac, Roth and Dickens. This is the real baffler ? what on earth do 
they get out of reading it? Why bother? But if they can rattle through it in a week 
just to say they've been there ? like going to Longleat or the Eiffel Tower ? the worst 
they're doing is encouraging others."

I typically read at least three novels a week - sometimes up to two a day. I'm often 
stuck on public transport for close to four hours in a day, and I've always read very 
fast. I read whatever I can get my hands on - non-fiction as well as fiction, I read the 
classics, I read technopulp like Tom Clancy - one of my biggest problems is 
*finding* stuff to read... let's see - what have I read this week?

Portrait of a Killer by Patricia Cornwall (non-fiction? about Jack the Ripper)
Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy (mass market thriller)
The Fifth Elephant by Terry Pratchett (humour)
Midshipman's Hope by  David Feintuch (sci-fi)
Blitzkrieg by Len Deighton (non-fiction - world war II)
The Diary of Jack the Ripper (non-fiction?)
A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (mystery)
Borstal Boy by Brendan Behan (autobiography)
Boy by Roald Dahl (autobiography)

This has been a relatively heavy reading weel - the point is, I don't limit myself to 
one style, one genre - I dip around and read anything that interests me - I think it's 
*very* limiting to stick to one genre or style - and almost as limiting to *exclude* any 
genre or style - or age range - simply because it doesn't fit your prejudices. A lot of 
what I read is... well, pulps is I suppose the best word.

I started reading Harry Potter books because they came up in my work with gifted 
kids - a lot of these kids were reading the books and finding a lot of parallels with 
their lives and experiences being gifted. I didn't expect much of them - 
Philosopher's Stone, I enjoyed, simply from a sense of nostalgia (I devoured Enid 
Blyton's boarding school books when I was around 7 and the style reminded me of 
memories of those times), Chamber of Secrets seemed a lot like a copy of PS - 
once Prisoner came out, though, I started to find myself intrigued with the books - 
because they were so much more than formulaic childrens books (while still being 
formulaic children's books).

I started reading them because I felt I needed to in my work with gifted kids - I've 
read a lot of books for that reason - Matilda, A Wrinkle in Time... besides Harry 
Potter, only one other book I read for that reason has impacted me as much - 
'Welcome to the Ark' by Stef Tolan (and she helped to hooked me for good by e-
mailing me personally (-8 something JKR has so far not done.)

I mean this guy's problem is simple IMHO:

"When I read a novel, I look to it to tell me some truths about human life ? the truths 
that non-fiction cannot reach. These might be moral, sexual, political or 
psychological truths and I expect my life to be enlarged, however slightly, by the 
experience of reading something fictional."

I think he expects *WAY* too much from novels - how about just reading for 
enjoyment. Books don't have to teach you truths about human life, they don't have 
to enlarge your life. It's great if they do that for you (and incidentally, I think the HP 
books are a lot more likely to do this than a vast amount of adult literature) but a 
novel isn't a failure if all it does is entertain. 

If this guy looks for enlightenment in every book he reads, or deems it of no value - 
then frankly he needs to start looking elsewhere. If he is so starved of 
enlightenment, he has to find it everytime he reads, then he should expand where 
he is looking for it.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec 24 23:54:48 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 )
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:54:48 -0000
Subject: Aragorn's story. was Re: Drama 
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Abigail said:
>>If Aragorn ever wonders if he's capable of walking into Gondor 
and just siezing the reigns of power, we never read about it. 
There's no doubt, there's no conflict, and Aragorn becomes less 
interesting and less believable to the reader as a result.<<

Ahh, you've discovered the missing character arc for Aragorn. 
 There actually is one in the book, but it's very subtle, and not 
at all dramatic. Aragorn's character flaw is entirely hidden 
from his fellow characters. It illustrates something about 
hero-worship, or Grace, perhaps, but the other characters can 
hardly react to a flaw they don't know is there. 

Aragorn's story is a novel in embryo, by an author who did not 
consider himself a novelist, or a dramatist for that matter. I can't 
blame Jackson for writing it out of the story and setting another 
one in its place. 

Tolkien was far more interested in tortured landscapes than 
tortured mortals, but Aragorn actually does have a story...gather 
ye round.
**
**
**
**
LOTR SPOILERS
**
**
**
**

The key to the story is these lines, spoken by Aragorn at the 
Council of Elrond: "...I caught him, Gollum. He was covered with 
green slime. He will never love me, I fear, for he bit me, and I 
was not gentle. Nothing more did I ever get from his mouth than 
the marks of his teeth. I deemed it the worst part of all my 
journey, the road back, watching him day and night, making him 
walk before me with a halter on his neck, gagged, until he was 
tamed by lack of drink and food..."

This is a Captain of the West? Even Sam shows more mercy to 
Gollum than that. Starving poor Smeagol, beating him, keeping 
him tied up? No, Aragorn is nowhere near as noble as the 
Hobbits think, less noble than they themselves in this case, for 
all his lineage and stature.

His sin is pride, and it shows up in every word he speaks. 
Ursula LeGuin complained that Aragorn sounds like a stuffed 
shirt and blamed Tolkien for it, but I blame Aragorn. He is too 
proud to acknowledge any kinship with Gollum, too proud to see 
that Boromir, as one of his own kindred, could fall into evil. Not 
that the Hobbits notice any of this. It's left for the reader.

Nor do the Hobbits recognize that  Aragorn is tempted by the 
Ring. Aragorn gave his word to Boromir that he would go to 
Minas Tirith at the Council of Elrond. It is when he reneges on 
this, saying that he will go with Frodo to Mordor instead, that 
Boromir seeks to deter Frodo from his Quest. No wonder 
Aragorn cries, "It is I who have failed," when Boromir dies. 

That is a turning point. Aragorn realizes then that to rule he must 
do more than count on his natural charisma. He has to humble 
himself, put himself in the mind of lesser Men, his subjects, so 
that he can raise them up. He tries, very painfully, with Eowyn. At 
least  he can see that she's struggling, but all he can think of to 
tell her is what he would do in her place. He knows he's not 
being very helpful, but it's the best he can manage. 

His next chance is with the craven soldiers on the way to the 
Black Gate, and here he does a little better. Some he shames 
into fighting, but he's realized, since his experience with Eowyn, 
that not everyone is capable of living up to his example. He gives 
them a task "within their measure." Still, he's reacting to the 
situation, not anticipating it as a good leader should.

Aragorn is learning. But he's too late. Gollum has already 
betrayed Frodo at Cirith Ungol, and done it in part because of 
what Aragorn did to him... "an evil light came into his eyes at the 
naming of Aragorn."
When Aragorn comes to the Black Gate, he is met by his own 
shadow counterpart. The Mouth of Sauron, who has no name as 
Aragorn has many,   mocks the King for his royal pretensions 
with the spoils of Cirith Ungol in his hands. Aragorn, though he 
is an exemplar of Grace to others, stands himself in as much 
need of Grace as they. 

There is a clue to all this in the speech Faramir makes to Eowyn. 
He explains that she lost her heart to Aragorn, "because he was 
high and puissant." Now "puissant" is an odd word. It comes 
from the Norman language of chivalry which Tolkien usually 
despised. He needn't have used it. He could have had Faramir 
say, "noble and mighty" instead. What he can't have Faramir say, 
of course, is, "high and mighty." That is the actual  language of 
English chivalry, and was once meant as a compliment, but  it 
has become debased to mean one who is haughty. It's Tolkien's 
sly little commentary on Aragorn, entirely transparent to the 
characters themselves.

When Aragorn sits in judgement on Beregond, he realizes that, 
though Beregond deserves no punishment, nothing  will make 
his erstwhile comrades in the City Guard see it that way. He 
finds Beregond another post, of greater honor, but removed from 
those he was forced to betray. At last Aragorn is being pro-active, 
anticipating the weaknesses of those  around him, and 
compensating for them as a Ruler should. He has learned to be 
a King.

But there is one final step in Aragorn's journey. Only on his 
deathbed, when Arwen pleads with him not to leave her, does he 
have the self-knowledge to realize he is being tempted before he 
succumbs instead of after. "Let *us* not be overthrown at the 
end, who of old renounced the Shadow and the Ring," he says.

Dramatic? No..but a good story, IMO.

Pippin
wishing happy holidays to list

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Wed Dec 25 01:10:17 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 01:10:17 -0000
Subject: Happy Holiday
Message-ID: 

At 1.06 am UK time 25th December 2002

To those who celebrate it: A very happy Christmas.
To those who don't: A very happy holiday.

Merry Christmas!

Pip

From mb2910 at hotmail.com  Wed Dec 25 02:41:23 2002
From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 02:41:23 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: <3E09867C.13009.6E9FDB@localhost>
Message-ID: 

The "article":
"if you are an adult and have ever voluntarily read a novel by JK 
Rowling ? not out loud to children, but for your own pleasure ? this 
article may offend you. It's meant to, says Jonathan Myerson"

Me:
Oh, it was meant to *offend* me?
I thought it was a very amusing joke...

Jonathan, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but you need to work a bit on 
your offending skills.... *sniggers*

The "article": 
"To read a children's book is not escapism ? it's evasion, it's 
retreat, it's surrender."

Me:
*puzzled* don't escapism, retreat, evasion mean the same thing?

The "article":
"Please feel free to comment on the notice board."

Me:
Yes, well, thank you for providing a proper link for the notice 
board....

The "article":
"Article researched by : AngelofMir"

Me:
*blinks*
*astounded*
researched???? hehehehehehe....

Personally, I think that 'someone' *cough*writer-of-"article"*cough* 
should have read the Harry Potter books before writing this. Seems to 
me as if he contradicts himself throughout the "article".

Actually, this makes me feel sorry for him, that he can't even enjoy 
a book for the sake of fun without the need to look constantly for a 
deeper meaning. Nothing wrong with that, I enjoy doing that 
tremendously, but not 24/7...

The "article":
"there is so much good fiction out there"

Me: Good is relative. Personally, I read only one of Balzac's books, 
but I have made a pact with myself to avoid reading any more of his 
books if I can.

Shaun Hatley:
> "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
> common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
> the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
> to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
> The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia

I agree. It's very sad, though...
also it applies to the "very enlightened" that feel they need to 
spread their "enlightment".

Now I'm going to return to my paper, due in about 6 hours
*gasp*
Oh, Buddha! (as suggested that a fanfic character should exclaim 
instead of "oh Gods", for a change, don't remember whose idea it was 
though, so I'm trying it out now to see if I can implement it in a 
humorfic I'm writing) It's almost 5 am :((
Meira.
who has been reading for fun much less lately due to university, but 
if it weren't for university would never have learned to for ever and 
ever avoid Poe's works, if possible, and *love* Shakespeare :))

(and BTW, Merry Christmas to those that celebrate it, and if you 
don't go ahead and celebrate anyway, like we say here, it is a valid 
reason for a party ;-) and for giving gifts...)

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 25 08:55:07 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 08:55:07 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cordova 
"  wrote:
>   
> 
>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared 
on 
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself 
> smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the feeling 
> that the author missed the point in several parts of their message. 
> 
>   What are your feelings?
> 
>   Brian:-)
> 
> http://groups.msn.com/TheMagicalWorldofHarryPotter/toooldforhp.msnw

Well, I wish I had something really witty and profound to say. 
Unfortunately, the only thing I want to say probably shouldn't be said 
here. The closest I can come is, this guy is talking into his seat 
cushion.

It is clearly obvious that he hasn't read the book. How can you judge 
what you don't know?

Just at thought.

bboy_mn

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Dec 25 11:11:40 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 11:11:40 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter & Season's Greetings
In-Reply-To: <3E09867C.13009.6E9FDB@localhost>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" 
 wrote:

> Well, obviousy, I don't agree with it - but besides anything else, 
I think he missed a 
> fourth group of readers - voracious readers, who read more than 
that his 'regular 
> readers'

I agree, Shaun.  I don't have as much time to read now as I used to, 
but, like you, I read whatever tickles my fancy.  Apart from the 
usual Discworld, Dickens, and Eco books, at least once a year I get 
my old copies of Charlotte's Web and Goodnight Mr. Tom out of my 
daughter's bookcase and curl up for an enjoyable evening.  Who wants 
to read the same kind of stuff all the time?  That's boring, IMO.

