From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed May 3 13:14:17 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:14:17 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Product of insomnia or Mimbulus Mimbletonia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200605031514.17482.silmariel@...> It rains. Must celebrate it, being so unfrequent here. No... it is insomnia, I wrote this last night. Jo: > Mimbulus Mimbletonia: what's in a name? > > Mimosa = aka the sensitive plant > Nimbus = aura > > Mimbus = sensitive to auras > > Things we know: > > Neville was given the plant by Uncle Algie, it is rare. Would it be out of another world that he hasn't catched the clue, or he didn't bother to explain, in case of being paired with Luna? He says the plant has interesting qualities, maybe his uncle told him. I mean. The plant is Assyrian, I think, and last time I checked that was part of the Mediterranean (correct me otherwise, please, I did an internet search, but having taken no ancient studies, I really have no idea). His book can be helpful... > Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville were all blasted with stink sap from > the plant and Ron and Hermione were not. > Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville all `hear voices' by the veiled > gateway whilst Ron and Hermione don`t. > The veiled gateway `kills' people, manner unspecified. > In the Potterverse it is possible to separate the soul from the body. > Ollivander did a bunk shortly after Neville visited his shop to buy > a new wand. > Ollivander had an old wand in display in his window. > Voldy likes to use the founder's items to make HRX. > > Pure speculation: > > Ollivander's display wand was Rowena Ravenclaw's and therefore is a > HRX contender. > Ollivander's departure was a direct result of Neville's visit. > Neville said or did something to precipitate this, perhaps show an > inconvenient interest in the display wand for example. > Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville all heard voices at the veiled > gateway as a result of being stink sapped. > These are the voices of the dead, souls separated from the body > passing through the veil. > If Neville is sensitive to separated souls in the veiled gateway he > might also be sensitive to a bit of soul lurking in a HRX. > > The locket mentioned in the clearout of Grimmauld Place is that of > Salazar Slytherin and also a HRX contender but the stink sapping > occurred after interaction with the locket and therefore could have > passed undetected. > > Result: > > Hooray! no need to randomly vandalise every ancient relic in the > magical world, simply wave suspect item at a `diviner' and quicker > that you can say CAT scan instant HRX detection. Hum. Interesting, gives Neville something to do. I've been thinking recently -apropos of, guess, Snape- in the way Draco and Harry are mirrors, and Neville falls sort. For being the second prophecy child, he seems almost nonexistant, compared to Draco. No one knows what is Luna about, but Neville's story is tied from birth with Harry and it's no great jump of faith to expect some kind of tie-up for him, I think. Revenge on Bella being a bit obvious. I mean (again) we have Snape-Draco and DD-Harry, but they also were deprived at the same time of his father figure (godfather in the case of Harry), in the DoM battle, both lost it. And both have had an (unrequited or not) 'affair' with Mirtle. And Neville? Hermione is the thinker, Ginny is the warrior (oh, well, don't look at actual fight records but on what she's supposed to represent as a gifted hexer witch and quidditch heart of the team), Luna is the mystic. I don't have it so clear, with the boys. Because, if Ron is the thinker - the strategist -, thinkers were left out of the 'voices'. As I stated offlist, Neville and Luna (under a tree by the main characters endogamia rule?) appeared to be in the fridge for most of HBP to be microowened in an instant when required. Maybe because they are the mystic part, so appearances are brief, at least clearly not required by HBP. I guess it's time to shut up, I've written all the incoherences required Silmariel, petting her Numptie and wondering about Binns From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Thu May 4 13:43:28 2006 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:43:28 +0200 Subject: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: <200605031514.17482.silmariel@...