Grammar, the Good & the Ugly, prejudice, STATICSAP, SLAPDASH

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 33886

Eileen:
> My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and marked 
all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar continues 
to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in fact, it can be 
down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" copy. <

When it comes to fiction and creative writing in general, I personally think that atmosphere, expression and storytelling are far more important than grammar.  If I'm writing an academic essay, I switch on my inner grammar checker (though the pathetic built-in specimen that comes with Word deserves to be deleted for sheer incompetence), and try to avoid splitting infinitives, ending sentences on prepositions (something up with which one should not put?), starting sentences with "and" or "but", etc.etc.  OTOH, if I'm writing a story or poem, I have no qualms about disregarding the rules if I think they're getting in the way of what I want to say, or the effect I want to achieve.

Each to their own, I suppose! (=each to his or her own?)  I have my limits (e.g. I'm rather anal about spelling), but JKR's grammar feels "colloquially correct", so I don't care if it's not "textbook correct".  I don't at all get the impression that her "mistakes" reflect an ignorance of correct grammar: more an awareness of and appreciation for colloquial language use.  I imagine that a woman with an education in Classics, languages and literature who spent much of her working life teaching a humanities subject (French) will be pretty well-versed in "correct" grammar... she just doesn't see this as appropriate for the books she is writing.  And I, for one, found C.S. Lewis' self-conscious asides about grammar in the Narnia books ("It isn't HER!", he said, which is bad grammar but the way Beavers speak in Narnia when they get excited, or whatever it was) a bit annoying.  Surely only the fustiest of Oxford academics would find the colloquially almost universal "It isn't HER!" offensive (or would seriously entertain substituting "It isn't SHE!", which is what I presume the Beaver would have said if he'd had a public school education in Grammar).  I suppose, as Pippin said, it's also a reflection of the times in which the authors were/are writing and publishing.

More Eileen:
> You people haven't read the Silmarillion, eh? 

Nope!  Last time I tried (during my teens), my eyes began to glaze over with exhaustion.  I suppose I could have another go...

Still More Eileen:
> However, there is in Tolkien and Rowling, a disturbing correlation 
between evil/good and looks. It's not simplistic. Gilderoy Lockhart 
and Saruman are fair-looking and evil. So far we've had no HP 
character that's not fair-looking and is also good. (The real Mad-Eye 
Moody exists, for example, but he's not a character.)<

JKR does have a few seemingly Good characters who are no oil paintings, so to speak (not to mention the actual oil painting of the Fat Lady, who seems Good but whose figure wouldn't cut it by 1990s standards!).  Professors Sprout and McGonagall,  Molly and Arthur Weasley,  Hagrid, Neville,  Krum, etc.  Certainly an improvement on the standard Hollywood teen movie set in a high school full of models (for ugly nerd, just add glasses).

Eileen (who really seems to have inspired me today!):
>>His need to compartmentalize good and evil, to constantly categorize and make 
> divisions concerning morality, reflects the kind of logic that is 
> very dangerous, that can be (and has been) used to justify anything 
> from genocide to slavery.<<
>
>Oh for heaven's sakes, could we be a little more TOLERANT than that? 
GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY? So when do we start making the Nazi comparisons 
about people who disagree with us?<

Actually, extremely black and white logic *is*, in fact, closely associated with prejudiced attitudes (which, combined with the right/wrong combination of power and circumstances, have led to the horrors mentioned).  Studying the link between "black&white logic" and prejudice was the very topic of my thesis, and I could send you my entire reference list and the results of my own research as evidence!  (nonono, comes the alarmed chorus of HPFGU listmembers, that's quite all right).  All the same, I agree that comparing Kevin with Hitler would be going a mite far, though I don't think ladjables was really doing that...

Eileen (can't have too much of a good thing, eh?):
> Not to scare him, as his defenders insist. Not to kill him, as Snape 
insists. But to have Lupin bite him, making Snape a werewolf. Maybe, 
Sirius thought that arrogant, bigoted Snape deserved to see the world 
from the point of the down and out like Lupin (...) Of course, an acronym is needed. Tabouli?<

S.T.A.T.I.C.S.A.P. (Sirius' Trick Aimed To Instruct Callous Snape About Prejudice)(Whomping Willow freezing reference?)

Cindy (just for a change):
> Because his mother was relieved of her soul while he was in 
utero, Severus is part-dementor and has many of the characteristics 
of a dementor, but not to the same degree as a real dementor (cold, 
gliding, draining happiness from the air around them, infesting the 
darkest places)(...) OK, it's not L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., but it's a start. :-)<

(Captain of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. though she is, Tabouli has to grin evilly at this theory, which gets points for sheer imagination).  I think, as creative force behind this theory, Cindy should be comandeered to write the alternative Unauthorised Biography of Severus Snape...

S.L.A.P.D.A.S.H.!  (Snape's Life As Part-Dementor: A Sorrowful History).

Tabouli (chuckling with glee)


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