> I think he expects *WAY* too much from novels - how about just 
reading for 
> enjoyment.

Hear, hear!  The occasional dose of mindless pulp is good for the 
soul.

On the back of this point, I think there's also an image issue here.  
The author points out that he sees adults on public transport reading 
these books.  As he does so, he makes judgements about these people.  
So, IMO, he is very conscious of others passing judgement on him.  
Does he really object to the content of the HP books (I agree with 
Judy that is seems that he's never even read them), or does his self-
image/self-importance not allow him to be seen with a book that 
doesn't ooze knowledge and self-realization?  How do we know that 
he's not sneaking into the toilet to catch up on the latest Jackie 
Collins book?  Is he incapable of realizing that the vast majority of 
us adult HP fans don't give a rodent's behind what he and his ilk 
think of us?  Does he know what the term "anal retentive" means?

Ah, well.  It's his loss, isn't it?

On another note, I'd like to wish all of you a happy festive holiday, 
and a Merry Christmas if you celebrate it.  In a moment I'm going to 
be mercilessly shoved off my chair, but that's my own fault as I'm 
the one who bought the kids new CD-Roms and they're dying to play 
with them ;)

Mary Ann

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 25 11:31:02 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 11:31:02 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter & Season's Greetings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Merry Christmas, everyone!  What are you doing reading this list?  Go 
be with your family.

Mary Ann wrote:

> I think there's also an image issue here.  
> The author points out that he sees adults on public transport 
reading 
> these books.  As he does so, he makes judgements about these 
people.  
> So, IMO, he is very conscious of others passing judgement on him.  
> Does he really object to the content of the HP books (I agree with 
> Judy that is seems that he's never even read them), or does his 
self-
> image/self-importance not allow him to be seen with a book that 
> doesn't ooze knowledge and self-realization?  

Bingo.  I thought this line was telling:  

"This is no different from taking them to see the latest Disney ? 
you'll laugh, you'll get into it, you may even have a good time. But 
would you actually book a ticket to go and see it on your own? Of 
course not; it might be seen as rather sad, if not downright suspect."

Not "it would be rather sad," but "it might be seen as rather sad."  
I think s/he'd enjoy life more if s/he didn't worry so much about 
what other people thought.

But this line was truly sad:

"Of course, we have all read similar books out loud to our children 
and enjoyed the experience, possibly enjoyed the book itself ? only 
because we were vicariously enjoying it through them."

If s/he's never read a book to a child and enjoyed the book itself, 
not vicariously but directly as a reader 
moved/amused/inspired/impressed by an author, well . . . actually, I 
just don't believe her/him.  It can't be done, unless s/he's reading 
her/his children nothing but See Spot Run.

Amy
feeling a sudden overpowering need to reread The Secret Garden for 
the 20th time

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Wed Dec 25 14:25:42 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:25:42 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter & Season's Greetings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:
> Merry Christmas, everyone!  What are you doing reading this list?  
Go 
> be with your family.

I have no family to be with.  My parents are dead, my siblings live 
over a thousand miles away, and the good Lord didn't see fit to give 
me a husband.  So I'm spending the day rattling around the net.

Those of you who have loving families, take time to be grateful for 
them and to give them an extra hug today.

Lady Tavington-Malfoy

From urbana at charter.net  Wed Dec 25 18:21:42 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:21:42 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter & Season's Greetings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:
> But this line was truly sad:
> 
> "Of course, we have all read similar books out loud to our children 
> and enjoyed the experience, possibly enjoyed the book itself ?
only 
> because we were vicariously enjoying it through them."
> 
> If s/he's never read a book to a child and enjoyed the book itself, 
> not vicariously but directly as a reader 
> moved/amused/inspired/impressed by an author, well . . . actually, 
I 
> just don't believe her/him.  It can't be done, unless s/he's 
reading 
> her/his children nothing but See Spot Run.
>
I have read all 4 Harry Potter novels to my 6-year-old daughter. I 
read SS and CoS myself long before she was ready to listen to them (I 
think she was about 4 then) and enjoyed them, but I enjoyed them much 
more when I read them aloud to her earlier this year. Technically 
they are "children's books" - but thanks to JKR's omniliteracy, the 
books overflow with (often sly) references to folklore, mythology, 
etc., many of which go straight over kids' heads.  The Harry Potter 
books, IMO, are great reading for adults as well as for kids, because 
they are full of the stuff of human existence -- drama, pathos, 
humor, suspense, suspicion, skullduggery, love, hate, valor, 
cowardice, etc. etc....and a little thing called The Battle Between 
Good and Evil. Anyone who can say that adults should be *ashamed* of 
reading Harry Potter must not have ever actually read the books 
him/herself. This person who thinks novels need to be "difficult" in 
order to have lasting value needs to get a clue, or two, or a 
thousand.

Anne U
(anyone ever tried reading "Under The Volcano"? I rest my case)

From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 25 18:24:46 2002
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:24:46 -0000
Subject: Merry Xmas (or whatever you celebrate, just celebrate!)
Message-ID: 

  "We see a lot of things in this profession Miss Mona.  But one 
thing I ain't never see, man nor woman, and that's a grownup."

  --Jewel the maid after Miss Mona complains of Ed-Earl being "a kid 
playing at being a grownup" in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas 

  No matter what your thoughts may be of the film itself, I have 
always loved that particular line as I find it to be so true.  
Somewhere along the line, we decide that we are "grown up" and can't 
enjoy the things that once brought us much joy (facing the dementors 
seems to be a part of "growing up").  

  When I was little, I loved Mary Poppins.  Then I "grew up" and 
decided that it was just to corny and too much of a kids movie to 
enjoy anymore.  Yet something very strange happened to me in my mid-
thirties.  I saw it again only to realize (real eyes?) how much I 
still enjoy it.  Having no children, I did not have the excuse of 
only wanting the kids to see it.  I wanted to see it again!  Screw 
what anyone else thought (including my own fearful thoughts of what 
it meant to be a "grownup")!   I was rediscovering the slightly 
misplaced art of being a kid, no matter how old my body got.  I still 
had the responsibilities of an adult, yet was I learning that one of 
those responsibilities was to be true to myself.  And that included 
allowing the little boy in me to come out and play at times.  

  I had heard of the Harry Potter series for some time, yet passed 
them off as "kid's books" and never thought too much about them 
(although I did find some Christian fundamentalist's responses to be 
quite interesting).  I didn't see the first film at the theater 
(though buying the DVD unseen and thoroughly enjoying it) and it was 
at the request of a fellow employee at work that we saw the second 
one.  Something nabbed me this time and I immediately went out and 
bought the books (and have since been back twice to see the movie, 
not to mention having thrown on the DVD several times as well).  My 
best friend/roommate and I read them all within two weeks (and are 
now within our second reading).    

  So what can I say?  The best Xmas gift I can give today is the gift 
of enjoying the magic of childhood.  

  No matter how old this "child" may be.

  A magical holiday one and all!

  Brian:-) 

  "Those who can laugh at themselves will never cease to be amused."

  --unknown                            

From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Wed Dec 25 18:29:10 2002
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:29:10 -0600
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
References: <1040811603.485.6810.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3E09F8F6.BE5EB8F5@pacificpuma.com>

"Brian Cordova 

> 
> 
> 
>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared on
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I did find myself
> smiling a number of times while not being able to shake the feeling
> that the author missed the point in several parts of their message.
> 
>   What are your feelings?
> 
>   Brian:-)
> 
> http://groups.msn.com/TheMagicalWorldofHarryPotter/toooldforhp.msnw
> 

I am also childless and 43 and think Jonathan Myerson needs to find
something else to do with his time then poke fun at adults who are not
afraid to read what they want, regardless of what age group a book was
intended for.  Its like the idiots who think ALL ANIMATION is for
children and bash Japanese Animae because its not all kiddie stuff.
There have been people who told me I am not supposed to like video games
at my age...or comics?  So what I am supposed to like?  Liquor,
cigarettes and sex?  Sorry, if I have to be a chain-smoking drunk
hanging out at bars, looking for a date to be an adult, I'd rather not
grow up...

Jazmyn (The 43 year old 'Toys R Us Kid') ;)

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Wed Dec 25 18:40:30 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:40:30 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: <3E09F8F6.BE5EB8F5@pacificpuma.com>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn  wrote:

.
> There have been people who told me I am not supposed to like video 
games
> at my age...or comics?  So what I am supposed to like?  Liquor,
> cigarettes and sex?  Sorry, if I have to be a chain-smoking drunk
> hanging out at bars, looking for a date to be an adult, I'd rather 
not
> grow up...
> 
Of course, one could do both groups of things.....  ;-)

Lady Tavington-Malfoy

From strayaluna at bellsouth.net  Thu Dec 26 00:39:49 2002
From: strayaluna at bellsouth.net (Dominique Medal)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:39:49 -0600
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter
Message-ID: <8A472096-186A-11D7-BF3F-000393065664@bellsouth.net>

"But I'm sure JK would be the first to agree that they are children's 
books"

And yet I recall her saying that she did *not* write them specifically 
as children's books.

What an idiot. They're good books. They're fun to read. They've become 
popular for those reasons. Of course people will read them.

His comments on the book having no deeper meaning? He ought to hang 
around HPFGU. We sure find a lot of them.

"it was shaming to read a kids' book"

Since when? If it's a good book, better than much of the drivel written 
for adults, then why not read it?

People like this are why I hate society.

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 26 01:31:34 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:31:34 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter & Season's Greetings
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

> I have no family to be with.  My parents are dead, my siblings live 
> over a thousand miles away, and the good Lord didn't see fit to give 
> me a husband.  So I'm spending the day rattling around the net.
> 
> Those of you who have loving families, take time to be grateful for 
> them and to give them an extra hug today.

I shall, and here's one for you, Lady T-M.

Amy

From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 26 02:36:42 2002
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 02:36:42 -0000
Subject: (Never) Too Old For Harry Potter
In-Reply-To: <8A472096-186A-11D7-BF3F-000393065664@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: 

  "If it's a good book, better than much of the drivel written 
for adults, then why not read it?"

  Amen to that!!  

  I always cringe whenever someone says anything to me that begins 
with the words "you should... (as the "Too Old For Harry Potter?" 
author seems to be doing)".  Yet as I once heard a very wise 
woman say:

  "Whenever anyone "shoulds" on me, I simply wipe the "should" off 
and go on about my business!"

  Brian:-)

From dradamsapple at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 26 05:08:58 2002
From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (dradamsapple )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:08:58 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter//Christmas greetings/ Family
In-Reply-To: <8A472096-186A-11D7-BF3F-000393065664@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Dominique Medal 
 wrote:
> "But I'm sure JK would be the first to agree that they are 
children's 
> books"
> 
> And yet I recall her saying that she did *not* write them 
specifically 
> as children's books.
> 
> What an idiot.

> 
> His comments on the book having no deeper meaning? He ought to hang 
> around HPFGU. We sure find a lot of them.

Dominique,

Thankyou!  If this "idiot" did any kind of research (or just 
searching the net for that matter) he would have found that JK has 
said more than once that she did not write these books for anyone in 
particular, but mainly for herself.

But I wanted to tell everyone that it was rather ironic that as I was 
sitting down to relax in front of the tube this evening, I came upon 
a PBS show about JK Rowling and the HP series.  It presented all 
kinds of theories of where JK may have come up with some of the ideas 
used in the HP series.  For example, does anyone know that Nicolas 
Flamel was actually a real person?  He actually was an alchemist in 
Paris, born in the late 1300's. (at least, that's what the program 
stated!)  I know from reading info on JK that she lived in Paris with 
her first husband, and so this may have been where she got Flamel 
from.  The program also talked about the many uses of mythology in 
HP: the centaurs; Cerebus (the three headed guard dog); Narcissa 
(Narcissus) and the general Narcissistic (?spelling?) attitude of the 
Malfoys; and also the similarity between the *trio* H/R/Hr and the 
other trio, King Arthur, Gueniviere, and Sir Lancelot. And, that 
there actually is a ghost called *The Gray Lady*, 
apparently "residing" in a castle in Scotland.   I could go on.
I personally think JK is a genius.  Or, her research is astounding.
(Of course, I don't even pretend to know what it's like to be a 
writer, that's why I read.)