> Message-ID: <000901c66f80$b9800630$0200a8c0@hwin> I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding the HP, HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all: Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP could promote interest in the occult? From what I have seen and read and from what I can google, this has been almost exclusively a concern of the conservative Christian subculture - which has fought quite bitterly about it. Everyone else has just observed the ruckus and scratched their heads. That's what it looks like from where I am, but is that the way things actually are? I'm not actually aware of any progressive/liberal Christian, secular or otherwise-religious commentators who have voiced similar concerns (let alone staged book burnings ... ), but there's a heck of a lot I haven't read ... So am I missing anything? What's more: *if* that's the way things are, why are they that way? - Is it that conservative Christians think occultism is a real, spiritual phenomenon and other people don't and hence aren't concerned? - Is it that cCs think occult *movements* (Wiccans, etc.) are dangerous, whereas other people simply don't? - Is it that cCs are closed to other religions whereas other people are more open to inter-religious dialogue? - Is it that cCs read differently than other people? - ? Baaaaa, Mike the Curious Goat -------------------- *whatever that means From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Thu May 4 16:59:11 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:59:11 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Debates about HP and Witchcraft Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A86E9@...> This is an interesting question, and may I add a bit to it that has interested me? 'Conservative' Christian groups have had this concern, and yet I've never run into any LDS(Mormon) criticism on this account. It occurred to me after realizing what a lot of LDS fans I knew. I hunted around and couldn't find anything. Now, I'm not an expert on LDS theology, but I think that they believe strongly in the existence of the devil and the danger of the occult, and yet they aren't up in arms about HP. > - Is it that cCs are closed to other religions whereas other people are > more > open to inter-religious dialogue? I don't really think so, since aside from the anti-HP folks, people don't see HP as religious in any way. A person who likes HP isn't feeling that they're engaging in inter-religious dialogue. Eileen From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Fri May 5 00:45:36 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:45:36 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Debates about HP and Witchcraft References: <000901c66f80$b9800630$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: <001e01c66fdd$3ee21fa0$482fdcd1@...> Dear one, these are the same folks who are staging hate rallies at the funerals of Iraqi veterans (see in the latest Time) and periodically have a go at getting Huckleberry Finn banned in the schools. One of my friends was, until she very gratefully retired a year ago, a middle-school teacher in eastern Washington state, and had had regular run-ins with this mind (?) set. Like the mother who refused to let her daughter read Treasure Island because the pirates used "rough language". ("Shiver me timbers" is rough language?) Basically, the conclusion most people I know have come to (and that includes quite a few Wiccan, whose credo is "Harm none") is that these folks simply hate anyone who does not think (?) exactly as they do, and are trying their very best to force their beliefs on the rest of us. And with the Yahoo we've got in the White House (oh, they scrubbed him and shaved him and put a suit on him, but you can still tell), they just might succeed. --Gatta I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding the HP, HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all: Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP could promote interest in the occult? From what I have seen and read and from what I can google, this has been almost exclusively a concern of the conservative Christian subculture - which has fought quite bitterly about it. Everyone else has just observed the ruckus and scratched their heads. That's what it looks like from where I am, but is that the way things actually are? I'm not actually aware of any progressive/liberal Christian, secular or otherwise-religious commentators who have voiced similar concerns (let alone staged book burnings ... ), but there's a heck of a lot I haven't read ... So am I missing anything? What's more: *if* that's the way things are, why are they that way? - Is it that conservative Christians think occultism is a real, spiritual phenomenon and other people don't and hence aren't concerned? - Is it that cCs think occult *movements* (Wiccans, etc.) are dangerous, whereas other people simply don't? - Is it that cCs are closed to other religions whereas other people are more open to inter-religious dialogue? - Is it that cCs read differently than other people? - ? Baaaaa, Mike the Curious Goat -------------------- *whatever that means SPONSORED LINKS Albus dumbledore Jk rowling Goblet of fire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri May 5 12:40:23 2006 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:40:23 -0000 Subject: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: <000901c66f80$b9800630$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray" wrote: > > I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding the HP, > HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all: > > Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP > could promote interest in the occult? From what I have seen and read and > from what I can google, this has been almost exclusively a concern of the > conservative Christian subculture - which has fought quite bitterly about > it. Everyone