Pullman is Lockhart was Re: The Hidden Key to Harry Potter

[pennylin]

No: HPFGUIDX 60352

Hi -- 

Thanks, Kia, for all the sources where Rowling has mentioned Pullman favorably.  I didn't have him logged in mentally as someone that she'd mentioned as a favorite or a recommendation, but obviously he is.  

On Granger specifically, Kia says:

<<<<He uses Rowling and her work for his own anti-Pullman agenda.  
Lockhart is a fraud, a liar, he isn't good at anything, but memory 
charms and smiles, he is actually one of the villains in CoS. 
Saying Rowling wrote Lockhart as Pullman is a nice theory, but if 
Granger has done the littlest of researchs, he must have known 
that this is impossible. The only piece of evidence Granger has 
is that Pullman wrote about a (female) character named Sally 
Lockhart once, which to me and with keeping Rowling's widely 
available quotes in mind, is more of an homage than a diss.

And if Rowling would portrayed Pullman here (the two have never 
met by the way - so how could she pick up on anything that is 
worth making it into a character?), she would have "bashed" him 
and I can't see her doing that, not when she admires his work.>>>>>>>>

Couple of minor quibbles here.  First, how do you *know* that Rowling and Pullman have never met?  :::arches eyebrows:::  Granger indicates that Rowling has said she met her Lockhart model at an English book fair, and that Pullman has been featured at such events obviously for many years.  I've never heard Rowling say that she met a Lockhart model at an English book fair.  I've always just heard that the character is based on a real person and that she won't divulge many details.  So, I don't know Granger's source for that tidbit, but I don't think it sounds like a logical fallacy for him to conclude that it was *possible* that Rowling met Pullman at a book fair and found him to be vain and desirous of public adulation.  

Further, with respect to not bashing him when she admires his work, well, why not?  She might admire his *work* but not admire him as a *person.*  Eh?  I do concede though that a review of Rowling interviews should certainly indicate that Rowling admires Pullman's work.  But, again, the two don't necessarily equate.

<<<<<<<<And I think Granger knows that. It's a factual and willful mistake on his part. He is chipping at the wall to make his 
measurements meet and tells us that the base divided by twice 
the height is pi, and hopes that we never find out that it isn't. And 
with that in mind, his work, becomes dubious.>>>>>>>>>

Now, now.  Rather strong stuff to accuse someone of willfully making factual errors, don't you think?  'Tis a little harsh, IMHO.  

And, I'm sorry, Kia, but my brain is sooooo not mathematical, and I'm afraid I just don't follow your Eco point.  :::sheepish smile::::  I'm afraid I'll stand by my contention that one rather minor theory being shot down as factually inaccurate doesn't make the building come tumbling down.  Or, it just doesn't strike *me* as very reasonable to take this hard-line stance.  

To me, the Pullman as Lockhart thing was just sort of quirky.  I thought "Oh!  Wow.  Never heard *that* one before."  :::shrugs:::  Just doesn't seem like that big a deal on the whole.  

<<<<<<He wants Rowling to be a Christian author and quite frankly, right 
now Harry Potter is not an "inkling" work. It could be one, but right 
now, it's not Narnia, it's not Lord of the Rings, not by long shot, 
however much Granger wants it to be. And Granger has an 
agenda in this book and I think this colors his evidence.>>>>>>>>

Well, throwing in an "IMO" here and there above might soften your words a bit.  It *is* rather a matter of *opinion* whether JKR's books are Inkling-level, is it not?  It's a matter of interpretation and subjective taste.  Yes?  Disagreeing with Granger's conclusions is obviously fine and a good many people would.  I don't agree with everything in his book myself.  I think some of it is a stretch.  But, that doesn't mean he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.  And, I just can't get my head around the idea that one "predictive" theory being debunked as factually problematic means that the whole of someone's work must be attacked as suspect.  But, maybe that's just me.

Penny

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