While I was watching this, all I could think of was the comments made 
by this rather obviously, uninformed individual.  I mean, if he was 
informed, (or even read the books for that matter!), he would see 
these referances.
I know I didn't start studying Greek and Roman mythology until high 
school, so I don't know of too many 8,10, or even 12-14 year olds who 
would say "Geez, doesn't Fluffy remind you of Cerebus?"  So for him 
to say that these are only childrens books is sheer ignorance.

Unfortunately, I started watching this program as it was already in 
progress, so the title escapes me.  But as many PBS programs, I'm 
sure it will be on again. I'll post the name of it when I find out.

And a side note to Lady Tavington-Malfoy;

I think I can probably speak for the group in saying that we would be 
greatful to be called your *Honorary Family*!!

**Ok, everyone, let's all gather 'round and give LTM a great big 
Christmas Hug!!** 8-)

This is a great group, and I don't know what I would have done 
without it this past year!! It's been a great place for me to *hang 
out* when I need some company my own age! So, Lady T-M, I hope we can 
all be here for you too if you need us to be!

I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and may 2003 bring us all 
some joy!!

Anna . . .  

From dianasdolls at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 26 05:10:27 2002
From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana Lucas)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: <1040811603.485.6810.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20021226051027.29991.qmail@web40206.mail.yahoo.com>

Brian wrote:   
>  As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this
> message shared on 
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I
> did find myself 
> smiling a number of times while not being able to
> shake the feeling 
> that the author missed the point in several parts of
> their message.  
> 
>   What are your feelings?

I went to the article and read it and the author of
that article not only missed the point of Harry
Potter, they missed the whole point of novels existing
at all.  A great novel transports us to another place
and/or inside another person or time.  Sometimes they
can change our beliefs and minds, and other times they
entrance us in a world so rich and detailed that we
relish the short time we "live" there while reading
the books.  
The person who wrote that article is obviously a
bitter, unpublished author who can't understand why
their novels for adults aren't being published. 

The article's author's statement [to paraphrase] that
he/she is sure JK Rowling would be the first person to
say the Potter books are children's literature is
blatently incorrect.  JK Rowling has said in more than
one interview that she wrote the Harry Potter books
for herself; what she herself would enjoy reading -
not with children in mind.  In fact, she said in one
interview that she was surprised after her book was
accepted that it was considered to be "children's
literature".  

The Harry Potter books are being enjoyed by adults and
children alike because the stories grab our
imaginations and the characters have moved right into
our hearts.  They are well-written novels with
intricate stories and compelling characters. They
transport us to another world. Isn't that the very
definition of a great book?   Likening the Harry
Potter novels to "Now I Am Five" and other similar
books designed for small children learning to read is
ridiculous - and shows the author's animosity and
glaring jealousy toward JK Rowling and her success.  

Diana (36-year-old mom of two)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Dec 26 10:13:58 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:13:58 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Madhuri!
Message-ID: 

:::::throws new balloons around the room and places a large cake on 
the table:::::

Yes, the December birthday greetings continue!  Today it's the turn 
of Madhuri.  Madhuri can be greeted via the List or at 
madhuri567 at yahoo.com

Have a lovely day, Madhuri, and I hope you get some HP goodies!

Mary Ann
(TBE)

From gabolamx at yahoo.com.mx  Thu Dec 26 22:14:20 2002
From: gabolamx at yahoo.com.mx (Gabriela )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: <20021226051027.29991.qmail@web40206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

> The Harry Potter books are being enjoyed by adults and
> children alike because the stories grab our
> imaginations and the characters have moved right into
> our hearts.  They are well-written novels with
> intricate stories and compelling characters. They
> transport us to another world. Isn't that the very
> definition of a great book?   Likening the Harry
> Potter novels to "Now I Am Five" and other similar
> books designed for small children learning to read is
> ridiculous - and shows the author's animosity and
> glaring jealousy toward JK Rowling and her success.  
>   
> Diana (36-year-old mom of two)

I totally agree with you; I've been reading children-teens books 
lately, (and a couple of books for "grown-ups" too). I read the 
Series of Unfortunate Events books for my own enjoyment and I am 
about to finish reading them aloud to my 6 year-old daughter, and she 
loves them. I've noticed some of the persons in this group have 
mentioned Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials; would you recommend 
these books? I've been tempted to buy them, but I don't know what 
stops me from doing so. I would like to hear from you; and who knows, 
maybe we can give this Jonathan whats-his-name some material for a 
new article "Too Old for His Dark Materials" :)

P.S. Lady T-M receive a belated Christmas hug and a New Year's, one 
too.

Cheers,
Gabriela

From melclaros at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 26 22:17:16 2002
From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:17:16 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cordova 
"  wrote:
>   
> 
>   As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this message shared 
on 
> another board of some interest.  >   What are your feelings?
> 
Oh Blah blah blah...!
My feelings? First of all I have to wonder why this person cares, I 
mean really.

Then there's this little tid-bit: 
"Yes, I'm a writer myself,"
Well that pretty much answered the question. Jealousy. Plain and 
simple. I'm a writer too. I'd LOVE to have everyone read my stuff and 
have all Rowling's money. But they don't and I don't. However, I 
don't begrudge anyone reading anyone ELSE's published work, no matter 
what it is, unlike this "writer".

"When I rule the world, all editions will carry a heavy-print 
literacy warning: "This Is A Children's Book, Designed For Under 
Elevens. It May Seriously Damage Your Credibility." I can dream, 
can't I?"

Yup, and people can read whatever they damned well want and still 
will even with your idiotic label. What a weirdo.

The third group are the Regular Readers, for whom Harry is sandwiched 
between McEwan and Balzac, Roth and Dickens. This is the real 
baffler ? what on earth do they get out of reading it? Why bother? 

Because it's FUN. 
What on earth did this person get out of writing this? Besides 
25c/word? Why bother?

Hell one of my FAVORITE all time works of literature is Winnie the 
Pooh AND I have a college degree in English. People like 
this "writer" really need to get over themselves.

Melpomene

From heidit at netbox.com  Thu Dec 26 22:32:44 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:32:44 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <001f01c2ad2e$b6b63310$2401010a@Frodo>

> Real-To:  "Gabriela " 
> 
> > The Harry Potter books are being enjoyed by adults and 
> children alike 
> > because the stories grab our imaginations and the characters have 
> > moved right into our hearts.  They are well-written novels with
> > intricate stories and compelling characters. They
> > transport us to another world. Isn't that the very
> > definition of a great book?  

In yesterday's New York Times (which I finally have time to post about
today) at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/25/opinion/25BRUB.html, Holly
Brubach wrote about taking her father and mother to see The Nutcracker,
and said:

<>

Of course, no six or seven year old - and only the very very rare
thirteen year old - will appreciate all the nuances of mythology and
subtext that pervade the book. I've seen other adults try to apologize
for enjoying them - saying they're just kids at heart - when the truth
really is that the books, while written to be enjoyed by kids, are, in
fact, very adult. The plotting, the subtlety of the interpersonal
relationships, even the discources on right and wrong - none of htat is
for kids. Even CoS seemed *off* as a film when it was forced into PG
territory instead of PG-13 (it seems they did that by minimizing Harry's
"death scene" in the Chamber) and I'll be shocked if the film version of
PoA gets a PG instead of PG 13 rating. 

What child (read: 12 and under) should read GoF without at least having
a parent or teacher available for questions? Young Adult, possibly,
would be an age-appropriate definition, but then again, so is LOTR, in
terms of when it's taught in schools here in the states. I never see
such criticisms about LOTR or the Narnia books.

Why are they made about the HP series?

Heidi, mom of a 3 year old who has been told the stories from books 1-3
(although I read PS/SS before I was pregnant with him, and both CoS and
PoA before he was born)	

From sxyrch at hotmail.com  Thu Dec 26 22:58:27 2002
From: sxyrch at hotmail.com (rich fxt )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:58:27 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Oh Dear,

This person mentioned they they, too, are a writer.

I maybe wrong,  but I sense that deep, deep down, there is a very 
troubled,  unsuccesful, jealous and embittered person who just wished 
he/she had never heard the name Harry Potter.

While I am on the subject, I have just finished GoF, and find myself 
amazed at the complexity of the plot. I wonder how JKR formed the 
story. Did she use the method authors of murder msyeries found useful?
(many prefer to write the story 'backwards' and weave in layer upon 
layer of intrigue and misleading red-herrings}.

I am not a writer, I suspect many contributers to this forum are, so 
maybe they have their views on the formation of plots, but I can only 
say I am very impressed!  I cant wait for book 5!  

From ression at hotmail.com  Thu Dec 26 23:31:08 2002
From: ression at hotmail.com (ER )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:08 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter
In-Reply-To: <8A472096-186A-11D7-BF3F-000393065664@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Dominique Medal 
 wrote:
>  If it's a good book, better than much of the drivel written 
> for adults, then why not read it?
> 

Someone, C.S. Lewis perhaps, said something like this -

Any child's book worth reading at ten that isn't worth reading at 
fifty isn't worth reading.

Ignoring the second age limit, that's pretty much how I feel about 
it! I've just been re-reading (and enjoying) some old E. Nesbit 
books. She has a lovely sense of the ridiculous, a nice writing style 
that doesn't treat children as total idiots, much warm humour and a 
great imagination. And, like JKR, she throws in little observations 
that would go straight over a child's head and which are thus, 
presumably, aimed at adult readers.

Now, where did I put my Narnia/Famous Five books ...

Yuletide felicitations :)

ER

From insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Dec 26 23:37:53 2002
From: insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk (Scott )
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:37:53 -0000
Subject: Wands
Message-ID: 

Has anyone purchased a wand from Alivans.com? 

I was thinking of buying one, but I'm curious as to the quality and 
was hoping someone could provide some insight.

Thanks,
Scott

From urbana at charter.net  Fri Dec 27 00:09:35 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:09:35 -0000
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: <001f01c2ad2e$b6b63310$2401010a@Frodo>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy"  
wrote:
> What child (read: 12 and under) should read GoF without at least 
having
> a parent or teacher available for questions? 

I read SS, CoS and PoA pretty much verbatim to my daughter (who is 6)
earlier this year. When we were about halfway through GoF, a boy we 
know who is about 12 (and who's read all 4 books a couple of times) 
told me 'There's a lot of really *creepy* stuff in Goblet of Fire - 
so when you get to the creepy stuff, you might want to edit it a bit 
while you're reading it to her." I had no idea just how creepy GoF 
was going to be until we got to the part in which Wormtail cut off 
his own hand and put it in the "stew" that made Voldemort corporeal 
again. When I was about to read that out loud to her, I realized I 
needed to substitute "hurt his arm" for all references to amputation. 
I'm glad I did, because when Wormtail cut Harry's arm to get blood 
for Voldie, my daughter was very upset, and I had to reassure her 
that Harry had not been killed....especially since Cedric had been 
killed immediately before that. Maya, my daughter, is still a 
beginning reader and won't be able to read these books on her own for 
a few more years. Even though she's only in first grade, we've 
occasionally stopped during the stories and discussed plot points and 
things didfferent characters (especially Dumbledore) said. I'm glad 
I've already read them to her (and plan to read them again myself) so 
that she *can* ask me questions when she starts reading them. 

Anne U
(who gave Maya "FBWTFT" and "QTTA" for Christmas)

From melclaros at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 27 01:10:19 2002
From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 01:10:19 -0000
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Anne " 
 wrote:

> earlier this year. When we were about halfway through GoF, a boy we 
> know who is about 12 (and who's read all 4 books a couple of times) 
> told me 'There's a lot of really *creepy* stuff in Goblet of Fire - 
> so when you get to the creepy stuff, you might want to edit it a 
bit 
> while you're reading it to her."  