else has just observed the ruckus and scratched their heads. > That's what it looks like from where I am, but is that the way things > actually are? > snip > > Baaaaa, > > Mike the Curious Goat > -------------------- > *whatever that means > Hum, interesting question! Which of course I cannot answer, not least because I'm woefully ignorant re comparative religions. Still ignorance never stopped me having an opinion before. You have been warned! OK conservative Christians and magic. Firstly yes the Ccs do have a history of a fascination with the occult (Salem anyone?). Yet a vast amount of `magical' stuff , including that specifically aimed at children, hasn't made it onto their radar as far as I know. For example, Bewitched , I Dream of Jeannie (US TV), Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins, Five Children and IT, the Narnia books, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan. Who could have guessed that HP would push their buttons? Actually we all could because: HP is firmly based in the Christian tradition with themes of good/bad, moral choices and sacrifice. In other words its on their turf. It is popular (understatement) and the Ccs perceive themselves as representative for the moral majority, anything widespread is therefore on their turf also. HP draws much of its inspiration from and to a large part is about educational institutions . Ccs are evangelical/missionary, they believe in actively promoting their doctrine, any institution which is engaged in teaching must therefore `belong' to them. Representations of same are targets for criticism. Ccs are fundamentalists, they have to make value judgements which are essentialist not relativist in nature. Something has to be ultimately good or bad. HPis new and therefore unjudged, all historical cannon is deemed to have been judged already. The judgement of HP does not have to be consistent with existing cannon. The argument progresses something like this: `I read, enjoyed Cinderella, although I acknowledge there is magic and a fairy godmother who employs it but as it didn't corrupt me it can't be bad. HP is different from Cinderella because in HP the children use magic themselves and so can be seen to be bad. Whilst I recognise children do use magic themselves in say Bedknobs and Broomsticks they are not actively taught it so HP is different from that. Yes it is true that in Fantasia Micky Mouse learns magic but a cartoon mouse is not a real child. And so it goes on with the goalposts constantly moving in an argument that amounts to `this book is unique in its combination of themes ,characters etc so I reserve the right to judge it as bad on that alone'. Consequently ccs are prone to argue amongst themselves! Ccs have a big voice in the English speaking world. They are networked into social structures so that they are able to get themselves heard. The media in particular seek out their opinions because they make `good' headlines. Once the headlines get made the `discussion' kicks off elsewhere. So why have you (and I) heard a great deal from the ccs about HP? And why did they feel obliged to publicly pass judgement? Why did they pass a negative judgement? Why haven't we heard from other moral institutions? Ccs have a loud voice. Anything new in their territory of morality, majority, education will be judged publicly. That judgement has to be either good or bad. There is a historical ambivalence to things magical. There is also an historical precedent for magical children's books. HP didn't *have* to be judged as bad although that doesn't necessarily mean HP *can't* be judged as bad. However, who would have reported : SHOCK/HORROR `Right wing Christians think HP is mostly harmless fun with a good solid moral message about making the right choices!' If we take this analysis (if I can call it that) and apply it to other religions I would expect to see some ignoring HP as it doesn't fall into their territory, some deciding on the whole it's a good or at least harmless thing (although this would not be deducible from previous judgements) and some following the CC approach. Of the first two groups we would hear nothing (as they create no headline material) and the third would probably be drowned out by the CC anyway unless they were of a similar strength and size. Given comparative status we still may not hear from these people because `religion x agrees with religion y' is again not headline material. So I can't really say the cc response is necessarily indicative that they are responding to a witch fetish , although I can't rule it out, however their acceptance of many other magical style children's books rather suggests not. Nor can I say we haven't heard in the wider public sphere from other moral institutions because they *don't* have a thing about witches as what we hear is a result of what `makes' headlines and who made the news first. What their private response is I cannot possibly say or even guess at. Personally I hope they are focussing on less trivial issues (and I never thought I'd call HP trivial!!!). I for one believe there are enough truly `bad' things happening to children around the world that demonising a children's book is at best a distraction