HP4GU Contest #13 results

Sun Sep 9 05:31:13 UTC 2001

No: HPFGUIDX 25806

Here are the results of Contest #13, in which you were asked to find 
at least 25 errors in the Literary Guild's descriptions of the 4 HP 
books.  I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear we have a real 
bunch of LOONs around here, fingers poised over their keyboards, 
ready to nitpick at the drop of a hat, and an excellent job of 
tearing apart the horrible Literary Guild book descriptions was done 
by all of them.  In fact, as a service to humankind, I am thinking of 
forwarding these results to the Literary Guild.

Contest participants were: Natalie, Julia, Jen (jenP_97), JB 
bonds0097 (Alfredo Ramírez), Robin Warner, Neth, CMC, Witchwanda, 
Herald Talia, Catherine Coleman, Malabud aka Jeanine, Little lama, 
David Frankis, Martin Smith, and Amber.  (I hope I haven't forgotten 
anyone.) All of them (except, of course, for David Frankis) have been 
initiated into the ranks of L.O.O.N.

The original Literary Guild text is contained in <triangular 
brackets> and a summary of the comments of contest participants are 
reported below each sentence.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

<Headline: Harry Potter is back!>

What's the point of the word "Headline" here?
If it's a headline, why isn't it capitalized?
Of course Harry Potter is back, it's a series.

<The wildly popular phenomenon continues The excitement and 
anticipation for the next Harry Potter adventure is growing in leaps 
and bounds.>

There is a period (full stop) missing between "continues" and "The."
"Growing in leaps and bounds" is a meaningless cliche which adds 
nothing to the description of the book.  It's not even correct – it 
should be "growing BY leaps and bounds"
It should say "excitement and anticipation....ARE growing"
This sentence has got to be one of the most annoying ones I've ever 
read: "The excitement and anticipation for the next Harry Potter 
adventure is growing in leaps and bounds."  Yuck!  Putting aside the 
fact that it's awkward, and the cliche at the end is awful, I can't 
imagine why they're advertising the "next Harry Potter adventure" 
when they're supposed to be describing the current one.
Which adventure are they referring to? Nobody's still looking forward 
to Book 4.
This sentence is unnecessarily repetitive – excitement AND 
anticipation; growing AND leaps and bounds; not just popular but 
wildly popular, etc.

< What wild and wonderful escapades await the little wizard?>

"Little" wizard?  He's 14, for goodness sake.
This sentence adds absolutely nothing to the description of the book.
This just sounds terrible, and I can't imagine someone who has 
actually read the books writing a sentence like this.  Of course, I 
can't imagine anyone over the age of 18 who's been to college and is 
having any writing published in ANY forum writing a sentence like 
this.

< The fourth in the phenomenally popular Harry Potter series begins 
with the young wizard turning 14, but rumor has it that one of his 
friends may not make it through to see his birthday celebration.>

GoF begins with the Riddle house on a night in August, not with Harry 
turning 14 on July 31.
What rumor?  How come no one ever heard this rumor?
Harry never gets a birthday celebration, and his other friends are 
never around on his birthday.
Cedric is an acquaintance, not a friend.
If the book BEGINS with his birthday, how could the plot involve the 
possibility that someone will not make it UNTIL his birthday?
The words "phenomena" (and its relatives) is used far too often.
Fourth what?  Shouldn't the word "book" appear in this sentence 
somewhere?

< You'll have to read to find out the juicy details!>

Juicy?  This isn't a romance novel, nor the National Enquirer.
The death of Cedric Diggory is hardly a "juicy" detail.
Shouldn't this sentence say "You'll have to read IT to find out the 
juicy details!" As it reads now, it implies that just reading in 
general will help me find out juicy details.  Don't I have to read a 
specific book, like, oh I don't know, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of 
Fire"? 

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN

<Harry Potter returns with his friends for their third year at 
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.>

This sentence is awkwardly constructed.

< And boy, are their hands full!>

What are their hands full of?
While this is grammatically correct, the use of "boy" as an 
interjection is usually limited to speech or dialogue rather than 
descriptive writing.
You shouldn't start a sentence with AND.
This is yet another useless sentence.

< As with all third years of study, there is much more work to do and 
the pressure is on.>

Huh? What kind of generalization is this?  Since when does the third 
year of school have a reputation for being more difficult than any 
other?  There is not *much* more work to do for Harry and Ron, only 
for Hermione.

< As if that wasn't bad enough, Harry finds out that an evil wizard 
has escaped from Azkaban prison and is after him!>

Inappropriate tense change – uses "is" in previous sentence and "was" 
in this sentence to refer to the same time period.
While the phrase "As if that wasn't bad enough" is not exactly 
incorrect, the use of the subjunctive tense would be preferable 
here: "As if that weren't bad enough..."
He doesn't 'find out' (because it isn't true) - he only hears that 
this has happened.