A wise child and one with wise parents! It astounds me how many 
parents are rushing their too young children into these books. When 
my son and I read GoF together when it was published he was 10. I was 
hesitant in a few spots and in some places he asked me to stop 
reading, he "needed a break". The books will be around for a 
LOOONNNGGG time. Lets let our children GROW INTO THEM! In one way, it 
is a relief that book 5 has taken a little while longer to come out. 
At least the kids who were "force read" GoF at age 5 (yes they were!) 
have had a couple of years to recover before it gets even worse!

Melpomene

From urbana at charter.net  Fri Dec 27 05:39:16 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 05:39:16 -0000
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros " 
 wrote:
>When 
> my son and I read GoF together when it was published he was 10. I 
was 
> hesitant in a few spots and in some places he asked me to stop 
> reading, he "needed a break".

> The books will be around for a 
> LOOONNNGGG time. Lets let our children GROW INTO THEM! In one way, 
it 
> is a relief that book 5 has taken a little while longer to come 
out. 
> At least the kids who were "force read" GoF at age 5 (yes they 
were!) 
> have had a couple of years to recover before it gets even worse!
> 
> Melpomene

We did take occasional breaks from reading the HP books, but only a 
few days at a time. It was actually my daughter's idea to read the HP 
books back to back. Many nights we'd finish a chapter and she'd beg 
me to go on to the next! We bought GoF at her school's book fair in 
September, and when we finished PoA about 2 weeks later she insisted 
that we launch into GoF immediately. I told her, this will probably 
take us almost 2 *months* to read (averaging 15-20 pages per night) 
and she insisted that we go ahead. Considering this child had never 
to listened to anything longer or deeper than a couple of Goosebumps 
and Mary-Kate and Ashley books, I thought her persevance and 
attention span was remarkable... but I digress.

I do agree that, given how dark GoF was and that the series will 
continue to get darker, it's a good thing there's been a delay. I'm 
not sure I actually want to read OoP to her when she's only 7. I 
might buy the book and hide it from her and read it myself before I 
even consider reading it aloud to her.

Anne U
(and now "to sleep, perchance to dream" but I hope not about HP 
stuff, because those dreams are usually too weird...)

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 27 12:23:57 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:23:57 -0000
Subject: Wands
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Scott wrote:

> Has anyone purchased a wand from Alivans.com? 
> 
> I was thinking of buying one, but I'm curious as to the quality and 
> was hoping someone could provide some insight.

I got one, and it is beautiful (maple with unicorn hair, as predicted 
by Sibyll Joywitch Curmudgeon) but not very consistent.  I have had 
great luck with my weather spells, getting a white Christmas many 
times over, but the dishes just won't do themselves no matter how 
often I command them.  And just yesterday, I made my TV remote 
disappear and can't seem to get it back.  Maybe I got a wand modeled 
on Mumford the Magician's by mistake.

;-)
Amy Z

From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 27 15:27:41 2002
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:27:41 -0000
Subject: Wands
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Scott 
"  wrote:
> Has anyone purchased a wand from Alivans.com? 
> 
> I was thinking of buying one, but I'm curious as to the quality 
and 
> was hoping someone could provide some insight.
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott

I don't have one from Alivan's, but I do have one from Jim Hartman.  
His wands are on ebay and they are fantastic!  He made one similar 
to McGonagall's for me, and he also made me a Harry wand.  I sent 
him a scan and he copied it for me.  I have wands from two other 
wand makers, but his are the BEST I have seen yet.  If you want to, 
just put in "wizard wand" on ebay, and if he has any up for sale, 
you'll see them.  Good luck!

Alora

From pottersangel76 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 27 17:56:38 2002
From: pottersangel76 at yahoo.com (Alyssa Bilano)
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Birthday, Madhuri!
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021227175638.36728.qmail@web21303.mail.yahoo.com>

~puts on court jester's hat and tosses wizard crackers at everyone,soon followed by evil balloon animals ~ 
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MADHURI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Love, 
Riddlegirl 
 "Mary Ann "  wrote: :::::throws new balloons around the room and places a large cake on 
the table:::::

Yes, the December birthday greetings continue!  Today it's the turn 
of Madhuri.  Madhuri can be greeted via the List or at 
madhuri567 at yahoo.com

Have a lovely day, Madhuri, and I hope you get some HP goodies!

Mary Ann
(TBE)

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From pottersangel76 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 27 18:10:17 2002
From: pottersangel76 at yahoo.com (Alyssa Bilano)
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Too Old for Harry Potter [hardly]
In-Reply-To: <20021226051027.29991.qmail@web40206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20021227181017.82742.qmail@web21307.mail.yahoo.com>

No one,and I repeat no one is "too old" for anything,especially Harry Potter,I mean come on! Who ever said that is a sick,ugly old cow! They had better hope my father never hears about this!(looks over at a man in a black cloak with scarlet colored eyes.) 
Love, 
Riddlegirl 
 Diana Lucas  wrote: 
Brian wrote:   
>  As a childless, 43 year old HP fan, I found this
> message shared on 
> another board of some interest.  While reading, I
> did find myself 
> smiling a number of times while not being able to
> shake the feeling 
> that the author missed the point in several parts of
> their message.  
> 
>   What are your feelings?

I went to the article and read it and the author of
that article not only missed the point of Harry
Potter, they missed the whole point of novels existing
at all.  A great novel transports us to another place
and/or inside another person or time.  Sometimes they
can change our beliefs and minds, and other times they
entrance us in a world so rich and detailed that we
relish the short time we "live" there while reading
the books.  
The person who wrote that article is obviously a
bitter, unpublished author who can't understand why
their novels for adults aren't being published. 

The article's author's statement [to paraphrase] that
he/she is sure JK Rowling would be the first person to
say the Potter books are children's literature is
blatently incorrect.  JK Rowling has said in more than
one interview that she wrote the Harry Potter books
for herself; what she herself would enjoy reading -
not with children in mind.  In fact, she said in one
interview that she was surprised after her book was
accepted that it was considered to be "children's
literature".  

The Harry Potter books are being enjoyed by adults and
children alike because the stories grab our
imaginations and the characters have moved right into
our hearts.  They are well-written novels with
intricate stories and compelling characters. They
transport us to another world. Isn't that the very
definition of a great book?   Likening the Harry
Potter novels to "Now I Am Five" and other similar
books designed for small children learning to read is
ridiculous - and shows the author's animosity and
glaring jealousy toward JK Rowling and her success.  

Diana (36-year-old mom of two)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From kelleythompson at gbronline.com  Fri Dec 27 22:41:08 2002
From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley )
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:41:08 -0000
Subject: Too Old for Harry Potter, another article
In-Reply-To: <20021227181017.82742.qmail@web21307.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

Here's another article that might be of interest:
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/2002/02/03/FFXU8DDA6XC.html

Mainly about the still wide-spread belief that children's books are 
inferior to 'adult' works, Philip Pullman has a few comments for 
Myerson and his ilk.  Can't recall if this article was mentioned in 
the earlier Pullman thread, so apologies if this ground's already 
been covered...

--Kelley

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sat Dec 28 00:46:54 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:46:54 -0000
Subject: Magical Christmas (was Wands)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Amy boasted:

>  I have had 
> great luck with my weather spells, getting a white Christmas many 
> times over

In the past year?  Do you get the full Christmas with every 
snowfall?  You must be exhausted

David

From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 01:14:50 2002
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:14:50 -0000
Subject: Magical Christmas (was Wands)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

MagicalMeteorologist!Me wrote:

> >  I have had 
> > great luck with my weather spells, getting a white Christmas many 
> > times over

David queried:

> In the past year?  Do you get the full Christmas with every 
> snowfall?  You must be exhausted

  Hey, it's nice to get a dose of Christmas once in a while, e.g. 
on those gray March days.

Nah, we got about 16 inches on Christmas Day.  I figure that's enough 
to blanket almost 6 Christmases in white.

Amy
who managed to avoid shoveling almost entirely

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sat Dec 28 01:37:06 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:37:06 -0000
Subject: Some TTT thoughts
Message-ID: 

Resolutely lowering the tone...

The trouble with the Ents is not that they have legs, but that they 
were taught to walk by Jar-Jar Binks.

Note to aspiring Evil Overlords.  When you send out your Legions of 
Terror, equipped with siege ladders, battering rams, explosive 
charges, and crossbow-launched grapnels, spare a thought for packing 
a set of portable bannisters: they are *so* helpful on those open 
ramps.

On a more serious note, that Arwen dream/flashback, or whatever it 
was, as a LOTR reader I could understand that Jackson was trying to 
get her into the story.  Had I been a non-reader, I think I would 
have thought that he was *trying* to suggest that Eowyn could 
supplant Arwen in Aragorn's affections, not tell us that he was 
already spoken for.  Perhaps that's so, but if so he doesn't follow 
it up well as otherwise he seems immune.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or did the Rivendell scene 
where Elrond looks pained as she marches off mean that in ROTK there 
will be a scene where they find a barely-conscious Arwen under a 
pile of Elf bodies?  Not only does that make the near-death 
experience even more commonplace, but it further confuses Arwen's 
and Eowyn's turf.  What's a shield-maiden to do, if elf-princesses 
go nicking all her best storylines?  One wonders if this was the 
real reason for bringing the elves to Helm's Deep, since they arrive 
too early to turn the tide of the battle (aspiring Evil Overlord 
note: *always* maintain a reserve, no matter how desperate the 
situation).  IMO Tolkein was never very convincing with his 'Last 
Alliances' anyway - he could always find room for just one more, and 
dredge the Elves out of the bottom of their barrel yet again.

When Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet Gandalf, they have to try to 
attack him, and this I think is a good example of my issue with the 
debate about 'drama' a few days ago.  It is clearly more dramatic 
(in some sense) for them to attack him and to bounce off as they do 
than to nearly do so and realise just in time, as more or less 
happens in the book, but is more always better?  It feels like the 
logic of the soap-opera, where you know that the characters, 
confronted with a choice, will always take the stupidest option, 
because it maximises the short-term gulp factor, whatever the long 
term sacrifices in consistency, subtlety, originality, and dare I 
say it, entertainment.

Faramir's temptation: I wasn't too bothered by making it stretch 
from Henneth Annun to Osgiliath.  What was harder to swallow was the 
instant volte-face once the Nazgul had swooped over a couple of 
times.

Oddly enough, as time passes, I am beginning to go off Jackson's 
LOTR and appreciate Columbus' HP.  Both of them have a depressing 
love of crashes and bangs, and there is a an interesting analogy 
between the Hogwarts prospectus feel of PS and the Middle Earth 
Tourist Board appeal of FOTR, but once you take these things away, I 
feel there is more left in the HP series.  So far.

Oh, and here's a Tolkein thought, no doubt completely done to death 
on the LOTR equivalent of HPFGU.  I am reading LOTR yet again, this 
time to my youngest child (at his demand over my protests) and this 
time round it is striking me as the grandfather of all those 
computer games where you have to reach your goal, wiping out enemies 
and picking up various objects, weapons, and medkits along the way.  
You know, arrive at Rivendell, add 40% to your health score, pick up 
Mithril shirt and Sting; when you get to Pelennor, use Barrow blade 
on Nazgul's tendon; to get to Level 6 you have to go through the 
Paths of the Dead.  Congratulations, you have reached Valinor/become 
King of Middle Earth/been elected mayor of Michel Delving.

David

From urbana at charter.net  Sat Dec 28 02:43:49 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:43:49 -0000
Subject: Magical Christmas (was Wands)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " 
 wrote:
>we got about 16 inches on Christmas Day.  I figure that's enough 
> to blanket almost 6 Christmases in white.
> 
> Amy
> who managed to avoid shoveling almost entirely

No fair, Amy -- could you send some of it my way?? Sorry, I know most 
people (other than skiers) don't usually *ask* for snow... but we in 
southern Wisconsin had a very dreary *brown Christmas* this year. 
It's hard to fully enjoy winter, and especially the holiday season, 
without at least a few inches of snow on the ground (active children, 
like mine, need to go sledding etc. during their time off school or 
they start to get serious cabin fever...). 