and at worst a cynical act of self justification and power grabbing. But then I'm an idealist. Who, btw, hasn't answered your question ;-) Regards Jo From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sat May 6 14:40:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:40:21 -0000 Subject: debates about HP and Witchcraft Message-ID: "Kat Macfarlane" wrote: > > Dear one, these are the same folks who are staging hate rallies at the funerals of Iraqi veterans (see in the latest Time) and periodically have a go at getting Huckleberry Finn banned in the schools. Kathy W: Yes, that sort of person would claim to be Conservative and would claim to be Christian, but that is not what Conservative Christians are really like. That sort of individual is a fanatic. Fanatics, no matter the religion or politics, are dangerous. As a rule, I think, cCs believe that a Force (personal or impersonal) is doing battle with Christianity. That Force can move in subtle ways and entrap unsuspecting minds. Conservative Cs feel that they need to be ever watchful. Constant Vigilance sounds like a cC motto. In many cases, any playing around at witchcraft, as imagination or for real, is seen as an opening for evil influences. The issue may be that in HP, the wizards and witches are good. In C.S. Lewis, the witch is bad. The idea being that children are being made to feel comfortable with something that is evil (witchcraft). Many churches have no issues with the HP books, and many have created discussion groups and children's programs around HP books For the record, I'm not a Conservative Christian, but I did grow up in a cC community. I wrote this post three times yesterday and Yahoo-Mort ate each one. I was beginning to think some evil force was preventing me from posting this somewhat sympathetic post about cCs. I see from TOL that it's a widespread Yahoo problem. Thanks to Neil for his technical support. Kathy W. From sherriola at ... Sat May 6 15:05:07 2006 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 08:05:07 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kathy W: Yes, that sort of person would claim to be Conservative and would claim to be Christian, but that is not what Conservative Christians are really like. That sort of individual is a fanatic. Fanatics, no matter the religion or politics, are dangerous. As a rule, I think, cCs believe that a Force (personal or impersonal) is doing battle with Christianity. That Force can move in subtle ways and entrap unsuspecting minds. Conservative Cs feel that they need to be ever watchful. Constant Vigilance sounds like a cC motto. In many cases, any playing around at witchcraft, as imagination or for real, is seen as an opening for evil influences. The issue may be that in HP, the wizards and witches are good. In C.S. Lewis, the witch is bad. The idea being that children are being made to feel comfortable with something that is evil (witchcraft). Many churches have no issues with the HP books, and many have created discussion groups and children's programs around HP books For the record, I'm not a Conservative Christian, but I did grow up in a cC community. Sherry now: my very best dearest friends in the world are extremely conservative Christians. They home school their children; go to church every week; read the Bible and pray together individually and as a family, support missionaries, vote conservative, and in every possible way, they would be considered fundamentalist Christians. Except that one, they never judge anyone, as I know from personal experience, and two, they love the Harry potter books as a family. they believe they have taught their four children that witchcraft is not real, and they see no problem with the kids reading the books, no more than they have with them reading any other books with magic, or watching movies like Wizard of Oz or Disney movies. In fact, the Potter books got the oldest boy, nearly 16 now, to love reading. He'd been a terrible reader before, but he tried the first book and got hooked. Now he's an avid reader. They had to buy two books when HBP was released, so the mom could read and the oldest boy could read. I feel so frustrated when the media proclaims that Christians hate the HP series, because I know so many of them who revel in the books! I guess it's just another sign of how a few loud mouthed fanatics can give a whole segment of population a bad rap. Sherry From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 00:00:45 2006 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 00:00:45 -0000 Subject: protests against Potter Message-ID: Mike Goat wrote in : << Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP could promote interest in the occult? >> >From my limited attention to newspaper, there's at least one Roman Catholic woman (IIRC in Germany) who made noise and wrote a letter to then-Cardinal Ratzinger urging that all Catholics be warned agains the occult danger of Harry Potter. Some of the complaints against Potter, such as depicting children who disobey adults, are lazy about schoolwork, and sometimes lie, aren't *inherently* linked to a specific religion. My own evidence-less theory is that protests against Potter big enough to