Bumbling Schaferisms -- Harry's Scar -- Children's Literature (Again!) -- L.O.O.N. Membership

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 23084

Hi --

SCHAEFER BOOK & THE NEW COLBERT BOOK ON HP:

Tabouli wrote:

> What I took from this sentence was that Schafer had done a cursory
> glance around the internet and vaguely remembered something about
> "bumblebee" somewhere, couldn't be bothered checking what or where it
> was, and bunged in the contortion line as a stopgap measure.  Which is
> all very well if one is quoting from canon on HP4G (she says
> hastily!), but a bit rich coming from a PhD-wielding specialist in
> children's literature supposedly writing a researched reference book.

> More irritating still, she can't seem to decide whether she's behind a
> lectern, in a pulpit, or sprouting sentimental words of wisdom at the
> end of a chat show.  Some more choice samples:

I couldn't agree more.  I too read the Schaefer book and found it to be
poorly researched and full of ridiculous conclusions and theories.  I
was never too terribly convinced that Schaefer had even read the books
more than once.  I no longer have the book, having forwarded it on to
another member, but one example comes to mind.  There are various
appendices, including a listing of Major Characters.  The Dursleys are
included on that list.  Ron and Hermione are not.  Tabouli already
listed out some of the funniest statements/theories so I won't rack my
brain to try and remember more.  Suffice to say that I agree that the
Schaefer book is not worth a read IMO.

Along those same lines, I did read the newly published "Magical Worlds
of Harry Potter" by David Colbert this week.  In comparison to the
Schaefer book, I'd give it 5 stars.  On its own merits, I'd probably
only give it 3 stars.  It is a collection of short essays on magical
creatures and legends, such as Cerebrus (3 headed dog from mythology),
Sphinx, Nagini, unicorns, wands, Kappas, alchemy, etc.  In general, I
wish he'd done a more thorough job of discussing how the HP books tie in
with each of these things.  He gets a few things wrong, most blatantly
equating the Goblet of Fire with the Triwizard Cup.  But, all in all, I
had the feeling that he had read the books more closely than Schaefer,
and his information appears to be reasonably accurate.  It's an
entertaining & informative read.

HARRY'S SCAR -- I really really like David's points about Harry's scar
-- that it *could* be a mark of his survival, possibly because of his
mother's sacrifice.  I do still lean more towards the Super Harry
theories myself (that is, I tend to discount that Lily is the *only*
mother who died trying to save a child from Voldemort or the Death
Eaters in general ... or at least I think there must be more to it than
*just* Lily's sacrifice).  But, I'd never really considered that the
Riddles (and possibly Cedric) were unblemished, unmarked.  Now that you
think of it, Moody's lesson on the Unforgiveable Curses showed the AK'd
spider as being unblemished, didn't it?  Hmmm.  Anyway, interesting
theory for sure.

CHILDREN'S LITERATURE?  -- Was everyone wondering if & when I would
reply to this?  Wouldn't want to disappoint anyone!

Opal Dragonfly wrote:

> Thus, HP works ARE Children's Literature--they started out geared
> for an Intermediate audience level (9-12) and they are expanding
> to "Young Adult" as their target audience.
>
I'm not clear if you're saying that the books started out being
*marketed* to the intermediate level or *targeted at/written for* the
intermediate level.  The former is certainly true.  The latter is
definitely not true, based on JKR's own statements in numerous
interviews (she didn't set out to write for children at all, let alone a
specific age group of children).

> My opinion is that JKR is encountering a bit of difficulty in making the series STILL suitable
> for the younger age group while keeping the interest and needs of the
> older children satisfied.  Her trouble started when much younger
> children got "caught up" in the Potter "feeding franzy" and now have
> not aged enough to deal with the "heavier issues" she has
> incorporated into her books.  I am sure she will stay true to her
> themes and philosophy of life, but she may find herself adopting
> Albus Dumbledore's approach:  she won't lie, but she may not tell all
> either!!!
>
Actually, she addressed this issue in several interviews immediately
after the release of GoF.  She was asked in several interviews if GoF
was as dark as she intended to go and whether she would plan on "toning
it down" for benefit of younger readers.  Her response was an emphatic
"No!"  She said she has a plan, an outline, a vision ... and she doesn't
intend to alter from that course.  She said she's said all along that
she's known what's coming and the later books in the series are not
going to be appropriate for the younger kids.  I have all this covered
in the FAQ on JKR and the FAQ on the Universal Appeal of HP (the FAQs
are coming to a website near you very very soon ...)

Then again, I'm of the opinion that these are not "just childrens'
books."  :--)

L.O.O.N. MEMBERSHIP: I can't quite recall the criteria for LOON
membership.  Am I at least an honorary L.O.O.N. by virtue of being the
List Owner?  <g>  If that's not enough, I do get credit for being the
first person to point out the ancestor/descendant error in CoS.  Is that
enough?  Just curious if I could be adding the L.O.O.N. designation to
my sig!

Penny
List Owner, member of the Magical Mod Squad, Captain of the H/H Ship ...
and possible L.O.O.N.


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