Anne U
(needs a charm to summon just enough snow to cover the nearby 
sledding hill)

From renitentraven at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 28 03:48:56 2002
From: renitentraven at hotmail.com (armillarygirl )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 03:48:56 -0000
Subject: Looking for transcript of the *big* mistake.
Message-ID: 

 Hi, never posted here before so here goes(takes deep breath):

 Can anyone point me to a site, or email me the relevant page, of the 
prior incantem mistake in Goblet of Fire where James comes out of the 
wand before Lily?

 I know this sounds ridiculous as it's been declared a mistake but 
I'm down here in the antipodes, have absolutely no opportunity to 
ever get my hands on a copy and simply *must read it*.

 My only excuse is that until J.K. publishes her shopping list or 
something I'm feeling mild withdrawals.

 Anyone that could help would of course earn my undying high opinion!

 Lisa
 (I have a theory is that Book 5 is finished and it won't be 
published until it can be dedicated to a certain new baby, but oh 
the wait is killing me)

From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Dec 28 07:34:09 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:34:09 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Looking for transcript of the *big* mistake.
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <016c01c2ae43$82df0150$0301a8c0@Frodo>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: armillarygirl  
> [mailto:renitentraven at hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:49 PM
> To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Looking for transcript of the 
> *big* mistake.
> 
> 
> Real-To:  "armillarygirl " 
> 
> 
>  Hi, never posted here before so here goes(takes deep breath):
> 
>  Can anyone point me to a site, or email me the relevant page, of the 
> prior incantem mistake in Goblet of Fire where James comes out of the 
> wand before Lily?

The images of the pages are here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Graphics/Publications/

Go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/3754 for
the first post to the list about the wand order issue

The Mysteries & Inconsistencies FAQ has the following to say about the
Wand Order issue (and the messages themselves are interesting, too!)

"Wand Order Issue" (Priori Incantatem) 
In the original versions of GoF, the shape/ghost of James Potter emerged
from Voldemort's wand prior to the shape/ghost of Lily Potter. Readers
later learn that the shapes/ghosts emerge from the wand in reverse
order. Since the previous 3 books had consistently indicated that James
Potter was killed before Lily Potter, readers speculated about this
latest twist. 

Yahoogroups Messages: 3754, 15297, 31284 

Both Bloomsbury and Scholastic quietly corrected later printings of GoF
without alerting the media. The rewrite is controversial to some members
(lacking the emotional depth and resonance of the original scene). 

Yahoogroups Messages: 25814, 25824, 25838, 25854, 25864, 25909 

Both publishers continue to maintain that it was just an error and that
JK Rowling has authorized the changed version. Some members claim that
they have found some later versions that were not corrected (even though
some printings prior to the one in question had been changed). It leaves
us all wondering whether the publishes reverted back to original text on
purpose at some point, but are now proclaiming it was an error that has
been corrected?

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 07:53:21 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:53:21 -0000
Subject: Wands (Alternative)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Scott "
 wrote:
> Has anyone purchased a wand from Alivans.com? 
> 
> I was thinking of buying one, but I'm curious as to the quality and 
> was hoping someone could provide some insight.
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott

bboy_mn comments:

The wand do look nice and are well presented with the case and all,
but I wonder if they are Maple and Walnut (for example) or Maple and
Walnut FINISH (stain). If they are common wood stained to the wood
colors described that makes the a lot less valuable than if they are
the genuine wood indicated. $35 is not outrageous; it's fair
considering the time and work involved. But in the end, it's just a
dowel and a peg; available at most hardware and building supply stores.

All you need to make a very similar wand is about $5 in parts and a
little effort. For instructions, see my published works-

http://www.homestead.com/bluemoonmarket/files/wiz/wizwand.htm

All you need is a dowel, a peg, a feather, some food coloring or dye,
and some wood stain. If you buy all these part, you'll get enough to
make two or three wands.

See photos on website above.

bboy_mn

From karnasaur at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 09:21:33 2002
From: karnasaur at yahoo.com (Archbishop Kristjan )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:21:33 -0000
Subject: Ian McKellen to play Dumbledore
Message-ID: 

I was hoping it would be Peter O'Toole, but can't complain.  This is 
from IMDB.com

British acting knight Sir Ian McKellen will replace the late Richard 
Harris as Professor Albus Dumbledore in the third Harry Potter movie. 
The 63-year-old star, who also plays wizard Gandalf in the Lord Of 
The Rings Trilogy, is set to appear in the third installments of both 
rival films - after signing to take on the role of the Hogwarts 
headmaster in Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. McKellen 
takes over the role from Harris - who died of cancer in October. 
Movie bosses had hoped to cast Harris in the new film - which is due 
to begin filming in February - by using computer animation and film 
footage. But they found they did not have the required film 
available. Fellow Brit Christopher Lee - another Lord Of The Rings 
star - was among those tipped to replace Harris. A source on the 
Warner Bros movie set says, "Everyone has been sworn to secrecy about 
Ian McKellen getting the role of Dumbledore. One of the production 
staff let it slip and now it is spreading like wild fire. He got the 
part just before Christmas but Warner's won't announce it until the 
New Year. Bosses thought he was the perfect replacement for Harris 
and, as we all know, he is capable of playing the part of a wizard. 
They are not worried about people getting The Lord Of The Rings and 
Harry Potter confused. They are two very different films." 

From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 10:57:59 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:57:59 -0000
Subject: Some TTT thoughts
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "David "  wrote:
> On a more serious note, that Arwen dream/flashback, or whatever it 
> was, as a LOTR reader I could understand that Jackson was trying to 
> get her into the story.  Had I been a non-reader, I think I would 
> have thought that he was *trying* to suggest that Eowyn could 
> supplant Arwen in Aragorn's affections, not tell us that he was 
> already spoken for.  

I would agree with you if we didn't have the scene where 
Aragorn returns to Helm's Deep.  The look on his face when 
Legolas gives him back the Evenstar tells us, and the 
watching Eowyn, everything we needed to know about 
where his affections lie.  Maybe that was the point of his 
fall of the cliff.  The whole thing, however, gets undercut 
by their hug at the end.  At any rate its purely an 
academic exercise for you and I to talk about the books as 
though we haven't read them - any non-readers out there 
who would care to share their impressions of this relationship?

> 
> Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or did the Rivendell scene 
> where Elrond looks pained as she marches off mean that in ROTK there 
> will be a scene where they find a barely-conscious Arwen under a 
> pile of Elf bodies?  

I sincerely doubt this.  As I said eariler, I expect Arwen to get 
all the way to the ship, only to gaze longingly into the East 
and decide to follow her heart.  Frankly, I think I'd be happier 
with her under a pile of Elf bodies.

> When Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet Gandalf, they have to try to 
> attack him, and this I think is a good example of my issue with the 
> debate about 'drama' a few days ago.  It is clearly more dramatic 
> (in some sense) for them to attack him and to bounce off as they do 
> than to nearly do so and realise just in time, as more or less 
> happens in the book, but is more always better? 

>From The Two Towers, Book III, Chapter 5, The White Rider:  
Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli have met an old man clad in grey 
robes whom they believe to be Saruman.  They have tried 
to attack him, only to find that they are unable to, as the 
old man begins to speak.

----------------------

   The old man turned away and went towards a heap of fallen 
stones and rock at the foot of the cliff behind.  Immediately, 
as if a spell had been removed, the others relaxed and stirred.  
Gimli's hand went at once to his axe-haft.  Aragorn drew his 
sword.  Legolas picked up his bow.
   The old man took no notice, but stooped and sat himself on 
a low flat stone.  Then his grey cloak drew apart, and they 
saw, beyond doubt, that he was clothed beneath all in white.
   'Saruman!' cried Gimli, springing towards him with axe in hand.  
'Speak!  Tell us where you have hidden our friends!  What have 
you done with them?  Speak, or I will make a dint in your hat 
that even a wizard will find it hard to deal with!'
   The old man was too quick for him.  He sprang to his feet 
and leaped to the top of a large rock.  There he stood, grown 
suddenly tall, towering above them.  His hood and his grey 
rags were flung away.  His white garments shone.  He lifted 
up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell 
ringing on the ground.  The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his 
motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire.  Legolas gave a 
great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished 
in a flash of flame.
   'Mithrandir!' he cried, "Mithrandir!'

------------------------

In this case, as in many others, Jackson has been truer to 
the book than we give him credit for.  I was certain, for 
example, that the gunpowder in the battle of Helm's Deep 
was his invention until I went back and reread the scene.  
As it turns out, with the exception of the three glaring 
changes that everyone noticed - changing Erkenbrand into 
Eomer, adding Haldir's elves instead of Eomer's riders, 
and removing the trees - the battle goes exactly as it 
does in the book.

> Oh, and here's a Tolkein thought, no doubt completely done to death 
> on the LOTR equivalent of HPFGU.  I am reading LOTR yet again, this 
> time to my youngest child (at his demand over my protests) and this 
> time round it is striking me as the grandfather of all those 
> computer games where you have to reach your goal, wiping out enemies 
> and picking up various objects, weapons, and medkits along the way.  
> You know, arrive at Rivendell, add 40% to your health score, pick up 
> Mithril shirt and Sting; when you get to Pelennor, use Barrow blade 
> on Nazgul's tendon; to get to Level 6 you have to go through the 
> Paths of the Dead.  Congratulations, you have reached Valinor/become 
> King of Middle Earth/been elected mayor of Michel Delving.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that those 
computer games - also known as quests - were influenced 
by this kind of literary genre.  

Abigail
Who really enjoyed the Hogwarts Christmas Play.

From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sat Dec 28 14:05:34 2002
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:05:34 -0000
Subject: Some TTT thoughts
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

> 
> > David wrote:
> > Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or did the Rivendell 
> > scene where Elrond looks pained as she marches off mean that in 
> > ROTK there will be a scene where they find a barely-conscious 
> > Arwen under a pile of Elf bodies?  
> 
Abigail replied:
> I sincerely doubt this.  As I said eariler, I expect Arwen to get 
> all the way to the ship, only to gaze longingly into the East 
> and decide to follow her heart.  Frankly, I think I'd be happier 
> with her under a pile of Elf bodies.
> 

Pip adds:

I think you're right, Abigail. A pile of Elf bodies would be 
preferable. :)

Reading the IMDB cast list (http://us.imdb.com/Credits?016726 ) for 
ROTK, Elrond's sons, Elladan and Elrohir, are not listed.

This gives me the truly awful feeling that Arwen is going to turn up 
with the banner... Or since Aragorn doesn't take the reforged Narsil 
with him, while the DVD extended edition of FOTR (guess what one of 
my Christmas presents was?) has Elrond announcing that Narsil 
*could* be reforged, she may well have the reforged sword instead.

BTW, this has always been one of my minor niggles with Tolkein. 
IIRC, he has Aragorn carting the shards of Narsil about with him; so 
in the inn at Bree, when he draws his sword, it's the broken hilt 
(and he actually says: "Not much use, is it Sam?).

Yes, Professor Tolkein. It's not much use. Poor old Aragorn has 
presumably spent the last few years wandering the wilderness, 
fighting orcs, bandits, trolls and lord knows what with what is 
effectively a very large dagger... 

I hope he was allowed a spare sword tucked away someplace :o)

> 
> In this case, as in many others, Jackson has been truer to 
> the book than we give him credit for.  I was certain, for 
> example, that the gunpowder in the battle of Helm's Deep 
> was his invention until I went back and reread the scene.  

Indeed it is there. I think the first time I noticed this was when 
listening to the superb BBC radio adaptation, which also made a big 
thing of Saruman's 'blasting fire'. And when I went back to the 
book, yup, Saruman knows about gunpowder. (Well, why shouldn't he? 
He is a wizard.)

