From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 00:18:09 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] HP Book trunk set Message-ID: <702581.93650.qm@web60723.mail.yahoo.com> I want to get the books in the British version myself Hey, Is anyone else going to buy the Harry Potter series in the trunk ? It's all 7 books in what looks like a nice trunk. I'd love to add it to my, uh, "collection" but am hung up on spending more $ on this series ! I have several of each book already, plus the audio books. Anyone else have this dilema ? Kimberly "Don't bother me, I'm reading..." 7/21/07 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Mon Oct 1 00:57:03 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:57:03 -0500 Subject: Puddings Message-ID: <5C977DC08A6A4DDE882585ABF417745C@AmandaPC> General question somewhat related to the current food thread. I'm a native Texan, still living here, but I much prefer the Stephen Fry audio CDs to the Jim Dale. Stephen Fry read the British versions, obviously. So, I'm re-listening, and on this second time around I'm noticing many mentions of "puddings" in what seems to be a generic sense, not specifically referring to puddings themselves. It almost sounds like "pudding" is being used as a general term for "dessert," because after the text mentions they're having "puddings," some of the specific dishes that are mentioned don't seem to be puddings under either Brit or American usage-like pies and tarts and such. So, can anyone tell me if "puddings" is used in that generic sense, meaning "desserts"? Thanks, ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Mon Oct 1 00:59:39 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:59:39 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: pronunciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B93D792FD0A4A30AA1A56D305C6E5EC@AmandaPC> If it's any consolation, /th/ is a fairly difficult sound to pronounce; I can't remember the percentage anymore from my linguistics days, but very few languages even contain it. Not even all Indo-European languages have it. ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 02:40:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:40:53 -0000 Subject: Persy Jackson and Olympians series - Thank you Marion one more time Message-ID: I just wanted to properly thank you for these books since I am finished with the last book in the series so far. Fourth one is coming what, next May? I must say though - I highly highly enjoyed the books, it is non stop action, rather likeable main characters, FUN use of Greek mythology, which I know very well and enjoy a story that makes a good use of it. BUT BUT BUT, this IS the story that I cannot truly call original, I really cannot. I mean, I certainly would not call it Harry Potter rip off, but I certainly see rather big similarities in the set up ( abuse in school) and his choice of friends too. I mean, it is one thing to borrow from mythology and make it its own, which I totally do not mind and even allusions to other books I do not mind, but here it is just I do not know, a bit too much for me. As I said, not that I did not enjoy the story and not that it is just copy of HP, certainly not. And speaking about mythology, eh, can I call main character Hercules in modern clothes? So, I do recommend the book to kids, absolutely and for adults to enjoy a fun ride, but I do not know whether this is the book I will reread after series are finished. We shall see. Alla From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Oct 1 02:41:40 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:41:40 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: pronunciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47005E64.8020902@fastmail.us> Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > >> No idea - but, I can think of plenty of exact pairs for voiced/ >> voiceless "th" - "mouth" as noun vs verb is one. I was asking if >> there were any for her two different voiceless ones. >> > > "Mouth" as verb is pronounced differently than "mouth" as noun? > > My friend Lee told me that "the minimum meaningful difference test" > for voiced/unvoiced "th" is met by "either/ether". > > My two different unvoiced "th" pronunciations don't change the > meanings of any words because they are, I believe, a matter of dialect > pronunciation. Right - but are there any words that other people pronounce the 'th' identically, but you pronounce one with an 's' and the other with an 'f'? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 02:45:40 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:45:40 -0000 Subject: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food (Was: Yorkshire pudding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > > > Crackers or cabin bread depending where you're from. > > Carol: > > "Crackers" for "biscuit" as "biscuit" is used by Americans? > Really? > > Crackers for Americans are flat and crispy; biscuits are fluffy > and use baking powder rather than yeast to make them rise. > They're generally served with butter or margarine, sometimes > with honey or jam. Goddlefrood: Then you speak of cookies. The term is borrowed from the Americans. I've also come across biscuit used in parts of America (and last time I counted I'd been to 23 of your States) to describe what I would usually call a cracker. > Carol: > Possibly you're thinking of tortillas, Goddlefrood: I wasn't thinking of anything in particular, merely answering Catlady ;-) > Carol: > What we call Indian fry bread Goddlefrood: Having grown up in a non-PC world those of a certain age in Britain would distinguish between Indians from North America and Indians from India by adding the descriptor "Red". It's also in the Disney Peter Pan film, which my son enjoys. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 02:53:24 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:53:24 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <5C977DC08A6A4DDE882585ABF417745C@AmandaPC> Message-ID: > Amanda enquired: > So, can anyone tell me if "puddings" is used in that generic > sense, meaning "desserts"? Goddlefrood: Yes, it is. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 03:38:16 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:38:16 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol again: > Oops! I knew I forgot something. Here's a pic of American-style > biscuits, some of them whole and some sliced in half with butter > or jam: > > http://www.somekindofwonderfulrestaurants.com/Biscuit%20Butter% 20Jam%2001%20(Custom)%20(2).jpg Goddlefrood: Looks like a scone to me, although it could be a teacake. > Carol: > (You really need to try one, Goddlefrood, but somehow I don't > think I could send one all fresh and hot from the oven all the > way to Fiji.) Goddlefrood: You'd be surprised what the postal service can achieve, but if it's any consolation I've had these food items before :-) > Carol, who usually cheats and makes her biscuits from a mix Goddlefrood, who makes his own biscuit mix but usually eats it raw before baking. From n2fgc at arrl.net Mon Oct 1 05:08:56 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:08:56 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food (Was: Yorkshire pudding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003101c803e9$2b490c50$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Carol]: | Graham crackers are sweet and sometimes served with | peanut butter. [Lee]: Ah--and some Graham crackers are covered in chocolate...those are great! But nothing can compare with what my grandmother (my Oma, for those who share my German roots) could do with those crackers and cocoa butter cream whipped up with one of those old-fashioned crank-type egg beaters. She would take the Grahams or something we call Social Tea Biscuits and layer them with this cocoa butter cream in a casserole dish and make what was called an Icebox Cake. Nothing finer in the world! I'd kill to have one of Oma's Icebox cakes right now! :-) Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 14:42:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:42:44 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Carol again: > > Oops! I knew I forgot something. Here's a pic of American-style > > biscuits, some of them whole and some sliced in half with butter > > or jam: > > > > http://www.somekindofwonderfulrestaurants.com/Biscuit%20Butter% > 20Jam%2001%20(Custom)%20(2).jpg > > Goddlefrood: > > Looks like a scone to me, although it could be a teacake. Magpie: They do look like scones, but they're not like them--scones are...heavier? And it's a different flavor from a cake. You can get them in the UK if you're really interested, though I don't know how good they are. At Kentucky Fried Chicken they do sell "American biscuits" called that. -m (who has a mad passion for scones with clotted cream and jam) From donnawonna at att.net Mon Oct 1 15:56:03 2007 From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:56:03 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Clotted Cream Message-ID: <47011893.000003.03184@LIFESAVER> Okay, What's "Clotted Cream"? Donna in Dayton, Ohio [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 17:09:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:09:19 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <5C977DC08A6A4DDE882585ABF417745C@AmandaPC> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > General question somewhat related to the current food thread. > > > > I'm a native Texan, still living here, but I much prefer the Stephen Fry > audio CDs to the Jim Dale. Stephen Fry read the British versions, obviously. > So, I'm re-listening, and on this second time around I'm noticing many > mentions of "puddings" in what seems to be a generic sense, not specifically > referring to puddings themselves. It almost sounds like "pudding" is being > used as a general term for "dessert," because after the text mentions > they're having "puddings," some of the specific dishes that are mentioned > don't seem to be puddings under either Brit or American usage-like pies and > tarts and such. So, can anyone tell me if "puddings" is used in that generic > sense, meaning "desserts"? Geoff: Adding to Goddlelfrood's comment, UK speakers, when referring to the last course of a meal might variously call them "puddings", "sweets" or "afters". From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 17:54:14 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:54:14 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <47011893.000003.03184@LIFESAVER> References: <47011893.000003.03184@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: On 10/1/07, Donna wrote: > Okay, What's "Clotted Cream"? Clotted cream is quite glorious, a bit like the greek yogurt I just had for lunch and just as delicious and fatty. :) As far as I can tell, many folks like it on scones. I love it on everything, from American biscuits (so odd that I would have to specify that) to summer-sun-ripe strawberries. Here's a Wikipedia article that tells a little about clotted cream, but I don't know how accurate it is, considering this is wikipedia, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotted_cream Anyway, if you want, you can make your own approximation of clotted cream by filtering pasteurized (not ultra-pasturized) cream through a coffee filter a la the Alton Brown method. It's much easier than the method described in the wikipedia article. ~Ali From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 18:04:46 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:04:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Magpie: > They do look like scones, but they're not like them--scones > are...heavier? And it's a different flavor from a cake. Aren't scones also usually [lightly] sweet? Biscuits are very rarely sweet, though many folks I know eat them with honey butter. (Obviously, exceptions to both do exist, hence my usage of 'usually' and 'rarely'.) Regardless, biscuits and scones are very closely related, and I've had many scones that, were they not sweet and called scones when put in front of me, I would call them biscuits. Therefore, the difference just seems to be usage - both are good with clotted cream, and that makes both good in my book. :) ~Alexis From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 18:07:06 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <434413.31593.qm@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Aren't scones also usually [lightly] sweet? Biscuits are very rarely sweet, though many folks I know eat them with honey butter. (Obviously, exceptions to both do exist, hence my usage of 'usually' and 'rarely'.) Regardless, biscuits and scones are very closely related, and I've had many scones that, were they not sweet and called scones when put in front of me, I would call them biscuits. Therefore, the difference just seems to be usage - both are good with clotted cream, and that makes both good in my book. :) ~Alexis I always felt that Biscuits had a more fluffy texture to them and scones more firm (like a cookie). I could be wrong about this but that is the distinction that I have always made between them. Yes, they are extremely similiar. ~Melanie --------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 19:03:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:03:55 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: > > On 10/1/07, Donna wrote: > > Okay, What's "Clotted Cream"? > > Clotted cream is quite glorious, a bit like the greek yogurt I just > had for lunch and just as delicious and fatty. :) As far as I can > tell, many folks like it on scones. I love it on everything, from > American biscuits (so odd that I would have to specify that) to > summer-sun-ripe strawberries. > > Here's a Wikipedia article that tells a little about clotted cream, > but I don't know how accurate it is, considering this is wikipedia, > after all. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotted_cream Geoff: The article is fairly accurate except that I think it was written by a Publicity Officer in the pay of Cornwall..... :-) Cream teas are very much a part of tradition especially in the West Country counties of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the latter being the county in which I now live. Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry or raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted cream on top. Eat slowly and enjoy.... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 19:17:35 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:17:35 -0000 Subject: pronunciation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > VV for voiced TH is supposed to be a normal part of working-class > London dialect, which Toad told me not to call Cockney because that is > at closest only one flavor of many available. (Toad is a middle class > Londoner from working class parents, and Americans often think his > accent is Australian.) Gang kids supposedly called beating someone up > 'bovvering' them. Or knocking out their teef. Maybe Geoff can tell us > how the gang kids pronounced 'them' and 'their'. I can't imagine > anyone pronouncing them Vem and Veir. Geoff: That particular usage would usually only occur in an intermediate syllable such as "muvver", "bovver" for "mother" and "bother" or less usual at the end as your suggestion of "wivv" for "with" - but not at the beginning of a word. The other English usage very particular to London is the glottal stop which usually occurs with bad speakers with a "tt" in the middle of a word. Wikipedia suggests that it's a bit like the sound in the middle of the interjection "uh-oh". A Cockney for example will pronounce "better" as "Beh - er" with a break in the middle and no "t" sound. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 19:50:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:50:19 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > The article is fairly accurate except that I think it was written by a > Publicity Officer in the pay of Cornwall..... :-) > > Cream teas are very much a part of tradition especially in the West > Country counties of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the latter being > the county in which I now live. > > Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry or > raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted cream on top. > Eat slowly and enjoy.... Magpie: Cream teas, or as I like to call them "Food of the Gods." I first had it in Cornwall and never looked back. I can't imagine making the clotted cream, probably because it was so impressed on me it had to be Cornish. Even swapping out clotted cream from Devonshire was iffy for some people.:-) -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 21:06:01 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:06:01 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > The article is fairly accurate except that I think it was written by > a > > Publicity Officer in the pay of Cornwall..... :-) > > > > Cream teas are very much a part of tradition especially in the West > > Country counties of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the latter being > > the county in which I now live. > > > > Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry or > > raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted cream on top. > > Eat slowly and enjoy.... > > Magpie: > Cream teas, or as I like to call them "Food of the Gods." > > I first had it in Cornwall and never looked back. I can't imagine > making the clotted cream, probably because it was so impressed on me > it had to be Cornish. Even swapping out clotted cream from Devonshire > was iffy for some people.:-) Geoff: Hmmm. Try telling that to people who live in Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Hampshire and Sussex..... You might get rather dusty answers. ...not to mention people who live in some of the northern counties. Cornwall can't have it all its own way - anyway, the best bit of Cornwall is the Isles of Scilly, but don't start me on that.... From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 00:00:00 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33426 > Melanie: > I always felt that Biscuits had a more fluffy texture to them > and scones more firm (like a cookie). I could be wrong about > this but that is the distinction that I have always made between > them. Yes, they are extremely similiar. Goddlefrood: They certainly look the same from the picture supplied by Carol of an American biscuit. Scones shouldn't be too firm, a good scone should melt in your mouth but not be like cement to eat. They may well be slightly firmer than an American biscuit, however I wouldn't describe their texture as like biscuits (that's cookies to you Transatlantic types). In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33427 > Geoff: > Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry or > raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted cream on > top. Eat slowly and enjoy.... Goddlefrood: We are into a controversial area it seems, the age old argument of whether the jam should be spread before the clotted cream or the other way round. I use the clotted cream first and put the jam on top. This practice is frowned upon by some, something like putting milk into your tea first, which is a big no no. This latter is so as not to scold the milk and does make for a better taste as it happens and, therefore, is not just snobbery unlike the jam / clotted cream controversy. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33430 > > Magpie: > > Cream teas, or as I like to call them "Food of the Gods." Goddlefrood: An apt name, something akin to ambrosia, not that I've ever had ambrosia ... > > Magpie: > > Probably because it was so impressed on me it had to be > > Cornish. Even swapping out clotted cream from Devonshire > > was iffy for some people.:-) Goddlefrood: Despite being from the greatest dairy producing County in the UK, I would agree that Cornwall is the place where clotted cream is at its finest. > Geoff: > ...not to mention people who live in some of the northern > counties. Cornwall can't have it all its own way - anyway, > the best bit of Cornwall is the Isles of Scilly, but don't > start me on that.... Goddlefrood: Don't worry, I won't ;-) From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Oct 2 01:27:38 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:27:38 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c80493$6f4510c0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Okay, my question is: is the cream required to make clotted cream a special type? What makes the cream right for clotting versus any good heavy cream with which we make whipped cream? Is something added to thicken it? Thanks, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 01:40:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:40:20 -0000 Subject: American biscuits as British "cookies"? (Was: Tortillas and enchiladas ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood: > > > > > > Crackers or cabin bread depending where you're from. > > > > Carol: > > > > "Crackers" for "biscuit" as "biscuit" is used by Americans? > > Really? > > > > Crackers for Americans are flat and crispy; biscuits are fluffy and use baking powder rather than yeast to make them rise. They're generally served with butter or margarine, sometimes with honey or jam. > > Goddlefrood: > > Then you speak of cookies. The term is borrowed from the Americans. > I've also come across biscuit used in parts of America (and last > time I counted I'd been to 23 of your States) to describe what I > would usually call a cracker. Carol responds: "Cookies" to an American are what you call "biscuits." For example, Ginger Newts would be cookies, as would "biscuits" made with chocolate chips. But I was unaware, and still am not sure, that the reverse is ture. You call a fluffy concoction made with flour, salt, and baking powder and served with butter (or jam or honey) a "cookie"? The closest thing I encountered in England to an American biscuit was a scone. You seem to be saying that the usage is exactly backwards in the two varieties of English: British "biscuit" = American "cookie" (which is certainly correct) but British "cookie" = American "biscuit" as well? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really am not sure you're correct here. I was unaware that British English used the term "cookie" at all, but apparently, it's now being used for soft cookies, with "biscuit" reserved for hard ones. ("Cookie," btw, was borrowed by English colonists of North American from the Dutch settlers who preceded them.) But "cookie" for what we call a "biscuit" seems unlikely. This is an American cookie (British biscuit, right?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Choco_chip_cookie.jpg These are American biscuits (with honey): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Runny_hunny.jpg/395px-Runny_hunny.jpg Wikipedia calls them a kind of "quick bread," though I've never used the term myself. Here's a link to the article accompanying the photo (though I know you could have found it without help): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit Carol, not sure that we agree on what a "cracker" is, either (the edible kind, I mean) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 01:44:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:44:25 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <000f01c80493$6f4510c0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > Lee: > Okay, my question is: is the cream required to make clotted cream > a special type? Goddlefrood: No cream required to get started, just fresh milk. It's a process that has recipes around these cyber realms in which we dwell, two of which are: http://www.devon-calling.com/food%20and%20drink/clotted-cream.htm and: http://www.cornwall-calling.co.uk/food/clotted.htm The Cornwall variety is best, IMNSVHO. Happy manufacturing, should you care to try rather than buy. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 01:48:01 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:48:01 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream Message-ID: <20071002114801.CUO17690@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Goddlefrood: No cream required to get started, just fresh milk. It's a process that has recipes around these cyber realms in which we dwell, two of which are: Sharon: The problem is, where do you get fresh milk. All I can get here is homogenised milk. I guess i would have to go to an organic farm or something. We can buy clotted cream here at various gourmet markets, but it would be fun to try to make some. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 01:50:25 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:50:25 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream Message-ID: <20071002115025.CUO18241@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Goddlefrood: No cream required to get started, just fresh milk. It's a process that has recipes around these cyber realms in which we dwell, two of which are: Sharon: The problem is, where do you get fresh milk. All I can get here is homogenised milk. I guess i would have to go to an organic farm or something. We can buy clotted cream here at various gourmet markets, but it would be fun to try to make some. Sharon again: On reflection, I wonder if it would work if I just put fresh cream in a saucepan with skim milk -- that would be the same as the cream rising to the top right? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 02:03:12 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:03:12 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <20071002115025.CUO18241@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > No cream required to get started, just fresh milk. > Sharon: > The problem is, where do you get fresh milk. > Sharon again: > > On reflection, I wonder if it would work if I just > put fresh cream in a saucepan with skim milk -- > that would be the same as the cream rising to the > top right? Goddlefrood: Give it a whirl, but even cream is pasteurised. For best results fresh milk direct from the cow would be favourite. It's hard to come by anywhere these days, what with all the health na.. er, conscious busybod... um, authorities around. The EU or EC, or whatever they call themselves this week, is trying to ban the use of fresh milk altogether, as are many other similarly health conscious bodies elsewhere. Whatever happened to choice, hm? If I want to clog my arteries with high colesterol (sp?) delights why shouldn't I, is what I want to know. The old arteries could do with a bit of lining. There's nothing like cheese, cream, butter, clotted cream or many other milk derivatives made from fresh unpasteurised unhomogenised milk. Goddlefrood, done talking about anything made with flour for the time being. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 02:12:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:12:13 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Oops! I knew I forgot something. Here's a pic of American-style biscuits, some of them whole and some sliced in half with butter or jam: > > > > > > http://www.somekindofwonderfulrestaurants.com/Biscuit%20Butter%20Jam%2001%20(Custom)%20(2).jpg > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Looks like a scone to me, although it could be a teacake. > > Magpie: > They do look like scones, but they're not like them--scones are...heavier? And it's a different flavor from a cake. > > You can get them in the UK if you're really interested, though I don't know how good they are. At Kentucky Fried Chicken they do sell "American biscuits" called that. Carol: Ah, there's the answer, Goddlefrood. If Fiji has Kentucky Fried Chicken stores (shops, restaurants) that sell "American biscuits," you can find out what I'm talking about there (though you'll have to make do with margarine and honey from packets). Lighter and fluffier than scones and I like them better. They're best hot from the oven, not likely at KFC, unfortunately. Carol, noting that there's no sugar in an American bisbuit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 02:15:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:15:19 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: > Adding to Goddlelfrood's comment, UK speakers, when referring to the last course of a meal might variously call them "puddings", "sweets" or "afters". > Carol: I thought it was just called "pudding," no "s," as in "What's for pudding?" the way an American would say, What's for dessert?" And I thought "sweets" referred chiefly to what Americans call "candy." Carol, wondering how to make clear what we Americans mean by "pudding" From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 02:47:53 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:47:53 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Puddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> On 10/1/07, Carol wrote: > Geoff: > > Adding to Goddlelfrood's comment, UK speakers, when referring to the > last course of a meal might variously call them "puddings", "sweets" > or "afters". > > > Carol: > I thought it was just called "pudding," no "s," as in "What's for > pudding?" the way an American would say, What's for dessert?" And I > thought "sweets" referred chiefly to what Americans call "candy." > > Carol, wondering how to make clear what we Americans mean by "pudding" montims: Geoff was just giving the plural - generally, one would refer to it in the singular - "what would you like for pudding?" "What's your favourite pudding?" But for example you can say, "I can't choose - all these puddings look so delicious..." "My favourite puddings are treacle tart and spotted dick", for example. Certainly, sweet is used interchangably. One can usually tell what is meant by the context - "would you like a sweet?" at the dinner table is presumed to refer to pudding, or dessert (synonyms here). On a train would probably mean "candy", but never chocolate - when chocolate is intended, it is specified - "would you like some chocolate"/ "would you like a chocolate?" depending on whether it is being broken off a bar or spoken of generally, or in individual pieces... As I understand it, a pudding in America is gooey and fluffy, like blancmange, or Instant whip, in various flavours, sometimes with a pastry base. Would that be correct, more or less? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 03:08:56 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:08:56 -0000 Subject: Puddings and biscuits In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > montims: > > > As I understand it, a pudding in America is gooey and fluffy, like > blancmange, or Instant whip, in various flavours, sometimes with a pastry > base. Would that be correct, more or less? > marion11111: I was going to say it's like a custard, but I don't think there are any eggs in it. Milk, cornstarch, flavoring. I'm not sure what else. No one makes it from scratch anymore. In fact, I'm not sure you can even buy the mixes that you cook on the stove anymore. It's all instant. It comes in chocolate, banana, butterscotch (YUM!), and vanilla. I think I've seen lemon, but I've never seen anything pink. Anyone know of strawberrry pudding? A favorite childhood treat was cooked chocolate pudding (from a mix, but cooked anyway) served warm with cold milk poured over it. Back to biscuits. There are the light and fluffy KFC style biscuits and then there are the coarser breakfast biscuits. The kind you would pour gravy over and that are used in the McDonald's breakfast sandwiches. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 03:25:00 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:00 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Ah, there's the answer, Goddlefrood. If Fiji has Kentucky Fried > Chicken stores (shops, restaurants) that sell "American biscuits," > you can find out what I'm talking about there ... Goddlefrood: Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll stick to crumpets ;-) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Oct 2 03:54:30 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:54:30 +1000 Subject: A Little Bit of Lockhart... In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <209C9A66AFC34B74A897C043B849A613@ShaunPC> As people who've been on the lists for a while, and who have read my posts, will know, I am fairly interested in educational matters - particularly the education of gifted and talented children. Some of the topics I have posted on, connected to this interest, over the years are things like Hermione Granger as a gifted child, comparisons between the way Hogwarts might be selecting students and selection of children for gifted programs in schools, teaching styles, and the recurring favourite, is Severus Snape a good teacher or not. At times, in these discussions, I have mentioned my particular interests in educational affairs, and particular knowledge of educational matters, as a way of showing where I am coming from, and, of also, claiming a bit of expertise about what I am writing about. And on a number of occasions, I have mentioned that I had written a chapter of a book on gifted children that was going to be published in the US. And that's what this post is about. It has *finally* happened. It's been a long time - I wrote this chapter seven years ago. Rather amusingly (at least to me) I used the fact I had written it and it was soon to be published in my applications to universities in 2002, when I was seeking entry to an Education Degree. Something went wrong, and it didn't happen, and I found myself also using the fact I had written it and it was soon to be published in my job applications in 2006 and early 2007, when I had finished my Bachelor of Education. But now it has finally happened. I just received two copies of the book in the mail from the publisher, and checking Amazon a few minutes ago I have found that they now have copies in stock and are selling it. Why am I posting? Well, for a start, it's not everyday you get published - even if it is only one chapter of seven pages in a 370 page book with 30 total chapters. And I am proud of it. But also so people can see that I wasn't just blowing hot hair when I talked about it. This isn't intended as an ad - and I should stress that I get no money for the book (just two free copies and a decent entry in my CV) - but: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1575422611/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added/103-7828159-8937431 http://tinyurl.com/29now7 High IQ Kids: Collected Insights, Information, and Personal Stories from the Experts, edited by Kiesa Kay, Deborah Robson, and Judy Fort Brenneman. Published by Free Spirit Publishing Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2007. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | 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 marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 03:58:07 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:58:07 -0000 Subject: Persy Jackson and Olympians series - You're welcome! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > I must say though - I highly highly enjoyed the books, it is non stop > action, rather likeable main characters, FUN use of Greek mythology, > which I know very well and enjoy a story that makes a good use of it. > > BUT BUT BUT, this IS the story that I cannot truly call original, I > really cannot. > > I mean, I certainly would not call it Harry Potter rip off, but I > certainly see rather big similarities in the set up ( abuse in school) > and his choice of friends too. > > I mean, it is one thing to borrow from mythology and make it its own, > which I totally do not mind and even allusions to other books I do not > mind, but here it is just I do not know, a bit too much for me. > > marion11111: That's interesting, because I consider them one of the more original fantasy series BECAUSE of the mythology. I've never seen that plot device used before - fairy tales, yes, but not Greek myths. The idea of kids who go to a school or in this case, camp, because of their special abilities is straight out of Harry Potter. There are suddenly a lot of these kind of books - Charlie Bone is the worst written and biggest rip-off, yet I admit I found even these great fun for three or four books before I got tired of the set up. Of course, JKR took the whole premise straight out of Worst Witch - along with several major characters I might add. I found the story development or Percy Jackson to be more reminiscent of the old- fashioned adventure/mystery books like Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Trixie Belden, Famous Five, even Scooby Doo than Harry Potter. Our young hero and his/her sidekicks go off on an adventure to solve a crime or mystery with no adult supervision in sight. Along the way they get into tight spots and get out by luck and smart thinking and sometimes foolhardiness. Even Percy's sidekicks reminded me Nancy Drew's friends. I've tried to *sell* these to kids by comparing them to HP and that generally falls flat, but I find these sell well to kids who aren't all that wild about Harry. One student said "yeah, Harry Potter is really too silly for me. I like these because they're more realistic." I had to smile since I certainly don't know any descendents of gods and Grover wearing tennis shoes to hide his hooves is very very silly, but I do know what he meant. This series is associated with something familiar, something accepted as history/literature/religion, something studied in school. Oh and by the way, I saw that Chris Columbus is looking into making Lightning Thief into a movie. Hmmm. *cough* There are two more series I recommend quite often. The Artemis Fowl books have been mentioned by others on this board. Very unusual. Some fantasy, some techno sci-fi, lots of tongue-in-cheek humor. Funny books. And Gregor the Overlander which I love. A world full of characters that I feel I know personally. This series is classic fantasy, no real surprises here but very well done. These books have strong connections to the swashbuckling tradition - they remind me of Star Wars or a Dungeons and Dragons game. aack - battery low - gotta run From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 04:08:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:08:30 -0000 Subject: Persy Jackson and Olympians series - You're welcome! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla wrote: > > I must say though - I highly highly enjoyed the books, it is non stop > > action, rather likeable main characters, FUN use of Greek mythology, > > which I know very well and enjoy a story that makes a good use of it. > > > > BUT BUT BUT, this IS the story that I cannot truly call original, I > > really cannot. > > > > I mean, I certainly would not call it Harry Potter rip off, but I > > certainly see rather big similarities in the set up ( abuse in school) > > and his choice of friends too. > > > > I mean, it is one thing to borrow from mythology and make it its own, > > which I totally do not mind and even allusions to other books I do not > > mind, but here it is just I do not know, a bit too much for me. > > > > > > marion11111: > That's interesting, because I consider them one of the more original fantasy series > BECAUSE of the mythology. I've never seen that plot device used before - fairy tales, yes, > but not Greek myths. Alla: As I said, I enjoyed the books very much, but what I meant was not just allusions to Harry Potter as you said below - it had been done before and will be again, I have a feeling he is deliberately plays with them, having fun, etc. Although I could have live without Camp "Half-Blood". The name I mean, hehehe. But enjoy as I am allusions to mythology and clever use of it through the story, um, Persy quests ARE Hercules's quests if you peel the first layer from them. I had to laugh when he proudly proclaims in the last book that he is no Hercules. Um, dude, you are in my opinion ;) At least in your quests. > The idea of kids who go to a school or in this case, camp, because of their special abilities > is straight out of Harry Potter. There are suddenly a lot of these kind of books - Charlie > Bone is the worst written and biggest rip-off, yet I admit I found even these great fun for > three or four books before I got tired of the set up. Of course, JKR took the whole premise > straight out of Worst Witch - along with several major characters I might add. Alla: Yes. > > > Oh and by the way, I saw that Chris Columbus is looking into making Lightning Thief into > a movie. Hmmm. *cough* > Alla: Yes, cough :) > There are two more series I recommend quite often. > > The Artemis Fowl books have been mentioned by others on this board. Very unusual. > Some fantasy, some techno sci-fi, lots of tongue-in-cheek humor. Funny books. > > And Gregor the Overlander which I love. A world full of characters that I feel I know > personally. This series is classic fantasy, no real surprises here but very well done. These > books have strong connections to the swashbuckling tradition - they remind me of Star > Wars or a Dungeons and Dragons game. > > aack - battery low - gotta run > Alla: Read one of Artemis, did not enjoy too much, but will check another ones, definitely, thanks :) From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 04:58:24 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:58:24 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710012158v4bf9c0b6s2f367371174f4c95@mail.gmail.com> On 10/1/07, Goddlefrood wrote: > > > Carol: > > > Ah, there's the answer, Goddlefrood. If Fiji has Kentucky Fried > > Chicken stores (shops, restaurants) that sell "American biscuits," > > you can find out what I'm talking about there ... > > Goddlefrood: > > Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any > biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll > stick to crumpets ;-) montims: and further to my other post saying pudding can be singular or plural, I should like to stress that crumpets should always be plural or accompanied by a definite or indefinite article, as "crumpet" in the singular, sans article, means something quite different. British gents - is that still an accurate comment?! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 05:44:10 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 00:44:10 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] American biscuits as British "cookies"? (Was: Tortillas and enchiladas ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710012244p24148f04jdced77c91d94dde9@mail.gmail.com> > > Carol: > > "Cookies" to an American are what you call "biscuits." For example, > Ginger Newts would be cookies, as would "biscuits" made with chocolate > chips. But I was unaware, and still am not sure, that the reverse is > ture. You call a fluffy concoction made with flour, salt, and baking > powder and served with butter (or jam or honey) a "cookie"? The > closest thing I encountered in England to an American biscuit was a scone. > > You seem to be saying that the usage is exactly backwards in the two > varieties of English: British "biscuit" = American "cookie" (which is > certainly correct) but British "cookie" = American "biscuit" as well? > I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really am not sure you're > correct here. I was unaware that British English used the term > "cookie" at all, but apparently, it's now being used for soft cookies, > with "biscuit" reserved for hard ones. ("Cookie," btw, was borrowed by > English colonists of North American from the Dutch settlers who > preceded them.) But "cookie" for what we call a "biscuit" seems unlikely. montims: going off on a bit of a tangent here, why exactly are American non-sweet scone siblings called biscuits in the first place? Biscuit is a French word meaning twice cooked, as is biscotto/i in Italian. This is why the thing is crispy and drier and lasts longer than the more airy confection known as biscuit in America... Also, I pondered why dog biscuits were not called dog cookies here, but nobody I asked had a satisfactory reply... I feed my cats what I call "cat biscuits" and everybody else calls "kibble" - a bizarre word I'd never heard before coming to Minnesota... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 06:01:39 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:01:39 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol, wondering how to make clear what we Americans mean by "pudding" > Tonks: It seems to me that 'pudding' in the UK is something that uses flour and is not sweet. If you are eating it with gravy, it is not a desert, it is, IMO, a bread like substance because it uses flour and water and is not sweet. Pudding in the U.S. has milk and sugar and flavoring such as chocolate and something to thicken it, but not flour. It is sweet and like, as someone else said, a custard. Or think of it as somewhat like a cross between custard and Jello. Not in taste, but in texture. Sometimes it has egg in it, maybe.. I am not a cook. Most pudding these days come in a little cup, one serving, already made or in a can. I too like the ones that we use to make on the stove and let the milk get stalded a bit and then put in the Fridge to chill. And when you took it out it had that little thick film on the top, that was the best part. Yum.. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 06:09:59 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:09:59 -0000 Subject: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food (Was: Yorkshire pudding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > Having grown up in a non-PC world those of a certain age in > Britain would distinguish between Indians from North America > and Indians from India by adding the descriptor "Red". It's also > in the Disney Peter Pan film, which my son enjoys. Tonks: In the U.S. nowdays we say "Native American". From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 06:40:39 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:40:39 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On 10/1/07, Carol wrote: > > > Geoff: > > > Adding to Goddlelfrood's comment, UK speakers, when referring to the > > last course of a meal might variously call them "puddings", "sweets" > > or "afters". > > > > > Carol: > > I thought it was just called "pudding," no "s," as in "What's for > > pudding?" the way an American would say, What's for dessert?" And I > > thought "sweets" referred chiefly to what Americans call "candy." > > > > Carol, wondering how to make clear what we Americans mean by "pudding" > > > montims: > > Geoff was just giving the plural - generally, one would refer to it in the > singular - "what would you like for pudding?" "What's your favourite > pudding?" But for example you can say, "I can't choose - all these > puddings look so delicious..." "My favourite puddings are treacle tart and > spotted dick", for example. Geoff: (1) I /was/ using plurals for 'pudding; and 'sweet'. 'Afters' is an informal usage which has fallen a bit out of use but is said in that form. (2) From my dictionary: pudding:2 Chiefly Brit. the dessert course of a meal sweet > noun 2 Brit. A sweet dish forming a course of a meal; a pudding or dessert From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 06:43:15 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:43:15 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: Geoff: > > Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry or > > raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted cream on > > top. Eat slowly and enjoy.... Goddlefrood: > We are into a controversial area it seems, the age old argument > of whether the jam should be spread before the clotted cream or > the other way round. I use the clotted cream first and put the > jam on top. This practice is frowned upon by some, something > like putting milk into your tea first, which is a big no no. > This latter is so as not to scold the milk and does make for > a better taste as it happens and, therefore, is not just snobbery > unlike the jam / clotted cream controversy. Geoff: Curiously, i've never come across that as a controversial area. I can't recall seeing anyone putting on the cream first. As for milk in tea first or last, well that is a point of contention.... From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 08:54:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:54:45 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > > > Basically, you cut a scone in half, spread some strawberry > > > or raspberry jam on it and then a thick layer of clotted > > > cream on top. Eat slowly and enjoy.... > Goddlefrood: > > We are into a controversial area it seems, the age old > > argument of whether the jam should be spread before the > > clotted cream or the other way round. > Geoff: > Curiously, I've never come across that as a controversial area. > I can't recall seeing anyone putting on the cream first. Goddlefrood: We haven't met, but if we ever do over a scone, then you'll see it. Actually I often leave the jam off altogether and simply indulge in the clotted cream :-). There are those of us, and I'd count myself amongst them, who treat clotted cream like butter, which is why I apply it first. I have had odd, sneering looks in tearooms before now. Having never been a particularly bashful soul I enquired why the look, to which invariably the answer was along the line of: "you must be one of those". This same look would no doubt be bestowed on one should one put milk in a cup and then proceed to fill said cup with tea. Although I doubt it is where the word miffed originated I shouldn't be at all surprised. Goddlefrood, well aware that the indiginees of America are known as native Americans. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 08:58:35 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:58:35 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710012158v4bf9c0b6s2f367371174f4c95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > montims: > and further to my other post saying pudding can be singular or > plural, I should like to stress that crumpets should always be > plural or accompanied by a definite or indefinite article, > as "crumpet" in the singular, sans article, means something > quite different. British gents - is that still an accurate > comment?! Goddlefrood: It is largely accurate, although if you want to eat just one crumpet it would be quite alright to say: "I would like that crumpet". If at the time of saying this any women were present an eyebrow might be raised. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 11:48:23 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:48:23 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > montims: > > and further to my other post saying pudding can be singular or > > plural, I should like to stress that crumpets should always be > > plural or accompanied by a definite or indefinite article, > > as "crumpet" in the singular, sans article, means something > > quite different. British gents - is that still an accurate > > comment?! > > Goddlefrood: > > It is largely accurate, although if you want to eat just one crumpet > it would be quite alright to say: "I would like that crumpet". If at > the time of saying this any women were present an eyebrow might be > raised. Geoff: i think a safer comment would be "I would like a crumpet". My next comment I say blushingly as a person of sobriety, courtesy and calm. This would distinguish it from montim's area of observation where the comment might be "Are you fond of a bit of crumpet?" or similar. If that leaves you blank, I recommend a visit to a good dictionary which deals inter alia with Brit informal. :-) From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 12:29:09 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:29:09 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Puddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710020529m4ce8d92dq9246d9d35891a0b@mail.gmail.com> > > Tonks: > > It seems to me that 'pudding' in the UK is something that uses flour > and is not sweet. If you are eating it with gravy, it is not a desert, > it is, IMO, a bread like substance because it uses flour and water and > is not sweet. Pudding in the U.S. has milk and sugar and flavoring > such as chocolate and something to thicken it, but not flour. It is > sweet and like, as someone else said, a custard. Or think of it as > somewhat like a cross between custard and Jello. Not in taste, but in > texture. Sometimes it has egg in it, maybe.. I am not a cook. Most > pudding these days come in a little cup, one serving, already made or > in a can. montims: not strictly accurate - a pudding in the UK (unless it is a savoury pudding like steak and kidney, or blood, or yorkshire, for example) is no more or less than the sweet course that follows the meal. It can be elaborate or simple, and it can include those instant whip type of desserts. Trifle is a pudding, as can be stewed fruit - neither of those contain flour... On another tack, I am delighted to find Worcestershire sauce in the shops here, and also in some steak restaurants, and I love asking for it, as the server always needs to clarify - "Woo -ss - ss - ss - sh - ss?" In England, it's pronounced Wooster, pure and simple... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 13:47:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:47:58 -0000 Subject: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food (Was: Yorkshire pudding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Having grown up in a non-PC world those of a certain age in > > Britain would distinguish between Indians from North America > > and Indians from India by adding the descriptor "Red". It's also > > in the Disney Peter Pan film, which my son enjoys. > > Tonks: > > In the U.S. nowdays we say "Native American". Magpie: Though many Native Americans prefer Indian or use it interchangeably. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 14:01:31 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:01:31 -0000 Subject: American biscuits as British "cookies"? (Was: Tortillas and enchiladas ) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710012244p24148f04jdced77c91d94dde9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims: > > going off on a bit of a tangent here, why exactly are American non- sweet > scone siblings called biscuits in the first place? Biscuit is a French word > meaning twice cooked, as is biscotto/i in Italian. This is why the thing is > crispy and drier and lasts longer than the more airy confection known as > biscuit in America... Also, I pondered why dog biscuits were not called dog > cookies here, but nobody I asked had a satisfactory reply... I feed my cats > what I call "cat biscuits" and everybody else calls "kibble" - a bizarre > word I'd never heard before coming to Minnesota... Magpie: Couldn't say why it's dog biscuits. I've always called them dog biscuits, but when offering them to my dog growing up we always called them cookies. Iow, they were referred to as dog bisuits officially, but in referring to them we'd say, "Give the dog a cookie" or whatever. I've no idea why Americans started changing what biscuit meant, if we know cookie is Dutch. I have, however, always said kibble and I'm not from Minnesota. If you said "cat biscuits" I'd assume you meant like dog biscuits (cookies) for cats and not dry cat food. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 16:10:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:10:02 -0000 Subject: Puddings and biscuits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: montims: > > > > As I understand it, a pudding in America is gooey and fluffy, like blancmange, or Instant whip, in various flavours, sometimes with a pastry base. Would that be correct, more or less? > > > > marion11111: > I was going to say it's like a custard, but I don't think there are any eggs in it. Milk, cornstarch, flavoring. I'm not sure what else. No one makes it from scratch anymore. In fact, I'm not sure you can even buy the mixes that you cook on the stove anymore. It's all instant. > > It comes in chocolate, banana, butterscotch (YUM!), and vanilla. I think I've seen lemon, but I've never seen anything pink. Anyone know of strawberrry pudding? Carol: I think homemade pudding does have eggs, or at least egg yolks, in it.: basically sugar, cornstarch, milk, eggs or egg yolks, flavoring, and a little salt. It's sometimes used as the filling for a cream pie, so I would add coconut cream to your list and also the more gelatiny filling of a lemon meringue pie. I've had caramel pudding layered with chocolate in store-bought pudding that comes in little yogurt-sized containers. I wouldn't call pudding fluffy, more smooth and semisolid. You can definitely still buy the pudding mixes that you make on the stove instead of the instant just-add-milk-and-beat (stir rapidly) variety (Jell-o brand, for one). The only way I know of to make the filling of a lemon meringue pie, for example, is to mix and cook it on the stove before pouring it into the pie shell, topping it with meringue, and baking it. Not sure whether the filling of pumpkin pie (pumpkin, eggs, evaporated milk, sugar, spices), which definitely has to be baked, counts as a pudding if you bake it without the pie shell. Some people eat rice pudding, tapioca pudding, and bread pudding (he last probably being a British dessert), but I'm not fond of any of them. (That's an understatement with regard to tapioca.) And they're not what I think of as pudding. Carol, who has never seen strawberry, cherry, or orange pudding per se though those flavors are used for chiffon pies From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 16:16:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:16:09 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Ah, there's the answer, Goddlefrood. If Fiji has Kentucky Fried Chicken stores (shops, restaurants) that sell "American biscuits," you can find out what I'm talking about there ... > > Goddlefrood: > > Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll stick to crumpets ;-) > Carol again: Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking powder, salt, milk, and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can send you a recipe so you'll know what you're missing. :-) Carol, noting that her recipe for fruitcake (posted here at Christmastime) didn't get a single response, but biscuits are about a hundred times easier and cheaper to make (okay, ten times) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 16:28:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:28:01 -0000 Subject: American biscuits as British "cookies"? (Was: Tortillas and enchiladas ) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710012244p24148f04jdced77c91d94dde9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims: > > going off on a bit of a tangent here, why exactly are American non-sweet scone siblings called biscuits in the first place? Biscuit is a French word meaning twice cooked, as is biscotto/i in Italian. This is why the thing is crispy and drier and lasts longer than the more airy confection known as biscuit in America... Also, I pondered why dog biscuits were not called dog cookies here, but nobody I asked had a satisfactory reply... I feed my cats what I call "cat biscuits" and everybody else calls "kibble" - a bizarre word I'd never heard before coming to Minnesota... Carol responds: I can't answer the first question, but I was thinking about dog biscuits in relation to this thread and came up with the idea that they're a vestige of the British usage of "biscuit" for a hard, crunchy treat. They're not called "dog cookies" because they're not sweet, or so I imagine (never having tasted one *or* explored the etymology). As for "kibble," I've only heard the word as part of a brand name, Kibbles and Bits, for a cat treat. (I've never heard anyone say "cat biscuits," either. Carol, who would like American biscuits even if they were called tripe From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 16:54:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:54:40 -0000 Subject: The non-PC "Peter Pan" film (W: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood: > > Having grown up in a non-PC world those of a certain age in Britain would distinguish between Indians from North America and Indians from India by adding the descriptor "Red". It's also in the Disney Peter Pan film, which my son enjoys. > Carol responds: I remember watching that film as a child and not being sure whether to enjoy it or be embarrassed by it. We did refer to Native Americans/ American Indians as Indians in those days but not as "red Indians." But "what makes the red man red" and "when did he first say 'How'?" and so forth were clearly stereotypes even in my childish view (I'd never heard the word, but I had seen real Navajos and Hopis and Apaches and Zunis in the Pow Wow parade, held before the All-indian Pow Wow on the Fourth of July. Later, I went to school with Navajo children from the reservation (who didn't attend school in Flagstaff until fourth grade, when they were considered old enough to live in a dormitory and ride a bus to a regular public (U.S. sense) school.) I can see why people would find the stereotyping offensive even though it's intended as humorous (and surely, no one would see the depiction as realistic) although, IMO, we should all be a little less thin-skinned these days. At least the film offers equal opportunity stereotyping (it's not just Indians): mothers, fathers, girls, boys, pirates, and just about every other ethnic group except Jews and black people is laughed at in that film. (Well, mothers are idealized; everyone else is laughed at.) I didn't like the mermaids at all--they seemed to imply that pretty young girls (who happened to have fishtails) would make fun of and try to drown or injure a rival outsider. I'm not sure whether the stereotypes reflect the original James Barrie play or not, but I suspect they do. They seem to date to that era though some of the stereotypes survived into the 1950s, at least, and maybe the 1960s (girls and women, anyway). At any rate, I'm surprised that the film is still available and not censored by the PC crowd. The powers that be used to protect kids from profanity, sex, and violence. Now it's racial and religious stereotypes and smoking that they're not supposed to be exposed to. Carol, just commenting on the film and not defending stereotypes but not fond of enforced political correctness, either From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 17:02:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:02:46 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: > Curiously, i've never come across that as a controversial area. I can't recall seeing anyone putting on the cream first. > > As for milk in tea first or last, well that is a point of contention.... > Carol: Reminds me of the Big Endians and Little Endians in "Gulliver's Travels," arguing over which end of a hard-boiled egg should be broken first. (The big end, of course! That where the air bubble is. ;-) ) And milk in tea (to me, as an American) just sounds revolting. Just sugar, please, and a bit of lemon. On second thought, I'd rather have coffee. And (I know everyone will laugh at me), I actually prefer powdered creamer to milk or real cream or half and half in coffee. Milk is too weak and cream too sour or something--not sure why I don't like it. (I do love cheese, whipped cream, ice cream, and yogurt, so it's not an aversion to dairy products in general.) And, of course, sugar in the coffee. Carol, who also prefers margarine to butter for the same reason, that strange sour taste in real dairy products From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 17:12:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:12:16 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: If that leaves you blank, I recommend a visit to a good dictionary which deals inter alia with Brit informal. :-) > Carol responds: I recommend the English-to-American Dictionary, obviously compiled by a speaker of British English, given the name: http://english2american.com/ Carol, noting that at least a few definitions, notably that of "haggis," are tongue in cheek From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 18:56:16 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:56:16 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Geoff: > If that leaves you blank, I recommend a visit to a good > dictionary which deals inter alia with Brit informal. :-) > > > > Carol responds: > > I recommend the English-to-American Dictionary, obviously compiled by > a speaker of British English, given the name: > > http://english2american.com/ > > Carol, noting that at least a few definitions, notably that of > "haggis," are tongue in cheek Geoff: VERY tongue-in-cheek. The compiler has obviously seen the "Bagpuss" episode in which the tale of the lonely haggis and the bagpipe player is told.... From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 18:58:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:58:49 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Reminds me of the Big Endians and Little Endians in "Gulliver's > Travels," arguing over which end of a hard-boiled egg should be broken > first. (The big end, of course! That where the air bubble is. ;-) ) > > And milk in tea (to me, as an American) just sounds revolting. Just > sugar, please, and a bit of lemon. On second thought, I'd rather have > coffee. Magpie: Just to add my own vote: As an American I like milk in my tea absolutely--no lemon for me. That's the way I've always had it (with so much milk my mother has been known to call mine "nursery tea" but she drinks it with milk too). I put my tea in first, and my jam before my clotted cream. And I've never had coffee in my life.:-) -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 19:01:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:01:03 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710020529m4ce8d92dq9246d9d35891a0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: montims: > On another tack, I am delighted to find Worcestershire sauce in the shops > here, and also in some steak restaurants, and I love asking for it, as the > server always needs to clarify - "Woo -ss - ss - ss - sh - ss?" In England, > it's pronounced Wooster, pure and simple... Geoff: Not quite correct. It doesn't rhyme with 'rooster'. It's more 'wuss-ter' rhyming perhaps with 'fluster' and 'muster'. Another fun one for the North Americans is Leicester (or Leicestershire) pronounced 'less-ter'. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 19:16:57 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:16:57 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Puddings In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40710020529m4ce8d92dq9246d9d35891a0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710021216k7b740c7aof6d13a6d0c095f10@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/07, Geoff Bannister wrote: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > montims: > > > On another tack, I am delighted to find Worcestershire sauce in the > shops > > here, and also in some steak restaurants, and I love asking for it, as > the > > server always needs to clarify - "Woo -ss - ss - ss - sh - ss?" In > England, > > it's pronounced Wooster, pure and simple... > > Geoff: > Not quite correct. It doesn't rhyme with 'rooster'. It's more 'wuss-ter' > rhyming > perhaps with 'fluster' and 'muster'. Another fun one for the North > Americans > is Leicester (or Leicestershire) pronounced 'less-ter'. motims: no, no, no... the first syllable rhymes with book (or Bush), surely? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bhobbs36 at verizon.net Tue Oct 2 19:24:52 2007 From: bhobbs36 at verizon.net (Belinda) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:24:52 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff: Another fun one for the North Americans > is Leicester (or Leicestershire) pronounced 'less-ter'. > HAHA, yes! I had a penpal in 4th grade from Oadby Leicester. I learned (from her) to say Leicestershire as "less-ter", but in order to spell it I had to say "lie-chest-er-shy-er" in my head. heehee *sigh* I think about her often, we lost touch in High school... I'd sure love to find her again. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 19:26:42 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:26:42 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > montims: > > > On another tack, I am delighted to find Worcestershire sauce in the shops > > here, and also in some steak restaurants, and I love asking for it, as the > > server always needs to clarify - "Woo -ss - ss - ss - sh - ss?" In England, > > it's pronounced Wooster, pure and simple... > > Geoff: > Not quite correct. It doesn't rhyme with 'rooster'. It's more 'wuss-ter' rhyming > perhaps with 'fluster' and 'muster'. Another fun one for the North Americans > is Leicester (or Leicestershire) pronounced 'less-ter'. Magpie: Technically, Worcester is pronounced the same way here too. Though I do say "Woo-ss-te-sheer" (I'm not writing it quite right, but you know what I mean) sauce, I pronounce Worcester, Massachussetts as "Wooster" (like its inhabitants). -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 19:39:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:39:14 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Carol: > > Reminds me of the Big Endians and Little Endians in "Gulliver's > > Travels," arguing over which end of a hard-boiled egg should be > broken > > first. (The big end, of course! That where the air bubble is. ;- ) ) > > > > And milk in tea (to me, as an American) just sounds revolting. Just > > sugar, please, and a bit of lemon. On second thought, I'd rather > have > > coffee. > > Magpie: > Just to add my own vote: As an American I like milk in my tea > absolutely--no lemon for me. That's the way I've always had it (with > so much milk my mother has been known to call mine "nursery tea" but > she drinks it with milk too). I put my tea in first, and my jam > before my clotted cream. > > And I've never had coffee in my life.:-) Alla: Heeee, you guys are making me SOOOOO hungry and thirsty with all the puddings, jams, scones, clotted creams. I love tea and coffee with half and half or milk and sugar or tea with sugar or lemon. OR just tea with nothing or honey. Just quick question - what does that have to do with being american? Liking or not liking tea with milk? :) I am guessing that this is a joke, but am slow today, so please clue me in if there is one :) Thanks. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 20:04:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:04:12 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > Heeee, you guys are making me SOOOOO hungry and thirsty with all the > puddings, jams, scones, clotted creams. I love tea and coffee with > half and half or milk and sugar or tea with sugar or lemon. > > OR just tea with nothing or honey. > > Just quick question - what does that have to do with being american? > > Liking or not liking tea with milk? :) > > I am guessing that this is a joke, but am slow today, so please clue > me in if there is one :) > > Thanks. Magpie: In my own experience, it seemed like people felt tea with milk was more the norm in the UK while in Europe it was more often served with lemon. Many Americans also take it with lemon. A friend of mine worked in a restaurant in the UK and found that the customers expected something special if they ordered the tea with lemon, like it came in a different kind of glass etc. She'd always just made tea the regular way and dropped lemon into it. But maybe that was just the one place in Bristol. Anyway, it seemed like tea with milk was considered more British-- though that came as news to me. (Though my sister always drank it with lemon iirc.) -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 20:09:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:09:23 -0000 Subject: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > > ... > > Carol, wondering how to make clear what we Americans > mean by "pudding" > bboyminn: Well the absolute essence of American Pudding, though not necessarily the essence of flavor, is Jello Instant Pudding - http://www.kraftfoods.com/jello/products/pudding/instant-pudding-and-pie-filling/ in several lovely flavors including Pumpkin Spice. Very similar to custard but without eggs. Light and fluffy, and probably made with 100% chemicals, but still sure to tickle the tastebuds of any kids. Steve/bboyminn From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 21:32:16 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:32:16 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream Message-ID: <20071003073216.CUP11257@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> > Alla: > > Heeee, you guys are making me SOOOOO hungry and > thirsty with all the > puddings, jams, scones, clotted creams. I love tea > and coffee with > half and half or milk and sugar or tea with sugar or > lemon. > > OR just tea with nothing or honey. > > Just quick question - what does that have to do with > being american? > > Liking or not liking tea with milk? :) > Sharon: Tea originally was brought from India (or somewhere there) to England and was always served hot with milk and sugar to taste. It's a traditional English beverage. Americans tend to put a different spin on it and most Americans drink tea iced, though as you say, some do drink it hot. So Iced tea is very American and it's hard to get a cup of hot tea anywhere in the US unless you make it yourself. In my experience anyhow. I lived in the US for 5 years and used to get my mum to send me packets of leaf tea because I couldn't buy anything but tea bags in the US. Of course, this is New Orleans in the 90s, so things may have changed since then. You can probably buy leaf tea there now. I have to say though, that Americans make the best coffee. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 21:45:24 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:45:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) Message-ID: <20071003074524.CUP11973@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> > Geoff: > i think a safer comment would be "I would like a > crumpet". > > My next comment I say blushingly as a person of > sobriety, courtesy > and calm. > > This would distinguish it from Goddlefrood's area of > observation where > the comment might be "Are you fond of a bit of > crumpet?" or similar. If > that leaves you blank, I recommend a visit to a good > dictionary which > deals inter alia with Brit informal. :-) Sharon: LOL. I didn't know you guys still used that phrase "a bit of crumpet". Sounds very Benny Hill to me! So is it still used by the younger generation or just by the old fogies and Yes Minister fans? From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 21:51:09 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:51:09 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) Message-ID: <20071003075109.CUP12289@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> > Carol again: > > Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking > powder, salt, milk, > and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can > send you a recipe > so you'll know what you're missing. :-) > Sharon: I notice that American Bisuits only taste like the real thing if they're made with Crisco type shortening. I am not sure what shortening means in the UK, but in Oz it's usually butter or margerine. I had to search the international foods section of my local supermarket to get Crisco shortening. I don't think we have anything like a vegetable shortening here unless its in oil form or solid (for deep frying -- not suitable for baking). It might be the same in the UK, since we are little mirrors of British culture (well, getting more influenced by the US every day but you know what I mean) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 22:25:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:25:27 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710021216k7b740c7aof6d13a6d0c095f10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On 10/2/07, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > montims: > > > > > On another tack, I am delighted to find Worcestershire sauce in the > > shops > > > here, and also in some steak restaurants, and I love asking for it, as > > the > > > server always needs to clarify - "Woo -ss - ss - ss - sh - ss?" In > > England, > > > it's pronounced Wooster, pure and simple... > > > > Geoff: > > Not quite correct. It doesn't rhyme with 'rooster'. It's more 'wuss-ter' > > rhyming > > perhaps with 'fluster' and 'muster'. Another fun one for the North > > Americans > > is Leicester (or Leicestershire) pronounced 'less-ter'. > > > motims: > no, no, no... the first syllable rhymes with book (or Bush), surely? Geoff: The normal UK pronunciation of 'wooster' would not rhyme with 'book' but would sound like 'woo' as in 'to court', probably because of Bertie Wooster in the P.G.Wodehouse Jeeves books. My firs syllable of Worcester WOULD rhyme with book or bush. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 22:31:24 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:31:24 -0000 Subject: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: <20071003074524.CUP11973@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > LOL. I didn't know you guys still used that phrase "a bit of crumpet". Sounds > very Benny Hill to me! So is it still used by the younger generation or just by the > old fogies and Yes Minister fans? Geoff: It's used very much in a teasing or joking situation. What we might call a nudge-nudge-wink-wink scenario. From stacygalore at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 22:37:39 2007 From: stacygalore at yahoo.com (stacygalore) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:37:39 -0000 Subject: Dementors Guarding Hogwarts Message-ID: When did the dementors guard Hogwarts? Was it just immediately following the escape of Sirius Black, or did they remain there for subsequent years? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 23:37:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:37:00 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <20071003073216.CUP11257@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: > Sharon: > Tea originally was brought from India (or somewhere there) to England and was > always served hot with milk and sugar to taste. It's a traditional English > beverage. Americans tend to put a different spin on it and most Americans > drink tea iced, though as you say, some do drink it hot. So Iced tea is very > American and it's hard to get a cup of hot tea anywhere in the US unless you > make it yourself. In my experience anyhow. I lived in the US for 5 years and > used to get my mum to send me packets of leaf tea because I couldn't buy > anything but tea bags in the US. Of course, this is New Orleans in the 90s, so > things may have changed since then. You can probably buy leaf tea there now. I > have to say though, that Americans make the best coffee. > Magpie: Wait, huh? It's hard to get a cup of hot tea in America? Because I've never been to a restaurant or a deli where I live where you couldn't get hot tea, often of different types. Though granted not all places sell loose tea (though you can get it). But tea as a beverage is as common as coffee. -m From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Oct 2 23:53:15 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:53:15 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c8054f$66e1f9e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [SisterMagpie]: | I put my tea in first, and my jam | before my clotted cream. [Lee]: I've heard of tea with jam, but that just sounds so weird to me! I've never had the courage to try it. Depending on the tea, I'll either drink it straight or with some sugar and, possibly, lemon. But, like Carol, my drink of choice is coffee. Unlike Carol, I prefer my coffee with no pollutants in the forms of milk, sugar, non-dairy powdered stuff or anything...my coffee is right out of the pot and must be high-test. I often find there's a metallic after-taste in decaf coffee. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 23:56:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:56:05 -0000 Subject: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn: > > Well the absolute essence of American Pudding, though not necessarily the essence of flavor, is Jello Instant Pudding - > > http://www.kraftfoods.com/jello/products/pudding/instant-pudding-and-pie-filling/ > > in several lovely flavors including Pumpkin Spice. > > Very similar to custard but without eggs. Light and fluffy, and probably made with 100% chemicals, but still sure to tickle the tastebuds of any kids. > Carol: True, but the kind that's cooked on the stove (also available from Jell-o) is better, IMO. Doesn't have that wax paper taste (might have fewer chemicals, too). BTW, if you use pudding (instant or otherwise) as pie filling, be sure to bake the pie shell first! With instant pudding, you can just scoop the pudding into the baked pie shell and add Cool Whip. With the cooked pudding, I recommend meringue on top (which, of course, means that the pie has to be baked again to brown the meringue). Regarding tea with milk (Allas's question), I thought that was a British thing, equivalent to coffee with milk or cream (or Coffeemate) for Americans. (Never had coffee, Magpie? Never even been tempted by the smell? I can't imagine morning without coffee.) Carol, who finds instant pudding extremely convenient but wouldn't recommend it to British friends for fear they'd reject the whole concept of American pudding From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 00:47:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:47:39 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <000f01c8054f$66e1f9e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > [SisterMagpie]: > | I put my tea in first, and my jam > | before my clotted cream. > > [Lee]: > > I've heard of tea with jam, but that just sounds so weird to me! I've never > had the courage to try it. Magpie: LOL! No, I did not mean tea with jam. I meant I drink tea with milk, and put the tea in before the milk. I love scones with jam and clotted cream, and I put the jam on before the clotted cream. I was just referencing the other conversation too--I've never had jam in my tea either. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 00:49:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:49:45 -0000 Subject: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: (Never had coffee, Magpie? Never even been tempted by > the smell? I can't imagine morning without coffee.) > > Carol, who finds instant pudding extremely convenient but wouldn't > recommend it to British friends for fear they'd reject the whole > concept of American pudding Magpie: Nope, never even had a sip. Probably because I'm not tempted by the smell at all. Though now it's almost like a thing--it's so weird I haven't tried it would almost be a shame to try it now. I admit I do like me some vanilla Jell-O or Swiss Miss instant pudding sometimes.:-) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 01:30:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:30:15 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > Wait, huh? It's hard to get a cup of hot tea in America? > > Because I've never been to a restaurant or a deli where I live where > you couldn't get hot tea, often of different types. Though granted > not all places sell loose tea (though you can get it). But tea as a > beverage is as common as coffee. > Alla: Heeeee me too. Is there any kind of food you cannot get in NY? I know of couple berries that do not grow here, but otherwise seems like everything can be found. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 02:56:35 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:56:35 -0000 Subject: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: True, but the kind that's cooked on the stove (also available from > Jell-o) is better, IMO. Doesn't have that wax paper taste (might have > fewer chemicals, too). Jen: MMMM, I have pudding almost every night for dessert. I love tapioca, can't remember the brand, but you buy the tapioca beads in a box and cook it adding egg, sugar and milk/cream. Most nights though I eat Kozy Shack - banana, tapioca or rice in convenient 4 oz. servings. ;) Tapioca reminds me, do others like bubble tea drinks with the tapioca pearls? Yum, way too sweet but fun to scoop up the pearls. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 03:48:13 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:48:13 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > Magpie: > Wait, huh? It's hard to get a cup of hot tea in America? > > Because I've never been to a restaurant or a deli where I live where > you couldn't get hot tea, often of different types. Though granted > not all places sell loose tea (though you can get it). But tea as a > beverage is as common as coffee. > > -m > marion11111: This might be a regional trend. Lately I can't seem to get a cup of tea-flavored tea, hot or cold, anywhere around here. I like black teas. English Breakfast, darjeeling, etc. None of these green, herbal or fruit flavored teas for me. I get such funny looks when I reject the jasmine or blackberry or even earl grey tea. Yes, our local coffee shop had iced Earl Grey one day. I can't imagine it. Tea should taste like tea. If I wanted Kool-aid, I'd make some myself. *Hmmmpf* Oh, and milk with hot and lemon with cold. And the milk goes in first and I skip the jam and just load on lots of clotted cream. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 04:38:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:38:11 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > marion11111: > Tea should taste like tea. Goddlefrood: Agreed. > marion11111 > And the milk goes in first Goddlefrood shudders From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Oct 3 05:58:04 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:58:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream Message-ID: <20071003155804.CUP77999@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> M: > Because I've never been to a restaurant or a deli > where I live where > you couldn't get hot tea, often of different types. > Though granted > not all places sell loose tea (though you can get > it). But tea as a > beverage is as common as coffee. Sharon: Well it was the 90s -- long time ago. Maybe it's just a Southern thing (or was). I never could get a cup of hot tea back then. Good to see things are now looking up tea-wise :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 06:54:01 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:54:01 -0000 Subject: Dementors Guarding Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "stacygalore" wrote: > > When did the dementors guard Hogwarts? Was it just > immediately following the escape of Sirius Black, or > did they remain there for subsequent years? > bboyminn: It was in Prisoner of Azkaban. Remember at the beginning feast, Dumbledore, during his Welcome speech, reminds everyone to steer clear of the Dementors. So, they were at the school for most of that school year. I think at the end of the school year they were withdrawn partly because that attitude toward Sirius had changed, though not completely, and the likelihood that Sirius would continue to hang around was slim. Further, at the end of the school year, there was no need for the Dementors to continue to guard the school. So, that one full school year, but never after that. Steve/bboyminn From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 3 06:54:29 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:54:29 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) Message-ID: Carol again: Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking powder, salt, milk, and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can send you a recipe so you'll know what you're missing. :-) Carol, noting that her recipe for fruitcake (posted here at Christmastime) didn't get a single response, but biscuits are about a hundred times easier and cheaper to make (okay, ten times) Sandy: I didn't see your recipe for fruitcake. I love to bake and am always open to new recipes, including for biscuits. Speaking of which, biscuits that is, I just couldn't stand it any more and have some in the oven right now. I cheated though, and used baking mix. It is 2:30 a.m. after all. They won't be as good as scratch, but they will do for now, and I can't wait for them to come out so I can smother them with butter and blackberry jam and eat them warm with a cold glass of milk. Yum. Sandy - heading for the oven. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 3 07:40:58 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:40:58 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream Message-ID: Carol: And milk in tea (to me, as an American) just sounds revolting. Just sugar, please, and a bit of lemon. Sandy: I like tea, and I like it strong, using two tea bags per cup. Sugar only; I don't like lemon anything. I make the best iced tea using a combination of regular tea and orange-spice tea. I love that stuff. I always go for hot orange-spice tea when I am feeling under the weather. Carol: On second thought, I'd rather have coffee. And (I know everyone will laugh at me), I actually prefer powdered creamer to milk or real cream or half and half in coffee. Milk is too weak and cream too sour or something--not sure why I don't like it. (I do love cheese, whipped cream, ice cream, and yogurt, so it's not an aversion to dairy products in general.) And, of course, sugar in the coffee. Sandy: I am a pretty big coffee drinker, with sugar and powdered creamer, which I also prefer. Liquid creamer of any kind cools the coffee down, and I rarely get the chance to finish it while it's still hot to begin with. I have also had it curdle in the coffee - yuk, and I'm just not overly fond of the taste. I eat and drink a lot of dairy but I don't like whipped cream, and clotted cream sounds absolutely revolting. Carol, who also prefers margarine to butter for the same reason, that strange sour taste in real dairy products Sandy, who uses more margarine than butter, but there are some things that are just better with butter. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 14:24:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:24:19 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <20071003155804.CUP77999@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > M: > > Because I've never been to a restaurant or a deli > > where I live where > > you couldn't get hot tea, often of different types. > > Though granted > > not all places sell loose tea (though you can get > > it). But tea as a > > beverage is as common as coffee. > > Sharon: > Well it was the 90s -- long time ago. Maybe it's just a Southern thing (or was). I > never could get a cup of hot tea back then. Good to see things are now looking up > tea-wise :-) Jen: That's true, until the last decade hot tea was mostly found in Asian or Indian restaurants, at least in many parts of Texas (not sure of entire south but think it's similar). Iced tea is the norm, 'Sweet tea' all the way! And when they say sweet tea, they mean *strong* fresh-brewed very sweet tea. The flip side is I visited both Pacific NW and Boston area (my sis and family lived in 'Wooster' for 4 years), and was surprised to discover if you order iced tea or cokes in those places, you get a teeny, tiny glass of the drink with NO ICE!!!! That's just not right; you need a huge, refillable glass with as much ice as tea. ;) From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Oct 3 14:38:58 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:38:58 -0400 Subject: Bubble Tea? (was RE: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c805cb$21d92cc0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Jen Reese]: | Tapioca reminds me, do others like bubble tea drinks with the tapioca | pearls? Yum, way too sweet but fun to scoop up the pearls. [Lee]: Never heard of bubble tea drinks...where would one find these? Something new here. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 15:40:54 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:54 -0000 Subject: Bubble Tea? (was RE: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: <000801c805cb$21d92cc0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" wrote: > > [Jen Reese]: > | Tapioca reminds me, do others like bubble tea drinks with the tapioca > | pearls? Yum, way too sweet but fun to scoop up the pearls. > > [Lee]: > Never heard of bubble tea drinks...where would one find these? Something > new here. Jen: It's usually some version of milk, tea, ice, and flavoring blended into a milkshake, except not that thick, more like a drink than a shake. You can get lots of different flavors; I've tried coconut, different berries, almond...think that's it. There are big tapioca balls at the bottom and you get a huge straw to suck them up as you drink. Here's a picture and better description: http://whatscookingamerica.net/BubbleTea.htm Try one if you get the chance! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 18:00:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:00:09 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: > LOL! No, I did not mean tea with jam. I meant I drink tea with milk, and put the tea in before the milk. I love scones with jam and clotted cream, and I put the jam on before the clotted cream. I was just referencing the other conversation too--I've never had jam in my tea either. > Carol: My grandfather used to eat jelly (like jam but without seeds or fruit pieces, for the non-Americans out there) on his fried eggs, so why not jam in tea? ;-) Not that I drink tea much, anyway. Carol, joking about the tea but not about the jellified eggs From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 18:23:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:23:59 -0000 Subject: Puddings - Jello Instant Pudding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > (Never had coffee, Magpie? Never even been tempted by the smell? I can't imagine morning without coffee.) > > Magpie: > Nope, never even had a sip. Probably because I'm not tempted by the > smell at all. Though now it's almost like a thing--it's so weird I > haven't tried it would almost be a shame to try it now. Carol responds: Come on. Where's your sense of adventure? You wouldn't say, I haven't read such and such a book and it would be a shame to read it now, would you? The funny thing is, when I've tried a food or drink or book or movie expecting to like it, I've often been disappointed. (Caviar, a rare treat? It tastes like fish bait! Real butter as opposed to margarine was a major disappointment when I was about nine--horrible, sour stuff instead of mildly pleasant and "buttery" like margarine.) I've had the opposite experience with books (SS/PS, for one) and movies and at least a few times with food (my first taste of yogurt--flavored, of course, being one, cheesecake being another). Don't you remember taking a first sip of wine, for example? (Or beer, which is a taste I never acquired, but at least I used drink it, slowly, on social occasions, back when I was still married.) If you like milk and sugar in your hot drinks, try a hot latte or capuccino. Just a step from there to coffee with cream and sugar. (Not instant or decaf, though. Bleah. And, of course, you'd probably hate espresso, which even coffee lovers often find too strong.) If you try coffee, I'll try hot tea with milk even though the idea strikes me as revolting. You never know what you like it till you try it--dangerous drugs and so forth excepted, of course. (And parachuting and bungee jumping, but I'm talking about things that aren't dangerous, food and drink in particular.) Carol, just encouraging you to try what you might like and hoping she doesn't sound pushy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 18:41:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:41:47 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > > Heeeee me too. Is there any kind of food you cannot get in NY? I know of couple berries that do not grow here, but otherwise seems like everything can be found. > Carol: When I was in NYC in 1995, I couldn't find a restaurant that served real Mexican food (Sonoran-style enchiladas, for example). I went to a Tequila Mockingbird, which in those days was a restaurant chain (not exactly authentic, but more so than, say, Taco Bell), but it turned out to be a bar even though the logo was exactly the same as that for the restaurant. (Couldn't find decent Mexican food in North Carolina, either, when I lived there in the early seventies.) Carol, who may have been looking in the wrong places with no native New Yorker to guide her From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 18:49:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:49:43 -0000 Subject: Dementors Guarding Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "stacygalore" aksed: > > > > When did the dementors guard Hogwarts? Was it just immediately following the escape of Sirius Black, or did they remain there for subsequent years? > > > bboyminn responded: > > It was in Prisoner of Azkaban. Remember at the beginning feast, Dumbledore, during his Welcome speech, reminds everyone to steer clear of the Dementors. > > So, they were at the school for most of that school year. I think at the end of the school year they were withdrawn partly because that attitude toward Sirius had changed, though not completely, and the likelihood that Sirius would continue to hang around was slim. > > Further, at the end of the school year, there was no need for the Dementors to continue to guard the school. > > So, that one full school year, but never after that. > Carol: I agree that the Dementors guarded the school only in Harry's third year, but, IIRC, they were withdrawn because they had tried to suck out Harry's soul. "Never thought they'd attack an innocent boy," Fudge says. Dumbledore, of course, never wanted them there in the first place. Carol, apologizing for not looking up the reference, but it's near the end of PoA From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 19:03:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:03:24 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > Carol, noting that her recipe for fruitcake (posted here at Christmastime) didn't get a single response > Sandy: > > I didn't see your recipe for fruitcake. I love to bake and am always open to new recipes Carol responds: Ask and ye shall receive. I found the original post using "Carol" and "fruitcake" as my search terms and am copying and pasting just the recipe part here: Light Fruitcake Cream together 1 1/4 cups shortening 2 3/4 cups powdered sugar Add, one at a time, 7 egg yolks. Beat until well blended. Sift together 2 3/4 cups sifted flour 2 tsp. baking powder 1 1/2 tsp. salt 1/4 tsp. cinnamon Add alternately with sifted dry ingredients 1 cup apple juice (or cider) Fold in 7 stiffly beaten egg whites 1 tbsp. rum extract In additional 3/4 cup flour, dredge 1/2 pound mixed candied fruit 1 pound whole candied cherries (red and green) 1/2 pound colored candied pineapple cubes l pound golden raisins l pound walnut halves Fold fruit and nuts into cake batter. Fill 3 greased and brown-paper lined loaf pans about 2/3 full. [If you use parchment paper in place of brown paper, you don't need to grease the pans.] Bake at 250 degrees [F.] for 2 3/4 hours Note: Place pan containing 2 cups water on lower shelf during baking to prevent cakes from getting too dry. Cool. Wrap cakes in cheesecloth soaked in apple juice (or cider) and wrap again in aluminum foil. Store in refrigerator until ready to eat. Carol again: I made one clarification regarding parchment paper and a notation that the baking temperature is in Fahrenheit; otherwise, the recipe is exactly as it appeared in the earlier post. 250 degrees F. = 121 degrees C. (very low heat, which results in a crispy outside and moist inside, but the two cups of water on the lower shelf is essential to prevent the cakes from being too dry). Carol, noting that the ingredients needed for this fruitcake may not appear in grocery stores until November From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 3 19:21:28 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:21:28 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) Message-ID: Carol: Ask and ye shall receive. I found the original post using "Carol" and "fruitcake" as my search terms and am copying and pasting just the recipe part here: Sandy: Thanks, Carol! This recipe sounds yummy, and it will make great gifts for the people I work with. I work at a *major* grocery store where the ingredients are available all year round, albeit on a limited basis. If we wind up on strike next week, which is looking likely, I will have time to start some of my holiday baking. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 20:36:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:36:50 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Ask and ye shall receive. I found the original post using "Carol" and "fruitcake" as my search terms and am copying and pasting just the recipe part here: > Sandy responded: > Thanks, Carol! This recipe sounds yummy, and it will make great gifts for the people I work with. I work at a *major* grocery store where the ingredients are available all year round, albeit on a limited basis. If we wind up on strike next week, which is looking likely, I will have time to start some of my holiday baking. Carol again: You're welcome. I generally make mine around Thanksgiving (November 22 this year) and let it age for awhile in the refrigerator. I also send some to friends and relatives as Christmas gifts. Good luck with your strike (I mean, I hope it results in whatever benefits or pay raises the employees are striking to obtain). Carol, who has so far bought only the golden raisins and will have to buy another box because she's been nibbling on them From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Oct 3 21:15:11 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 07:15:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) Message-ID: <20071004071511.CUQ33452@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- nice and light. I haven't made a fruitcake in years but my Mum always used to soak the fruit in real rum overnight before cooking - -toally delicious! Cooking takes out the alcohol content and the taste of real rum is much better. Sharon From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 3 21:41:59 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:41:59 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscui... Message-ID: Carol: You're welcome. I generally make mine around Thanksgiving (November 22 this year) and let it age for awhile in the refrigerator. I also send some to friends and relatives as Christmas gifts. Sandy: You mean you can't nibble on it fresh out of the oven?! Bummer. But since it is a moist cake I can see that it would be better with some Curing. BTW, can you use rum in place of the apple juice? That would be killer, although not suitable for kids, but the people I intend to give it to as gifts don't have young kids. Carol: Good luck with your strike (I mean, I hope it results in whatever benefits or pay raises the employees are striking to obtain). Sandy: Thanks. I spent two hours at a Union meeting this morning and things are grim. We are fighting for our pension, medical and wage increases. We vote to strike next Wednesday, and we will. The company has 72 hours to respond before we walk. I am retiring this month next year and just hate having to go through this now, but it has to be done. Carol, who has so far bought only the golden raisins and will have to buy another box because she's been nibbling on them Sandy: Raisins are one of several things I only eat when they are baked or cooked in something, so they will be safe. I'm that way with buttermilk and sour cream too, but I always want buttermilk biscuits or pancakes. Sandy, who is chattier than usual today because she's a bundle of nerves, and apologizes for it. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 3 21:45:45 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:45:45 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) Message-ID: Sharon: Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- nice and light. I haven't made a fruitcake in years but my Mum always used to soak the fruit in real rum overnight before cooking - -toally delicious! Cooking takes out the alcohol content and the taste of real rum is much better. Sandy: I just asked Carol about using rum. Never thought about soaking the fruit in it. That would probably be better than exchanging rum for the apple juice. Thanks. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Oct 4 00:02:06 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:02:06 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: American biscuits (Was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47042D7E.80909@fastmail.us> Goddlefrood wrote: >> Carol: > >> Ah, there's the answer, Goddlefrood. If Fiji has Kentucky Fried >> Chicken stores (shops, restaurants) that sell "American biscuits," >> you can find out what I'm talking about there ... > > Goddlefrood: > > Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any > biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll > stick to crumpets ;-) Could it just not be calling them that? What do they have on the menu, apart from chicken, mashed potatoes, macaroni, cole slaw? What comes with the chicken if you get a bucket meal (other than choice of mashed potatoes/macaroni/cole slaw) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 02:40:17 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:40:17 -0000 Subject: Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: <47042D7E.80909@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any > > biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll > > stick to crumpets ;-) > Random: > Could it just not be calling them that? No, they're really not on the menu at all. The only dessert or sweet offered is soft serve ice-cream. > What do they have on the menu, apart from chicken, mashed > potatoes, macaroni, cole slaw? What comes with the chicken > if you get a bucket meal (other than choice of mashed potatoes / > macaroni / cole slaw) There's no macaroni either as far as I know, and I would know as I like macaroni and would have it were it on the menu. They have mini corn cobs instead. The other thing that comes with the bucket meal is some small rolls, but not a biscuit in either sense in sight. When I do go to KFC I generally have either a zinger or crispy strips. The differences in the menu at other fastfood outlets here might also surprise you. Perhaps you could tell me if the McDonald's restaurants in America offer halal chicken, because they do here in Fiji. All the fastfood places also offer a number of vegetarian items for the sizeable Hindu population. Many countries have differences in menus between McDonald's or KFC. In Singapore, for instance, there are curries on the menu at times. Perhaps there's a website out there that includes more information on these matters, there's certainly some papers on it available, one of which is here: www.haworthpress.com/store/E-Text/View_EText.asp? sid=C2NM4BKAE11P8M5SLAPVSEDDRFJ96ERB&a=3&s=J150 You'll need Adobe or similar to read that as it's in .pdf. Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 02:44:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:44:49 -0000 Subject: Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood: The link in my previous probably won't work. It seems there's quite a body of scholarship on the matyter of differences from country to country of fastfood outlets. If at all interested, try these: http://www.haworthpress.com/store/E-Text/View_EText.asp? sid=C2NM4BKAE11P8M5SLAPVSEDDRFJ96ERB&a=3&s=J150&v=11&i=2% 2F3&fn=J150v11n02_08 http://www.strategy3rd.com/3rdedition/tourdocuments/teaching_note_20_ke ntucky_fried_chicken.pdf From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Oct 4 03:16:07 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:16:07 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47045AF7.6030805@fastmail.us> Goddlefrood wrote: >>> Goddlefrood: > >>> Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any >>> biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll >>> stick to crumpets ;-) > >> Random: >> Could it just not be calling them that? > > No, they're really not on the menu at all. The only dessert or > sweet offered is soft serve ice-cream. The biscuits aren't any kind of sweet at all, so that doesn't really tell me anything. > There's no macaroni either as far as I know, and I would know as > I like macaroni and would have it were it on the menu. KFC macaroni sucks anyway, you're not missing anything. > They have > mini corn cobs instead. The other thing that comes with the bucket > meal is some small rolls, but not a biscuit in either sense in > sight. Actually, I think those "small rolls" may be the biscuits (they may not, but, well, i tried) - you've been starting, it looks like, with the assumption that biscuits are something sweet, but they're not. Do they look anything like this image? http://www.kfc.com/menu/images/sides_biscuits.jpg > When I do go to KFC I generally have either a zinger or crispy > strips. The differences in the menu at other fastfood outlets > here might also surprise you. Perhaps you could tell me if the > McDonald's restaurants in America offer halal chicken, because > they do here in Fiji. I know there's variation, but in a lot of cases there's as likely to be solely name variation (royale with cheese, anyone?) as variation in actual items. > All the fastfood places also offer a number > of vegetarian items for the sizeable Hindu population. Heh - the closest thing to a vegetarian item here is a whopper with no patty from burger king - or a seven layer burrito, from taco bell, which is pretty good. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 03:49:54 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:49:54 -0000 Subject: Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: <47045AF7.6030805@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > Random: > The biscuits aren't any kind of sweet at all, so that doesn't > really tell me anything. > Actually, I think those "small rolls" may be the biscuits (they > may not, but, well, i tried) - you've been starting, it looks > like, with the assumption that biscuits are something sweet, > but they're not. Do they look anything like this image? > http://www.kfc.com/menu/images/sides_biscuits.jpg Goddlefrood: Nothing at all like the picture at the link. I know a bread roll when I taste one and with the recent discussions I've also become aware that biscuits in the US aren't sweet and look like scones. Another usage difference there possibly, as when I speak of rolls the fact that they're bread rolls is a given. Soon enough I may try out the recipe provided by Carol off-list the other day, that is if I haven't deleted it as I have a strange feeling I did (Carol please note - this was not intentional I deleted the wrong message, any chance of resending?) From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 04:17:37 2007 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Dementors Guarding Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <505780.30275.qm@web53002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> After Black escaped, the MOM put them everywhere. Dumbledore refused to let them back after that was all cleared up. stacygalore wrote: When did the dementors guard Hogwarts? Was it just immediately following the escape of Sirius Black, or did they remain there for subsequent years? --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 05:54:38 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:54:38 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff: > The normal UK pronunciation of 'wooster' would not rhyme with 'book' > but would sound like 'woo' as in 'to court', probably because of Bertie > Wooster in the P.G.Wodehouse Jeeves books. > It's really 'Woo-ster'(as in 'to court' with the accent on the first syllable) in the UK? I'm surprised because that's the way we pronounce it here in Indiana -- there's a village named Wooster, not much more that a crossroads with several houses, near the town where I went to school and I always thought we were a bunch of hicks to pronounce it that way because in New England they pronounce it 'Woos-ter' (same as in Worchestershire). Snape's Witch From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 06:48:38 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:48:38 -0000 Subject: Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: <47045AF7.6030805@fastmail.us> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > Heh - the closest thing to a vegetarian item here is a whopper with no > patty from burger king - or a seven layer burrito, from taco bell, > which is pretty good. I think Burger King does now have a veggie burger on its menu. So my mother told me. I tried to verify this on the Burger King website but their site and my computer do not want to be friends. Wikipedia's article on BK claims they have one, though. Actually, Wikipedia has a page *for* the BK Veggie, which surprised me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK_Veggie But, yeah, fast food restaurants in the US are not all that interested in catering to the vegetarian. KathyK From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Oct 4 07:03:21 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:03:21 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003501c80654$a672f3b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Carol, joking about the tea but not about the jellified eggs [Lee]: Well, my father used to make omelets like that...eggs with jelly enfolded in them topped with a bit of cinnamon sugar. I think he used to mix a bit of cinnamon sugar into the egg, too. It's not too strange considering how French Toast is made with egg, cinnamon, sugar, vanilla, dip bread into this mixture and fry. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 4 22:57:49 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:57:49 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > > > > Geoff: > > The normal UK pronunciation of 'wooster' would not rhyme with 'book' > > but would sound like 'woo' as in 'to court', probably because of > Bertie > > Wooster in the P.G.Wodehouse Jeeves books. > > > > It's really 'Woo-ster'(as in 'to court' with the accent on the first > syllable) in the UK? I'm surprised because that's the way we pronounce > it here in Indiana -- there's a village named Wooster, not much more > that a crossroads with several houses, near the town where I went to > school and I always thought we were a bunch of hicks to pronounce it > that way because in New England they pronounce it 'Woos-ter' (same as > in Worchestershire). > > Snape's Witch Geoff: Just for the record, Worcester(shire) is the same as Leicester(shire) and Gloucester(shire) in the spelling of the "cester" bit. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 4 23:02:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:02:55 -0000 Subject: Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <003501c80654$a672f3b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" wrote: Carol, joking about the tea but not about the jellified eggs Lee: > Well, my father used to make omelets like that...eggs with jelly enfolded in > them topped with a bit of cinnamon sugar. I think he used to mix a bit of > cinnamon sugar into the egg, too. > > It's not too strange considering how French Toast is made with egg, > cinnamon, sugar, vanilla, dip bread into this mixture and fry. > > Cheers, Geoff: The usual UK omelette is made simply by breaking your eggs into a basin, adding one tablespoonful of water for each egg and whisking. For a plain omelette, this is then fried in a hot pan as it is; the relevant fillings would be added for, say, a mushroom or a ham omelette. From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 5 02:00:07 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:00:07 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Clotted Cream In-Reply-To: <47011893.000003.03184@LIFESAVER> References: <47011893.000003.03184@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: HAH! I asked this question years and years ago, as part of the original discussion that gave rise to the Chatter group. It sounded horrible to me, but my British friends went into raptures to such an extent that I found myself an import place and tried it. It's very thick cream, thick enough to be spreadable. You gain weight by touching the jar. ~Amanda _____ From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Donna Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:56 AM To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Subject: [SPAM] [HPFGU-OTChatter] Clotted Cream Okay, What's "Clotted Cream"? Donna in Dayton, Ohio [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 5 02:07:05 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:07:05 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food (Was: Yorkshire pudding) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <335E7BA0CAA243DA99C98AB1CBF4C543@AmandaPC> Tonks: In the U.S. nowdays we say "Native American". Amanda now: Which usage I object to, because I and all of my ancestors at least five generations back were born here. I'm native. ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 5 02:09:44 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:09:44 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Puddings In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40710011947p2969d4c9v69e246ab23d672d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0BB54623E8364FC28CF3E5FF84FC40E5@AmandaPC> Geoff: (2) From my dictionary: pudding:2 Chiefly Brit. the dessert course of a meal Amanda now: Interesting. This is not precisely the same, because Coke started life as a brand name, but Texans (San Antonians?) use "coke" as a generic term for soft drink. The term's meaning has extended to encompass the category. Example: "Do you want a coke?" "Yes" "What kind?" There's a word for that. Not the brand name becoming a word; but the extension of meaning. Pudding, one type, extended its meaning to the entire category. ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 5 02:13:13 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:13:13 -0500 Subject: American dolls (was American biscuits, was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40710012158v4bf9c0b6s2f367371174f4c95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F47AD763A3D43A5ADC5C74C81798874@AmandaPC> * montims: > and further to my other post saying pudding can be singular or > plural, I should like to stress that crumpets should always be > plural or accompanied by a definite or indefinite article, > as "crumpet" in the singular, sans article, means something > quite different. British gents - is that still an accurate > comment?! Goddlefrood: It is largely accurate, although if you want to eat just one crumpet it would be quite alright to say: "I would like that crumpet". If at the time of saying this any women were present an eyebrow might be raised. Amanda: I am in my 40s-and I had a doll when I was about 8, who was (of course) blond and blue-eyed. She held a teapot, and when she was seated, her mechanism made her reach over and pour tea (if you had the cup in just the right position). Her name was Crumpet. I loved her; I wonder where that doll got to.but I also wonder if "crumpet" had that connotation 30+ years ago, or if the American toy manufacturers just didn't care? ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 03:02:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:02:43 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words Message-ID: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14783609 Well, Marion and Magpie, I am going to go tomorrow, I think.] I will let you know my thoughts ;) Loudly. Alla From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 03:37:47 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:37:47 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff: > Just for the record, Worcester(shire) is the same as > Leicester(shire) and Gloucester(shire) in the spelling > of the "cester" bit. > Yeah, I've known that for a *very* long time even though I grew up on a farm in Indiana. And it was mentioned earlier in the thread. Snape's Witch From catlady at wicca.net Fri Oct 5 04:43:14 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:43:14 -0000 Subject: biscuit Message-ID: montims wrote in : << Biscuit is a French word meaning twice cooked, >> Definition 4 in the American Heritage Dictionary is: << Clay that has been fired once but not glazed. Also called bisque2. >> I remember from school, the first firing is called bisque-firing and the output is called bisque and can be painted with liquid glaze, and the second firing is called glaze-firing. So why is the stuff called "twice cooked" after its first firing until its second firing? Probably named for its color... Carol wrote in : << Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking powder, salt, milk, and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can send you a recipe so you'll know what you're missing. :-) >> Or you could just send him a tube of Pillsbury refrigerated biscuit dough. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 07:53:27 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:53:27 -0000 Subject: biscuit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol wrote in > : > > << Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking powder, salt, > milk, and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can send you a > recipe so you'll know what you're missing. :-) >> > Catlady: > Or you could just send him a tube of Pillsbury refrigerated biscuit > dough. Goddlefrood: Or *you* could, but I doubt if the Fijian quarantine service, lax though it is, would allow it into the country, alas. I'll try the recipe. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 13:36:33 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:36:33 -0000 Subject: American dolls (was American biscuits, was:Tortillas and enchiladas) In-Reply-To: <0F47AD763A3D43A5ADC5C74C81798874@AmandaPC> Message-ID: > Amanda: > > I am in my 40s-and I had a doll when I was about 8, who was (of course) > blond and blue-eyed. She held a teapot, and when she was seated, her > mechanism made her reach over and pour tea (if you had the cup in just the > right position). Her name was Crumpet. I loved her; I wonder where that doll > got to.but I also wonder if "crumpet" had that connotation 30+ years ago, or > if the American toy manufacturers just didn't care? Magpie: Oh my god! Crumpet was the only doll I ever had, the only one I ever wanted. I got her for Christmas when I was maybe 4 or 5? She wore a sort of wine colored velvet jumper (jumper in the American definition of the word). I'm sure Crumpet had that connation 30 years go, though not in the US. Seemed like an excellent name to me with the way she served the tea. -m From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 5 14:03:03 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:03:03 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: <20071004071511.CUQ33452@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: Sharon: > Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- nice and light. I > haven't made a fruitcake in years but my Mum always used to soak > the fruit in real rum overnight before cooking - -toally > delicious! Cooking takes out the alcohol content.... SSSusan: Takes OUT the alcohol? But pourquoi?? That's what makes really good fruitcake really good! :) My mom has made fruitcake for years, and it's The Best. I mean, really -- I've even sent it to friends who are fruitcake afficionados and they've concurred. Like Carol, she also makes hers around Thanksgiving time so that it can properly age. But she wraps hers in brandy-soaked cheesecloth (*after* baking), and that makes it taste sooo good (especially the end slices). Respectfully, but with strong fruitcake preference bias, Siriusly Snapey Susan From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 18:03:38 2007 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:03:38 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14783609 > > Well, Marion and Magpie, I am going to go tomorrow, I think.] > > I will let you know my thoughts ;) Thanks for the link. It's nice to hear Cooper's voice reading from the book. It looks like a fair percentage of the film critics have either read the books or are otherwise savvy enough to have figured out how much Cunningham, Hodge and company have departed from the books. And they're not favorably impressed as a rule. I'll still probably see it with my son...just to see for myself. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 18:28:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:28:09 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Sharon: > > Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- > > nice and light. I haven't made a fruitcake in years > > but my Mum always used to soak the fruit in real > > rum overnight ... > > SSSusan: > Takes OUT the alcohol? But pourquoi?? That's what > makes really good fruitcake really good! :) > > My mom has made fruitcake for years, and it's The Best. > I mean, really -- I've even sent it to friends who are > fruitcake afficionados and they've concurred. ... > > Respectfully, but with strong fruitcake preference bias, > Siriusly Snapey Susan > bboyminn: Well, we seem to have some loves of Fruitcake here, and hopefully they will forgive what I am about to say. I find fruitcake to be the most hideous of concoctions. But keep in mind the only fruitcake I've had comes in round tins at Christmas time. There seems to be a standing Joke that their is really only one fruitcake in the whole world, and it keeps getting past from person to person year after year, and never eaten. To some extent, if you have relatives you don't like, you send them a fruitcake at Christmas time. Sort of a, 'here's your present, I hope you choke on it' sentiment. The cake itself is at the same time both most and dry, and heavy as a brick. The red and green waxy fruit taste, ...well like wax. Admitting that 'canned' fruitcake is far from the best, using my imagination and extrapolating, I still can't imagine that even good fruitcake is much better than canned fruitcake. So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my opinion would be improved just by leaving the red and green balls of wax out of it. On to another subject, I had always been amoung those who believed that Alcohol added to food as flavoring cooked off. Yet a friend brought home some Rum Balls made by a friend of his mothers. They were like cookies rolled up into donut hole sized balls. Though I don't know how she managed it, each ball was roughly like drinking an equivalent amount of alcohol; two or three balls and you were flying. That pretty much shot down the idea that alcohol cooks off. Confused in Minnesota. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 18:40:36 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:40:36 -0000 Subject: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food ( In-Reply-To: <335E7BA0CAA243DA99C98AB1CBF4C543@AmandaPC> Message-ID: --- "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > Tonks: > > In the U.S. nowdays we say "Native American". > > Amanda now: > > Which usage I object to, because I and all of my > ancestors at least five generations back were born > here. I'm native. > > ~Amanda bboyminn: Five generations...wow. That's more than me, but consider that 'Native Americans' go back roughly 200 to 300 generations. I think that makes them more 'native' than you. Though, I do know what you mean. I was filling out a some college documents, and one of the questions was a subtle inference to race. One of the possible choices was 'Native American', which I checked. When the interviewer asked my why, I said, well I was born here, that makes me a native. Still for right or wrong 'native American' or 'indigenous people' is the politically correct term. Myself, if I think there is going to be some confusion, I say 'east Indian' for India, and 'west Indian' for the original Americans. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From lhuntley at fandm.edu Fri Oct 5 18:52:18 2007 From: lhuntley at fandm.edu (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:52:18 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6421069f66fc438c219e1ed733345ea9@fandm.edu> Steve: > On to another subject, I had always been amoung > those who believed that Alcohol added to food as > flavoring cooked off. Yet a friend brought home > some Rum Balls made by a friend of his mothers. > They were like cookies rolled up into donut hole > sized balls. Though I don't know how she managed > it, each ball was roughly like drinking an > equivalent amount of alcohol; two or three balls > and you were flying. > > That pretty much shot down the idea that alcohol > cooks off. Laura: That alcohol "cooks off" is one of the great myths of cooking. The strong, alcoholic *taste* mellows with (most types) of cooking, but a good deal of alcohol remains even when the dish has been cooked for a considerably long period. I refer you to Ochef, which is the food equivalent of Television Without Pity: http://www.ochef.com/165.htm I highly recommend exploring the site if you find yourself with some spare time. It is bitingly funny and wildly informative all at the same time. *loves* Laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 18:54:05 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:54:05 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bboyminn: > So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the > obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless > cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the > waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my > opinion would be improved just by leaving the red > and green balls of wax out of it. Ali: I agree. I never add the vile stuff when making fruitcake. It's not that I'm anti-chemicals, not being an organics food fan, but I am a fan of not putting toxic-looking, radiation-coloured, possibly-glow-in-the-dark fruit-like objects in something when I could put in the real deal, such as dried cherries and dried currants. bboyminn: > On to another subject, I had always been amoung > those who believed that Alcohol added to food as > flavoring cooked off. Yet a friend brought home > some Rum Balls made by a friend of his mothers. > They were like cookies rolled up into donut hole > sized balls. Though I don't know how she managed > it, each ball was roughly like drinking an > equivalent amount of alcohol; two or three balls > and you were flying. Ali: Rum balls are generally not cooked. There's no chance of alcohol cooking out when cooking isn't even involved. :) bboyminn: > That pretty much shot down the idea that alcohol > cooks off. Ali: While your original premise for this was wrong, the conclusion is correct. It is actually a myth that all the alcohol cooks off. It's true that most of the alcohol does cook off, but just try to feed someone with alcohol-intolerance some "cooked-off alcohol" sauce or something and you'll be accused of trying to murder them. Wishing she weren't at work, Ali From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 5 20:38:56 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:38:56 -0400 Subject: Rum Balls And Fruit cakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c8078f$c02ea7e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [bboyminn]: | So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the | obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless | cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the | waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my | opinion would be improved just by leaving the red | and green balls of wax out of it. [Lee]: Those things are candied dried cherries and stuff, and not everyone likes them. So, the trick is to find or make a fruit cake with more natural fruit and nuts, leaving out the candied fruit. [bboyminn]: | On to another subject, I had always been amoung | those who believed that Alcohol added to food as | flavoring cooked off. Yet a friend brought home | some Rum Balls made by a friend of his mothers. | They were like cookies rolled up into donut hole | sized balls. Though I don't know how she managed | it, each ball was roughly like drinking an | equivalent amount of alcohol; two or three balls | and you were flying. | | That pretty much shot down the idea that alcohol | cooks off. [Lee]: It's possible the balls were rolled or soaked in rum after the cooking. One little cafe I used to go to had rum balls and Baba Au Rum which would be soaked in rum before serving. Note to self: Do Not Eat While On Duty. :-) Cheers, Lee :-) From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 5 20:53:55 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:53:55 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Rum Balls And Fruit cakes In-Reply-To: <000301c8078f$c02ea7e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <000401c80791$d8694890$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | [Lee]: | It's possible the balls were rolled or soaked in rum after | the cooking. One | little cafe I used to go to had rum balls and Baba Au Rum | which would be | soaked in rum before serving. Note to self: Do Not Eat While | On Duty. :-) | [Lee again]: Unaccustomed to replying to oneself, but might I point out that mulled wine which has been simmered with spices still packs quite a punch, so indeed, the punch of the alcohol may be slightly mellowed, but it's still there waiting to sneak up and bite. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone Phone: 973 786-1246 From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 22:16:43 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:16:43 -0000 Subject: Rum Balls And Fruit cakes In-Reply-To: <000401c80791$d8694890$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" wrote: > > | [Lee]: > | It's possible the balls were rolled or soaked in rum after > | the cooking. One > | little cafe I used to go to had rum balls and Baba Au Rum > | which would be > | soaked in rum before serving. Note to self: Do Not Eat While > | On Duty. :-) > | ***Katie: Being a person who has made rum balls for Christmas every year since I was a small girl, I can shed some light on why rum balls are alcoholic. Rum balls are made by using crushed nuts and crumbs of ginger cookies, graham crackers, vanilla wafers, or any other kind of dry cookie/biscuit. The binding agent is rum or whiskey. The alcohol is added to the dry mixture and rolled into balls and then rolled in powdered sugar. So, the alcohol isn't cooked at all! And let me tell ya, they pack a punch! When I was about 9, I kept sneaking rum balls that were set aside for Christmas giving, and I got pretty tipsy before my mom asked me why I kept going into the kitchen! LOL. Katie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 23:39:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:39:27 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14783609 > > > > Well, Marion and Magpie, I am going to go tomorrow, I think.] > > > > I will let you know my thoughts ;) > Eustace_Scrubb: > Thanks for the link. It's nice to hear Cooper's voice reading from > the book. > > It looks like a fair percentage of the film critics have either read > the books or are otherwise savvy enough to have figured out how much > Cunningham, Hodge and company have departed from the books. And > they're not favorably impressed as a rule. I'll still probably see it > with my son...just to see for myself. > > Cheers, > > Eustace_Scrubb Alla: My pleasure. Well I saw it, I did. Where to start? Oh the good news, I guess. You will not be tempted to walk out from this movie, especially if you have not read the book. Or at least I think so. The movie is entertaining enough if you forget that it has ANY relation to Susan Cooper book IMO, still nothing special but okay action/fantasy flick. If you did read the book, well, if you hypnotised yourself well enough, you may be able to think that you are in the middle of some horrible dream that pretends to be the adaptation of the book, but this dream will end soon and yoyu will be able to come back to the wonderful world of the book. Oh, oh another piece of good news. Stantons are NOT as bad as Dursleys ;) Truly, they are not. Will's brothers "bullying" I guess you can call friendly teasing sort of or maybe cruel teasing. His parents are emotionally distant for a reason, which sort of gets resolved at the end ( SHHHHHH - book fans, I am sure you would NOT want to know that reason and how it gets resolved), so I "think" film makers wanted to convey a loving family, sort of. They are definitely NOT warm, loving, supportive Stantons of canon, but they are I GUESS, close enough. That is if we forget that they are americans, Will has a younger sister, Will turning 14, if we forget all those tiny details. So, yeah, rooks everywhere and two guards indeed turn into many rooks. Scary that. Um, the Old ones apparently can die. GOT IT guys? They apparently can die. Turns out Will's ancestor was an old one and he created signs and he is apparently not among the living anymore, I think. Old Ones are absolutely NOT Old ones, although they do call themselves such. They are, well, rather sad in a sense that I did not see any powers of them manifesting themselves. Except walking through time and trying to fight with rooks in rather sad way. Merryman, godlike being, who is an amasing help to Will in the battle and does all those scary things? NOPE. Nothing of the such. Book of Gramarye apparently gives Will no wisdom except he is reading about signs from there. Oh, oh and he cannot fly, NOOOOOO. Max is just being I guess Imperioed by Rider, so he is not really bad. Now, two silliest plot twists ever as far as I am concerned. Oh no sorry, three. Are you sitting guys? There is no Walker. Repeat after me. There is NO sign of Walker anywhere in the movie, NADA, zilch. Oh, oh and the sixth sign? It is Will himself. I thought for a second he would scream to Rider, I am a Horcrux, I got it. Oh man, I know I am rambling, but it is just so bad. And the reason why Will parents are that way? Tom, that brother who died, well he was Will's twin and he was kidnapped. Turns out by Rider ( who is well cast I thought). Will saves him at the end. We have two Wills now. OYOYOY. Alla From n2fgc at arrl.net Sat Oct 6 00:07:12 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:07:12 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Rum Balls And Fruit cakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c807ac$d87477e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Katie]: | being a person who has made rum balls for Christmas every year since | I was a small girl, I can shed some light on why rum balls are | alcoholic. | Rum balls are made by using crushed nuts and crumbs of ginger | cookies, graham crackers, vanilla wafers, or any other kind of dry | cookie/biscuit. The binding agent is rum or whiskey. The alcohol is | added to the dry mixture and rolled into balls and then rolled in | powdered sugar. So, the alcohol isn't cooked at all! [Lee]: Ah--I'm more familiar with the rum balls with chocolate or chocolate sprinkles all over them...Oh! Yeah! To die for! Perhaps the German rum balls are those with the chocolate? Don't know, but I'd love to put a hurtin' on some right now. :-) [Katie]: | And let me tell ya, they pack a punch! When I was about 9, I kept | sneaking rum balls that were set aside for Christmas giving, and I | got pretty tipsy before my mom asked me why I kept going into the | kitchen! LOL. [Lee]: Love ya, Lady Kate! You're a gal after my own heart! :-) Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Oct 6 00:57:17 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:57:17 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Tortillas and enchiladas and other nonBrit Food ( In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4706DD6D.6040500@fastmail.us> > bboyminn: > > Five generations...wow. That's more than me, but > consider that 'Native Americans' go back roughly 200 > to 300 generations. I think that makes them more > 'native' than you. Random832: But there shouldn't be a sense of "more 'native'" at all - either you are or you're not. And, either they're not (humans aren't "native" to much of anywhere, except maybe parts of africa), or anyone who was born there and calls it their home is. --Random832 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 6 02:52:32 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:52:32 -0000 Subject: Susan's Mom's dark fruitcake (was: Carol's light fruitcake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn: > Well, we seem to have some loves of Fruitcake here, and > hopefully they will forgive what I am about to say. SSSusan: Hee. Forgiven, Steve. I've heard it a million times over the years. Steve: > I find fruitcake to be the most hideous of concoctions. > But keep in mind the only fruitcake I've had comes in > round tins at Christmas time. There seems to be a > standing Joke that their is really only one fruitcake > in the whole world, and it keeps getting past from > person to person year after year, and never eaten. To > some extent, if you have relatives you don't like, you > send them a fruitcake at Christmas time. Sort of a, > 'here's your present, I hope you choke on it' > sentiment. > > The cake itself is at the same time both most and dry, > and heavy as a brick. The red and green waxy fruit > taste, ...well like wax. > > Admitting that 'canned' fruitcake is far from the > best, using my imagination and extrapolating, I > still can't imagine that even good fruitcake is > much better than canned fruitcake. > > So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the > obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless > cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the > waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my > opinion would be improved just by leaving the red > and green balls of wax out of it. SSSusan: Well, the first problem is, that, yes, you've eaten that THING which arrives in a tin, which means it was likely mass-produced, without love (gasp!), and has been lying around for quite awhile. Homemade fruitcakes, made well, are *incredibly* moist. Personally, I have found, also, that the *darker* the fruitcake, the moister it is. (My mom, for years, made both light & dark, and I rarely would touch the light.) Part of the moistness comes from the wrapped-in-brandy step, I suppose part comes from baking at a very low temperature, and I'd guess the other part is using lots & lots of "the good stuff" ingredients and very little filler, which is probably what most of the in-the-tin variety is composed of. Yes, Mom puts in the candied cherries & pineapple. I've never found them waxy, but I do understand why some folks might not like them. Still, ours is packed with raisins, golden raisins & nuts, as well, and while I could never swear that you would like the overall *taste* of my mom's fruitcake, since that's just a personal preference thing, I do think if you tried it, you would at least be able to say that not all fruitcake is dry. So send me your address, Steve, if you want to take me up on this! ;- ) Siriusly Snapey Susan From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 6 13:37:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:37:36 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: bboyminn: > So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the > obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless > cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the > waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my > opinion would be improved just by leaving the red > and green balls of wax out of it. Geoff: Well, this is the choice of those who serve the Dark Fruitcake and who have the symbol of the Dark Cake Fork branded on their arms and are known as Dark Cake Eaters. Those of us who support the side of the Light must all work together to see that the attempts of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Iced to take over the Baking World are defeated by the Boy who made Light Cakes and that he is then declared a Fruit and Nutcase and sent to Marzipan prison until he reaches his sell-by date. From vivienne_davalon at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 14:31:23 2007 From: vivienne_davalon at yahoo.com (vivienne_davalon) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:31:23 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter themed Samhain Sabbat and Witches' Ball -- In a REAL haunted house! Message-ID: ***"I Solemnly Swear I'm Up to No Good!"*** Harry Potter themed Samhain Sabbat and Witches' Ball -- In a REAL haunted house! (At least 6 ghosts plus ghost cats in residence!) Friday, October 19th, 2007 - suggested arrival time 7 pm Witches' Ball 9 pm - 11 pm Sponsored by Patchwork Dreams Ritual participants include familiar faces from Shadows of Florida and the Casselberry Witches' Meet Up: Kim Wade Vivienne D'Avalon (SoF and Meet Up) Lady Amethyst (SoF) Lord Mordred (SoF) Odette (Meet Up) and many other illustrious personages! "Invitations" are $20 in advance and $25 at the door -- but BE WARNED -- space is VERY limited! Seats on the Hogwarts Express are going extremely fast so if you wait til you get to the station you might have missed the train! Best to get your tickets SOON!!! Just like #12 Grimmauld Place, you must have an invitation to see the entrance (get the address). (Hint: it is in Sanford. This is a private residence, with no wheelchair access, so we have to keep it a semi-private party. Sorry!). E-owlpost Kim at Blulibra9 at aol.com or call (407) 895-0580 on the floo network to request an invitation; cash or check should be made out to Kim Wade Invitations will also be available at Avalon and at Little Fish, Huge Pond, at 512 Sanford Ave., Sanford, FL, 32771 through 10/16 only! Don't be late to Platform 9 3/4! -- Arrive at Hogsmeade's Three Broomsticks Pub and be sorted into one of four houses by Hogwarts teachers and a real sorting hat! -- take a port key manned by your Head of House to #12 Grimmauld Place - a truly and extremely haunted house! -- See Nagini sway and slither through the Godric's Hollow cemetery -- Ritual Starts Promptly at 8 pm - Based on themes and characters from the Harry Potter series of books and films by J. K. Rowling -- a truly magickal celebration of the Samhain season (we have carefully avoided all spoilers, so don't worry if you haven't finished Book 7, "Deathly Hallows.") -- Catered english food at "The Three Broomsticks" by Little Fish, Huge Pond -- Wizard Dueling (yes, dueling! We've figured out a way to make it work complete with nifty, active wands!) Sure to be thrilling and scads of fun! Nurse Pomfrey will be on hand to undo any serious magickal injuries, but the organizers of this event are not liable for any such misfortune, including and especially if they lead to an extended stay in St. Mungos.... Participate at your own risk!) -- Polyjuice Potions game - get awarded house points for the best imitation -- Costume contest: come as your favorite Harry Potter character, creature, or magical object. Prize categories Include "Best in Show;" "Best Character Imitation;" "Best Snape;" and (my personal favorite!) "Best Snape in Drag!" -- Take your Ordinary Wizarding Levels (OWL) exams in 10 different subjects, proctored by Hogwarts teachers. -- Win the House Cup! Points to be awarded for "good" behavior, staying in character, winning at games, making the judges laugh, and many, many more fun and mischievous activities! -- Dancing - we'll rock the night away to great club/DJ mixes (trance, synthpop, electronica, goth, etc.) -- Vendors -- and more! Be there or be "the worst sort of Muggle!" ***"Mischief Managed"*** :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 21:22:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:22:07 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake again (Was: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: <20071004071511.CUQ33452@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- nice and light. I haven't made a fruitcake in years but my Mum always used to soak the fruit in real rum overnight before cooking - -toally delicious! Cooking takes out the alcohol content and the taste of real rum is much better. Carol responds: Thank you! I've never tried soaking the fruit in rum--my teetotaler family wouldn't appreciate it, and it might interfere with the flour coating sticking to the fruit. But another option would be to soak the cheesecloth wrapping in rum rather than cider. Expensive, but worth a try if you like rum. (Or you might try some of each as an experiment to see which worked better in your view.) I don't think it would work to substitute rum for rum extract in the recipe, though, because the rum extract is concentrated and the extra liquid would mess up the proportion of liquid to flour. Another thing--it's really important not to get any egg yolk mixed in with the egg whites or they won't beat to a fluffy, meringuelike texture. I'm sure that experienced bakers know that, but it's important for the texture of the cakes to get that step right. Carol, hoping that anyone who tries the recipe will let me know how it comes out From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 21:38:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:38:24 -0000 Subject: Inter-Country differences between fastfood outlets (Was Re: American biscuits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood earlier: > > > > Fiji does have a single KFC restaurant. It doesn't serve any biscuits of any kind, either in the US or the UK sense. I'll stick to crumpets ;-) > > > Random: > > Could it just not be calling them that? > Goddlefrood: > No, they're really not on the menu at all. The only dessert or sweet offered is soft serve ice-cream. > Carol: But American biscuits aren't a sweet at all. (There's only a teaspoon of sugar in the recipe I sent you.) They're a "quick bread," served as you would a basket of rolls or a slice of bread and butter as a side dish at dinner. Carol, now wondering where she filed that recipe when she was through with it since it's not where it's supposed to be! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 22:58:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:58:54 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: <0BB54623E8364FC28CF3E5FF84FC40E5@AmandaPC> Message-ID: Amanda wrote: > > Interesting. This is not precisely the same, because Coke started life as a brand name, but Texans (San Antonians?) use "coke" as a generic term for soft drink. The term's meaning has extended to encompass the category. > Example: "Do you want a coke?" "Yes" "What kind?" Carol responds: When I was in North Carolina in the 1970s, all soft drinks were "cocola." "Do ya'll want a cherry, orange, or 7-up cocola?" Now a cherry Coke is one thing, but an orange or 7-up Coke? Coca Cola flavored with orange or 7-up? Of course, that's not what was meant at all. > Amanda wrote: > There's a word for that. Not the brand name becoming a word; but the extension of meaning. Pudding, one type, extended its meaning to the entire category. Carol: A lot of people object to the brand name being used as a word as if it were some sort of copyright violation to call a tissue a Kleenex, which I did until I got tired of being jumped on by younger people. "Xeroxing" documents, too. But with reference to the extension of a word's meaning to include related terms, in poetry it's called metonymy (substituting one term for a related term, like using "the crown" for "the king" or calling the Duke of Gloucester "Gloucester" (I once read a critique of LOTR that referred to the Witch-King as "Angmar," the name of his realm at the time of Glorfindel's prophecy). I think that the term is also used in linguistics to denote a specific form of "generalization," the process by which a word's meaning becomes broader of more general, as opposed to "Specialization," the process by which the meaning becomes more specific. Not being a linguist, I don't remember much more. There's also "amelioration," by which the word comes to mean something nicer or better than it did originally, and "pejoration," by which it comes to mean something more unpleasant or repugnant than it formerly did. IIRC, there's some other process in which the word comes to have nearly the opposite of its original meaning, but I could be misremembering. Carol, not intending to go any deeper into the subject because she's forgotten too much From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 23:06:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:06:43 -0000 Subject: biscuit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > << Well, if you have a pastry blender, flour, baking powder, salt, milk, and shortening (and aren't averse to baking), I can send you a recipe so you'll know what you're missing. :-) >> > Catlady: > Or you could just send him a tube of Pillsbury refrigerated biscuit dough. > Carol: To Fiji from Tucson? It wouldn't keep unless it was shipped in some expensive way. I think he'll be okay with my recipe now that he knows that a cookie sheet is a baking pan and not parchment paper. Right, Goddlefrood? Besides, refrigated biscuits still aren't the same as homemade. Carol, hoping for an online photo of Goddlefrood's finished product From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 23:13:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:13:22 -0000 Subject: Crumpet doll (Was: American dolls, was American biscuits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amanda: > > > > I am in my 40s-and I had a doll when I was about 8, who was (of course) blond and blue-eyed. She held a teapot, and when she was seated, her mechanism made her reach over and pour tea (if you had the cup in just the right position). Her name was Crumpet. > > Magpie: > Oh my god! Crumpet was the only doll I ever had, the only one I ever wanted. I got her for Christmas when I was maybe 4 or 5? She wore a sort of wine colored velvet jumper (jumper in the American definition of the word). > > I'm sure Crumpet had that connation 30 years go, though not in the US. Seemed like an excellent name to me with the way she served the tea. Carol responds: Is this the doll? If so, you can still buy her on eBay. http://cgi.ebay.com/BEAUTIFUL-Vintage-1970-Kenner-CRUMPET-Doll_W0QQitemZ300158863023QQihZ020QQcategoryZ95246QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem Carol, who think the price is a bit high since this Crumpet seems to be showing her age From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 23:37:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:37:30 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sharon: > > > Carol, your fruitcake recipe sounds wonderful -- nice and light. I haven't made a fruitcake in years but my Mum always used to soak the fruit in real rum overnight ... > > > > SSSusan: > > Takes OUT the alcohol? But pourquoi?? That's what makes really good fruitcake really good! :) > > > > My mom has made fruitcake for years, and it's The Best. I mean, really -- I've even sent it to friends who are fruitcake afficionados and they've concurred. ... > > > > Respectfully, but with strong fruitcake preference bias, > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, we seem to have some loves of Fruitcake here, and hopefully they will forgive what I am about to say. > > I find fruitcake to be the most hideous of concoctions. But keep in mind the only fruitcake I've had comes in round tins at Christmas time. There seems to be a standing Joke that their is really only one fruitcake in the whole world, and it keeps getting past from person to person year after year, and never eaten. > > The cake itself is at the same time both most and dry, and heavy as a brick. The red and green waxy fruit taste, ...well like wax. > > So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my opinion would be improved just by leaving the red and green balls of wax out of it. > Carol: The whole point of sharing a fruitcake recipe is to do away with the delusion that fruitcake is the abomination that comes in a round can and tastes like waxed paper. And it doesn't have to contain liquor, either; mine uses apple cider, with rum extract for flavoring. Believe me, I wouldn't spend two hours just assembling the ingredients and another 2 3/4 hours cooking the cakes if they tasted remotely like the junk you're referring to. Could anyone refer to those heavy, sticky flavorless concoctions as "nice and light"? (Mine is lighter in both color and weight than many fruitcakes, but, of course, heavier than cakes that don't have fruit and nuts in them.) You can't, of course, leave out the red and green candied cherries, but you can add other kinds of fruit (candied pineapple, golden raisins, etc.) In a good cake (which you can't even taste in those things you're calling fruitcake), the fruit does not taste like wax. The outside of the cake is crunchy-sweet, the inside moist and lightly sweet, like a pound cake, only not buttery because you use shortening, not butter. You also use seven eggs, with the yolks making the batter rich and the whites making it fluffy. My nieces used to break the half cake I gave them and their parents at Christmas into chunks and eat it on the car trip from Phoenix to Boise. Must have been a bit sticky and crumbly, but they liked it too much to wait till they got home. Carol, whose fruitcakes have as much in common with those ghastly things you're talking about as vanilla pudding has with blood pudding From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 02:42:36 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:42:36 -0000 Subject: biscuit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, hoping for an online photo of Goddlefrood's finished product Goddlefrood: When I get round to it, and always assuming my camera and its various attachments work when I do, I'll post a picture to Imageshack (a free service, some will be pleased to know). From editor at texas.net Sun Oct 7 03:11:41 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:11:41 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crumpet doll (Was: American dolls, was American biscuits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <350E08CDBD8648738DF858880215B2D1@AmandaPC> Carol responds: Is this the doll? If so, you can still buy her on eBay. http://cgi.ebay. com/BEAUTIFUL-Vintage-1970-Kenner-CRUMPET-Doll_W0QQitemZ300158863023QQihZ020 QQcategoryZ95246QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem Carol, who think the price is a bit high since this Crumpet seems to be showing her age Amanda now: I agree about the price, and about her showing her age. And no teapot? She doesn't work? I might not pay that much even if she did. 1970, okay, I was six that year and I got two memorable dolls for Christmas-one was Crumpet, that Santa brought because she was all unwrapped and set up. The other one was my beloved, my favorite, the one I still have (and who still talks!-probably because I guarded her from my children) Baby Beans: http://cgi.ebay.com/1970-Mattel-Talking-Baby-Beans-Doll_W0QQitemZ19015835352 4QQihZ009QQcategoryZ335QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem The quickest way to send my 6-year-old self into a towering rage was for my brother (and alas, my mom) to laugh when she said "Peekaboo," because they thought it sounded like "Chicken Brew" (it did). Another memorable doll was "Dancerina" (I didn't remember the name, but faithful eBay did)-she's from 1968, so I was even younger (probably why I remember her being HUGE). You held the jewel in the crown on the top of her head, and she spun like a ballerina and kicked her leg out. Totally cool. I loved her. http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-1968-MATTEL-DANCERINA-DOLL-ORIGINAL-BOX_W0QQitem Z270172563184QQihZ017QQcategoryZ335QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem This is fun. ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 04:02:37 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 04:02:37 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > My pleasure. Well I saw it, I did. > marion11111: Well, I managed to get back into to town from my convention in time to catch the last cheap show so i saw it too. And thank goodness, I didn't pay full price. > Where to start? Oh the good news, I guess. You will not be tempted > to walk out from this movie, especially if you have not read the > book. Or at least I think so. The movie is entertaining enough if > you forget that it has ANY relation to Susan Cooper book IMO, still > nothing special but okay action/fantasy flick. > marion11111: I disagree with you on this one. I thought it was a rambling and surprisingly slow movie. The tween-age boys at the end of my row went out for snacks three times. The teens in front of me summed it up nicely at the end when one turned to the other and said "Well, that sucked." Some kids in the theater laughed a few times and one family walking out in front of me talked about enjoying it, but I don't think this one will catch on. One of my 7th graders went on Friday for his birthday party and I'm curious to see what he says. He just finished the series earlier this week in preparation for the movie and enjoyed the books. And such a sad HP imitation! No one will know that the books pre-date Potter and are wonderful because all they'll see is how the story doesn't make sense and in it's best moments copies HP and I'm afraid anyone who was considering reading the books, won't now. phooey. > Truly, they are not. Will's brothers "bullying" I guess you can call > friendly teasing sort of or maybe cruel teasing. > marion11111: Fred and George anyone? > His parents are emotionally distant for a reason, which sort of gets > resolved at the end ( SHHHHHH - book fans, I am sure you would NOT > want to know that reason and how it gets resolved), so I "think" > film makers wanted to convey a loving family, sort of. > marion11111: This was one of the most confusing and pretty much pointless parts of the movie. They set it up with all these hints about dad's involvment with Light and Dark and then it goes nowhere. If they were going to rewrite the story, that would have been a very interesting direction to go. I also think they could have successfully pursued that younger sister holding him to his committment to the Light - kind of an anti-Maggie. > So, yeah, rooks everywhere and two guards indeed turn into many > rooks. > > Scary that. > marion11111: The rook scenes were very well done. Scary and it looked great. The Rider on the horse got a little old, but the rooks were always good. The visits to the past were also very good. We could have had more of that that and less of the silly Maggie crush. > Um, the Old ones apparently can die. GOT IT guys? They apparently > can die. Turns out Will's ancestor was an old one and he created > signs and he is apparently not among the living anymore, I think. > > > They are, well, rather sad in a sense that I did not see any powers > of them manifesting themselves. Except walking through time and > trying to fight with rooks in rather sad way. > > > Merryman, godlike being, who is an amasing help to Will in the > battle and does all those scary things? NOPE. Nothing of the such. > > > Book of Gramarye apparently gives Will no wisdom except he is > reading about signs from there. > marion11111: Very badly done. There is no sense of this being a timeless battle and that the Old Ones don't actually have an immediate stake in the outcome since they can't die. What was cool in the book was that they fought the battle because it was the right thing to do. And Will got to see what his life would be like and just how far he needed to grow in his power. > Max is just being I guess Imperioed by Rider, so he is not really > bad. marion11111: really, I didn't leave to go to the bathroom or get more popcorn, but I think i missed something. Did Maggie do that? Did she slip something into his drink? Did the Rider do that? Just by looking at him? Is that why he had an English accent? > > Are you sitting guys? There is no Walker. Repeat after me. There is > NO sign of Walker anywhere in the movie, NADA, zilch. > marion11111: I am seriously confused here. I came in about 5 or 6 minutes late and assumed I missed the Walker. Who the heck is the guy in the hooded shirt on the movie poster? I could have sworn I read an interview where the actor said he was glad to see he was in a later book. Or was that the guy who played the Rider? But anyway, who is the guy in the hoodie? > > Oh, oh and the sixth sign? It is Will himself. I thought for a > second he would scream to Rider, I am a Horcrux, I got it. > marion11111: One of the teens in front of me said at this point "Oh, he's a horcrux - what a rip-off." And Alla, did you have any idea which sign was which other than the first when someone actually says "You've got the sign of stone." They all looked like the Sign of the Glass Marble to me. Oh, except the water sign - very obvious that one. > And the reason why Will parents are that way? Tom, that brother who > died, well he was Will's twin and he was kidnapped. > marion11111: I'm speechless on that one. And did you notice that Bathilda Bagshot makes a cameo in this movie? Honestly I nearly cried when I saw that - and not for joy! She needs to be careful she doesn't get typecast as "creepy old lady that houses snakes." I really am OK with filmmakers changing a story if they make a good movie. LotR and Narnia were - I thought - very well-done and they made changes. HP leaves out many of my favorite parts, but they're still good movies so I'm OK. Little Princess (the Americanized one) annoys most of my kidlit friends as does the Susan Sarandon Little Women, but I didn't even care that they changed nearly everything because they're such beautiful movies But this was not that good - too many cliched action shots and sloppy story-telling. They could have cut half that crazy backstory and I don't see how the twin adds anything other than confusion. Like I said earlier, I'm afraid that anyone who was encouraged to read the books won't bother now. Hey, so what did happen in the first six minutes? I came in just as the Christmas tree was being delivered by Old George and then Harry - no wait, Will - got one sock from Fred and George. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 14:03:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:03:54 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > marion11111: > Well, I managed to get back into to town from my convention in time to catch the last > cheap show so i saw it too. And thank goodness, I didn't pay full price. Alla: I would like to bet that you had more fun at your convention than during this movie ;) marion1111: > And such a sad HP imitation! No one will know that the books pre- date Potter and are > wonderful because all they'll see is how the story doesn't make sense and in it's best > moments copies HP and I'm afraid anyone who was considering reading the books, won't > now. phooey. Alla: Yeah. If the only good thing that would come out of this silliness would be for the folks to pick up those amasing books and read them, that IS a good thing. But I am trying to imagine the reasons why I would want to read the book after seeing this movie and failing. Alla: > > Truly, they are not. Will's brothers "bullying" I guess you can call > > friendly teasing sort of or maybe cruel teasing. > > > > marion11111: > Fred and George anyone? Alla: Oh yeah, definitely. > marion11111: > This was one of the most confusing and pretty much pointless parts of the movie. They > set it up with all these hints about dad's involvment with Light and Dark and then it goes > nowhere. If they were going to rewrite the story, that would have been a very interesting > direction to go. I also think they could have successfully pursued that younger sister > holding him to his committment to the Light - kind of an anti- Maggie. Alla: Yes. > marion11111: > Very badly done. There is no sense of this being a timeless battle and that the Old Ones > don't actually have an immediate stake in the outcome since they can't die. What was cool > in the book was that they fought the battle because it was the right thing to do. And Will > got to see what his life would be like and just how far he needed to grow in his power. Alla: That was one of the most upsetting things for me - well among many :) That Old ones are such freaking clumsy and that Will does not really becomes Old one, no? I mean, he is a seeker, GRRRRR, but let me explain. Will after reading Book of Gramarye does not get any wiser, no? Isn't that the coolest part after him reading that hidden wisdom comes to him and he becomes such an endearing mixture of old one and eleven year old ( I mean fourteen) english ( I mean american) youngest child ( I mean with younger sister) BOY. I mean when he switches from thinking about Darkness rising to the food that he is eating and has fun with his family. TOO sweet and hunting too. In the movie - GRRRR, well I found the kid to be charming enough, but I saw NO glimpses of the Old one at all. > > > Max is just being I guess Imperioed by Rider, so he is not really > > bad. > > marion11111: > really, I didn't leave to go to the bathroom or get more popcorn, but I think i missed > something. Did Maggie do that? Did she slip something into his drink? Did the Rider do > that? Just by looking at him? Is that why he had an English accent? Alla: LOL. I thought Rider did and was speaking through Max or something. > > > > > Are you sitting guys? There is no Walker. Repeat after me. There is > > NO sign of Walker anywhere in the movie, NADA, zilch. > > > > marion11111: > I am seriously confused here. I came in about 5 or 6 minutes late and assumed I missed > the Walker. Who the heck is the guy in the hooded shirt on the movie poster? I could have > sworn I read an interview where the actor said he was glad to see he was in a later book. > Or was that the guy who played the Rider? But anyway, who is the guy in the hoodie? Alla: As I said elsewhere, Walker's sudden dissappearance made me think more than anything else that I am in some sort of bizarre dream. yeah, that guy was supposed to be Walker, who, you know, loved Merryman and feel betrayed by him ( I meant loved Magpie and felt betrayed by her), I mean so betrayed that he dissappeared. The only explanation I was able to come up with and this is obviously just a GUESS - that screening audience reacted so badly to Walker story that they cut it out completely. But hey, maybe it is for the best. Poor Hawkin did not suffer the abuse of the filmmakers that all other characters did. > > > > Oh, oh and the sixth sign? It is Will himself. I thought for a > > second he would scream to Rider, I am a Horcrux, I got it. > > > > marion11111: > One of the teens in front of me said at this point "Oh, he's a horcrux - what a rip-off." > And Alla, did you have any idea which sign was which other than the first when someone > actually says "You've got the sign of stone." They all looked like the Sign of the Glass > Marble to me. Oh, except the water sign - very obvious that one. Alla: Does it matter? They are ALL the same and there was no underlying connection with the way he received the signs, no nothing, so whatever I did not know which one is which. Bronze? What bronze? Fire? What fire? And did not really care. > > > And the reason why Will parents are that way? Tom, that brother who > > died, well he was Will's twin and he was kidnapped. > > > > marion11111: > I'm speechless on that one. Alla: Try imagining next movies ( oh horror) with two Wills in it. Marion: > And did you notice that Bathilda Bagshot makes a cameo in this movie? Honestly I nearly > cried when I saw that - and not for joy! She needs to be careful she doesn't get typecast > as "creepy old lady that houses snakes." Alla: HAHAHAHHA. Indeed. Do you think Rider and his mommy Batilda was the funny thing they wanted to do with Rider? Shudders. > I really am OK with filmmakers changing a story if they make a good movie. LotR and > Narnia were - I thought - very well-done and they made changes. HP leaves out many of > my favorite parts, but they're still good movies so I'm OK. Little Princess (the > Americanized one) annoys most of my kidlit friends as does the Susan Sarandon Little > Women, but I didn't even care that they changed nearly everything because they're such > beautiful movies But this was not that good - too many cliched action shots and sloppy > story-telling. They could have cut half that crazy backstory and I don't see how the twin > adds anything other than confusion. Alla: Right, I thought LOTR was great - changes and all that. Heart of the story and a lot of the story was there and same thing with HP. After seeing this movie I will NOT complain about any cuts in HP ever again. Movie is a different medium, but leave a heart of the story there, eh? > Like I said earlier, I'm afraid that anyone who was encouraged to read the books won't > bother now. > > Hey, so what did happen in the first six minutes? I came in just as the Christmas tree was > being delivered by Old George and then Harry - no wait, Will - got one sock from Fred and > George. > Alla: Oh, everything is in a blur for me. LOL. I think they showed school and Will and his siblings leaving on the bus and Maggie there and Will galsing at her adoringly and picking up her scarf or something. BAD DREAM. BAD From bunniqula at gmail.com Sun Oct 7 15:27:18 2007 From: bunniqula at gmail.com (Dina Lerret) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:27:18 -0400 Subject: LA airport area Japanese/oriental markets? Message-ID: <1a2738400710070827p5b154e38u2d9c69db61398744@mail.gmail.com> I'm flying to Los Angeles, CA from Florida later this week and my mom is like 'oooh, can you pick up this type of Japanese instant noodles' and I'm like 'I'll try but not all oriental markets stock the same things'. Apparently, a friend gave her these noodle packs and mentioned only finding them in California... no store name given and my mom didn't ask for more details. So, I'm hoping some of y'all can help. What are some Japanese-centric food markets near the Los Angeles airport area? I'm going to LA for a convention and to enjoy myself, so I don't want to spend four days all over LA trying to find a certain type of 'ramen noodles'. {g} Help, please? I'm also doing a store search on the internet and planning on making some calls to those that have numbers online. Dina From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 7 15:42:47 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Oct 2007 15:42:47 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/7/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1191771767.10.22418.m43@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 7, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 7 17:40:55 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Oct 2007 17:40:55 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/7/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1191778855.24.48430.m44@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 7, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 7 18:35:42 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:35:42 -0000 Subject: LA airport area Japanese/oriental markets? In-Reply-To: <1a2738400710070827p5b154e38u2d9c69db61398744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Dina Lerret" wrote: > So, I'm hoping some of y'all can help. What are some Japanese-centric > food markets near the Los Angeles airport area? I'm going to LA for a > convention and to enjoy myself, so I don't want to spend four days all > over LA trying to find a certain type of 'ramen noodles'. {g} Help, > please? I'm also doing a store search on the internet and planning on > making some calls to those that have numbers online. LA area has about six airports that house scheduled airlines, but I expect you mean LAX. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Westchester and El Segundo (the area around and the area next to the Hotel Neighborhood of LAX) but LA's Little Tokyo is in Downtown, south and west of Union Station, like maybe First and Second Streets from Alameda Blvd to maybe San Pedro Street... The New Otani Hotel is there and the Japanese-American Museum, and Japanese Village Plaza (a shopping center), and the Mitsuwa supermarket is on Alameda at Third.... Closer to LAX (but probably far less convenient if you rely on public transportation) there is a smaller Little Tokyo on Sawtelle north of Olympic. In my childhood, that was where we went to tiny restaurants for miso soup and tempura and sukiyaki and then to tiny gift shops to yearn over mother-of-pearl chopsticks and brocade (is the name tabi? my memory is failing in old age) and there were still lots of Japanese (plant) nurseries there ... but I'm not sure how much of that remains since the 1970s/80s thing of Japanese banks building giant skyscrapers there... Hey, do you know the name of a candy whose brand was Hapi Bon-Bon that were these little bricks of fruit-flavored gel wrapped in edible cellophane further wrapped in regular cellophane with a paper round the middle like a cigar band, which had a picture of the fruit that this particular brick tasted like? I *adored* them in my childhood, still found them wonderful when I found them in a grocery in Japanese Village Plaza 20 years ago, and haven't been able to find them since, not even searching the Internet. I think Google would be more helpful if I knew their name... From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 19:32:39 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:32:39 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > I would like to bet that you had more fun at your convention than > during this movie ;) > marion11111: We had an Elvis impersonator entertaining us during our Friday night banquet. And guess what, he was better than this film! > Alla: > > Will after reading Book of Gramarye does not get any wiser, no? > Isn't that the coolest part after him reading that hidden wisdom > comes to him and he becomes such an endearing mixture of old one and > eleven year old ( I mean fourteen) english ( I mean american) > youngest child ( I mean with younger sister) BOY. > > I mean when he switches from thinking about Darkness rising to the > food that he is eating and has fun with his family. TOO sweet and > hunting too. > marion11111: Agreed. One of the best parts for me as a kid reading these was when he would suddenly have the look and voice of an Old One and then would just as suddenly be excited about a boat or a dog or something just like a normal kid. > > marion11111: But anyway, who is the > guy in the hoodie? > > > Alla: > > As I said elsewhere, Walker's sudden dissappearance made me think > more than anything else that I am in some sort of bizarre dream. > > The only explanation I was able to come up with and this is > obviously just a GUESS - that screening audience reacted so badly to > Walker story that they cut it out completely. > marion11111: Do you imagine the screening audiences reacted well to what was left IN this movie? Who the heck did they screen to? I was so bothered by the sudden disappearance of someone on the @#$%^! movie poster that I looked it up and googled the actor listed as the Walker. He must be really ticked off right now. See this link. He had a really big part. http://www.movieweb.com/news/97/23197.php This is a little like Rik Mayall being cast as Peeves in the first HP movie and then being cut entirely. But at least he got cut before they got this far. By the way, I just love Rik Mayall and have not gotten over this. > Alla: > > Does it matter? They are ALL the same and there was no underlying > connection with the way he received the signs, no nothing, so > whatever I did not know which one is which. Bronze? What bronze? > Fire? What fire? > marion11111: I'm thinking we got the stone one - mostly because someone told us it was stone and he DID get it by smashing that agate-type necklace he bought Gwen. I see the water one. I guess the one in the shield is wood. And then we have the bone sign - the one he got out of the skull. We also seem to have the Chicken Sign. Or maybe it's a feather sign. This gets laughable. In any case they all looked like they came out of gumball machine. > Alla: > > HAHAHAHHA. Indeed. Do you think Rider and his mommy Batilda was the > funny thing they wanted to do with Rider? Shudders. > marion11111: yeah, that's right. wasn't there supposed to be something funny or tongue-in-cheek about the Rider? I'll have to look for that interview and see what exactly he did say. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 21:34:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:34:46 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > > > Will after reading Book of Gramarye does not get any wiser, no? > > Isn't that the coolest part after him reading that hidden wisdom > > comes to him and he becomes such an endearing mixture of old one > and > > eleven year old ( I mean fourteen) english ( I mean american) > > youngest child ( I mean with younger sister) BOY. > > > > I mean when he switches from thinking about Darkness rising to the > > food that he is eating and has fun with his family. TOO sweet and > > hunting too. > > > > marion11111: > Agreed. One of the best parts for me as a kid reading these was > when he would suddenly have the look and voice of an Old One and > then would just as suddenly be excited about a boat or a dog or > something just like a normal kid. Magpie: Me too. And I also love how in TDiR he has moments where he slips and covers himself. Then in Greenwitch there's that great scene where he's going back and forth but we see it from Barney's pov and we see he's not very good at it. Barney can't figure out why he's kind of scary and then playing totallly dumb. And Barney's reaction is just to get annoyed at whatever he's playing at. LOL! -m From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Oct 7 21:40:21 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 14:40:21 -0700 Subject: questions about dark is rising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47095248.13578c0a.0b94.ffffd3ff@mx.google.com> Hi all, Due to the discussions here, I decided to try the dark is Rising series. I got the first book from audible.com--Over Sea, Under Stone. What is the order of the following books, and do the future books feature the people in the first one? I really, really, really loved it! Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 21:53:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:53:28 -0000 Subject: questions about dark is rising In-Reply-To: <47095248.13578c0a.0b94.ffffd3ff@mx.google.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > Hi all, > > Due to the discussions here, I decided to try the dark is Rising series. I > got the first book from audible.com--Over Sea, Under Stone. What is the > order of the following books, and do the future books feature the people in > the first one? I really, really, really loved it! > > Sherry > Alla: SQUEEEE. I am so happy that you decided to give them a try. You could have just as easily started with The Dark is Rising, because Over Sea and Under Stone and The Dark is rising introduce different group of people, but then they are connecting and in other books, yes. I mean, not all of them in all five, but they meet in the third one. The order is Over sea under stone The dark is rising Greenwitch Grey King Silver on the tree The movie which we are talking about is based "LOOOSELY", VERY LOOSELY on the second book. Do tell me how you like them :) Alla From bunniqula at gmail.com Sun Oct 7 22:39:19 2007 From: bunniqula at gmail.com (Dina Lerret) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:39:19 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] LA airport area Japanese/oriental markets? In-Reply-To: References: <1a2738400710070827p5b154e38u2d9c69db61398744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a2738400710071539l3553d7bcud41c39edb4324133@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/07, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > LA area has about six airports that house scheduled airlines, but I > expect you mean LAX. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Westchester and > El Segundo (the area around and the area next to the Hotel > Neighborhood of LAX) Yep, I meant LAX, sorry about not specifying. > but LA's Little Tokyo is in Downtown, south and > west of Union Station, like maybe First and Second Streets from > Alameda Blvd to maybe San Pedro Street... The New Otani Hotel is there > and the Japanese-American Museum, and Japanese Village Plaza (a > shopping center), and the Mitsuwa supermarket is on Alameda at Third.... I'll be using public transit, so I'll try giving this area a shot. Thanks! I believe I should be able to buy bus passes at one of the airport terminals. I've got three days, before flying on Thursday, to plan out how I'll 'attack LA'. {g} > Hey, do you know the name of a candy whose brand was Hapi Bon-Bon that > were these little bricks of fruit-flavored gel wrapped in edible > cellophane further wrapped in regular cellophane with a paper round > the middle like a cigar band, which had a picture of the fruit that > this particular brick tasted like? I *adored* them in my childhood, Huh, I think I remember that from my childhood ('cigar band' particularly stands out) but I haven't been much of a Japanese candy eater for the past couple decades. I don't remember if I've seen them recently around here. I remember my favorite were these pink/green candies with a white cat on them... this is going back to when I was in elementary school. I used to attempt to peel off the thin rice paper, which is edible and dissolves. {g} Sorry about not being able to help with the name but thanks for the store suggestions! Dina From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:10:44 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: questions about dark is rising Message-ID: <725021.64608.qm@web60719.mail.yahoo.com> I am reading the 5th book now, and I say I quite enjoy them. After reading the 2nd book, just based on the commercials for the movie, I knew without a doubt that the movie would be nothing, nothing like the books. I hate people that ruin good books and turn them into bad movies :( Danielle ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marion11111 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:12:51 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:12:51 -0000 Subject: questions about dark is rising In-Reply-To: <47095248.13578c0a.0b94.ffffd3ff@mx.google.