< Combine that with having to live with his horrid aunt, uncle and 
annoying cousin Dudly and it's enough to make the head on Harry's 
flying broom spin.>

Dudley, not Dudly.
There should be a comma after "Dudly."
He doesn't really live with the Dursleys any more, he only spends 
summers with them.
Brooms don't have heads; they have tails and handles.
And even if they did have heads, why would they spin?
If the pressure is as bad as this description says, shouldn't it be 
Harry's head that would be spinning?
"Annoying" is not really the best description of Dudley.  He's 
spoiled, and a bully, and does his best to make Harry's life 
miserable – that's a lot worse than annoying.
How is having Sirius Black chasing him ever "combined with" having to 
live with the Dursleys during the summer?   He's left Privet Drive 
before he finds out that Sirius is after him.
It is the context of this paragraph which is particularly annoying – 
it reads as though Hogwarts isn't a boarding school, and that he is 
coping with his studies and Sirius Black as well as having to live at 
home with the Dursleys.

< Can Harry outsmart the evil wizard and save his friend's beloved 
pet from a death sentence?>

Does this refer to Scabbers or Buckbeak?
Scabbers' getting harassed by Crookshanks is hardly a death sentence, 
and when Sirius and Lupin ARE ready to kill him, he's no longer Ron's 
beloved pet
Buckbeak isn't exactly a pet.
This sentence implies that the "evil wizard" has put the pet under 
the death sentence, but that doesn't make sense.  The MoM puts 
Buckbeak under a death sentence.
They imply that Sirius Black is an "evil wizard." How is outsmarting 
him part of the plot?

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS

Phenomenon, not phenomena.  ("Phenomena" is plural.)
And how many times are they going to use the word "phenomena" anyway?

< Her debut novel has already spent six months on The New York Times 
bestseller list!>

A lot more than six months by now.

< With new torments and horrors and a little magic "floor" powder, 
Harry and his chums return once again, casting a spell ovr children 
and adults alike.>

"Floo" powder, not "floor" powder, and with a capital F.
Floo powder is only used for the trip to Diagon Alley, not all over 
the book like cheap confetti. 
"Over," not "ovr."
The phrase "return once again" is redundant, and makes no sense when 
referring to the second book in a series.  It is sufficient to 
say "Harry and his chums return, casting a spell...."
I really don't see this as accurately characterizing the series. New 
torments and horrors? Yes, they are there, but I'd hardly classify 
the series as a horror series. 

<Harry's about to start his second year at Hogwarts School of 
Witchcraft ad Wizardry.>

Ad wizardry? Harry works for the Daily Prophet?  "And," not "ad."

< But from day one, it seems he's going to have his hands full.>

This is the second time the "hands full" cliche has been used.
Sentences should not start with conjunctions.
This sentence is meaningless and explains nothing about the book.

< There's a stuck-up new professor, Gilderoy Lockheart; a more 
determined Draco Malfoy; a spirit named Morning Myrtle who haunts the 
girls' bathroom, and the unwanted attentions of Ron Weasley's younger 
sister, Giny.>

"Lockhart," not "Lockheart;" "Moaning Myrtle," not "Morning 
Myrtle;" "Ginny," not "Giny."
(Does "Giny" rhyme with "Tiny"?)
There is nothing to indicate that Ginny's attentions are unwanted – 
ignored, maybe, but not necessarily unwanted.
It is not accurate to call Lockhart "stuck-up," since that implies 
disdain for people.  It is more accurate to describe Lockhart as 
egocentric, self-involved, vain, pompous, arrogant, or meddling.
Myrtle is more accurately described as a ghost, not a spirit.
There is more than one girl's bathroom at Hogwarts, so the phrase 
should be "...Moaning Myrtle who haunts A girl's bathroom."
The use of colons and commas is inconsistent in this sentence.
It is not really accurate to say Draco is "more determined."  More 
determined to do what?

< But that's nothing--the real problem arises when Hogwart students 
begin turning into stone!>

"Hogwarts" not "Hogwart."
They don't really turn to stone, they are petrified

< Who could be so evil?>  < May it's Hagrid the Gamekeeper?>

"Maybe," not "May."
This isn't a question.
The word gamekeeper does not need to be capitalized, as it's not 
Hagrid's title.  (Hagrid's title is Keeper of the Keys and Grounds.)

< Or maybe even Harry himself?>

This isn't a question, either.
This isn't a complete sentence – it doesn't have a verb.
Sentences, even incomplete ones, shouldn't start with a conjunction.
Are there any readers who believe that Harry is the one who is "so 
evil?"