get media coverage (without a gimmick like the letter recipient having recently become Pope) contain mostly people who never read the books and merely repeat what they heard from some trusted source. That isn't *inherently* linked to a specific religion either. La Gatta Lucianese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4191 : << Dear one, these are the same folks who are staging hate rallies at the funerals of Iraqi veterans (see in the latest Time) and periodically have a go at getting Huckleberry Finn banned in the schools. >> But those are two different groups. The hate rallies at funerals are staged by one congregation, consisting of the extended family of their minister Fred Phelps according to one article I read, whose only agenda is to be anti-gay. The efforts to ban Huckleberry Finn come from occasional African-Americans so disturbed by the sight of 'the N-word' that they don't even reach the other mockery of Jim. And neither of those groups pays much attention to Potter. << One of my friends was, until she very gratefully retired a year ago, a middle-school teacher in eastern Washington state, and had had regular run-ins with this mind (?) set. >> I recall a radio article on a conflict in some little town there where the parents suspected the teachers of secretly believing in evolution. There was a sound bite of one mother accusing her child's teacher of unbearable arrogance: "She acts like her education certificate means she knows more than me with my six birth certificates." From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 01:44:50 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 01:44:50 -0000 Subject: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: <000901c66f80$b9800630$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray" wrote: > > I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding the HP, > HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all: > > Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP > could promote interest in the occult? Pippin: I've heard there are a few orthodox Jewish yeshivas (religious academies) that have banned HP out of concern for the prohibition against sorcery. But it seems most Rabbis are lenient about it. I've seen it argued that it's okay to purchase a newly released Harry Potter book on Shabbat because the misery of going without it would ruin the oneg (delight) of the holiday! Pippin From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 05:00:49 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:00:49 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Debates about HP and Witchcraft References: Message-ID: <000f01c67193$423d90a0$482fdcd1@...> Oh, Pippin, you do make me feel better! Purrs! --Gatta --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray" wrote: > > I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding the HP, > HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all: > > Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried that HP > could promote interest in the occult? Pippin: I've heard there are a few orthodox Jewish yeshivas (religious academies) that have banned HP out of concern for the prohibition against sorcery. But it seems most Rabbis are lenient about it. I've seen it argued that it's okay to purchase a newly released Harry Potter book on Shabbat because the misery of going without it would ruin the oneg (delight) of the holiday! Pippin SPONSORED LINKS Albus dumbledore Jk rowling Goblet of fire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 05:18:35 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:18:35 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] debates about HP and Witchcraft References: Message-ID: <001b01c67195$be69ac20$482fdcd1@...> Witchcraft is perfectly real. It is (at least, mercifully, in this part of the world) an accepted alternate religion, as real (and as ancient or more so) as Judaism or Buddhism. It has nothing to do with Satanism, which is a Christian spin-off. Witches do not worship the devil. They have no concept of a devil. In their experience, there is enough evil in the human heart to explain what goes on in this world (usually in the name of god), without inventing something like Satan. Their credo is, "Harm none." Don't get me wrong. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Jeshua ben Joseph and his simple, wise, humane teachings. It's what the patriarchal Christian establishment has used them for that infuriates me. I am neither a Christian nor a witch. I describe myself as a born-again Pagan; Athene Parthenos is my patron goddess, and she and I are seriously frightened at what we see going on in the world today in the name of religion. --Gatta Sherry now: ...they believe they have taught their four children that witchcraft is not real,... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 06:30:12 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 08:30:12 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c6719f$b335e3f0$0200a8c0@hwin> > I've seen it argued that it's okay to > purchase a newly released Harry Potter book on Shabbat > because the misery of going without it would ruin the oneg > (delight) of the holiday! Now, *that* is cute! (In a nice way.) In general, thanks for all your comments. I have a feeling that the cC belief not only on a personal God but the personification of evil in the form of the demonic plays an important role in creating a structure of religious beliefs within which something like the HP books is potentially (though not necessarily) perceived as dangerous. Other religious systems that also have a place for personal evil could probably have similar disputes. It seems like the place where the mass media have most often picked up on these debates is at points where they end up touching everyone else - when media activists want to have the books banned. At that point it turns into an issue for everyone else too. Baaaa, Mike (who just, FINALLY, watched GOF last night - and thought it was GREAT.) From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 06:47:03 2006 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 06:47:03 -0000 Subject: protests against Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Mike Goat wrote in > : > > << Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really worried > that HP could promote interest in the occult? >> > > From my limited attention to newspaper, there's at least one Roman > Catholic woman (IIRC in Germany) who made noise and wrote a letter to > then-Cardinal Ratzinger urging that all Catholics be warned agains the > occult danger of Harry Potter. > Geoff: It's interesting to have a look at the views of American Catholic Bishops on the subject of the films: http://www.usccb.org/movies From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 12:45:28 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 12:45:28 -0000 Subject: protests against Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catlady quoted: > I recall a radio article on a conflict in some little town there where > the parents suspected the teachers of secretly believing in evolution. > There was a sound bite of one mother accusing her child's teacher of > unbearable arrogance: "She acts like her education certificate means > she knows more than me with my six birth certificates." > "Truly, I say to you, you must be born again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and make sure it's all properly certificated, too, or it *won't count*." Gospel according to Nick O'Demus From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Sun May 7 18:01:06 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:01:06 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200605072001.06203.silmariel@...> Kathy W: > I wrote this post three times yesterday and Yahoo-Mort ate each one. > I was beginning to think some evil force was preventing me from > posting this somewhat sympathetic post about cCs. I see from TOL that > it's a widespread Yahoo problem. And it eat outgoing mail, also, I've lost one from Kat and one from Jo. I'm curious to know what happened, but I don't find anything. In Spain things have never gone so far as to book burn - well, *that* would be headlines, sure, and the christians I know that can be called conservative have never expressed anti-HP feelings. However I know a gipsy that considered that books in general (save the Bible) and fantasy in particular were a Satan's product, yes. He also believed that a person wearing black brings bad luck. Old, and the only one, the rest of them I knew didn't make any fuss about books or the movies (considering analphabetism is a real problem in their community). >From the media, I receive the impression that the battle is over, because Disney owns the w.i.t.c.h., guardian girls with superpowers, targeted for the very young. Silmariel From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Tue May 9 19:54:35 2006 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:54:35 -0000 Subject: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: <000901c6719f$b335e3f0$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > I have a feeling that the cC belief not only on a personal God but the > personification of evil in the form of the demonic plays an important role > in creating a structure of religious beliefs within which something like the > HP books is potentially (though not necessarily) perceived as dangerous. One thing to keep in mind in that some of these conservative Christian groups in the U.S. are really political organizations much more than they are religious organizations and, as such, seize on to anything that might result in publicity for their group. Some of these people don't seem to even try to have much of a religious explanation for the nonsense they spout, as their motives are purely political. --JMC From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed May 10 02:15:24 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 02:15:24 -0000 Subject: Debates about HP and Witchcraft In-Reply-To: <000901c6719f$b335e3f0$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > > I've seen it argued that it's okay to > > purchase a newly released Harry Potter book on Shabbat > > because the misery of going without it would ruin the oneg > > (delight) of the holiday! > > Now, *that* is cute! (In a nice way.) > > In general, thanks for