Abigail again:
> As it turns out, with the exception of the three glaring 
> changes that everyone noticed - changing Erkenbrand into 
> Eomer, adding Haldir's elves instead of Eomer's riders, 
> and removing the trees - the battle goes exactly as it 
> does in the book.

> Abigail
> Who really enjoyed the Hogwarts Christmas Play.

Indeed, and the battle of Osgiliath is in the book. The only real 
change is that Faramir decides to let Sam and Frodo go much *later* 
than he does in the book, so we see some of Faramir's travels after 
he's left Ithilien for Gondor. But the events are basically as per 
book; only Sam and Frodo were originally not there to witness them.

Pip
(The Extended DVD is superb, btw. The extended edition of FOTR makes 
a *much* better film and the documentaries are excellent; almost a 
short course in 'how to make a fantasy film').

(Oh, and David? I really enjoyed the Hogwarts Christmas Play as 
well. Especially the Bridge of Khazad Dum.)

From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sat Dec 28 16:54:36 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:54:36 -0000
Subject: Some TTT thoughts
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Abigail wrote:

> As I said eariler, I expect Arwen to get 
> all the way to the ship, only to gaze longingly into the East 
> and decide to follow her heart.  Frankly, I think I'd be happier 
> with her under a pile of Elf bodies.

Ah, so you're saying that those elves leaving Rivendell while Elrond 
looks on were going to sea?  I thought they were off to Helm's Deep, 
at Galadriel's pleadng.  Comes of reading spoilers before watching 
the film, I suppose.
>  

> (Snip extract from TTT where Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet 
Gandalf)

D'oh! I had remembered their earlier qualms about attacking an old 
man from behind.  Thank you.

Pip wrote:

> since Aragorn doesn't take the reforged Narsil with him

How do we know the sword he has *isn't* Narsil (Anduril)?  I agree, 
I never understood in the book why Narsil isn't reforged until the 
time of the Council - were they worried Boromir wouldn't be able to 
find Rivendell if it wasn't broken?

David, who had great fun writing the Hogwarts play extracts

From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 22:04:32 2002
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (susannahlm )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:04:32 -0000
Subject: Shipping the Trio and the Twins  
Message-ID: 

Hi, just a quick thought here. 

I've been reading through the "Romantic Pairings" FAQ lately 
(*Gorgeous* work on the Fantastic Posts, btw), and some of the early 
R/H vs. H/H posts contained an interesting theory: that R/H fans and 
H/H fans split with each other on more than just Hermione. In other 
words, that R/H fans read *many* aspects of the books differently 
than H/H fans do. Some posters said that H/H'ers tend to go softer on 
the Slyths, for example. I think that this "split opinion" in the 
fandom, if true, is kind of an interesting idea, and was wondering: 
In re the old "Twins=Bullies" dispute on the main list, how do R/H 
types tend to view Fred and George? Bullies, or harmless fun-lovers? 
How about H/H? 

Derannimer (H/H'er [I think] who *really* isn't sure about those 
twins) 

From GinWeasRox at aol.com  Sat Dec 28 22:24:37 2002
From: GinWeasRox at aol.com (Brooks )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:24:37 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

In the early sixties I discovered the public library. Among other 
things I read the original novel "Peter Pan and Wendy". It is nothing 
like the Mary Martin musical or the Disney animated films. Peter is 
taking a nap in the forest and he is (as nearly as I can remember 
this is a direct quote) "attacked by a group of drunken fairies 
coming home from an orgy". In the musical Peter says, concerning 
Tinkerbell, "She wants to be something to me, but it's not my 
mother". In the book Tinkerbell's intentions toward him are more 
explicit. There is a graphic description of Captain Hook ripping a 
man's throat out with his hook. Good reading for children, hmm?

What little boy would not want to read Tarzan? In the films, for 
obvious reasons, Tarzan wears a loincloth. Not so on the printed 
page. Near the end of "The son of Tarzan" a young woman (not Jane) is 
rescued from a charging elephant by a proper British gentleman with 
whom she is aquainted. It was an intense struggle not to burst out 
laughing in the library as she never seemed to notice that the 
British gentleman had dropped out of a tree without a stitch of 
clothes on.

I have only been online for a few month's and have not read every 
post in every HP site, so perhaps you all know already. I stumbled 
across this bit of news in an almanac. The Hugo award is given to 
prestigious (adult) science fiction. Chosen as Best Novel for 2000 
was GoF.

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 28 23:29:53 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:29:53 -0000
Subject: Shipping the Trio and the Twins
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susannahlm "
 wrote:
> Hi, just a quick thought here. 
> 
> I've been reading through the "Romantic Pairings" FAQ lately ...
> ...edited...
> 
> In re the old "Twins=Bullies" dispute on the main list, how do R/H 
> types tend to view Fred and George? Bullies, or harmless fun-lovers? 
> How about H/H? 
> 
> Derannimer (H/H'er [I think] who *really* isn't sure about those 
> twins)

boy_mn throws in a shovel full of opinion:

Someone in the other group recently did a very good TBAY style
analysis of H/R vs H/H relationships -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/48909

...and I agree with her conclusion; in the end the answer is none of
the above.

I'm a H/R shipper although that's Harry/Ron but that's another subject
all together. In the TBAY analysis, Derannimer (susannahlm) points out
that neither relationship has enough dramatic potential to be worth
the time. We need drama and conflict; very little goes on in these
books that won't eventually have some dramatic significants. 

Although, H/H has more potential for drama because of Ron's jealousy,
and while some dramatic story could and probably will be built around
that, I think the true dramatic story will be that everyone is in love
with someone else. JKR has hinted this by saying people will be in
love with the wrong person. Harry is mooning over Cho, Hermione is
secretly mooning over Harry, Ron is mooning over Hermione, Ginny is
also mooning over Harry, and Colin is mooning over Ginny, and someone
else in mooning over Colin. Don't know who yet, but someone is mooning
over Ron too. Now that has potential for dramatic conflict.

I think, although massive speculation, that Ron will be hurt and
Hermione will realize how much she cares for Ron, and that will either
begin or imply the beginning of a boy/girl relationship between H/R.
It will be somewhat superficial, maybe a quick polite snog now and
then, and eventually they will both realize that they love each other
deeply, but not in 'that way'. When H/R finally come together (and no
not in 'that way'), it will be near the end of the book and the
resolution of their relationship may spill over into the book after that. 

So in the end, no one will really be lovey-dovey with anyone. 

So, assuming your original post was a request to take a poll. As an
obvious, although somewhat limited H/R shipper, I say Fred and George
are insensitive fun loving nice guys. Although, Fred is more
insensetive that George, but he's also more fun loving.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

bboy_mn

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Sun Dec 29 01:02:35 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:02:35 -0000
Subject: Too Old For Harry Potter?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Brooks " 
 wrote:
> In the early sixties I discovered the public library. Among other 
> things I read the original novel "Peter Pan and Wendy". It is 
nothing 
> like the Mary Martin musical or the Disney animated films. 

I know this is only vaguely related to your post, but my comment 
will be interesting to those on this board, nonetheless.

A non-animated version of Peter Pan is presently being filmed for a 
Christmas 2003 release.  Captain Hook will be played by none other 
than Jason Isaacs, whom we all know played the deliciously sinister 
Lucius Malfoy.  I've recently seen a picture of Jason in his Captain 
Hook getup, and let me tell you, he'll be just as drool-worthy in 
this role as he was as Lucius!

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Sun Dec 29 01:19:33 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:19:33 -0000
Subject: Canon Question
Message-ID: 

After writing 22 Deep Space Nine stories (23 in progress), 1 (so 
far) Patriot story, I am outlining my first story in the 
Potterverse.  It will feature the unique and unlikely pairing of 
Lucius and Hermoine's mother.  Does anyone know if she was ever 
given a first name in the books?  I've thought of a first name on my 
own, but if one already exists, I'll use that.  Thanks in advance.

From Malady579 at hotmail.com  Sun Dec 29 02:53:51 2002
From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:53:51 -0000
Subject: Canon Question and TBAY/SHIP
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Lord 1912 wrote:
> It will feature the unique and unlikely pairing of
> Lucius and Hermoine's mother.  Does anyone know if she was ever
> given a first name in the books?  I've thought of a first name on my
> own, but if one already exists, I'll use that.

She is not given a name in the series to date, but I have a feeling
she does have name somewhere in JKR's notes.  For now I think you are
safe.

boy_mn wrote:
>Someone in the other group recently did a very good TBAY style
>analysis of H/R vs H/H relationships -

Psst - Steve.  The person who wrote the SHIP TBAY on the main site is
the same one you are replying to here in OT.  Just thought you might
want to know.  

Melody

From Lord1912 at juno.com  Sun Dec 29 03:03:44 2002
From: Lord1912 at juno.com (lord1912 )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 03:03:44 -0000
Subject: Canon Question and TBAY/SHIP
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " 
 wrote:
> Lord 1912 wrote:
> > It will feature the unique and unlikely pairing of
> > Lucius and Hermoine's mother.  Does anyone know if she was ever
> > given a first name in the books?  I've thought of a first name 
on my
> > own, but if one already exists, I'll use that.
> 
> She is not given a name in the series to date, but I have a feeling
> she does have name somewhere in JKR's notes.  For now I think you 
are
> safe.

Thank you very much.   Now I need to find the right place to post it 
because it will most definitely be a NC-17 story

Lady Tavington-Malfoy

From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Dec 29 02:59:05 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:59:05 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Canon Question
Message-ID: 

There hasn't been a mention of either of Hermione's parents' names in the books. I've also never seen it mentioned by jkr in any interviews or her online chats, and while I haven't seen them all, in my work with the leaky cauldron, I've seen most of them. 

Good luck!

Heidi Tandy
Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce
http://www.FictionAlley.org 
-----Original Message-----
From: "lord1912 " 
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:19:33 
To:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Canon Question

Real-To:  "lord1912 " 

After writing 22 Deep Space Nine stories (23 in progress), 1 (so 
far) Patriot story, I am outlining my first story in the 
Potterverse.  It will feature the unique and unlikely pairing of 
Lucius and Hermoine's mother.  Does anyone know if she was ever 
given a first name in the books?  I've thought of a first name on my 
own, but if one already exists, I'll use that.  Thanks in advance.

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 29 05:40:35 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:40:35 -0000
Subject: Hugs to Birthday people!
Message-ID: 

I missed the birthdays of Martin and Jen and Catriona and Madhuri! 
Can I use the excuse that I don't know how to say Happy Birthday in 
Latin for Jen and Sanskrit for Madhuri? Hugs to all the birthday 
people AND to Lady Tavington-Malfoy.

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 29 05:57:53 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:57:53 -0000
Subject: Wands
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Scott " 
 wrote:
> Has anyone purchased a wand from Alivans.com? 
> 
> I was thinking of buying one, but I'm curious as to the quality and 
> was hoping someone could provide some insight.

I haven't bought any wands on-line from anyone, but it seems to me 
that http://www.thewandshop.com/ has considerably lower prices and 
http://www.bardwood.com/ has *much* more expensive but *much* more 
beautiful wands.

From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com  Sun Dec 29 08:57:26 2002
From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:26 -0000
Subject: Some TTT thoughts
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

David said:
>>>[LOTR] is striking me as the grandfather of all those 
computer games where you have to reach your goal, wiping out enemies 
and picking up various objects, weapons, and medkits along the way.  
You know, arrive at Rivendell, add 40% to your health score, pick up 
Mithril shirt and Sting; when you get to Pelennor, use Barrow blade 
on Nazgul's tendon... <<<<

And Abigail replied:
> Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that those 
> computer games - also known as quests - were influenced 
> by this kind of literary genre.  

I think it's much more specific than that. The games David mentioned
are computerized versions of D&D (Dungeons and Dragons), and D&D was
very much an outgrowth of the 1970's mania over Lord of the Rings. 
So, LOTR was the basis of D&D, which was then the basis for those
computer games.  So, yes, LOTR *is* the grandfather of those games;
hence the similarities. 