<J.K. Rowling has become as famous for her monsters and wizards as 
she has for the way her first novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's 
Stone, was conceived.>

This makes no sense.  She is as famous for her monsters and wizards 
as she is for how the book was conceived?  That implies that the way 
the HP books were conceived is the most well-known thing about the HP 
books, more than the content of the books themselves.  If she is 
equally famous for both, then if her books had all turned out really 
crummy, the way in which she wrote them would have still made her 
famous.
This is just an exceedingly torturous, run on sentence. The general 
rule is one thought per sentence. Commas do not cure all ills.
When it was conceived, it was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's 
Stone.

< Scribbling on scraps of paper, Towling wrote most of the manuscript 
sitting in a cafe while her infant daughter napped beside her!>

"Rowling," not "Towling."
She didn't scribble on scraps of paper, she wrote on pads of paper.
Tortuous use of the passive voice was written here.
While JKR does, reportedly, do a lot of writing in cafes (or did, 
anyway) the HP books were "conceived" during a train ride.
I'm sorry I haven't read all about how JKR wrote her first book, so I 
use hard logic instead. I find it hard to believe that her daughter 
was napping all the time. Surely the noise of the café would wake her 
up ever so often? Or else, if JKR wasn't at the café most of the 
time, her daughter could nap, but then the statement would be 
incorrect. Either way, this counts a factual error in my book. 

<The magic is back!>

Another meaningless sentence.  Does this person get paid by the word 
for these stupid reviews?

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE

<Remember that magical feeling you got the first time you read Roald 
Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?>

[Note: In defense of the Literary Guild, it has to be pointed out 
that they correctly italicized Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and 
the other titles; but the italics didn't translate to Yahoo's format.]

< I never expected to feel that way about a book again--until I 'met' 
11-year-old orphan, Harry Potter.>

The double hyphen is not really necessary here, and the single 
quotation marks around "met" are probably not necessary either.  Come 
to think of it, neither is the comma after the word "orphan."

< Originally, I brought the book home for my finicky 10-year-old 
nephew, David.>

What does this sentence add to the review?

< But it wasn't long before I found myself sneaking off to read it 
myself.>

The second "myself" redundant, unless we are supposed to be impressed 
by the fact that this reviewer has the ability to read books by 
his/herself.  (Which, judging by her/his English skills, probably is 
quite an accomplishment.)
This reviewer just loves to start sentences with conjunctions!

< J. K. Rowling swept me away to a mystical world of powerful 
wizards, deadly plants, potent potions, gentle giants and beautiful 
unicorns.>

The only unicorn is the dead and bloody one that Quirrel is sucking 
blood from – that is not what most people would call beautiful.
"Mystical" world?  What's mystical about it?  Try magical, 
fascinating, delightful, imaginative, etc., but not mystical.  It 
doesn't become mystical until Sybill joins the cast in PoA.
Note: a lot of people said that it was a mistake to include "gentle 
giants" here because we don't find out that Hagrid is half-giant 
until GoF.  However, JKR refers to Hagrid as "the giant" several 
times in Chapter 4, before Harry learns his name, so I am letting 
this one slide.

< Already a huge hit overseas, Harry is poised to take America by 
storm.>

Poised?  The Harry Potter books have already "taken America by 
storm." Isn't that why the Literary Guild is selling them?

< Here's your chance to say that you and your family read Harry 
Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone before it became a classic.>

Saying "before it became a classic" means, at least in this context, 
that it already is a classic, and therefore, you and your family have 
already missed the opportunity to read it before, unless you have a 
time-turner, which you don't. 

< Harry's is an adventure that is not to be missed!>

But *you* missed it since I don't believe you have really read it.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Generally, absolutely excruciating to read. Very repetitive in style, 
concentrates on things which do not seem too important, and instead 
doesn't mention things such as Quidditch, Dumbledore and Snape, 
Voldemort, the Triwizard Tournament, any of Harry's history – the 
reviewer doesn't
even mention the Dursleys until Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd like to 
write it myself (and most of the children I know could do better).

I'd love to kidnap this person, tie him up, and delete the Thesaurus 
option on his computer.

I have many problems with the way this is written.  The overuse of 
words like phenomenon, phenomenally, and phenomena, for instance, 
really sounded awkward and odd.  It's hard to tell if the person who 
wrote this actually read the books or is just relaying second-hand 
information. I'm a professional proofreader, and this copy wouldn't 
have left my desk without a lot of red ink on it!

The biggest error of them all is letting whoever wrote this keep 
their job. They need to go back and take an English class!