all your comments. > > I have a feeling that the cC belief not only on a personal God but the > personification of evil in the form of the demonic plays an important role > in creating a structure of religious beliefs within which something like the > HP books is potentially (though not necessarily) perceived as dangerous. > Other religious systems that also have a place for personal evil could > probably have similar disputes. Pippin: The Jewish concept of magic is not demonic -- it's strongly forbidden by halakha (the code of Jewish law based on the scriptures and the Talmud) like a lot of other things --working on Sabbath, eating pork, etc. -- that may or may not be dangerous or evil in themselves. The Talmud is full of charms and spells, which the Rabbis decided a long time ago could no longer be used because one could no longer be sure of distinguishing them from forbidden magic. Of course there's no commandment against reading about witchcraft. The fear seems to be that children won't take these works as fantasy, which may seem absurd -- but on the other hand, Rowling herself admits to having been confused about this. Is it really strange that others who aren't familiar with fantasy have the same problem? After all, the trolls, dragons and unicorns are treated in a very naturalistic way. Though we catch a glimpse of him in the Forest, the supernaturally evil monster which is the trademark of fantasy IMO doesn't present himself until page 293 of PS/SS. Pippin devil's advocate :) From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid Wed May 10 10:20:24 2006 From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:20:24 -0000 Subject: Why HP can be called SF Message-ID: The lines between science fiction and fantasy get blurred, but the HP series has a fair claim on being SF, if not science fiction, its alternate name, speculative fiction. SF '...science fiction is a genre of fiction that tells realistic stories in a setting that is different from the present or known past.' Alternate universe or alternate history stories fall into this. HP can be considered fairly as straddling the line between SF and fantasy because magic is the science of Harry's world. It follows laws like science, it's taught like science, and is used like science and technology are. In other words, magic in the Potterverse is not supernatural. Hogwarts students aren't working on a form of spiritual enlightenment that leads to power, they're taking gut courses and putting in hours in the library. Their world is just like ours - it *is* ours - existing in parallel to our own. A good opposite of fantasy versus the Potterverse would be the Narnia series by Lewis. We have no basis for understanding how the wardrobe works, how the Queen does her thing, or anything else. It's all miraculous. There is no "how." There's precedent for "magic works" stories to be considered SF. The late Randall Garrett's Lord Darcy /Sean O'Lochlainn stories were considered SF, as Garrett insisted himself. (Highly recommended for HP fans, by the way, and influential in the treatment of magic as an alternate form of knowledge). Garrett has gone in the same directions Rowling has, fitting out his universe with licenses to practice and rules for the admissibility of magically derived evidence in court. Garrett's magic was even more fixed in reality than Rowling's is. So while the fantasy elements of Harry Potter are there, the SF elements are impossible to dismiss. "The [fantasy] genre is generally distinguished from science fiction and horror by overall look, feel, and theme of the individual work, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three..." (Wikipedia) The look and feel of Harry Potter is much more like SF than it is like fantasy. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu May 11 17:37:59 2006 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:37:59 -0000 Subject: Slogan Message-ID: Well what do you know? Don't answer that ;-) Random reading has brought me this little nugget. In heraldry it is likely that the mottoes originated from a call to rally troops on the battlefield, my interesting little tome states: 'This appears to have been the practise in Scotland where the slogan (or slughorn) is the battle cry of the chief of a clan or house, as in I DAR (Dalzell) and GANG WARILY (Drummond).' Is Slughorn's cowardice a joke based on this???? btw I still loath 'horcrux' and was wondering if anyone had come up with a better word for Voldy's little-piece-of-soul-in-a-box thingies? Regards Jo From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu May 11 21:05:30 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:05:30 +0100 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? Message-ID: <7223B23D-B4DD-4299-BDCB-F14B915B1527@...