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > Hi all, > > Due to the discussions here, I decided to try the dark is Rising series. I > got the first book from audible.com--Over Sea, Under Stone. What is the > order of the following books, and do the future books feature the people in > the first one? I really, really, really loved it! > > Sherry marion11111: I'm glad you loved it. Sometimes people are put off because it has such a dated style to it. The Dark is Rising is second and introduces a totally different storyline with a totally different main character. As Alla suggests, pay no attention to that awful movie version. The book is fantastic. Greenwitch is third and brings the kids from books one and two together. The Grey King is fourth and is wonderful, but no Drew kids. Silver on the Tree is the fifth and last and brings all the characters from the first four books back together. Enjoy! From marion11111 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:23:31 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:23:31 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > Indeed. Do you think Rider and his mommy Batilda was > the > > funny thing they wanted to do with Rider? Shudders. > > > > marion11111: > yeah, that's right. wasn't there supposed to be something funny or > tongue-in-cheek about the Rider? I'll have to look for that > interview and see what exactly he did say. > marion again: replying to myself - how pathetic. Anyway I must be at five posts today so I'm done now. i found an interview where Eccleston says what the funny thing is. He mentions it and then says he can't say because it would be a spoiler. He refers to this surprising spoiler several times and then the reporter spoils it! See this link: http://www.movieweb.com/news/02/23202.php Quote: "What appealed to you about this character? Christopher Eccleston: The spoiler thing that I'm not allowed to talk about, actually. Yeah. When you see it, you'll understand. There's an opportunity with the Rider for humor and subversion and satire that I've not seen before in these kind of films and it was that. It was that most of all. 99.9 percent of the dramas I've made have been for adults, especially with film and television and this was a real opportunity to try something new. I've had some experience with Doctor Who. I think it's a real important area if we can provide them complexity and gray area rather than just a fun fair ride. That's what appeals to me. You also play a doctor in this film? Christopher Eccleston: Yeah. That's the spoiler, yeah. " So, I guess that was kind of funny and certainly not in the book. I also found a funny YouTube that a fan made about the missing Walker in the film. The fan uses some strong language to make her/his point, so don't watch if offended by cussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYd4CNbqPBc From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:33:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:33:23 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > marion again: >> > You also play a doctor in this film? > > Christopher Eccleston: Yeah. That's the spoiler, yeah. " > > So, I guess that was kind of funny and certainly not in the book. Alla: Agreed with not in the book part ;) Funny? Well sorta in a sense of you do not know whether to cry or laugh. > > I also found a funny YouTube that a fan made about the missing Walker in the film. The > fan uses some strong language to make her/his point, so don't watch if offended by > cussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYd4CNbqPBc > Alla: LOVED thanks. From dk59us at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 03:55:27 2007 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:55:27 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > > Where to start? Oh the good news, I guess. You will not be tempted > > to walk out from this movie, especially if you have not read the > > book. Or at least I think so. The movie is entertaining enough if > > you forget that it has ANY relation to Susan Cooper book IMO, > > still nothing special but okay action/fantasy flick. > > > marion11111: > I disagree with you on this one. I thought it was a rambling and surprisingly slow movie. Eustace_Scrubb: Not sure what to think about this. My first impression was like Alla's, that if one had no knowledge of the books and came to The Seeker without preconceptions that it might be OK. But the more I think about, the more holes I see in it on its own terms, regardless of whether it's supposed to be based on The Dark is Rising. marion11111 again: > And such a sad HP imitation! No one will know that the books > pre-date Potter and are wonderful because all they'll see is how the > story doesn't make sense and in it's best moments copies HP and I'm > afraid anyone who was considering reading the books, won't > now. phooey. Eustace_Scrubb: The HP "references" were weird, because I think for the most part they were unintentional and might only be picked up by HP readers and moviegoers...which of course means just about anyone who might have stumbled in to see The Seeker. marion11111: > Fred and George anyone? Eustace_Scrubb: That's what I mean. Robin and Paul (I had no idea which was which in the movie) didn't really do anything very Gred-Forge like but there they were, twins bugging a little brother in a fantasy movie. marion11111: > This was one of the most confusing and pretty much pointless parts > of the movie. They set it up with all these hints about dad's > involvment with Light and Dark and then it goes > nowhere. If they were going to rewrite the story, that would have > been a very interesting direction to go. I also think they could > have successfully pursued that younger sister holding him to his > committment to the Light - kind of an anti-Maggie. Eustace_Scrubb: It was the subplot to nowhere. The only payoff (if you could consider it such) was that Dad's obsession with Light and Dark led to Tom's becoming the Lindbergh baby...who come to think of it may still be trapped in a magical snowglobe somewhere. marion11111: > The rook scenes were very well done. Scary and it looked great. Eustace_Scrubb: Except that when the rooks all started landing outside the houses in the village, my son and I couldn't help laughing because they reminded us of the owls outside the Dursleys' house in the HPSS movie. Alla: > > Um, the Old ones apparently can die. GOT IT guys? They apparently > > can die. Turns out Will's ancestor was an old one and he created > > signs and he is apparently not among the living anymore, I think. > > > > > > They are, well, rather sad in a sense that I did not see any > > powers of them manifesting themselves. Except walking through time > > and trying to fight with rooks in rather sad way. > > > > > > Merryman, godlike being, who is an amasing help to Will in the > > battle and does all those scary things? NOPE. Nothing of the such. marion11111: > Very badly done. There is no sense of this being a timeless battle > and that the Old Ones don't actually have an immediate stake in the > outcome since they can't die. What was cool > in the book was that they fought the battle because it was the > right thing to do. And Will got to see what his life would be like > and just how far he needed to grow in his power. Eustace_Scrubb: Very confusing. One gets the impression that Old George has been done in by the rooks, yet he turns up at the end apparently just fine. Did Will bring him back by defeating the Dark? Further, at the end Will just walks away with Tom to meet the family--who all look like they were expecting him--apparently Will was the only member of the family Mom and Dad kept the secret from...but I digress--I get no sense that movie Will has really changed at all. We don't sense that he feels the gulf between his old life and his new life as an Old One at all. Now, the showing I attended had a number of technical difficulties, one of which was that just after Will and Tom enter the Stanton house to meet the rest of the family, the screen went blank. Was that it? Were there credits? We didn't see them. Alla: > > Max is just being I guess Imperioed by Rider, so he is not really > > bad. > Marion11111: > really, I didn't leave to go to the bathroom or get more popcorn, > but I think i missed something. Did Maggie do that? Did she slip > something into his drink? Did the Rider do that? Just by looking > at him? Is that why he had an English accent? Eustace_Scrubb: The accents were poorly done overall. On the school bus at the start, everyone seemed to have an American accent. I thought maybe they were starting the story before the Stantons left for the UK. But no... Maggie Barnes didn't have an English accent as far as I could tell. Was she an exchange witch? It was also weird that the mall guards in the trailer spoke with American accents, but in the actual film they speak the exact same lines with British accents (although they do say he "nicked" something and have to explain that means "stole"). And since accents relate to setting, the Romanian village they used looked, well, Eastern European, not English. The wide shots they used of the village shows what looks like an Orthodox-style church steeple. Oh and trading the fancy watch to a Viking in return for your sister? Give me a break... Alla: > > Are you sitting guys? There is no Walker. Repeat after me. There is > > NO sign of Walker anywhere in the movie, NADA, zilch. marion11111: > I am seriously confused here. I came in about 5 or 6 minutes late > and assumed I missed the Walker. Who the heck is the guy in the > hooded shirt on the movie poster? I could have sworn I read an > interview where the actor said he was glad to see he was in a later book. > Or was that the guy who played the Rider? But anyway, who is the guy in the hoodie? Eustace_Scrubb: This was very strange. I knew I'd seen interviews with Jonathan Jackson about filming the Walker role. Actually there were more than one, but there's one at http://www.superheroflix.com/news/97/23197.php My only theory is that the extensive change to this character might have been one of the things Cooper protested in her letter and they actually listened. The "guy" in the hoodie was apparently Maggie. Which reminds me: not only are the Old Ones rather impotent, but so is the Rider. He sits around and berates his hired minions about how they are not getting the Signs from Will fast enough and they'd better or else...why doesn't he just take them himself. Considering that he keeps saying his strength is growing, it shouldn't be a problem. Alla: > > Oh, oh and the sixth sign? It is Will himself. I thought for a > > second he would scream to Rider, I am a Horcrux, I got it. marion11111: > One of the teens in front of me said at this point "Oh, he's a horcrux - what a rip-off." Eustace_Scrubb: They also telegraphed way back when Will was reading from the book that he would turn out to be the 6th Sign. But Will had no idea until the last second that this was the case. Over on the IMDB bulletin board for the movie, someone posted that they bet the director kicked himself on this as soon as Deathly Hallows came out. But the way this film was edited, I wonder if it isn't just as likely they added it after July 21? marion11111: And did you notice that Bathilda Bagshot makes a cameo in this movie? Honestly I nearly cried when I saw that - and not for joy! She needs to be careful she doesn't get typecast as "creepy old lady that houses snakes." Eustace_Scrubb: lol...I was just glad Will didn't yell "Snakes! I hate snakes!" when he fell into the crypt. marion11111: > Like I said earlier, I'm afraid that anyone who was encouraged to read the books won't bother now. Eustace_Scrubb: I'm not sure you need to worry. I saw the film on Saturday afternoon and we shared the theatre with about a dozen others. Had a better choice of seats than I can recall. Apparently the opening weekend figures for The Seeker are appallingly bad; it will probably be gone by next week and therefore few potential readers will be affected. marion11111: > Hey, so what did happen in the first six minutes? I came in just as the Christmas tree was > being delivered by Old George and then Harry - no wait, Will - got one sock from Fred and George. Eustace_Scrubb: Mostly just the trip home from school mentioned above; Max's return from college; and a video link with Steven who is in the US Navy and has sent Will a present--not the mask from the book but the belt on which the Signs will go. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From glzie17 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 8 05:04:26 2007 From: glzie17 at sbcglobal.net (Whiting) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:04:26 -0700 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World Message-ID: <11FC355CADFD47918456CE2D4F1C848C@Mine> bboyminn: > So, to those who love fruitcake, please explain the > obsession with brick heavy waxy bland tasteless > cake? Even if the cake itself were made better, the > waxy fruit would still taste waxy. The cake in my > opinion would be improved just by leaving the red > and green balls of wax out of it. Geoff: Well, this is the choice of those who serve the Dark Fruitcake and who have the symbol of the Dark Cake Fork branded on their arms and are known as Dark Cake Eaters. Those of us who support the side of the Light must all work together to see that the attempts of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Iced to take over the Baking World are defeated by the Boy who made Light Cakes and that he is then declared a Fruit and Nutcase and sent to Marzipan prison until he reaches his sell-by date. Whiting: My I say that the above reply by Geoff is absolutely the BEST sarcastic-smart-a$$-I'm-only-joking-Harry- Potter answer ever to the ageless questions about fruitcake and what is in that mysterious log. Geoff, you have made one sad Harry Potter fanatic (it's over....waaaah!)laugh her back-end off at 10 pm on a Sunday night! With your permission, I wish to share this post with my class for the upcoming holidays! I heard one of my students just last week asking someone seated next to him: "I know she's such a "Potter Queen," I wonder how she'll work him into Christmas"..... You sir, have given my the PERFECT "in"!! Thank you! From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 8 18:08:56 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:08:56 -0000 Subject: Tiffany's Introduction. Message-ID: Hello all, I am Tiffany B. Clark, a 21 year old female from the Twin Cities area. I am currently majoring in business management at the University of Minnesota & work for a local firm in the office during the weekend. I am outgoing, 5'6", 130 lbs., black hair, green eyes, & scientifically minded. I own a brown female cat called Ginger, & love music & dancing a whole lot. I value dignity a whole lot, am independent, have a flair for the dramatic, & very methodical in everything I do. I am pretty idealistic, but I'm pretty speculative & analytical in my thinking. I have outstanding leadership skills & will always help out when needed. I am a bit on the eccentric side & highly individualistic, so I like to flaunt my oddball side. I have followed Harry Potter since The Sorcerer's Stone & was in love with it as soon as I started to read it. I own & have read all of the books, but just recently converted the hardcover books to paperback books because available space is tight at my current place of residence. I don't have any favorite characters just yet, but my favorite house in Ravenclaw because it seems to fit with where I'd feel most at home in Hogwarts. I own a Harry Potter Halloween costume purchased in 2002, complete with the wizard's hat & full outfit. I have also watched all of the movies in the Harry Potter series & have loved all of them a whole lot. Some other stuff of note, but not Potter related is that I don't like either the smell or taste of garlic at all. I can handle spicy foods well, & have worked at an upscale restaurant while in high school during the weekend & summer time. I have 1 older brother, Ray, & a younger sister, Brenda but neither are as obsesses with Potter as I am. I love animals & have always spent my time either having pets or working with them. I also like Disney & collect several items by them, including some pretty rare finds that I've been able to pick up. I love puzzles & card games & will frequently spend my free time doing any of these. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 02:04:49 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:04:49 -0000 Subject: Seeker - Dark is Rising Susan Cooper words/ SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Eustace_Scrubb: > Not sure what to think about this. My first impression was like > Alla's, that if one had no knowledge of the books and came to The > Seeker without preconceptions that it might be OK. > marion11111: One of my 7th graders went on friday for his birthday. It's all he could talk about before, yet when I asked him today what he thought, he clammed right up. "I dunno, OK, I guess. They changed a lot." I asked him if someone hadn't read the books, did he think they might like the movie and he thought for a looooong time and then said "yeah." I assume this means he didn't care for the movie but didn't want to sound negative. I work with shockingly well-mannered teens. > Eustace_Scrubb: > Except that when the rooks all started landing outside the houses in > the village, my son and I couldn't help laughing because they reminded > us of the owls outside the Dursleys' house in the HPSS movie. marion11111: That's true - they did. I thought of Hitchcock's The Birds when I saw that. > Eustace_Scrubb: > Now, the showing I attended had a number of technical difficulties, > one of which was that just after Will and Tom enter the Stanton house > to meet the rest of the family, the screen went blank. Was that it? > Were there credits? We didn't see them. > > marion11111: I honestly don't remember what happened when they got home, but I know there were credits. I do recall thinking that if my brother showed up with a look-alike I would certainly not leap joyously up to welcome him. I'd think I was either going crazy or that somone was playing a joke. They really did react as if the two boys had just been away on a short vacation and not at all like a huge family secret had just been resolved. I cant imagine why they added that plot development. Couldn't they say that a baby had died? Did they think with all the other half-baked storylines going on, we needed one more? > Eustace_Scrubb: > The accents were poorly done overall. On the school bus at the start, > everyone seemed to have an American accent. I thought maybe they were > starting the story before the Stantons left for the UK. But no... > > Maggie Barnes didn't have an English accent as far as I could tell. > Was she an exchange witch? > > It was also weird that the mall guards in the trailer spoke with > American accents, but in the actual film they speak the exact same > lines with British accents (although they do say he "nicked" something > and have to explain that means "stole"). marion11111: You're right. I got the impression from the trailers that the girl-on-the-bus scene and the mall-scene were in America before they moved and was surprised to see them set in England. > > Eustace_Scrubb: > This was very strange. I knew I'd seen interviews with Jonathan > Jackson about filming the Walker role. Actually there were more than > one, but there's one at http://www.superheroflix.com/news/97/23197.php > My only theory is that the extensive change to this character might > have been one of the things Cooper protested in her letter and they > actually listened. The "guy" in the hoodie was apparently Maggie. marion11111: LOL! No, not *that* hoodie. The one on the poster and on the doggone website. Honestly, he's there you can see his face. I think they filmed a bunch of stuff with him. I was originally fed up when I read about the character changes, but I'd rather those changes than have the character dropped entirey. He's a decent actor, it's a great character (changed or not), important to the scope of the Old Ones' purpose, and he seems to be - along with Eccleston - just about the only person connected with this fiasco who not only read the book, but liked it! In the trailer he reaches for Will (or gives him the sign) and in another scene, kisses Maggie. I can't imagine that Susan Cooper objected anymore to this than any thing else they did and I have a hard time believing that anyone on this project cared what she thought anyway. I agree with Alla that they must have done some advance screening with pretty young kids and were told that the Walker was boring. That must have required them to totally change how Will gets at least one sign, who Maggie leads into betrayal and, according to one interview how Will gets out of the flood. The actor playing this part seemed to think he had a pretty big role so I wonder how much they had to rewrite. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 06:29:49 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:29:49 -0000 Subject: Carol's light fruitcake ... - Only One Cake in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: snip because I think I may have an answer... > > bboyminn: > > Well, we seem to have some loves of Fruitcake here, and > hopefully they will forgive what I am about to say. They will not necessarily forgive you...but fruitcake originated to create a fruity cake with ingredients available...(and believe you me, I understand your fruit cake dilemma as much as I understand plum pudding LOL! However, back in the day, they had to find a way to keep the fruit viable...hence the booze factor in said cake...(a thousand years ago, as they chopped fruit for bread and jams(nowadays, jellys, jams and muffins) they sought was to preserve fruits in their original texture for Christmas baking (when prior to queen Elizabeth's reign) couldn't happen... So the cooks of said days sought to pickle said fruits.....however the flavor of the fruits was lost in the pickling--hence green cherries in fruitcake...however, they soon discovered that certain fruits kept their consistancy and certain did not..as a result they utilized the fruits that kept their shape the most when dried soaked in a flavored pickling solution..(of course this fruit is t he most dreaded ingredient in fruit cake yet one of the most beloved fruits...cherries! Cherries are one of the few fruits that can be dried and rehydrated in that the fruit assumes most of its original shape. Needless to say, back in the day, they rehydrated the cherries with a miixture containing water and some sort of distilled spirit(rum, brandy, scotch etc.), and spices...hence the different colors of cherries w/in the fruit cade...the variations of colors have been there for quite some time..even before the americas and cranberries. This is why fruit cake became a tradition for hundreds of years...because no slice tasted the same until some numskull decided to mass market. Also, before the time of tradition, meals were served on trenchers....desserts were served as well, but I'd garner that they were served on something akin to a "fruitcake crust" trencher...LOL (makes alot of sense...that dessert was served on a thick slice of fruit cake). And a final note fruitcakes are world wide...every country I've ever been in has a variation of the fruit cake...boiled, baked, fried...every country..middle east, Japan, China, Korea, Russia..just everone..and I don't mean a cake with fruit in....but a fruit cake like this discussion is about...all traditions involve in a winter celebration to remind us of good time to come...(fruits preserved in numerous manners to remind us of something better...a cake with fresh peaches in, a muffin with fresh picked blueberries and the like).. My mom and dad used to pickle and preserve their own fruits... Doddie, (who learned the most about fruitcakes researching the civil war and talking to her mum about her wwII experiences..and after experiencing green olives in a fruit cake, I'm thankful we have cherries...just like today it really is the thought..LOL) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 08:36:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:36:41 -0000 Subject: Cambodian cow arrested for killing at least 6 people in traffic accidents Message-ID: Need I say more? http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/09-10-2007/98420-cow-0 Goddlefrood, who owns no cows, happily. From sound_of_stars at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 09:14:59 2007 From: sound_of_stars at yahoo.com (STAR SOUNDS) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 02:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MAGIC SPELLS for Real? >New Sound Frequencies that Neutralize Negative Thoughts Message-ID: <479770.14389.qm@web45509.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thought this might be of interest to the group > New Sound Frequencies that neutralize negative thoughts > download from; > http://elixirs.4shared.com/ > info site > http://starsounds.bravehost.com > news group > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_sound_of_stars/ sound_of_stars From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Oct 9 18:30:12 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:30:12 -0000 Subject: Cambodian cow arrested for killing at least 6 people in traffic accidents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: > Need I say more? Ann: No! Although my current favourite newspaper article involves not animals, but fly-tippers: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1744914.ece Wikipedia's entry on animals being tried, incidentally, notes that "several rats and beetles, for example, won famous court victories": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial Ann, who knew such things happened, but is intrigued by that little word "several"... From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 19:21:13 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:21:13 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? Message-ID: Hey All, I am interested in everyone's opinion. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old and one on the way. The kids know all about HP from me, because they see me reading it all the time, though we do not watch the movies because I don't let them watch TV. Neither of them has expressed particular interest in having me read HP to them, although they like to have me tell them the basic story and talk about it. They know I love it, so they take some joy in sharing it with me. I am beginning to wonder if it's time to start reading SS to my 4 year old? We have done some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. He's the type of kid that would be very frustrated if he couldn't understand it. I don't want to start reading it to him, have him get frustrated, and have my own child not like HP!! That would break my heart! What do you guys think? Katie From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 9 19:42:36 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:42:36 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Katie wrote: > I am interested in everyone's opinion. I have a 4 year old and a > 2 year old and one on the way. The kids know all about HP from me, > because they see me reading it all the time.. > I am beginning to wonder if it's time to start reading SS to > my 4 year old? We have done some chapter type books, reading > one chapter each day, so he has the patience... I just wonder > if it's a little beyond him. Tiffany: I was 11 when SS came out & I had some troubles with it, but after a while of reading it over again, it was not a big deal for me then. It seems that 9-12 age range is the default recommended age for the books, but I saw kids as young as 5 & 6 reading the books back in 1997. It's all fine & dandy for me to read a book at that age, but make sure they can handle the violence imbued in there. It's also important to make sure the kid likes fantasy stories & is mature for his age. I don't see anything wrong with letting kids that age read the Potter books, but make sure they know what's really in the books. I was at the ideal age for the books when they were first released in 1997, both in maturity & ability to handle the contents. The real key is that loving Harry Potter & wishing to be the next Potterholic is all just fine with me, but it's best preview the books yourself & make sure if the kids can handle the books before you give them the books. Don't appear to be telling the kids that they can't have the books without explaining yourself or it'll just feed their desire to get them even more & possibly create some resentment. Based on my experiences & preferences, it seems that what you don't say and/or do matters as much if not more so than what you actually say and/or do. I had some teachers in my classes in middle school in 1997 who talking about them like they were good to get kids to read, but others were afraid of some of the "darker sides" of it. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 9 22:05:51 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:05:51 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > Hey All, > > I am interested in everyone's opinion. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year > old and one on the way. The kids know all about HP from me, because > they see me reading it all the time, though we do not watch the movies > because I don't let them watch TV. Neither of them has expressed > particular interest in having me read HP to them, although they like to > have me tell them the basic story and talk about it. They know I love > it, so they take some joy in sharing it with me. I am beginning to > wonder if it's time to start reading SS to my 4 year old? We have done > some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the > patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. > > He's the type of kid that would be very frustrated if he couldn't > understand it. I don't want to start reading it to him, have him get > frustrated, and have my own child not like HP!! That would break my > heart! What do you guys think? Geoff: You have intimated that your childen are interested in the basic story. However, speaking from esperience with my own mob (many years ago sadly) I would be inclined to defer actually reading the book until one of your flock specifically requests it. When you tell them the basic story, you are probably pitching it to their level whereas - as you suggest - your eldest might get frustrated if he couldn't understand. Repeating myself, I think wait until they want you to read it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 10 02:39:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:39:44 -0000 Subject: Cambodian cow arrested for killing at least 6 people in traffic accidents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Need I say more? > > http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/09-10-2007/98420-cow-0 > > Goddlefrood, who owns no cows, happily. > Potioncat: Well, the sentence that got my attention was this: Most Cambodian roads are dark at night. ? This followed on the heels of a TV ad for a medication, which included the statement, "is not recommended for children under 18." Kathy From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 10 02:46:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:46:31 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Katie" wrote: We have done > some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the > patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. > Potioncat: I agree with Geoff. It's not the themes, or darkness....it's just a very long book, or rather 7 very long books. Even my 13 year old has some difficulty sticking with it. If it's the fantasy that he likes, I'd look for something more in line with his age/attention span. I don't remember if the Sword in the Stone would be good for his age. the book, not the movie (adorable though it is.) I'm pretty sure this T.H. White book inspired JKR. Kathy From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Oct 10 02:52:26 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:52:26 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Cambodian cow arrested for killing at least 6 people in traffic accidents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470C3E6A.3030105@fastmail.us> > Potioncat: > Well, the sentence that got my attention was this: > > Most Cambodian roads are dark at night. > > ? What's wrong with that? Most US roads are dark at night too, but someone who lives in a city might not expect it unless they thought about it for a minute. If you're used to roads that are either lit or get a decent amount of traffic, (in which case they're lit by everyone's headlights) a dark road can be surprising. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 03:21:25 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:21:25 -0000 Subject: Cambodian cow arrested for killing at least 6 people in traffic accidents In-Reply-To: <470C3E6A.3030105@fastmail.us> Message-ID: PC: This followed on the heels of a TV ad for a medication, which included the statement, "is not recommended for children under 18." Mike: Nor by adults with IQs higher than their shoe size! ;) Potioncat: Well, the sentence that got my attention was this: Most Cambodian roads are dark at night. --?-- > Random832 > What's wrong with that? Mike: Oh, I don't know -- maybe that the reporter should have been aware of this whole sun goes up, sun goes down cycle we've been on for quite some time now?! To paraphrase Yogi Berra: It gets late, early in Cambodia... I guess? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 04:23:45 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:23:45 -0000 Subject: Puddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > Just for the record, Worcester(shire) is the same as > Leicester(shire) and Gloucester(shire) in the spelling > of the "cester" bit. Mike: When I lived in Boston I learned to pronounce it "Wuss-ster" Which led me to pronounce "Gloss-ster" But I also thought it was pronounced "Lie-ster" Am I wrong on that last one? Or the others, for that matter? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 05:35:59 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:35:59 -0000 Subject: Bubble Tea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" > wrote: > > > > [Jen Reese]: > > | Tapioca reminds me, do others like bubble tea drinks with the > tapioca > > | pearls? Yum, way too sweet but fun to scoop up the pearls. > > [Lee]: > > Never heard of bubble tea drinks...where would one find these? > Something > > new here. > > > Jen: It's usually some version of milk, tea, ice, and flavoring > blended into a milkshake, except not that thick, more like a drink > than a shake. You can get lots of different flavors; I've tried > coconut, different berries, almond...think that's it. There are big > tapioca balls at the bottom and you get a huge straw to suck them up > as you drink. Here's a picture and better description: > > http://whatscookingamerica.net/BubbleTea.htm > > Try one if you get the chance! Tonks: Ugh!! I can't imagine anything with tea and 'sugar' as good. I hate what is called 'sweet tea'. I guess they drink it that way in the South, and it is the one thing that I hate about visiting Canada. You can not get a decent ice tea anywhere in Canada. It all has SUGAR in it. Uck!!! Now I have had some of the ice coffees and I don't mind sugar in that, but if I drink coffee by itself I only use milk or cream. And tea has to be 'straight' or on the rocks, but no sugar and no lemon either. I like a good cup of hot tea and have one every day. I think the British are the only ones who really know how to make it properly. A friend once told me that when you become an Anglican the first thing you must learn is the correct way to make tea. And for Sister Magpie.. you could try one of those blended coffees that come in a can, I think they are called International coffees, that are mostly sugar and fake milk. They are good. A good drip coffee for smell and flavor is Hazelnut. Add a lot of milk. I like it the way the Italians drink it. They heat the milk and do half coffee and half milk. Very good. Keep the sugar for the chocolate. Tonks_op > From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 05:44:40 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:44:40 -0000 Subject: MAGIC SPELLS for Real? >New Sound Frequencies that Neutralize Negative Thoughts In-Reply-To: <479770.14389.qm@web45509.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, STAR SOUNDS wrote: > > Thought this might be of interest to the group > > > New Sound Frequencies that neutralize negative thoughts > > > download from; > > http://elixirs.4shared.com/ > > > info site > > http://starsounds.bravehost.com > > > news group > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_sound_of_stars/ > > sound_of_stars Tonks: I know that different sounds can stimulate different brain wave patterns. I have found with my clients in group therapy that they all liked the Alpha patterns, but felt very uncomfortable when their Thata was stimulated. Which makes sense, since Alpha is a peaceful metative state and theta is the sort of restless state just before sleep where weird images come up. Tonks_op > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 10 10:36:52 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:36:52 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > Just for the record, Worcester(shire) is the same as > > Leicester(shire) and Gloucester(shire) in the spelling > > of the "cester" bit. > > Mike: > When I lived in Boston I learned to pronounce it "Wuss-ster" > Which led me to pronounce "Gloss-ster" > But I also thought it was pronounced "Lie-ster" > Am I wrong on that last one? Or the others, for that matter? Geoff: First two are pretty near. Leicester is pronounced Less-ter. You have to get used to a whole raft of odd pronuniciation over here - even we locals sometimes get caught out. Some are generally known ones... A handful of examples spring to mind: Belvoir = 'beever' (which just happens to be in Leicestershire!) Milngavie = 'mull-guy' but that one is a suburb of Glasgow where anything goes.. :-) Then anything with Beauchamp in it (often a double-barrelled place name) becomes 'beecham'. And there are local ones. Near me, the largest National Trust property in the UK is the Holnicote Estate. Local pronounce it as 'Hunni-cut'; even Bill Bryson picked up on this one in "Mother Tongue". And again, down yur in Zummerzet, a number of place names ending in '-worthy' are spoken as '-erry'. The centre of Lorna Doone country, about 5 miles from where I live is around a river called 'Badgworthy Waterr' which in local speak becomes 'Bad-jerry Water'. Aren't place names fun? That'll put you off coming over here. :-) From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 10 11:48:33 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:48:33 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710100448q61d5b8f0p6b8a1d4eb67be453@mail.gmail.com> > > Geoff: > You have to get used to a whole raft of odd pronuniciation over > here - even we locals sometimes get caught out. > > Some are generally known ones... A handful of examples spring > to mind: > > Belvoir = 'beever' (which just happens to be in Leicestershire!) > Milngavie = 'mull-guy' but that one is a suburb > of Glasgow where anything goes.. :-) > Then anything with Beauchamp in it (often a double-barrelled > place name) becomes 'beecham'. montims: Amd surnames - a friend of mine has the surname Featherstonehaugh - pronounced Fanshaw. St John is famously (thanks to 4 weddings & a funeral) pronounced Sinjen. And Menzies, like the leader of the Liberal Party, pronounced Mingis... (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4595228.stm for an explanation of that one) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 12:18:03 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <535375.77996.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks, guys! I was feeling that way myself, like I should wait, but I just wanted so badly to share it with them...that's why I needed outside opinions. : ) Thanks, Katie potioncat wrote: "Katie" wrote: We have done > some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the > patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. > Potioncat: I agree with Geoff. It's not the themes, or darkness....it's just a very long book, or rather 7 very long books. Even my 13 year old has some difficulty sticking with it. If it's the fantasy that he likes, I'd look for something more in line with his age/attention span. I don't remember if the Sword in the Stone would be good for his age. the book, not the movie (adorable though it is.) I'm pretty sure this T.H. White book inspired JKR. Kathy --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 10 13:02:13 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:02:13 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710100448q61d5b8f0p6b8a1d4eb67be453@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Geoff: > > You have to get used to a whole raft of odd pronuniciation over > > here - even we locals sometimes get caught out. > > > > Some are generally known ones... A handful of examples spring > > to mind: > > > > Belvoir = 'beever' (which just happens to be in Leicestershire!) > > Milngavie = 'mull-guy' but that one is a suburb > > of Glasgow where anything goes.. :-) > > Then anything with Beauchamp in it (often a double-barrelled > > place name) becomes 'beecham'. > > > montims: > > Amd surnames - a friend of mine has the surname Featherstonehaugh - > pronounced Fanshaw. St John is famously (thanks to 4 weddings & a funeral) > pronounced Sinjen. And Menzies, like the leader of the Liberal Party, > pronounced Mingis... (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4595228.stm for > an explanation of that one) Geoff (again!!) As a secondary school pupil, I attended Sir Walter St.John's Grammar School in Battersea (in Sarf Lunnon). His is, as your example, pronounced Sir Walter Sinjuns. Ol boys are known as Old Sinjuns and the school magazine was "The Sinjun". Again, on surnames, Marjoribanks is pronounced Marshbanks. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 18:00:52 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:00:52 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: <535375.77996.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: Katie: > > Thanks, guys! I was feeling that way myself, like I should wait, but I just wanted so badly to share it with them...that's why I needed outside opinions. : ) Thanks, Katie > > potioncat wrote: "Katie" wrote: > We have done > > some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the > > patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. > > Tiffany: I don't have any children of my own, so I can't speak for kids having issues with the books, but my reply was based on my own experiences & recommendations. I know the length of the books is a huge factor, it was for me on all 7, but it's easy to read them if you employ the "how do you eat an elephant sandwich" method, which is simply one bite at a time. I'm tough to scare or get rattled, but I'd urge some caution with little kids reading the books because of some of the themes & elements to it. However, some kids, esp. those not at their actual maturity may have some issues with the stated above examples of the books themselves. The best thing when reading a book as long as HP is to take it one chapter at a time, or read a set number of pages before calling it a day. I always stopped & took some time to fully pick up on all that was going on, as well as the themes & elements before going on. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 18:37:14 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:37:14 -0000 Subject: Slow Day around the lists! Message-ID: Geez, where is everybody? I am starting to feel like a slacker, because I keep checking in to see if anyone has posted, but everyone else must actually have something to do!! LOL. See ya round the list (hopefully), Katie From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Oct 10 23:18:32 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:18:32 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Slow Day around the lists! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c80b93$dff9d790$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Katie]: | Geez, where is everybody? I am starting to feel like a slacker, | because I keep checking in to see if anyone has posted, but everyone | else must actually have something to do!! LOL. [Lee]: I am trying not to use up all the paper towels in the house to wipe of the tears of the broken-hearted creature (me) who's trying to restore to full health the abundant music collection that so easily got trashed the other day. I thought I had it all backed up, but some of my more recent and some most fave things are not in the back-ups. So, I have to re-download and replace a bunch of stuff after reformatting the disk drive. Ouch! My collection is only about 80 gigs of music. :( So, that's what I've been doing today...wish me luck! Sniffles, Lee :-( Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 23:41:10 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:41:10 -0000 Subject: Slow Day around the lists! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie: > > Geez, where is everybody? I am starting to feel like a slacker, > because I keep checking in to see if anyone has posted, but everyone > else must actually have something to do!! LOL. > > Tiffany: I've got an exam for a business class beginning in about 20 minutes, so I've been studying like crazy & using my laptop to keep tabs on my groups. For this academic quarter, Wednesday is nothing hectic for me, I'm in classes from 11am to 1pm, 3pm to 5pm, & 7pm to 10pm. I'm in my 3rd of business management & I've only got 4 classes this quarter, but they take up a lot of my time during the workweek. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Oct 10 23:52:59 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:52:59 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Slow Day around the lists! Message-ID: Katie: Geez, where is everybody? I am starting to feel like a slacker, because I keep checking in to see if anyone has posted, but everyone else must actually have something to do!! LOL. See ya round the list (hopefully), Katie Sandy: I was off today, but I had to clean the house and then go to a Union meeting to vote to authorize a strike. Since I work a convoluted second shift I am rarely on the computer before 10 p.m. Things are slow today, aren't they? Oh well. it will give me the chance to do some of the other things I enjoy doing online. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stacygalore at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 17:26:32 2007 From: stacygalore at yahoo.com (stacygalore) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:26:32 -0000 Subject: Weird Question about Harry Breaking a Mirror Message-ID: I am writing an HP fanfic, and recently wrote a passage involving a student punching a bathroom mirror then sliding down the wall to the floor in tears. Then I had a bit of deja vu. I thought, maybe, this actually occurred in canon. Can anybody recall something like this happening? Did Harry ever punch a bathroom mirror? Maybe I just dreamed it, maybe I actually read it. Thanks, Stacy From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Oct 11 17:43:34 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:43:34 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Weird Question about Harry Breaking a Mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c80c2e$3f48e570$67a4a8c0@FRODO> The only mirror Harry ever broke was the two-way mirror he had gotten from Sirius; he threw it into his trunk where it shattered. Cheers, Lee :-) | -----Original Message----- | From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | [mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of stacygalore | Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 13:27 | To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Weird Question about Harry | Breaking a Mirror | | I am writing an HP fanfic, and recently wrote a passage | involving a student punching a | bathroom mirror then sliding down the wall to the floor in | tears. Then I had a bit of deja vu. | I thought, maybe, this actually occurred in canon. Can | anybody recall something like this | happening? Did Harry ever punch a bathroom mirror? Maybe I | just dreamed it, maybe I | actually read it. | | Thanks, | Stacy | | | | ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ | | The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them! | http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2 | | Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary | material from posts to which you're replying! | | Yahoo! Groups Links | | | | From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 22:18:47 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:18:47 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: British place name pronunciations reminds me of Knoxville, TN where I lived for several years. There's a suburban area (not actually a town or village) near Knoxville called Lovell. One day I passed an historical marker and stopped to read it. Turns out the area was settled by a man named Love and called Loveville. Considering that southerners pronunciation of 'ville' is 'vull', it's not hard to see how the name eventually became Lovell. Not to let us folks in Indiana off the hook -- Russiaville is pronounced Rooshaville; Chili, Cheye-leye (long i's); Versailles the way it's spelled, no fancy French for us Hoosiers. ;-) I'm sure there are others, but this is what I recall at the moment. Oh yeah, Lima, Ohio is pronounced with a long 'i' too. Snape's Witch From HMaffioli at san.rr.com Thu Oct 11 22:49:58 2007 From: HMaffioli at san.rr.com (Heather Maffioli) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:58 -0700 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies Message-ID: Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon as I heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is great he has a regular job!! Heather From drdara at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 00:00:32 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies Message-ID: <838991.76829.qm@web60722.mail.yahoo.com> Heather I did, even posted an email but no one responded ever get those days when you feel like your being ignored in email lol danielle Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon as I heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is great he has a regular job!! Heather ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 12 01:21:46 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:21:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c80c6e$42336720$67a4a8c0@FRODO> I've heard it, but I just couldn't get into the show. Perhaps it's too visual for me...don't know, but I'm glad he's got something ongoing. Cheers, Lee :-) | -----Original Message----- | From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | [mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Heather Maffioli | Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 18:50 | To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies | | Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? | As soon as I | heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is | great he has a | regular job!! | | Heather | | | | ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ | | The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them! | http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2 | | Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary | material from posts to which you're replying! | | Yahoo! Groups Links | | | | From stacygalore at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 04:03:17 2007 From: stacygalore at yahoo.com (stacygalore) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:03:17 -0000 Subject: From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) Message-ID: HBP and DH spoilers . . . My eyes are really hurting from scanning the Fiction Alley Park archives for the answers to my questions, so I'll just ask them here. Sorry if this is not the best place for them, but I trust you guys and I'm too intimidated to post on the main HPFGU forum. By the way, thanks Mrs.LeeStorm for answering my weird question about the broken mirror. OK here are my questions. 1. Did we ever find out if Draco is actually a Death Eater? He never killed Dumbledore, so I would think he never earned that "privilege". I don't recall reading anything in DH that explicitly marks him as a DE. Why didn't LV kill Draco for not killing Dumbledore? 2. Do all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, or is it just LV's inner circle? 3. Since LV is finally vanquished, does the Dark Mark disappear from the remaining DE? Would somebody else just fill the void left by LV and keep the Dark Mark active? 4. How did Lucius Malfoy get out of Azkaban? Again, I thoroughly appologize if I'm asking these questions in the wrong forum. If somebody could answer them, I'd be so happy, but understand if I were to be redirected to another source. - Stacy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 04:08:40 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:08:40 -0000 Subject: Measurements in Europe Message-ID: OK now all of you kind folks on the other side of the pond can help me here. I looked on the internet for the conversions and I want to be sure about this. There is some doubt. If someone is 184 cm tall, what is that in inches??? Thanks. Tonks_op From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 12 04:34:45 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:34:45 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c80c89$393078f0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [stacygalore]: | By the way, thanks Mrs.LeeStorm for answering my weird | question about the broken | mirror. [Lee]: No prob. :) Now, let's see what we can figure here... [stacygalore]: | 1. Did we ever find out if Draco is actually a Death Eater? | He never killed Dumbledore, so I | would think he never earned that "privilege". I don't recall | reading anything in DH that | explicitly marks him as a DE. Why didn't LV kill Draco for | not killing Dumbledore? [Lee]: Well, that be two questions in one, friend. Draco seems to have had the mark, which not all DEs have, only those in "Voldething's" inner circle. We gather he was given the mark in HBP when he cries out in the robe shop when Madam Malkin started to pin up the left sleeve. He also shows his left arm to Mr. Borgin. I figure Volde can use some control and intimidation with that mark. As far as why Volde didn't kill Draco, I believe he intended to keep him around to control Lucius and Narcissa. In there own way, they love Draco; he's their only son, and you remember how Narcissa pleaded to Snape for his intervention. So, better keep Draco around knowing Lucius' and Narcissa's weakness. [stacygalore]: | 2. Do all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, or is | it just LV's inner circle? [Lee]: Again, I believe it's the inner circle. I remember there was some mention made, but I don't recall the exact phrasing. Remember that Greyback did not have the mark, neither did any of the other snatchers with him. [stacygalore]: | 3. Since LV is finally vanquished, does the Dark Mark | disappear from the remaining DE? | Would somebody else just fill the void left by LV and keep [Lee]: That's a good one, but I'm going to surmise that the mark, though not red and clear, is still there, just as Harry's scar will always be there. Whether or not it can be used by a Volde successor...I'm going to surmise that Volde probably put his own charm on them which is now broken. [stacygalore]:| the Dark Mark active? | 4. How did Lucius Malfoy get out of Azkaban? [Lee]: Well, remember, the dementors are no longer under Ministry control...at least, not the control of the good people of the Ministry. They belong to Volde and all those who work to help him. So, just as the original DEs got out of Azkaban in OOTP, I'm sure there's nothing to stop Volde from pulling anyone out that he wants. And, of course, he wants Lucius out because he can be useful, even if he does have weaknesses. Hope that helpeth. :-) Cheers, Lee :-) (Still trying to recover all her lost treasures!) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 04:37:16 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:37:16 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Snape's Witch: > Versailles the > way it's spelled, no fancy French for us Hoosiers. Um...I know this will sound a touch odd, but can you try to spell out the pronunciation? To me, Versailles, pronounced French-proper, is spelled the way it's spelled, so I just can't wrap my head around your comment. But speaking of French words being bastardized, you Philadelphian/Pennsylvanian folks know this one: York-Dauphin. I remember being on a train hearing this stop being announced, and my brain literally could not wrap it's narrow mind around this pronunciation. To this day, I can't do it. I know it's stubborn and wrong of me to not accept regional variances like this, but 'dauphin' is, to me, Charles in the Joan of Arc stories, not a sea mammal (dolphin). It's stubborn. I know! But I can't help it! For the first 17 years of my life, a stewardess was a hostess de l'air, and when I point my camera in the direction of the sun, the problem was (and still is) con soleil. I'm sorry; my parents have raised me weird. ~Ali, who was first taught British English and now speaks sometimes odd American English From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 04:45:30 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:45:30 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Measurements in Europe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tonks: > OK now all of you kind folks on the other side of the pond can help me > here. I looked on the internet for the conversions and I want to be > sure about this. There is some doubt. If someone is 184 cm tall, what > is that in inches??? I'm on this side of the pond, but here is what has been taught to me: 184 cm x 0.393700787 = 72.440944808 in = 6.04 ft I admit that I looked it up on Google for a more accurate number, but I was always taught that 1 in = ~2.5 cm (by every last math teacher I've ever had), which is close since Google tells me it's around 2.54 cm. Care to tell us what the doubt is? ~Ali From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 12 04:55:00 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:55:00 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c80c8c$0b6d0cf0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Snape's Witch: | > Versailles the | > way it's spelled, no fancy French for us Hoosiers. | [Alexis Nguyen]: | Um...I know this will sound a touch odd, but can you try to spell out | the pronunciation? To me, Versailles, pronounced French-proper, is | spelled the way it's spelled, so I just can't wrap my head around your | comment. [Lee] Some American pronunciations ov Versailles would be "Ver-Sales" rather than the given "Vaer-Sigh." What cracks me up is the way one of my British friends pronounced Filet. He called it a "Fil-let." And a fish needed to be "fil-letted." And isn't there a place in Pennsylvania called Du Bois? It's pronounced "Du Boyce" rather than "Du Bwa." Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 05:52:06 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:52:06 -0000 Subject: Measurements in Europe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: >> > I'm on this side of the pond, but here is what has been taught to me: > 184 cm x 0.393700787 = 72.440944808 in = 6.04 ft > > I admit that I looked it up on Google for a more accurate number, but > I was always taught that 1 in = ~2.5 cm (by every last math teacher > I've ever had), which is close since Google tells me it's around 2.54 > cm. > > Care to tell us what the doubt is? > > ~Ali > Tonks: Thanks. Well part of the problem is that the person doing the measuring and sending the measurements was a bit off here and there. First it was 84cm and I figured that to be about 32 inches and I knew that was wrong. But then she said 1.84cm. Huh?? So finally she said 184cm and some of the other measurement were kinda funny and asking others here, no one was sure that the conversion was the 2.5 for 1 inch that I saw on the internet. Anyway this helps a lot. We are making a robe for someone, that I am sure was not 31 inches tall. Thanks again. I am a prefectionist and always like to double check things. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 06:03:52 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:03:52 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Heather Maffioli wrote: > > Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon as I > heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is great he has a regular job!! > Tonks: OK, I am going to show my total ignorance for the second time tonight. Pushing Daisies??? What and where is that?? Some new TV show? In the U.S.?? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 12 06:45:08 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:45:08 -0000 Subject: Measurements in Europe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > OK now all of you kind folks on the other side of the pond can help me > here. I looked on the internet for the conversions and I want to be > sure about this. There is some doubt. If someone is 184 cm tall, what > is that in inches??? > > Thanks. > > Tonks_op Geoff: I take 1 inch=2.54 cm and, as a rule of thumb, 1 foot= approx. 30 cm. so using the more accurate figure, 184 cm (or 1.84m if you prefer it) is 72.4 inches, as near as dammit. 6 feet. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 11:57:20 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:57:20 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: <000201c80c8c$0b6d0cf0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> References: <000201c80c8c$0b6d0cf0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710120457o5f54cdc0y2f7e42fd05856ebe@mail.gmail.com> > > [Lee] > > What cracks me up is the way one of my British friends pronounced > Filet. He > called it a "Fil-let." And a fish needed to be "fil-letted." montims: that;s because, unless it is a French dish (like filet mignon), British English writes and says "fillet". Other American adaptations of French words that make me cringe are "bleu" pronounced blue (we have constant tv ads for a cooking course with Le Cordon Bleu, pronounced Lay Cordon Blue, that have made me nearly tear all my hair out with frustration) and beef sandwiches served "with au jus" to dip in... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 12:28:40 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:28:40 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Measurements in Europe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710120528u7d9111aas9fa57864acadc7c@mail.gmail.com> > > Tonks: > Thanks. Well part of the problem is that the person doing the > measuring and sending the measurements was a bit off here and there. > First it was 84cm and I figured that to be about 32 inches and I > knew that was wrong. But then she said 1.84cm. Huh?? So finally she > said 184cm and some of the other measurement were kinda funny and > asking others here, no one was sure that the conversion was the 2.5 > for 1 inch that I saw on the internet. Anyway this helps a lot. We > are making a robe for someone, that I am sure was not 31 inches > tall. Thanks again. I am a prefectionist and always like to double > check things. > > Tonks_op montims: well these are centimetres, so perforce there are 100 to the metre. A metre is 39". 1.84 = 1 metre 84 centimetres... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 12 12:50:58 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:50:58 -0000 Subject: From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stacy wrote: > > OK here are my questions. > > 1. Did we ever find out if Draco is actually a Death Eater? He never killed Dumbledore, so I > would think he never earned that "privilege". I don't recall reading anything in DH that > explicitly marks him as a DE. Why didn't LV kill Draco for not killing Dumbledore? I think he was. Others don't. But JKR never showed "us" his Dark Mark. Maybe LV didn't kill Draco beacause Snape vouched for him, or because LV preferred to hold the possibility of his death over the Malfoys' heads, or he forgot he said he would. He had also once said he was going to kill Snape; Snape slithered out of that one too. (Oh, I wish I hadn't said slither.) > > 2. Do all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, or is it just LV's inner circle? I don't think we know. What isn't clear is why no one seems to see it unless JKR wants them to. So I think a fanfic writer could treat it either way. > > 3. Since LV is finally vanquished, does the Dark Mark disappear from the remaining DE? > Would somebody else just fill the void left by LV and keep the Dark Mark active? Your guess is as good as anyone else's. > > 4. How did Lucius Malfoy get out of Azkaban? There was a massive break out (again) and was mentioned in DH. > > Again, I thoroughly appologize if I'm asking these questions in the wrong forum. If > somebody could answer them, I'd be so happy, but understand if I were to be redirected to > another source. I'd suggest The Lexicon. It's about the best source of information there is. Back to the Slytherin the Mirror and the Bathroom. Your description of the scene is very similar to HBP when Harry and Draco duel in the bathroom. Could that be the dejavu you're feeling? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 12 13:40:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:40:39 -0000 Subject: From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) In-Reply-To: <000101c80c89$393078f0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > [stacygalore]: > | 1. Did we ever find out if Draco is actually a Death Eater? > | He never killed Dumbledore, so I > | would think he never earned that "privilege". I don't recall > | reading anything in DH that > | explicitly marks him as a DE. Why didn't LV kill Draco for > | not killing Dumbledore? > > [Lee]: > Well, that be two questions in one, friend. Draco seems to have had > the mark, which not all DEs have, only those in "Voldething's" inner circle. > We gather he was given the mark in HBP when he cries out in the robe shop > when Madam Malkin started to pin up the left sleeve. He also shows his left > arm to Mr. Borgin. Magpie: Neither of these things are canon. Since we were never given an alternative scenario Harry's theory might be true, but Draco does neither of these things for sure. He's complaining about Malkin sticking him with pins when they first walk into the shop, and again claims she's stuck him with a pin when she goes for his sleeve. We also don't know what he shows Borgin because we never see it. Harry decides he showed him his Dark Mark and then backtracks and decides he was worried about his arm being touched. Like I said, since we never are given any alternate version maybe Harry's hit upon the truth there--or maybe he really did show the Dark Mark but really was just stuck with a pin. (We saw that in front of us--Draco says pin, Harry later says Dark Mark.) JKR is sometimes a bit sloppy with this sort of thing with Draco, though. We're shown him not getting the Hand of Glory and then she speaks as if we saw him get it, so maybe he has the Dark Mark. That makes sense after DH. But I'll never buy that "he jumped because she touched his arm" idea. I think that's too much of a stretch--and I don't consider Harry very reliable about stuff like that. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 12 13:43:23 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:43:23 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > > OK, I am going to show my total ignorance for the second time tonight. > Pushing Daisies??? What and where is that?? Some new TV show? In the > U.S.?? Magpie: Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not fond of Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think it's real time is some other time. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 12 14:05:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:05:03 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation (was Puddings) In-Reply-To: <000201c80c8c$0b6d0cf0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" wrote: > What cracks me up is the way one of my British friends pronounced Filet. He > called it a "Fil-let." And a fish needed to be "fil-letted." Geoff: that is the correct version of filletted - ie removing the bones. I agree that we do pronounce filet steak the same way (even I do!!) but we shouldn't.... Lee: > And isn't there a place in Pennsylvania called Du Bois? It's pronounced "Du > Boyce" rather than "Du Bwa." Geoff: There was a station on the London Underground near to Epping Forest called Theydon Bois; everyone calls it Theydon Boyce - like your example. (It's an unvoiced 'th' BTW). From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 16:18:18 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:18:18 -0000 Subject: From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Neither of these things are canon. Since we were never given an > alternative scenario Harry's theory might be true, but Draco does > neither of these things for sure. He's complaining about Malkin > sticking him with pins when they first walk into the shop, and again claims she's stuck him with a pin when she goes for his sleeve. We also don't know what he shows Borgin because we never see it. Harry decides he showed him his Dark Mark and then backtracks and decides he was worried about his arm being touched. > Tonks: I agree that we still do not know about Draco. Perhaps she will let some information out on her site like she did about Harry being an Auror. We must remember too that the scene on the tower doesn't prove that Draco is a Death Eater either, since he got to the tower first before the charm to allow only those with a dark mark through was cast. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 18:48:40 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:48:40 -0000 Subject: Measurements in Europe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > OK now all of you kind folks on the other side of the pond can help me > here. I looked on the internet for the conversions and I want to be > sure about this. There is some doubt. If someone is 184 cm tall, what > is that in inches??? > > Thanks. > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: For every type of conversion imaginable including money, I alway us - Convert It http://www.convertit.com/Go/ConvertIt/ All Measurement Conversion - Calculator, tables, etc... Currency Exchange Rate - auto-convert, tables, etc.. Reference Info - AMS55 Online, Countries, States, Places Named, ... World Time Zones - Current Time in 1000 Places, World Time Clock, ... Calculators - Finance, Date & Time, Math, Geography, ... Very handy. Steve/bboyminn From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 21:11:17 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:11:17 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Tonks: > > > > OK, I am going to show my total ignorance for the second time > tonight. > > Pushing Daisies??? What and where is that?? Some new TV show? In the > > U.S.?? > > Magpie: > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not fond of > Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > it's real time is some other time. > > -m ***Katie: I don't like his HP work, either. His voice is very flat and monotone to me. And I thought Pushing Daisies was lousy, considering how much hype it had. Blah. Katie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 02:23:37 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:23:37 -0000 Subject: HP CD's /Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not > fond of > > Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > > it's real time is some other time. > > > > -m > > ***Katie: > I don't like his HP work, either. His voice is very flat and > monotone to me. And I thought Pushing Daisies was lousy, considering > how much hype it had. Blah. Katie > Tonks: I will try to find the show and watch it. He is the one on the U.S. versions of the Harry Potter CD's, right? What do you mean 'flat'? I like his work. He speaks in different voices and brings the story to life, if you ask me. I have never heard Fry. Tonks_op From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 02:48:33 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] HP CD's /Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <966496.84358.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tonks wrote: > > Magpie: > > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not > fond of > > Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > > it's real time is some other time. > > > > -m > > ***Katie: > I don't like his HP work, either. His voice is very flat and > monotone to me. And I thought Pushing Daisies was lousy, considering > how much hype it had. Blah. Katie > Tonks: I will try to find the show and watch it. He is the one on the U.S. versions of the Harry Potter CD's, right? What do you mean 'flat'? I like his work. He speaks in different voices and brings the story to life, if you ask me. I have never heard Fry. Tonks_op ***Katie: I don't know - I just found his voice really kind of blah. I tried a couple times to listen to it, feeling like maybe I just wasn't in the right mood or something, but he just didn't do it for me. I generally enjoy CD books, especially the Narnia series, which is read by some fantastic British actors. I just didn't dig Dale's voice. I do seem to be in the minority. Maybe I will give it a whirl again, just to see. : ) Katie . --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 04:12:52 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:12:52 -0000 Subject: HP CD's /Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > I will try to find the show and watch it. He is the one on the U.S. > versions of the Harry Potter CD's, right? What do you mean 'flat'? I > like his work. He speaks in different voices and brings the story to > life, if you ask me. I have never heard Fry. KathyK: You can watch it on your computer at ABC's website: http://dynamic.abc.go.com/streaming/landing?lid=ABCCOMGlobalMenu&lpos=FEP ABC makes you download something to use the player but it's pretty decent and you're forced to sit through about 2 minutes of commercial versus like, 20, when you watch it on TV. It's a better quality than NBC's player. I really like that ABC and NBC (and probably other networks, too) do this since I can put in pretty much zero effort into following a television program. It takes no effort to sit in front of the TV and watch these things but since I work evenings, that's not an option. I haven't watched Pushing Daisies and I've never heard a second of a HP audiobook, so this is all I can contribute to the conversation. ;) KathyK From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 08:11:59 2007 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <280535.26624.qm@web53009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Good to know that it is Jim Dale doing the voiceover work. I have never heard the audio books of HP and now I know how he sounds. I always thought he would be a proper British sort. Thanks. Alex Hogan Tonks wrote: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Heather Maffioli wrote: > > Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon as I > heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is great he has a regular job!! > Tonks: OK, I am going to show my total ignorance for the second time tonight. Pushing Daisies??? What and where is that?? Some new TV show? In the U.S.?? Tonks_op --------------------------------- Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 14 15:40:36 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 14 Oct 2007 15:40:36 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/14/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1192376436.9.55916.m56@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 14, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 14 17:41:50 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 14 Oct 2007 17:41:50 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/14/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1192383710.12.97417.m46@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 14, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 14 21:20:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:20:44 -0000 Subject: Ginny banned from Hogsmeade Message-ID: Potioncat here, I'm working on a post for the main list, and I can't find the canon for one of my points. Does anyone know where in DH we hear that Ginny is no longer allowed to go to Hogsmeade? From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Oct 14 21:30:03 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:30:03 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Ginny banned from Hogsmeade In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c80ea9$61e3cc80$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Potioncat here, I'm working on a post for the main list, and I can't | find the canon for one of my points. Does anyone know where in DH we | hear that Ginny is no longer allowed to go to Hogsmeade? [Lee]: HPDH, Chapter 16: Re Finias: "However, he did let drop certain snippets. Snape seemed to be facing a constant, low level of mutiny from a hard core of students. Ginny had been banned from going into Hogsmeade. Snape had reinstated Umbridge's old decree forbidding gatherings of three or more ..." Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From lavaluvn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 08:55:49 2007 From: lavaluvn at yahoo.com (Andromeda) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:55:49 -0000 Subject: When to start reading Potter to little ones? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > Hey All, > > I am interested in everyone's opinion. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year > old and one on the way. The kids know all about HP from me, because > they see me reading it all the time, though we do not watch the movies > because I don't let them watch TV. Neither of them has expressed > particular interest in having me read HP to them, although they like to > have me tell them the basic story and talk about it. They know I love > it, so they take some joy in sharing it with me. I am beginning to > wonder if it's time to start reading SS to my 4 year old? We have done > some chapter type books, reading one chapter each day, so he has the > patience...I just wonder if it's a little beyond him. > > He's the type of kid that would be very frustrated if he couldn't > understand it. I don't want to start reading it to him, have him get > frustrated, and have my own child not like HP!! That would break my > heart! What do you guys think? > > Katie > Andromeda now: I totally sympathize, I had the same problem. I tried to read Sorcerer's Stone to my daughter a few times. She wasn't ready until about age 6. At that age books 1-3 are ok (with judicious editing of scary parts, depending on your child; mine is sensitive). I made the mistake of reading book 4 straight. She was completely devastated by Cedric's death - she had been so excited that they were going to win the tournament together... ugh. So lesson learned, when we eventually read book 5, I told her in advance that Sirius would die so it wouldn't be a shock. By the time book 7 came out, she was reading them all herself. Though she did get halfway through DH and declare that she hated the books and never wanted anything to do with them, until I reassured her that Harry would survive and get his wand back and have a happy ending, and Hermione and Ron would be ok, too. Then suddenly she could finish it and be a fan again. Personally I think she's too young (8) to understand a lot of it, but I wasn't going to stand in her way. She started off as a very slow reader and the HP books really helped her take off. My younger daughter is now four and I have no intention of reading HP books to her for years yet (well, ok, unless she really begs. For a four year old, I would recommend the Magic Tree house books by Osbourne. They are great short chapter books with some pictures, lots of magic and excitement plus some history or something "educational" snuck in. Don't rush into HP. Chances are they'll love Harry eventually! Cheers, Andromeda From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 17:00:50 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:00:50 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ***Katie: > I don't like his HP work, either. His voice is very flat and > monotone to me. And I thought Pushing Daisies was lousy, considering > how much hype it had. Blah. Katie What hype? I don't recall any hype. I remember seeing a few posters and billboards (of the variety one would find on public transportation vehicles and in their stations), but is that hype? Maybe I'm just too used to having those things flash by me, but I don't consider that hype. In any case, I actually really like Pushing Daisies. It's very Amelie with a splash of Big Fish, and that's actually something that has a very specific audience, much like the cult-favourite Dead Like Me. As Magpie said, Pushing Daisies is unbearably twee, but I don't find that obnoxious. What can I say? If I truly found cuteness unbearable, I wouldn't be putting up with a cat to whom I'm constantly threatening de-clawing. :) ~Ali From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 19:49:05 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:49:05 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ali: What hype? I don't recall any hype. I remember seeing a few posters and billboards (of the variety one would find on public transportation vehicles and in their stations), but is that hype? Maybe I'm just too used to having those things flash by me, but I don't consider that hype. In any case, I actually really like Pushing Daisies. It's very Amelie with a splash of Big Fish, and that's actually something that has a very specific audience, much like the cult-favourite Dead Like Me. As Magpie said, Pushing Daisies is unbearably twee, but I don't find that obnoxious. What can I say? If I truly found cuteness unbearable, I wouldn't be putting up with a cat to whom I'm constantly threatening de-clawing. :) ~Ali I also don't recall any hyping it up, just some online promos & commercials for it. Also, the reviews for the series have been very mixed to say the least with some loving it & some loathing it. I've not seen it so I can't issue commentary on the series, but some friends I know of have said they weren't that impressed with the pilot episode. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 04:47:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:47:06 -0000 Subject: From Weird Question to Stupid Questions (about Death Eaters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: stacygalore wrote: > OK here are my questions. > 3. Since LV is finally vanquished, does the Dark Mark disappear from the remaining DE? > > 4. How did Lucius Malfoy get out of Azkaban? Carol responds: Most of your other questions have been answered (and BTW, I agree with Potioncat that Snape, LV's new right-hand man, may have put in a good word for Draco, who did succeed in getting DEs into Hogwarts, enabling Snape to "murder" DD), but I thought I'd point out that JKR addressed the disappearing Dark Mark question in the Bloomsbury Online Chat, July 30, 2007: "The Dark Mark would fade to a scar, not dissimilar to the lightning scar on Harry's forehead. Like Harry's, these scars would no longer burn or hurt." The Leaky Cauldron's Post-Deathly Hallows Information page http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/books/postdh contains a link to the original chat. As for Lucius's escape from Azkaban, Voldie says in chapter 1 of DH (when he takes Lucius's wand) that he broke him out (though I assume it was the DEs who did the work) and that he should be grateful. Also, in "Fallen Warrior," Kingsley Shacklebolt mentions an escape from Azkaban that the Ministry has covered up. Dolohov, Rookwood, Macnair, and Bellatrix's husband Rodolphus are among the escapees (all of them are mentioned at some point in DH). That's how Stan Shunpike and Mundungus Fletcher got out of Azkaban, too, so I imagine that all of the DEs arrested in OoP were freed. That would be, in addition to those I've already named, Rabastan Lestrange, Crabbe, Jugson, Avery, Mulciber, and Nott, who was injured and didn't participate in the fight. (Kingsley mentions Travers, but I thought he escaped in OoP and wasn't involved in the Ministry fiasco. Another JKR memory lapse, I guess.) Goyle was not mentioned as participating in the raid. Anyway, Lucius and the other DEs escaped at some point between HBP and DH, but there's no Daily Prophet article because the escape was hushed up. Carol, now wondering what happened to the baby-headed DE, whom I think must have been Crabbe (by process of elimination) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 05:23:27 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:23:27 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not fond of Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > it's real time is some other time. Tonks: OK. I saw it tonight Wed. at 8:00pm EST. on ABC. I am an old lady and don't know what "twee" means. But the best thing about the show seems to be Jim Dale. I don't think this series will last out the year. It is some sort of comedy, I guess. Boring, and not really funny. I lost interest after about 15 minutes. Frazer it ain't. There are not any really good comedy shows on any more. I have to watch reruns on late night TV. ;-( Of course, all the British comedies on PBS are good. I like "Keeping Up Appearances" and the one that comes on after it.. can't think of the name. Tonks_op From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 18 13:53:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:53:44 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not fond > of Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > > it's real time is some other time. > > > Tonks: > > OK. I saw it tonight Wed. at 8:00pm EST. on ABC. I am an old lady and > don't know what "twee" means. But the best thing about the show seems > to be Jim Dale. I don't think this series will last out the year. It is > some sort of comedy, I guess. Boring, and not really funny. I lost > interest after about 15 minutes. Frazer it ain't. There are not any > really good comedy shows on any more. I have to watch reruns on late > night TV. ;-( Of course, all the British comedies on PBS are good. I > like "Keeping Up Appearances" and the one that comes on after it.. > can't think of the name. Magpie: Twee's an old word.:-) (But not used a lot so it's not unusual not to hear it.) It means overly precious or cute in an affected way. I didn't find it funy either. I like "Keeping Up Appearances" too-- and "As Time Goes By," might be the one you're thinking of, if your PBS station schedule is the same as mine, that is. -m From roulston112131 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 16:09:09 2007 From: roulston112131 at yahoo.com (Ruth Roulston) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies Message-ID: <327600.20339.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> It was Jim Dale's presence that first drew me to watching Pushing Daisies. Now the very quirkiness of the story line keeps me tuning in each week. Granted, I watch it with the captions running because I'd miss a lot of the one-liners without them, but I enjoy the characters and the odd plots. The downside? Too many commercials! Ruth. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fanwriter40 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:24:17 2007 From: fanwriter40 at yahoo.com (Debra) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:24:17 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Yup. Just started. I found it unbearably twee, myself. I'm not fond > of Jim Dale's voiceover. They re-ran in last Friday night but I think > > it's real time is some other time. > Tonks: > OK. I saw it tonight Wed. at 8:00pm EST. on ABC. I am an old lady and > don't know what "twee" means. But the best thing about the show seems > to be Jim Dale. I don't think this series will last out the year. It is > some sort of comedy, I guess. Boring, and not really funny. I lost > interest after about 15 minutes. Frazer it ain't. There are not any > really good comedy shows on any more. I have to watch reruns on late > night TV. ;-( Of course, all the British comedies on PBS are good. I > like "Keeping Up Appearances" and the one that comes on after it.. > can't think of the name. fanwriter40: I am an old lady too and have to agree with you Tonks. I did try to watch and lost interest faster than you. This is my first posting so be nice to me. I jest, found you guys a couple of days ago and love your group. Hope to talk to y'all soon. :} From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 21:04:27 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:04:27 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: Twee's an old word.:-) (But not used a lot so it's not unusual not to hear it.) It means overly precious or cute in an affected way. I didn't find it funy either. I like "Keeping Up Appearances" too-- and "As Time Goes By," might be the one you're thinking of, if your PBS station schedule is the same as mine, that is. -m Tiffany: There's another use, mostly music circles called twee pop which started to appear in 1998 or 1999. I'm a huge music lover & it's one of my oldest passions in my 21 years of being around. It's also used to refer to indie pop & can be either good or bad depending on how it's connotation. I have over 1,000 CDs in my personal collection & music is one of two things I can a stickler for details on, the other being card games, but I'm typically not a "details person". The following definition is copied from Wikinitionary's entry on it. A type of pop music with simple melodies and lyrics, usually quaint, dainty, and/or cute. The link to it is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/twee_pop From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 21:22:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:22:52 -0000 Subject: Chapels in British boarding schools Message-ID: Montavilla 47 wrote on the main list: Also, it was very odd to me that the wizards had no religion. I thought it might be because religion is such a taboo subject in popular culture. But it always stuck me as very strange for a boarding school to have no chapel--it's such a staple of the English boarding school depiction. Carol responds: My knowledge of the British boarding school tradition is pretty much confined to nineteenth-century Eton. I haven't read any boarding school novels (unless the segments in "Jane Eyre" and "David Copperfield" count for something), but I, too, was under the impression that attending chapel was a staple of British boarding school life. I'm wondering whether any British or Commonwealth posters can enlighten me as to whether that would still be the case near the end of the twentieth century, when HRH were attending Hogwarts. (I moved this post to the OT list because I didn't think the question was sufficiently canonical to post on the main list.) BTW, I agree that JKR wasn't just protecting her plot from discovery by suppressing explicitly religious (Christian) motifs until the final instalment of the series. I think she was fully aware of the hostility to religion in contemporary culture (not just in Britain but in the U.S. and, no doubt, in continental Europe as well). She wanted the books to have universal appeal, IMO, but she probably didn't want to be attacked for ostensibly foisting overtly Christian views on her readers by depicting those views as desirable. Safer in this cultural climate not to break the taboo. (I do think, though, that the Christian motifs go beyond the afterlife to forgiveness and redemption, as well as sacrificial love.) Carol, hoping that she's not arousing strong emotions with this post and mostly just asking whether chapel is still a part of boarding school life in Britain From HMaffioli at san.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:44:29 2007 From: HMaffioli at san.rr.com (Heather Maffioli) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/17/07 10:23 PM, "Tonks" wrote: >> >Tonks: > >> >OK. I saw it tonight Wed. at 8:00pm EST. on ABC. I am an old lady and > don't know what "twee" means. But the best thing about the show seems > to be Jim Dale. I don't think this series will last out the year. It is > some sort of comedy, I guess. Boring, and not really funny. I lost > interest after about 15 minutes. Frazer it ain't. There are not any > really good comedy shows on any more. I have to watch reruns on late > night TV. ;-( Of course, all the British comedies on PBS are good. I > like "Keeping Up Appearances" and the one that comes on after it.. > can't think of the name. > > Heather: > > Yes, it is definitely not Frasier (thank goodness!) I agree that the humor is > odd and not for everyone. It a land of two and a half men and everybody > loves Raymond it is a nice change to have a show witch requires its audience > to pay attention. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bradzude at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 00:34:38 2007 From: bradzude at yahoo.com (bzbeamer) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:34:38 -0000 Subject: Tie between Christian Faith & Harry Potter? Message-ID: Do you think people who are Harry Potter fans are generally better citizens, go to church, don't cheat on taxes, etc? Harry Potter was stated to be directly associated with the types of behaviors the boy scouts and brownies teach. Hrmm... Brad www.WinningInTheMargins.com Passcode: NewRich Bradzude at yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 05:33:55 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:33:55 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > fanwriter40: > > I am an old lady too and have to agree with you Tonks. I did try to > watch and lost interest faster than you. This is my first posting so be > nice to me. I jest, found you guys a couple of days ago and love your > group. Hope to talk to y'all soon. :} > Tonks: Welcome. if you number is your age, you are a young'un. ;-) And Magpie was right about the name of the other British show... As Time Goes By. Now if I could find a nice guy like the fella on that show, I might get married again myself. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 05:45:49 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:45:49 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Heather: > > > > Yes, it is definitely not Frasier (thank goodness!) I agree that the humor is odd and not for everyone. It a land of two and a half men and everybody loves Raymond it is a nice change to have a show witch requires its audience to pay attention. > > Tonks: Hey... whats not to love about Frasier? I really miss that show. It was my favorite. Dry humor. Loved it. Very subtle humor. Had me in stitches every time. I will never forget the one where Niles irons his pants and sets the ironing board on fire after burning his hand. That was a bit slap stick. God, I miss that show. Liked the Golden Girls too. Now my age is showing. ;-) I won't even mention the orginal I Love Lucy shows.. I was a teenager then. Tonks_op From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 12:31:24 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:31:24 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Chapels in British boarding schools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710190531r356989e5w30e9ad52720b8085@mail.gmail.com> > > Carol, hoping that she's not arousing strong emotions with this post > and mostly just asking whether chapel is still a part of boarding > school life in Britain montims: Well, I never attended boarding school, but I found this by googling: http://www.boardingschools.co.uk/religion.htm Most schools have an affiliation to the Anglican (Church of England) or Catholic church and in most cases there is a chapel (small private church) on the school grounds where pupils are expected to attend religious services two or three times per week. Children who are practicing members of another religion (e.g. Muslims, Jews) may ask to be excused attendance at religious services, but atheists and agnostics are not exempt. England is a secular society and regular attendance at church services does not play a major part in the lives of the majority of the population. However schools feel that church services and religious instruction lessons distill in the children broad moral values - the difference between right and wrong, consideration for the welfare of others etc. The school chapel often offers the largest space where the whole school can meet and assemblies are often held there. These are not religious occasions, but a chance for the Head to address all pupils and staff on matters of general interest and related to the smooth administration of the school. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 17:26:23 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:26:23 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme Message-ID: SPOILER WARNING Is this group still a Spoiler Free Zone?? IF So... Stop reading if you haven't finished the books. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Here is an article of an interview with Rowling. I was a bit late reading it. It was 2 days ago. It says what I have know all along from the first book. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml Harry is a Christ figure. He is not "THE" Christ, only Jesus is that. But there are many in the series that are a Christ figure. I think it was Tolkien who said that Christ was on every page of his books. And now the same can be said of Rowling???s. Tonks_op Who is always right, but no one ever listens to me. ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 19:11:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:11:13 -0000 Subject: Chapels in British boarding schools In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710190531r356989e5w30e9ad52720b8085@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > Carol, mostly just asking whether chapel is still a part of boarding school life in Britain > > > montims: > Well, I never attended boarding school, but I found this by googling: > http://www.boardingschools.co.uk/religion.htm > > > Most schools have an affiliation to the Anglican (Church of England) or Catholic church and in most cases there is a chapel (small private church) on the school grounds where pupils are expected to attend religious services two or three times per week. Children who are practicing members of another religion (e.g. Muslims, Jews) may ask to be excused attendance at religious services, but atheists and agnostics are not exempt. > > England is a secular society and regular attendance at church services does not play a major part in the lives of the majority of the population. However schools feel that church services and religious instruction lessons distill in the children broad moral values - the difference between right and wrong, consideration for the welfare of others etc. Carol responds: Thanks for the link and the quoted passage. Makes me wonder why JKR didn't include chapel service at Hogwarts, considering that it reflects British boarding schools in so many other ways (and some of its former students eventually became monks or friars, based on the portraits and the Hufflepuff ghost). Was she trying to hide the Christian themes by reserving explicitly Christian motifs and symbols (and biblical quotations) for the final book? If so, was she trying not to spoil the plot or avoiding potentially hostile criticism that might restrict her audience? (It seems to me that she could have moved the events of the books back by just one century and avoided the problem since British society was less secular at that time.) Thoughts, anyone? Carol, hoping that this post doesn't conflict too strongly with her post to the main list about author's "intentions" not providing the definitive interpretation of a literary work (though perhaps we can't ignore them altogether) From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 23:02:11 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:02:11 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47193773.2090107@yahoo.com> Goddlefrood: > Great Britain is not a country, it's an island. Just to make sure this thread stays completely off-topic, could some one of our British/Scottish/Irish/UK-er friends please elucidate the distinctions between England (and Scotland/Wales/Southern Ireland, et alia), GB and the UK? I've had it explained to me before, but it's all just a bit too confusing for my grey matter. GB is the island, but as I understand it, not everyone living on the island appreciates being called British (Scottish folk, for example). The United Kingdom includes England and northern Ireland (and Wales?), but not southern Ireland, yes? England, Scotland and southern Ireland are autonomous countries? What is Wales? I find the ESL texts I use in my English classes are fond of defining the UK as England; wrong, certainly, but I can't explain the difference to my students when I can't even explain it to myself :-). --CJ From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 05:05:21 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:05:21 -0000 Subject: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: <47193773.2090107@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee Kaiwen asks: > Just to make sure this thread stays completely off-topic, > could some one of our British/Scottish/Irish/UK-er friends > please elucidate the distinctions between England (and > Scotland/Wales/Southern Ireland, et alia), GB and the UK? > I've had it explained to me before, but it's all just a bit > too confusing for my grey matter. Goddlefrood: Great Britain is the island containing of England (excluding its islands), Scotland (excluding its islands) and Wales (excluding its islands). The full name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland contains 6 of the 9 counties of the Irish province of Ulster. Southern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and is a separate country altogether. Wales and Scotland are quasi-autonomous. There are also several islands scattered around off the coast of Great Britain that consider themselves distinct, but are all part of the UK or divisions thereof. These include the Isle of Man, The Channel Islands and the Isles of Scilly. Many English people would refer to themselves as Brits, but no one in Wales, Northern Ireland (except some Protestants) or Scotland would. Clear enough? Goddlefrood, the non-encyclopaedia. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 05:54:08 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:54:08 -0000 Subject: Tie between Christian Faith & Harry Potter? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bzbeamer" wrote: Do you think people who are Harry Potter fans are generally better citizens, go to church, don't cheat on taxes, etc? Harry Potter was stated to be directly associated with the types of behaviors the boy scouts and brownies teach. Hrmm... Brad *snip* Doddie here: no not at all.. JKR stated Hogwarts was a multifaith school... so we cannot proclaim Christianity alone--probably one of the major reasons why Hogwarts is told from Harry's perspective I would rather argue that those who read much, often are generally better citizens...(in that they vote and write letters to the editor often..) It's not about HP...but, rather more about reading the characters and the setting etc.... Doddie, (who's glad that Harry snatched that eye out of Umbridges' door!) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 20 06:37:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:37:27 -0000 Subject: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Goddlefrood: > There are also several islands scattered around off the coast of > Great Britain that consider themselves distinct, but are all part > of the UK or divisions thereof. These include the Isle of Man, > The Channel Islands and the Isles of Scilly. Geoff: The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have heir own parliaments. The Isles of Scilly are part of the Duchy of Cornwall and are part of the County of Cornwall. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 20 07:57:28 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:57:28 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Here is an article of an interview with Rowling. I was a bit late > reading it. It was 2 days ago. It says what I have know all along > from the first book. > > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml > > Tonks_op > Who is always right, but no one ever listens to me. ;-) > What about the alchemy? Did all that camping symbolize something in alchemical processes? From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 09:37:40 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:37:40 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4719CC64.90805@yahoo.com> Goddlefrood blessed us with this gem On 20/10/2007 13:05: Goddlefrood: > Great Britain is the island containing of England (excluding its > islands), Scotland (excluding its islands) and Wales (excluding > its islands). So > The full name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and > Northern Ireland. Ah, I stand corrected. See if I've got this right: GB = England + Scotland + Wales (plus the outlying islands?) [this is merely a geographic entity] UK = GB + Northern Ireland [this is a political entity] > Southern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and is a separate > country altogether. > Wales and Scotland are quasi-autonomous. > Clear enough? :-) Not yet. The Republic of Ireland is a country. Is England a country or, like Scotland and Wales, merely a "quasi-autonomous" region of the UK? Is London the capital of BOTH England and the UK? Wikipedia says, "Great Britain is no longer a country, but simply an island in the United Kingdom." But further on it says, "Great Britain has evolved politically from the gradual union of England and Scotland". Though a bit confusing (simultaneously implying there isn't, but yet there is, a political entity call "GB"), I take the first reference to be merely geographical -- the major island -- and the second to be referring to the Kingdom of Great Britain (which later evolved into the UK). So how does the British Commonwealth fit into all this? --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 10:36:05 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:36:05 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: <4719CC64.90805@yahoo.com> References: <4719CC64.90805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4719DA15.2020002@yahoo.com> Lee Kaiwen Goddlefrood: > Great Britain is the island containing of England (excluding its > islands), Scotland (excluding its islands) and Wales (excluding > its islands). OK - I just ran across another reference that suggests "Great Britain" and "the British Isles" are not the same -- the latter including both the major island *and* the island of Ireland. So now we have England, Great Britain, the British Isles, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth; toss in Scotland, the ROI, Wales, and a side order of the Sicillys -- it IS rather a lot to keep straight. Examples: Northern Ireland is part of the British Isles, the UK, and the Commonwealth, but is NOT part of Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles (and the Commonwealth?) but not Great Britain or the UK. Scotland, England and Wales are all of the above. Citizens of Inner Mongolia need not apply. Why would *anyone* find all this confusing? :-) --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 11:55:42 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:55:42 +0800 Subject: British, British or British? A Final Exam In-Reply-To: <4719DA15.2020002@yahoo.com> References: <4719CC64.90805@yahoo.com> <4719DA15.2020002@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4719ECBE.5070605@yahoo.com> All Questions Multiple Choice Q1: Northern Ireland is NOT part of which of the following: a. The United Kingdom b. The Republic of Ireland c. The British Isles d. The British Commonwealth Q2: The Republic of Ireland IS part of which of the following: a. The United Kingdom b. Great Britain c. The British Isles d. England Q3: Which of the following IS true: a. Dublin is the capital of Northern Ireland b. Scotland is not part of Great Britain c. Ireland is not a country d. The Irish Republican Army is trying to win its independence from Great Britain Q4: Which of the following is NOT true: a. Northern Ireland is part of the British Isles and the United Kingdom b. Wales is part of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth c. residents of Scotland are residents of Great Britain d. Cricket is easier to understand than this stuff! Q5: Of which of the following is Elizabeth II NOT queen? a. Tuvalu b. The United Kingdom c. Man United d. The Isle of Man Q6: Which of the following IS true: a. Northern Ireland is a part of The United Kingdom, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. b. Wales is part of Great Britain, England, and the British Isles. c. Scotland is part of Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth d. The United Kingdom includes Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Q7: Which of the following is NOT true: a. The Irish Republican Army voted overwhelmingly for George Bush b. The Republic of Ireland is part of Ireland and the British Isles but not the United Kingdom c. Calling a resident of Scotland "British" is bad for your health d. A resident of Scotland IS British, C) above notwithstanding Q8: True or false: The British government is the government of the United Kingdom. From gbadams_77 at charter.net Sat Oct 20 13:45:16 2007 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (bzbbaba) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:45:16 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay Message-ID: I read in my paper today that JKR "outed" Dumbledore last night (10/19/07) at Carnegie Hall. The paper reports that JKR "was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds 'true love.' 'Dumbledore is gay,' the author responded to gasps and applause. She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald...'Falling in love can blind us to an extent,'Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was 'horribly, terribly let down.'" So, any thoughts, comments??? Bev. From n2fgc at arrl.net Sat Oct 20 18:58:02 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:58:02 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c8134b$24040fa0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [bzbbaba] | I read in my paper today that JKR "outed" Dumbledore last night | (10/19/07) at Carnegie Hall. The paper reports that JKR "was | asked by | one young fan whether Dumbledore finds 'true love.' 'Dumbledore is | gay,' the author responded to gasps and applause. She then explained | that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald...'Falling | in love can blind us to an extent,'Rowling said of Dumbledore's | feelings, adding that Dumbledore was 'horribly, terribly let down.'" | | So, any thoughts, comments??? [Lee]: I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will no doubt bee put off about this. I can only hope she said this to be "politically correct" and that the truth is something a bit more in line with what many of us would expect from Dumbledore. Celibacy would be preferable. If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news circulates more widely. Lee :( Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 19:22:06 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:22:06 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <000d01c8134b$24040fa0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: [Lee]: I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will no doubt bee put off about this. I can only hope she said this to be "politically correct" and that the truth is something a bit more in line with what many of us would expect from Dumbledore. Celibacy would be preferable. If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news circulates more widely. Lee :( Tiffany: I'm perfectly fine with this tidbit of news myself, but it'll be tough to differentiate between the actual facts & just rumors because rumors spread like wildfire, esp. in the Internet age. I know there'll be a lot of backlash against the books by Christians because of this little bit of information. However, I don't mind some drama & fanning the flames, as long as you maintain a decorum of dignity about yourself when doing it. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 20:09:39 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:09:39 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <000d01c8134b$24040fa0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" wrote: > > [bzbbaba] > | I read in my paper today that JKR "outed" Dumbledore last night > | (10/19/07) at Carnegie Hall. ... 'Dumbledore is gay,' the > |author responded to gasps and applause. She then explained > | that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald... > > [Lee]: > I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will > no doubt bee put off about this. ... Celibacy would be preferable. > > If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news > circulates more widely. > > Lee :( bboyminn: I'm not sure, Lee, whether you are projecting your own feelings or what you assume the feelings of others will be; either way it doesn't matter that much. Either way, what I am about to say is directed more at the subject in general, than it is at you personally. I can't and won't deny you your opinion whatever it may be. First and foremost I am here to tell you that the 'God Hates Fags' crowd is absolutely 100% wrong. The Bible and especially the New Testament back me up on that; God loves fags, though there are some indications that God isn't too fond of faggotry. But then God isn't all that fond of Heterosexuals either. The Bible is filled with endless admonitions against a wide range of very likely and very popular heterosexual behavior, and frequently recommends death as the appropriate punishment for such behavior. Funny how those who 'hate fags' always manage to give a nudge-nudge-wink-wink when it comes to their own (and others) immoral heterosexual behavior. So, if God hates fags, then he must also hate a substantial majority of high school and college students because they are doing things that God allegedly hates too. God must also hate a majority of those who get divorced since that seem to be a crime and is often accompanied by adultery which is definitely a hateful thing. Unfortunately (sarcasm) our secular society is not ruled by what God hates. It is ruled by reason and logic. Logically society must decide at what age someone is capable of informed consent. Generally that age is 16. Though in most of the USA, 16 and 17 year olds can have sex with each other, but 18 and above can only have sex with 18 and above. That is a collective view of society. After the legal age of consent, it is not up to legal society to judge the moral implications. That is up to the individual, and evidence indicates that a majority of people don't believe that sex before marriage is wrong. As to Dumbledore, whom God surely loves, how do you know he didn't lead a celibate life? You don't. And while we are on the subject, wouldn't it be preferable that everyone lead a fully and completely celibate life up until they were married? I guess some might think so, but I would not be one of them. For what it's worth, and nothing personal. Steve/bboyminn From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Sat Oct 20 21:46:39 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:46:39 -0000 Subject: Chapels in British boarding schools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol wrote in Message 33640: > > (It seems to me that she could have moved the events of the books > back by just one century and avoided the problem since British > society was less secular at that time.) > > Thoughts, anyone? Ann: I've heard opinions like these before, probably in the list archives and certainly in this essay of Red Hen's (scroll about two fingers' widths down), where she relates a friend opining that they read as if set in the 1950s, and herself thinks that they would fit beter in the 1930s: http://www.redhen-publications.com/1945.html I think the historical research would have been at least one problem for JKR - which I say without snark; I've written one or two historical stories myself. A problem with setting the books specifically in the 1930s is that the rise of Voldemort would parallel the rise of Hitler much less comfortably than Grindelwald's managed. But apart from that, I feel that the 1930s would be the best time to set the books. Why that is, I can't quite say (Swallows and Amazons, perhaps?) but I also feel that they have to be set in the 20th Century, after Edith Nesbit began writing for children rather than at them. Regarding chapels, though, all schools in Britain are, I think, religious, with the default being C of E. But that's often a rather broad category. At my secondary school we sang hymns and prayed at least once a week at first, but later stopped altogether. The staff tried to revive this, with results amusing to me at the time. Oh, the callowness of youth. (Oh, and this was wrapped into assemblies, which took place in the main hall; but then, it wasn't a boarding school.) Ann From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 23:11:39 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:11:39 -0000 Subject: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have heir own parliaments. > The Isles of Scilly are part of the Duchy of Cornwall and are part > of the County of Cornwall. Goddlefrood: All true enough, it doesn't stop them believing they are separate even though Westminster is responsible for all of them ultimately and any laws made by the central Government also binds the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands whether they like it or not. They're certainly not completely autonomous, quasi at best. This has been your reporter from the House of Keys ... From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 23:39:05 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:39:05 -0000 Subject: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: <4719CC64.90805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > The Republic of Ireland is a country. Is England a country or, > like Scotland and Wales, merely a "quasi-autonomous" region of > the UK? Is London the capital of BOTH England and the UK? Goddlefrood: England is a Country, but only really a historical one. Administratively Westminster governs the UK, so, yes London is now the capital of England and the UK. > CJ: > So how does the British Commonwealth fit into all this? Goddlefrood: Think of it as a club in which all the members fit and get benefits from membership. I currently live in a susp-ended member of the Commonwealth, if you like it's been blackballed from the club. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 23:41:43 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:41:43 -0000 Subject: How to address mail to the UK In-Reply-To: <4719DA15.2020002@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > So now we have England, Great Britain, the British Isles, the > United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth; toss in Scotland, > the ROI, Wales, and a side order of the Sicillys -- it IS rather > a lot to keep straight. Examples: Northern Ireland is part of the > British Isles, the UK, and the Commonwealth, but is NOT part of > Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland > is part of the British Isles (and the Commonwealth?) but not Great > Britain or the UK. Scotland, England and Wales are all of the above. > Citizens of Inner Mongolia need not apply. > Why would *anyone* find all this confusing? :-) Goddlefrood: There's no reason to be confused. Many who live there don't know all the different divisions. Ireland is not in the Commonwealth. Inner Mongolia could be ;-) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 23:49:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:49:49 -0000 Subject: British, British or British? A Final Exam In-Reply-To: <4719ECBE.5070605@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > Q1: Northern Ireland is NOT part of which of the following: > b. The Republic of Ireland Easy, although part of Ulster is in the RoI and part in Northern Ireland (notwithstanding what the PIRA might tell you). > Q2: The Republic of Ireland IS part of which of the following: > c. The British Isles Again, simple enough, it is a separate Country and has been since the 1920s. > Q3: Which of the following IS true: > c. Ireland is not a country It's an island but Ireland is also used to refer to the RoI ;-) > Q4: Which of the following is NOT true: > b. Wales is part of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth Wales being part of the UK is not a part of the Commionwealth, the UK *IS*. Cricket's a breeze, easily understood. > Q5: Of which of the following is Elizabeth II NOT queen? > c. Man United To some she might be, though. > Q6: Which of the following IS true: None were true, for which see Question 4. > Q7: Which of the following is NOT true: > a. The Irish Republican Army voted overwhelmingly for George Bush I'm surprised anyone *did* vote for him. > Q8: True or false: The British government is the government of > the United Kingdom. False, the Parliament of Westminster is the government of the UK. Still confused? Goddlefrood From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 21 01:11:28 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:11:28 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471AA740.9050405@fastmail.us> Steve wrote: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mrs. Lee Storm" > wrote: >> [bzbbaba] >> | I read in my paper today that JKR "outed" Dumbledore last night >> | (10/19/07) at Carnegie Hall. ... 'Dumbledore is gay,' the >> |author responded to gasps and applause. She then explained >> | that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald... >> >> [Lee]: >> I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will >> no doubt bee put off about this. ... Celibacy would be preferable. >> >> If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news >> circulates more widely. >> >> Lee :( > > bboyminn: > > I'm not sure, Lee, whether you are projecting your own feelings or > what you assume the feelings of others will be; Random832: I got the impression that her statement of her own disgust was not at Dumbledore being gay *per se*, but rather (you snipped this) that it seems like JKR was just going down a checklist "hmm, need a character to be gay, who can it be?", and that it (or, rather, _any_ kind of relationship) doesn't, in her opinion, fit Dumbledore at all. I.e. sacrificing coherent characterization for "political correctness". From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Oct 21 01:40:59 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:40:59 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <471AA740.9050405@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <002601c81383$6e915180$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [bzbbaba] | >> | I read in my paper today that JKR "outed" Dumbledore last night | >> | (10/19/07) at Carnegie Hall. ... 'Dumbledore is gay,' the | >> |author responded to gasps and applause. She then explained | >> | that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald... | >> [Lee]: | >> I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will | >> no doubt bee put off about this. ... Celibacy would be preferable. | >> | >> If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news | >> circulates more widely. | >> | >> Lee :( | > [bboyminn]: | > I'm not sure, Lee, whether you are projecting your own feelings or | > what you assume the feelings of others will be; | [Random832]: | I got the impression that her statement of her own disgust was not at | Dumbledore being gay *per se*, but rather (you snipped this) that it | seems like JKR was just going down a checklist "hmm, need a | character to | be gay, who can it be?", and that it (or, rather, _any_ kind of | relationship) doesn't, in her opinion, fit Dumbledore at all. | | I.e. sacrificing coherent characterization for "political | correctness". [Lee again]: Yes, you've got that right. But, yes, I am disgusted at that characterization for Dumbledore. IMHO, for someone so interested in putting forth Christian themes as per the article referenced yesterday, having Dumbledore as a homosexual flies in the face of this. Again, this is just the way I feel, and the way I see how the Bible treats homosexuality. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. I apologize if I've offended anyone here; that isn't my intent. But I have to be honest about how I feel. Peace, Lee From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 02:49:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:49:13 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <471AA740.9050405@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > > bboyminn: > > > > I'm not sure, Lee, whether you are projecting your own feelings or what you assume the feelings of others will be; > > Random832: > I got the impression that her statement of her own disgust was not at > Dumbledore being gay *per se*, but rather (you snipped this) that it > seems like JKR was just going down a checklist "hmm, need a character to be gay, who can it be?", and that it (or, rather, _any_ kind of > relationship) doesn't, in her opinion, fit Dumbledore at all. > > I.e. sacrificing coherent characterization for "political correctness". > Tonks: I wasn't going to get into this since my POV is so different than that of young people today. I have been so upset about what Rowling did. As you say it was too much wine, too little sleep or a check list. I add to that plain stupidity. How can an otherwise intelligent woman mess this up so badly? Personally I think she needs a therapist. She seems to have a problem with father figures. Remember when she almost killed off Arthur? Then she said later that she felt there need to be one good father figure left. I will bet that an editor told her that. So now the books are finished and she is a bit too famous... out comes the gun and bang goes her foot. Self defeating behavior, if you ask me. The reason I am so upset is 1. I love DD myself. I like to think of him as possible husband material. Ya I know .. I am married to Lupin.. but never mind that. and 2. To me DD is the hermit monk. He is celibate. For some reason people in our society like to classify people. Straight, Bi, or gay. The idea that anyone can NOT have sex never seems to cross their mind!! I know many people who are celibate. True, most are members of Religions orders, but it is another choice. And no, they are not fridged women and gay men. And 3. And this is the biggest reason I am upset: The HP series has done what few other things have been able to do. It has united people the world over. All ages, sexes, religions, nationalities. Personally I don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't think it is a sin against nature. That is not the issue for me. The issue is that for many people in our country and certainly in other parts of the world, homosexuality is a big deal. And it divides people. Rowling has taken something that is successful at bring people together. Something that has people respecting the person of DD as if he were a god. People remember and follow his teachings. And bang.. She destroys her own work. Stupid. Just stupid. How do you think this is going over in the Muslim world? Never mind the conservative Christians. Now many, far too many I fear, will not respect the wise old man, not listen to his teaching and not allow the books in their home. This will be a sad lost. What she has done is so wrong. Where was the editor to remind her? She played into the hands of American pop culture. Just stupid. Tonks_op From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 03:03:22 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:03:22 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: British, British or British? A Final Exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471AC17A.1090904@yahoo.com> Goddlefrood blessed us with this gem On 21/10/2007 07:49: > False, the Parliament of Westminster is the government of the UK. > Still confused? Well, it proves I'm still not completely UNconfused :-) --CJ From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 03:27:32 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:27:32 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tiffany B. Clark" wrote: > > [Lee]: > > I'm disgusted! And I can safely say that conservative fans will no > doubt bee put off about this. I can only hope she said this to > be "politically correct" and that the truth is something a bit more > in line with what many of us would expect from Dumbledore. Celibacy > would be preferable. > > If you think Christians are banning HP now, wait until this news > circulates more widely. > > Lee :( > Uh, who said DD wasn't celibate? The interview stated that he was a) gay and b) in love with Gellert Grindelwald. Being a lesbian or gay man doesn't mean sexual activity necessarily, anymore than being a heterosexual man or woman does. JKR also says that the series is about tolerance and fighting oppression, and that's why some people don't like it. Susan From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 21 03:31:03 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:31:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is gay Message-ID: Lee Storm wrote in : << I can only hope she said this to be "politically correct" and that the truth is something a bit more in line with what many of us would expect from Dumbledore. Celibacy would be preferable. >> A person can be homosexual and a life-long celibate. In Albus's case, at 18-19 years old, he could have been so naive that he never noticed that his impression that his new friend was totally wonderful and a soul-mate contained an element of sexual attraction. (I absolutely believe that phrases like 'infatuated' and 'fell in love' don't have to be sexual. I could say that So-and-so fell in love with some movie and watched it six times in one week, or that So-and-so is so infatuated with his new car that he spends all his free time washing and polishing it. Reading young Albus's letter to Gellaert, it was obvious that Albus had fallen in love with Gellaert in that not-necessarily-sexual way. Naturally, I suspected there was a sexual element as well and wondered if Rowling had intended it.) The article said something about the movie script made some mention of a girl whom Dumbledore had once fancied, so Rowling had to tell the director not to say that, and why. I.e. that he never was erotically or romantically attracted to a female. If so, I strongly suspect that at some time in his long life, Dumbledore figured out WHY he never met the right woman, but that doesn't mean he ever had a male lover. He might even have agreed with you about Christian morality and used self-control in the face of temptation. Or he never met anyone else he was attracted to after Gellaert. Or he put up emotional barriers after the Gellaert debacle to avoid intimacy and its risk of heartbreak. Not that it would bothe *me* if he slept with a different consenting adult man every week for a hundred years. Random832 wrote in : << I got the impression that her statement of her own disgust was not at Dumbledore being gay *per se*, but rather (you snipped this) that it seems like JKR was just going down a checklist "hmm, need a character to be gay, who can it be?", and that it (or, rather, _any_ kind of relationship) doesn't, in her opinion, fit Dumbledore at all. I.e. sacrificing coherent characterization for "political correctness". >> As I mentioned above, stating the young Albus fell in love with Gellaert seems to me like absolutely coherent characterization. And I felt much more queasy over the presentation that it was the heartbreak of the death of his sister that kept him from ever falliing in love again. What I don't like is that Rowling indicated that he never felt romantically or erotically attracted to a woman (and not because he never felt attracted to *any*one because his heart was faithful to his firat beloved or whatever). I've always wanted him bi-sexual. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 03:41:46 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:41:46 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Tonks: > I wasn't going to get into this since my POV is so different than > that of young people today. I have been so upset about what Rowling > did. As you say it was too much wine, too little sleep or a check > list. I add to that plain stupidity. How can an otherwise > intelligent woman mess this up so badly? Personally I think she > needs a therapist. She seems to have a problem with father figures. > Remember when she almost killed off Arthur? Then she said later that > she felt there need to be one good father figure left. I will bet > that an editor told her that. So now the books are finished and she > is a bit too famous... out comes the gun and bang goes her foot. > Self defeating behavior, if you ask me. > > The reason I am so upset is 1. I love DD myself. I like to think of > him as possible husband material. Ya I know .. I am married to > Lupin.. but never mind that. and 2. To me DD is the hermit monk. He > is celibate. For some reason people in our society like to classify > people. Straight, Bi, or gay. The idea that anyone can NOT have sex > never seems to cross their mind!! I know many people who are > celibate. True, most are members of Religions orders, but it is > another choice. And no, they are not fridged women and gay men. > And 3. And this is the biggest reason I am upset: > > The HP series has done what few other things have been able to do. > It has united people the world over. All ages, sexes, religions, > nationalities. Personally I don't care if someone is gay or not. I > don't think it is a sin against nature. That is not the issue for > me. The issue is that for many people in our country and certainly > in other parts of the world, homosexuality is a big deal. And it > divides people. > > Rowling has taken something that is successful at bring people > together. Something that has people respecting the person of DD as > if he were a god. People remember and follow his teachings. And > bang.. She destroys her own work. Stupid. Just stupid. How do you > think this is going over in the Muslim world? Never mind the > conservative Christians. Now many, far too many I fear, will not > respect the wise old man, not listen to his teaching and not allow > the books in their home. This will be a sad lost. What she has done > is so wrong. Where was the editor to remind her? She played into > the hands of American pop culture. Just stupid. > > Tonks_op > I'm so glad people are posting their points of view. Here's mine. J.K. Rowling is an extremely courageous, brilliant and insightful woman. I've loved her books for years, and my children love them. Although I'm not a Christian, and -- just my point of view, please understand -- when I think of Christianity I think of the Inquisition..but I don't hate Christians by any means......and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, particularly J.K. Rowling. .I respect her religion, and feel that she has the right to practice any religion she pleases. I do think she's a little naive. No, she didn't say that DD was gay to be "politically correct" or to check it off on a checklist. She naively thinks that there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian or being a gay man, and that the greatest wizard in the world was in fact gay. She has no clue the uproar her comment will bring. She has no clue of the level of hatred people have for lesbians and gay men, or the level of discrimination. She had the outline of the books for years. She knew DD was in love with GG just as she knew that Snape was in love with Lily. I couldn't believe that she was making everyone straight to appease the radical fundamentalist right wingers who want to stamp out civil liberties and deprive lesbian and gay people of the right to housing and employment, and I am relieved that I was right about her. Who cares who boycotts her books? Who cares about the right wing fundamentalist followers of Islam..? She herself said she was honored to be on the boycotted book list. The only thing I feel sad about is the poor children whose parents WERE boycotting the book because they kept saying it was about witchcraft and therefore were bad. Now they'll have another reason to deprive their children of the joys of HP. She says the books are all about tolerance, and that there are those who don't like them because of that. Everyone applauds her racial tolerance, and gosh, there are even some strong women in the books (although the persistent dislike of Hermione is just plain misogyny in my opinion)....but if she makes the point that lesbians and gays are just like everyone else, well, hey, that's going too far... The other tack people are taking is that she's doing it to get more publicity for the books or make more money! Unbelievable...she doesn't need more publicity OR more money. Bottom line is -- JKR doesn't see anything wrong about being gay... Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 04:42:35 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:42:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > What I don't like is that Rowling indicated that he never felt > romantically or erotically attracted to a woman (and not because he > never felt attracted to *any*one because his heart was faithful to his > firat beloved or whatever). I've always wanted him bi-sexual. Tonks: Now on a personal level I could accept a Bi-Sexual, but celibate DD. The reason I am personally upset with DD as gay (apart from the global impact) is that it is my experiece that gay men put up a barier between themselves and women, even when those women are their friends. And it is also my experience that this barrier is not there in a strictly friendship relationship with a hetrosexual man. I don't want my beloved DD to put a barier between us. I want him to be open to me. Having DD be gay is like saying that God is gay. That, of course, would explain a lot too! No wonder women have always gotten the short end of the stick and have lived like house-elves for thousands of year. Tonks_op > From Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net Sun Oct 21 05:42:54 2007 From: Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net (phoebeada) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:42:54 -0000 Subject: Survey for a conference paper Message-ID: Hello, My name is Nadine and I am a Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant at the Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. At the moment I am working on a conference paper about fan fiction in connection with the source text. This is the site where you can find the conference proposal: http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/archive/20th/3130.html I have chosen the Harry Potter books for this paper because of their popularity among fan fiction readers and writers and so far this has really been fun. I created a few questions that will be helpful to my research and I hope to get a lot of data. I am especially interested in Draco and Harry fanfiction as my main attention focuses on a possible queer reading of the Harry Potter books but I would be glad about any information you are willing to share with me. . I hope that a lot of fans are going to participate in this survey. http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=kynweklv8viva0j352337 If you have any question feel free to write me phoebeADA at yahoo.com Thank you From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 12:04:12 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <794286.37344.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thread partially moved from Main in Main#178172, David asked: > why do so many gay characters in popular fiction have to be > so damn tragic, especially in their romances? Petra: Because at this time, not only is the tragic aspect truly representative of many GLBT's experience in our society and an aspect too often closeted, it is also an aspect that is dramatic and tends to capture people's imagination? Makes for rich fodder for popular fiction, no? David: > Why can't there be a main character who just happens to be gay? Petra: Here you can run into a few problems. One of these problems is based on the fact that our society is so polarized right now. Because readers are polarized as to how they feel about this topic, writing characters who are gay can elicit wildly divergent reader's responses. Very problematic when developing themes in fiction. Also, make an issue of someone being gay and they can no longer "just happens to be gay." Yet, if the trait just happens to be, it can appear to be "closeted" unless the author makes an issue of it. I'm not advocating for either the rock or the hard place! Petra a n :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 15:07:33 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:07:33 +0800 Subject: Christian symbolism - kiss of death? (was Re:Chapels in British boarding schools) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471B6B35.1020705@yahoo.com> Carol: > BTW, I agree that JKR wasn't just protecting her plot from discovery > by suppressing explicitly religious (Christian) motifs .... She > probably didn't want to be attacked for ostensibly foisting overtly > Christian views on her readers by depicting those views as desirable. Hmm, interesting question. And yet two of the 20th century's most popular works -- Lord of the Rings and Narnia Chronicles -- are very Christian, the latter very explicitly so. And even though Disney tried to tone down the explicitly Christian symbology, it couldn't hide Aslan's substitutionary sacrifice or resurrection. The movie played quite well nonetheless. Rhe Left Behind series has been selling well beyond its intended fundamentalist audience despite it explicitly fundamentalist themes, and didn't Mel Gibson recently make a boatload of money with Passion of the Christ? I'm not convinced explicitly Christian themes are necessarily a death warrant even now. --CJ From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 21 15:40:16 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Oct 2007 15:40:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/21/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1192981216.11.6492.m42@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 21, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 17:25:07 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:25:07 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710211025yeb7f6b5j9de93c00d9694ecd@mail.gmail.com> > > Tonks: > > Now on a personal level I could accept a Bi-Sexual, but celibate DD. > The reason I am personally upset with DD as gay (apart from the global > impact) is that it is my experiece that gay men put up a barier between > themselves and women, even when those women are their friends. And it > is also my experience that this barrier is not there in a strictly > friendship relationship with a hetrosexual man. I don't want my beloved > DD to put a barier between us. I want him to be open to me. Having DD > be gay is like saying that God is gay. That, of course, would explain a > lot too! No wonder women have always gotten the short end of the stick > and have lived like house-elves for thousands of year. > > Tonks_op > > montims: apologies for the short reply, but in the interests of being polite, I just wanted to make two points: * my experience is very different to yours * your final generalisation is not historically correct. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Sun Oct 21 19:09:23 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:09:23 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26C0A3B92D8A4D239AE097292D5F8DC7@AmandaPC> Bev: So, any thoughts, comments??? Amanda now: I have to say interesting but for me, irrelevant to the story. This story, for me, was about love and not sex, so the way the various characters might have chosen to express it physically (and whether or not they did) wasn't really necessary for me to know to still fully experience and appreciate the HP universe and the characters in it, their heroics or lack thereof, their fears and abilities to face them. It doesn't "explain" anything about Dumbledore, it doesn't change anything about him for me-his character is the same, his personality, the same, I have the same mix of affection, respect, and disapproval. Watching other people's responses has been vastly intriguing, though. ~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 21 19:54:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:54:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > > Now on a personal level I could accept a Bi-Sexual, but celibate DD. > The reason I am personally upset with DD as gay (apart from the global > impact) is that it is my experiece that gay men put up a barier between > themselves and women, even when those women are their friends. And it > is also my experience that this barrier is not there in a strictly > friendship relationship with a hetrosexual man. I don't want my beloved > DD to put a barier between us. I want him to be open to me. Having DD > be gay is like saying that God is gay. That, of course, would explain a > lot too! No wonder women have always gotten the short end of the stick > and have lived like house-elves for thousands of year. Magpie: Like the other poster, this has not been my experience of gay men either. But...can Dumbledore really put up a barrier? He's the same as he's always been. It's not like he's suddenly acting differently towards you. Isn't it you who have put up a barrier having learned this character is gay? Because if he were throwing the barrier up he'd have to have done it where he actually existed, inside the pages, wouldn't he? -m (who thinks Dumbledore's still husband material--just for a man instead of a woman) > > > From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 20:57:42 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:57:42 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > I'm so glad people are posting their points of view. > > Here's mine. > > J.K. Rowling is an extremely courageous, brilliant and insightful > woman. marion11111: I disagree. *Courageous* would have been her writing this into the books. Or, at least, into the last book when it was actually relevant. We see unrequited love as a motivation for other characters, why not Dumbledore? I suspect that she was afraid of the wrath of her publishers. And we can't say "Why would the publishers have a problem?" because we all know very well that they would have. Personally, I'm fine with this character development. I'm more annoyed by the Neville-living-above-The-Leaky-Cauldron revelation because it just doesn't make sense. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 21 21:14:03 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:14:03 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > marion11111: > I disagree. *Courageous* would have been her writing this into the > books. Or, at least, into the last book when it was actually > relevant. We see unrequited love as a motivation for other > characters, why not Dumbledore? I suspect that she was afraid of > the wrath of her publishers. And we can't say "Why would the > publishers have a problem?" because we all know very well that they > would have. magpie: I've gotta defend at least one of her publishers--Arthur Levine of Arthur Levine books would never have a problem with a gay character. His imprint has books that feature them certainly. And just for good measure I found a nice quote: "Ten percent of the children's book readership, at least, will grow up to be gay or lesbian," he said to AfterElton.com. "Wouldn't it be nice if their first exposure to the idea that there are gay people in the world isn't when they're teenagers ? so when little Johnny falls in love with that really cute, brainy boy in his computer class, he's grown up with the idea that it's not unusual and there's nothing wrong with that. "And an even higher percentage of picture book readership will grow up to know and love somebody who's gay or lesbian. So when you think about it that way, a large percentage of your picture book audience can really benefit from naturalizing the idea that there are gay and lesbian people in the world. When you think about it that way, it's even more of a mystery why there aren't more of these books." That's Arthur talking about picture books which are for an even younger audience than HP.:-) -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 21 21:52:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:52:24 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > marion11111: > > Personally, I'm fine with this character development. I'm more > annoyed by the Neville-living-above-The-Leaky-Cauldron revelation > because it just doesn't make sense. Potioncat: Yeah, I'm not the only one! Do you suppose she means The Three Broomsticks? That would be more reasonable--and more fun. Does that tell us that the quarters in the castle are not for married teachers, but only for the single ones? Or, not to be used as permanent family quarters? From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 21:56:20 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:56:20 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > magpie: > I've gotta defend at least one of her publishers--Arthur Levine of > Arthur Levine books would never have a problem with a gay character. > His imprint has books that feature them certainly. marion11111: But does Arthur get to solely call the shots? As a children's librarian, I'm not aware of any books with this level of readership or public-mania or whatever-word-I'm looking-for that have a gay main character. Actually, I can't think of any books with this level of mania that *don't* have a gay main character. In fact, I can't think of any other books with this level of mania at all, so I guess my argument falls flat. But the point is, Dumbledore being gay in a Harry Potter book is not like a gay character in King and King or Tango makes Three or Rainbow High or Boy meets Boy, etc. The Potter books are just such a different beast, that I would imagine there might be *discussions* with the editors/publishers/whoever. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 21:58:22 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:58:22 -0000 Subject: more thoughts on DD being gay, etc. Message-ID: Albus Dumbledore, the lgbt civil rights movement, homophobia and magic. Well, J.K. Rowling, the fabulous creator of Harry Potter, has created quite the uproar by answering a question about the greatest wizard in the Hogwarts universe -- Albus Dumbledore. She said he was gay, and at 17 had fallen in love with Gellert Grindelvald, who Dumbledore later had to defeat in battle. Reactions to this revelation have run the gamut from the initial ovation at Carnegie Hall (which delighted and surprised JKR), to disgust and outrage, with lots of "who cares" in the middle and a bunch of "cool". I looked at most of the Potter web sites in the United States to gauge the reactions. 1. One of the first things that jumped out at me was that some people immediately assumed that because JKR had said that Dumbledore was "gay", that he must have been molesting children, especially Harry. A careful look at the DH text indicates that Rita Skeeter was going in that direction in her chapter about Harry and DD's relationship. It is discouraging that the right wing (most recently the Family Research Council) is exploiting the adult men preying on pages, priests preying on children, etc. to insist that the problem is that "homosexuals" molest children. (The most horrifying fact about these institutions is that they covered up for and excused the perpetrators and did nothing to protect the children.) All sexual contact between an adult and child is absolutely wrong and should not be tolerated. Period. The myth of homosexuals preying on children merely serves to protect the real perpetrators of child sexual abuse. In fact, child sexual abusers are not really heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people. They are adults who choose to exploit their power over children through sex. They don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They are abusers of children. In fact, most child sexual abusers are men. Most of their victims are female. Despite the very celebrated news cases about female teachers becoming involved with male students, the recent investigation by the Associated Press found: "In the cases where the victim's gender was clear, the large proportion were female. Almost nine out of 10 of the offenders were male. But the boys who are drawn into sexual relationships with their female teachers get an overwhelming amount of attention, especially when the woman is attractive. They're the subject of heavy news coverage, jokes from late-night TV comics, Web sites with photos, videos and more. " http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEACHER_ABUSE_GENDER? SITE=TXWIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT. Also, it's pretty much business as usual for girls and young women to be raped, sexually harassed, and molested as children. When it starts happening to boys, then people get real outraged. There's an excellent summary of the research about this at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html If you're really interested in informing yourself, check it out. 2. One of the second negative responses was "why does she have to spoil everything by putting sex in Harry Potter?" Several people have posted - well, why couldn't he be celibate? There's an assumption that ALL lesbian and gay people are having sex. (I know that there are a bunch of lgbt folk out there who are saying "oh, if only it were true!") Being gay just means that you are interested in romantic and sexual liaisons with people of the same gender. Just as being non-gay means that you are interested in romantic and sexual liaisons with people of the opposite gender. It doesn't mean you are getting any. Lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, and heterosexual people can all choose to be celibate, or be celibate because of what's going on in their life. Of course, lesbians and gay men can't hold off until marriage for sex, because most places won't allow same gender marriage. Many women who'd like to marry women and men who'd like to marry men register their partnerships, have religious ceremonies, and have or adopt children, instead. 3. Lots of lesbians, gay men and allies have asked why JKR didn't put a lesbian or gay character in the Potter universe. I still think it's a good question. Many fans responded by saying that she didn't put drugs or birth control in either. There's a disconnect here. No one has suggested that there be sexual abuse or rape in the HP universe. No one has suggested introducing adult sexual activity. What was suggested was that there should have been lesbian, gay and bisexual youth at Hogwarts in just the way that there were heterosexual students at Hogwarts dating, holding hands and kissing. What's okay for straight students should be okay for lesbian and gay students. Otherwise, the idea persists that the world is populated only by heterosexuals - it makes lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people invisible. Now of course we know that there was at least one gay man in the Hogwarts universe - the headmaster of Hogwarts, the greatest wizard in the world -- Albus Dumbledore. ************************** However, I love the books in part because they have amazing political elements (about racism, oppression, the tools of oppression, survival and resistance) but they are not a political tract. I don't expect my favorite pieces of literature to embody every element of my (ever changing and ever growing) political analysis. I don't expect perfection. And it's a problem when we expect heroes to be perfect. No one ever is so we become disillusioned and think there are no real heroes left. There are tons of ordinary people who have behaved heroically. Here's why I think it was important for J.K. Rowling to say that Albus Dumbledore is gay. 1) Many lesbians and gay men have kids. In the U.S., the 2000 census reported 601,209 lesbian gay households with kids and that's just who decided to come out to the government! (And remember, lesbian and gay teenagers are more likely to be children of heterosexuals than lesbians and gays) One study in Scotland found that more than 20% of lesbian and gay people have children. Some lesbians have children by men in prior relationships. Some lesbians did artificial insemination. Some lesbians and gay men have done surrogate parenting. Some lesbians and gay men have adopted children. The children urgently need reassurance that their parents are okay. As kids from lesbian and gay families read and absorb the Harry Potter series, it is hard for them not to see any families like their own. 2) There is a tremendously high rate of suicide, suicide attempts, and other self destructive acts among lesbian and gay youth. J.K. Rowling had the power to send these children and these youth the message that they are OK, and that they are valuable, wonderful, amazing lovable people. She did it. 3) There are many adult lesbians and gay men who still believe on some level that they are unnatural, or condemned by God, or lesser in some way. She had the power to mitigate those feelings. She did it. I think J.K. Rowling has a ton of guts to even talk about the beloved icon flirting with evil, falling in love with an evil wizard, considering the overturn of Muggle society, and therefore bringing personal disaster and tragedy on himself. To Albus Dumbledore's credit, he changed. He became the champion of muggle rights, protector of house elves, he negotiated with giants, he allowed werewolves and mudbloods to come to Hogwarts, he became a true ally of the oppressed. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 21:59:13 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:59:13 -0000 Subject: continued Message-ID: He became the major advocate of: the power of love to overcome evil. I just wish he had found some of his own. Susan From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 21 22:20:18 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:20:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > But...can Dumbledore really put up a barrier? He's the same > as he's always been. It's not like he's suddenly acting differently > towards you. Isn't it you who have put up a barrier having learned > this character is gay? Because if he were throwing the barrier up > he'd have to have done it where he actually existed, inside the > pages, wouldn't he? If Dumbledore had put up a barrier between me and him, it would have been inside the pages as you said. But if Dumbledore *would* have put up a barrier between me and him *if* we had actually met is a different question. To which the answer seems to be, definitely yes, and it has nothing to do with eros. DH revealed that he put up a barrier between himself and *everyone*. Even to Harry, a barrier of secrets. Treated Snape like an employee, not a (prodigal) son or a friend or a colleague. Left McGonagall entirely in the dark. Even to the reader (this reader), who had expected him to be a warmer person, to care about the people he manipulated and got killed, and about the people he was protecting from Voldemort (the general population of wizards and muggles). And it could be that he put up that barrier because of heartbreak, but his brother claimed that it was his nature, from childhood. If it *was* his nature from childhood, one would think that Gellaert had something besides blond good looks and brilliant intelligence in order to be the only person who broke through before Harry. (And of course Gellaert did -- each photo of him is described as having a merry, laughing face, which is how the author indicates his sense of humor. Isn't having a sense of humor supposed to protect one from megalomania?) And sexual orientation *could* be relevant, if the reason he put the barrier up so young was to protect his closet. And that was all a digression. If Tonks's point was that if he met one of us listies, he might treat the person differently depending on if it were a man or a woman. I don't think he would but, give Tonks credit, it is not stated either way in canon. In canon, the reader observes him relating to Harry throughout the series, to Snape in 'The Prince's Tale', a little bit to Slughorn when hiring him back, and a little bit to Elphias Doge in Doge's own account -- all males. That doesn't tell us anything about his other relationships, such as with females. We can imagine them however we like, except it would be anti-canon to imagine that he told McGonagall that Snape was serving LV on DD's orders, that Snape had killed DD on DD's orders, or told her what she was assigned to do as part of the plan. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 23:15:50 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:15:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's barriers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, we know that DD has a lot of barriers. Before I get into that, btw, when did the Religious Right become the only Christians? Who cares what the right wing fundamentalist nutcakes are going to say? Why is everyone ignoring the gay friendly very tolerant Christians here in the U.S.? And oh yes, I've been to websites where JKR's Christianity is questioned even before this revelation. Ychhh.. But I digress. Most teachers of high school students have clear professional boundaries. Even the straight ones who can get away with a reference to their wife or girlfriend. But lgbt teachers are usually even more careful. If they made an exact equivalent reference (as in "I went to the movies with my boyfriend Saturday night) all hell might break loose because they're "flaunting" their relationship. But high school students are often in the throes of puberty and obsessed with sex, and do sometimes get crushes on teachers, so boundaries are critical. So I suggest that DD and McGonagall and Flitwick are never portrayed talking about their personal lives because they have good professional boundaries DD never tells Harry ANYthing about his personal life, until after he dies. Harry wonders why Harry never asked! DD was brought up in a dysfunctional family with a secret everyone had to keep. He had more investment than many others in keeping his life private. Susan From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 23:21:25 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:21:25 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality/Dumbledore/Christianity theme Message-ID: Well, I for one, am also upset she has "outed" Dumbledore, but certainly not for some of the reasons cited already. I am the daughter of a gay man, a wonderful, genuine, funny, heroic, and loving gay man of whom I am very proud. I am a gay rights advocate and someone who believes hate is ALWAYS wrong, whether it has to do with gender, sexuality, race, or any other reason. I teach my children that we are all human and all equal, regardless of race, sexuality, intelligence, or any other God-given attribute. I am disappointed that JKR wasn't brave enough to make DD gay in canon. She's backpedaling and trying to make herself much more of an innovator than she is. Just saying that he was gay doesn't make it true. There is no evidence in the books for it, and it makes me disappointed in her that she couldn't be brave enough to say that he was gay and that was ok, and make the kids accepting of that. Of course, this just goes along with the other bigotry themes in the books, like House Elves and half-breeds, that, IMO, went absolutely no where. She introduced all these important issues and then dropped them like a hot potato so Harry could settle down and have babies... I do have to say, however, that JKR's Christianity, being accepting and loving and tolerant of everyone, is my kind of Christianity. I was very upset to hear that she had purposefully inserted a Christian theme in the books, but I now see that she meant true Christianity. The loving, forgiving, real kind. The kind they teach at my church. Somehow, DD being gay makes the Christian theme more palatable to me. Of course, there's still the problem of her not actually writing the gay character into the book...but I think her heart is probably in the right place. KATIE From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 04:41:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:41:34 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: marion11111: > > > Personally, I'm fine with this character development. I'm more annoyed by the Neville-living-above-The-Leaky-Cauldron revelation because it just doesn't make sense. > > Potioncat: > Yeah, I'm not the only one! Do you suppose she means The Three Broomsticks? That would be more reasonable--and more fun. Does that tell us that the quarters in the castle are not for married teachers, but only for the single ones? Or, not to be used as permanent family quarters? > Carol responds: Or maybe Hannah took over the Hog's Head after old Aberforth died and made it less of a pig sty. Erm, goat barn. Or whatever goats live in. At any rate, I'd like to think that Madam Rosmerta, who's probably not all that much older than the Marauders and Snape, lived on and kept her position with no punishment or other bad consequences for having been the victim of Draco's Imperius Curse. As for calling a Hogsmeade bar (whether it's the Hog's Head or the Three Broomsticks--hey! Is that why Rosmerta had several brooms handy beside her door when Harry and DD needed them to fly to the tower?), I think it's just another indication of JKR's absent-mindedness. (She also evidently said that James shared his money with Sirius, forgetting all the gold in Sirius's vault, not to mention the shabby treatment implied by forgetting poor unemployed Lupin.) It's like slipping and calling your mother by your sister's name. Or even calling her by your brother's name. The kind of thing I would do. (I only notice that I've called Voldemort "Dumbledore" or Harry "snape" *after* I've hit Send. Anyway, I'm sure that JKR meant one of the Hogsmeade bars considering that Neville is canonically a Hogwarts teacher. Or maybe she's forgotten that, too. Carol, giving JKR the benefit of a doubt in this instance but still wishing she'd take a year-long, interview-free vacation in Majorca-- Make that Nepal--and leave us to interpret the books without her help From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 03:57:39 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:57:39 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C1FB3.5050807@yahoo.com> [OK -- I'm moving this bit to HPFGU-OTChatter] sistermagpie blessed us with this gem On 22/10/2007 00:10: Magpie: > I'm disagreeing with your claim that sex is designed as a way of > procretion the way a car is designed as a vehicle of transportation. But I didn't say "designed to be", I simply said "are". As you've indicated, "designed" implies some sort of creator (or Creator?), so I suppose if you wish you could call biology or evolutionary forces the "creator" of sex. But I was deliberately trying to avoid these implications because they're outside the scope of the analogy (and analogies, as a philosophy professor of my was once fond of saying, cannot be made to walk on all fours). > Procreation is one thing it's for, there are other things > that it's for too now. Perhaps again our difference here is one of definitions. You seem to be using "purpose" more in the sense of "It served a purpose" which I understand to be semantically equivalent to "It was useful". In that sense I would certainly agree. Sex can have many purposes/uses (though even under this definition I would still argue that sex only has one *biological* use). But my meaning is more akin to "raison d'tre". And, keeping in mind that I'm speaking biologically, despite all the other uses we can find for sex (and they may be good uses!), it still has but one raison d'tre: procreation. CJ: > It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia" ) coined > for the express purpose of denying it. Magpie: > I didn't quite get this sentence--denying what? Denying the idea that the coined word or phrase encapsulates. "Homophobia", for example, is a label applied by advocates of homosexual rights to their opponents for propogandistic purposes -- implying for the purpose of delegitimizing, that their opponents fear homosexual rights. But I've never met an opponent of homosexual rights that would call himself "homophobic" because they *don't* fear homosexual rights, though they do oppose them. Similarly (and I don't know the etymology of the word, so I may be off-base) "heteronormative" sounds and awful lot like a term coined in order to encapsulate a concept the coiner[s] wish to deny; in this case, an attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere cultural norms that can/should be changed. {Pause ... OK, I'm back} Aha, I was right, at least if Wikipedia has anything to say about it: "The term was coined by Michael Warner in 1991, in one of the first major works of queer theory ... [and] has roots in Gayle Rubin's notion of the 'sex/gender system' and Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality." In short, it's a term coined, and use exclusively by, advocates for homosexual rights. I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong with that! Only that it's not an objective term and -- this is my point -- it flies in the face of biology. Case in point {again from Wikipedia}: "[Heteronormativity] include[s] the idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories: male and female." Biologically that's just one big steaming pile of DOH! (not the fact but its denial). Now if one wishes to discuss cultural conceptions and biases against homosexuals that's great -- it's certainly a valid discussion. But attempts like the above to reduce scientific fact to mere cultural bias are ludicrous. > they were coined to describe something they were talking about, > something that seemed relevant to me. What they're describing isn't > about whether one is having sex to make a baby or not. But, at least if Wikipedia is trustworthy, those who coined and use the word DO intend to include biology under the rubric. Denying or disputing concepts of masculine and feminine is one thing. Denying the existence of male and female is something else entirely. > LCJ: CJ is fine. Kaiwen, my Chinese name, is also OK. But CJ is easier to type :-). > I need to ask you to define "normal". Magpie: > I meant normal as in usual, sane, a natural occurance. Well, "sane" to my ear includes a moral dimension, which I'm trying to avoid in my discussion. By "usual" I'm sure you don't mean "usualLY" which means "most of the time". If by "usual" and "natural" you simply mean "happens a lot", I'm sure you'll agree that that alone is insufficient -- there are many things which happen "a lot" that we disapprove of notwithstanding. Magpie: > Having sex with no hope of producting a child out > of it does not make the sex purposeless. (See above) First, if you mean "does not make the sex useless", I would certainly agree. Second, we need to disambiguate the intent of the actor from the purpose of the act. Just because *my* purpose in having sex is something else -- probably pleasure -- doesn't change the biology of the act. A (rather gruesome) analogy: I use a hammer to kill my neighbor. Just because *MY* purpose was murder doesn't change the fact that murder is *not* the purpose of a hammer. Sure, it's a *use* (though not, in this case, a legitimate one) to which a hammer can be put, but that's a fundamentally different question. Magpie: > Just because something isn't the original primary purpose for > something doesn't mean it's not a purpose at all, does it? Again, if by "purpose" you mean "use" and "intent of the actor (as opposed to the act)" the I would absolutely agree. But just as using a credit card to open doors tells us a lot more about our imaginations as human beings than it does about the nature of a credit card, so the fact that *we* can find a multitude of purposes for sex (anything from pleasure to selling cars) is barely relevant to the biology of sex. By the way, I appreciate the civil tone of our discussion. This is a subject that can generate a lot of emotions. --CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 08:02:27 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:02:27 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > > > > Tonks: > > I wasn't going to get into this since my POV is so different > > than that of young people today. I have been so upset about > > what Rowling did. As you say it was too much wine, too little > > sleep or a check list. I add to that plain stupidity. How can an > > otherwise intelligent woman mess this up so badly? Personally I > > think she needs a therapist. She seems to have a problem with > > father figures. Remember when she almost killed off Arthur? > > ... > > > > Tonks_op > > > Susan: > > I'm so glad people are posting their points of view. > > Here's mine. > > J.K. Rowling is an extremely courageous, brilliant and insightful > woman. I've loved her books for years, and my children love them. > > ... > > I do think she's a little naive. No, she didn't say that DD was gay > to be "politically correct" or to check it off on a checklist. She > naively thinks that there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian or > being a gay man, and that the greatest wizard in the world was in > fact gay. She has no clue the uproar her comment will bring. ... > > Bottom line is -- JKR doesn't see anything wrong about being gay... > > Susan > bboyminn: Here's the thing, she didn't actually say Dumbledore was gay. She said something to the effect that "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay" which is not quite the same thing. In a sense, characters, even though the author creates them, develop a life of their own. They take on unique personality that rise up spontaneously. In that sense, I don't think JKR constructed Dumbledore as gay, that was just a tidbit floating around in the background, in a sense, floating around in the subconscious or inner thoughts of the character, but they certainly didn't manifest themselves in Dumbledore's outward actions. I mean we don't see Dumbledore flouncing around and camping it up. Someone once said something to the effect that 70% of our lives occur inside our heads. No matter how adventurous and exciting our live actually are, our imaginations, thoughts, and day dreams create and even more exciting life for us. So, my point is, that JKR is imagining the inner workings, thoughts, and feelings of Dumbledore's mind, even though those particular inner workings have nothing to do with the story. Just as she has a whole detailed history worked out for..say...Sirius, she has a similar history worked out for Dumbledore. In a sense, I'm saying that she didn't make Dumbledore gay, that aspect sprang spontaneously from his character as it rose out of the void and appeared in her mind, as characters so often do. So, she isn't saying 'I created a gay Dumbledore', she is saying when she examined Dumbledore's history and inner workings, she /found/ this aspect; she 'thought of him as being gay'. Further, that could just be a paraphrase of many more deeper and more complex aspects of Dumbledore. It is possible the Dumbledore was simply momentarily overcome by a teen-crush infatuation. That would certainly represent an aspect of his personality, but we would be unwise to totally define him by this one event in his life. So, again, characters just spontaneously develop, as they come to fruition, various aspect arise that make them who they are, in this case, Dumbledore just happened to have a crush on Grindlewald. But Dumbledore live a good compassionate caring life. He dedicated himself to education when he could have easily been in a position of extreme political and economic power. I think more than this one minor insignificant, unrelated to the story fact, we should judge Dumbledore on the quality of his whole life. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 22 13:07:58 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:07:58 -0000 Subject: The writing process (was Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Carol, giving JKR the benefit of a doubt in this instance but still > wishing she'd take a year-long, interview-free vacation in Majorca-- > Make that Nepal--and leave us to interpret the books without her help Potioncat: As much as I want to know everything, I think your idea is great! We could have used some more time with DH as is. But what I wish she'd do, rather than quick, on-the-spot interviews, is to write an article about how she wrote the series. I'd like to know how the plot evolved, how characters merged, what she was aiming for. There are little bits of that in some of the interviews, but not enough. I'd recommend Agatha Christie's autobiography. She comments on fans' reactions to her stories, and her reactions to their reactions. Very interesting and to my mind, very much like what's going on with the HP series. From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 13:13:02 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay Message-ID: <99013.26863.qm@web60718.mail.yahoo.com> Actually she said James shared his money with Lupin, not Sirius. Danielle ----- Original Message ---- From: Carol To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 10:41:34 PM Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay marion11111: > > > Personally, I'm fine with this character development. I'm more annoyed by the Neville-living- above-The- Leaky-Cauldron revelation because it just doesn't make sense. > > Potioncat: > Yeah, I'm not the only one! Do you suppose she means The Three Broomsticks? That would be more reasonable-- and more fun. Does that tell us that the quarters in the castle are not for married teachers, but only for the single ones? Or, not to be used as permanent family quarters? > Carol responds: Or maybe Hannah took over the Hog's Head after old Aberforth died and made it less of a pig sty. Erm, goat barn. Or whatever goats live in. At any rate, I'd like to think that Madam Rosmerta, who's probably not all that much older than the Marauders and Snape, lived on and kept her position with no punishment or other bad consequences for having been the victim of Draco's Imperius Curse. As for calling a Hogsmeade bar (whether it's the Hog's Head or the Three Broomsticks- -hey! Is that why Rosmerta had several brooms handy beside her door when Harry and DD needed them to fly to the tower?), I think it's just another indication of JKR's absent-mindedness. (She also evidently said that James shared his money with Sirius, forgetting all the gold in Sirius's vault, not to mention the shabby treatment implied by forgetting poor unemployed Lupin.) It's like slipping and calling your mother by your sister's name. Or even calling her by your brother's name. The kind of thing I would do. (I only notice that I've called Voldemort "Dumbledore" or Harry "snape" *after* I've hit Send. Anyway, I'm sure that JKR meant one of the Hogsmeade bars considering that Neville is canonically a Hogwarts teacher. Or maybe she's forgotten that, too. Carol, giving JKR the benefit of a doubt in this instance but still wishing she'd take a year-long, interview-free vacation in Majorca-- Make that Nepal--and leave us to interpret the books without her help __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Mon Oct 22 14:58:50 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:58:50 -0000 Subject: The writing process (was Three Cauldrons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: potioncat wrote of JKR: > But what I wish she'd do, rather than quick, on-the-spot interviews, > is to write an article about how she wrote the series. I'd like to > know how the plot evolved, how characters merged, what she was aiming > for. There are little bits of that in some of the interviews, but not > enough. > > I'd recommend Agatha Christie's autobiography. She comments on fans' > reactions to her stories, and her reactions to their reactions. Very > interesting and to my mind, very much like what's going on with the HP > series. Ann: That's a great idea. Most of my questions are really geeky ("When did you realise GoF was going to be so long?" - no, seriously), but I've never felt the interviews really told us anything about the actual writing. Of course, she had a good reason for being close-lipped - she could hardly say "and in 1993 I realised where Grindelwald fitted into all this, and the whole series' plot just came together". Or something. And it would be neat to know if she ever shared any of our crazier speculations. I've never read Agatha Christie. I've found most artists' biographies that I've read have been rather uninteresting, but that does sound a bit different. Thanks for the rec (she said, eyeing her too-full-as-it-is bookshelves.) Ann From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 16:40:37 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:40:37 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > bboyminn: > > Here's the thing, she didn't actually say Dumbledore was gay. She said > something to the effect that "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay" > which is not quite the same thing. > Gosh, I was stunned when I realized that people actually hadn't read the interview transcript...she said she always thought of DD as gay, but then she wrote a note to the scriptwriter at the movies and said "DD is gay." As for him not flouncing around or camping it up......there's certainly a percentage of the lesbian/gay male community who act in what would be considered stereotypical ways, but there are a ton who do not. I think many of us smiled when we said "THAT's where the fashion sense came from." I do love those costumes in the movies, too! But men don't have to be gay to dress flamboyantly (someone made that comment on the list). One of my favorite movies (because I am a rank sentimentalist) is the version of the Scarlet Pimpernel where Sir Percy Blakney as the most INCREDIBLY beautiful outfits...a major fop...and an unambiguously heterosexual one, as well. Anyone else seen that (since this is off topic chatter). Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 16:52:24 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:52:24 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471C1FB3.5050807@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yeah, this subject does create a lot of emotions, doesn't it? So, people who oppose civil rights for lesbians and gays are not homophobic because the root of the word means fear? I would suggest that there are a lot of people (lots of married Republican legislators, for example) who are terrified of their own same sex attractions particularly because they believe that being gay means being evil. I think the original construct of the word (and I would not rely on Wikipedia for total accuracy, by the way) meant to reflect the fear of one's own same sex impulses, and also fear that people might THINK you were lesbian or gay, murder you, throw you out of the family, fire you from your job, evict you from your housing, or just socially ostracize you...all of these things have happened to lesbians and gays and bisexuals and transgendered people, and even to the quiet, nice boys, and the athletic, bold girls who were actually straight. Now, like many words, it's used to denote someone who is prejudiced against lesbians and gay men, someone who doesn't think it's normal, or natural..it was interesting.....when all the scientists were saying that all non-human animals were heterosexual, all the homophobes were clamoring about how SEE...it shows that God created heterosexuality as normal...of course, now that scientists have found a ton of same sex contact in the animal world, we don't hear that argument anymore (now it's how we shouldn't look to animals for guidance). Now the word is used for people who are bigoted. Who won't pass a law, for example, that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment. And let's discuss purpose...One could argue that the PURPOSE of INTERCOURSE (not sex)BIOLOGICALLY speaking is reproduction. Sure. I personally think that sex is sacred, and sexual contact is about pleasure, and pleasure is sacred (as long as it's not harming anyone else). Now we get into the avenue of personal values. As for JKR being "politically correct" (which is thrown at any person trying to promote tolerance and compassion towards an oppressed group)....she hasn't made the "homosexual lobby" very happy...lots of leaders in the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered civil rights movement say "too little, too late." Well, I'm old and I'm happy about any kind of progress. Susan From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 22 17:57:34 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:57:34 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471C1FB3.5050807@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Magpie: > > I'm disagreeing with your claim that sex is designed as a way of > > procretion the way a car is designed as a vehicle of transportation. CJ:> > But I didn't say "designed to be", I simply said "are". As you've > indicated, "designed" implies some sort of creator (or Creator?), so I > suppose if you wish you could call biology or evolutionary forces the > "creator" of sex. But I was deliberately trying to avoid these > implications because they're outside the scope of the analogy (and > analogies, as a philosophy professor of my was once fond of saying, > cannot be made to walk on all fours). Magpie: Right I didn't mean that it necessarily had to be about religion or not, but just that...I don't see why this is significant. We have ways of reproducing. People also have sex for other reasons than to have babies. People also make babies without having sex at all. Since a great part of straight sex is also about something other than making a baby, I don't see why this becomes significant when talking about gay people. Magpie: > > Procreation is one thing it's for, there are other things > > that it's for too now. CJ: > Perhaps again our difference here is one of definitions. You seem to be > using "purpose" more in the sense of "It served a purpose" which I > understand to be semantically equivalent to "It was useful". In that > sense I would certainly agree. Sex can have many purposes/uses (though > even under this definition I would still argue that sex only has one > *biological* use). > > But my meaning is more akin to "raison d'?tre". And, keeping in mind > that I'm speaking biologically, despite all the other uses we can find > for sex (and they may be good uses!), it still has but one raison > d'?tre: procreation. Magpie: Biologically yes, sex between two people of the same sex is not a way of making a baby. But neither is a lot of sex between straight people. To me it doesn't look like a deviation from the norm, it shows that "norm" in this case is not about having babies. > CJ: > > It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia" ) coined > > for the express purpose of denying it. > > Magpie: > > I didn't quite get this sentence--denying what? > > Denying the idea that the coined word or phrase encapsulates. > "Homophobia", for example, is a label applied by advocates of homosexual > rights to their opponents for propogandistic purposes -- implying for > the purpose of delegitimizing, that their opponents fear homosexual > rights. But I've never met an opponent of homosexual rights that would > call himself "homophobic" because they *don't* fear homosexual rights, > though they do oppose them. Magpie: It's not the best word, then, okay. Obvious few people who oppose gay rights would call themselves homophobic or probably say they fear their rights. Though some as much as do--if you feel the family needs to be "defended" that rather implies a fear of something to me. Propaganda goes hand in hand with political fights, of course. I know that some people have proposed something other that means "hatred of" rather than "fear of." Though of course many would say they don't hate gay people, they hate the sin, not the sinner, etc. To which a gay person might very well respond that since this is what they are, hating one=hating the other. CJ: > Similarly (and I don't know the etymology of the word, so I may be > off-base) "heteronormative" sounds and awful lot like a term coined in > order to encapsulate a concept the coiner[s] wish to deny; in this case, > an attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere cultural > norms that can/should be changed. Magpie: I would guess that's probably the way many see it, that it is about a cultural norm that can/should be changed. That doesn't sound too bad to me, since the question of whether or not one can make a baby with two men or two women alone doesn't seem to be a question at all. I of course see the difference in biology where you can make a baby via some straight sex where you can't through gay sex, but I don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on that biological fact. What does that have to do with gay rights, after all, since it's not like anyone expects the right to be able to have sex with someone of their own gender and get pregnant doing it? Or have anyone say that they can? CJ: > "The term was coined by Michael Warner in 1991, in one of the first > major works of queer theory ... [and] has roots in Gayle Rubin's notion > of the 'sex/gender system' and Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory > heterosexuality." > > In short, it's a term coined, and use exclusively by, advocates for > homosexual rights. I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong with > that! Only that it's not an objective term and -- this is my point -- it > flies in the face of biology. Magpie: I don't see how it flies in the face of biology. It was coined and used by advocates for gay rights (whether it's exclusively by them I don't know) but it's not surprising that that's where it would come from. These are the people drawing attention to the marginalization as a bad thing and would need a word to describe it--if you think this is the way things should be you probably wouldn't name it (or you'd call it "keeping the perverts out of the public eye!" or something!). But as I said I don't see how it flies in the face of biology at all since the word doesn't seem to have anything to do with saying that babies are made any other way than the way that they are made. It's talking about the social and cultural aspects, isn't it? I've never heard it used to state that males and females don't exist. (Whether they're always distinct I'm not prepared to say, given transgendered people and hermaphrodites.) CJ: > Now if one wishes to discuss cultural conceptions and biases against > homosexuals that's great -- it's certainly a valid discussion. But > attempts like the above to reduce scientific fact to mere cultural bias > are ludicrous. Magpie: I thought they were discussing cultural conceptions and biases. Male and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as well as biological facts. In fact it seems liek it's the cultural conceptions and biases that are far more pressing a lot of the time! CJ: > But, at least if Wikipedia is trustworthy, those who coined and use the > word DO intend to include biology under the rubric. Denying or disputing > concepts of masculine and feminine is one thing. Denying the existence > of male and female is something else entirely. Magpie: I can't speak for Wikipedia, but in my experience of the word it's never been used to talk about anything but social and cultural ideas. That's the way I've always used it. So when I've heard it used re: HP it's not ever been to say that the books show males and females as two distinct things. It's not described as heteronormative because Hermione's a girl and Ron's a boy. > Magpie: > > I meant normal as in usual, sane, a natural occurance. CJ: > Well, "sane" to my ear includes a moral dimension, which I'm trying to > avoid in my discussion. By "usual" I'm sure you don't mean "usualLY" > which means "most of the time". If by "usual" and "natural" you simply > mean "happens a lot", I'm sure you'll agree that that alone is > insufficient -- there are many things which happen "a lot" that we > disapprove of notwithstanding. Magpie: I mean happens enough, I guess. "A lot" not meaning "usually" because there are more straight people in the word by numbers, but this is a not unusual and unremarkable variation. Whether we disapprove of it is basically cultural or personal. So to look around my office, for instance, I think all my co-workers are normal people. Some of them are also gay. Some people would consider that not normal. To me it's just a pretty common variation, one of the ways people are born. "Usual's" kind of a vague word, of course, but for me while I wouldn't call it "the usual" I certainly wouldn't call it "unusual." HP seems far more unusual to me in the total lack of gay people. CJ: > Second, we need to disambiguate the intent of the actor from the purpose > of the act. Just because *my* purpose in having sex is something else -- > probably pleasure -- doesn't change the biology of the act. A (rather > gruesome) analogy: I use a hammer to kill my neighbor. Just because *MY* > purpose was murder doesn't change the fact that murder is *not* the > purpose of a hammer. Sure, it's a *use* (though not, in this case, a > legitimate one) to which a hammer can be put, but that's a fundamentally > different question. Magpie: A hammer has a use because it was invented by someone for that use-- when we say it's "use" is not killing we're referring to a lot of ideas of specific people. A "war hammer" otoh, is made in order to kill people with. They are both hammers. The difference is kind of arbitrary. If people making a baby via man/woman sex (or in vitro or insemination) is "hammering" then maybe just having sex for the other things it does--social, physical, emotional etc.--is "war hammering." I don't think any same sex couple would try to suggest their sex was creating a baby, but they would probably say it was still sex. And I would agree, because that would feel true to me. If they need another word for sex when it's not making a baby, so would all the straight couples who have sex without that in mind, or when that isn't a possibility. > Magpie: > > Just because something isn't the original primary purpose for > > something doesn't mean it's not a purpose at all, does it? CJ: > Again, if by "purpose" you mean "use" and "intent of the actor (as > opposed to the act)" the I would absolutely agree. But just as using a > credit card to open doors tells us a lot more about our imaginations as > human beings than it does about the nature of a credit card, so the fact > that *we* can find a multitude of purposes for sex (anything from > pleasure to selling cars) is barely relevant to the biology of sex. Magpie: But what does this have to do with gay rights at all? We know as humans that we have sex all the time without the possibility or intention of making a baby. Why is that so important when it comes to gay couples doing it? The biology of sex very often doesn't lead to making a baby, and humans do it anyway. Why is this so relevent to gay rights, that two men or two women doing what we'd call "having sex" doesn't ever lead to one of them getting pregnant? It's a difference, I just don't see why it's so important a difference. It makes them no different than a straight couple who won't ever get pregnant as far as I can see. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 22 17:59:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:59:44 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > One of my favorite movies (because I am a rank sentimentalist) is the > version of the Scarlet Pimpernel where Sir Percy Blakney as the most > INCREDIBLY beautiful outfits...a major fop...and an unambiguously > heterosexual one, as well. Anyone else seen that (since this is off > topic chatter). Magpie: LOL! Oh, how I love him. And that's a great example, because the guy's the romantic straight hero and he's positively OTT conforming to that kind of stereotype. That demmed elusive Pimernel! -m From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 20:21:42 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:21:42 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <26C0A3B92D8A4D239AE097292D5F8DC7@AmandaPC> Message-ID: Bev: > So, any thoughts, comments??? Juli: I am NOT homophobic, if people are gay that's fine with me. BUT if someone I love and cherish all of a sudden is gay, I feel left down. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. It's hard to explain without offending anyone. My brain knows homosexuality is just how a person is, they don't chose to be gay, just the way they are, like being tall or short. It's in their genes. But the back of my is against homosexuality. It is probably because I come from an old catholic family. So when Jo said that Albus is gay, it hurt me. I looked at him as a role model, as a person to admire, so my old- fashioned soul just can't cope with it. I saw Albus as a father figure (even to me), and for me dad's just aren't gay. I know there are many gay fathers, and they are indeed great parents, but I've never met one. For me the idea of a family is mother, father, children. I hope I haven't offended anyone, if so, I am terribly sorry Juli- feeling disapointed From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 21:57:50 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:57:50 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would like to add this to my previous post: I am terribly sorry if I have offended anyone. I didn't want to reply to the whole Dumbledore-is-gay threat because I knew I would end up offending someone. I think homesexuality is a "hot" topic. I don't mean that it's in or anything. I just mean that it's just like politics and religion, subjects people will never agree on. Like I say, I am NOT homophobic, in fact my best friend is gay. We have known each other since we were in elementary school, and slowly over the years I started to fall in love with him. I idealized the idea that one day we would marry and have children together. Then, when we were 20, he came out of the closet. Yes, I was very disapointed. Yes, I thought he had let me down. After a short time, I got over myself. I realized it wasn't about me. It was about him. He was dealing with bigger issues and I wasn't there for him. Coming out was difficult for him, and I was to focused on myself to let him know that I was still there for him. Now, we are even better friends than we were, and I love him dearly. I have come to accept him just the way he is, and not only accept him, I love him for being gay. The thing is you have to understand that I also had a crush on Dumbledore, and a bit of me, that part that lives in books, thought of him as a good husband candidate. I may sound ridiculous, but I tend to fall in love with characters. It's just the way I am. What I am trying to get to (unsuccessfully) is that the reason I felt disapointed in Dumbledore being gay is that I thought of him as the kind of man I would like to get marry to someday. And it hit me that once again, the ideal of a man I want is gay. Gay parents are as good parents as heterosexual parents. There are some good, some not so good. In fact, I think homosexual parents try harder to be better parents because they had to overcome so much just to become parents. I don't have any friends born of a gay marriage, so I can't talk to them and see what's different from their upraising than mine. But I do have a couple of cousins that are in a long term relationship with their partners. I am pretty sure they would make as good parents as my other non-gay cousins. And I don't think homosexual people are "less" than heterosexual. I believe all humans have an equal status, their action, not who they are, dictate how good they are. I believe homosexuals are just like the rest of us, there are doctors, lawyers, construction workers, politicians, and even criminals. Does being gay determine who you are? absolutely not. Your actions do. If you are a gay killer you are just as bad as a straight killer. Period. If you are a good person it doesn't matter to me your sexual orientation. I have said that my catholic upraising has predisposed me. Yes that is true, but I am intellingent enough to question many church doctrines. I also question the church's fute against birth control, pre-marital sex, and many other things. I do believe God loves us all, white or black, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual. To his eyes, we are all alike. It seems to me that only in the past millenium or so homosexuality became an issue. When studying the greeks, the romans, and the egyptians, many of them were homosexual, and it wasn't a problem. Homosexuality was embrassed. I believe that for homosexuality to stop being an issue, we may still have to wait some more time. But a lot of progress has been made: Marriage is now legal in many countries, same sex couples are aloud to adopt children... It is a long way, but a lot has been achived. Juli - regretting to have replied to this topic at all From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 22:16:04 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:16:04 -0000 Subject: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Juli: I am NOT homophobic, if people are gay that's fine with me. BUT if someone I love and cherish all of a sudden is gay, I feel left down. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. It's hard to explain without offending anyone. My brain knows homosexuality is just how a person is, they don't chose to be gay, just the way they are, like being tall or short. It's in their genes. But the back of my is against homosexuality. It is probably because I come from an old catholic family. So when Jo said that Albus is gay, it hurt me. I looked at him as a role model, as a person to admire, so my old- fashioned soul just can't cope with it. I saw Albus as a father figure (even to me), and for me dad's just aren't gay. I know there are many gay fathers, and they are indeed great parents, but I've never met one. For me the idea of a family is mother, father, children. I hope I haven't offended anyone, if so, I am terribly sorry Juli- feeling disapointed Tiffany: I'm as straight as an arrow, but some of my best friends in college are gays & lesbians. I only ask them to respect my lifestyle & they're in good graces with me until the cows come home. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 23:50:08 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:50:08 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susan: > > One of my favorite movies (because I am a rank sentimentalist) > > is the version of the Scarlet Pimpernel where Sir Percy Blakney > > as the most INCREDIBLY beautiful outfits...a major fop...and an > > unambiguously heterosexual one, as well. Anyone else seen that > > (since this is off topic chatter). > Magpie: > LOL! Oh, how I love him. And that's a great example, because the > guy's the romantic straight hero and he's positively OTT conforming > to that kind of stereotype. > > That demmed elusive Pimernel! Goddlefrood: I'm not sure if I'm right, but the actor in question may well be Donald Sinden. I haven't seen the film, although I have seen him perform the role at the theatre many years ago. It was wonderful and would be termed "camp". The costume was full of frills, was pink and he wouldn't have blended into the background anywhere. There is also an episode of Blackadder, series three, in which the pimpernel is depicted as camp while he's not saving French aristocrats. That was based on Donald Sinden's portrayal. I suspect IMDB could tell anyone interested in a moment who the star of the film to which you both refer is. My money would be on Mr. Sinden. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 23 01:39:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:39:12 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > LOL! Oh, how I love him. And that's a great example, because the > > guy's the romantic straight hero and he's positively OTT conforming > > to that kind of stereotype. > > > > That demmed elusive Pimernel! > > Goddlefrood: > > I'm not sure if I'm right, but the actor in question may well be > Donald Sinden. I haven't seen the film, although I have seen him > perform the role at the theatre many years ago. It was wonderful > and would be termed "camp". The costume was full of frills, was > pink and he wouldn't have blended into the background anywhere. > There is also an episode of Blackadder, series three, in which > the pimpernel is depicted as camp while he's not saving French > aristocrats. That was based on Donald Sinden's portrayal. Magpie: The film I'm referring to was Leslie Howard (with Merle Oberon co- starring). He could not be more...well, camp. But I have seen the Blackadder episode too. LOL! -m From arielock at aol.com Tue Oct 23 04:25:17 2007 From: arielock at aol.com (arielock2001) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:25:17 -0000 Subject: Olbermann discussed JKR's comments re DD earlier this evening Message-ID: Hi all, Keith Olbermann discussed JKR's comments about DD's sexuality tonight as his #1 story. If you get MSNBC, his show is being rerun now (midnight EST). The segment ran for about 10 minutes, and he and guest Chris Cizzliza (sp?) discussed whether or not it was foreshadowed in the books, and what potential implications this revelation might have on the series as a whole. Keith (who has admitted to being a rabid HP fan and was the person who introduced her at the Carnegie Hall/ Open Book Tour event) and Chris also discussed JKR's new comments (made to Keith backstage before he introduced her) about current political events and how her opinions shaped the direction of the last three novels. Both commentators agreed that it was now possible to completely reevaluate the series as a whole viewed through a political lens. Please don't send me a howler for posting this after the segment aired. I tried to post the alert to the main list a few minutes after 8pm EST (when the topics of the evening's show were listed) so that anyone who was interested could watch, but I kept being told that it was "off-topic," and my posts were rejected. The discussion of Olbermann's program was so completely "on-topic" to the posts currently being discussed in the main group that I really wouldn't be surprised if Olbermann and Cizzliza were members of HPfGU. If you miss the rerun at midnight, it may wind up on YouTube. I hope it does, because I think anyone who has been discussing JKR's comments might enjoy watching two more Grown-ups analyze the series. Thought ya'all might like to know, Arianna (who is really annoyed that her posts were rejected even though she has been a member of HPfGU since at least 2003, and posted -unmoderated- without hassle numerous times before) From bhobbs36 at verizon.net Tue Oct 23 12:30:47 2007 From: bhobbs36 at verizon.net (Belinda) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:30:47 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Olbermann discussed JKR's comments re DD earlier this evening References: Message-ID: <001e01c81570$8af03e60$050a0a0a@ronaldruss1clq> There is a segment of video from the show at this link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ Bel~ ----- Original Message ----- From: arielock2001 To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:25 AM Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Olbermann discussed JKR's comments re DD earlier this evening Hi all, Keith Olbermann discussed JKR's comments about DD's sexuality tonight as his #1 story. If you get MSNBC, his show is being rerun now (midnight EST). The segment ran for about 10 minutes, and he and guest Chris Cizzliza (sp?) discussed whether or not it was foreshadowed in the books, and what potential implications this revelation might have on the series as a whole. Keith (who has admitted to being a rabid HP fan and was the person who introduced her at the Carnegie Hall/ Open Book Tour event) and Chris also discussed JKR's new comments (made to Keith backstage before he introduced her) about current political events and how her opinions shaped the direction of the last three novels. Both commentators agreed that it was now possible to completely reevaluate the series as a whole viewed through a political lens. Please don't send me a howler for posting this after the segment aired. I tried to post the alert to the main list a few minutes after 8pm EST (when the topics of the evening's show were listed) so that anyone who was interested could watch, but I kept being told that it was "off-topic," and my posts were rejected. The discussion of Olbermann's program was so completely "on-topic" to the posts currently being discussed in the main group that I really wouldn't be surprised if Olbermann and Cizzliza were members of HPfGU. If you miss the rerun at midnight, it may wind up on YouTube. I hope it does, because I think anyone who has been discussing JKR's comments might enjoy watching two more Grown-ups analyze the series. Thought ya'all might like to know, Arianna (who is really annoyed that her posts were rejected even though she has been a member of HPfGU since at least 2003, and posted -unmoderated- without hassle numerous times before) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maritajan at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 18:56:27 2007 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (MJ) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 10000 Message-ID: <420389.91014.qm@web36812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Two things: 1. I get messages from the 'main' group in digest form and print them out to read. I've been doing this pretty much since I joined the group, and I've never been caught up with the reading. With this particular message, I'm caught up! 2. It's Digest 10000! 10,000 daily digests, each one with up to 25 individual messages. :-) I thought the 10,000 was cool and thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. May I congratulate the list elves in controlling this amount of volume! MJ HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: Date: 23 Oct 2007 03:31:51 -0000 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 10000 There are 25 messages in this issue. ------------------------------- http://www.myspace.com/maritajan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 22:59:32 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:59:32 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471E7CD4.1040908@yahoo.com> Magpie: > But what does this have to do with gay rights at all? Why absolutely nothing, of course. I'm not even attempting to address homosexual rights. I'm addressing one issue only -- the attempt (as embodied in the concept "heteronormative") to reduce biological fact to levels of cultural norms. I've not touched on (and don't intend to touch on) any of the socio-cultural issues relating to homosexual rights. Magpie: > People also have sex for other reasons than to > have babies. People also make babies without having sex at all. As I addressed later in my post, the intentions of the actor and the purpose of the act are altogether different issues. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. I'll repreat my analogy: If my daughter asks me, "Daddy, what's a credit card for?" I will answer, "Why for buying things, of course!" despite the fact that I just finished using one to open a locked door. *My* intention is using a thing often has nothing to do with the purpose *of* the thing. Magpie: > I don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on > that biological fact. As I've said, I haven't even attempted to touch on the socio-cultural issues surround the question of homosexual rights except insofar as to say that, despite the best efforts of many to deny the obvious, the biology of sex is NOT one of them. Magpie: > I've never heard it used to state that males and females > don't exist. "Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations wherein variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include the idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia) Now, male and female are biological categories. And the antecedent of "these" in the passage above appears to be "social practices, beliefs or policies" (or possibly "situations", though I don't think that would radically alter the intent). The thrust of the passage thus becomes the reduction of the biology of sex (the "idea" of male and female) to either a "social practice or belief" or a "marginalizing situation" depending on preference in antecedent. Now, I may be misreading the passage (though I think mine is far from an unreasonable interpretation), or perhaps you consider the Wikipedia definition flawed (it may be; I note further on that it confuses male and female for masculine and femine when it speaks of "the binary choice of male and female for one's gender identity"). If so, I'll be happy to take back my comments vis-a-vis heteronormativity. Magpie: > Male and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as > well as biological facts. Not in general usage, no. Male and female are biological categories (and they're traits we share with nearly all species). For the related cultural conceptions we generally use the terms masculine and feminine. Thus, for example, I can ask whether your dog is male or female, because they are biological categories. But we don't speak about masculine or feminine dogs, because masculine and feminine involve human socio-cultural conceptions which dogs DON'T share. --CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 23:43:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:43:57 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <99013.26863.qm@web60718.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Carol earlier: > I think it's just another indication of JKR's absent-mindedness. (She also evidently said that James shared his money with Sirius, forgetting all the gold in Sirius's vault, not to mention the shabby treatment implied by forgetting poor unemployed Lupin.) It's like slipping and calling your mother by your sister's name. Or even calling her by your brother's name. The kind of thing I would do. (I only notice that I've called Voldemort "Dumbledore" or Harry "Snape" *after* I've hit Send. > > Anyway, I'm sure that JKR meant one of the Hogsmeade bars considering that Neville is canonically a Hogwarts teacher. Or maybe she's forgotten that, too. > > Carol, giving JKR the benefit of a doubt in this instance but still wishing she'd take a year-long, interview-free vacation in Majorca-- Make that Nepal--and leave us to interpret the books without her help danielle dassero responded: > > Actually she said James shared his money with Lupin, not Sirius. Carol again: That's what the summary at Leaky says, and it's no doubt what she meant, but if you scroll down to the actual transcript (admittedly, a work in progress with some obvious errors of transcription), you'll find this: "JKR: To take Remus first, Remus was unemployable. Poor Lupin, prior to Dumbledore taking him in, lead [sic] a really impoverished life because no one wanted to employ a werewolf. The other three were full-time members of the Order of the Phoenix. [And Lupin wasn't?] So that's what they did, [after?] they left school. James has [sic] gold, enough to support Sirius [sic] and Lily. So I suppose they lived foff [sic] a private income. But they were full-time fighters, that's what they did, until Lily fell pregnant with Harry. So then they went into hiding." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." Who said that she didn't have that right? All that we (some of us, including me) said is that it isn't in the books and we (or I, anyway) wish she'd allow us to interpret the books for ourselves without telling us what to think. Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry about what she says outside the books. Anyone remember her reaction to the reader who asked if Lily had ever been a Death Eater, "How dare you?" Despite her millions (or is it billions), she strikes me as remarkably insecure. Carol, still liking the books but not fond of JKR as a person at the moment (but with no grudge against anyone who still thinks she's wonderful) From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 23:44:59 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:44:59 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > The film I'm referring to was Leslie Howard (with Merle Oberon co- > starring). He could not be more...well, camp. > > But I have seen the Blackadder episode too. LOL! > > -m > Ah yes, Leslie Howard, I remember him well! There is also a fairly recent TV version with Richard E. Grant. Snape's Witch From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 24 02:52:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:52:57 -0000 Subject: JKR interviews (was Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol wrote: > And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning > the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: > > "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." > > Who said that she didn't have that right? All that we (some of us, > including me) said is that it isn't in the books and we (or I, anyway) > wish she'd allow us to interpret the books for ourselves without > telling us what to think. > > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an > "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not > quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry > about what she says outside the books. Potioncat: Is this later part from another interview, or from a different transcript? It's hard to keep up! JKR wrote--or had in her head--a rather detailed back story for Theodore Nott. For all he does in the book, he could have very well gone nameless and not had a story at all. So I don't have a problem with important characters having far more extensive back stories than we ever see in the books. And I don't mind that JKR is now sharing those details. It's what most of us wanted--though we aren't getting what we expected. She made Albus Dumbledore a strongly secretive character So she gave him secrets from his youth, family secrets, a reason to be secretive in general. Being gay is a pretty big secret. Makes sense. At least it does to me. I don't know if it rings true to anyone else, or if I have JKR's motivation at all correct. We readers love the characters like family. Not JKR. I think JKR loves her characters the same way a carpenter loves the things in his tool box. (I don't have a clue what a carpenter would have in his tool box.) Albus, Severus, Sirius and even Harry---yes Harry--are all tools in the telling of the story. There's a boy on a train. Why is he on the train? He's a wizard, but he never knew it before. Why not? JKR has given the characters attributes and faults and put them through all sorts of experiences to get to the story that she wanted to tell. I do think she had the whole 7 part series outlined before she started. Not every detail of course. As she wrote some things might not work, or some very different idea might replace an earlier one. She's not writing in a vacuum, and I think reaction to earlier books may have affected later books. She may even have had an occasional touch of movie contamination. Potioncat, who thinks this post is really a reply to many different topics on the list today. I hope I haven't rambled too much. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 24 03:18:43 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:18:43 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471E7CD4.1040908@yahoo.com> Message-ID: CJ: > As I addressed later in my post, the intentions of the actor and the > purpose of the act are altogether different issues. Sometimes they > coincide, sometimes they don't. I'll repreat my analogy: If my daughter > asks me, "Daddy, what's a credit card for?" I will answer, "Why for > buying things, of course!" despite the fact that I just finished using > one to open a locked door. *My* intention is using a thing often has > nothing to do with the purpose *of* the thing. Magpie: Your daughter isn't asking you what a credit card is for, but what a particular act is for that people do with each other is for. If you say "it's for getting a woman pregnant" you wouldn't be giving her a very accurate answer that I can see, since realistically people are probably more often than not having sex for some other reason than making a baby. (It's a bit silly, for instance, to say that the purpose of oral sex is to make a baby.) Credit cards are a lot easier because their creation was pretty easy. Making a baby is certainly part of the answer, I just don't think humans can always be reduced to something that simple when it comes to stuff we do. Maybe what we call sex today is actually a combination of a number of acts that evolved into one thing. > > Magpie: > > I don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on > > that biological fact. CJ: > > As I've said, I haven't even attempted to touch on the socio- cultural > issues surround the question of homosexual rights except insofar as to > say that, despite the best efforts of many to deny the obvious, the > biology of sex is NOT one of them. Magpie: But are you suggesting gay people are fighting for the right to have the same biology of sex as straight people? If they wanted that sex they'd be straight. It still seems...I can't put my finger on it...but it seems like if you see them trying to reduce biology to cultural norms that you're annoyed by their wanting cultural norms that aren't based on certain aspects of biology. Because they know they're not man/woman have sex and make babies. Isn't their point that the difference in biology between gay couples and straight couples exist but should not be the basis for all the cultural norms? > > Magpie: > > I've never heard it used to state that males and females > > don't exist. CJ: > > "Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations wherein > variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or > persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include the > idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary > categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia) > > Now, male and female are biological categories. And the antecedent of > "these" in the passage above appears to be "social practices, beliefs or > policies" (or possibly "situations", though I don't think that would > radically alter the intent). The thrust of the passage thus becomes the > reduction of the biology of sex (the "idea" of male and female) to > either a "social practice or belief" or a "marginalizing situation" > depending on preference in antecedent. > Magpie: I didn't get that thrust of the passage. > "Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations wherein > variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or > persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include the > idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary > categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia) To me that says heteronormativity is a term used to describe situations where non-straight people are marginatlized or persecuted by social practices beliefs or policies. These people include transexuals and hermaphrodites, in whom male and female not as distinct as people would like, and the complementary part refers to the idea that men are "supposed to be" with women. But my understanding of the word comes more from use than the wikipedia definition. > Magpie: > > Male and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as > > well as biological facts. CJ: > Not in general usage, no. Male and female are biological categories (and > they're traits we share with nearly all species). For the related > cultural conceptions we generally use the terms masculine and feminine. > Thus, for example, I can ask whether your dog is male or female, because > they are biological categories. But we don't speak about masculine or > feminine dogs, because masculine and feminine involve human > socio-cultural conceptions which dogs DON'T share. Magpie: Since heteronormativity is about cultural norms I think they're talking more about stuff like the transgendered where they are physically one thing but identify as the other. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 03:18:14 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:18:14 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning > the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: > > "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." > > Who said that she didn't have that right? All that we (some of us, > including me) said is that it isn't in the books and we (or I, anyway) > wish she'd allow us to interpret the books for ourselves without > telling us what to think. lizzyben: The question actually was how shouldn't she worry about what other countries will think about this? Your books are sold in other countries that aren't as enlightened as us, aren't you concerned about their reaction? (The "what will Iran think?" question). And she's right - she does have the right to say what he is; she created him. Carol: > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an > "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not > quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry > about what she says outside the books. > > Anyone remember her reaction to the reader who asked if Lily had ever > been a Death Eater, "How dare you?" Despite her millions (or is it > billions), she strikes me as remarkably insecure. > > Carol, still liking the books but not fond of JKR as a person at the > moment (but with no grudge against anyone who still thinks she's > wonderful) > lizzyben: I don't understand why the backlash on this particular question would be worse than the others. The questioner was a woman who asked her if DD had fallen in love - she said he had. In the news conference, she said that DD's back-story is related to the theme of love in the novels. As I see it, it's no different than other information that she's offered - for example, that James tormented Snape partially becaused he suspected that Snape was in love with Lily. It helps illuminate the character's motivations. And I've no doubt that DD was always gay in her own mind. I'm not too happy with a lot of the things she's said about Snape, but she is responding to questions from fans, & offering her own opinions on the characters. We're all free to disagree. At first, I was underwhelmed by this revelation - mostly because I felt like she ducked out of putting it in the novels, although it was heavily implied in DH. But judging by the anger this has engendered, I understand why she didn't include that information. Some Christian fans are literally talking about burning the books now. People are saying that it's not appropriate for children now - as opposed to how violence & torture is appropriate for children? And I also don't understand how this single fact suddenly transforms the entire series into a work about the "gay lifestyle" or sexuality. It's just totally overblown, IMO. Dumbledore is the same Dumbledore he always was: manipulative bastard or idealistic visionary. lizzyben From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 05:37:12 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:37:12 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > Carol: > > And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning > > the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: > > > > "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." > > > > Who said that she didn't have that right? All that we (some of us, > > including me) said is that it isn't in the books and we (or I, anyway) > > wish she'd allow us to interpret the books for ourselves without > > telling us what to think. > > lizzyben: > I watched the video of the press conference. The last reporter was quite rude and said "why did you announce that DD was gay at a press conference?" She basically said that the deal about he and GG was part of the end of the book so she couldn't put it in the beginning. The reporter then kept saying "why not the 5th book? why not the 6th?" I think she was quite gracious and polite, but then I do like her. I've always liked her. Now I like her more, because I'm one of those members of the homosexual lobby whose trying to entice your children into the immoral gay lifestyle, and look who's just joined the cause! I love hearing all these tidbits about the book, unlike many of you... If I don't like Neville living over Leaky and apparating to work, I can imagine it differently. I like the fact that she gives millions to charity, and plans to do the encyclopedia some day and give the money to charity. I loved her comment "It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could love other men." I have been quite disheartened by the bigotry and misunderstanding and ignorance I have seen displayed on lots of lists lately. Lesbians and gay men are not one dimensional. Being a lesbian is just one part of my life. I spent 20 years administering a shelter for survivors of domestic violence - I do consulting on issues of child abuse and child sexual abuse. It's particularly hurtful to have so many people stating that lesbians/gays are child abusers. My partner is a physician who primarily serves the homeless, addicted, and mentally ill....We've been together for 14 years, and plan to be together forever. We have two terrific children, and most of my identity right now is as a mother. We love walking in the woods and on the beach. I'm also a Harry Potter fanatic...and I had a great time organizing a festival designed to promote literacy for children with an HP theme..I was depressed for a week when DD was murdered, and so relieved that DD was not fooled by Snape..... We're ordinary people. Please think about this. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 05:43:02 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:43:02 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > wrote: > > > Magpie: > > The film I'm referring to was Leslie Howard (with Merle Oberon co- > > starring). He could not be more...well, camp. > > > > But I have seen the Blackadder episode too. LOL! > > > > -m > > > > Ah yes, Leslie Howard, I remember him well! > > There is also a fairly recent TV version with Richard E. Grant. > > Snape's Witch > Well, I've seen them all...but the one I was referring to was the 1982 one with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour...Andrews plays Sir Percy and has the most magnificent costumes...not frilly at all..one is white velvet......Ian McKellan plays Chauvelin... There is some absolutely wonderful dialogue between Marguerite and Sir Percy about love.....(I want you to tell me everything about yourself. But slowly. Very slowly. So it takes a very, very long time). Another wonderful movie is Kenneth Branagh's remake about Much Ado About Nothing......check it out...... Susan From i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 06:09:46 2007 From: i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com (i_am_finally_me) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:09:46 -0000 Subject: BEWARE!!! Message-ID: Believe it or not but there have been scams relating to Harry Potter and Hogwarts. I have found 10 myself, and am very sure that there are many more out there. I felt it only right to warn everyone out there about these scams. Any place that claims you can take courses at Hogwarts, or Hogwarts like places make sure you don't get sucked in, with promises that they'll send you text books from the movie, or anything in that manner. Please don't give them your credit card or checking account information... Though I'm sure that most adults won't be taken as fools I'm sure that our children might, after all, Harry is the one to be like now a days isn't he??? So please check your bookmarks for these pages and talk to your children..... Thanx Much and Happy Surfin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 09:01:53 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:01:53 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > I watched the video of the press conference. The last reporter was > quite rude and said "why did you announce that DD was gay at a press > conference?" > > She basically said that the deal about he and GG was part of the end of > the book so she couldn't put it in the beginning. The reporter then > kept saying "why not the 5th book? why not the 6th?" lizzyben: OMG, I could not *believe* how rude that reporter was. Even after JKR answered the question, she wouldn't sit down, but kept coming back w/another sarcastic or hostile comment. Like when JKR said that DD/GG was in the end of the story & she came back with "Oh, the end of the story was at a press conference?" So snide. Actually, I got a hostile vibe from the whole conference. The press that always seemed to love her turned on a dime. And yes, I agree that she was quite gracious & polite in response. It's so disheartening to see how much prejudice is still acceptable in our society, & if JKR did something to lessen that even a little, I salute her. lizzyben From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 24 14:22:49 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:22:49 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > lizzyben: > > OMG, I could not *believe* how rude that reporter was. Even after JKR > answered the question, she wouldn't sit down, but kept coming back > w/another sarcastic or hostile comment. Like when JKR said that DD/GG > was in the end of the story & she came back with "Oh, the end of the > story was at a press conference?" So snide. Actually, I got a hostile > vibe from the whole conference. The press that always seemed to love > her turned on a dime. And yes, I agree that she was quite gracious & > polite in response. It's so disheartening to see how much prejudice is > still acceptable in our society, & if JKR did something to lessen that > even a little, I salute her. Jen: I couldn't hear any of the questions and lost parts of JKR's answers even with my volume at max. Did everyone watch the video link at TLC or another location? Also, is there a transcript available somewhere? Thanks! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 24 14:41:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:41:06 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > Well, I've seen them all...but the one I was referring to was the > 1982 one with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour...Andrews plays Sir > Percy and has the most magnificent costumes...not frilly at all..one > is white velvet......Ian McKellan plays Chauvelin... Magpie: I saw that one too! I think that was the first one I saw, actually, but it was a long time ago, so the LH one is more in my mind. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 18:03:56 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:03:56 -0000 Subject: The writing process (was Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > But what I wish she'd do, rather than quick, on-the-spot interviews, is to write an article about how she wrote the series. I'd like to know how the plot evolved, how characters merged, what she was aiming for. There are little bits of that in some of the interviews, but not enough. > > I'd recommend Agatha Christie's autobiography. She comments on fans' > reactions to her stories, and her reactions to their reactions. Very > interesting and to my mind, very much like what's going on with the HP series. Tonks: I would love to hear how Rowling wrote the series. Then others can do it too. Did Agatha Christie tell how she did her work?? Tonks_op From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 19:35:18 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:35:18 -0000 Subject: hilarious post Message-ID: I'm afraid that you won't enjoy this if you're a Republican, but aside from the anti-Bush stuff, there is a HILARIOUS line about HP fans.. Check out http://www.borowitzreport.com Bush Seeks to Ban Marriage Between Fictitious Gay Characters Harry Potter Revelation Prompts President's Move Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 19:33:27 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:33:27 -0000 Subject: other fiction - Robin McKinley Message-ID: Is anyone else a fan of Robin McKinley.... Her books REALLY are for young adults (unlike JKR's)....but I love the Blue Sword. She also wrote a chilling book called Deerskin -- it's about child sexual abuse, and I recommend it to anyone who is a survivor...very well done, but difficult to read...GREAT fun part about rearing puppies, though.... I am geeked because I sent her an email and she actually wrote back at some length....only about four days later... Susan From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 19:58:03 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:58:03 -0000 Subject: other fiction - Robin McKinley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: Is anyone else a fan of Robin McKinley.... Her books REALLY are for young adults (unlike JKR's)....but I love the Blue Sword. She also wrote a chilling book called Deerskin -- it's about child sexual abuse, and I recommend it to anyone who is a survivor...very well done, but difficult to read...GREAT fun part about rearing puppies, though.... I am geeked because I sent her an email and she actually wrote back at some length....only about four days later... Susan Tiffany: I wasn't a fantasy reader prior to SS, but after then I've read a lot of fantasy. I found McKinley to be really good compared with the average novelist in fantasy, but nothing in the leagues of Tolkien or JKR. I've read 3 books by her, don't know them all right now, but they were really good & quite enjoyable. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 24 20:27:01 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:27:01 -0400 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: <1193218268.2950.55709.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1193218268.2950.55709.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9E4935E418850-9E4-39B8@WEBMAIL-DC05.sysops.aol.com> Carol wrote: And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." Who said that she didn't have that right? All that we (some of us, including me) said is that it isn't in the books and we (or I, anyway) wish she'd allow us to interpret the books for ourselves without telling us what to think. Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry about what she says outside the books. Anyone remember her reaction to the reader who asked if Lily had ever been a Death Eater, "How dare you?" Despite her millions (or is it billions), she strikes me as remarkably insecure. Carol, still liking the books but not fond of JKR as a person at the moment (but with no grudge against anyone who still thinks she's wonderful) Julie: I guess no one here has actually said she didn't have "the right" to talk about the characters (though I know?plenty of people at other places on the Internet have said that and much worse!--I'm sure she's not talking directly to HPfGU). But I have seen a lot of "she should keep quiet" and as you say, "she should let us interpret the books for ourselves," which is in one way just different semantics. Personally, I think JKR should say whatever she feels like saying. If I were her, reading stuff written on the Internet, I'd probably say more and make it all as contradictory as possible, just out of spite! No, I wouldn't really, but I'd feel like doing it, and JKR probably does too. I certainly can understand her feeling defensive. She goes to book readings and fan gatherings, fans ask her questions, she answers, and then all hell breaks loose, with people criticizing her for speaking about characters and books she created. I don't really get it myself, and I don't really see how her telling us?what she thinks about the characters means she's telling us what we have to think. Can't recall her saying that anyway. Really, no one has to listen to her interviews, or take anything she says in her interviews as canon (heck, many a fanfic writer doesn't even take the *books* as canon when it comes to writing about their favorite characters!).?But I think she has every right to say whatever she wants about the books and the characters without hearing she should just shut up. Again, I'm one who thinks JKR isn't always consistent with her plot points or her characters within the books (let alone in her interviews) and it does affect the overall quality of her work for me. But I don't at all think her storytelling abilities, the good or the bad, really reflect on her as a person.?I don't see her as?insecure either, since the furor I've seen, with some of the comments directed at her quite vicious (again, at other sites on the Internet, not here) would induce anyone to feel defensive! Just stating my opinion, and hoping I didn't step on anyone's toes :-) Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 20:36:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:36:39 -0000 Subject: JKR interviews (was Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > And I'm wondering what others think of her latest remark concerning the revelation about DD's sexual orientation: > > > > "He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him." > > > > Who said that she didn't have that right? > > > > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not quite the same as being "in love." Is it? Or should we even worry about what she says outside the books. > > Potioncat: > Is this later part from another interview, or from a different transcript? It's hard to keep up! Carol responds: My post was based on the articles and very incomplete response posted at the Leaky Cauldron, which includes links to equally incomplete and out-of-contest remarks in other articles: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/23/j-k-rowling-on-dumbledore-revelation-i-m-not-kidding The article now includes a link to the video, which can be found at http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/arts/web_exclusive_jk_rowling.html After an introduction during which she's presented an award for printing HBP on "ancient-forest-friendly" paper and a lot of flashing from cameras, JKR answers reporters' questions (which are hard to hear even with the volume turned up). The last question is essentially the same question many readers had, why JKR didn't reveal DD's gayness earlier. She appears to be surprised and flustered by the question, which she seems to confuse with DD's infatuation with Grindelwald, and her answer is essentially that it would have spoiled the plot to reveal it earlier. She does also say that children are likely to read the DD/GG relationship as a friendship while adult readers may suspect an infatuation. The "he is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him" remark doesn't sound as defensive in the video as it does in print (tone is always difficult to convey in written words) and the context seems to be something related to the reaction to the books by readers in other countries with less tolerant cultures (which is not clear from the article I originally quoted) rather than the readers' right to interpret the books without her help (which is partially addressed in the friendship vs. infatuation comment above), but I can't tell for sure because, as I said, it's hard to hear the questions. At any rate, I still think she has an unrealistic sense of ownership over the book, an inadequate understanding of how differently it's interpreted by different readers and a failure to realize that her intentions (like any author's) aren't always successfully carried into the books for a variety of reasons, ranging from her own assumptions about the characters being taken for granted rather than put on the page to the different experiences of her readers to the nature of language itself. She did say (and I hope this remark will placate the epilogue haters) that her original epilogue "crow-barred in" most of the surviving characters so that it (apparently) included almost everyone's fate, and she also "tweaked" it to include an off-page Teddy after she decided to kill off Lupin so that everyone would know that Teddy is all right. Maybe she should just publish that version of the epilogue, with comments about where she's changed her mind. But, then, it still wouldn't be true canon any more than discarded characters like Hermione's little sister, Mafalda Weasley (the Slytherin Weasley), and Pyrites (among others) are canonical, unless she announced that it was definitive (which would means that she could no longer change her mind about details like Neville's future wife or Ron's occupation). Anyway, she did seem courteous and accomodating to the reporters in the interview, just rather naive (IMO) regarding the way some people might conceivably react to her books and her revelations. Carol, who thinks that JKR's own idea of a vacation from the Potterverse before starting that encyclopedia is probably a good one From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 24 23:57:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:57:29 -0000 Subject: Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an > "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not > quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry > about what she says outside the books. > Pippin: Why wouldn't it be the same as being in love? Many people consider infatuation as an initial stage of love. I took it to mean that he fell thoroughly in love with GG, and went through a stage in which he was consumed with his feelings and unwilling or unable to find any fault in his beloved. Being infatuated doesn't mean it wasn't a real love, IOW, just that it started off very strong. Anyway why "worry" about what she says outside the books? We have no more control over what she thinks than she has over what we think. It seems to me she has just as much right to talk about the subtext and meaning of her books as anyone else. If she wants to tell us things about the Potterverse that didn't fit within the scope of the books, so be it. I think it's an interesting sidelight into the creative process, even if the ideas aren't thoroughly worked out. The process of world and character generation will inevitably produce a lot of information which turns out to be extraneous to the story and isn't used. For this reason it may never reach final form. But there's no reason, IMO, that readers have to be sheltered from this information, as if it would somehow damage the books to find out that the author has conflicting ideas about what Ron did with the rest of his life. She isn't saying that the rest of us can't have our own interpretations. She even expects that children and adults will view the DD/GG relationship, not to mention Aberforth's attraction to his goats, in different lights. It seems to me all she's done is say that she knowingly created a character with a gay subtext, and she's hardly the first artist to admit doing that, although she might be the most famous. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 01:37:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:37:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not quite the same as being "in love," is it? Or should we even worry about what she says outside the books? > > > > Pippin: > Why wouldn't it be the same as being in love? Many people consider infatuation as an initial stage of love. I took it to mean that he fell thoroughly in love with GG, and went through a stage in which he was consumed with his feelings and unwilling or unable to find any fault in his beloved. > > Being infatuated doesn't mean it wasn't a real love, IOW, just that it started off very strong. > > Anyway why "worry" about what she says outside the books? We have no more control over what she thinks than she has over what we think. It seems to me she has just as much right to talk about the subtext and meaning of her books as anyone else. If she wants to tell us things about the Potterverse that didn't fit within the scope of the books, so be it. I think it's an interesting sidelight into the creative process, even if the ideas aren't thoroughly worked out. > It seems to me all she's done is say that she knowingly created a character with a gay subtext, and she's hardly the first artist to admit doing that, although she might be the most famous. Carol again: Infatuation isn't love. To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online: infatuate Function: transitive verb Etymology: Latin infatuatus, past participle of infatuare, from in- + fatuus fatuous Date: 1533 1 : to cause to be foolish : deprive of sound judgment 2 : to inspire with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration ? in?fat?u?a?tion \-fa-ch-w-shn, -ch?--\ noun "Infatuation" is related to "fatuous," which means "foolish." And Albus's attraction to Gellert (whom even he sensed had a sinister side beneath that merry exterior) was, indeed, foolish, as its consequences revealed. "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation, not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or she loves and loves them, anyway. (Molly Weasely loving Arthur Weasley is one canon example.) Snape, I would say, was infatuated with Lily rather than in love with her: witness his Patronus, which suggests, in its brilliance and power and beauty, a very idealized view of Lily. James, who married her, probably had a more realistic view of her--at least when he got beyond the teenage crush stage. Love, in contrast, is a complicated emotion that can range from sexual attraction combined with tenderness and affection to the reverence felt for a beloved and respected mentor or the devotion of a parent to a child. Whether or not there was an element of physical attraction in Albus's feelings for Gellert (certainly, such an attraction existed in JKR's imagination if not on paper), the attraction we see in the book is primarily intellectual, between two brilliant and arrogant boys who see (IMO) themselves mirrored in another person. Albus had no intellectual equal at Hogwarts. Gellert was the first person with whom he could discuss his ideas about the Hallows and "the greater good." I'm probably the only person on this list who has read the letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley to his Oxford friend, Thomas Jefferson Hogg (some of which have been doctored by Hogg, but like Slughorn's memory, the alterations are detectable), but the resemblance of Shelley's early letters to Dumbledore's is quite striking--a young genius who knows he's a genius thinking that he has all the answers to society's problems. Hogg, intelligent but not a genius, writes back, and Shelley idealizes him and his ideas. Hogg, in turn, becomes infatuated with Shelley. Very interesting historical parallel, and I suspect that it happened rather frequently among older boys at English public schools and universities in the nineteenth century. And my concern regarding JKR's pronouncements is that we as readers will allow her intentions and her sometimes ambiguous or contradictory statements, or her view that the books promote "tolerance," or any other statement outside the books to control what we see in the books and how we see them. For example, this statement about DD's sexuality is getting a lot more attention than her earlier statement about the Christian themes, and yet the Christian themes, particularly in the last few chapters (forgiveness, redemption, self-sacrificial love) were apparent to me in a way that DD's sexuality never was (or I wouldn't have been surprised, as many other people were, by that revelation). As I've said elsewhere, authorial intention, to the degree that it can be determined, is not the sole or definitive interpretation of a literary work. It's only one component, the text itself being more important (but even there, the reader's individual experience and philosophy and the slippery nature of language itself, not to mention deliberate ambiguity and misdirection by the author make a definitive interpretation impossible). At any rate, I was perfectly happy analyzing the books without her after-the-fact pronouncements. If DD's sexuality was important, it ought to have been included in the story. As it is, I think she deliberately left it out because she was afraid that it would spoil the surprise of DD's tragic friendship/relationship/infatuation with Grindelwald. "Infatuation" is, I think, the right word. Whether it's sexual (as suggested by the interview) or intellectual (as suggested by DH) or both is less important by far than its tragic consequences. BTW, I do think that DD felt a kind of love for Grindelwald near the end that was not infatuation but was not sexual, either--a hope that he repented at the end, a hope that he felt remorse, which I take to be a hope for the state of his soul after death (in contrast to Voldemort's fragmented and unrepentant soul). I see Christianity there, not sexuality. But that's just what I'm conditioned to see, just my interpretation, for which I did not need JKR's statements about the Christian themes in her book or her concern about the afterlife. I don't want important themes/motifs, such as the power of love or the importance of remorse and atonement, or (as you pointed out on the main list and I have also discussed there) Harry's journey to manhood, from anger and the desire for revenge (you said arrogance, but you were interpreting a fable within the context of the main story) to forgiveness of his enemies to be forgotten simply because JKR identified an important character as gay (without his appearing to be so in the text itself). We should not forget, for example, that the HP books are Harry's story, or ignore the lessons that he learns along the way, including the explicitly but not exclusively Christian lesson of forgiving his enemies their trespasses. Side note: I talk about Christian themes and motifs because they interest me, and because I believe in forgiveness and hope there's an afterlife, but I'm an ex-Episcopalian who has long ceased to attend church services and was never a fundamentalist of any variety. Carol, wondering whether JKR's penchant for tolerance extends to the fundamentalist Christians who oppose her books and noting that "tolerance" actually means "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own" From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 25 02:53:41 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:53:41 -0000 Subject: Neville's wives (was JKR interviews (was Three Cauldrons was Re: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > Maybe she should just publish that version of the epilogue, with > comments about where she's changed her mind. snip (which would means that she could no longer change her mind about details like Neville's future wife or Ron's occupation). Potioncat: I snipped a lot of this post because I have a question about one little bit of it. JKR just recently stated that Neville will (did?) marry Hannah Abbott. Has she said something differently before? I know at one point post DH some fans were asking about Neville and Luna, but I thought JKR had already married Luna off to someone else. Potioncat, who had a patient today with the last name of Abbott and had to concentrate very hard to avoid calling her "Hannah." From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 03:45:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:45:16 -0000 Subject: The Scarlet Pimpernel (Was: Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Susan > > Another wonderful movie is Kenneth Branagh's remake about Much Ado > About Nothing......check it out...... Mike: Oh, I loved that version. And it had a lot of *name* actors in it. I loved Michael Keaton as the Constable's 2nd, forgot the characters name. But the teaming of Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branaugh was *the best*. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 04:00:55 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Nancy Farmer Message-ID: <452550.55121.qm@web90404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would anyone recommend The Sea of Trolls and its sequel? I read The House of Scorpian and enjoyed it. TSoT was at my library, so I picked it up. But due to limited reading time, I was wondering if it would be worth it or if I should seek out some other book. Thanks! Kemper __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 04:18:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:18:36 -0000 Subject: Neville's wives (was JKR interviews (was Three Cauldrons was Re: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > Maybe she should just publish that version of the epilogue, with comments about where she's changed her mind. snip (which would means that she could no longer change her mind about details like Neville's future wife or Ron's occupation). > > Potioncat: > I snipped a lot of this post because I have a question about one little bit of it. > > JKR just recently stated that Neville will (did?) marry Hannah Abbott. > Has she said something differently before? I know at one point post DH some fans were asking about Neville and Luna, but I thought JKR had already married Luna off to someone else. > > Potioncat, who had a patient today with the last name of Abbott and had to concentrate very hard to avoid calling her "Hannah." > Carol again: The idea comes from the Blue Peter special July 20, 2007. (Can that date be right? It's just before the book came out?): "JKR: Ummmm ... sometimes characters misbehave a little bit, and want to do their own thing. But I think I know them very very well, so they've never really taken me by surprise. Except -- I can say this because it hasn't happened but there is speculation at one point on the internet that Neville and Luna would end up together (audience giggles). And I said, "No, that won't happen." But you know what, while writing Seven, I started to feel a bit of a pull between Luna and Neville in a way. I started to see how that could work, but it hasn't happened. That was an interesting thing. The moment I'd said, "Of course, they would never fancy each other," I go... I don't know... You know, I kind of see that." Here's the link: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0720-bluepeter.html Guess I was a bit too optimistic that it meant JKR was actually considering having Neville and Luna marry. Apparently, she's decided on Rolf Scamander for Luna and Hufflepuff Hannah for Neville. Probably better matches all around. Carol, conceding that Neville would probably at a constant loss trying to understand Luna, but the idea was fun while it lasted From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 06:21:21 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:21:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an > "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not > quite the same as being "in love," is it? Or should we even worry > about what she says outside the books? > > > > > > > Pippin: > > Why wouldn't it be the same as being in love? Many people consider > infatuation as an initial stage of love. I took it to mean that he > fell thoroughly in love with GG, and went through a stage in which he > was consumed with his feelings and unwilling or unable to find any > fault in his beloved. > > > > Being infatuated doesn't mean it wasn't a real love, IOW, just that > it started off very strong. > > > > Anyway why "worry" about what she says outside the books? We have no > more control over what she thinks than she has over what we think. It > seems to me she has just as much right to talk about the subtext and > meaning of her books as anyone else. If she wants to tell us things > about the Potterverse that didn't fit within the scope of the books, > so be it. I think it's an interesting sidelight into the creative > process, even if the ideas aren't thoroughly worked out. > > > It seems to me all she's done is say that she knowingly created a > character with a gay subtext, and she's hardly the first artist to > admit doing that, although she might be the most famous. > > Carol again: > > Infatuation isn't love. > > To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online: > > infatuate > Function: > transitive verb > > Etymology: > Latin infatuatus, past participle of infatuare, from in- + fatuus > fatuous > Date: 1533 > > 1 : to cause to be foolish : deprive of sound judgment 2 : to inspire > with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration > ? in?fat?u?a?tion \-fa-ch-;w-shn, -ch?- -\ noun > > "Infatuation" is related to "fatuous," which means "foolish." And > Albus's attraction to Gellert (whom even he sensed had a sinister side > beneath that merry exterior) was, indeed, foolish, as its consequences > revealed. "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation, > not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or > she loves and loves them, anyway. (Molly Weasely loving Arthur Weasley > is one canon example.) Snape, I would say, was infatuated with Lily > rather than in love with her: witness his Patronus, which suggests, in > its brilliance and power and beauty, a very idealized view of Lily. > James, who married her, probably had a more realistic view of her-- at > least when he got beyond the teenage crush stage. > > Love, in contrast, is a complicated emotion that can range from sexual > attraction combined with tenderness and affection to the reverence > felt for a beloved and respected mentor or the devotion of a parent to > a child. Whether or not there was an element of physical attraction in > Albus's feelings for Gellert (certainly, such an attraction existed in > JKR's imagination if not on paper), the attraction we see in the book > is primarily intellectual, between two brilliant and arrogant boys who > see (IMO) themselves mirrored in another person. Albus had no > intellectual equal at Hogwarts. Gellert was the first person with whom > he could discuss his ideas about the Hallows and "the greater good." > > I'm probably the only person on this list who has read the letters of > Percy Bysshe Shelley to his Oxford friend, Thomas Jefferson Hogg (some > of which have been doctored by Hogg, but like Slughorn's memory, the > alterations are detectable), but the resemblance of Shelley's early > letters to Dumbledore's is quite striking--a young genius who knows > he's a genius thinking that he has all the answers to society's > problems. Hogg, intelligent but not a genius, writes back, and Shelley > idealizes him and his ideas. Hogg, in turn, becomes infatuated with > Shelley. Very interesting historical parallel, and I suspect that it > happened rather frequently among older boys at English public schools > and universities in the nineteenth century. > > And my concern regarding JKR's pronouncements is that we as readers > will allow her intentions and her sometimes ambiguous or contradictory > statements, or her view that the books promote "tolerance," or any > other statement outside the books to control what we see in the books > and how we see them. For example, this statement about DD's sexuality > is getting a lot more attention than her earlier statement about the > Christian themes, and yet the Christian themes, particularly in the > last few chapters (forgiveness, redemption, self-sacrificial love) > were apparent to me in a way that DD's sexuality never was (or I > wouldn't have been surprised, as many other people were, by that > revelation). As I've said elsewhere, authorial intention, to the > degree that it can be determined, is not the sole or definitive > interpretation of a literary work. It's only one component, the text > itself being more important (but even there, the reader's individual > experience and philosophy and the slippery nature of language itself, > not to mention deliberate ambiguity and misdirection by the author > make a definitive interpretation impossible). > > At any rate, I was perfectly happy analyzing the books without her > after-the-fact pronouncements. If DD's sexuality was important, it > ought to have been included in the story. As it is, I think she > deliberately left it out because she was afraid that it would spoil > the surprise of DD's tragic friendship/relationship/infatuation with > Grindelwald. > > "Infatuation" is, I think, the right word. Whether it's sexual (as > suggested by the interview) or intellectual (as suggested by DH) or > both is less important by far than its tragic consequences. BTW, I do > think that DD felt a kind of love for Grindelwald near the end that > was not infatuation but was not sexual, either--a hope that he > repented at the end, a hope that he felt remorse, which I take to be a > hope for the state of his soul after death (in contrast to Voldemort's > fragmented and unrepentant soul). I see Christianity there, not > sexuality. But that's just what I'm conditioned to see, just my > interpretation, for which I did not need JKR's statements about the > Christian themes in her book or her concern about the afterlife. > > I don't want important themes/motifs, such as the power of love or the > importance of remorse and atonement, or (as you pointed out on the > main list and I have also discussed there) Harry's journey to manhood, > from anger and the desire for revenge (you said arrogance, but you > were interpreting a fable within the context of the main story) to > forgiveness of his enemies to be forgotten simply because JKR > identified an important character as gay (without his appearing to be > so in the text itself). We should not forget, for example, that the HP > books are Harry's story, or ignore the lessons that he learns along > the way, including the explicitly but not exclusively Christian lesson > of forgiving his enemies their trespasses. > > Side note: I talk about Christian themes and motifs because they > interest me, and because I believe in forgiveness and hope there's an > afterlife, but I'm an ex-Episcopalian who has long ceased to attend > church services and was never a fundamentalist of any variety. > > Carol, wondering whether JKR's penchant for tolerance extends to the > fundamentalist Christians who oppose her books and noting that > "tolerance" actually means "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or > practices differing from or conflicting with one's own" > Carol, I too am interested in Christian themes (as a former Roman Catholic)...... I am very impatient with the idea that we should treat intolerance and bigotry respectfully... If someone tells me that they think lesbians and gays are immoral and are doomed to hell, well, goodness, I respect them as a person, but I think their ideas are bigoted....bottom line... I think JKR would respect the fundies as people, but would entirely reject their ideas... I know that you're a very nice person, and a good grandmother... Yet, I would like to respectfully reject your ideas... As I posted on the main list (and it's interesting that I've had not one single response to my post), it is clear (retrospectively) that DD was in love with GG.....yes, JKR says "infatuation" in the last interview.... I find it interesting..that you, who keeps saying that JKR's interviews are not relevant..SEIZES on the word infatuation...and then runs with it..... Susan From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 07:46:12 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:46:12 -0000 Subject: Well, don't want to upset the other list so I'll post here Message-ID: Gay, straight, bi-sexual, celibate...doesn't matter...as side from Ron and Harry's kissing exploits..sex takes place off page... For JKR love has always played a major role... So, IMHO, after reading the last book, I always wondered what JKR would have said about DD's relationship with Grindewald..(Honestly, I always thought that she would just say DD loved him and his ideals..leading us to discuss Grindewald's ideas for the next few years--which we will probably do.). DD makes mention of love many times over the entire series--we so often agreed with him and towards the end were confused(we should not have been)... Does DD being gay make any difference on the meaning of DD's words to us as readers or Harry as a character? Does DD being homosexual make any difference upon his treatment of Snape? Minerva? Pomona? Hagrid? Slughorn? Umbridge? Lupin? Sirius? or any other characters besides Grindewald in the series? So many fans were quite content to asign sexual identies to so many of the characters, yet then are upset that DD is gay..*heavy sigh* I dunno..this was no surprise to me..and secretly I'm kinda glad that DD is gay seeing as one of her black characters (Dean Thomas) had a father that ran out.(although not in the book....it also is part of the realm that the "DD is gay" resides in..many in the black community did not appreciate this aspect of one of Harry's contemporaries--why Dean and not Seamus?!? Why does the black kids father run out as opposed to the white so many proclaimed...perhaps this is why the Lupin incident in DH?)... I dunno, I think JKR may have always thought DD was gay in her head as she was writing because how and why else would DD jump so wholy and completely upon Grindies band wagon... If Ariana hadn't died, or if Aberforth hadn't been there trying to cram the one way ticket of the clue bus down DD's throat..who knows what Harry's world would have been. DD did know the power of love when dealing with Harry...DD's power of love enabled Grindewald to rise to power...and DD's power of love also enabeld him to defeat what he had helped create...(I get the feeling that was how Grindie ended up in prison VS dead--hence the feelings weren't completely one sided--even if Grindie only appreciated the ego stroke).. After hearing Trelawney's prediction, I get the feeling that DD may have been quite methodical, after that whole Snape/DD episode, I think DD panicked..hence the begining of Puppetmaster!DD. DD was powerful enough to subdue Lily and James and take Harry to safekeeping, yet he did not. Of course DD didn't take Harry by force...not because it was for the best, but because he knew the destruction that oft befell those who loved even if it was because of the "greater good".. And JKR is correct(of course she is..she is the creator)....and it is true that she meant DD to be gay from the beginning...otherwise Grindewald would have been a witch, not a wizard... Doddie, (who truly wonders if DD may have had some sort of crush on Snape hence left him to the fate he received...although DD did warn him...and none of the trio sprang into action...I don't blame any of them really...perhaps this is why Harry ensured the headmaster's portrait of Snape finally was hung in the office..._) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 25 10:35:02 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:35:02 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas: Re: Well, don't want to upset the other list so I'll post here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Doddie: > I dunno..this was no surprise to me..and secretly I'm kinda glad > that DD is gay seeing as one of her black characters (Dean Thomas) > had a father that ran out.(although not in the book....it also is > part of the realm that the "DD is gay" resides in..many in the black > community did not appreciate this aspect of one of Harry's > contemporaries--why Dean and not Seamus?!? Why does the black kids > father run out as opposed to the white so many proclaimed...perhaps > this is why the Lupin incident in DH?)... > Potioncat: This was one of the little moments in the book that really spoke to me. But it only works if you know the whole story---and most readers wouldn't. It's one of JKR's "what war does to families" moments. JKR gave us some back story on Dean Thomas's family several years ago. It may be on her site, I'm not sure. Dean's mother didn't know he was a wizard. He was killed by DEs because he wouldn't join them. >From his wife's point of view, he just walked out. I'm not sure if his name was Thomas, or if Dean was given his step-father's name. From cinders at voyager.net Thu Oct 25 03:31:09 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:31:09 -0000 Subject: Wondering Message-ID: Hi all. I know I don't post here, but I read a lot. I've been a member for a couple of months now. I'm a big Harry Potter fan though now after reading all the posts, I don't think I'm quite as much of a fan as most of the people here, because it's not all I think of all day like it appears a lot of you do. Here's the one thing I don't understand. Why are these books, specially more than any other, taken SO seriously?? I really am curious, not trying to be stupid or anything. I mean these are just books, fiction. No one in them is real, and from most of the posts, I swear people think they are real people. All of the trying to figure out things kind of baffles me. I mean I am curious about some things, but not enough to rip the entire series apart. I've always thought of reading fiction as something I do for entertainment, enjoyment. So many don't even seem to have enjoyed the books and yet read them all anyway. I am also a children's author. Definitely nothing like the HP series, but none-the-less, so I am truly wondering the answers. I used to think that I wanted to be JK Rowling. She was a broke, single mom, teacher, writer, and now she is rich and famous. I am a broke, single mom, writer, teacher (I did it in that order), and want to be rich and famous. But then I've been reading all the horrible things that have been written and said about JKR, and I now have no desire to be her. Honestly, it's almost frightening. There are even lists with people that want to kill her, and now with this gay thing, well, that's just one more reason for people to talk so bad about her. I guess I don't see why it's gotten so far. I can't imagine her life and wouldn't want it, though I still want to be fairly rich and famous. hehe Other novelists have awesome books and rich and famous but people don't talk so horribly about them. So it just made me wonder why these? Why do people treat them like real people, take the books so seriously, and talk about JKR like she's the devil instead of just a writer that wrote a few books. I really hope this doesn't ruffle feathers. I don't mean it to. Just as a writer, I'm curious to know. Thank you everyone, Carol From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 14:41:04 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:41:04 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: Hi all. I know I don't post here, but I read a lot. I've been a member for a couple of months now. I'm a big Harry Potter fan though now after reading all the posts, I don't think I'm quite as much of a fan as most of the people here, because it's not all I think of all day like it appears a lot of you do. Here's the one thing I don't understand. Why are these books, specially more than any other, taken SO seriously?? I really am curious, not trying to be stupid or anything. I mean these are just books, fiction. No one in them is real, and from most of the posts, I swear people think they are real people. All of the trying to figure out things kind of baffles me. I mean I am curious about some things, but not enough to rip the entire series apart. I've always thought of reading fiction as something I do for entertainment, enjoyment. So many don't even seem to have enjoyed the books and yet read them all anyway. Tiffany: I don't have any truly logical reasons for it, but it seems that HP is treated like Star Trek is. I have a cousin who's in love in Trek to the point of it being almost as important as his own family is. It's nice to step back from the books & get a grip on reality once every now & then, but because the Pottercraze appeared with PS/SS, it seems that the books themselves are loved so much that the people become real. The folks get so hooked into the books & in love with them, that the books then become more than just mere books. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 15:17:16 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:17:16 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Hi all. I know I don't post here, but I read a lot. I've been a > member for a couple of months now. > > I'm a big Harry Potter fan though now after reading all the posts, I > don't think I'm quite as much of a fan as most of the people here, > because it's not all I think of all day like it appears a lot of you > do. > > Here's the one thing I don't understand. Why are these books, > specially more than any other, taken SO seriously?? <<>> > Carol ***Katie: I can only speak for myself, but I am someone with a tendency toward becoming passionate over things, and I am very into sci-fi and fantasy. HP just sort of fit right in with all the other stuff I was already into...but then it sort of took over! I grew up with a Trekkie for a mother. By 10, I was already into Star Trek, The Next Generation. I had always loved Star Wars, and played with the toys incessantly when I was a kid. Then I fell in love with Tolkien's and CS Lewis's worlds, reading LotR and Narnia over and over again. In high school, Buffy the Vampire Slayer came along on TV, and I was completely hooked. Then, my sophomore year in college, I was working at a day care center part-time, and one of the kids kept telling me to read this book called Harry Potter. I resisted for a while, about a year, by which time CoS had come out. Finally, on vacation at the beach, I picked up SS/PS in a discount bookstore. I read it in one night. I made my boyfriend take me back to the bookstore the next day to get CoS...and the rest, as they say, is history. The books were so captivating, so original, the characters so real and so human, the plot so classic and yet so new...and beyond all that, there was a lot of fun stuff - moving portraits, jumping frog candies, vanishing walls, moving staircases...it was just so magical to me, and made me feel like a little kid again. They are very special books. They are classic in the plotlines (good vs. evil, life vs. death, the power of love...etc.), but she was able to make everything seem original and new at the same time. Furthermore, there has never been a children's series that grew and shifted into a YA series and then finally adult fiction, as I would argue the last two books certainly are. She really did something entirely unique in these books. As for why some people seem to dislike the books - they certainly didn't in the beginning. I think many were disappointed by JKR's inability to finish all her storylines properly, or were upset by DH in general. I, myself, am not satisfied with the final book, but, unlike others, it has not ruined the series for me (though I understand why it has for some people). Anyway, I hope that sheds some light on why people are so passionate about the books. Hope you enjoy the group! KATIE From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 17:09:46 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:09:46 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Hi all. I know I don't post here, but I read a lot. I've been a > member for a couple of months now. > > I'm a big Harry Potter fan though now after reading all the posts, I > don't think I'm quite as much of a fan as most of the people here, > because it's not all I think of all day like it appears a lot of you > do. > > Here's the one thing I don't understand. Why are these books, > specially more than any other, taken SO seriously?? I really am > curious, not trying to be stupid or anything. I mean these are just > books, fiction. No one in them is real, and from most of the posts, I > swear people think they are real people. All of the trying to figure > out things kind of baffles me. I mean I am curious about some things, > but not enough to rip the entire series apart. I've always thought of > reading fiction as something I do for entertainment, enjoyment. So > many don't even seem to have enjoyed the books and yet read them all > anyway. > > I am also a children's author. Definitely nothing like the HP series, > but none-the-less, so I am truly wondering the answers. I used to > think that I wanted to be JK Rowling. She was a broke, single mom, > teacher, writer, and now she is rich and famous. I am a broke, single > mom, writer, teacher (I did it in that order), and want to be rich > and famous. But then I've been reading all the horrible things that > have been written and said about JKR, and I now have no desire to be > her. Honestly, it's almost frightening. There are even lists with > people that want to kill her, and now with this gay thing, well, > that's just one more reason for people to talk so bad about her. > > I guess I don't see why it's gotten so far. I can't imagine her life > and wouldn't want it, though I still want to be fairly rich and > famous. hehe Other novelists have awesome books and rich and famous > but people don't talk so horribly about them. So it just made me > wonder why these? Why do people treat them like real people, take the > books so seriously, and talk about JKR like she's the devil instead > of just a writer that wrote a few books. I really hope this doesn't > ruffle feathers. I don't mean it to. Just as a writer, I'm curious to > know. > > Thank you everyone, > > Carol > Good question, Carol..... I know...I recently corresponded with a couple of other science fiction/fantasy writers, and I KNOW they all think -- gosh, she's a billionaire..why not me? And it's a good question... Hearing the relentless, disgusting attacks on her from so many sides, and hearing about her struggle to keep her children out of the public eye (Peter Jackson did the same), I hear you loud and clear! I'm in a BIG minority on HP for Grownups....and was even before she told us that DD was in love with GG.... I really respect the author, and I liked the DH... Of course, there were parts of it that I didn't like, and I wished different outcomes for some of the characters.... But, for example, when the inconsistency about Ron came up..in the past, someone would have said...well! lots of people start out as partners in a family business, become silent partners, and go on and do something else...Or maybe Ron worked two jobs before he and Hermioine got married and had a family (or during it)...but now it's BAD! JKR BAD!....there's an astonishing amount of hostility towards her on the list... I'm with you...maybe I DON'T want to be rich and famous! On the issue of tolerance. I don't really expect anyone to respond. I posted a very careful and long post on the list about canon suppot for DD's orientation and I don't think anyone has responded. People are too busy repeating stupid lies (that she announced it at a press conference), or busy accusing those who confront them with their own bigotry and intolerance with themselves being intolerant. (No, I am not tolerant of prejudice, discrimination, or hatred). There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that it's lesbians and gays who molest children....one of them finally showed his true colors by saying that he had no sympathy for the muggleborns in Diagon Alley (why didn't they just go off into the Muggle World and get a job? Why were they so weakwilled?) Gosh, I started to cry when the poor man demanded of Bellatrix.."what happened to my children?" Did no one else find that scene heart wrenching? Am I supposed to be silent when I'm compared to a child molester? There was a woman in Virginia who was a lesbian, had a child by her former husband who was in PRISON for murdering his second wife, and a judge gave her former husband custody of the child! (And yes, I can verify MY facts). Can you imagine anything more terrifying? I'm sick and tired of the bigotry in the HP community. I'm disgusted. Susan From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 17:45:15 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:45:15 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: On the issue of tolerance. I don't really expect anyone to respond. I posted a very careful and long post on the list about canon suppot for DD's orientation and I don't think anyone has responded. People are too busy repeating stupid lies (that she announced it at a press conference), or busy accusing those who confront them with their own bigotry and intolerance with themselves being intolerant. (No, I am not tolerant of prejudice, discrimination, or hatred). There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that it's lesbians and gays who molest children....one of them finally showed his true colors by saying that he had no sympathy for the muggleborns in Diagon Alley (why didn't they just go off into the Muggle World and get a job? Why were they so weakwilled?) Gosh, I started to cry when the poor man demanded of Bellatrix.."what happened to my children?" Did no one else find that scene heart wrenching? Am I supposed to be silent when I'm compared to a child molester? There was a woman in Virginia who was a lesbian, had a child by her former husband who was in PRISON for murdering his second wife, and a judge gave her former husband custody of the child! (And yes, I can verify MY facts). Can you imagine anything more terrifying? I'm sick and tired of the bigotry in the HP community. I'm disgusted. Susan Tiffany: I'm typically not a stickler for details, so I don't engage in debates over small stuff in HP very often. I like to argue & can hold my own very well when forced to do so, but don't actually look for arguments. I agree the bigotry by the HP fans can be nightmarish because some good friends in college of mine are of the GLBT community. However, the bigotry from outsiders seems like it's a lot worse, esp. when religion gets involved in it. I've had to defend gay friends of mine from Potter fans & non-Potter fans alike, but I've never lost a lot of friends over it. I think that some folks would be content to see things as they see it, instead of actually looking beyond the obvious & picking up on the grand scheme of it all. I think that some folks like to complain about something more than actually doing something about it. I'm known for my dramatic side & being individualistic, so when I complain watch out, but I try to see the good side of things. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 18:44:36 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:44:36 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee48176 wrote: > There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that > it's lesbians and gays who molest children....one of them finally > showed his true colors by saying that he had no sympathy for the > muggleborns in Diagon Alley (why didn't they just go off into the > Muggle World and get a job? Why were they so weakwilled?) Del replies: I don't see that this would be speaking of anyone else but me. If so, you are slandering me, since I *never* said that "it's lesbians and gays who molest children". And I'm well-placed to know that, since I was molested by both my grandfather and my uncle, who were both definitely straight (I'm a she, by the way). So please don't accuse people of crimes they haven't committed, or you're no better than the real criminals. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 25 19:11:30 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:11:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > "Infatuation" is related to "fatuous," which means "foolish." And > Albus's attraction to Gellert (whom even he sensed had a sinister side > beneath that merry exterior) was, indeed, foolish, as its consequences > revealed. "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation, > not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or > she loves and loves them, anyway. (Molly Weasely loving Arthur Weasley > is one canon example.) Snape, I would say, was infatuated with Lily > rather than in love with her: witness his Patronus, which suggests, in > its brilliance and power and beauty, a very idealized view of Lily. > James, who married her, probably had a more realistic view of her--at > least when he got beyond the teenage crush stage. Pippin: If you type 'infatuation love' into Google you'll get a bunch of articles about how to distinguish between them, but if you actually read the articles, many say that most people who fall in love become infatuated to some degree. Nor does infatuation rule out genuine love as canon sees it. Merope was clearly infatuated with Tom Sr, but Dumbledore thinks she must have truly loved him and that's why she let him go. Carol: > And my concern regarding JKR's pronouncements is that we as readers > will allow her intentions and her sometimes ambiguous or contradictory > statements, or her view that the books promote "tolerance," or any > other statement outside the books to control what we see in the books > and how we see them. Pippin: So, what you want is for JKR to censor her words because you're concerned that readers won't or can't think independently about the meaning of her work? They'll blindly do as JKR wishes? I must say, there doesn't seem to be much danger of that! :) I'm sure the brouhaha will die down, and we can get back to discussing really important stuff like Snape ;) Carol: > At any rate, I was perfectly happy analyzing the books without her > after-the-fact pronouncements. If DD's sexuality was important, it > ought to have been included in the story. As it is, I think she > deliberately left it out because she was afraid that it would spoil > the surprise of DD's tragic friendship/relationship/infatuation with > Grindelwald. Pippin: Harry is not a very sexually curious person, in fact he's remarkably incurious generally, but he really hates intruding on other people's private moments, and he regards adult sexuality as private. That's very convenient for JKR's story line, but Dumbledore's sexuality isn't the only thing that Harry overlooks. > Carol, wondering whether JKR's penchant for tolerance extends to the > fundamentalist Christians who oppose her books and noting that > "tolerance" actually means "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or > practices differing from or conflicting with one's own" > Pippin: She's said that they have the right to their opinions, and to keep the books from their children if they feel they are inappropriate. I am sure that 'tolerance' is exactly what she is trying to promote. People who already accept her point of view don't have to exercise tolerance. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 19:50:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:50:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > > Carol, I too am interested in Christian themes (as a former Roman Catholic)...... > > I am very impatient with the idea that we should treat intolerance and bigotry respectfully... Carol responds: For me, it boils down to this. Freedom of speech includes the right to be wrong. Judge not that ye be not judged applies to everyone, on both sides or all sides of any debate. That includes people who think that homosexuality is, say, unnatural (I think they're mostly concerned about male homosexuality because it involves anal sex, but I'm not sure). I'm just saying that true tolerance includes allowing those whose opinions offend us to have their say without being labeled as bigots. They, on the other hand, ought not to label those whose lifestyles offend them as immoral or doomed to hell. I think we should let everyone speak with no namecalling on either side. Civility, courtesy, respect for others, whether we agree with their opinions or condone their lifestyles or not. That's all I'm asking. It does no good to call someone a bigot. He'll simply think that the other person is a bigot for rejecting his religious or political views. Let's consider Draco, for example. If Harry had called him a bigot, would he have changed Draco's mind? Did intolerance for Slytherin as a house make Slytherin more tolerant? Clearly not. There has to be some other answer. I wonder if reason and logic could have persuaded him when he first came to Hogwarts, along with the undeniable fact that certain Muggle-born students could do magic as well as he could. Judging him for his values, in contrast, had no effect whatever. > Susan: > Yet, I would like to respectfully reject your ideas... Carol: And I respectfully reject the suggestion that we should not tolerate those who oppose us and allow them their say. Agree to disagree? > Susan: > As I posted on the main list (and it's interesting that I've had not one single response to my post), it is clear (retrospectively) that DD was in love with GG.....yes, JKR says "infatuation" in the last interview.... > > I find it interesting..that you, who keeps saying that JKR's interviews are not relevant..SEIZES on the word infatuation...and then runs with it..... Carol responds: I was responding to Pippin's idea that love and infatuation are the same thing. And I do think that infatuation, whether JKR used the term or not, is closer than love to what we see in the books. And I'm still concerned that a remark made by JKR in an interview is controlling the list. Both lists, in fact. I'd really rather see us thinking and interpreting for ourselves. Of course, prejudice is a major theme or motif in the HP books. That's been obvious since the first conversation between harry and Draco in SS/PS, and more so since the introduction of new terminology (Squib, Muggle-born, Pure-blood, "Mudblood") in CoS (I can't recall whether "Half-Blood was introduced in that book or later). But DD's sexuality (who knew that he was a sexual being? He's over 100; we thought till he became Wizard of the Month that he was 150) is a non-issue or a side issue. At best, it throws light on DD's reasons for hesitating to go after Grindelwald. But if the HP books are about tolerance for homosexuality, I'll eat the Sorting Hat. They're about, among other things, the equality of Muggle-borns and the right to humane treatment of House-Elves. And DH, at least, is about death and the afterlife and forgiveness and redemption--primarily Christian themes that predate political correctness and modern conceptions of tolerance by millennia. Carol, who is *not* a fundamentalist but believes absolutely in their right to be heard, just as she believes in the right of gay rights activists to be heard, so long as neither side engages in namecalling or other hurtful or disrespectful behavior P.S. List Elves, I hope I'm not stepping out of my place here by requesting tolerance for all opinions, even those that we profoundly and emphatically disagree with. I'm responding to a post that was addressed specifically to me. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 20:20:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:20:40 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Carol" wrote: > I'm a big Harry Potter fan though now after reading all the posts, I don't think I'm quite as much of a fan as most of the people here, because it's not all I think of all day like it appears a lot of you do. > > Here's the one thing I don't understand. Why are these books, specially more than any other, taken SO seriously?? I really am curious, not trying to be stupid or anything. I mean these are just books, fiction. No one in them is real, and from most of the posts, I swear people think they are real people. All of the trying to figure out things kind of baffles me. I mean I am curious about some things, but not enough to rip the entire series apart. I've always thought of reading fiction as something I do for entertainment, enjoyment. So many don't even seem to have enjoyed the books and yet read them all anyway. > > I am also a children's author. Definitely nothing like the HP series, but none-the-less, so I am truly wondering the answers. Carol (not the Carol who posted the question) responds: That's a very interesting question. I think, for me, it's the intellectual exercise. I have a PhD in English, and I love to analyze literature. But why the HP books specifically? Probably because the characters *seem* like real people. Snape intrigued me from the beginning--so seemingly sinister and yet so obviously intelligent, with a touch of the poet and the scientist about him, so ambiguous, so mysterious. I wanted to read everything I could about him and share my thoughts on him with other people. I like the give and take of the group, the way others' thoughts help to bring my own into perspective. I like encountering new insights, things I hadn't noticed myself about the books. I like analyzing motives (not only Snape's) and discussing the way narrative technique and other devices shape the reading of the books. Sometimes, I like to nitpick (that darned clock should have remained a grandfather clock--doesn't JKR check her "facts" as presented in previous books?) I'm sure, too, that the unique experience of reading a series as it's written, eagerly anticipating each new book as it comes out, is part of the fascination of the HP books, and I think a lot of us are in denial now, unwilling to admit that that part of our lives is over, which is perhaps why so many people seized so eagerly on JKR's revelation about DD's sexuality. My perspective is that the books exist now in the way that, say, "Moby Dick" or the Austen or Bronte or Dickens books exist, as works in print, which we are free to interpret as we see fit as long as we consider the actual words in the text (if we say that the Wizards are descendants of aliens who visited Earth 2000 years ago, we're on shaky ground because there's nothing in the text to support that). In short, it's fun. And the experience of encountering large numbers of fellow adults interested in examining a children's (or "young adult"--what a euphemism!) series is exhilarating. There's a lot in the books that children don't see, and I'm not just talking about sexual innuendoes. I'm talking about important themes and motifs, such as life and death or redemption and forgiveness or the apparent favorite of most posters, prejudice and the treatment of those who are different from ourselves (the contrast between Sirius's and Regulus's treatment of Kreacher, for instance). Also, of course, there's all the untold backstory (What did Snape do as a DE? What is his real relationship with the Malfoys? What was Lupin doing during all those years between the death of the Potters and his hiring as DADA teacher? I doubt that I've really answered your question, but I'm trying to explain that I feel compelled to experience and think about and talk about these books to a degree that I've never experienced with any other books. Which is why, really, I wish that JKR would just let them be. Let us read them and experience them and interpret them for ourselves. She created them, but she sent them out into the world, and like grown-up children, she's no longer responsible for what becomes of them. They are greater than she is and will outlast her. Just my opinion, which I realize that a lot of people disagree with. And I certainly acknowledge my debt to her. Had she not written these books, had she not created such fascinating characters (especially Snape), I would never have had this experience. So thank you for that, JKR, but please let go now and enjoy the nice vacation you've earned with your labors. Carol, who used to call herself DrCarol till someone on another list said, "I'll bet you're not a *real* doctor"! From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 25 21:36:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:36:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > And I'm still concerned that a remark made by JKR in an interview is > controlling the list. Both lists, in fact. I'd really rather see us > thinking and interpreting for ourselves. Pippin: How is discussing something JKR said in an interview less thinking and interpreting for ourselves than discussing something she said in a book? If JKR had made it explicit in canon that Dumbledore is gay, you think we wouldn't have the exact same discussions? IMO, some people would still feel alienated or offended because she'd gone too far, some would feel that way because she didn't go far enough and some people would wish the whole discussion would die because there are other things in the books they find more interesting. Still, it seems a bit much to ask that a living author play dead so that fans can have the luxury of pretending her opinions on contemporary life are irrelevant. What's a bully pulpit for? IMO, the books are about tolerance for *everybody* -- everyone who hasn't adopted murder, coercion and the elimination of rights and freedoms as a policy, even if their beliefs trouble us and we think they need to be rearranged. There aren't any real werewolves, Muggleborns, centaurs or House Elves. If the books are only about tolerance for them, then they aren't about anything. I wouldn't dare to say what's a Christian theme and what isn't, but as the Anglican and Presbyterian communions have both had serious debates about the role of gays in the Christian community, specifically in the clergy, I would think this is an issue of interest to many Christians in Britain. Pippin From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 22:18:34 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:18:34 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > susanmcgee48176 wrote: > > There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that > > it's lesbians and gays who molest children....one of them finally > > showed his true colors by saying that he had no sympathy for the > > muggleborns in Diagon Alley (why didn't they just go off into the > > Muggle World and get a job? Why were they so weakwilled?) > > Del replies: > I don't see that this would be speaking of anyone else but me. If so, > you are slandering me, since I *never* said that "it's lesbians and > gays who molest children". > > And I'm well-placed to know that, since I was molested by both my > grandfather and my uncle, who were both definitely straight (I'm a > she, by the way). > > So please don't accuse people of crimes they haven't committed, or > you're no better than the real criminals. > Yes, I am speaking of you...and I think you didn't say what you really think on the list because you don't want to be thrown off. I haven't accused you of a crime. Saying hateful things about lesbians and gays is not a crime in the United States. I'm sorry you were molested as a child. That should never happen to any person. I do believe you (and others) have been implying with your filthy junk about ephebeology...that there is a link between being lesbian and gay and child molestation. I think you have shown your true colors about how being "white" is normative.... and how those poor people in Diagon Alley should just pull themselves up by you're own bootstraps. Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 22:31:12 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:31:12 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee48176 wrote: > Yes, I am speaking of you...and I think you didn't say what you > really think on the list because you don't want to be thrown off. Del replies: You are obviously free to think whatever you want. However, that doesn't mean you're right. In this case, you happen to be wrong. > I haven't accused you of a crime. Saying hateful things about > lesbians and gays is not a crime in the United States. I'm not American, so I don't care about that. I was talking of a moral crime. A concept more than a fact. > I do believe you (and others) have been implying with your filthy > junk about ephebeology...that there is a link between being lesbian > and gay and child molestation. No, I wasn't implying this. You may read my words as implying this, but I wasn't doing the implication myself. > I think you have shown your true colors about how being "white" is > normative.... and how those poor people in Diagon Alley should just > pull themselves up by you're own bootstraps. I was never hiding my true colors. I also don't see why saying that white is the normal assumption in the context of the British society is in any way wrong and "revealing" of anything. Del From fanwriter40 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 22:09:38 2007 From: fanwriter40 at yahoo.com (Debra) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:09:38 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susan: > On the issue of tolerance. I don't really expect anyone to > respond. > I posted a very careful and long post on the list about canon > support for DD's orientation and I don't think anyone has > responded. > Tiffany: > I think that some folks like to complain about something more > than actually doing something about it. I'm known for my dramatic > side & being individualistic, so when I complain watch out, but > I try to see the good side of things. Debra: I myself am appalled at the number of e-mails on this one subject. I know a great deal of gay and lesbian couples that are truly wonderful loving and caring people. I would have no problems leaving my 11 year old son with any of them. As a parent I think it is important to teach him the meaning of acceptance of the person. And yes I did find that one scene heart wrenching. I don't know what I would do if something happened to my son. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 01:32:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:32:05 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heather Maffioli wrote: > > > > Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon > as I > heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is > great he has a regular job!! Carol responds: Reviving an oldish thread here. I was flipping through the channels the other day and recognized the voice from the HP DVD extras (the ones apparently designed for ten-year-olds that involve following Sir Cadogan through Hogwarts or turning Scabbers into Wormtail), so I looked down at the bottom of the TV screen and, sure enough, the title of the show was "Pushing Daisies." >From what I saw (three women, two young and one middle-aged with an eye patch--the older one seemed invisible to one of the younger ones???), it looked pretty silly and I doubt it will last a full season. Also, it's funny (odd), but I never realized that the voice in those DVD extras was Jim Dale's. Guess I don't need to hear the CDs to know what he sounds like. I *think* I prefer Stephen Fry, but I've only heard a small sample of his reading. Guess I'll just stick with the books. If I replace my paperbacks for the first four with hardbacks, I'll be doing well. I don't suppose I'll ever own the British editions. Too many other things to spend money on. Carol, who would never have heard of "Pushing Daisies" if it weren't for this list From HMaffioli at san.rr.com Fri Oct 26 02:33:07 2007 From: HMaffioli at san.rr.com (Heather Maffioli) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:33:07 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Jim Dale on Pushing Daisies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/25/07 6:32 PM, "Carol" wrote: > Heather Maffioli wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Has anyone else noticed Jim Dale's work on Pushing Daisies? As soon >> > as I > heard his voice I got excited. I love his HP work and it is >> > great he has a regular job!! > > Carol wrote: > From what I saw (three women, two > young and one middle-aged with an eye patch--the older one seemed > invisible to one of the younger ones???) > > The show also has two amazing musical actresses. The middle aged one you > mention is Ellen Green most known for her portrayal of Audrey in the movie of > The Little Shop of Horrors. Another character, the waitress, is played by > Christine Chenoweth who originated the role of Glinda in Wicked on Broadway > and earned a Tony nomination. > > Heather [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 12:15:52 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <231930.95604.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Debra wrote: > Susan: > On the issue of tolerance. I don't really expect anyone to > respond. > I posted a very careful and long post on the list about canon > support for DD's orientation and I don't think anyone has > responded. > Tiffany: > I think that some folks like to complain about something more > than actually doing something about it. I'm known for my dramatic > side & being individualistic, so when I complain watch out, but > I try to see the good side of things. Debra: I myself am appalled at the number of e-mails on this one subject. I know a great deal of gay and lesbian couples that are truly wonderful loving and caring people. I would have no problems leaving my 11 year old son with any of them. As a parent I think it is important to teach him the meaning of acceptance of the person. And yes I did find that one scene heart wrenching. I don't know what I would do if something happened to my son. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 12:22:28 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: <231930.95604.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <514603.5076.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kathryn Lambert wrote: Debra wrote: > Susan: > On the issue of tolerance. I don't really expect anyone to > respond. > I posted a very careful and long post on the list about canon > support for DD's orientation and I don't think anyone has > responded. > Tiffany: > I think that some folks like to complain about something more > than actually doing something about it. I'm known for my dramatic > side & being individualistic, so when I complain watch out, but > I try to see the good side of things. Debra: I myself am appalled at the number of e-mails on this one subject. I know a great deal of gay and lesbian couples that are truly wonderful loving and caring people. I would have no problems leaving my 11 year old son with any of them. As a parent I think it is important to teach him the meaning of acceptance of the person. And yes I did find that one scene heart wrenching. I don't know what I would do if something happened to my son. ***Katie: Um, oops? I wrote a really long response and it disappeared. Hmmm...I can't really remember what I wrote, so I'll just say sorry for posting a blank message, and I agree with everyone who said that post was heart-wrenching. Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 12:45:44 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:45:44 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" <<>> wrote: > I'm not American, so I don't care about that. I was talking of a moral crime. A concept more than a fact. ***Katie butting in: Can you explain why you think homosexuality is a moral crime? If that is, in fact, what you're saying here? I'm not being flip, I really want to understand this, because the concept is so foreign to me. Susan: > > I do believe you (and others) have been implying with your filthy > > junk about ephebeology...that there is a link between being lesbian and gay and child molestation. > > Delwyn: No, I wasn't implying this. You may read my words as implying this, > but I wasn't doing the implication myself. ***Katie: I'm sorry, but I really have agree with Susan here. Whether you *meant* to imply that or not, that certainly is what came across, not just to Susan, but to me and several other listees I have spoken with off-list. I appreciate that you're saying that's not what you meant, but I would go back and reread your own posts and think about what's really coming across, because it was very insulting and hurtful to a number of people. I am not attacking you or trying to be unpleasant, but if you are not intending to be insulting, I think you should be aware that it comes across that way. Katie From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 13:01:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:01:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol again: > > Infatuation isn't love. > > To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online: > > infatuate > with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration > ? in?fat?u?a?tion \-;fa-ch-w-shn, -ch?--\ noun lizzyben: By your own definition, infatuation is a kind of love - extravagant or foolish love. Infatuation is that first stage of "OMG this person is so perfect & wonderful & incredible!" And since DD/GG's relationship only lasted a few months, DD never had a chance to settle into that long-term love. I'm puzzled by the comparison to Arthur/Molly - there's a huge difference between the initial "falling in love" feeling & the solid, boring, stable love of a long relationship. I'm also puzzled that you now say that Snape didn't love Lily, which contradicts other statements. He was her best friend, he devoted his life to her memory, but he didn't love her? Carol: "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation, > not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or she loves and loves them, anyway. Love, in contrast, is a complicated emotion that can range from sexual > attraction combined with tenderness and affection to the reverence > felt for a beloved and respected mentor or the devotion of a parent to > a child. lizzyben: "Consumed by his feelings" is a pretty good description of somebody who has fallen in love. IMO. Love is blind, as they say - and it can blind you to the faults in the beloved. How does being blinded by love mean it isn't really love? JKR stated that DD's love blinded him to GG's faults. Yes, over a long period of time, people learn to see & accept the others faults, but that's not the initial "falling in love" stage at all. DD learned GG's faults quickly enough. And also, IMO DD shared GG's faults, so to him they weren't really bad faults at all (world domination, love of power, etc.) They really had an awful lot in common. Carol: > And my concern regarding JKR's pronouncements is that we as readers > will allow her intentions and her sometimes ambiguous or contradictory > statements, or her view that the books promote "tolerance," or any > other statement outside the books to control what we see in the books > and how we see them. For example, this statement about DD's sexuality > is getting a lot more attention than her earlier statement about the > Christian themes, and yet the Christian themes, particularly in the > last few chapters (forgiveness, redemption, self-sacrificial love) > were apparent to me in a way that DD's sexuality never was (or I > wouldn't have been surprised, as many other people were, by that > revelation). lizzyben: IMO this isn't a huge change & certainly isn't a distraction from the over-arching Christian theme, any more than the information that Lily loved Snape as a friend somehow distracts from the major themes of the series. It's just one piece of info about one character. What's distracting is the frenzy it's created. Authorial intent is important, but it's certainly not the only thing that matters. Fans can interpret things their own way, regardless of what the author intended. Carol: > At any rate, I was perfectly happy analyzing the books without her > after-the-fact pronouncements. If DD's sexuality was important, it > ought to have been included in the story. As it is, I think she > deliberately left it out because she was afraid that it would spoil > the surprise of DD's tragic friendship/relationship/infatuation with > Grindelwald. lizzyben: Totally agree here, should've been in the books. But there again, JKR has detailed backstories for many characters that weren't in the books. People weren't offended when she revealed more information about Dean Thomas' story or Theodore Nott, so how is DD's story any different? I like getting more info about the characters (as opposed to JKR's opinions about the characters.) Casrol: > I don't want important themes/motifs, such as the power of love or the > importance of remorse and atonement, or (as you pointed out on the > main list and I have also discussed there) Harry's journey to manhood, > from anger and the desire for revenge (you said arrogance, but you > were interpreting a fable within the context of the main story) to > forgiveness of his enemies to be forgotten simply because JKR > identified an important character as gay (without his appearing to be > so in the text itself). We should not forget, for example, that the HP > books are Harry's story, or ignore the lessons that he learns along > the way, including the explicitly but not exclusively Christian lesson > of forgiving his enemies their trespasses. lizzyben: But JKR has also stated that "tolerance" is *the* most important message of her series. Whether she succeeded or failed is open to debate. But it's quite clear that she was intending to create an anti-bigotry message w/the prejudice against & persecution of "muggle-borns". Why should we ignore that message? Different themes can co-exist - and in this series, the "Christian" & tolerance themes certainly co-exist (along w/some more unsavory themes like revenge). Carol: > Carol, wondering whether JKR's penchant for tolerance extends to the > fundamentalist Christians who oppose her books and noting that > "tolerance" actually means "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or > practices differing from or conflicting with one's own" lizzyben: I highly doubt it. Just like I highly doubt that her penchant for tolerance extends to people who are opposed to all inter-racial relationships, or people who are opposed to women working outside the home, or people who are opposed to any depiction of witchcraft. How can she possibly reflect the views & values of everyone who reads her novels? She can only reflect her own values. I'm just surprised that people think that JKR should "tolerate" fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality by removing any gay characters from the novels. To me, it's as odd as expecting her to remove any magic from Harry Potter in order to satisfy people who are opposed to witchcraft. She shouldn't have to conform to anyone's values but her own. This isn't directed at you, Carol, but fan reaction in general. I'm a little stunned at the backlash this has engendered. I'm disheartened that people are now talking about banning the books, burning the books, not letting children read the books, because there is one gay character. DD's orientation isn't even *mentioned* in the books, & his relationship w/GG could easily be interpreted as friendship. Yet suddenly it makes the novels inappropriate. In contrast, numerous jokes are made about Aberforth & his goats; that's *bestiality*, but no one was talking about how shocked & outraged they were about that. She implied that Umbridge was raped by centaurs, & people shrug. But simply stating that a character is gay sends shockwaves across the country. I just don't understand that reaction. To me, this is simply an interesting fact that helps to understand this character. lizzyben From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 13:23:49 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:23:49 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: > Can you explain why you think homosexuality is a moral crime? If > that is, in fact, what you're saying here? Del replies: Homosexuality is not the moral crime I'm referring to here. If you go back a few posts, you'll see that the original crime I was talking about was "spreading the lie that it's gays and lesbians who molest children". Susan answered that it's not a crime to say hateful things about gays and lesbians, to which I answered that I was thinking more along the lines of a moral crime. > Whether you *meant* to imply that or not, that certainly is what > came across, not just to Susan, but to me and several other listees > I have spoken with off-list. I appreciate that you're saying that's > not what you meant, but I would go back and reread your own posts > and think about what's really coming across, because it was very > insulting and hurtful to a number of people. If I go back and reread my own posts, I'll see those multiple instances (including in the very first post) where I explicitely state that in my theory DD is not gay at all, but only ephebophile. I don't see how I could make it any clearer. > I am not attacking you or trying to be unpleasant, but if you are > not intending to be insulting, I think you should be aware that it > comes across that way. Anything can come across as insulting, when seen through a particular lens... *shrugs* Del From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 13:38:04 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:38:04 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Katie wrote: > > Can you explain why you think homosexuality is a moral crime? If > > that is, in fact, what you're saying here? > > Del replies: > Homosexuality is not the moral crime I'm referring to here. If you go > back a few posts, you'll see that the original crime I was talking > about was "spreading the lie that it's gays and lesbians who molest > children". Susan answered that it's not a crime to say hateful things > about gays and lesbians, to which I answered that I was thinking more > along the lines of a moral crime. > If I go back and reread my own posts, I'll see those multiple > instances (including in the very first post) where I explicitely state > that in my theory DD is not gay at all, but only ephebophile. I don't > see how I could make it any clearer. lizzyben: I think one problem might be that you're referring to both "ephebophiles" and gays & so people aren't clear as to which group you're talking about. For example, in the last post at the main HPFGU site: "Lanval: > Now, please do elaborate how your examples compare to consenting > adults entering into a relationship based on love and/or mutual > sexual attraction. Yes? Who's the victim? Where's the crime? Del: I cannot elaborate since this would be OT, however I do want to point out that most people who oppose homosexuality *do* see both a crime and a set of victims, not necessarily in the act or the partners themselves, but in the more global concept of homosexuality. It's a matter of different worldviews and entirely different moralities - something much more akin to the "House-Elf enslavement" problem than to the Muggleborn problem, IMO. Del" lizzyben: Here, you aren't talking about ephebophiles, but homosexuality in general. And stating that there is both a crime & a set of victims in the concept of homosexuality in general. As requested, I'm posting to the OT site to ask if you could elaborate on that. Because Lanval did create a moral limitation "things that HURT people/things that do not", and you stated that homosexuality is still in the first category, but I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement. What is the crime/victim in the "global concept of homosexuality? How is homosexuality in any way paralell to "House elf enslavement"? I'm not seeing the analogy there. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 26 14:02:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:02:45 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del: > I cannot elaborate since this would be OT, however I do want to point > out that most people who oppose homosexuality *do* see both a crime > and a set of victims, not necessarily in the act or the partners > themselves, but in the more global concept of homosexuality. It's a > matter of different worldviews and entirely different moralities - > something much more akin to the "House-Elf enslavement" problem than > to the Muggleborn problem, IMO. > > Del" > > lizzyben: > > Here, you aren't talking about ephebophiles, but homosexuality in > general. And stating that there is both a crime & a set of victims > in the concept of homosexuality in general. As requested, I'm > posting to the OT site to ask if you could elaborate on that. > Because Lanval did create a moral limitation "things that HURT > people/things that do not", and you stated that homosexuality is > still in the first category, but I don't understand the reasoning > behind this statement. What is the crime/victim in the "global > concept of homosexuality? How is homosexuality in any way paralell > to "House elf enslavement"? I'm not seeing the analogy there. Magpie: I'm not Del, but as I understood what she was saying, she's saying that people who oppose homosexuality say they do so because it is harmful, so they do consider it harmful. Whether or not Del herself thinks it's harmful is a different issue. Based on things I have heard people say who think it's wrong come up with reasons why it is harmful. I have heard people explain to me that you become gay because you're molested as a child and then you go out to molest other people--so that's harmful. To me that's indicative of just how wrong-thinking the whole position is, because it's really hard to argue that a man touching another man or a woman touching another woman is really harmful to anybody, so they have to come up with other crimes that allegedly gay people are guilty of as a group like child molestation. Or I've also heard people speak against gay people adopting children with the claim that it's harmful for children to not be raised with a mother and a father, and that we want to raise "moral" children. Again, imo this falls apart because lots of kids are raised without a mother and a father without being harmed, and also there's a desire to say that straight=more moral, as if gay people are also guilty of some other moral crimes. I think with the house elf enslavement Del's saying it's about the right way to treat people and what's natural to people. Hermione says it's wrong to enslave house elves, but Wizards say this is what makes them happy. So the parallel would be that one person says why shouldn't a gay person act according to his/her nature when it doesn't harm anyone (and in fact as a group they're very valuable and productive members of society and so help society), while the other person says that it doesn't matter if it's in their nature, it's harmful to them and to others. They just don't know it. -m From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 14:19:25 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:19:25 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > I'm not Del, but as I understood what she was saying, she's saying > that people who oppose homosexuality say they do so because it is > harmful, so they do consider it harmful. Del replies: Thanks Magpie, that's about it, yes. > Whether or not Del herself thinks it's harmful is a different issue. Indeed, and I have no wish to explain my position, which is neither on one side nor the other, or maybe you could say it's on both sides at once, but what's for sure is that it's complicated, even for me, and constantly evolving, and whatnot, so it would take far more than a post to even try and explain it right, so... Let's just say that I see and understand and empathise with both (all?) sides. > I think with the house elf enslavement Del's saying it's about the > right way to treat people and what's natural to people. Hermione > says it's wrong to enslave house elves, but Wizards say this is what > makes them happy. So the parallel would be that one person says why > shouldn't a gay person act according to his/her nature when it > doesn't harm anyone (and in fact as a group they're very valuable > and productive members of society and so help society), while the > other person says that it doesn't matter if it's in their nature, > it's harmful to them and to others. They just don't know it. You explained it better than I ever hoped to do it! Again, thanks. Del From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 14:54:09 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:54:09 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Magpie wrote: > > I'm not Del, but as I understood what she was saying, she's saying > > that people who oppose homosexuality say they do so because it is > > harmful, so they do consider it harmful. > > Del replies: > Thanks Magpie, that's about it, yes. Magpie: > > Whether or not Del herself thinks it's harmful is a different issue. Del: > Indeed, and I have no wish to explain my position, which is neither on > one side nor the other, or maybe you could say it's on both sides at > once, but what's for sure is that it's complicated, even for me, and > constantly evolving, and whatnot, so it would take far more than a > post to even try and explain it right, so... Let's just say that I see > and understand and empathise with both (all?) sides. You explained it better than I ever hoped to do it! Again, thanks. > > Del lizzyben: That's fine, & you're under no obligation to explain or elaborate your position, but I was trying to say that it could be seen that you believe that homosexuality itself is wrong or a moral crime, not just that "ebiophilia" is wrong or harmful. And since you haven't made a distinction, that could well be your position. And that's fine, if that's what you believe & defend. All I'm saying is that it gets slippery to sometimes refer to one group, sometimes to the other, without always making clear which group you're referring to - it tends to create the impression that there isn't a distinction, or that gays & pedophiles/ebiophiles are in fact one and the same group. And that leads people to the (false) conclusion that "it's lesbians and gays who molest children". IMO this confusion is partially what is causing so much controversy. And this controversy could be avoided if people make clear the distinction between the two groups. I'm basically just talking about the terminology, not even the underlying philosophical/moral issues. lizzyben From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 15:42:32 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:42:32 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lizzyben wrote: > All I'm saying is that it gets slippery to sometimes refer to one > group, sometimes to the other, without always making clear which > group you're referring to - it tends to create the impression that > there isn't a distinction, or that gays & pedophiles/ebiophiles > are in fact one and the same group. Del replies: The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and ephebophilia. Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"! > I'm basically just talking about the terminology, not > even the underlying philosophical/moral issues. I understand what you're saying, but I can only point out that that's what I've tried to do right from the beginning, by explaining my use of the terms gay (men who love adult men) and ephebophilia (men who love teenage boys). But this terminology was immediately dismissed in favour of philosophical/moral accusations that I was somehow equating the two. So again, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like I did try and take all those precautions you mention. If you re-read my posts without projecting any preconceived profile on me, you'll see that I *never* equated gay with ephebophile. I always consistently argued the theory that the canon presents us with ephebophile!DD and not at all with gay!DD. Sure, when taken out of their contexts, some of my words can be made to mean pretty much anything. But that's not right, is it? Del From va32h at comcast.net Fri Oct 26 15:54:25 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:54:25 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas: Re: Well, don't want to upset the other list so I'll post here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Doddie: > > I dunno..this was no surprise to me..and secretly I'm kinda glad > > that DD is gay seeing as one of her black characters (Dean Thomas) > > had a father that ran out.(although not in the book....it also is > > part of the realm that the "DD is gay" resides in..many in the > black > > community did not appreciate this aspect of one of Harry's > > contemporaries--why Dean and not Seamus?!? Why does the black kids > > father run out as opposed to the white so many proclaimed...perhaps > > this is why the Lupin incident in DH?)... > > > > > Potioncat: > This was one of the little moments in the book that really spoke to > me. But it only works if you know the whole story---and most readers > wouldn't. It's one of JKR's "what war does to families" moments. > > JKR gave us some back story on Dean Thomas's family several years > ago. It may be on her site, I'm not sure. Dean's mother didn't know > he was a wizard. He was killed by DEs because he wouldn't join them. > From his wife's point of view, he just walked out. I'm not sure if > his name was Thomas, or if Dean was given his step-father's name. > va32h: Yes the backstory on Dean is tragic - not only did his family not know he died heroically, they don't even know that he was a wizard (thus making Dean *not* a Muggleborn and not in need of running for his life. As for Seamus - we never hear about Seamus' dad after we learn that his mother never told him she was a witch until they were married and that he wasn't happy about it. So maybe he isn't around either. va32h From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 16:29:47 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:29:47 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Anything can come across as insulting, when seen through a particular > lens... *shrugs* > > Del > Del, do you understand that you are now coming across as not caring who you hurt or offend? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 16:34:12 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:34:12 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: . Or I've also heard people speak > against gay people adopting children with the claim that it's > harmful for children to not be raised with a mother and a father, > and that we want to raise "moral" children. Again, imo this falls > apart because lots of kids are raised without a mother and a father > without being harmed, and also there's a desire to say that > straight=more moral, as if gay people are also guilty of some other > moral crimes. > And if anyone is interested in research or fact, I'll be happy to post the studies that are showing that children raised by lesbians are as emotionally healthy as children raised by straight people. A friend of mine, a prosecutor, was raised by his single mother after his battering father left them. He always questioned the issue of the need for a "father", saying it really depended on the father. I was blessed with a sweet, strong wonderful father.... I've met lesbians and gays who I didn't think were good parents, and I've met straight people who just had their kids and are now neglecting them... So it goes. Susan From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Oct 26 16:35:04 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Mrs. Lee Storm) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:35:04 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Dean Thomas: Re: Well, don't want to upset the other list so I'll post here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c817ee$29b39770$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | va32h: | | Yes the backstory on Dean is tragic - not only did his family not know | he died heroically, they don't even know that he was a wizard (thus | making Dean *not* a Muggleborn and not in need of running for | his life. | | As for Seamus - we never hear about Seamus' dad after we learn that | his mother never told him she was a witch until they were married and | that he wasn't happy about it. So maybe he isn't around either. [Lee]: Well, if we're talking about parent's leaving, let's go back to Tom Riddle leaving his pregnant wife alone to give birth to the future Voldemort. He was white. True, she had been dealing out a love potion or whatever, but whichever way you slice it, Tom left and never tried to find out about his son. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. Skype: Lady_Chocolee | Skype-Phone No.: 973 786-1246 | | va32h | | | | ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ | | The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them! | http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2 | | Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary | material from posts to which you're replying! | | Yahoo! Groups Links | | | | From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 16:28:49 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:28:49 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > Can you explain why you think homosexuality is a moral crime? If > > that is, in fact, what you're saying here? > > Del replies: > Homosexuality is not the moral crime I'm referring to here. But on the list, you just said that many people see homosexuality as a moral crime. Do you? Why? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 16:45:38 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:45:38 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > lizzyben wrote: > > All I'm saying is that it gets slippery to sometimes refer to one > > group, sometimes to the other, without always making clear which > > group you're referring to - it tends to create the impression that > > there isn't a distinction, or that gays & pedophiles/ebiophiles > > are in fact one and the same group. > > Del replies: > The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from > the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't > register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the > ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and ephebophilia. > Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't > assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people > saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"! > > > I'm basically just talking about the terminology, not > > even the underlying philosophical/moral issues. > > I understand what you're saying, but I can only point out that that's > what I've tried to do right from the beginning, by explaining my use > of the terms gay (men who love adult men) and ephebophilia (men who > love teenage boys). But this terminology was immediately dismissed in > favour of philosophical/moral accusations that I was somehow equating > the two. > > So again, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like I did try > and take all those precautions you mention. If you re-read my posts > without projecting any preconceived profile on me, you'll see that I > *never* equated gay with ephebophile. I always consistently argued the > theory that the canon presents us with ephebophile!DD and not at all > with gay!DD. Sure, when taken out of their contexts, some of my words > can be made to mean pretty much anything. But that's not right, is it? > > Del > Sorry, ya know folks, but I'm not buying this. >From what other character have we suddenly jumped from a tidbit about their past lives, to the fact that they might be a child molester. (And by the way, Del, if you look carefully at the Wikipedia article, it's highly contested. The whole ephebeology thing has been suggested by one or two researchers. It's not accepted or borne out by research that there's this huge difference between child rapists who molest youths and child rapist who molest boys. In fact, contrary to public ideas, lots of child rapists molest both girls and boys. There were Catholic priests who molested girls. In the most recent Associated Press poll on teachers who were child molesters - showing a big coverup of that fact -- the majority of the teachers were male, and the vast majority of victims were female. They even talk about the fact that the most sensationalized cases are adult women molesting boys -- gosh, still not lesbian or gay -- but that they are in the vast minority. The number of same-gender molestations are so small as to be practically insignificant). Anyway, JKR says DD was in love with or infatuated with GG, and that she thought of his as gay, and told a screenwriter he is gay. Suddenly the message boards are filled with -- oh so that's why he spent so much time with Harry....suddenly we see convoluted arguments about how he probably lusted after good looking teenage boys...with some very spurious support from canon about Tom Riddle, Sirius not being punished (which I bet he was), etc. Also slimy comments about him being able to be invisible. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but in my opinion, evidence is practically non-existent. No one has ever come with such a scenario about a straight person in the books. Strange. Then we have the persistent ignorance -- someone just posted that JKR was asked a question about whether anyone was gay....the press in Toronto made reference to her "news conference." (And who was it who made the comment about why didn't Harry flit around the castle and spy on young girls under his invisibility cloak, and that all young boys would do that? Sorry, but that's really anti-male. I know dozens of teenaged boys who are straight, and they're not voyeurs, nor do they take opportunity to spy on young girls. That's a pervert trick.) The level of homophobia from about 5% of the fans is staggering. Go to the Leaky Cauldron and read some of the comments. So this coincidental, innocent portrayal of DD as a man who's infatuated with young boys has to been seen in a larger context. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 17:53:14 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:53:14 -0000 Subject: the homosexual lobby and the right wing agenda Message-ID: You know folks..whether you think lesbians/gays/bisexuals/trans people are born or make a choice, I think most people on the list would agree that we have civil rights. There is a wide range of political opinion in the lgbt community. On the one hand, we have people who are very political. Some of these folks are engaged in fighting for the civil rights of lgbts..others are not. Wtihin the range of political people, there is vast disagreement about tactics. There are people fighting for legalizing lesbian/gay marriage; there are others who feel that this (and letting lesbians/gays in the military) are reforms that don't really get at the whole moral corruption of our society (YOU know the moral corruption that rights illegal wars, ruins the environment, ignores global warming, fires prosecutors who won't suborn the law and go after political enemies -- THAT moral corruption). Then there are the Log Cabin Republicans...who want the Republicans in the U.S. to become more lesbian/gay friendly, but who feel strongly that they are conservative. There are a lot of people (like certain legislators who remain unnamed) who don't have a choice about their same gender attraction, but have internalized the idea that somehow they are miserably, lowly, lesser than, immoral, etc. They're miserable, and try to avoid exposure by acting more anti-gay than anyone else. There are a lot of lesbian and gay people who just want to live out their lives uninterrupted. A probation officer I know. I coordinate a group called Pride Parents -- let's see, this week, the revolutionary activity is going to a pumpkin patch/corn maze....last time it was sitting around at the park having a potluck watching the children play on the jungle gyms....this is a very apolitical group. There are lesbian and gay male couples in rural America that just want to be farmers and be let alone, and usually they are.... Then there are people in big cities who want to party all day and into the night (absolutely unlike heterosexual youth or celebrities), and frankly, that's never been my type of lifestyle. So, we're actually quite diverse. However, the right wing fundies DO have a political agenda...and because they've joined a political movement, or adhere to the values of a political movement, that's a choice of theirs... Some of the things you'll notice.. a) Insist that anyone who comes out as lgbt, meaning stating that they live with their partner, as someone who is flaunting their sexuality and shoving their "lifestyle" down your throats. Confuse someone mentioning their identity (as in young woman saying I've always wanted a big wedding to the right guy) with someone talking about explicit sexual acts. b) Insist that lgbt families are a threat to the traditional family. Ignore domestic violence, sexual assault, adultery and divorce. That's okay. c) Focus on the most irresponsible and criminal element of the lgbt community and hold that up as reflective of everyone who is lgbt. Don't let "them" hold up Paris Hilton or Ralph Fiennes (who had intercourse with a stewardess in an airplane bathroom) as examples of the heterosexual community. That's different, not all HETEROsexual people are the same. d) Frame it as a religious right to be a bigot...the BIBLE says that the dark skinned person was the bad guy so it's okay to be racist..the BIBLE has slavery, so slavery is okay...if someone questions your intolerance, turn it around and tell them intolerance is okay if it's part of your religion. e) Talk about love the sinner but hate the sin, ignoring the fact that some lgbt people (like some heterosexual people) are celibate. But really, don't love the sinner. Be as hateful and nasty as you can get away with... f) When honest among themselves (the right wingers project a lot on other people), they talk about how all those Catholic priests really were gay, and that's why they molested youth. Talk about how horrible and unnatural anal sex is and how it's disgusting (ignore the fact that heterosexuals practice anal sex, too, and oral sex, etc.) Make slimy comments that equate being lgbt with bestiality or necrophilia. What's next? Legalizing sex with animals? is what you'll hear. g) Say things like "my best friend in college was gay"....just the way people who were racist would say "I'm not a bigot..some of my best friends were Black." h) Always, always always use the term homosexual...they hate that because it underlines the idea that they're really sexual. You know all they do is hop in and out of bed with each other like rabbits. i) Ignore dialogue. Keep repeating the same tired cliches again and again. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Well, you know lots of people (not our president) believe in evolution. Even lots of religious people. My religious instruction in Christianity said that there was no imcompatibility with evolution as long as you believed that at some point God gave human beings an immortal soul. j) For gosh sakes, don't let them humanize themselves as other real human beings with complex lives and complex identities. Treat them as if their orientation is the only important thing about them. That's the RIGHT WING agenda.... Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 18:30:56 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:30:56 -0000 Subject: the homosexual lobby and the right wing agenda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a couple of nitpicks: Susan wrote: > b) Insist that lgbt families are a threat to the traditional family. > Ignore domestic violence, sexual assault, adultery and divorce. > That's okay. Del replies: This isn't representative of most people I know who argue that "lgbt families are a threat to the traditional family". Typically, those people consider those issues to be even *more* pressing and troubling than lgbt families. But because they aren't being controversial when holding this position, it is often not mentioned as an important part of their beliefs and/or work. > h) Always, always always use the term homosexual...they hate that > because it underlines the idea that they're really sexual. You know > all they do is hop in and out of bed with each other like rabbits. Oh O_O ! So *this* is why using the term homosexual is supposedly offensive!? Nobody ever mentioned it to me. In fact, I was told several times that *not* using "homosexual" was wrong, so now I'm confused. Especially since for me "homosexual" doesn't mean "really sexual" anymore than "heterosexual" does. To me, it's really just a description of what type of sexuality people have, not of how much or often they have sex. Del From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 18:43:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:43:59 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Del replies: > The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from > the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't > register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the > ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and ephebophilia. > Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't > assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people > saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"! lizzyben: I'm not saying that you do equate them, & you've made the distinction clear w/DD himself. So, I understand what you're saying too, but I can also see how people could get confused. Especially once the debate turns from "ephebophilia" to homosexuality in general, & it's not clear which issue somebody is talking about at a particular time. So, people get misunderstandings & accusations because they're actually arguing about two different issues. And once it turns to whether something is a "moral crime" & people don't understand exactly which group is being referred to, it gets very dicey. Especially because some people actually *do* equate the two. And since your position on homosexuality itself is unclear... it becomes difficult to have a debate w/o knowing what that position is. I actually don't have a huge problem w/arguing that DD is an ephebophile, heck, I've argued that he might be a psychopath. But what I don't understand is the leap so many people are making from "he's gay" to "maybe he's a pedophile!" After all, he was still invisible while presumed straight, & no one thought to speculate that maybe he was spying on female students then. lizzyben From i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 17:34:45 2007 From: i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com (Demonsplaygirl) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wondering Message-ID: <817816.45022.qm@web45508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hey, I too don't understand why people take it so seriously. I guess it's because there is always that group of people that feels the need to HATE everything, remember when the Da Vinci's Code came out? And how popular it became because so many people hated it... I know its kinda ridiculous, but some groups even believe that Harry Potter Teaches people, even adults, that evil things are good. And others go even far off the handle and say that Harry Potter, was even created by Satan... Isn't that insane... Its just another thing that doesn't fit into peoples' boxes... Everyone has one... Their perfect little box... And Harry Potter well he can't fit into a box.... Can he? Hugs and Kisses - Hope From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 18:56:21 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:56:21 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > From what other character have we suddenly jumped from a tidbit > about their past lives, to the fact that they might be a child > molester. Del replies: I never presented DD as a child molester. I used neither the word "child" nor the word "molester". The words I used were "teenage boys" and "attracted to". I even explicitely said that even within the scope of my ephebophilia theory, I would still see DD as someone who *never* sexually acted on his attraction once he was a man. > It's not accepted or borne out by research that there's this huge > difference between child rapists who molest youths and child rapist > who molest boys. I never talked of anyone molesting or raping anyone. So I don't see the relevance of this information to my theory. > Anyway, JKR says DD was in love with or infatuated with GG, and that > she thought of his as gay, and told a screenwriter he is gay. > > Suddenly the message boards are filled with -- oh so that's why he > spent so much time with Harry.... I wouldn't know about other HP boards since this is the only one I participate on or even read. On this board, though, this representation isn't accurate: my single theory can hardly be said to have "filled" the board. > No one has ever come with such a scenario about a straight person in > the books. Strange. There have been several "So-and-So is sexually dysfunctional" theories on this board at least. For example, maybe you weren't there when someone posted a theory about one of Harry's possible trials having to do with Bellatrix trying to seduce him, but I do remember it. > So this coincidental, innocent portrayal of DD as a man who's > infatuated with young boys has to been seen in a larger context. A context I know nothing about, since as I said, I don't read other boards. I participate only to 3 boards: * one French board about an obscure Young Adult sci-fi writer, on which the "DD is gay" announcement hasn't even been mentioned; * one typology forum on which the announcement has been discussed in one thread, but only under the angles of "what does it change" and "it should have been in the books"; * this forum, where I was the only one to propose this theory. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 19:00:58 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:00:58 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > Del, do you understand that you are now coming across as not caring > who you hurt or offend? Del replies: One tough lesson for me to learn has been that I canNOT help making some people feel hurt by my comments if that's how they choose to react. I *told* you I wasn't trying to hurt or offend anyone. You can choose to accept this or not. Do I care that you feel hurt? Yes. Can I help it that you seem intent on reading things in my words that aren't meant by me, their author, to be there? No. Del From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Oct 26 19:01:35 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:01:35 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: <817816.45022.qm@web45508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Demonsplaygirl: Hey, I too don't understand why people take it so seriously. I guess it's because there is always that group of people that feels the need to HATE everything, remember when the Da Vinci's Code came out? And how popular it became because so many people hated it... I know its kinda ridiculous, but some groups even believe that Harry Potter Teaches people, even adults, that evil things are good. And others go even far off the handle and say that Harry Potter, was even created by Satan... Isn't that insane... Its just another thing that doesn't fit into peoples' boxes... Everyone has one... Their perfect little box... And Harry Potter well he can't fit into a box.... Can he? Hugs and Kisses - Hope Tiffany: I understand the logic, but remember that humans fear & hate what either they don't understand or don't want to. I had a class in Classical Studies last year & it was a common idea even way back when in the times of Ancients & earlier on to be fearful what was not understood. The stone, bronze, & iron age era people were fearful of lightning because they knew less about them than the average person now does about rocket science. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 19:10:05 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:10:05 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > But on the list, you just said that many people see homosexuality as a > moral crime. > > Do you? Why? Del replies: I said in another post that my personal position on homosexuality would take far more than a post to explain. Just in order to answer this question you've just asked, we'd first have to agree on what "moral" and "crime" actually cover, because I'm pretty sure we don't have the same concept of what is "moral" or not at least (note that I am saying we have a *different* concept: I'm NOT saying mine is better than yours, OK? - Just making sure...) If this sounds like an evasive answer, that's because it is. I have absolutely NO inclination to start discussing my very complicated (even to me!) view of homosexuality, where it comes from (my view, not homosexuality), why I hold it, and so on, especially not on a forum where I already know there are people who would probably accidentally misunderstand half of what I would say! No thanks, I'm not a masochist. Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 19:14:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:14:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > Infatuation isn't love. > > > > To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online: > > > > infatuate > > with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration > > ? in?fat?u?a?tion noun > > lizzyben: > > By your own definition, infatuation is a kind of love - extravagant or foolish love. Carol responds: Good point. But I was trying to distinguish between a foolish or extravagant attraction based on an idealized view of a person (surely Albus was blinding himself to Gellert's faults and denying a sinister side that even he sensed) and a mature love that recognizes and accepts the other person's faults rather than denying them. Did Albus feel the same way about Gellert after Gellert Crucio'd his brother and caused the fight that brought about the death of Ariana, not to mention what he later learned of Grindelwald as an adult Dark Wizard who constructed prisons for Muggle-borns and became a mass murderer in the name of "the greater good"? If so, it remained an infatuation, IMO, and not true love as represented by Molly and Arthur, the only representatives of a happy adult union in the books (unless you want to include Vernon and Petunia, but I don't want to go there). lizzyben: Infatuation is that first stage of "OMG this person is so perfect & wonderful & incredible!" And since DD/GG's relationship only lasted a few months, DD never had a chance to settle into that long-term love. Carol: the question for me is whether he would ever have done so, given what Gellert Grindelwald became. By DD's own admission, he denied faults in Gellert that everyone except him saw. The boy had been expelled from *Durmstrang*, a school known for teaching the Dark Arts, for torturing fellow students. Albus suspected that he wanted to create an army of Inferi. How long could he have remained deluded with regard to Gellert's sinister side, and if he could love him anyway and support what he was doing, how is that commendable? Lizzyben: I'm puzzled by the comparison to Arthur/Molly - there's a huge difference between the initial "falling in love" feeling & the solid, boring, stable love of a long relationship. Carol: See above. No doubt their relationship started out as a teenage crush, but it developed into a genuine love based on mutual affection and respect, not just physical attraction and hormones (I doubt there was an intellectual attraction like that experienced by Albus and Gellert though no doubt they shared some basic values). Could Albus and Gellert, both obsessed with remaking the WW (and using their power and intellect to control Muggles and Muggle-borns) have developed a stable, long-term relationship? They were both arrogant and brilliant, and their differences, like those between Slytherin and Gryffindor, would have surfaced eventually. And suppose that they had still been friends or lovers or whatever they were when Gellert stole the Elder Wand? Do you think he, the master of the wand, would have shared it with his dear Albus? I think it would have come between them. Only one wizard can wield the One Ring, erm, Elder Wand. Lizzyben: I'm also puzzled that you now say that Snape didn't love Lily, which contradicts other statements. He was her best friend, he devoted his life to her memory, but he didn't love her? Carol again: Poor Snape, my favorite character. Of course he devoted his life to Lily's memory, or more correctly, IMO, to atoning for his role in her death. I'm not denying canon or the use of the word "love" to describe his feelings. What I meant, and perhaps "infatuation" is the wrong word here, is that he idealized Lily, as suggested by the beauty and strength and purity of his Patronus, which represents *his* view of Lily, which perhaps does not correspond fully with the good but imperfect (human) Lily we see in the books. (She calls him "Snivellus" and refuses to forgive him for calling her a Mudblood.) Similarly, Harry's Patronus represents an idealized James, in contrast to the arrogant bully of SWM and the iniator of the lifelong Severus/MWPP feud. So, yes, he loved her, but it was an idealized sort of love that reminds me of a knight's for his lady. (There's a chivalric side to Snape, who actually would have made quite an interesting Gryffindor, but I prefer him as the Good Slytherin.) I'm merely saying that a mutual, reciprocal mature love that acknowledged flaws and failings on both sides never had a chance to develop between Severus and Lily as it might have done had LV not come between them. What the adult Snape loves is a *memory* of Lily, idealized and stripped of all her faults. It even seems to me, based solely on his Patronus, to be stripped of any sexual component: "To love pure and chaste from afar" comes into my mind when I (re)read "The Doe Patronus." YMMV. > Carol earlier: > "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation, not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or she loves and loves them, anyway. Love, in contrast, is a complicated emotion that can range from sexual attraction combined with tenderness and affection to the reverence felt for a beloved and respected mentor or the devotion of a parent to a child. > > lizzyben: > > "Consumed by his feelings" is a pretty good description of somebody who has fallen in love. IMO. Love is blind, as they say - and it can blind you to the faults in the beloved. How does being blinded by love mean it isn't really love? Carol: I would say "blinded by infatuation." Look at any young married couple past the honeymoon stage. If they stay together and continue to feel mutual affection and respect as well as physical attraction after discovering, to take a hypothetical example, that the new wife supports George Bush and the new husband throws his towels on the floor and spits in the shower (or worse--choose your own examples), then the infatuation has been replaced by mature love. GG's faults were, of course, considerable more serious than the half-serious examples I've given. Lizzyben: JKR stated that DD's love blinded him to GG's faults. Carol: Exactly my point, only I'm saying that *infatuation*, a word she also used, which, IMO, more accurately describes the teenage Albus's feelings, blinded him and led to tragedy. Lizzyben: Yes, over a long period of time, people learn to see & accept the others faults, but that's not the initial "falling in love" stage at all. DD learned GG's faults quickly enough. Carol: He saw them to begin with but denied them because he idealized his brilliant and handsome friend, whose ideas he wanted to correspond with his own. (He knew, for example, what GG really wanted to do with the Resurrection Stone, but he lied to himself about it.) Lizzyben: And also, IMO DD shared GG's faults, so to him they weren't really bad faults at all (world domination, love of power, etc.) They really had an awful lot in common. Carol: Exactly. They had a lot in common (brilliance, arrogance, a desire for world domination and control of the Muggles), but Albus had scruples that Gellert (who had already tortured classmates and been expelled from Durmstrang, as Albus well knew) didn't share. IMO, it's like the difference between Regulus Black and his cousin Bellatrix--a similar pure-blood supremacy agenda, but differences in what they were willing to do to carry it out. Albus's letter to Gellert makes those differences clear; it also shows him fooling himself. Which is not to say that Albus's desire for power over Muggles and Muggle-borns (born, I think, of the incident with Ariana and its tragic consequences to his family) is in any way commendable. It's just that he wasn't planning to create an army of Inferi or build prisons or torture people as a means of controlling them. He believed in using power responsibly (rather like the rulers of Plato's Republic). And he wanted to believe that Gellert, with his handsome, laughing face, was also acting for "the greater good" (rather than pretending to do so and taking that slogan as his own, as he later did). > > lizzyben: > > IMO this isn't a huge change Carol: Isn't it? Both lists are focused on homosexuality (and judging fellow posters for their views on that issue) rather than what's actually in the books. We've been sidetracked before, but not to this degree. Lizzyben: & certainly isn't a distraction from the over-arching Christian theme, any more than the information that Lily loved Snape as a friend somehow distracts from the major themes of the series. Carol: And yet it's the topic du jour, replacing everything else, as if JKR's political views somehow determined the quality of the books. Personally, I don't see how the presence or absence of a gay character (whose sexual preferences are not made explicit in the books) has anything at all to do with the merits of the book as a piece of fiction. I'll say this, though. I've been wondering when people would discuss Grindelwald, and at least we've started to look in that direction, though the focus is still on DD's feelings for him. I wonder whether GG's good looks and attractive personality (which, in contrast to Tom Riddle's charm, seems to be natural and unforced) are symbolic in some way of the temptation to evil. Please don't misunderstand me and think that I believe in a literal devil or Satan, but I've always thought that if there were such a being, he wouldn't have horns and hoofs. He would be handsome and charming, the better to seduce susceptible people into evil. Gellert Grindelwald, to me, seems to symbolize the attractiveness of evil, especially to those who are also tempted by power. (Faust, anyone?) And yet, in contrast to Voldemort, he repents at the end of his life. An old, toothless, dying man, and he still manages to be attractive with his fearlessness and his defiance of the upstart Voldemort. It's hard to think of the evil that he did in between perching on the windowsill with his stolen wand and being defeated in a duel with Dumbledore, for whom he still felt some sort of affection after all those years. lizzyben: It's just one piece of info about one character. What's distracting is the frenzy it's created. Authorial intent is important, but it's certainly not the only thing that matters. Fans can interpret things their own way, regardless of what the author intended. Carol: I agree that the frenzy is distracting and that fans *ought* to be able to interpret the books in their own way. The problem is, authorial intent seems to be controlling the interpretation, and the issue of homosexuality seems to be taking precedence over what's actually on the page. I suppose I should be happy that we're not still talking about (well, I'd rather not say, for fear of bringing up certain topics again ). > lizzyben: > > Totally agree here, should've been in the books. But there again, JKR has detailed backstories for many characters that weren't in the books. People weren't offended when she revealed more information about Dean Thomas' story or Theodore Nott, so how is DD's story any different? I like getting more info about the characters (as opposed to JKR's opinions about the characters.) Carol: For one thing, those other tidbits (made on her website rather than in a highly publicized interview) didn't change the way we read the books. For another, they didn't involve important characters or controversial topics. No one is going to create a media frenzy about Draco and Theo having a conversation that we don't even know the contents of, and Dean's story is just an interesting tidbit that throws a slightly different light on his flight from the Snatchers (ironically, he isn't even a Muggleborn), but it isn't important enough to dominate the HPfGu discussion. Nor is it likely to be seized upon by opponents of the books as yet another reason why the books should be removed from school libraries. (Not my view, of course!) It seems to me that JKR doesn't quite distinguish between what's in her mind and what's in the books, and she feels as if her interpretation is the "right" interpretation because she created them. But, as the Snape discussions alone indicate, the characters have taken on a life and reality (wrong word--I know they're fictional) beyond her intentions. Imagine Herman Melville coming back from the grave and giving us Ahab's backstory (This is how I imagined him and this is how I intended him to be read). I prefer to interpret the books for myself without being distracted by the author's political and religious views, or his/her opinions about the characters. (Maybe I should stick with dead authors?) > lizzyben: > > But JKR has also stated that "tolerance" is *the* most important message of her series. Carol: But the question is, should we be distracted by that pronouncement from finding other important themes and motifs in the series? Again, I don't want the author telling me what to look for, and I certainly don't want to be preached to, regardless of whether I agree with the message. A lot of what appears in a literary work is *un*intentional (the subconscious mind at work, maybe). Certainly, we can examine the influences on her books (the Bible, Greek mythology, the Merlin legends among them) without regard to her political convictions or message or her religious beliefs. I'm certainly not reading these books for their moral or message, and I hope that's not why young readers are reading them, either. (Did Shakespeare have a message in mind when he wrote his plays? No. He was writing to entertain and to make money.) Interpretation of a literary work is a lot more complex than finding the moral, if any, that the author is trying to convey. The story and all its elements, especially the characters and their relationships and conflicts, are the crucial element, IMO. And if DD's sexual orientation was important, it should have been revealed in the books. Revealing it after the fact as an answer to a question about whether DD was ever in love should not be regarded in itself as some brave statement about "tolerance." It's just the way she envisioned the character and nothing more. Lizzyben: Whether she succeeded or failed is open to debate. But it's quite clear that she was intending to create an anti-bigotry message w/the prejudice against & persecution of "muggle-borns". Why should we ignore that message? Different themes can co-exist - and in this series, the "Christian" & tolerance themes certainly co-exist (along w/some more unsavory themes like revenge). Carol: I'm not saying that we should ignore the persecution of Muggle-borns (though I do think the depiction is unrealistic). I just think the themes and motifs at the climax of the book are equally important, and I think that forgiveness trumps revenge. (That's the lesson Harry learns through his visit to Snape's memories, IMO.) For me, the themes (really, motifs) of forgiveness and redemption tie in more with the Christian imagery (crosses are referred to three times at least) and Harry's self-sacrifice than with the postmodern conception of tolerance, which is not the same thing. ("Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" relates directly to Snape and Draco, for example.) Christian and politically correct themes can certainly coincide (modern secular humanism is an outgrowth of Christian humanism, IIRC--those who know more about the subject than I do please correct me if I'm wrong), but they are not the same thing. Remorse and redemption and the afterlife are essentially religious motifs whereas "tolerance" is essentially political (and tolerance of homosexuality per se is entirely extraneous to the books, as the attackers of the books would know if they'd actually read them). Carol, wondering if we should move this discussion, or those parts that relate to GG and DD rather than JKR and her announcement, to the main list From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 19:23:34 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <460872.3150.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> delwynmarch wrote: <<>> So again, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like I did try and take all those precautions you mention. If you re-read my posts without projecting any preconceived profile on me, you'll see that I *never* equated gay with ephebophile. I always consistently argued the theory that the canon presents us with ephebophile! DD and not at all with gay!DD. Sure, when taken out of their contexts, some of my words can be made to mean pretty much anything. But that's not right, is it? ***Katie: So, you would think Dumbledore was an ephebophile even if he was straight? Since you don't associate his gayness with his ephebophile-ness, you just always thought he was an ephebophile, right? You just happened to bring it up now, is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to clarify. Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 19:45:27 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:45:27 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: <460872.3150.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Katie wrote: > So, you would think Dumbledore was an ephebophile even if he was > straight? Since you don't associate his gayness with his > ephebophile-ness, you just always thought he was an ephebophile, > right? You just happened to bring it up now, is that what you're > saying? I'm just trying to clarify. Katie Del replies: We're still not exactly on the same page, since you say "you don't associate his gayness", while I said that in my theory he's not gay at all. In my theory, DD is neither gay nor straight: he's attracted to teenage boys. "Gay" and "straight" refer to attraction to adults, and DD is not attracted to adults at all in my theory. Before JKR made her announcement that DD was once attracted to *teenage* GG, my view of DD was A-sexual, because of 2 factors working together: 1A- Heterosexuality is the only sexuality ever described in the HP books. 2A- DD is not described as being attracted to females. Thus, he was asexual. JKR's announcement changed both above factors: 1B- She introduced the concept of alternative sexualities in the HP books. 2B- She described DD as being attracted to someone. I then had to rewrite my considerations, which became: 1C- All kinds of sexuality are apparently possible in the HP books. 2C- DD once loved a fellow teenage boy. That's when other considerations took form, such as: 3C- DD never showed any attraction to any adult. 4C- DD showed strange moral weakness where some handsome boys were concerned. And that's when the ephebophilia theory was born. You'll notice that in the final C list above, I don't mention DD being gay a single time. I do mention his being attracted to a fellow teenage boy, but this in itself does not make him gay. And when taken together with 3C, it points to DD *not* being gay at all. Does this help you understand my theory? And remember: that's all it is, a theory. I don't even believe in it myself, as I said in my first post. Del From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 26 19:38:18 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:38:18 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from > the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't > register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the > ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and ephebophilia. > Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't > assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people > saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"! Celoneth: Things don't always come across written as you mean them - the fact that so many people were confused by your post is evidence of that. Plus the fact that part of your evidence was based on DD's relationship with GG when they were both young men as "ebophilic." If one is to use that kind of evidence then the vast majority of the population would be ebophiles for being attracted to teenagers when they themselves were teenagers. I've read your posts on the list, and no, they are not clear and they sound extremely offensive. If that isn't your intent then you should clarify your position or not be surprised when people get offended by what you post. You can't have it both ways - to have people not criticise your argument or not be offended by it w/o being clear as to what you're actually arguing about. A lot of the moral crimes/gays and lesbians = ebophiles arguments sound a lot like what people who hate gays & lesbians argue - so when you make similar arguments w/o making clarifications then you're going to get criticised for it. Celoneth From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 20:00:49 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:00:49 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Does this help you understand my theory? And remember: that's all it > is, a theory. I don't even believe in it myself, as I said in my first > post. > > Del > For someone who doesn't believe a theory, you seem remarkably persistent in defending it. I wonder if it's just a way of putting something out, and then attempting to evade the consequences of your statements. Just my opinion. Anyway, when one teenager falls in love with another teenager, or becomes infatuated with another teenager, that doesn't mean that in later life, that person will always remain infatuated with teenagers. If so, anyone of us who fell in love/became infatuated before the age of 18 might be a luster after youth. Snape is far more likely to let certain boys "off" (the Slytherins) than DD is....and I could certainly cite chapter and verse of that. But because we found out that SS was in love with Lily, no one has suggested that he is luster after children and/or youth. Being fixated on people under the age of 18 is to be a pervert. Even if you don't act on your "feelings", sexual attraction to children or to youths IS morally wrong. Disgusting. And being a voyeur (wandering around the castle, invisible, spying on good looking boys - for which there is no canon evidence, if there is, please cite it)...is not value free. It's usually the first step towards some other type of sex crime. I just keep wondering why this theory suddenly came up when JKR responded to a question and said DD was gay. It just seems so coincidental to me. I guess I do wonder about your personal views of lesbians and gays...since if you stated them, you would be letting yourself in for criticism. (being a masochist I think you said). And this whole thing about white being normative, and straight being normative, that they're the "default" category...well, that's the problem isn't it? All the storefront mannikins were white, all the television shows were white, all the movies were white, when they showed people of color they were played by white people....then someone said "hey, white ISN'T NORMAL", because ya know normal implies superiority...(flesh colored bandaids - color of whose flesh; flesh colored crayons - etc., mailMAN, policeMAN, fireMAN, delivery boy, language reflects attitudes, as Aristotle would say) Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 20:03:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:03:38 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Ephebophilia" (Was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lizzyben wrote: > > That's fine, & you're under no obligation to explain or elaborate your position, but I was trying to say that it could be seen that you believe that homosexuality itself is wrong or a moral crime, not just that "ebiophilia" is wrong or harmful. Carol reponds: I'm staying out of this debate. I just want to correct the spelling of "ephebophilia" clarify the etymology. It derives from the Greek word "ephebos" (a youth between 18 and 20 years old). The Latin equivalent (obviously a borrowed word) is "ephebus." Modern works about ancient Greeks usually render it as "ephebe." Young men of that age had just reached manhood and were in most cases undergoing military training. The relationship between the young Alcibiades (an ephebe) and the much older Socrates in Plato's "Symposium" is interesting with regard to this concept. Side note: "Philia" was used by the Greeks to describe the higher (that is, nonsexual) forms of love, but, of course, they didn't invent the term "ephebophilia," which was invented by a psychologist in the twentieth century. Carol, staying away from any and all moral judgments and merely concerned with etymology as an aid to spelling here From cinders at voyager.net Fri Oct 26 20:18:29 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (cindersla) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:18:29 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have to admit that I am amazed at the "answers". What I'm amazed at is how every subject, no matter what it is, is turned back around to the gay issue. I think only 2 posts actually answered the original question. The rest have been about the gay thing. How can it be THAT important of an issue to ruin the rest of what the books are? How can that be the only thing that everyone has on their minds? On the main list they were talking about how JK's books are of acceptance so I asked what about the "fat lady". I, myself, found it offensive that she never had a name. It was just "the fat lady". I think I only got one post on the actual subject and the rest for two days now have been all about the gay issue again. Anyway, I find it sort of fascinating as well as somewhat disturbing in some way. Carol (the new one) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 20:23:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:23:16 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del wrote: > > Anything can come across as insulting, when seen through a particular lens... *shrugs* Susan responded: > Del, do you understand that you are now coming across as not caring who you hurt or offend? Carol notes: As I understand it, Del was originally saying that there is more evidence in the text to support the concept of Dumbledore as an ephebophile (a man who loves young men, not necessarily in terms of sexual relationships with them) than to support his status as a homosexual, simply because we have no canonical evidence of his romantic attraction to any adult men, whereas we do see him giving particular attention to attractive teenage boys (and "skinny, specky" Harry ). But in her first post on the topic, she made it clear that she does *not* see DD as an ephebophile. She only presented evidence that *could* be interpreted that way by a reader who is so inclined. What Del is not doing is attacking homosexuality (or, for that matter, ephebophilia that does not involve sexual contact between a teenager and an adult, if I understand correctly). (Del, please correct me if I'm wrong.) I wonder whether it's time to drop this thread given the misuderstandings and hurt feelings that it's generated all around. Clearly, no one is changing anyone else's views. Carol, quite certain that Del has no intention of stepping on anyone's feelings and guessing that Del's feelings have also been hurt by the misreading of her thoughts and intentions From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 20:58:52 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:58:52 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > For someone who doesn't believe a theory, you seem remarkably > persistent in defending it. I wonder if it's just a way of putting > something out, and then attempting to evade the consequences of your > statements. Just my opinion. Del replies: Oh man! Do you *always* have to look for hidden motives?? I put out a theory, it gets misinterpreted, I try and correct the misinterpretations, and that means I'm somehow trying to get some hidden message out or something?? Sheesh! Have you ever heard of theoretical debates? One puts out a theory, others discuss it, the theory gets supported or invalidated, new elements of discussion come up, new theories are born, and so on. > Anyway, when one teenager falls in love with another teenager, or > becomes infatuated with another teenager, that doesn't mean that in > later life, that person will always remain infatuated with > teenagers. And I never said so. I *never* presented this as a rule. I was discussing the *particular* case of DD. > Snape is far more likely to let certain boys "off" (the Slytherins) > than DD is....and I could certainly cite chapter and verse of that. > But because we found out that SS was in love with Lily, no one has > suggested that he is luster after children and/or youth. No need for him to be in love with anyone: the very fact that the people (not just boys) he's letting off are characterised by the fact that they are all Slytherins (his own House) is enough to indicate the reason behind his actions: House favouritism. > Being fixated on people under the age of 18 is to be a pervert. Even > if you don't act on your "feelings", sexual attraction to children > or to youths IS morally wrong. Disgusting. I disagree. An adult falling in love or being attracted to, say, a fully-formed 16yo is not perversion: it's Nature. Youth, especially in females, is one of the main components of sexual attractiveness. Puberty is Nature's way of saying "this one is physically ready for reproduction" and thus implicitely for sex. Just because our modern Western society recognises that being ready for sex includes more than just being physically ready, doesn't mean that those who react the way Nature intends them to, by being attracted to people who are physically ready for sex, no matter their age, are perverts. > I just keep wondering why this theory suddenly came up when JKR > responded to a question and said DD was gay. It just seems so > coincidental to me. I explained in another post that it is not at all coincidental. > I guess I do wonder about your personal views of lesbians and > gays...since if you stated them, you would be letting yourself in > for criticism. (being a masochist I think you said). Yes I would be "letting myself in for criticism", because my views are not perfectly exactly aligned on what is currently politically correct, and it's been made pretty clear on this list that anything other than the current politically correct beliefs is not good enough. So since I can't give you the ONE answer you would consider as acceptable ("I totally completely agree with you 100%"), what's even the point of explaining my views? You're going to bash them anyway. > because ya know normal implies superiority No it doesn't. Normal implies that it's the most common, that's what it means. Mailmen were mailmen because there weren't any mailwomen back then, that's all. Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 20:57:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:57:04 -0000 Subject: The word "homosexual" (Was: the homosexual lobby and the right wing agenda) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > > h) Always, always always use the term homosexual...they hate that because it underlines the idea that they're really sexual. You know all they do is hop in and out of bed with each other like rabbits. > Del replied: > Oh O_O ! So *this* is why using the term homosexual is supposedly offensive!? Nobody ever mentioned it to me. In fact, I was told several times that *not* using "homosexual" was wrong, so now I'm confused. Especially since for me "homosexual" doesn't mean "really sexual" anymore than "heterosexual" does. To me, it's really just a description of what type of sexuality people have, not of how much or often they have sex. Carol: Etymology again. "Homosexual" means being attracted to people of the same sex ("homo-" = "same"), whereas "heterosexual" means being attracted to people of the opposite sex ("hetero-" = "other"). The frequency of the person's sexual activity has no connection whatever with the meaning of these terms. The problem, IMO, is that for many people, "sex" now means sexual intercourse (which used to mean intercourse between the sexes, itself a euphemism since "intercourse" meant "conversation"), and "sex" (meaning biological sex, i.e., male or female) has been replaced in the media and elsewhere by "gender" (actually a grammatical term for masculine, feminine, and neuter parts of speech). I, for one, always feel like writing "none" when a form asks me my "gender" because, last time I checked, I was neither a noun nor a pronoun. At any rate, to my knowledge, most people who use the term "homosexual" do so with no intention of being offensive. They use it because they believe it's the correct term and that "gay" is a euphemism or colloquialism. A sociologist, for example, will probably study the phenomenon of "homosexuality," not of "gayness." Other people (including me) use the adjectives interchangeably, depending on the context (formal vs. informal). After all, "gay" has been used since the fourteenth century to mean "merry" or "happily excited" and only since the mid-to-late twentieth century to mean what is generally termed "homosexual," again meaning attracted to persons of one's own sex, with no more stigma attached to the word than to its opposite, "heterosexual." And why anyone would object to "homosexual" but not to "bisexual" simply confuses me. Carol, blaming semantics for this particular misunderstanding and hoping that she's helping to make peace among the well-meaning, good-hearted posters on this list From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 21:08:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:08:01 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lizzyben wrote: > I actually don't have a huge problem w/arguing that DD is an ephebophile, heck, I've argued that he might be a psychopath. But what I don't understand is the leap so many people are making from "he's gay" to "maybe he's a pedophile!" After all, he was still invisible while presumed straight, & no one thought to speculate that maybe he was spying on female students then. Carol responds: Which makes me wonder what the reaction in certain quarters would have been to DD's interest in "Harriet" Potter, had JKR decided to make her protagonist female. Maybe we'd have seen Rita Skeeter-style reactions among the opponents of the books from SS/PS forward. (Or maybe they were there and I just didn't know it.) Honestly, I think we're all making a mountain out of a molehill (JKR's revelation, I mean). Carol, tired of playing "middlewoman" and trying to bow out gracefully From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 21:08:55 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:08:55 -0000 Subject: The word "homosexual" (Was: the homosexual lobby and the right wing agenda) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol wrote: > Etymology again. "Homosexual" means being attracted to people of the > same sex ("homo-" = "same"), whereas "heterosexual" means being > attracted to people of the opposite sex ("hetero-" = "other"). The > frequency of the person's sexual activity has no connection whatever > with the meaning of these terms. Del comments: Yes, that's precisely the way I see those two terms. > At any rate, to my knowledge, most people who use the term > "homosexual" do so with no intention of being offensive. They use it > because they believe it's the correct term and that "gay" is a > euphemism or colloquialism. Exactly. In fact, I seem to remember at least one time when I was told that to use "gay" was offensive. But then, that was back 15 years ago or so, and that was in France. I don't doubt that things may have changed since then, and that they may always have been different in other countries to begin with. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 21:03:06 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:03:06 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth wrote: > If that isn't your intent then you should clarify your position or not > be surprised when people get offended by what you post. You can't have > it both ways - to have people not criticise your argument or not be > offended by it w/o being clear as to what you're actually arguing > about. Del replies: I said right in my very first post that in my theory I saw DD as *NOT* gay at all, but *ONLY* as ephebophile. And I have repeated that very same thing again and again since then. What's not to understand in this? What's to be confused about in this? How much clearer could it be? Del From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 26 21:41:34 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:41:34 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del: > I disagree. An adult falling in love or being attracted to, say, a > fully-formed 16yo is not perversion: it's Nature. Youth, especially in > females, is one of the main components of sexual attractiveness. > Puberty is Nature's way of saying "this one is physically ready for > reproduction" and thus implicitely for sex. Just because our modern > Western society recognises that being ready for sex includes more than > just being physically ready, doesn't mean that those who react the way > Nature intends them to, by being attracted to people who are > physically ready for sex, no matter their age, are perverts. Magpie: What I find interesting is that being attracted to teenagers seems totally acceptable when it comes to teenaged girls. I mean, it's not considered okay to have sex with them necessarily--hence the terms "jailbait" etc., but I've heard plenty of straight guys on TV or the radio or whatever talk about wanting to have sex with underaged girls. Obviously I don't mean to suggest that your average guy would not see anything wrong with being attracted to a 16-year- old--I think most would. I'm just pointing out that there is a certain attitude about it that is common enough to be recognizable and joked about and it doesn't seem immediately associated with a problem with the man in question. On the contrary, it seems unfortunately like it's an extension of certain views about women. (Sexist views, imo.) -m From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 22:07:44 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:07:44 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > What I find interesting is that being attracted to teenagers seems > totally acceptable when it comes to teenaged girls. Del replies: Well, there are centuries of social acceptance behind that attitude. Granted it's been now a good couple of centuries in Western countries that girls of 14 or 15 are not routinely married off anymore, but this was very usual for centuries before that. And it still shows in most Western countries' laws: even in the USA, it is possible for teen girls of those ages to get married in most states, under certain legal conditions (consent of the parents, things like that). In France, the legal age to get married is 15 for girls if I'm not mistaken. And most of the time, the age for boys is significantly older... > Obviously I don't mean to suggest that your average > guy would not see anything wrong with being attracted to a 16-year- > old--I think most would. I think so too, but I think it would have more to do with the mental aspect of the thing, ie. having sex with someone who is still very much a child in their head, than with the strictly physical aspect of it. JMO obviously. Del From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 26 22:04:43 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:04:43 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > I said right in my very first post that in my theory I saw DD as *NOT* > gay at all, but *ONLY* as ephebophile. And I have repeated that very > same thing again and again since then. What's not to understand in > this? What's to be confused about in this? How much clearer could it be? Celoneth: And what I am saying is that your argument reads in a muddled manner. You made that theory in a conversation about DD being gay, and calling a gay person an ephebophile is not a neutral thing - the gay = sexual deviant logic has been used by bigots and when a lot of people read such a statement, they're going to be put on guard automatically. Frankly, your evidence to support your theory is weak and maybe that's why so many people have a problem with it. You use the fact that he had an age appropriate relationship/crush, the fact that he probably didn't pursue any other relationships after that one proved disasterous and the fact that he's a headmaster and spends lots of time around young people to defend a theory that has a lot of loaded connotations to many people. All this evidence is either extremely circumstantial or speculative. If you're going to post something that you should know to become controversial w/ the nature of this entire debate, then maybe try to have better evidence - otherwise it sound like you're speculating to prove a very controversial position. Furthermore, some of your analogies - comparing gays to murderers, making it sound as if being gay is a "moral crime" just sound horribly offensive. I appreciate you taking time to explain them, but your original choice of language is problematic - you use loaded terms and analogies and then are upset that people get offended by them. Language matters a lot, a lot of words and ideas have historical connotations that significantly impact the meaning of those words. Celoneth From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 22:17:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:17:08 -0000 Subject: Why we like the books so much (was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "cindersla" wrote: > > I have to admit that I am amazed at the "answers". What I'm amazed at is how every subject, no matter what it is, is turned back around to the gay issue. I think only 2 posts actually answered the original question. The rest have been about the gay thing. How can it be THAT important of an issue to ruin the rest of what the books are? How can that be the only thing that everyone has on their minds? On the main list they were talking about how JK's books are of acceptance so I asked what about the "fat lady". I, myself, found it offensive that she never had a name. It was just "the fat lady". I think I only got one post on the actual subject and the rest for two days now have been all about the gay issue again. Anyway, I find it sort of fascinating as well as somewhat disturbing in some way. > > Carol (the new one) > Carol responds: Hi, other Carol. :-) I'm sorry you didn't get responses to your question. I thought I had explained upthread why I like the books so much, but I can't find my detailed response. (It had to do with liking literary analysis and having a PhD in English and being fascinated by Snape.) Maybe I accidentally offlisted it? I can try to answer the question again, but right now, I'm wondering who or what ate my post. You just happened to join at a time immediately after JKR had made her revelation about DD (Dumbledore), so you've caught us at a time when we're not our usual selves--a bad hair day, or bad hair week. Since I know we've discussed this topic before, I did a site search on both groups using search terms such as "I like the HP books" and didn't come up with much, but I did find this one for the main list using "I like the books" (in quotes as a phrase) as my search term: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162639 The thread starts with the linked post, which asks for reponses to a survey for a college research paper on "literary value and fan interaction" in relation to the HP books. Most of the responses give reasons why a particular poster enjoys the books. Or maybe you could just ask your question again, in a new thread with a subject line indicating such as "Why do you like the HP books?" (no quotes), which would indicate clearly what you want to talk about. But this is the OT forum; if you want to talk about the books themselves, you might have better luck on the main list. Carol, who put a lot of time into her response to the other Carol's question and wants to know what happened to it! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 22:36:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:36:42 -0000 Subject: "Jailbait" (Was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > What I find interesting is that being attracted to teenagers seems totally acceptable when it comes to teenaged girls. I mean, it's not considered okay to have sex with them necessarily--hence the terms "jailbait" etc., but I've heard plenty of straight guys on TV or the radio or whatever talk about wanting to have sex with underaged girls. Obviously I don't mean to suggest that your average guy would not see anything wrong with being attracted to a 16-year-old--I think most would. I'm just pointing out that there is a certain attitude about it that is common enough to be recognizable and joked about and it doesn't seem immediately associated with a problem with the man in question. On the contrary, it seems unfortunately like it's an extension of certain views about women. (Sexist views, imo.) Carol responds: It may also have something to do with the biological fact that most girls hit puberty before most boys do, as well. Sixteen-year-old girls are often virtually indistinguishable from twenty-year-olds, whereas I know some sixteen-year-old boys who are just emerging from childhood, and some fifteen-year-old boys who look and act like twelve-year-olds. (Others, of course, have been shaving since they were fourteen, so it differs from kid to kid, of course.) I don't want to overgeneralize, and I'm certainly not in favor of teenage sex (quite the contrary), much less sex between teenagers and adults, but I wonder if teenage girls (often) looking older than they really are has something to do with the phenomenon you're describing. Wearing make-up and what would have been considered sexually provacative clothing when I was young may have something to do with it as well. Not sure who's to blame here, but standards of behavior and acceptable clothing have changed drastically in the last two decades. Anyone remember the days of the Beach Party films when Annette Funicello was not allowed to wear a swimsuit that would reveal her navel? Carol, longing for the good old days when we had dress codes From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 22:40:10 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:40:10 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth wrote: > You made that theory in a conversation about DD being gay, Del wrote: That's true, though you'll notice I did start a whole new thread to present my theory. I didn't just insert it into a pre-existing thread. However, my choice of words for the title definitely wasn't very smart. > and calling a gay person an ephebophile is not a neutral thing - > the gay = sexual deviant logic has been used by bigots and when a > lot of people read such a statement, they're going to be put on > guard automatically. I understand that. I just wish that people had asked me questions to clarify my position rather than jump to conclusions. > Frankly, your evidence to support your theory is weak and maybe > that's why so many people have a problem with it. I know the evidence is weak, that's even why I don't believe in the theory myself. However, I'm puzzled as to how weak evidence relates to moral motives. > otherwise it sound like you're speculating to prove a very > controversial position. What would be wrong with that? It's been done before on this list, countless times. We are supposed to be among adults, not among hot-headed teenagers, so being able to explore more controversial positions without people immediately firing off in all directions is supposed to be one of the luxuries this group can afford. > Furthermore, some of your analogies - comparing gays to murderers, > making it sound as if being gay is a "moral crime" just sound > horribly offensive. I appreciate you taking time to explain them, > but your original choice of language is problematic - you use loaded > terms and analogies and then are upset that people get offended by > them. Language matters a lot, a lot of words and ideas have > historical connotations that significantly impact the meaning of > those words. I understand that. However: 1- English is not my mother tongue, so the loaded aspect of those terms is something I am not naturally aware of. Like for example I didn't know that saying "homosexual" can be offensive to some gay and lesbian people. 2- My posts are being moderated (on my request), so whatever ends up on the main list was approved by the Elves. They have not been shy, believe me, in asking me to re-word some of my posts, or even to drop entire parts of them altogether. So not only am I personally putting efforts into wording my posts in such a way as to avoid as much controversy as possible, but the Elves are also checking that what remains is not too overly controversial. And frankly, what I have mostly seen is not so much people getting offended at what I actually said, but people reading my posts and answering some other argument entirely that I never even mentioned. IOW: projection. Now I can understand a bit of accidental projection at first, but when people are told that they got it wrong and yet insist that they got it right, well, that's entirely out of my control. Del From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 22:44:52 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:44:52 -0000 Subject: "Jailbait" (Was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > It may also have something to do with the biological fact that most > girls hit puberty before most boys do, as well. Sixteen-year-old girls > are often virtually indistinguishable from twenty-year-olds, whereas I > know some sixteen-year-old boys who are just emerging from childhood, > and some fifteen-year-old boys who look and act like twelve-year- olds. > (Others, of course, have been shaving since they were fourteen, so it > differs from kid to kid, of course.) I don't want to overgeneralize, > and I'm certainly not in favor of teenage sex (quite the contrary), > much less sex between teenagers and adults, but I wonder if teenage > girls (often) looking older than they really are has something to do > with the phenomenon you're describing. Wearing make-up and what would > have been considered sexually provacative clothing when I was young > may have something to do with it as well. Not sure who's to blame > here, but standards of behavior and acceptable clothing have changed > drastically in the last two decades. Anyone remember the days of the > Beach Party films when Annette Funicello was not allowed to wear a > swimsuit that would reveal her navel? > > Carol, longing for the good old days when we had dress codes > Personally, I do NOT consider it acceptable or normal for grown men to be interested in or attracted to young girls, or teenaged girls. I think it's all about the eroticization of girls in our culture, and I think it is sick and morally wrong. It's about seeing women and girls as property -- it's no coincidence that most sex crimes ARE committed against young girls. It's no coincidence that most of the international sex trafficking is in women and girls. Girls cannot be independent or think for themselves as well as older adult independent women, so some men like them better. Not all men. I reject that analysis because I think there are a ton of moral and upright men who prefer women their own age, and do NOT find little girls or teenaged girls attractive. In fact, my children's school DOES have a dress code, and if they didn't, it would be a cold day in hell before my daughter went to school as a teenager with a plunging neckline or bare belly..or that my son went to school with jeans plunging down below his rear end or with a cap on backwards. Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 22:45:47 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:45:47 -0000 Subject: Why we like the books so much (was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The not-new (I won't say "old" ;-) )Carol wrote: > I thought I had explained upthread why I like the books so > much, but I can't find my detailed response. (It had to do with > liking literary analysis and having a PhD in English and being > fascinated by Snape.) Maybe I accidentally offlisted it? ... > Carol, who put a lot of time into her response to the other Carol's > question and wants to know what happened to it! Del replies: It's still there, don't worry. Post number 33736 (I'm too lazy to try and remember how to make links). Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 23:03:31 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:03:31 -0000 Subject: "Jailbait" (Was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > It's about seeing women and girls as property Del wonders: How do you get from here to there? I mean, I'm not saying there aren't men who consider women as property, but I don't understand how being an adult male who finds some fully-developed teenage girls attractive relates to his thinking of females as property. Would you mind explaining your reasoning a bit more, it's intriguing? > Girls cannot be independent or think for themselves as well as > older adult independent women, so some men like them better. Predators do, absolutely. The eroticisation (?) of younger and younger girls is a total boon for them: they get the full sexual aspects without having to deal with the mental maturity of older women. What could be more perfect than that? > Not all men. I reject that analysis because I think there are a ton > of moral and upright men who prefer women their own age, and do NOT > find little girls or teenaged girls attractive. I personally don't think that finding a fully-formed teenage girl attractive makes a man immoral. It only makes him a male member of the human species. However, *dwelling* on this attraction, entertaining erotic thoughts about the girl, and all that kind of things, yes, that isn't moral anymore IMO. Del From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 26 23:27:48 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:27:48 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del wrote: > That's true, though you'll notice I did start a whole new thread to > present my theory. I didn't just insert it into a pre-existing thread Celoneth: That's true, but its currently a loaded atmosphere where a lot of people are already on edge and many being rather immature about the entire matter. Del: > I know the evidence is weak, that's even why I don't believe in the > theory myself. However, I'm puzzled as to how weak evidence relates to moral motives. Celoneth: I'm not saying that weak evidence relates to motives, but historically sides that promote prejudice use weak but loaded evidence to promote their cause - such as women/minorities aren't intelligent because they don't do well on a certain test - and then use that inconclusive evidence to promote an agenda. I'm not saying that's what you were trying to do - but for a lot of people it raises flags. I'm not saying that one shouldn't speculate, but in the current hoopla over JKR's announcement there's a lot of pre-existing tension that carries over to other issues and may dilute your theory. Del: > I understand that. However: > 1- English is not my mother tongue, so the loaded aspect of those > terms is something I am not naturally aware of. Like for example I > didn't know that saying "homosexual" can be offensive to some gay and > lesbian people. Celoneth: I don't know what your native language is but there's a historical context to some words. Calling homosexuality a moral crime (or making it sound like that's what you're saying) is extremely offensive - not only because of its meaning, but because of the persecution of homosexuality through the legal system throughout Western culture. Comparing homosexuality to murder, even if that's not your intent just sounds bad, and even worse because bigots use those comparisons all the time. When I see something like that written, it jumps out at me and again it dilutes the point that you're trying to make. These aren't language issues, they're context issues - you place terms and concepts in your arguments that are bound to create controversy by their very meaning and those kind of things tend to take over from anything you originally intended. Its kind of like in the US when a politician says something stupid during a speech - it doesn't matter what smart things they've said - that thing becomes the discussion - perhaps its not fair but unfortunately expectable. Celoneth From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 23:31:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:31:18 -0000 Subject: Why we like the books so much (was: Wondering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The not-new (I won't say "old" ;-) )Carol wrote: > > I thought I had explained upthread why I like the books so much, but I can't find my detailed response. (It had to do with liking literary analysis and having a PhD in English and being fascinated by Snape.) Maybe I accidentally offlisted it? > ... > > Carol, who put a lot of time into her response to the other Carol's question and wants to know what happened to it! > Del replied: > It's still there, don't worry. Post number 33736 (I'm too lazy to try and remember how to make links). > > Del Carol again: Thanks, Del. I do know how to make links (just copy and paste the URL), so I'll do it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33736 What I can't do, evidently, is find my own posts, even using a search for posts made by me within the last week! Carol, thinking it's past time for a new eyeglasses prescription (or a less foggy brain) From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 00:45:25 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:45:25 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Hermeneutical Circles (was Re: Wondering) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47228A25.1050506@yahoo.com> Del: > The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from > the first post. Celoneth: > Things don't always come across written as you mean them - the fact > that so many people were confused by your post is evidence of that. This discussion has been fascinating to me on several levels, but one is at the level of hermeneutics. I've made no secret of the fact that I found Del's posts perfectly lucid, and it never occurred to me for a second that she was equating homosexuality with hebephilia. From parallel private e-mail discussions I've been having, it's also clear that I'm not the only one who did. However, a number of folk in this list did not, and hence Del is busy defending herself against a slew of things she says she did not say. Del insists she was perfectly clear in her distinctions, and the problem lies with people misreading her posts. Others insist the fault is Del's because she was unclear. So how is it that some find her posts clear, while others do not? I think the problem is that this whole discussion is running around in one big hermeneutical circle. One of the fundamental insights of hermeneutical theory is that the responsibility for determining the meaning of a text rests neither solely with the author nor with her readers, but is in fact a product of a dialog between the two. Both author and reader bring to that dialog a unique set of experiences and outlooks which shape both what is said and how it is interpreted (one recent post, for example, insisted Del should have been more aware of the larger context in which her posts were seen; Del replied that she knows nothing of that context because she doesn't run in those circles and therefore cannot be held responsible for them). I find myself wondering whether JKR has been having similar "issues". The way she views her characters, because she created them and has so many more ideas about them than what ended up in the canon, seems at time to be in stark contrast to her readers' views of them. A prime case in point is JKR's expressions of puzzlement over the strength of many readers' reactions to the Snape character. JKR thinks he's heroic; many readers find him creepy and disgusting. The mere fact that so many people can read the same books and have such contrastive reactions is simply a reflection of the varying backgrounds we all bring to the hermeneutical dialog. I think it would help tremendously if we all stopped and reflected a bit on the fact that this IS a dialog we're engaging in, and that it is not only perfectly possible, but almost inevitable, that an author's words will mean something different to us than they do to the author, and no one is to blame. --CJ From glaubman at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 26 23:18:06 2007 From: glaubman at sbcglobal.net (Sarah Glaubman) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:18:06 -0000 Subject: Distracted Message-ID: I'm writing this post because I can't concentrate on my work because all I can think about is Harry Potter. I had listened to books 1-6 as audio books a year and a half ago, when because of an illness I was having trouble reading books in print. Now I've been rereading some of them in print, which is even better. I was awake all night last night reading one (I had tried to go to sleep, but couldn't, so picked up the book again). I slept a little in the morning. Now I can't seem to work, partly because I'm sleep deprived, and partly because, although I have some interest in my work, it is Deathly Boring compared with reading Harry Potter. I feel as if now I know how it would feel to be addicted to drugs or something. I always thought it was good to get into good books--do I need to face the fact that this is actually a problem? Well, this is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but not completely. SG From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 27 01:14:11 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:14:11 -0000 Subject: Hermeneutical Circles (was Re: Wondering) In-Reply-To: <47228A25.1050506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > I find myself wondering whether JKR has been having similar "issues". > The way she views her characters, because she created them and has so > many more ideas about them than what ended up in the canon, seems at > time to be in stark contrast to her readers' views of them. A prime case > in point is JKR's expressions of puzzlement over the strength of many > readers' reactions to the Snape character. JKR thinks he's heroic; many > readers find him creepy and disgusting. colebiancardi: actually, JKR thinks of Snape as an anti-hero, who is a nasty person. She doesn't view him as "Harry" heroic at all. And many readers, regardless of how they view Snape, find him fanstinating (per all the posts on MAIN about Snape ;) colebiancardi From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 01:24:53 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:53 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47229365.3060801@yahoo.com> Del: > Granted it's been now a good couple of centuries in Western countries > that girls of 14 or 15 are not routinely married off anymore... Lessee, Juliet (of Romeo fame) was thirteen when we find her mother trying to marry her off to a much older Count Paris. Juliet's mother tells us that not only was she herself already a wife and mother at thirteen but that girls even younger than Juliet were already running around barefoot and pregnant. Yet I've never heard anyone suggest Paris was a pervert for lusting after young girls. Autre fois, autre temps. -CJ From cinders at voyager.net Sat Oct 27 01:26:03 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (cindersla) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:26:03 -0000 Subject: To Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I did get your message on the other board, and I had saved it so I could answer back, and there's been so many messages in the last few days that I couldn't find it to answer back. I so appreciate your letter. I am jealous of your degree. :) But I'm working on mine. I love your answer and it helps a lot, in my understanding of why people are this way, AND also with my own writing and what I need to work on. The biggest thing is character development apparently. hehe This mail wasn't really about the amount of messages I received. I wasn't bothered by that. It was the amazement that each topic seems to find its way back to the gay issue. There's been like hundreds of e-mails in the last few days, and a lot of them on the letter I had started but not many on that topic, most on the gay thing. That's actually what I meant by it. I don't care how many answers I got and I appreciate the ones I got (THANK YOU), it was my amazement that all the topics seem to go back to the other issue. I was just pointing out the obsession with that issue. I find it sort of fascinating. lol Thank you so much for your answers. I really do appreciate them. I'm also amazed at how people can keep up with all the mail lately here. :) The Other Carol From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 27 01:31:03 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:31:03 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: <47229365.3060801@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > Del: > > Granted it's been now a good couple of centuries in Western countries > > that girls of 14 or 15 are not routinely married off anymore... > > Lessee, Juliet (of Romeo fame) was thirteen when we find her mother > trying to marry her off to a much older Count Paris. Juliet's mother > tells us that not only was she herself already a wife and mother at > thirteen but that girls even younger than Juliet were already running > around barefoot and pregnant. Yet I've never heard anyone suggest Paris > was a pervert for lusting after young girls. > > Autre fois, autre temps. colebiancardi: last time I checked, that play was written over 400 years ago and it was set in a much earlier time period than the late 1500's. and women back in those days died young, due to childbirth complications or just plain ol' wore out by having too many children/miscarriages. times change. And if this happened today, yes, Count Paris would be a pervert. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 02:45:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:45:09 -0000 Subject: To Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "cindersla" wrote: > > I did get your message on the other board, and I had saved it so I > could answer back, and there's been so many messages in the last few > days that I couldn't find it to answer back. > > I so appreciate your letter. I am jealous of your degree. :) But I'm > working on mine. > > I love your answer and it helps a lot, in my understanding of why > people are this way, AND also with my own writing and what I need to > work on. The biggest thing is character development apparently. hehe > > This mail wasn't really about the amount of messages I received. I > wasn't bothered by that. It was the amazement that each topic seems > to find its way back to the gay issue. There's been like hundreds of > e-mails in the last few days, and a lot of them on the letter I had > started but not many on that topic, most on the gay thing. That's > actually what I meant by it. I don't care how many answers I got and > I appreciate the ones I got (THANK YOU), it was my amazement that all > the topics seem to go back to the other issue. I was just pointing > out the obsession with that issue. I find it sort of fascinating. lol > > Thank you so much for your answers. I really do appreciate them. I'm > also amazed at how people can keep up with all the mail lately > here. :) > > The Other Carol > Alla: Hee, what other Carol said, it is bad hair day, or week. This too will pass, I think. It is pretty normal for the list to concentrate one topic for few days, or more, depends on how hot this topic is. This one seems to be very, LOL. I am sure we will go back to Snape soon to discuss whether he killed DD or DD asked him to. Ooops, wrong year. Alla, loves this list and so many people here. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 27 02:55:30 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:55:30 -0000 Subject: To Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: Hee, what other Carol said, it is bad hair day, or week. This too will pass, I think. It is pretty normal for the list to concentrate one topic for few days, or more, depends on how hot this topic is. This one seems to be very, LOL. I am sure we will go back to Snape soon to discuss whether he killed DD or DD asked him to. Ooops, wrong year. Alla, loves this list and so many people here. Tiffany: It's pretty standard for a group to drag a topic out for a long time, esp. when either a hot button gets pressed or a controversial topic comes into play. I've been on lists where members have discussed threads for over a week or more, some even after the moderators have threatened to moderate or ban folks who refuse to drop the topic. The easiest way to spot a good leader in action is not by their actions, but the effect they have on others. I'm on 2 groups where even I am awed by the leadership skills of the owner & it's something for me to be impressed by someone else's leadership skills because of how good mine are. From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Oct 27 03:46:57 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:46:57 -0000 Subject: terminology of "homosexuality" Message-ID: The term homosexual can be used as an adjective to describe the sexual attractions and behaviors of same-sex oriented persons. Some argue that the use of "homosexual" as a noun is offensive, arguing that homosexual people are people first, homosexual being merely an attribute of their humanity. Also, some recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. Even as late as the 1990s, the "Read code" system, used by the National Health Service in Great Britain, classed male homosexuality and lesbianism under mental disorders, as conditions E2200 and E2201 respectively, although this system has since been replaced. The use of the word "homosexual" in describing individuals and same-sex relationships may also be inaccurate, as people involved in such relationships may identify as bisexual, pansexual, or another orientation. Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them. For instance, the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for School Employees advises that gay is the "preferred synonym for homosexual",[1] and goes on to advise avoiding the term homosexual as it is "clinical, distancing and archaic": Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, 'homosexual' is considered derogatory and the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are preferred. Homosexual places emphasis on sexuality and is to be avoided when describing a person. 'Gay' man or lesbian are the preferred nouns which stress cultural and social matters over sex. The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, American Heritage Dictionary, and the Committee on Lesbian and 'Gay' Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language all agree that "gay" is the preferred term. Likewise, the use of homosexuality to describe sexual behaviors between people of the same sex may be inaccurate, although it is not perceived as being as offensive as homosexual. People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. "Lesbian" refers specifically to women; gay can apply to both men and women, although unqualified usage would more often be referring to men. Other terms include same- gender-loving and same-sex-oriented. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 04:24:41 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:24:41 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Del replies: > We're still not exactly on the same page, since you say "you don't > associate his gayness", while I said that in my theory he's not gay at all. > > In my theory, DD is neither gay nor straight: he's attracted to > teenage boys. "Gay" and "straight" refer to attraction to adults, and DD is not attracted to adults at all in my theory. > Snip> > 3C- DD never showed any attraction to any adult. > 4C- DD showed strange moral weakness where some handsome boys were > concerned. > > And that's when the ephebophilia theory was born. > > You'll notice that in the final C list above, I don't mention DD being gay a single time. I do mention his being attracted to a fellow > teenage boy, but this in itself does not make him gay. And when taken together with 3C, it points to DD *not* being gay at all. Tonks: Allow me to throw a bit more wood on the fire. As if there were not enough now. lol. I remember learning something about the stages of development related to sexual orientation when studying Psychology in college, but don???t remember it in detail. However, I just found this on the Internet: ???Heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth can all experience same-gender sexual attraction and/or activity around puberty. Such behavior, including sexual play with same-gender peers, crushes on same-gender adults, or sexual fantasies about same-gender people are normal for pre-teens and young teens and are not necessarily related to sexual orientation.??? (from this website: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/circlesofsexuality3.htm) JKR has said that DD is gay. I am not happy about it, but ???it is what it is???, she says. However if you want to make a case for her being wrong, this might be the angle to take. Kids in early adolescent can be attracted to a member of the same sex and ever engage in sexual experimentation with them and not be gay, but straight. It is a stage, has a name I think, but I don???t remember it. Tonks_op From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 04:29:24 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:29:24 -0000 Subject: Podcast of HP fanfic Message-ID: zgirnius: I write some Harry Potter fanfiction, and was recently thrilled to learn that my story "Return to Hogwarts" was selected to be read on FictionAlley's podcast, "Spellcast Readings". The story is about Snape on his first morning at Hogwarts as Headmaster. I'm too thrilled not to tell anyone who will listen, haha. A link for anyone interested... http://cdn.libsyn.com/spellcast/SCR202.mp3 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 04:30:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:30:13 -0000 Subject: Distracted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Sarah Glaubman" wrote: > > I'm writing this post because I can't concentrate on my work because all I can think about is Harry Potter. I had listened to books 1-6 as audio books a year and a half ago, when because of an illness I was having trouble reading books in print. Now I've been rereading some of them in print, which is even better. I was awake all night last night reading one (I had tried to go to sleep, but couldn't, so picked up the book again). I slept a little in the morning. Now I can't seem to work, partly because I'm sleep deprived, and partly because, although I have > some interest in my work, it is Deathly Boring compared with reading Harry Potter. > > I feel as if now I know how it would feel to be addicted to drugs or something. I always thought it was good to get into good books-- do I need to face the fact that this is actually a problem? > Tonks: LOL. Welcome to the obsessive world of Harry Potter fans. We are all in the same boat as you or we would not be here now. Have a couple of butterbeers and check back with us in the AM. At least you don't have a name like mine or some of the others here. So I guess you are not as obsessed as you think. You still have aways to go. Heck, there are people who have an actual tatoo of the dark mark on their arm. On a scale of 1 to 10, you are probably a 5 or so. Tonks_op From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 27 06:55:57 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:55:57 -0000 Subject: 1) why are we obsessed with Potterverse? 2) stupid me to touch this topic Message-ID: Sarah Glaubman wrote in : << I'm writing this post because I can't concentrate on my work because all I can think about is Harry Potter. >> Oh, Sarah, I know the feeling! I don't know WHY this series had this effect on me; if I knew, I would have answered the question of The New Carol in of << Why do people treat them like real people, take the books so seriously, and talk about JKR like she's the devil instead of just a writer that wrote a few books.>> I was almost as obsessed with The Lord of the Rings for a short time when I was 11, and then I was a Trekkie when I was 12 (all the girls in my class that year became Trekkies because the most popular girl was one), and only like 10 years ago, I got so into my frp character in the Viking campaign that I wrote her entire biography and started on the biographies of her ancestors. This shows that I had the ability to obsess over a fictional world and fictional people before I encountered the Potter oeuvre. I play frpg once a month since 1985 with the same people and the same GM and a number of different campaigns, so I don't know why I'm passionately into our Viking campaign and would be perfectly content if the Japan and Space campaigns just vanished away. If I knew, that MIGHT be relevant to Carol Cinders's question. As it is, all I can offer Cinders (Cinderella?) is that the Potter oeuvre is narrated by a friendly, humorous tone of voice, takes place in a world where whimsy is part of the natural order (such as punny names like Diagon Alley), and there are a lot of sexy men. Susan wrote in : << Personally, I do NOT consider it acceptable or normal for grown men to be interested in or attracted to young girls, or teenaged girls. I think it's all about the eroticization of girls in our culture, and I think it is sick and morally wrong. It's about seeing women and girls as property -- it's no coincidence that most sex crimes ARE committed against young girls. It's no coincidence that most of the international sex trafficking is in women and girls. Girls cannot be independent or think for themselves as well as older adult independent women, so some men like them better. >> In the first place, people can't control to whom they are attracted. All people can control is their behavior. If people are unacceptable because of what goes on inside their minds regardless of how they behave, what is the motivation to behave well? In the second place, if a man is visually attracted to a female human who is 5-foot-5 in bare feet and wears 36DD bra size with a thin waist and a round ass and long, muscular but shapely legs, and he thinks from her appearance that she's over 18, and then maybe he sees her driver's license and she's 17, at which he is horrified and starts being very mean and unfriendly to her so no one will think he was attracted, I can't believe that's a perversion. A sexual orientation that puts too much importance on visual appearance, but lots of people have that, including me. That's why pin-up pictures and centerfold magazines are profitable. In the third place, I think it's ridiculous to say that the above man sought out an underaged girl because underaged people are more vulnerable. He was attracted to big tits and no wrinkles, not to underage. And it's not about the status of females. My bus home from work every day goes right past Loyola High School's football field, and I stare out the bus window at the pretty *boys* as we pass. (The rest of the trip I scan sidewalks and front lawns in hope of seeing a cat.) << Not all men. I reject that analysis because I think there are a ton of moral and upright men who prefer women their own age, and do NOT find little girls or teenaged girls attractive. >> I know there are a ton of men who are 40 and 50 and 60 years old who marry women who are 25 and 30 years old, which is not underaged, but is not 'their own age' either. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 27 11:07:28 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:07:28 -0000 Subject: 'one of the reasons that some people don't like the books' Message-ID: Lizzyben wrote in : << "So you ask what lessons, I suppose. The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it's one of the reasons that some people don't like the books" :headdesk: :headdesk: Ow. Anyways, that just stunned me. I can't belive she really implied that anyone who doesn't like the messages of the books is bigoted & intolerant, or threatened by her controversial anti-Nazi stance. >> Until I read your post, it never occurred to me that anyone could have understood that quote other than the way it had sounded to me. Now I understand your interpretation. Mine is that 'people [who] don't like the books' means 'people who agitate to ban or burn the books', not just people who didn't happen to enjoy reading them, and that 'some' means 'some of'. Thus 'one of the reasons' of 'some of the people who agitate to ban or burn the books' is that they don't like the anti-bigotry moral sermon. I'm inclined to think that it's only a small fraction of those people whose objection is that there is interracial dating at Hogwarts or that the mockery of Sirius's family's genealogy represents mockery of their own boasted genealogy. But a fair number ought to have noticed that they were being caricatured as the Dursleys. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 27 13:17:22 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:17:22 -0000 Subject: Beware! Re: Podcast of HP fanfic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > zgirnius: > I'm too thrilled not to tell anyone who will listen, haha. A link for > anyone interested... > > http://cdn.libsyn.com/spellcast/SCR202.mp3 Potioncat: Take heed. Beware. Constant Vigilance! I've read this story, and suffered for it. I came close on several occasions of citing its events in discussions on the main list. Luckily I recalled before fingers hit keys that it is a fanfic and not canon. It is very, very good. This is the first podcast I've listened to. The reader does a great job. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 27 14:12:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:12:44 -0000 Subject: Distracted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Sarah Glaubman" wrote: > I feel as if now I know how it would feel to be addicted to drugs >or something. I always thought it was good to get into good books-- >do I need to face the fact that this is actually a problem? > > Well, this is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but not completely. Potioncat: I'm not a doctor, but I watch some on TV. And, erm, yeah, it could be a problem. (Desperately hoping no one holds up a mirror.) It really can be a very fun, time consuming hobby. I use the excuse that I need the mental exercise and I don't like crossword puzzles. (I don't like cross words at all so why would I put them in a grid?) I'd suggest you keep the HP and change jobs. Then get things into balance. That'll be two Knuts, please. Tonks frowns at Potioncat. "You can't charge money for advice here!" Potioncat looks smug and answers, "Requiring payment for services adds credibility. Who would listen to advice from someone named Tonks or Potioncat without a little credibility?" From cinders at voyager.net Sat Oct 27 15:15:27 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (cindersla) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:15:27 -0000 Subject: 1) why are we obsessed with Potterverse? 2) stupid me to touch this topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Sarah Glaubman wrote in > : > > << I'm writing this post because I can't concentrate on my work > because all I can think about is Harry Potter. >> > > Oh, Sarah, I know the feeling! I don't know WHY this series had this > effect on me; if I knew, I would have answered the question of The New > Carol in > of << Why do people treat them like real people, take the books so > seriously, and talk about JKR like she's the devil instead of just a > writer that wrote a few books.>> > > I was almost as obsessed with The Lord of the Rings for a short time > when I was 11, and then I was a Trekkie when I was 12 (all the girls > in my class that year became Trekkies because the most popular girl > was one), and only like 10 years ago, I got so into my frp character > in the Viking campaign that I wrote her entire biography and started > on the biographies of her ancestors. This shows that I had the ability > to obsess over a fictional world and fictional people before I > encountered the Potter oeuvre. > > I play frpg once a month since 1985 with the same people and the same > GM and a number of different campaigns, so I don't know why I'm > passionately into our Viking campaign and would be perfectly content > if the Japan and Space campaigns just vanished away. If I knew, that > MIGHT be relevant to Carol Cinders's question. > > As it is, all I can offer Cinders (Cinderella?) is that the Potter > oeuvre is narrated by a friendly, humorous tone of voice, takes place > in a world where whimsy is part of the natural order (such as punny > names like Diagon Alley), and there are a lot of sexy men. THank you. That was honest. I guess I've just never been that obsessed, though "almost" with Harry, but not to the extent it is here. But I did join this group so obviously, I do like them a lot. As for the Cinders thing, yes, short for Cinderella. To remind myself that my dreams can still come true and never to give up hope. :) Cinders (Carol) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 15:41:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:41:40 -0000 Subject: The HP obsession (Was: To Carol) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: cindersla" wrote: > > I did get your message on the other board, and I had saved it so I could answer back, and there's been so many messages in the last few days that I couldn't find it to answer back. > > I so appreciate your letter. I am jealous of your degree. :) But I'm working on mine. > > I love your answer and it helps a lot, in my understanding of why people are this way, AND also with my own writing and what I need to work on. The biggest thing is character development apparently. hehe > > This mail wasn't really about the amount of messages I received. I wasn't bothered by that. It was the amazement that each topic seems to find its way back to the gay issue. There's been like hundreds of e-mails in the last few days, and a lot of them on the letter I had started but not many on that topic, most on the gay thing. That's actually what I meant by it. I don't care how many answers I got and I appreciate the ones I got (THANK YOU), it was my amazement that all the topics seem to go back to the other issue. I was just pointing out the obsession with that issue. I find it sort of fascinating. lol > > Thank you so much for your answers. I really do appreciate them. I'm also amazed at how people can keep up with all the mail lately here. :) > > The Other Carol > Carol responds: You're welcome. I'm just wondering why I couldn't find my own message. And don't worry; certain topics dominate for awhile but even the variety of emotions aroused by Gay!DD will die down when we've all had our say. A lot of us are also incurably obsessed with Snape; you'll find tons of posts about him on the main list. If our posts clog your inbox, you can always opt to read online from the site itself. That's what I do. (If you think it's hard to keep up now, imagine how it was when we had thousands of messages per month coming in. IIRC, those times were usually right before or right after a book came out. (I just checked the stats for the main list: 7,267 messages in June 2003, astoundingly topped by 8,234 the following month (July 2003). Thanks to the temporary three-post limit during peak response times (and the semi-permanent five-post limit, which perhaps the List Elves will consider lifting if things get slow in a year or two????), the numbers have been more manageable in recent years. In fact, January and September of this year are tied for the lowest complete month at 1,083 each. October may well come up even shorter, with a mere 943 posts so far and only four-odd days to go. Aside to Sarah G., who just posted on her HP obsession in the "Distracted" thread: You're not alone! There are currently 27,459 members of the main list (not all of whom actually post, obviously!) At a guess, some of those members are now inactive and just never bothered to resign from the list; how many are compulsive lurkers, I can't even guess. Still, considering that many members were primarily interested in speculating on what would happen in future books, that's a large number. Maybe one of the List Elves can give us an idea how that compares to the membership pre-DH or at other peak periods. Carol, who finds the statistics fascinating and hopes she hasn't bored everybody else From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 16:23:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:23:21 -0000 Subject: Podcast of HP fanfic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > zgirnius: > I write some Harry Potter fanfiction, and was recently thrilled to > learn that my story "Return to Hogwarts" was selected to be read on > FictionAlley's podcast, "Spellcast Readings". The story is about Snape > on his first morning at Hogwarts as Headmaster. > > I'm too thrilled not to tell anyone who will listen, haha. A link for > anyone interested... > > http://cdn.libsyn.com/spellcast/SCR202.mp3 > Carol responds: Great fanfic, Zara, and congratulations. (I seldom read, much less listen to fanfic, but since it was by you and about Snape, how could I resist?) Not quite the way I envisioned his first day, but we all have our own reading of Snape, whom I consider to be JKR's greatest creation. For one thing, I think he would have kept the gates locked, ostensibly to keep the students inside, just as he blocked all the secret passages, presumably with the same rationale, both real and ostensible. I liked the contrast between his assumed persona and his real self, though the reader made him seem harsh rather than suave, as I imagine him to be in his handling of McGonagall amd other staff members. (I predict that, in the next decade or so, more serious literary criticism will focus on him than on any other single character, with the possible temporary exception of post-revelation!DD, but, of course, I could be wrong, and the focus may be on Harry, who is, after all, the protagonist of the series. ) BTW, I loved (for a different reason) the introducer's (is that the right term?) "the reason for this is because of the fact that"(!) Could we have a little teeny bit more additional extra added redundancy, please? His English teachers must have had nightmares from his papers. One new grey hair per redundancy. . . . No!!!! Carol, wondering why the reader of your story gave Filch a Cockney accent From cinders at voyager.net Sat Oct 27 16:47:15 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (cindersla) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:47:15 -0000 Subject: The HP obsession (Was: To Carol) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > You're welcome. I'm just wondering why I couldn't find my own message. > And don't worry; certain topics dominate for awhile but even the > variety of emotions aroused by Gay!DD will die down when we've all had > our say. A lot of us are also incurably obsessed with Snape; you'll > find tons of posts about him on the main list. > > If our posts clog your inbox, you can always opt to read online from > the site itself. That's what I do. (If you think it's hard to keep up > now, imagine how it was when we had thousands of messages per month > coming in. IIRC, those times were usually right before or right after > a book came out. (I just checked the stats for the main list: 7,267 > messages in June 2003, astoundingly topped by 8,234 the following > month (July 2003). Thanks to the temporary three-post limit during > peak response times (and the semi-permanent five-post limit, which > perhaps the List Elves will consider lifting if things get slow in a > year or two????), the numbers have been more manageable in recent > years. In fact, January and September of this year are tied for the > lowest complete month at 1,083 each. October may well come up even > shorter, with a mere 943 posts so far and only four-odd days to go. > > Aside to Sarah G., who just posted on her HP obsession in the > "Distracted" thread: You're not alone! There are currently 27,459 > members of the main list (not all of whom actually post, obviously!) > At a guess, some of those members are now inactive and just never > bothered to resign from the list; how many are compulsive lurkers, I > can't even guess. Still, considering that many members were primarily > interested in speculating on what would happen in future books, that's > a large number. Maybe one of the List Elves can give us an idea how > that compares to the membership pre-DH or at other peak periods. > > Carol, who finds the statistics fascinating and hopes she hasn't bored > everybody else > Wow, I think I'm glad that I joined after that. Though for awhile there was still just too much mail to keep up with, so I just mass delete a lot, plus I'm a member of a lot of other lists (not related to Harry, but to writing and sports and things), so I do a lot of mass deleting. People ask me well, why did I join so many lists. That's cuz that's what I am interested in, and I figure if I learn even a few things each day, thats more than I would have learned if I hadn't joined. :) The one thing I have definately learned from all of this for my own writing is that I need to work on character development. :) The Harry novels were what made me start writing children's novels. Before that I wrote romance. So the books changed me in a lot of ways, too, and taught me a lot about my own writing. :) Cinders (Carol) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 18:15:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:15:14 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations Message-ID: We seem to be divided into roughly three camps regarding JKR's revelations, those who want to know everything JKR has to say and regard those revelations as canonical, those who want a few "facts" or clarifications but not the author's opinions about her characters, and those who wish she had not said anything and don't want her to say any more because we want to interpret the books for ourselves. (I guess we all know which group I'm in.) A fellow list member was kind enough to alert me to this article, which pretty much sums up my own feelings on the matter, and does so in a clever, enjoyable way that even readers who don't share the writer's view may find entertaining. It's called "Harry Potter and the Author Who Wouldn't Shut Up": http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-rowlingcolumn_1024gl.State.Edition1.2292bdc.html Enjoy! Carol, wishing that JKR would learn to say, "I'll leave that to your imagination" From fluorite at swbell.net Sat Oct 27 17:06:27 2007 From: fluorite at swbell.net (Jeff) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:06:27 -0000 Subject: GMA Message-ID: Hi Everyone. It is confirmed. I will be on Good Morning America this Monday. The piece will center on the 1.23 ct diamond that a girl found on my trip to Hot Springs this year. Very cool. At this point, I do not know the exact time slot. Jeff Starr >^.^< From glaubman at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 28 00:04:48 2007 From: glaubman at sbcglobal.net (Sarah Glaubman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:04:48 -0000 Subject: Distracted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Welcome to the obsessive world of Harry Potter fans. We are all in > the same boat as you or we would not be here now. Have a couple of > butterbeers and check back with us in the AM. At least you don't > have a name like mine or some of the others here. So I guess you are > not as obsessed as you think. Thanks for your kind words. Actually, I wanted to join the main HP for grownups group under a pseudonym, but couldn't figure out how to do it. I was going around Yahoo websites, trying to create a new profile or something, but I wasted more time and didn't figure it out. So if anyone could give me a tip on how to participate in a Yahoo group under a pseudonym, I'd be interested. About my work, I have an assignment to write for an environmental magazine, which I'm really happy about, but the next thing I am trying to do is read the Report of the Plastics Task Force, which really is not very exciting compared with HP. Maybe Arthur Weasley would be interested, with his interest in Muggle technology. Maybe he would be interested to know how we ingenious Muggles are destroying the planet. But maybe it's more in a class with Percy's report on cauldron thicknesses. Sarah From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 28 15:27:58 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:27:58 -0000 Subject: Beware! Re: Podcast of HP fanfic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > zgirnius: > > > I'm too thrilled not to tell anyone who will listen, haha. A link for > > anyone interested... > > > > http://cdn.libsyn.com/spellcast/SCR202.mp3 > > > Potioncat: > Take heed. Beware. Constant Vigilance! > > I've read this story, and suffered for it. I came close on several > occasions of citing its events in discussions on the main list. Luckily > I recalled before fingers hit keys that it is a fanfic and not canon. > > It is very, very good. > > This is the first podcast I've listened to. The reader does a great job. Jen: Very good story! I'm really impressed. I never thought much about how Snape dealt with his return to Hogwarts and hostile colleagues. Won't say anymore to spoil it except...Bellatrix Lestrange - haha, good idea and written perfectly for the characters involved. From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 28 15:40:36 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 28 Oct 2007 15:40:36 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/28/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1193586036.15.88824.m49@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 28, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 28 15:46:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:46:54 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > A fellow list member was kind enough to alert me to this article, > which pretty much sums up my own feelings on the matter, and does so > in a clever, enjoyable way that even readers who don't share the > writer's view may find entertaining. It's called "Harry Potter and the > Author Who Wouldn't Shut Up": > > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN- rowlingcolumn_1024gl.State.Edition1.2292bdc.html > Pippin: The difference is that if JKR ever said that Harry wasn't a real person, that he's just a character in a book and doesn't exist outside the matrix of words that she's written about him, a million children would go to bed in tears. And their parents would justly be furious. Of course aside from the truly troubled, no one believes in Harry. But as my young cousin once said of Santa, "I don't believe in him. But I like to pretend I do!" If a parent says, in answer to one of those awkward questions about chimneys, "I leave it to your imagination" then the game is over. And that's too bad, IMO. Maybe the fandom will split the way the Sherlock Holmes fandom has, between those who study the literary works of Arthur Conan Doyle, and those whose fondest pleasure is to pretend that there really was a Watson and a Holmes, and Doyle was simply their somewhat careless literary agent. I've heard relations are strained, so I hope not. Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 28 17:32:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:32:30 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > The difference is that if JKR ever said that Harry wasn't a real person, > that he's just a character in a book and doesn't exist outside the matrix > of words that she's written about him, a million children would go to > bed in tears. And their parents would justly be furious. > va32h: I find that just plain silly. Children are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between fiction and reality. I have three of them, and none of them would be moved to tears at the "revelation" that Harry Potter is not real. Even the four year old grasps that "Harry Potter" is really a boy called "Daniel Radcliffe" dressed in a costume. Just like "Hannah Montana" is a girl called "Miley Cyrus" dressed in a blond wig. Any kid old enough to read the book is old enough to hear the shocking news that it's a work of fiction. va32h From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 28 18:45:03 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:45:03 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin: The difference is that if JKR ever said that Harry wasn't a real person, that he's just a character in a book and doesn't exist outside the matrix of words that she's written about him, a million children would go to bed in tears. And their parents would justly be furious. Of course aside from the truly troubled, no one believes in Harry. But as my young cousin once said of Santa, "I don't believe in him. But I like to pretend I do!" If a parent says, in answer to one of those awkward questions about chimneys, "I leave it to your imagination" then the game is over. And that's too bad, IMO. Maybe the fandom will split the way the Sherlock Holmes fandom has, between those who study the literary works of Arthur Conan Doyle, and those whose fondest pleasure is to pretend that there really was a Watson and a Holmes, and Doyle was simply their somewhat careless literary agent. I've heard relations are strained, so I hope not. Pippin Tiffany: I see it in a similar light to Pippin, Harry is only as real outside of the books & movies as we let him be. It's a lot like any other famous other literary, TV, or movie character, how much life outside of the canon the person has is up to the people who are in love with it. I think that JKR is right to give him life outside of the books because it would be a nightmare scenario in terms of therapy bills & mental health issues because of how hooked into Potter both in & out of the books & movies that folks can get. It's up to the actual person to decide how real that Harry himself, Hogwarts, the Potterverse, & WW are. I know of folks who have their homes decorated with Potter stuff like it's a museum. I don't really fear a split in the fandom of Potter, but there'll always be some folks who treat it like Star Trek & those who aren't so passionate & obsessive over it. Potter is my 3rd passionate hobby in life after music & card games; both have been around for so long that nothing could knock them off their respective mantles. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 28 19:03:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:03:44 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tiffany: > > I see it in a similar light to Pippin, Harry is only as real outside > of the books & movies as we let him be. It's a lot like any other > famous other literary, TV, or movie character, how much life outside > of the canon the person has is up to the people who are in love with > it. > > I think that JKR is right to give him life outside of the books > because it would be a nightmare scenario in terms of therapy bills & > mental health issues because of how hooked into Potter both in & out > of the books & movies that folks can get. It's up to the actual > person to decide how real that Harry himself, Hogwarts, the > Potterverse, & WW are. I know of folks who have their homes > decorated with Potter stuff like it's a museum. > > I don't really fear a split in the fandom of Potter, but there'll > always be some folks who treat it like Star Trek & those who aren't > so passionate & obsessive over it. Potter is my 3rd passionate hobby > in life after music & card games; both have been around for so long > that nothing could knock them off their respective mantles. Magpie: But the point isn't whether or not Harry has a life outside of what we see. If you think of Harry as "real" even if it's only in your imagination (and if anybody would need therapy at being told that a fictional character fictional, then they already need therapy) then Harry alread has a life outside the page. Even if you don't think of him that way he does. That's how fiction works. The article's author isn't saying JKR should not think of Harry as having more to him than what's on the page, he's saying that everybody will fill him in for themselves off the page and when she just throws out "this is the way to imagine this" when she's talking about something off-page it's cutting into the reader's experience. Plenty of authors strike a balance between answering questions and telling people what to think and what to imagine. Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more real" when she throws out random facts that are outside of canon. Others of us don't like it at all. -m From ekrdg at verizon.net Sun Oct 28 19:23:02 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:23:02 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Distracted References: Message-ID: <00c501c81998$101f0190$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> > > I'm writing this post because I can't concentrate on my work because all I can think about is Harry Potter. I had listened to books 1-6 as audio books a year and a half ago, when because of an illness I was having trouble reading books in print. Now I've been rereading some of them in print, which is even better. I was awake all night last night reading one (I had tried to go to sleep, but couldn't, so picked up the book again). I slept a little in the morning. Now I can't seem to work, partly because I'm sleep deprived, and partly because, although I have > some interest in my work, it is Deathly Boring compared with reading Harry Potter. > > I feel as if now I know how it would feel to be addicted to drugs or something. I always thought it was good to get into good books-- do I need to face the fact that this is actually a problem? > I've been listening to the books on my iPod and have started listening to it falling asleep (a behavior I would never have consented to prior to HP !). Friday night I couldn't sleep so I again continued listening to DH. I fell asleep in one chapter and woke about 6 hours later still listening to it. It's a whole subliminal HP brainwashing I've got going on. I turned it off and resumsed sleep only to have a nightmare about Lord Voldemort. I never considered him scary until now ! I have with me at all times either a HP book or my iPod that has all the books on it. That way even when I can't pick up a book and read.... I can put the iPod in and listen ! :-) Kimberly From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 28 20:10:49 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:10:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: But the point isn't whether or not Harry has a life outside of what we see. If you think of Harry as "real" even if it's only in your imagination (and if anybody would need therapy at being told that a fictional character fictional, then they already need therapy) then Harry alread has a life outside the page. Even if you don't think of him that way he does. That's how fiction works. Tiffany: I know how fiction works because I've read a lot of fictional works on a whole lot of subjects from nuclear wars to battling evil. I know that Potter himself has a life outside the page, but it's up to each person to decide how hooked into it they get. Magpie: The article's author isn't saying JKR should not think of Harry as having more to him than what's on the page, he's saying that everybody will fill him in for themselves off the page and when she just throws out "this is the way to imagine this" when she's talking about something off-page it's cutting into the reader's experience. Plenty of authors strike a balance between answering questions and telling people what to think and what to imagine. Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more real" when she throws out random facts that are outside of canon. Others of us don't like it at all. -m Tiffany: I personally don't mind the relevation that DD was gay after the canonical novels were done because I had my suspicions before I even read page one of DH. I like when there's outside facts not supported by canon myself because anyone can speculate & form opinions when they think that there's evidence to do so. Heck, I'm pretty sure that the little tidbits from JKR are far from over at all because the Potterverse doesn't end with the canonical novels, at least to me. From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 28 20:40:26 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:40:26 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4724F3BA.60405@fastmail.us> Tiffany B. Clark wrote: > There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that > it's lesbians and gays who molest children I haven't seen any of that. There are one or two people who are suggesting that the canon evidence is a better fit for *Dumbledore in particular* being someone who is attracted to (not acting on it) young boys *instead of* being gay. >....one of them finally > showed his true colors by saying that he had no sympathy for the > muggleborns in Diagon Alley (why didn't they just go off into the > Muggle World and get a job? Why were they so weakwilled?) The posts in that direction have been actually showing disbelief (i.e., criticizing JKR as a writer for making them unable to defend themselves) rather than "blaming the (let's not forget, fictional) victims". --Random832 From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 28 20:49:13 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:49:13 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Wondering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4724F5C9.8020709@fastmail.us> lizzyben04 wrote: > I actually don't have a huge problem w/arguing that DD is an > ephebophile, heck, I've argued that he might be a psychopath. But > what I don't understand is the leap so many people are making > from "he's gay" to "maybe he's a pedophile!" Nobody is making that leap. Some people are going straight from "He was attracted to (young) Gellert Grindelwald" to there, while *rejecting* "he's gay". Accepting one part of an interview answer while discounting the other part does seem strange (personally, I think that all her interview answers are worth about their weight in gold), but they've explained their logic as "DD was in love with Grindelwald" is a statement of "fact" (i.e. saying what happened) and "DD is gay" as a statement of interpretation of that fact. --Random832 From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 21:27:34 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:27:34 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: <4724F5C9.8020709@fastmail.us> Message-ID: Random832 wrote: > Accepting one part of an interview answer while discounting the other > part does seem strange Del replies: Yeah, I know. I even mentioned that this is one reason I don't believe in my own "DD is ephebophile" theory: because it would make more sense to either believe everything JKR said in that interview, or nothing at all. > (personally, I think that all her interview answers are worth about > their weight in gold), I'm confused: what's the weight of an answer? > but they've > explained their logic as "DD was in love with Grindelwald" is a > statement of "fact" (i.e. saying what happened) and "DD is gay" as a > statement of interpretation of that fact. Exactly, and this logic is based on reality: I've read over and over again that falling in love, during the teenage years, with someone of the same sex, doesn't in any way mean that one is gay. So since we know only of GG as DD's love interest, I am forced to consider that "DD is gay" has no more than the weight of an opinion ( ;-) ) By the way, Random: are you me? I mean, do I suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder, and I don't know it? Mind you, you could be me and not know it either... Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 21:37:31 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:37:31 -0000 Subject: Hermeneutical Circles In-Reply-To: <47228A25.1050506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hermeneutical, I like that word ;-) CJ wrote: > I find myself wondering whether JKR has been having similar > "issues". The way she views her characters, because she created > them and has so many more ideas about them than what ended up in > the canon, seems at time to be in stark contrast to her readers' > views of them. A prime case in point is JKR's expressions of > puzzlement over the strength of many readers' reactions to the > Snape character. JKR thinks he's heroic; many readers find him > creepy and disgusting. Del replies: This perfectly applies to me, if you replace Snape by DD. Up until DH, I didn't completely agree with JKR's description of DD as "the epitome of goodness" or something, but still, I liked the guy very much. Since DH, though, (and I do mean DH, NOT the "DD is gay" interview) I find him quite "creepy and disgusting" indeed (though obviously not for the same reasons that others find Snape creepy and disgusting). And JKR's earlier description of DD as "the epitome of goodness" now makes me gag. That's pretty obviously *not* a change of mind she intended to create in me with DH, but it's still what happened. Because of my personal values, views, outlook, experience, and whatnot, I now find DD's attitude very much less than admirable. Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 22:58:34 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:58:34 -0000 Subject: One reporter-JKR's revelations: Chapter & Verse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Tiffany: > > > > I see it in a similar light to Pippin, Harry is only as > > real outside of the books & movies as we let him be. ... > > Magpie: > But the point isn't whether or not Harry has a life outside > of what we see. ... > > The article's author isn't saying JKR should not think of > Harry as having more to him than what's on the page, he's > saying that everybody will fill him in for themselves off > the page .... Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more > real" when she throws out random facts that are outside of > canon. Others of us don't like it at all. > > -m > bboyminn: Here is something we need to consider. When JKR makes statements that occur beyond the end of books Seven, I don't think she is intending to dictate this to us as if it were canon. She seems, most often when answering these question, to answer with /qualified/ statements. In otherword, 'I picture...', 'I thought...', 'It seemed to me that...'. For example, she never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always thought of him as gay'. In other words, she is imagining the Potterverse future beyond book seven the same way that we are imagining it. She isn't flatly saying, Harry went to work for the Aurors Office. She is saying she imagines Harry working there. She pictures Ron helping his brother in the Joke Shop. It seems that Nevillie might marry Hannah, but that is JKR imagination, she has not written it down in any book or official publication, so I think we are free to imagine our own alternatives. So, my point is until she officially writes something down, we and she are free to imagine what we want. We and she are even free to change our mind from day to day. Right now, she imagines that Harry went to work for the Aurors Office, but if she decides to write the further adventures of Harry Potter, the needs of that particular book and adventure may call for Harry to have done something else. When she write those further adventure and Harry does do something else then and only then does it become an absolute fact. Until then it is merely the fluid speculations of the author, and that shouldn't inhibit our own fluid every changing speculations. As many years of fan fiction should attest, the authors imagination does not limit the universe. There is plenty of off-page time that can be filled in with the imaginations of creative writers. As to specifically, JKR saying the Dumbledore was gay. For me that makes Dumbledore's story all the more sad and tragic. Imagine how such a brilliant man with no equal felt when he finally met what he assumed was an equal. Someone with whom he could discuss magic and philosophy at depth beyond which the average mind can not see. Plus, Grindlewald was young and beautiful. It is easy to see how even a straight man could become infatuated with this person. Then imagine how crushing it was when Grindlewald showed his true colors, compounding the event by the death of Dumbledore's sister, preceded by the loss of his mother and father, and the estrangement of his brother. His one infatuation, had cost him everything personal in his life; everything of value. That doesn't strike me as a good advertisement for love. I can see that tragic event coloring and inhibiting Dumbledore for the rest of his life. It all seems very very sad to me. So, part of my point is that I think at this stage JKR just considers herself another fan. She imagines the future she imagines, and we are free to imagine alternatives. If she ever feels the need to write down Harry and the gangs future then it takes on a more permanent air. Still even then, if she qualifies her statement as she sometimes does now, it does not make her written statements absolute. It merely makes them her opinion of what happen. Now if she eventually writes a literary work chronicling Harry's future life in story form, that becomes canon. But you know what, canon has never inhibited the imaginations of wildly creative fan fiction writers. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From thistle307 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 18:52:05 2007 From: thistle307 at yahoo.com (thistle307) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Subject: Book Clubs/serious fiction discussion Message-ID: I would like to find some other active forums or discussion groups that deal with serious fiction more generally-i.e. other than specific authors or books of one author. I am looking for a group that chooses one or more titles to discuss and focuses on those for a period of time. Does anyone know of such a group that deals primarily with contemporary serious fiction? Thanks in advance, Thistle From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 29 03:56:58 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:56:58 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Pippin: > The difference is that if JKR ever said that Harry wasn't a real person, > that he's just a character in a book and doesn't exist outside the matrix > of words that she's written about him, a million children would go to > bed in tears. And their parents would justly be furious. > > Of course aside from the truly troubled, no one believes in Harry. What? What exactly do you mean? Of course, Harry is real (just because it's happening inside my head, doesn't mean it's not real). It's an alternative universe. I might go there any time now. Of course, if you don't believe in it, you can't go there... Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 29 04:00:28 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:00:28 -0000 Subject: Wondering In-Reply-To: <4724F3BA.60405@fastmail.us> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > Tiffany B. Clark wrote: > > > There are two or three people who persist in spreading the lie that > > it's lesbians and gays who molest children > > I haven't seen any of that. There are one or two people who are > suggesting that the canon evidence is a better fit for *Dumbledore in > particular* being someone who is attracted to (not acting on it) young > boys *instead of* being gay. > Go over to the Leaky Cauldron or other fan sites..plenty of people are confusing being gay with child sexual abuse. Susan > From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 05:59:35 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:59:35 -0000 Subject: Distracted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > I'm not a doctor, but I watch some on TV. And, erm, yeah, it could be a problem. (Desperately hoping no one holds up a mirror.) (snip)> I'd suggest you keep the HP and change jobs. Then get things into balance. > > That'll be two Knuts, please. > > Tonks frowns at Potioncat. "You can't charge money for advice here!" > > Potioncat looks smug and answers, "Requiring payment for services > adds credibility. Who would listen to advice from someone named Tonks > or Potioncat without a little credibility?" > Tonks: lol... 'Tonks' and 'Potioncat' don't sound professional? Hum...By the way, I don't see your license to practice my dear. Oh.. wait.. I let mine expire ... well, anyway I use to have one. My fee was more than two Knuts, so "Distracted" is getting a deal from you anyway. Tonks_op Oh heck... Let's just all have a round of butterbeer. Where is Winky? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 06:09:53 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:09:53 -0000 Subject: Distracted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Sarah Glaubman" wrote: > Thanks for your kind words. Actually, I wanted to join the main HP for grownups group under a pseudonym, but couldn't figure out how to do it. I was going around Yahoo > websites, trying to create a new profile or something, but I wasted more time and didn't figure it out. So if anyone could give me a tip on how to participate in a Yahoo group under a pseudonym, I'd be interested. Tonks: The easiest way is just go to yahoo mail and start a new account. I have tons of them. It only takes 5 minutes. Make up a HP name. You might have to think a bit since many are taken, that is the hardest part. Or take the name of someone and add DA or OP after it depending on if they are in the DA or OP. I kinda consider the OP after my name as like what a nun would have after her's for the order that she is in. Tonks_op Order of the Phoenix or maybe Order of Preachers, who knows? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 06:18:18 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:18:18 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Pippin: > > > > Of course aside from the truly troubled, no one believes in Harry. Susan: > What? > What exactly do you mean? > Of course, Harry is real (just because it's happening inside my head, > doesn't mean it's not real). > It's an alternative universe. > I might go there any time now. > Of course, if you don't believe in it, you can't go there... Tonks: Of course Harry and his world is real. "At least it is real for us". Hum... could it be that Pippin is a ... a... you know... Muggle? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 06:31:32 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:31:32 -0000 Subject: DD as Epitome of Goodness. ( was Re: Hermeneutical Circles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del: > Up until DH, I didn't completely agree with JKR's description of DD as "the epitome of goodness" or something, but still, I liked the guy very much. Since DH, though, (and I do mean DH, NOT the "DD is gay" interview) I find him quite "creepy and disgusting" indeed (though obviously not for the same reasons that others find Snape creepy and disgusting). And JKR's earlier description of DD as "the epitome of goodness" now makes me gag. That's pretty obviously *not* a change of mind she intended to create in me with DH, but it's still what happened. Tonks: I found (and still do) DD to be the epitome of goodness from the beginning to the end. He is very close to a god figure to me. If nothing else, he is a Saint. Harry is greater, I guess, but they both are Christ figures at different points. I don't see what you see in DD's behavior that turns you off. Do you mean because Harry had to die? DD didn't set that up, it just was a fact that had to be dealt with. Tonks_op From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 07:20:46 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:20:46 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter-JKR's revelations: Chapter & Verse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472589CE.2090808@yahoo.com> bboyminn: > She seems ... to answer with /qualified/ statements.... > she never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always > thought of him as gay'. ... I don't think she is intending > to dictate this to us as if it were canon. I made the same argument in JKR's defense about a week ago. Then came her Toronto interview. "He is my character", she said. "He is what he is." Sounds like dictating to me. Not only does she view DD as homosexual, she expects us to, too. Magpie: > Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more real" when > she throws out random facts that are outside of canon. Exactly. JKR is certainly aware at this point that she doesn't have "opinions" about her characters. Both to a large portion of her fandom and to JKR herself (if the Toronto interview isn't being misreported) her "opinions" are fact. When JKR speaks, it isn't reported as "opinion". It's reported as a "revelation", a "bombshell", an announcement. As fact. The Leaky Cauldron headline said simply, "DD is gay!" Reuters (and others) reported it as a "revelation". And, yes, many fans immediately accepted it as canonical fact. And this DOES limit the rest of us; we ARE no longer free to imagine DD otherwise. From this point on any heterosexual speculations about DD will either have to be kept to themselves, or be forced to defend themselves against JKR's "opinion", despite the fact that they are certainly allowed by canon. The ensuing furor will so effectively drown out the actual speculations it won't be worth the bother of raising them at all. --CJ From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 07:54:25 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:54:25 -0000 Subject: DD as Epitome of Goodness. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks wrote: > I found (and still do) DD to be the epitome of goodness from the > beginning to the end. Del replies: And I don't have any problem whatsoever with that. I'm not out to change anybody's opinion of him. > I don't see what you see in DD's behavior that turns you off. Secrecy bordering on lying. Not fully owning up to mistakes *even when pretending to do just that*. Emotional and intellectual manipulation all over the place. Those are MAJOR turn-offs for *me*. I guess it's a matter of personal balance between a character's faults and virtues. What is of major importance (in good or bad) for one person is not necessarily so for another, so that in the end we can get all sorts of balance on any character. Just look at Snape :-P Del From gwharrison53 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 15:11:00 2007 From: gwharrison53 at yahoo.com (gwharrison53 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Happy Halloween ! Message-ID: <200710291511.l9TFB1cG024923@upsa-web120.ofoto.com> Happy Halloween ! You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.3cnw9spz&x=0&h=1&y=-e7yi3z If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.3cnw9spz&x=0&h=1&y=-e7yi3z [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 16:34:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:34:25 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > > The article's author isn't saying JKR should not think of Harry as having more to him than what's on the page, he's saying that everybody will fill him in for themselves off the page and when she just throws out "this is the way to imagine this" when she's talking about something off-page it's cutting into the reader's experience. Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more real" when she throws out random facts that are outside of canon. Others of us don't like it at all. Carol responds: Exactly. The writer's point is that JKR is making it harder to read the books now because her post-publication statements interfere with our ability to interpret the works for ourselves and prevent our imaginations from filling in whatever information was left out of the books (including the details that she trimmed from the epilogue). According to the writer (and I agree), JKR seems not to realize that the books are no longer under her control. She has sent them out into the world, and the words on the pages of the published books exist for each reader to interact with and interpret independent of anything the author intended or imagined that is not included in the books themselves. As the writer states at the end of the article, addressing JKR directly as he does throughout, " For all of those years, until those books were published, the characters and settings were yours to command and control. But then you let them go. "And speaking for all of your happy readers I need to tell you: Now they are ours." Amen. Bravo. This is exactly what JKR needs to hear, IMO. *Now they are ours.* For those of you who didn't read the article, here's the link again. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-rowlingcolumn_1024gl.State.Edition1.2292bdc.html I highly recommend it because it's clever and because it articulately expresses a point of view that perhaps has not occurred to JKR, who seems to view her books and characters as her own exclusive property, not realizing that propietorship over the interpretation of a character ceases with publication. Carol, sincerely hoping that JKR reads--and heeds--that article From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 29 16:53:43 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:53:43 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > I highly recommend it because it's clever and because it articulately > expresses a point of view that perhaps has not occurred to JKR, who > seems to view her books and characters as her own exclusive property, > not realizing that propietorship over the interpretation of a > character ceases with publication. > Pippin: Really? So who controls the interpretation of Albus Dumbledore at the Harry Potter theme park to be? Sorry, but the characters don't just exist inside your head, they've been franchised. I for one am very glad that JKR asserts control over how they are portrayed, not some corporate hack. Pippin wondering if there will be DD costume characters and imagining some very campy photo ops From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 17:01:15 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:01:15 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472611DB.4000002@yahoo.com> Carol: > "And speaking for all of your happy readers I need to tell you: Now > they are ours." I would quibble with only this one point: the characters belonged as much to us as to her from the moment we began reading, because our imaginations began filling in the blanks from the first moment we made contact. The only Dumbledore I have ever known is the Dumbledore of my imagination, and that DD -- *my* DD -- has belonged as much to me as he does to JKR since my first encounter with him. JKR has as much right as anyone to talk about *her* DD, but to insist that the portion of DD that exists in *my* imagination (i.e., any portion that didn't come from the pages of the canon) is of less value than hers is arrogance, and begs the question: of less value to *whom"? Certainly not me, to whom *my* portion of DD is of considerable value precisely because it's mine. --CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 17:04:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:04:28 -0000 Subject: One reporter-JKR's revelations: Chapter & Verse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn: > > Here is something we need to consider. When JKR makes statements > that occur beyond the end of books Seven, I don't think she > is intending to dictate this to us as if it were canon. > > She seems, most often when answering these question, to > answer with /qualified/ statements. In otherword, 'I picture...', > 'I thought...', 'It seemed to me that...'