A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion )

[mooseming]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" 
<pbnesbit at m...> wrote:
> > Kathy wrote:
snip  
> > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like 
them?
> 
> 
> OK. I'll come clean, but you probably won't be impressed. More 
likely 
> images of lepers will spring to mind, an untouchable polluting the 
well-
> spring of pure fandom. Ah, well, such is life.

Nah I have a sneaking suspicion we agree!

>  
> For sure it wasn't because I'm enamoured of tales of adolescents 
waving 
> bits of wood around. Nor was it an addiction to the fantasy genre 
per se.
> The fascinating aspect of HP was that it was a work in progress, 
and a work
> that looked detailed and complicated, that it was unfinished, thus 
offering 
> an opportunity to let my imagination off the leash. 

Yup, that's why I'm here. I would add that by and large JK is a very 
generous author, by that I mean not as controlling as some. I like 
many children's books because of this.

Of course she may not really be generous she may simply have plot 
holes you can drive a bus through but that's an argument for another 
rainy day.

If it were a finished work
> then I'd not be here. I'd probably read the books once and then 
leave them
> on the shelf. 
> Let's face it - great literature they ain't.

Perhaps not Booker stuff (and I have own problems with that) but 
then again it is a great literary *event* and may change how people 
read and write fiction....

> 
> A reversion to childhood perhaps. Dunno about over the water but 
years 
> ago back here there was what was known as the 'Saturday morning 
tanner 
> rush'. The ABC cinema chain (maybe others as well) used to have 
children's 
> matinees on Saturday mornings - kids only, usually in the 7-10 age 
bracket,
> no adults, sixpence (a tanner) to get in. The programme was a 
couple of
> cartoons and a load of old serials - and they were old even in the 
early 50s
> when I was a participating afficianado. 'Participating' is the 
correct word,
> 'cos  the place often became a seething mass of irrepressible 
youth as
> sword fights were re-enacted in the aisles, invasion by robots was 
> re-interpreted on the balcony, the orchestra pit became a pirate 
ship that
> just had to be boarded and generalised mayhem erupted every
> time Gene Autry unslung his guitar and sang something 'soppy' to 
Dale
> whatsername. 

sniping nostalgia bit (I was there)

those serials! They
> keep us going until the following Saturday -  revising, 
interpreting,
> imagining where they would go next. So in the school playground it 
was
> "Pretend I'm Flash Gordon and you're a Clay Man disguised as the 
wall of
> the tunnel, and I've got this ray gun and...." 

Oh all right then but I want the leather boots AND the cape!

much snipage of very good stuff

 I imagine that
> those fans getting twitchy about whether the up-coming resolution 
will
> meet expectations are those that would have stormed the ticket-
office
> back then if Ming the Merciless, plus minions, didn't eventually 
get their 
> retributive desserts.

Funny you should mention that but I just happen to have a cat named 
Ming the Merciless!

> 
> It's fair to say that I've never taken HP seriously and can't see 
any reason
> why I should. Nor has any emotional involvement ever marred my 
musings
> of what has/is/will happen. Others react differently. That's up to 
them, I
> won't try to force them to accept my viewpoint so long as they 
don't try
> to impose theirs on me. I'm not a great fan of interpretative 
orthodoxy,
> it's the differences between posted opinions that makes them 
interesting,
> not the conformities.
> 
> Meantime, I'll continue playing my imaginative games.
> Sorry if they displease you, but you can always skip over the 
Kneasy posts
> if they get unbearable. It won't hurt my feelings, honest.
> 
> Kneasy

Wouldn't dream of it sweety.

Regards
Jo