There are a number of fantasy stories that are derivatively, and
depressingly, like D&D games. (TV's "Babylon 5" spin-off, "Crusade",
was particularly bad this way -- it even had a thief in the party of
adventurers!)  However, LOTR can definitely claim that D&D is based on
it, not the other way around. 

All this talk of differences between the LOTR books and the LOTR
movies is making me want to read the books again. As I said, it's been
so long that I don't remember the story. Maybe I'll try to read them
before the ROTK movie comes out. 

== Judy, who also really enjoyed David's Christmas play. I especially
liked the casting of Snape as Gandalf.  Doesn't this implies that,
underneath it all, Snape is really a sort of angel? 

From eloiseherisson at aol.com  Sun Dec 29 14:15:51 2002
From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:15:51 -0000
Subject: Philip Pullman on Radio 4
Message-ID: 

Just thought some of you might be interested in today's interview 
with Philip Pullman on BBC Radio 4:

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/devoutsceptics.shtml

It doesn't really say anything new, I don't think, but is a general 
exploration of his beliefs and his intentions in writing _His Dark 
Materials_.

Eloise

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 29 21:38:07 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:38:07 -0000
Subject: Show Me The Money!
Message-ID: 

Does anybody have any links to sites, articles, or general knowledge
that indicates how much the primary players (Daniel, Rupert, Emma,
Tom) are getting paid for their roles in the HP movies?

I know for the first movie it wasn't much. It's potential as a box
office draw was a complete unknown, and the actors were inexperienced.
But now that the movies and the actors are a proven commondity, I
wonder how much money they are getting. I'm sure even if it's big,
it's small compaired to a fair share of the profits.

I read an article recently about Madam Hooch (forgot the actresses
name) but as far as she was concerned ALL the actors were being ripped
off by Warner Bro.s. 

(from the same article) Daniel Radcliffe was suppose to continue into
the second movie on his original five figure salary, but the Actor's
Equity Union stepped in and force Warner's to increase it to something
like $2 million. I assume that under the circumstances, to the Actor's
Union, $2 million was something like minimum wage under the
circumstances. Considering that actors like Lenardo DeCapprio and
others get $20 million up front for movies that don't make anything
near a billion dollars (and that just the moive, not the secondary
sources of income like merchandising).

Also, I seems that none of the primary actors are getting anything
from the use of their images in advertising, merchandising, art,
etc.... They get their base pay and that's it.

It think it's wonderful the the kids are having fun, and that they are
not obsessed with the money, but when they turn 18 or 21 and look at
it from a new perspective and see that Warner grossed several billion
dollars, then they look at the share they got, they are not going to
be too happy. 

True, even the lowest paid of the main three is still going to have a
substantial amount of money, and their future (hopefully) is going to
be secure and they can afford to attend any collage or university they
want. But still, considering the revenue they are generating, I would
like them to get something approximating a fair share. 

One concern I have about Daniel, is that his father, who appears to be
a very good father, has quit his job and is now Daniel's fulltime
manager. That's all well and good, but his father still has to pay car
insurance and pay the mortgage and utilities, etc... and the only
place I can see that money coming from is Daniel's money. I'm sure
Daniel told his father he could pay himself whatever he thought was
fair. But if fair is $100,000 a month, then Daniel will be left with
nothing. (I seriously doubt it's a $100,000 a month, I'm just trying
to illustrate a point.)

So, I'm curious if anyone has heard what the main four characters
(Dan, Rup, Emma, Tom) are making? Either from memory, or if you have a
link or an article.

thank to all.

bboy_mn

From urbana at charter.net  Sun Dec 29 22:24:09 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:24:09 -0000
Subject: Show Me The Money!
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " 
 wrote:
> Does anybody have any links to sites, articles, or general knowledge
> that indicates how much the primary players (Daniel, Rupert, Emma,
> Tom) are getting paid for their roles in the HP movies?

> So, I'm curious if anyone has heard what the main four characters
> (Dan, Rup, Emma, Tom) are making? Either from memory, or if you 
have a
> link or an article.

Steve, I can't recall where I saw this, but I did read online that 
Daniel made $110,000 (American) for SS/PS and $3 Million (American) 
for CoS (I will try to look it up). I, too, read that Daniel's 
father, Alan Radcliffe, is now managing his career full-time; I hope 
he's a good money manager too. Three million is obviously a drop in 
the bucket from the almost $1 billion the franchise brought in 
worldwide for SS/PS. Perhaps when Daniel and the others get older, 
their agents will get their contracts written so that the kids 
get "points" (a percentage of the gross) rather than a flat (albeit 
huge to the rest of us) salary.

Anne U
(thinking that 1% of almost $1 billion is close to $10 million:-)

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 30 00:26:38 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:26:38 -0000
Subject: Show Me The Money!
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Anne "
 wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " 
>  wrote:
> > Does anybody have any links to sites, articles, or general knowledge
> > that indicates how much the primary players (Daniel, Rupert, Emma,
> > Tom) are getting paid for their roles in the HP movies?
> 
> 
> > So, I'm curious if anyone has heard what the main four characters
> > (Dan, Rup, Emma, Tom) are making? Either from memory, or if you
> > have a link or an article.

> Anne:
> 
> Steve, I can't recall where I saw this, but I did read online that 
> Daniel made $110,000 (American) for SS/PS and $3 Million (American) 
> for CoS (I will try to look it up). ...edited...
> 
> Anne U

bboy_mn:

Thanks Anne, your figures for Daniel don't sound too far off. 

Curious what Rupert and Emma are getting. They are probably making an
effort for those figures not to get out.

Warner made nearly a billion (which in the US is a 1,000 million. I
believe in Britain, it's a million million) off just the movie alone.
Plus more from the merchandising and licensing. Now they are well on
the way to a second billion (maybe only half to three quarters of a
billion) for the second movie, and the third movie may not set any box
office record, but it will certainly be a very successfull movie. So
from three movies, I can easily see Warner grossing 2.5 (US) billion
at the box office. 

I think possibly one of the reasons the three main charaters are only
signed for three movies is that Warner realizes that sometime during
the third movie the actors are all going to wise up and want to
renegotiate their contracts for a fairer share. So, I'm guessing, for
these three unless they consent to work cheap. We will be starting all
over again with new actor for the movies after the third. And I
wonder, considering how hard it was to find the three original actors,
if they will be able to stick to the British only cast for movies
beyond the third. Personally, I don't see it happening. Maybe Hally
Joel Osmet (sorry if I spelled his name wrong. The 'I See Dead People'
kid.) will get to play Harry after all.

The Americanization of the movies might make a good movie, but I
suspect they will make a poor story, and will certainly not make money
like the first three. 

Just a few more thoughts.

bboy_mn

From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Dec 30 02:42:48 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:42:48 -0000
Subject: Fanfic in the News
Message-ID: 

Sugarquill was on Sunday's weekend All Things Considered!
<>

Find the RealAudio at: 
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=Decembe
r/29/2002

From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk  Mon Dec 30 13:01:39 2002
From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:01:39 -0000
Subject: Philip Pullman on Radio 4
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson 
"  wrote:
> Just thought some of you might be interested in today's interview 
> with Philip Pullman on BBC Radio 4:
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/devoutsceptics.shtml
> 
> It doesn't really say anything new, I don't think, but is a 
general 
> exploration of his beliefs and his intentions in writing _His Dark 
> Materials_.
> 
> Eloise

I heard it quite by chance - and found it very interesting, and 
thought that he ran rings around the interviewer.  He also managed 
to put a finger on the dissatisfaction I always feel with the ending 
of the Narnia Chronicles.

This may also be of interest to Pullman fans; Radio 4 are also 
dramatising His Dark Materials next week, with Terence Stamp playing 
Lord Asriel.

Catherine

From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 30 13:57:16 2002
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:57:16 -0000
Subject: Hows come...
Message-ID: 

  ...muggle repellant charms never seemed to work on Gladys Kravitz?

  Brian:-)

From bray.262 at osu.edu  Mon Dec 30 16:55:03 2002
From: bray.262 at osu.edu (Rachel Bray)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:55:03 +0000 (EST5EDT)
Subject: a bit early but...
Message-ID: <29ED445015E@lincoln.treasurer.ohio-state.edu>

Just wanted to send out a big Happy New Years to everyone!  

I'll be away from my computer for a week or so while 
traveling to and from Tempe, Arizona to watch the 
Championship game between my beloved Buckeyes and the Miami
Hurricanes.  

So, Happy New Year everyone!!  Hope you all have a 
wonderful time with your family and friends ringing in the
new year.  Be safe if you're traveling anywhere.

Rachel Bray
The Ohio State University
Fees & Deposits

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an 
angry, flying Ford Anglia.

From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Dec 30 22:01:41 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:01:41 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] a bit early but...
Message-ID: 

Sorry that you're traveling all that way to watch your team lose to my Caines. 

Heidi, from Miami
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Bray 
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:55:03 
To:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] a bit early but...

Real-To:  Rachel Bray 

Just wanted to send out a big Happy New Years to everyone!  

I'll be away from my computer for a week or so while 
traveling to and from Tempe, Arizona to watch the 
Championship game between my beloved Buckeyes and the Miami
Hurricanes.  

So, Happy New Year everyone!!  Hope you all have a 
wonderful time with your family and friends ringing in the
new year.  Be safe if you're traveling anywhere.

Rachel Bray
The Ohio State University
Fees & Deposits

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an 
angry, flying Ford Anglia.

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

From kristilynn5 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 30 22:08:26 2002
From: kristilynn5 at yahoo.com (kristilynn5 )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:08:26 -0000
Subject: HP scarves
Message-ID: 

I am trying my hand at knitting, and I have a question.  I am 
knitting a scarf with circular needles so it will make a tube, but I 
am confused about thesize of needle I should use and how to switch 
colors.  I started one with straight needles, but Idon't think I 
switched colors correctly.  Are their any avid knitters out there who 
could help me? 

Thanks oh so much,
Kristi

From bray.262 at osu.edu  Mon Dec 30 22:11:14 2002
From: bray.262 at osu.edu (Rachel )
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:11:14 -0000
Subject: a bit early but...
Message-ID: 

I'm all prepared to lose.  I just hope we give you a good run for 
your money for that trophy!

Rachel

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi Tandy"  
wrote:
> Sorry that you're traveling all that way to watch your team lose to 
my Caines. 
> 
> Heidi, from Miami

From rosewoof at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 30 22:35:04 2002
From: rosewoof at earthlink.net (Rose Woofenden)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:35:04 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] HP scarves
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

The needle size should depend on the size of yarn you have. If you've 
got a few different sizes, knit a swatch on a few different sizes, 
and see which you like better. Different needle sizes will give a 
different effect. If you have to go out and buy needles, then ask the 
people at your yarn/craft store, and they should be able to look at 
your yarn and tell you what size to use.

If you are doing a tube, use circular needles, it makes everything a 
whole lot easier. You will need to keep track of the spot where you 
are going to switch colors though, so that you do it on the same 
stitches. I suggest taking a small rubber "O ring" (you can get them 
at a hardware store for $.3o ish) and leaving it on your needles 
between the two stitches.

As far as changing colors, all you've gotta do is stop knitting with 
one color, and pick up yarn of the other color. Break the first color 
off, leaving 3-4 inches to tie it off. (Tie off by running the yarn 
through the back of some stitches.) Then knit with the other color 
until you've done the amount you want, and  switch back to the other 
one.

Hope this helps, it's hard to describe over e-mail...

>I am trying my hand at knitting, and I have a question.  I am
>knitting a scarf with circular needles so it will make a tube, but I
>am confused about thesize of needle I should use and how to switch
>colors.  I started one with straight needles, but Idon't think I
>switched colors correctly.  Are their any avid knitters out there who
>could help me?

From rvotaw at i-55.com  Tue Dec 31 00:20:23 2002
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:20:23 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Show Me The Money!
References: 
Message-ID: <000501c2b062$699f8220$82a2cdd1@RVotaw>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " 
 wrote:
> Does anybody have any links to sites, articles, or general knowledge
> that indicates how much the primary players (Daniel, Rupert, Emma,
> Tom) are getting paid for their roles in the HP movies?