. For example, she > never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always thought of > him as gay'. > > In other words, she is imagining the Potterverse future beyond > book seven the same way that we are imagining it. She isn't > flatly saying, Harry went to work for the Aurors Office. She is > saying she imagines Harry working there. She pictures Ron helping > his brother in the Joke Shop. It seems that Nevillie might marry > Hannah, but that is JKR imagination, she has not written it down > in any book or official publication, so I think we are free to > imagine our own alternatives. > > So, my point is until she officially writes something down, we > and she are free to imagine what we want. We and she are even > free to change our mind from day to day. > > Right now, she imagines that Harry went to work for the Aurors > Office, but if she decides to write the further adventures of > Harry Potter, the needs of that particular book and adventure > may call for Harry to have done something else. When she write > those further adventure and Harry does do something else then > and only then does it become an absolute fact. Until then it > is merely the fluid speculations of the author, and that shouldn't > inhibit our own fluid every changing speculations. > > > So, part of my point is that I think at this stage JKR just > considers herself another fan. She imagines the future she > imagines, and we are free to imagine alternatives. If she ever > feels the need to write down Harry and the gangs future then > it takes on a more permanent air. Still even then, if she > qualifies her statement as she sometimes does now, it does > not make her written statements absolute. It merely makes > them her opinion of what happen. Now if she eventually > writes a literary work chronicling Harry's future life in > story form, that becomes canon. But you know what, canon > has never inhibited the imaginations of wildly creative > fan fiction writers. Carol responds: I don't think she regards herself as just another fan. "He's my character" pretty much says the opposite--she's the creator; we're the fans. She owns him. Of course she has the right to speak about her own characters. The problem is, as the article states, that each new statement she makes, even if it's not a pronouncement of canonical "fact" or "truth"--just "I always imagined him" or whatever--makes it more difficult to interpret and imagine for ourselves. I never thought of DD as gay before her announcement. I thought that he had an intense friendship and intellectual infatuation with another brilliant and arrogant young man (who happened to be charming as well) and that DD denied his friend's sinister side because he saw him as a mirror image of himself. Now I can't read the books without seeing him as gay whether I want to or not and whether it adds to the story or not. And it's not just that revelation. I think that JKR did the right thing in pruning out all the information in the epilogue that she had originally "crowbarred in"--her words, not the article writer's. The open-ended epilogue leaves almost everything except HRH's personal happiness/domestic bliss and Harry's new view of Snape unspecified, so that the reader can choose to tie up the loose ends (such as the future relations between Scorpius Malfoy and the Potter and Weasley kids) or assign the various surviving characters (other than Neville and Hagrid) the jobs of their choice and anyone not present the husband or wife of their choice. I can live with Neville marrying Hannah Abbot (though the Leaky Cauldron detail is just odd) and with Luna marrying the previously unmentioned Rolf Scamander (a fellow Ravenclaw?), but no more, please. BTW, if JKR still thinks that DD is "the epitome of goodness" or that James was heroic (what happened to that battle with LV), I'll feel free to disagree with her. That's her intention, her view of those characters, but it somehow doesn't translate to the page, at least not for me. And, IMO, she really needs to understand that not all readers see the characters as she does, and she has no authority to tell us how to see them. I think I'm repeating, but I'll just say again that whatever JKR says will influence the way the readers react to her novels and what they see there. Reading should be an interaction between a text and a reader, without the author leaning over the reader's shoulder telling him what she means. At any rate, I'd like to see some reactions to the article itself because he said what I'm trying to say much better than I'm saying it, and with better grace. Carol, who has trouble reconciling "he's my character" with the reader's freedom to view the character differently From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 18:05:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:05:57 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I highly recommend it because it's clever and because it articulately expresses a point of view that perhaps has not occurred to JKR, who seems to view her books and characters as her own exclusive property, not realizing that propietorship over the interpretation of a character ceases with publication. > > > > Pippin: > Really? So who controls the interpretation of Albus Dumbledore at the Harry Potter theme park to be? Sorry, but the characters don't just exist inside your head, they've been franchised. I for one am very glad that JKR asserts control over how they are portrayed, not some corporate hack. Carol responds: I'm not talking about the theme parks--which will no doubt present the Warner Brothers versions of the characters, sets, and costumes--or the films, for that matter. I'm talking about the process of reading, the relationship between the reader and the book, which is also what the writer of the article was discussing. I'm also talking about the effects of JKR's post-publication announcements on *any* reader's interpretation of the books, not just my own. (Do you see DD differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she presents as "fact.") BTW, you mentioned on the main list that JKR's message includes questioning authority (which, of course, most of us picked up on whether we agree with that message or not). I meant to include that remark in my previous post but forgot, so I'll bring it in here instead. Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements are also subject to question? Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read it if she hasn't already done so From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 29 18:29:02 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:29:02 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > I highly recommend it because it's clever and because it > articulately expresses a point of view that perhaps has not occurred > to JKR, who seems to view her books and characters as her own > exclusive property, not realizing that propietorship over the > interpretation of a character ceases with publication. > > > > > > > Pippin: > > Really? So who controls the interpretation of Albus Dumbledore at > the Harry Potter theme park to be? Sorry, but the characters don't > just exist inside your head, they've been franchised. I for one am > very glad that JKR asserts control over how they are portrayed, not > some corporate hack. > > Carol responds: > > I'm not talking about the theme parks--which will no doubt present the > Warner Brothers versions of the characters, sets, and costumes--or the > films, for that matter. I'm talking about the process of reading, the > relationship between the reader and the book, which is also what the > writer of the article was discussing. I'm also talking about the > effects of JKR's post-publication announcements on *any* reader's > interpretation of the books, not just my own. (Do you see DD > differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you > do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love > question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, > both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the > books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or > rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she > presents as "fact.") > > BTW, you mentioned on the main list that JKR's message includes > questioning authority (which, of course, most of us picked up on > whether we agree with that message or not). I meant to include that > remark in my previous post but forgot, so I'll bring it in here > instead. Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless > *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters > as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she > mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements > are also subject to question? > > Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read > it if she hasn't already done so > colebiancardi: JKR can still come back & write more on the WW if she chooses so. They ARE her characters. And her opinion, whether I agree on it or not, still holds more weight than my own on the character itself. They are hers - not ours. We didn't create that world, she did. And yes, if she states DD is gay, then he is gay. That article, imho, is just one pissed off reader who didn't want DD to be gay, as if that makes a difference. I am glad you posted it, but it just goes to show that some people don't understand that just because JKR WROTE something and has "finished" the series, doesn't mean she still CANNOT dictate who or what the characters are. I totally disagreed with JKR's interpretation of Snape, but that is just me. I would NEVER tell JKR that she shouldn't write Snape or describe Snape in any way she sees fit - as JKR was the one who created him and she can destroy him as well. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 18:36:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:36:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter-JKR's revelations: To Know & Not to Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > > Here is something we need to consider. When JKR makes statements > > that occur beyond the end of books Seven, I don't think she > > is intending to dictate this to us as if it were canon. > > > > She seems, most often when answering these question, to > > answer with /qualified/ statements. In otherword, 'I picture...', > > 'I thought...', 'It seemed to me that...'. For example, she > > never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always thought of > > him as gay'. > > > > In other words, she is imagining the Potterverse future beyond > > book seven the same way that we are imagining it. ... that is > > JKR imagination, she has not written it down in any book or > > official publication, so I think we are free to imagine our > > own alternatives. > > > > So, my point is until she officially writes something down, we > > and she are free to imagine what we want. We and she are even > > free to change our mind from day to day. > > > > ...it is merely the fluid speculations of the author, and that > > shouldn't inhibit our own fluid every changing speculations. > > > > > > So, part of my point is that I think at this stage JKR just > > considers herself another fan. She imagines the future she > > imagines, and we are free to imagine alternatives. I... Now > > if she eventually writes a literary work chronicling Harry's > > future life in story form, that becomes canon. But you know > > what, canon has never inhibited the imaginations of wildly > > creative fan fiction writers. > > Carol responds: > > I don't think she regards herself as just another fan. "He's > my character" pretty much says the opposite--she's the creator; > we're the fans. She owns him. > bboyminn: But again, that statement is tied to a context. The context seems to be controversy seeking reporters trying to blow this up into a headline grabbing news story. Some are challenging JKR having made that statement that she 'thought Dumbledore was gay'. Her response was, paraphrased, hey, I can think anything I want. I can imagine my characters as I see fit. And you know what, she can. She is perfectly within her right to see her characters as she chooses. JKR knows Dumbledore history and inner landscape in extreme detail, she knows things about him that we never imagined. She knows how Dumbledore reacted to meeting Grindlewald, and she knows it just as surely as she knows Winston Churchill was Prime Minister. She has created the full lives of many other characters even though those details don't play a part in the books. Yet, those detailed histories do color the characters. They do control and influence what characters say and how they react. Even saying she 'thought of Dumbledore as gay' has a context of its own. JKR can't elaborate in minute detail in open public interviews. So, logically and reasonably, she condenses and summaries. Saying Dumbledore is gay is the tip of the iceberg. There is much much much more context below the surface. I don't think JKR intended to say that Dumbledore was a flaming queen. I think she was pointing out one small aspect of his history that tragically colored his entire life. Saying he is gay, is a way of making the largest possible statement in the fewest possible words. But I don't think it defines Dumbledore, nor do I think it absolutely defines his sexuality. >From the incident with Grindlewald, Dumbledore saw one of his greatest weaknesses as a desire for power, so from then on he shunned all possible avenues of great power. I suspect he also saw another of his flaws in his infatuation with a brilliant mind and a pretty face, and wonder if he didn't equally shun those things for the rest of his life. As I've said before, I find the revelation that Dumbledore had gay tendencies as making his story, in the context of what I know from the books, all the more tragic and sad. > Carol: > > Of course she has the right to speak about her own characters. > The problem is, as the article states, that each new statement > she makes, even if it's not a pronouncement of canonical "fact" > or "truth"--just "I always imagined him" or whatever--makes it > more difficult to interpret and imagine for ourselves. ... Now > I can't read the books without seeing him as gay whether I want > to or not and whether it adds to the story or not. > > ... > > I think I'm repeating, but I'll just say again that whatever > JKR says will influence the way the readers react to her > novels and what they see there. ... bboyminn: Here's the point I was trying to make. JKR isn't running around grabbing people at random, dragging the off to a corner, and saying things like 'guess what...Dumbledore is gay', 'guess what...Harry revolutionized the Auror's office', 'guess what... Neville married Hannah', etc.... She is responding directly to fan questions. So, I say if fans really don't want to know then they need to stop asking for answers. Either that, or the need to word their questions with extreme caution. The trouble is fans want to know but they DON'T want to know. But you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to her the answer they you really have to restrain yourself from asking the questions. Some one wanted to know about Dumbledore's love life, and now they have the answer; and now they have to deal with it. Again, I don't take JKR's statement about Dumbledore as an absolute definition of Dumbledore. I prefer to believe that it reflects an aspect of Dumbledore, at best a tendency that appeared in his life and resulted in very grave consequences. I don't see that one tendency as defining Dumbledore's life. I see the whole thing as FAR FAR more complicated than simply 'I thought of him as gay'. So back to my basic philosophy - "Don't ask questions you aren't prepared to hear the answers to." Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 18:38:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:38:17 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > colebiancardi: > > JKR can still come back & write more on the WW if she chooses so. > They ARE her characters. And her opinion, whether I agree on it or > not, still holds more weight than my own on the character itself. > > They are hers - not ours. We didn't create that world, she did. And > yes, if she states DD is gay, then he is gay. > > That article, imho, is just one pissed off reader who didn't want DD > to be gay, as if that makes a difference. I am glad you posted it, > but it just goes to show that some people don't understand that just > because JKR WROTE something and has "finished" the series, doesn't > mean she still CANNOT dictate who or what the characters are. > > I totally disagreed with JKR's interpretation of Snape, but that is > just me. I would NEVER tell JKR that she shouldn't write Snape or > describe Snape in any way she sees fit - as JKR was the one who > created him and she can destroy him as well. Magpie: Speaking as somebody who agreed with the article, one of the things I liked was that it *wasn't* just about him not wanting DD to be gay- -he put that on the same level as knowing who Neville married. I don't mind DD being gay at all but I've been for years hating her extra-canonical announcements about things for this reason. Of course she *can* write Snape any way she sees fit, or talk about him any way she sees fit. But her talking about Snape can very well cut into my enjoyment of her work. She actually can't "dictate" who the characters are because that's going too far. There's a point where we're talking about controlling reader's minds and reactions and she's never going to get that. Her saying DD is gay outside of the books doesn't necessarily "make him gay" in the books or not. If JKR later in life had a religious conversion and decided that Harry was evil would we be expected to take that view because it's hers now? I wouldn't. I think the books stand on their own and the author stands on her own and they're not the same. If she wanted to have that much control over the characters she shouldn't have ever published the story. Of course JKR has the right to keep on talking, but I can understand the articles that are now responding, "Yes, you have the right to keep talking, and I have the right to be irritated by it." -m From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 18:57:42 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:57:42 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie wrote: > > > > > The article's author isn't saying JKR should not think of Harry as > having more to him than what's on the page, he's saying that > everybody will fill him in for themselves off the page and when she > just throws out "this is the way to imagine this" when she's talking > about something off-page it's cutting into the reader's experience. > Some people, I guess, find it makes it "more real" when she > throws out random facts that are outside of canon. Others of us don't > like it at all. > > Carol responds: > > Exactly. The writer's point is that JKR is making it harder to read > the books now because her post-publication statements interfere with > our ability to interpret the works for ourselves and prevent our > imaginations from filling in whatever information was left out of the > books (including the details that she trimmed from the epilogue). I guess it depends on how stubborn one is. I did enjoy the article you linked to, but although I find JKR's current pronouncements boring (and also wish for more literary talk from her), I'm not having a real problem with her interfering with my imagination. For me, Neville/Luna sails on. Neither Ron nor Harry are Aurors. Furthermore, Snape, having upstaged everyone in the role JKR wrote for him, has long since got up, taken his bows at the curtain call, and retired to a very remote and ancient stone house to... Well, I'll leave that to your imagination. ;) Annemehr From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 29 19:16:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:16:00 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: (Do you see DD differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she presents as "fact.") Pippin: I don't think I've rethought Dumbledore very much, no. But my experience as an art student put me in contact with a lot of gay men (and teachers) in a non-sexual context, so I've got a reference point that others might not have. It was a bit like finding out that Ian McKellan is gay -- did it change the way I experienced his performance of Gandalf? A little, but not much. When he hugs another character, it's grandfatherly. But when he offers a bit of chilly comfort to Theoden for the loss of his son, then there's an extra poignance in knowing that the actor has expressed regret that he never had children. When DD says, "It's our choices..." it has a more personal meaning, now, in terms of the character, but not a different one. As for the DD/GG relationship, we don't even know whether Dumbledore realized at the time that there was a sexual component to his feelings, much less whether he acted on them. He might have thought it was what people called "a passionate friendship" at that time. Which was how it already read to me. Carol: Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements are also subject to question? Pippin: This reminds me of a Talmudic debate, in which one of the Rabbis calls God Himself to witness that his position is correct. God obligingly responds with a series of miracles, but the tribunal votes against the Rabbi anyway and God admits that he's lost. The Law has been given to man, man must interpret it, and God's opinion is no longer binding. That has been the position of Jewish law ever since, but you know, no one has gone so far as to tell God to stop expressing His opinions, though there are those that wish people would stop asking Him. Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read it if she hasn't already done so Pippin who read the article, and actually paraphrased its language about Arthur Dent in an earlier post. And who thinks a character which exists in child's play, action figures, video games, official and unofficial websites, theme park plans, and more fan fiction than anyone could read in a lifetime has become more myth than character already. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 19:53:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:53:32 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Is_Dumbledore_Gay=3F_Depends_on_Definitions_of_=91Is=92_and_=91Gay=92?= Message-ID: Here is another article from the NY Times that takes a diffent perspective on the 'Dumbledore is gay' revelation. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?ref=books The article concludes with - "This is why Dumbledore's supposed gayness is ultimately as unimportant as Ron's shabby clothes. These wounded outsiders recognize the nature of evil, and finally that is what matters." Steve/bboyminn From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 28 19:04:07 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071028190407.GA25034@yuki.random.yi.org> > Pippin: > > There aren't any real werewolves, Muggleborns, centaurs or House > Elves. If the books are only about tolerance for them, then they > aren't about anything. There *are*, though, real Slytherins - at least, in the sense that there are people who are ambitious, etc; and the book is full of "If you have these personality traits, you must also be an evil bigot" -- Random832 From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Oct 30 00:24:37 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:24:37 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love > > question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, > > both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the > > books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or > > rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she > > presents as "fact.") But you know, frankly, I haven't changed my thinking about DD at all...It really depends on your viewpoint....So he was in love with GG instead of it being a strong, close, compelling friendship...it just doesn't make that much difference to me.... Carol, I really don't mean to be anything but respectful, and forgive me if you've already answered this? Do you know any gay people? > > > > BTW, you mentioned on the main list that JKR's message includes > > questioning authority (which, of course, most of us picked up on > > whether we agree with that message or not). I meant to include that > > remark in my previous post but forgot, so I'll bring it in here > > instead. Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless > > *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters > > as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she > > mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements > > are also subject to question? > > > > Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read > > it if she hasn't already done so > > > colebiancardi: > > JKR can still come back & write more on the WW if she chooses so. > They ARE her characters. And her opinion, whether I agree on it or > not, still holds more weight than my own on the character itself. > > They are hers - not ours. We didn't create that world, she did. And > yes, if she states DD is gay, then he is gay. > > That article, imho, is just one pissed off reader who didn't want DD > to be gay, as if that makes a difference. I am glad you posted it, > but it just goes to show that some people don't understand that just > because JKR WROTE something and has "finished" the series, doesn't > mean she still CANNOT dictate who or what the characters are. > > I totally disagreed with JKR's interpretation of Snape, but that is > just me. I would NEVER tell JKR that she shouldn't write Snape or > describe Snape in any way she sees fit - as JKR was the one who > created him and she can destroy him as well. > JKR is probably used to controversy..but if I were she, I'd spend a few weeks writing a short story about DD and GG...and gosh, look! Then it would be canon! I think it's fascinating how many MORE people have decided that she doesn't have the right to add information AFTER they found out that DD is gay. Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:06:46 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:06:46 -0000 Subject: One reporter-JKR's revelations: Chapter & Verse In-Reply-To: <472589CE.2090808@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > She seems ... to answer with /qualified/ statements.... > > she never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always > > thought of him as gay'. ... I don't think she is intending > > to dictate this to us as if it were canon. CJ said: > I made the same argument in JKR's defense about a week ago. Then came her Toronto interview. "He is my character", she said. "He is what he is." > > Sounds like dictating to me. Not only does she view DD as homosexual, she expects us to, too. > Tonks: I watch the interview online. I watched her body language and there was something odd. At one point, I forget the exact question, but it was about DD being gay, and Rowling was evasive, looked uncomfortable, looked down like she was censoring her response and then said something to the effect that .. I thought it was ???it is what it is???, but with her accent it could have been ???he is what he is???. Do you remember that part? I wonder if the publishers had a little talk with her at some point after New York. I am just trying to figure out what was going on in her mind, what was she not saying. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:55:09 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:55:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > I'm also talking about the > effects of JKR's post-publication announcements on *any* reader's > interpretation of the books, not just my own. (Do you see DD > differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she presents as "fact.") > > BTW, you mentioned on the main list that JKR's message includes > questioning authority (which, of course, most of us picked up on > whether we agree with that message or not). I meant to include that > remark in my previous post but forgot, so I'll bring it in here > instead. Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements are also subject to question? > > Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read it if she hasn't already done so > Tonks: It is a very good article and I agree with the reporter 100%. As to everyone now seeing DD differently. Well I am very stuborn and I have decided that Rowling does not know DD as well as she thinks that she does. At some point a character no longer is what the author imagined him/her to be and comes to life with a will of his/her own. They start to be their own person. When Rowling said she had some trouble with DD in the last book, maybe it was because she and he had an argument over that little point about his life. How often do we in real life think we know someone and are wrong? I might look at a man who has some mannerisms that shout ???gay??? to me and it turns out that he isn???t. So I have decided that Rowling just doesn???t know DD well enough to know his true nature. I think that he is one of those of high intelligence for whom their passion is their work, their research. For DD his pursuit of knowledge of the universe and magic was more important than sex, being such a base thing was never on his mind. He had higher pursuits. Rowling has her opinion of the man and I have mine. And I am just stubborn enough to say that hers is wrong. So I will not read the books any differently than I have in the past. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 05:43:25 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:43:25 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Here is another article from the NY Times that takes a diffent > perspective on the 'Dumbledore is gay' revelation. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?ref=books > > The article concludes with - > > "This is why Dumbledore's supposed gayness is ultimately as > unimportant as Ron's shabby clothes. These wounded outsiders > recognize the nature of evil, and finally that is what matters." > Tonks: Thank you for that article. It says what I have been trying to say, and says it better, of course. A wizard at DD's level is above such mundane things as sex. The article compares DD to other great wizards who are also celebate. Also we must not forget that DD was an Alchemist. That is about lofty things and higher stages of development. Too bad Hans isn't still on this list, he would point that out also. Tonks_op Who has always seen DD as a monk. He reminds me of an Abbot I once knew. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 30 11:25:58 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:25:58 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Tonks: > Thank you for that article. It says what I have been trying to say, > and says it better, of course. A wizard at DD's level is above such > mundane things as sex. The article compares DD to other great > wizards who are also celebate. > > Also we must not forget that DD was an Alchemist. That is about > lofty things and higher stages of development. Too bad Hans isn't > still on this list, he would point that out also. > colebiancardi: forgive me, but I do not feel that sex is either mundane nor base(as you posted in your previous post). However, DD could be celebate AND gay at the same time; just as many straights are celebate. I do not believe that JKR stated that DD was having sex, just that he was in love (or had a crush) on GG. I do not believe that DD would think that loving someone, which could INVOLVE sex, would be beneath him. Remember what McGonngall said when Tonks revealed she was in love with Lupin - that DD would approve. I had never thought of DD having a relationship at the time Harry was at school, but that was due to his age, not to his loftly status in the WW community. I had entertained thoughts that he had been in love several times, and seemed to be a bit of a flirt. Heck, I had even thought that someone close to him that he had loved had been killed by Voldy. Even Merlin had sex, which had disasterous results, but it proved that even those lonely and high-browed types wanted, craved, and needed that type of physical and emotional connection that comes from being in love & having sex. sex is not a baser function, nor is it mundane. For committed couples, sex is an intiminate act that brings a couple closer and is not done on instinct. colebiancardi From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 12:21:10 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:21:10 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710300521o1003a62bl62753833a0440b87@mail.gmail.com> > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > Here is another article from the NY Times that takes a diffent > > perspective on the 'Dumbledore is gay' revelation. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?ref=books > > > > The article concludes with - > > > > "This is why Dumbledore's supposed gayness is ultimately as > > unimportant as Ron's shabby clothes. These wounded outsiders > > recognize the nature of evil, and finally that is what matters." > > > > Tonks: > Thank you for that article. It says what I have been trying to say, > and says it better, of course. A wizard at DD's level is above such > mundane things as sex. The article compares DD to other great > wizards who are also celebate. montims: 3 points: But at 17, DD was not "a wizard at DD's level" - he was a brilliant teenager who thought he could do anything, and who had found an equally brilliant and beautiful companion - together they would soar. Who has not known that heady excitement when everything is going wonderfully, and you feel the whole world loves you and you can do no wrong? And doesn't it always lead to a pratfall or disaster? DD was the darling of his generation - open any publication that sells scandal and you will read his modern equivalent, often now in a police mugshot, or vanishing into a rehab clinic. He flew too close to the sun and got his wings burned. And incidentally fell in love with his mirror image, who happened to be of the same gender - so what? If it had been a witch instead of a wizard, would that have made it all right? I agree with colebiancardi - sex is not mundane - at least, if he did have a sexual relationship with GG at that time, with all that excitement and youthful arrogance that they shared, it would not have been mundane - there would have been fireworks and crashing waves, as in the best Hollywood tradition... As to whether there were other loves or desires after GG, I do not know or care, unless it is revealed by JKR later. Following on from that - not a reply to Tonks' post above, but a general comment on all the threads in this vein, which I have stayed away from up to now, as they were getting a little too heated for me - I LIKE being told backstory - I want to hear all of it, about every character. The protagonists exist in my imagination as far as they have been portrayed and no further, so every revelation causes me to adjust my understanding a little, but for me that's a good thing. I had no investment in DD being gay or straight or unicorn lover... Now it has been clarified, I can see him as gay. Minor characters might be revealed to be redheads, Scottish, Chartered Accountants in the muggle world, triple orphans, whatever. If JKR says that's their backstory, I will take it on board. If she says Lily ate cornflakes every day of her life, ok then. To me, they ARE JKR's characters, and always will be - I get to enjoy the stories she puts out, and I would be happy if bit by bit she released the whole of her notes... Just my take on it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 12:38:20 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:38:20 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: <<>> Rowling has her opinion of the man and I have mine. And I am just stubborn enough to say that hers is wrong. So I will not read the books any differently than I have in the past. > > Tonks_op ***Katie: I agree. This is part of the reason I really wish she would stop with all the interviews. I don't *want* her to try and make me see the characters as she does. Personally, the gay thing doesn't bother me, but a lot of other things she has said do. And I'm stubborn, too! I will also continue to see the characters the way I always did, and not in the mold she's trying to give us. She created books and characters that were highly interpretable - which to me is mark of really good storytelling. These things meant different things to different people and that was part of the beauty of the books. She made characters so real and so vivid that they stand on their own outside of the story...and now I feel like she's trying to mold and shape them after the fact. Too late! They are what they are! To those of us who say, "But it's her character, they can't exist without her,", I say, what about Falstaff? What about Hamlet? What about King Arthur? Some of the greatest characters in literature burst the boundaries of the stories within which they were created and became living, breathing entities entirely independent of their original authors. I think Shakespeare would be impressed with the vivacity of Rowling's characters...and I think she should be, too, and let them alone. Katie From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 30 13:29:49 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:29:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > ***Katie: > I agree. This is part of the reason I really wish she would stop with > all the interviews. I don't *want* her to try and make me see the > characters as she does. Personally, the gay thing doesn't bother me, > but a lot of other things she has said do. And I'm stubborn, too! > I will also continue to see the characters the way I always did, and > not in the mold she's trying to give us. Celoneth: But who's to say that you can't continue to interpret characters the way you want just because she said something? Personally, I like her comments on the books - I don't agree with some of them but they provide her thoughts on a characters/plot that she created. I know when I create a character/plot, I plan everything out in detail - a lot that doesn't end up written but my characters and plot are still influenced by what I imagine the characters/plot to be from the beginning. So when JKR says something, I see it as significant for how she imagines the characters to be and to give context for how the books were written. Of course as readers, we are free to interpret things differently, we're free to do whatever we like with the characters whether or not they coincide with her interviews or even with canon. There are hundreds of great fanfics that directly contradict canon, a lot which I like better than canon itself - but that doesn't mean that I wish she'd stop writing. W/ interviews we can have the best of both worlds - have JKR's input as the writer and creator of the series, but we still have our own interpretations and nothing JKR says can force people to abandon those, nor should it. I hope she continues with interviews and if she says something interesting or worthwhile then maybe I'll change some of my perspectives on things, or I wont - but I'd rather have the writer's thoughts and have the choice as to whether to accept or not accept her interpretations. I'm also bothered by the timing of these calls for JKR to shut up. It never seemed to be an issue before she announced DD being gay something that imo provides some nice context for the plot and not half as out there as Ron becoming an Auror. Of all the interviews that's she's given and all the background she's provided - why is this minor detail generating so much controversy? Celoneth From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 13:44:36 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:44:36 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "slytherin_jenn" wrote: <<>> > > I'm also bothered by the timing of these calls for JKR to shut up. It > never seemed to be an issue before she announced DD being gay > something that imo provides some nice context for the plot and not > half as out there as Ron becoming an Auror. Of all the interviews > that's she's given and all the background she's provided - why is this minor detail generating so much controversy? > > Celoneth ***Katie: Well, I am one of the most vociferous critics of people who have voice homophobic and, IMO, bigoted, remarks about DD and gay people in general. I am the daughter of a gay man, and I have NO problem with DD being gay. NO PROBLEM. My wish for JKR to "shut up" began long before her revelation about DD...and in fact is based primarily on her comments about Snape, who I was disheartened to learn that JKR "doesn't like him". I don't feel like her interviews have been lighthearted stuff about how she came up with the story. I feel like she's been almost critical of fans who disagree with her opinions about the characters. I didn't like, for example, her saying she was shocked by people who identify as Slytherin. Why are people not entitled to see things differently? That's why I wish she would stop. In addition, I don't feel like any of us, including JKR herself have had proper time to allow ourselves to digest the whole complete canon. She has no better perspective on this whole thing than do we. I wish she'd just let the dust settle a bit before she starts stirring things up again. KATIE From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 30 13:53:56 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:53:56 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > In addition, I don't feel like any of us, including JKR herself have > had proper time to allow ourselves to digest the whole complete canon. > She has no better perspective on this whole thing than do we. I wish > she'd just let the dust settle a bit before she starts stirring things > up again. KATIE > colebiancardi: I disagree, imho. JKR has had over 10 years to digest her world and I think she probably has a better perspective on her characters than we do. We may not agree with her, as I disagree with her on Snape, but I think she has a pretty good handle on the world & characters she created. Of course, she isn't a stickler for details, but most of the time, I can live with them. DH was not about details that were missing, but a lot heck of lot of what she was building up to in the previous 6 books. colebiancardi From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 30 13:54:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:54:24 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > Thank you for that article. It says what I have been trying to say, > and says it better, of course. A wizard at DD's level is above such > mundane things as sex. The article compares DD to other great > wizards who are also celebate. > > Also we must not forget that DD was an Alchemist. That is about > lofty things and higher stages of development. Too bad Hans isn't > still on this list, he would point that out also. > > Tonks_op > Who has always seen DD as a monk. He reminds me of an Abbot I once > knew. Magpie: I actually thought that was a silly part of the article (not the only silly part, imo!). I have no problem with your imagining Dumbledore as a monk--it's as good an imaginary Dumbledore as any. I just didn't like the idea that if he's interested in important things he must also be above sex. Why would that be necessary? Sure there are people not that interested and I don't think it's bad to write a character that way if that's the character, but it seems a bit weird to assume that the smarter you are, or the more committed to high ideals...the more "above" sex you must be. Why even "above" sex, as if sex is some lower form of behavior. He's not above enjoying candy, couldn't he also have an interest in sex, one that he acts on in a responsible way? His one love affair, if one takes JKR's interview as truth, would be when he was a teenager anyway--and may not have even been acted on. One of my pet peeves about this whole thing is just the way that sometimes the fact that he would be gay makes his sexuality different. If Nicholas Flamel could be married, I don't see why the gay wizard couldn't also fit in romance if he met someone he loved. Voldemort seems like the most celibate wizard in canon and it seems like that's part of his disdain for regular life and people in general. -m -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 30 13:59:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:59:20 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Celoneth: > I'm also bothered by the timing of these calls for JKR to shut up. It > never seemed to be an issue before she announced DD being gay > something that imo provides some nice context for the plot and not > half as out there as Ron becoming an Auror. Of all the interviews > that's she's given and all the background she's provided - why is this > minor detail generating so much controversy? Magpie: I'm bothered by that too--though I think some of the articles I've read, like the one originally linked, aren't really acting out of homophobia, but just see a chance to get their general dislike of this kind of thing out there because she said something that's considered "newsworthy." Nobody would have been interested in an article about JKR talking about this stuff if it wasn't considered newsworthy that Dumbledore was gay. At least that's my own reaction, and maybe I'm projecting. DD being gay is own revelation that I don't mind knowing (except that I think it should have been in the books and think that's suspicious too), but it's giving me a chance to talk about not liking these revelations in general. I've been writing about it long before this revelation, though. I haven't liked her interviews for a long time.:-) -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 30 14:01:37 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:01:37 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > colebiancardi: > > I disagree, imho. JKR has had over 10 years to digest her world and I > think she probably has a better perspective on her characters than we do. > > We may not agree with her, as I disagree with her on Snape, but I > think she has a pretty good handle on the world & characters she created. Magpie: Heh. Not enough to change her mind about stuff in interviews. Things like "this is what happens to characters after the book" isn't something she can have a handle on since until it's written in a book it's just as nebulous to her as anyone else. Remember that person who would do magic later in life? Or Hermione's middle name? The difference, of course, is that *she* can change her mind and it makes no difference the next day, but fandom will stick with whatever she says until she says differently. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 14:05:27 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:05:27 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: I just didn't like the idea that if he's interested in important things he must also be above sex. Why would that be necessary? Sure there are people not that interested and I don't think it's bad to write a character that way if that's the character, but it seems a bit weird to assume that the smarter you are, or the more committed to high ideals...the more "above" sex you must be. Why even "above" sex, as if sex is some lower form of behavior. He's not above enjoying candy, couldn't he also have an interest in sex, one that he acts on in a responsible way? ***Katie: I agree. The only reason I can think of that DD wouldn't be interested in sex is that he was incredibly old! Lol. I know plenty of genius-level intellects (myself not among them!) who are plenty interested in sex. There's nothing base or unpleasant about an interest in sex and sexuality, and DD seems like the kind of person who enjoys life's pleasures. As you point out, he enjoys candy, which is usually seen as an indulgence. He also enjoys a good feast, a rowdy game of Quidditch, a good joke...he likes living life to the fullest! And sex is part of a healthy, happy, well-rounded life, IMO. Of course, there was no reason to include details about this in the books because: A - They began as children's books, and B - It has little to no relevance to Harry's story...which is, of course, the real reason the books are there! But him being "above" sex...I agree, there's no reason to think that. In fact, his boisterous personality would, IMO, almost certainly contradict that assumption. KATIE From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 30 14:15:09 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:15:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ***Katie: > > > Well, I am one of the most vociferous critics of people who have voice > homophobic and, IMO, bigoted, remarks about DD and gay people in > general. I am the daughter of a gay man, and I have NO problem with DD > being gay. NO PROBLEM. > Celoneth: I didn't mean you in particular, or people's disagreements w/ her interviews in general - its just my personal observation that calls for her to shut up didn't start being major topics until this particular comment. With past interviews, people certainly disagreed but with this particular one - it seems that every message board that I read has been flooded with "JKR shut up" topics and that's what bothers me - its something that hasn't happened w/ past revelations and it makes me mad that this issue would cause so much controversy w/ so many readers while other things that I think are much more controversial in terms of character/plot are not addressed. Katie: > My wish for JKR to "shut up" began long before her revelation about > DD...and in fact is based primarily on her comments about Snape, who I > was disheartened to learn that JKR "doesn't like him". I don't feel > like her interviews have been lighthearted stuff about how she came up > with the story. I feel like she's been almost critical of fans who > disagree with her opinions about the characters. > > I didn't like, for example, her saying she was shocked by people who > identify as Slytherin. Why are people not entitled to see things > differently? That's why I wish she would stop. Celoneth: I didn't like a lot of things she said either - for me, Snape will always be my favourite character and I'll always see the admirable qualities in Slytherin house. She's entitled to her views, and readers are entitled to ignore them, disagree with them and continue to see things as they've done in the past. I have no problem ignoring her comments on Snape or on Slytherin - but it does, for me, explain why some characters are portrayed the way they are. I don't like that she criticises readers either - that I wish she would stop - though I can appreciate that sometimes authors have a hard time letting go of their characters. & maybe it would be better if she waited a bit before revealing things - but seems unlikely w/ the book tour & fans clamoring for details. I still don't wish her to shut up - I have little difficulty ignoring the things I don't like and if she includes minor details that don't impact the plot & how I see the books then I'd like to incorporate that into the plot to give it a richer context. Less information is rarely a good thing and assuming that she's got tons of notes and info that she's used for writing the series - I'd like to hear it and if I don't like it, then I can always choose not to incorporate it into my view of the books. Celoneth From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Oct 30 20:44:54 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:44:54 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1193777094.748.1218677047@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Celoneth: > With past interviews, people certainly disagreed > but with this particular one - it seems that every message board that > I read has been flooded with "JKR shut up" topics If I remember correctly, this was the first one of her announcements (at least, the first one post-DH, which makes a difference too, since people are less inclined to hang on to her words for clues about the next book) to be picked up by the MSM, which means increased exposure to people who don't otherwise follow these things particularly closely. That the MSM picked it up was likely due to the controversy it would cause among the conservative/religious/Republican types, and ensuing ratings. I.e. sure fans care about what Ron does post-Hogwarts, who gets with whom, etc, but non-fans don't. --Random832 -- Random832 From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 31 05:23:44 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:23:44 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > (Do you see DD differently now that she's made that announcement? > I suspect that you do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer > to the DD in love question and not rethink both DD himself and the > DD/GG relationship, both of which we previously interpreted solely > based on what's in the books--unless we factored in "the epitome of > goodness" and accepted or rejected it, as we can't so easily reject > information that she presents as "fact.") > > Pippin: > I don't think I've rethought Dumbledore very much, no. But my > experience as an art student put me in contact with a lot of > gay men (and teachers) in a non-sexual context, so I've got a > reference point that others might not have. It was a bit like > finding out that Ian McKellan is gay -- did it change the way > I experienced his performance of Gandalf? A little, but not > much. When he hugs another character, it's grandfatherly. > > But when he offers a bit of chilly comfort to Theoden for the > loss of his son, then there's an extra poignance in knowing that > the actor has expressed regret that he never had children. > > When DD says, "It's our choices..." it has a more personal meaning, > now, in terms of the character, but not a different one. As for the > DD/GG relationship, we don't even know whether Dumbledore > realized at the time that there was a sexual component to his feelings, > much less whether he acted on them. He might have thought it > was what people called "a passionate friendship" at that time. Which > was how it already read to me. > > Carol: > Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless > *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters > as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she > mean question authority, period, in which case her own > pronouncements are also subject to question? > > Pippin: > This reminds me of a Talmudic debate, in which one of the Rabbis > calls God Himself to witness that his position is correct. God obligingly > responds with a series of miracles, but the tribunal votes against > the Rabbi anyway and God admits that he's lost. The Law has been > given to man, man must interpret it, and God's opinion is no longer > binding. That has been the position of Jewish law ever since, but > you know, no one has gone so far as to tell God to stop expressing > His opinions, though there are those that wish people would stop > asking Him. > > Carol, still recommending the article and hoping that Pippin will read > it if she hasn't already done so > > Pippin > who read the article, and actually paraphrased its language about > Arthur Dent in an earlier post. And who thinks a character which > exists in child's play, action figures, video games, official and > unofficial websites, theme park plans, and more fan fiction than > anyone could read in a lifetime has become more myth than character > already. > Folks, the problem with this is that many, many gay men have sired children and many, many lesbian women have borne children....Sir Ian may experience regret about never having had children..but in these days he could have adopted children. Many of us have adopted children. And many lesbians have done artificial insemination. In fact, I spent the evening in another one of the homosexual lobby/activists favorite tasks -- carving jack o'lanterns, and getting costumes assembled for tomorrow's Halloween parade at the kids' schools... Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 31 05:35:12 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:35:12 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I'm also bothered by the timing of these calls for JKR to shut up. It > never seemed to be an issue before she announced DD being gay > something that imo provides some nice context for the plot and not > half as out there as Ron becoming an Auror. Of all the interviews > that's she's given and all the background she's provided - why is this > minor detail generating so much controversy? > > Celoneth > Because of all the tremendous bigotry and hatred that is directed against lesbians and gay men. Now, of course no one on this list is a bigot or has hatred towards lesbians and gay men. But there are a tremendous lot of assaults, and murders, discrimination in housing, throwing away of gay youth from the home, discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. here in the United States. Check out the Leaky Cauldron. Dumbledore has been diminished (why?)..Dumbledore has been irrevocably changed..NOW we know why he spent all that time with Harry....how COULD she have put sexuality in the books (huh? nothing but kissing between mixed gender couples is in the books)..we've been duped..we thought this was a FAMILY book (okay, that assumes that the only REAL families are those with mixed gender parents) SUDDENLY...Salon and the New York Times and everyone else is suggesting that JKR shut up and stop interpreting her characters.. Did we hear ANYthing like this when Christopher Tolkien published a book based on his father's notes? Did we hear problems with J.R.R. Tolkien publishing the history and back story of Middle Earth in the Silmarillion? Nada... I think many of the people on HPforGrownups have already been voicing this complaint...so I have less issue with the folks on this list... But I think someone on the main list said that there was no problem with DEAN Thomas' back story being put on JKR's website.... It's all about prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 31 05:39:09 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:39:09 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I actually thought that was a silly part of the article (not the only > silly part, imo!). I have no problem with your imagining Dumbledore as > a monk--it's as good an imaginary Dumbledore as any. I just didn't > like the idea that if he's interested in important things he must also > be above sex. Why would that be necessary? Sure there are people not > that interested and I don't think it's bad to write a character that > way if that's the character, but it seems a bit weird to assume that > the smarter you are, or the more committed to high ideals...the > more "above" sex you must be. Why even "above" sex, as if sex is some > lower form of behavior. He's not above enjoying candy, couldn't he > also have an interest in sex, one that he acts on in a responsible > way? His one love affair, if one takes JKR's interview as truth, would > be when he was a teenager anyway--and may not have even been acted on. > > One of my pet peeves about this whole thing is just the way that > sometimes the fact that he would be gay makes his sexuality different. > If Nicholas Flamel could be married, I don't see why the gay wizard > couldn't also fit in romance if he met someone he loved. Voldemort > seems like the most celibate wizard in canon and it seems like that's > part of his disdain for regular life and people in general. > > -m > But there's a whole Christian thing (with respect to those who believe in it) that says that Mary was a virgin and therefore pure.. and that if you engage in sexual activity that somehow that defiles you and makes you less pure... In fact, all of us humans are sexual beings. One can be committed to great ideals, and a great fighter for justice, and still be sexual.. it's that patriarchal mind/body dichotomy that identifies male with mind and female with body, and male with intellect and female with birth and sex... Susan > From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 10:54:21 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:54:21 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susan: > Now, of course no one on this list is a bigot or has hatred > towards lesbians and gay men. But there are a tremendous lot > of assaults, and murders, discrimination in housing, throwing > away of gay youth from the home, discrimination in the workplace, > etc. etc. here in the United States. Goddlefrood, dashing in where angels fear to tread: It's a global phenomenon, there is still a great deal of discrimination towards the gay community in all countries, some more so than others. The USA actually has some (used advisedly) tolerance towards gays. > Susan: > Check out the Leaky Cauldron. Dumbledore has been diminished > (why?) Goddlefrood: I rarely use the above referred site as I find it rather puerile, despite its remit to report on Potter news. Loth though I am to mention it, there was a rather good piece on Mugglenet from one of the staff relative to the outing of Dumbledore. Susan: > SUDDENLY...Salon and the New York Times and everyone else > is suggesting that JKR shut up and stop interpreting her > characters.. Goddlefrood: Even though I do tend to follow what Ms. Rowling says off the page as well as on it, I also now tend to ignore what she says if it differs from my idea of a character or situation (this has mostly been a post-DH epiphany for me). As I've said before, the imagination of the individual is a wonderful thing. Ms. Rowling is free to continue to spout nons, er, talk about the interpretation of the books. I am equally free to disregard what she says where it differs from my own ideas. >Susan: > Did we hear ANYthing like this when Christopher Tolkien > published a book based on his father's notes? Did we hear > problems with J.R.R. Tolkien publishing the history and > back story of Middle Earth in the Silmarillion? Nada... Goddlefrood: Actually, yes there was a large controversy, which no doubt could be found at any LotR site. I read only the first two of the history of Middle Earth put out by Tolien Jnr. myself and disliked his interjections to the extent of undertaking not to read any more. Oh, and The Silmarillion was published posthumously, and was not in the form JRRT wanted, by most accounts. > Susan: > It's all about prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. Goddlefrood: I partly disagree, it's mostly about ignorance. If someone has been in regular contact with gays or has gay friends, then it is usual that prejudice and bigotry (if originally present) fade due to lessening of ignorance. If, after such contact, any prejudice remains then there might be a case for saying that was bigoted. Then again, I'm no philosopher, so what do I know? btw, I've been feeling rather gay myself lately, but in the older sense of the word :-) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 12:38:54 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:38:54 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth wrote: > I'm also bothered by the timing of these calls for JKR to shut up. > It never seemed to be an issue before she announced DD being gay > something that imo provides some nice context for the plot and not > half as out there as Ron becoming an Auror. Of all the interviews > that's she's given and all the background she's provided - why is > this minor detail generating so much controversy? Del replies: Because it is NOT a minor detail for a LOT of people. You are perfectly free to view it as a minor detail yourself, but that doesn't mean that everybody else should view it that way too. For A LOT of people, DD being gay is a MAJOR problem, there is simply no point denying that. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 12:42:10 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:42:10 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > It's all about prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. Del replies: What about more simply: it's all about differences in opinions? Can't onw want DD to not be gay without being "prejudiced, ignorant and bigoted"? Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 17:37:34 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:37:34 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Celoneth: - why is this minor detail generating so much controversy? Tonks: It is for the same reason that her series is popular to begin with. I was shocked that she say that she did not know why the series was as popular as it is. I thought she planned it that way, but she really doesn't seem to know. There is a part of each of us, call it the collective unconscious if you wish, that takes in these stories and understands them on a very deep level. The HP series is a metaphor. Hypnotherapist use metaphor for the purpose of touching that deep part of each of us that understand ultimate truth in a way that our conscious mind does not. The HP story has touched that deep subconcious part of people. It is this part of our psychic that connects us beyond creed, nationality, culture. And it is because she is tampering with this part of our psychic that people are upset. I am not anti-gay. But I am upset that the vision that I have of DD is being tampered with. It is a type of betrayal. It is as if DD were living a lie in the books. And this is not the way for her to treat the epitome of goodness. She makes him look like a liar and a fake. She is telling us that our deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person is wrong. She is messing with the subconscious mind, and whatever a person feels about gay people in the real world, it is upsetting to challenge our inter vision of a character we thought we knew. The subconscious mind is not rational. This is why there is such a strong reaction from so many people. Tonks_op From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 17:56:39 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:56:39 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710311056j429809f0mfd27d74797dad1b1@mail.gmail.com> > > Tonks: > >big snip< > But I am upset > that the vision that I have of DD is being tampered with. It is a > type of betrayal. It is as if DD were living a lie in the books. And > this is not the way for her to treat the epitome of goodness. She > makes him look like a liar and a fake. She is telling us that our > deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person is wrong. She is > messing with the subconscious mind, and whatever a person feels > about gay people in the real world, it is upsetting to challenge our > inter vision of a character we thought we knew. The subconscious > mind is not rational. This is why there is such a strong reaction > from so many people. montims: so that is why I'm not so upset aout it. Quite apart from the fact that I don't care who or what DD fancies, I have no "deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person" - DD is a character in a fictional series of books that I enjoy reading. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 18:29:15 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:29:15 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I actually thought that was a silly part of the article (not the only silly part, imo!). I have no problem with your imagining Dumbledore as a monk--it's as good an imaginary Dumbledore as any. I just didn't like the idea that if he's interested in important things he must also be above sex. Why would that be necessary? Sure there are people not that interested and I don't think it's bad to write a character that way if that's the character, but it seems a bit weird to assume that the smarter you are, or the more committed to high ideals...the more "above" sex you must be. Why even "above" sex, as if sex is some lower form of behavior. Tonks: There is the idea that to reach a higher state of spiritual development, or in DD???s case, a higher state of Magical development, one must turn from the things of the flesh. This is not my idea; I am simply passing on the teaching of the mystical component of most world religions. Christian monks and nuns are celibate. Buddhist monks are celibate, etc. There is a reason for this and it does have to do with increasing the degree of ???spiritual perfection??? by turning the mind from the things of the world. The author of the article I was referring to said the same thing in reference to all great Wizards. The same can be said about 99% of the worlds greatest spiritual leaders and Saints. I didn???t make this idea up. It is a classic teaching of many religions. There must be some reason that this idea is so worldwide. And I don't think it is all about putting women down as "daughters of Eve", althought in the early Christian Monastic tradition there was a componant of that. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 18:46:54 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:46:54 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710311056j429809f0mfd27d74797dad1b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > montims: > so that is why I'm not so upset aout it. Quite apart from the fact that I don't care who or what DD fancies, I have no "deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person" - DD is a character in a fictional series of books that I enjoy reading. > Tonks: I think if most people had that detached feeing about the books that you do they too would not be upset either. It is just a book. But to many people is it more than just a fictional series. That was my point. People feel that Harry's world is real. I have talked to many people, both children and adults that have such a deep longer of their heart for this world to be real. Are they all crazy? No. They are in touch with their subconcious more than others. And the subconcious recognizes the truth that is within the ???story???. Remember when Ron and Hermione debate about the Story of the DH being ???just a children???s story??? or something more. The HP are, for most of us, ???something more???. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 19:11:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:11:19 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710300521o1003a62bl62753833a0440b87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims: > ... I LIKE being told backstory - I want to hear all of it, about > every character. The protagonists exist in my imagination as far > as they have been portrayed and no further, so every revelation > causes me to adjust my understanding a little, but for me that's a > good thing. I had no investment in DD being gay or straight or > unicorn lover... Now it has been clarified, I can see him as gay. > Minor characters might be revealed to be redheads, Scottish, > Chartered Accountants in the muggle world, triple orphans, > whatever. If JKR says that's their backstory, I will take it on > board. If she says Lily ate cornflakes every day of her life, ok > then. To me, they ARE JKR's characters, and always will be - I get > to enjoy the stories she puts out, and I would be happy if bit by > bit she released the whole of her notes... Jen: No way, Lily ate eggs every morning. ;) I'm with you on wanting to hear backstory. Anything that evolved about characters or plot during JKR's creative process is interesting to me. Her seeing a character a certain way, knowing he/she acts for certain reasons, well, I'm not a writer but it seems like all that stuff would go into the story on one level or another even if not explicitly. Predictions about the furture of the characters, eh, JKR's speculating like the rest of us. In my extended Potterverse, Luna and Dean got together, Neville married someone never mentioned, and Ron was a stay-at-home dad while Hermione earned the living. Jen, wondering if she needs to branch out into fanfic next... From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 19:39:04 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:39:04 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > There is the idea that to reach a higher state of spiritual > development, or in DD???s case, a higher state of Magical development, > one must turn from the things of the flesh. This is not my idea; I > am simply passing on the teaching of the mystical component of most > world religions. Christian monks and nuns are celibate. Buddhist > monks are celibate, etc. There is a reason for this and it does have > to do with increasing the degree of ???spiritual perfection??? by > turning the mind from the things of the world. Annemehr: Well, yes...and then there is such a thing as tantric sex -- so you can choose your own way! Personally, I don't see the way of asceticism as being inherently "higher" or "more spiritual" than any other sort of life. It just depends on the individual. As for Dumbledore, my view of him was never asexual. When I thought about it at all, I guessed that he may have been a widower, so JKR's revelation didn't really change anything for me. Tonks: > The author of the > article I was referring to said the same thing in reference to all > great Wizards. The same can be said about 99% of the worlds greatest > spiritual leaders and Saints. I didn???t make this idea up. It is a > classic teaching of many religions. There must be some reason that > this idea is so worldwide. And I don't think it is all about putting > women down as "daughters of Eve", althought in the early Christian > Monastic tradition there was a componant of that. Annemehr: Well, putting women down is much more worldwide than ascetic ideals, so I certainly have my suspicions. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 19:43:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:43:12 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > There is the idea that to reach a higher state of spiritual > development, or in DD???s case, a higher state of Magical development, > one must turn from the things of the flesh. Magpie: I know of the idea, I didn't think you made it up, but I don't Dumbledore ever showing that he was living by that idea or reaching any higher state of Magical or spiritual development. He was a great wizard because he was powerful. He didn't seem to have much in the way of a higher consciousness that I saw. Machiavellian more like. Fighting Voldemort isn't, imo, like a Buddhist Monk trying to reach Nirvana. -m From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 31 20:16:09 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:16:09 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ?Is? and ?Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > There is the idea that to reach a higher state of spiritual > development, or in DD???s case, a higher state of Magical development, > one must turn from the things of the flesh. This is not my idea; I > am simply passing on the teaching of the mystical component of most > world religions. Christian monks and nuns are celibate. Buddhist > monks are celibate, etc. There is a reason for this and it does have > to do with increasing the degree of ???spiritual perfection??? by > turning the mind from the things of the world. The author of the > article I was referring to said the same thing in reference to all > great Wizards. The same can be said about 99% of the worlds greatest > spiritual leaders and Saints. I didn???t make this idea up. It is a > classic teaching of many religions. Celoneth: But these are all spiritual concepts that don't translate that purely into real life. In real life, many become monks, or nuns for purely wordly reasons. In early times, people made the choice because it was the only way to get a decent education if one was lower class, for women it was the only way out of marriage and it was a way for a lot of gay people to be able to live free of persecution. Now people join for family honour, or a way to escape poverty as well as spiritual reasons. Neither is celibacy a requirement for spiritual leadership - its not taught or expected in Islam, Judaism, Daoism, many branches of Buddhism and many other religions. Where there is celibacy, its also tied to general asceticism - poverty, fasting, etc. - a belief that denying oneself worldly wants and needs to bring them to enlightenment that's far more encompassing than just celibacy. There's no indication in anything that JKR has written that asceticism is a way to enhance one's magical abilities. Even if there is, there's no indication that DD wasn't celibate - the only statement is that he was gay/attracted to GG - certainly monks do not lose their human nature upon becoming monks, its a process that takes years and even then, they remain human with all human wants and needs. I'm sure that monks on a hunger strike become hungry, just as I'm sure that they have attractions to others - their own personal beliefs lead them to choose them to deny those feelings in their quest for enlightenment. Perhaps when they're years into their life as monks, then they may be able to deny those feelings but its not something that should be expected of a new, young monk - nor something that can be expected of a 17-18 year old wizard who doesn't know that he's going to become a near-god figure to so many, nor makes any conscious choice to live an ascetic lifestyle at that point. Celoneth From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 31 20:28:30 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:28:30 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > Because it is NOT a minor detail for a LOT of people. You are > perfectly free to view it as a minor detail yourself, but that doesn't > mean that everybody else should view it that way too. For A LOT of > people, DD being gay is a MAJOR problem, there is simply no point > denying that. Celoneth: I'm not denying it - I just, for the life of me don't understand it - unless its tied to bigotry or prejudice (which is the only thing I can think of) and in that case I have no sympathy at all, and nor do I think an author should pander to prejudices. It doesn't change the plot (except in elucidating DD's struggle against GG), it doesn't change anything about DD's behaviour in the books, its not OOC, and because the event happened off the page and many years before the plot - easy for a reader who sees DD differently to ignore. So I really don't see how its a major detail in any way. Celoneth From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 31 20:32:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:32:05 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710311056j429809f0mfd27d74797dad1b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > montims: > so that is why I'm not so upset aout it. Quite apart from the fact that I > don't care who or what DD fancies, I have no "deep intuitive sense of our > most beloved person" - DD is a character in a fictional series of books that > I enjoy reading. > Pippin: I think a lot of people use Dumbledore and JKR's world as a vehicle for their own fantasies. Nothing so elaborate or distancing as a fan fiction, but just working things out. I can't read anyone's mind, but if DD was associated with sexual safety, then people might go through a period of mourning over losing that association, giving rise to denial and anger, some of which we might be seeing now. It's hard to associate safety with an issue which has the potential to upset people so much, regardless of how you perceive it yourself. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 21:00:40 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:00:40 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth wrote: > I'm not denying it - I just, for the life of me don't > understand it - unless its tied to bigotry or prejudice > (which is the only thing I can think of) and in that > case I have no sympathy at all, and nor do I > think an author should pander to prejudices. Del muses: But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? One person's bigotry is another person's defending of the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's sound moral judgement. Nobody ever thinks of themselves as prejudiced or bigoted. Those people who don't think of homosexuality (or anything else) as good or neutral, certainly don't see themselves as prejudiced or bigoted. Instead, it is most likely people like you that they see as prejudiced and bigoted. Problem is: who gets to decide who will impose their definition of Right and Wrong on the other? Who gets to decide which side will be officially called "prejudiced" or not? There is NO such ultimate authority, so that in the end, judgements of "prejudice" or "bigotry" are not so much statements about the other, as they are instead statements about ourselves IMO. Just my personal musing, Del From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 31 21:18:14 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:14 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Celoneth wrote: > > I'm not denying it - I just, for the life of me don't > > understand it - unless its tied to bigotry or prejudice > > (which is the only thing I can think of) and in that > > case I have no sympathy at all, and nor do I > > think an author should pander to prejudices. > > Del muses: > But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? > One person's bigotry is another person's defending of > the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's > sound moral judgement. > > colebiancardi: In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: "Your rights end where mine begin". So, if your view of defending the truth or sound moral judgement is trampling on my rights, then it is bigotry and prejudice. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 21:30:55 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:30:55 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: colebiancardi wrote: > In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: > "Your rights end where mine begin". So, if your view > of defending the truth or sound moral judgement is > trampling on my rights, then it is bigotry and > prejudice. Del replies: Thanks for the clear answer! I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? Inversely: when JKR fails to describe DD as gay in the books, and then she says "DD is my character and he is what he is", thus implying "DD is gay whether you like it or not, and even though it's not in the books", isn't she trampling on some fans' right to see DD as not-gay? I can understand that she might not *like* the idea that some of her readers would rather DD not be gay, but I find her insisting on defining DD as gay even in the face of the anger or disappointment of some of her fans to be quite, well, intolerant of their opinions and desires. What do you think? Del From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 21:49:35 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:49:35 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > Thanks for the clear answer! > > I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: > "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" > > Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the > one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how > does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't > like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? Magpie: I would guess what was being said wasn't that it was trampling on rights to say that, but that the reason you were saying it is bigotry because you don't want gay people to be represented in literature the way straight people are, or portrayed positively. they ought to not be allowed in books that you want to read. That's if your objection is bigoted, of course. If your objection is, for instance, that you liked to imagine marrying DD and now you feel like he wouldn't be attracted to you, then it's no different than being upset at learning Neville married Hannah Abbott instead of you! -m From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 31 21:55:29 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:55:29 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > colebiancardi wrote: > > In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: > > "Your rights end where mine begin". So, if your view > > of defending the truth or sound moral judgement is > > trampling on my rights, then it is bigotry and > > prejudice. > > Del replies: > Thanks for the clear answer! > > I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: > "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" > > Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the > one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how > does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't > like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? > > Inversely: when JKR fails to describe DD as gay in the books, > and then she says "DD is my character and he is what he is", > thus implying "DD is gay whether you like it or not, and > even though it's not in the books", isn't she trampling > on some fans' right to see DD as not-gay? > > I can understand that she might not *like* the idea that > some of her readers would rather DD not be gay, but I find > her insisting on defining DD as gay even in the face of the > anger or disappointment of some of her fans to be quite, > well, intolerant of their opinions and desires. > > What do you think? > > Del > colebiancardi: well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have strong opinions on people of a certain political party myself - LOL!!! however, when group A takes that opinion and tries to enact laws that restrict the freedom of group B (yet that freedom is available to group A) then that is bigotry and prejudice and there is no moral ground here for group A. It is very easy to turn an opinion into hate speech, which can lead to horrible results (re: the rise of the Nazi party) However, in the case of JKR, it is her opinion - and since DD is her brainchild(or brainwizard), she has every right to be angry or disappointed that the fans would take this to an extreme level. I don't find her actions to be intolerant of their opinions or desires, because quite frankly, they didn't create DD - she did. She shared DD with us, warts and all. JKR is not trampling on their rights to speak out against her decision and the fans are free to express their opinions about it. I am sure during the Civil Rights movement, there were people who expressed their opinions peacefully to deny blacks the right to vote in the US. They based their opinions, in their view, by selectively reading certain passages of the Bible and misinterpreting them. They felt, in their opinion, they had the moral high ground in that matter. However, universal morality dictated that our gov't intervene and make it a federal law that allowed blacks to vote. The same thing happened several decades earlier for women to get the vote in the US - people used the Bible(misinterpreted again) to prove that women were not supposed to have a say in "politics". I do know people who find the actual act of male-male sex to be distasteful but they do not feel that gays are bad or wrong or good. They view them as just people who should have the same rights as others(in the case of marriage or civil unions or health insurance- that is a big one!!). I never understood the argument "hate the sin, but love the sinner". I have always viewed that as a cop-out to tackle the real reasons why someone could "hate" a "sin". Adultery, stealing, lying are all in the 10 commandments; being gay is not - you'd think if it was such a moral sin, God would have made Moses write that one out on the top 10 (or maybe there really was 15 commandments, like that Mel Brooks movie showed ). Out of all of the passages in the Bible, there are only a couple that deal with homosexuality and that really was just a reflection and a backlash against the Greek & Roman cultures at the time. There are more passages about food "sins" in the Bible than there are about gays. I just find it oh-so-strange. colebiancardi (who is not sure if I answered Del at this point!!) From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 31 21:56:30 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:56:30 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Del replies: > > Thanks for the clear answer! > > > > I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: > > "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" > > > > Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the > > one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how > > does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't > > like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? > > Magpie: > I would guess what was being said wasn't that it was trampling on > rights to say that, but that the reason you were saying it is > bigotry because you don't want gay people to be represented in > literature the way straight people are, or portrayed positively. > they ought to not be allowed in books that you want to read. > > That's if your objection is bigoted, of course. If your objection > is, for instance, that you liked to imagine marrying DD and now you > feel like he wouldn't be attracted to you, then it's no different > than being upset at learning Neville married Hannah Abbott instead > of you! > > -m > colebiancardi yes - magpie's first paragraph is my answer as well :) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 22:54:34 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:54:34 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > I would guess what was being said wasn't that > it was trampling on rights to say that, but that > the reason you were saying it is bigotry because > you don't want gay people to be represented in > literature the way straight people are, or > portrayed positively. they ought to not be allowed > in books that you want to read. Del replies: This makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies to the specific case of DD in the HP series. JKR was free to write DD as gay in the books: people who don't want to read books with gay characters would then have had the choice of either not reading any more HP, or sucking it up and reading HP anyway. They would not have been happy, they would probably have made some noise, but overall they would have had to admit that JKR was free to write whatever she wanted in the books. The problem as I see it now, is that JKR did write all the HP books, but she did NOT include any gay character. In fact, she even described a WW in which only heterosexuality seems to exist. That's what is in the books. And then now, she turns around and says "oh, by the way, there's a gay character in there". Well, I just don't see this as fair to those who don't want to read books with gay characters. Instead of being upfront and giving those readers a choice, she made the choice for them. I mean, this is what it all ends up looking like: "come, come and read my books, there aren't any gay characters in them... OK, you're finished reading? Well now let me tell you: there IS a gay character. Aha, tricked you!" Of course, I'm not saying that this was her *intent*, but I can understand why those readers are upset. She should, IMO, have given them the choice to read or not to read, instead of waiting until *after* they had read to reveal that there's something in the books that they would normally choose not to read. Do you see what I mean? colebiancardi wrote: > however, when group A takes that opinion and > tries to enact laws that restrict the freedom > of group B (yet that freedom is available to > group A) then that is bigotry and prejudice > and there is no moral ground here for group A. Del replies: I think I know what you're referring to, and I really don't want to get there because I sure don't see this issue as anywhere that simple. > It is very easy to turn an opinion into hate > speech, which can lead to horrible results > (re: the rise of the Nazi party) I agree, but I think that this applies to anyone and everyone: for example, IMO, it applies to both those who despise gays, and those who despise those who don't think homosexuality is good or neutral. To be very blunt: whether it's "Faggot!" or "Bigot!", it's an opinion turned into hate speech all the same. > However, in the case of JKR, it is her opinion - > and since DD is her brainchild(or brainwizard), > she has every right to be angry or disappointed > that the fans would take this to an extreme level. I don't understand why? She created DD, she put him on paper, and she didn't present him as gay. And then she's disappointed because some readers don't want him to be gay. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, it's entirely her fault. If she wanted all her readers to be OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD, so that all people reading the books would know that DD was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your mind. > She shared DD with us, warts and all. Not for those who consider being gay a "wart". That particular wart was not in the books, it wasn't shared with them, instead it was imposed on them after they had finished reading the books. > JKR is not trampling on their rights to speak out > against her decision and the fans are free to express > their opinions about it. True. But then, she couldn't even if she wanted to ;-) > However, universal morality dictated that our gov't > intervene and make it a federal law that allowed > blacks to vote. I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply the Constitution. I must say I wonder at the phrase "universal morality". What do you mean by that? > I never understood the argument "hate the sin, > but love the sinner". I have always viewed that as > a cop-out to tackle the real reasons why someone > could "hate" a "sin". Well, that's an example of why I believe it is so incredibly important that people try and UNDERSTAND each other: for many Christians, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is a very deep, real and meaningful concept. > Adultery, stealing, lying are all in the 10 > commandments; being gay is not - you'd think if it > was such a moral sin, God would have made Moses > write that one out on the top 10 Since God ordered marriage between man and woman only, and then forbade all sexual relationships outside of marriage, homosexuality was automatically condemned. Condemning it specifically would have been redundant. > Out of all of the passages in the Bible, there are > only a couple that deal with homosexuality and that > really was just a reflection and a backlash against > the Greek & Roman cultures at the time. Many Christians understand a couple of verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be directly about homosexuality. That would make them (the verses) part of the Mosaic Law, which is older than the Greek and Roman cultures if I'm not mistaken. Many other Christians hold other positions which allow them to embrace homosexuality. But who is to say which groups of Christians have got it right, and which ones have got it wrong? Who is to say that "these ones are interpreting the Bible correctly but those ones are misinterpreting it" ? There is no ultimate human authority on how to interpret the Bible. And if people are sincerely convinced that they are interpreting the Bible correctly, then how can they be expected NOT to act on their beliefs? The way I see it, it is EXACTLY the same situation on both sides of this or any other issue: people have convictions, and they try and mold the world according to those convictions, those who believe differently be damned since they are wrong anyway. Del