According to the Internet Movie Database, Daniel was paid $110,000 for SS/PS.  He was then offered US equivalent $181,500 for CoS.  The Actor's Union Equity stepped in and negotiated new terms which increased his salary to approximately $3,000,000.  

I've never read any other actor's salary for either of the movies, though.

Richelle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 31 04:15:41 2002
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve )
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 04:15:41 -0000
Subject: Show Me The Money!
In-Reply-To: <000501c2b062$699f8220$82a2cdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Richelle Votaw" 
wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " 
>  wrote:
> > Does anybody have any links to sites, articles, or general knowledge
> > that indicates how much the primary players (Daniel, Rupert, Emma,
> > Tom) are getting paid for their roles in the HP movies?
> 
> According to the Internet Movie Database, Daniel was paid $110,000
for SS/PS.  He was then offered US equivalent $181,500 for CoS.  The
Actor's Union Equity stepped in and negotiated new terms which
increased his salary to approximately $3,000,000.  
> 
> I've never read any other actor's salary for either of the movies,
though.
> 
> Richelle

bboy_mn wonders:

Just to carry this a step farther, if Daniel is getting $3 million per
movie, relative to that, what do you think Rupert and Emma should get?

Personally, I think Ron/Rupert should get at least US$500,000 although
I think US$1,000,000 would be more fair. 

Just my personal opinion but I think Emma could be replaced easier
that Rupert. Rupert has a very expressive face, and not just wacky mug
shots. I think he is very good at conveying complicated, and subtle
emotion. And, he has just the right personality for Ron. 

But I assume that they would give them each (Rupert/Emma) the same amount.

As far as Tom/Draco, I think he is good, but he really doesn't get
that much screen time, so I really have a hard time guessing his
salary. .... maybe US$100,000. 

Just a little speculation. Partly for fun and partly because I'm
worried that at some point in the future the actors are going to
regret having settled for so little. I read somewhere that SS/PS has
grossed almost US$2 billion from box office and mechandising.
Absolutely no reason to think that CoS won't go well over a billion.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn

From skelkins at attbi.com  Tue Dec 31 10:02:11 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 )
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:02:11 -0000
Subject: Shipping the Trio and the Twins
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Hi, Derannimer!  

Oh, I find these sorts of questions absolutely fascinating!  Trying
to puzzle out how so many people can read the same text so very
differently is one of the main reasons I'm here, so it's nice to
see that these kinds of questions are of interest to other people
as well.

> Some posters said that H/H'ers tend to go softer on the Slyths, 
> for example. I think that this "split opinion" in the fandom, if 
> true, is kind of an interesting idea, and was wondering: In re 
> the old "Twins=Bullies" dispute on the main list, how do R/H 
> types tend to view Fred and George? Bullies, or harmless fun-
> lovers? How about H/H? 

Erm.  Well.  I guess if you actually read through that monstrous 
Twins thread, then you *know* where I stand on the Twins, right? 

They're bullies, Derannimer.  Definitely bullies.  

(Although I also agree with Shaun Hately that they're not really 
terribly hard cases.)

But as for the shipping question...well, that's a much tougher one 
for me to answer.  When it comes right down to it, I really have no 
opinion on the 'ship issue, other than the fervent hope that no 
matter how the love lives of the Trio might pan out, the series won't 
ever focus all that heavily on the romance angle.  

I'm not a big fan of romance, you see.  Not in fiction, and not in 
real life either.  When I read novels, I always find myself rooting 
for the characters to become contented, well-adjusted, fulfilled 
and happy *celibates.*

What, you think I'm joking?  

Ooooh, no.  No, no, no.  I'm not joking.  In fact, I am an absolute 
*crank* on this subject.  I'm notorious for it within my circle of 
friends.  I think that the entire romantic paradigm is evil and 
twisted and deranged, and this belief does, I'm afraid, make it 
rather difficult for me to enjoy around 99% of all romantic 
plotlines. 

So I guess that would make me a "no-shipper" then.

I'm also soft on the Slyths, btw.  And I've been given to understand 
that it's people like me what let the Death Eaters win.  ;-)

Elkins, who suspects that you would find a much higher correlation 
between how people view *Percy* and how people view the Twins...but 
honestly, now!  Where would be the fun in *that?*

From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Dec 31 13:44:21 2002
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann )
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:44:21 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Kate & Happy New Year!
Message-ID: 

:::::skips into the room and throws streamers and balloons around:::::

We have a New Year's Eve birthday on the List!  Yes, today we wish 
Kate, aka Persephone, a very happy birthday.  Greetings can be sent 
to the List.

Have a good one, Kate, and have fun!

:::::runs out of the rooms and returns rolling a huge barrel of 
fortified butterbeer in front of her:::::

Just a little something to get the New Year's Eve party going ;)  I 
wish you all a healthy and happy New Year, whether you're going out 
tonight to party your whatsits off or, like me, you're spending a 
quiet night at home with the family and sitting in front of the idiot 
box (I'm such a party animal...*cough* *hack*)

Mary Ann
(TBE & self-appointed well-wisher)

From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com  Tue Dec 31 14:01:59 2002
From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy )
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:01:59 -0000
Subject: Shipping the Trio and the Twins
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

Elkins said:
>  When I read novels, I always find myself rooting 
> for the characters to become contented, well-adjusted, fulfilled 
> and happy *celibates.*

Well, as far as we can tell, Snape is celibate.  However, he's not
doing well when it comes to being contented, well-adjusted, fulfilled,
or happy.

Actually, a lot of the adult Potterverse characters fit this profile,
it seems.

-- Judy, who wishes everyone a Happy New Year

From enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 31 16:16:28 2002
From: enemy2oftheheir at yahoo.com (Jamie, head of SMA)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Shipping the Trio and the Twins
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021231161628.95103.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com>

I am a hardcore HP/HG shipper. No doubt. And I think that this is an interesting topic. Yeah, most H/H fans are softer on the Slys, which I never really noticed. They usually have Draco end up becoming a nce guy and friend of the Trio, and in most cases gets paired with Ginny in a relationship. (I personally do not see a GW/DM romance in canon.) I tend to view Draco as a not-really-evil-just-misunderstood kinda guy. X_X I have a whole big elaborate theory in my little mind. Cassandra Claire is a good example of this idea. Very EXCELLENT authour of fanfiction, and does the Draco thing. (I am a huge fan of her.) But anyways. R/H fns tend to make Draco a very evil person, and favor Harry/Ginny, whereas H/H fans make Draco a good guy, and usually end up sticking Ron with someone like Lavender and Ginny with (so I have seen) Seamus. Oh well, I hope this was useful. PUMKIN PIE ROCKS!
 "susannahlm "  wrote:Hi, just a quick thought here. 

I've been reading through the "Romantic Pairings" FAQ lately 
(*Gorgeous* work on the Fantastic Posts, btw), and some of the early 
R/H vs. H/H posts contained an interesting theory: that R/H fans and 
H/H fans split with each other on more than just Hermione. In other 
words, that R/H fans read *many* aspects of the books differently 
than H/H fans do. Some posters said that H/H'ers tend to go softer on 
the Slyths, for example. I think that this "split opinion" in the 
fandom, if true, is kind of an interesting idea, and was wondering: 
In re the old "Twins=Bullies" dispute on the main list, how do R/H 
types tend to view Fred and George? Bullies, or harmless fun-lovers? 
How about H/H? 

Derannimer (H/H'er [I think] who *really* isn't sure about those 
twins) 

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From urbana at charter.net  Tue Dec 31 18:33:57 2002
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne )
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:33:57 -0000
Subject: Shipping the Trio and the Twins
In-Reply-To: <20021231161628.95103.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Jamie, head of SMA" 
 wrote:
> 
> I am a hardcore HP/HG shipper. No doubt. And I think that this is 
>an interesting topic. Yeah, most H/H fans are softer on the Slys, 
>which I never really noticed. They usually have Draco end up 
>becoming a nce guy and friend of the Trio, and in most cases gets 
>paired with Ginny in a relationship. (I personally do not see a 
>GW/DM romance in canon.) I tend to view Draco as a not-really-evil-
>just-misunderstood kinda guy. 

All these things do seem to pop up frequently in the H/H fan fiction. 
I'm not sure where they comes from either. I tend to see Draco as not 
evil, but emotionally deprived to the point of teetering on "the 
edge". I think Draco could go either way, and it will be very 
interesting to see how JKR (the only author who matters here) will 
develop him through the rest of the series. Personally I haven't yet 
seen a Slytherin student I really like, but that's just me; I'm not 
really attracted to "bad boys" (or girls). Beyond Draco, Crabbe and 
Goyle have always impressed me merely as his goons-in-training (and 
future DE's) and the Slyth girls have all made my face scrunch up.

>R/H fns tend to make Draco a very evil person, and favor 
>Harry/Ginny, 

IMO, this seems to me because R/H fans tend toward the One Big Happy 
Weasley Family scenario. Since they want Ron and Hermione to get 
together, it "makes sense" for Harry and Ginny to get together too, 
so that the entire trio becomes part of the Weasley family. I'd 
actually like to see a lot more of Hermione's family so that we can 
get a better understand of why *she* is the way she is. That's really 
been missing in the books so far.

>whereas H/H fans make Draco a good guy, and usually end up sticking 
>Ron with someone like Lavender and Ginny with (so I have seen) 
>Seamus. 

I ship H/H too but I'm not convinced Draco will ever becoming a "good 
guy" in canon (see above). I also don't see H/H pairing up till after 
Hogwarts - perhaps a long time after Hogwarts. I think Lori Summers' 
Paradigm of Uncertainty novel on Schnoogle.com is a great example of 
what H/H shippers see in the *potential* relationship. The fan 
fiction I really dislike is the stuff full of Mary Sue's 
who "transfer to Hogwarts" and suddenly all the boys, including Harry 
and Ron, are salivating over them :-(

Anne U
(not to mention all the NC-17 graphic shagging stories.... EXTREME 
SQUICK!!!)

From s_ings at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 31 23:56:01 2002
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:56:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Birthday, Kate & Happy New Year!
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <20021231235601.51968.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com>

Kate, I hope your birthday is fun and filled with
magic and happiness!.

Happy Birthday!

I will join Mary Ann in wishing you all a Happy New
Year and, like Mary Ann, will be spending the evening
watching movies and pigging out. Aren't us old folk
such fun? :)

Sheryll

 --- "Mary Ann "
 wrote: > :::::skips into the
room and throws streamers and
> balloons around:::::
> 
> We have a New Year's Eve birthday on the List!  Yes,
> today we wish 
> Kate, aka Persephone, a very happy birthday. 
> Greetings can be sent 
> to the List.
> 
> Have a good one, Kate, and have fun!
> 
> :::::runs out of the rooms and returns rolling a
> huge barrel of 
> fortified butterbeer in front of her:::::
> 
> Just a little something to get the New Year's Eve
> party going ;)  I 
> wish you all a healthy and happy New Year, whether
> you're going out 
> tonight to party your whatsits off or, like me,
> you're spending a 
> quiet night at home with the family and sitting in
> front of the idiot 
> box (I'm such a party animal...*cough* *hack*)
> 
> Mary Ann
> (TBE & self-appointed well-wisher)
> 
> 
>
________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
> 
> Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the
> group's Admin Files!
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/
> 
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to
> snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're
> replying!
> 
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it
> to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to
> HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf
> or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Unsubscribing? Email
> HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>  

=====
"We need to be united and strong. We'll have losses and scares, sure. And you'll be there for each other, helping each other through the bad times."
 blpurdom - Harry Potter and the Psychic Serpent, Chapter 26

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

From voicelady at mymailstation.com  Tue Dec 31 23:05:25 2002
From: voicelady at mymailstation.com (voicelady)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:05:25 EDT
Subject: Re [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy New Year Everyone!
Message-ID: 

Happy New Year, HPfGUs!

Wishing all of you a safe and prosperous new year!

Jeralyn, the Voicelady