> Aaaah, the good old days! Remember them? The world was bright, we were young(er) and the future was replete with possibilities. Joy was it then to be alive. And now? What happened? Are the golden lads and girls finally come to dust? Ever had the looking-glass experience? That shocking moment when quite unexpectedly you catch an unguarded glimpse of yourself in an ambushing mirror? For years the same features had stared back at you as you'd scrubbed your teeth, shaved whichever bits you fancied shaving, plucked a recalcitrant nasal hair or two. So what if a slight mistiness seemed to be dimming the formerly vibrant monotone of hair colour; no matter that an extra wrinkle or two could be found at corner of eye or bordering lips slightly less fulsome than of yore; you're obviously just as you've always been - with maybe a little extra maturity to season the dish. Until that bloody mirror forces us to face the awful truth. Whoops! Gilbert and Sullivan time - Mabel we ain't, it's Ruth that's slipped into our skin unnoticed; and now we too could easily pass for 45 in the dusk with the light behind us. Just as small physical changes can accumulate, eventually becoming distressingly obvious to the unbiased eye, so also small accommodations in thinking become major revisions of perspective almost without being noticed - for a while anyway. One day though, comes the realisation that, no matter how much you try to kid yourself, a reassessment has taken place. And as with other things in life, so with HP. Over the past few years (up until the last few months, anyway) I've been a persistent poster. Others may use words like 'incorrigible', 'recidivist' or even 'pestilential' in place of persistent. Fair enough, I won't argue. According to my files I inflicted something like 1500 posts onto the members of TOL and toc in about three and a half years, and since I'm a garrulous old bugger that adds up to an awful lot of words. It was fun to be involved, to pit wits against Jo and the other members. But lately..... Days go by and I don't even bother to check the board - and when I do it's a quick skim and then off to another website - one invariably not connected to HPdom. No inclination (let alone compulsion) to respond or add to a thread, no on-going analysis or theorising; indeed, no HP book has been opened since the New Year. All in all, the typical symptomatology of a burnt out case and not particularly uncommon. Not quite. Comes the mirror moment, that instant of unguarded honesty, just a couple of days ago. The realisation struck when a couple of old friends, more in mock sorrow than anything else, chided me for my enthusiasm for a 'kid's book'. Not for the first time - usually this provokes an entertaining, insulting, almost scurrilous exchange terminating with us laughing our way to the pub. Not this time. "Yeah, you're probably right," was the reply, followed by a scathing assessment of clunky authorial manipulation of text and fandom. I really don't like the direction in which HP seems to be going. The last book, in conjunction with various interviews, website hints and public pronouncements by Jo have put me right off - almost without me appreciating the fact - until somebody unwittingly pulled the trigger. So you can rest easy in your beds. No more weird theories or tortuous analyses from Kneasy. Mind you, you won't be completely safe - once I get a few real-life things out of the way it'll allow more time for Radio TBAY, Madam Whiplash and Magical Medicine. Won't that be nice? Even so, I miss the sheer unadulterated fun of the good old days. Even if they were only a year ago. Kneasy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 01:01:41 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:01:41 +0900 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <7223B23D-B4DD-4299-BDCB-F14B915B1527@...> References: <7223B23D-B4DD-4299-BDCB-F14B915B1527@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320605111801h6746a470rc90fa603106d1c82@...> On 5/12/06, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Days go by and I don't even bother to check the board - and when I do > it's a quick skim and then off to another website - one invariably > not connected to HPdom. No inclination (let alone compulsion) to > respond or add to a thread, no on-going analysis or theorising; > indeed, no HP book has been opened since the New Year. All in all, > the typical symptomatology of a burnt out case and not particularly > uncommon. Ah, it's not just me then. I've been spending a trying time in limbo the last few months and my net access has been iffy, but HP is taking a back seat even then. All my books are in storage, I'm never at one network address for long and i have more pressing RL concerns. If there was a whopping great hint put out by JKR then perhaps...maybe. But I can't see that happening until near publication time, and that's a while away yet. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 05:33:32 2006 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 05:33:32 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <7223B23D-B4DD-4299-BDCB-F14B915B1527@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Aaaah, the good old days! > Remember them? > The world was bright, we were young(er) and the future was replete > with possibilities. > Joy was it then to be alive. > And now? > What happened? Are the golden lads and girls finally come to dust? > snip > I really don't like the direction in which HP seems to be > going. The last book, in conjunction with various interviews, website > hints and public pronouncements by Jo have put me right off - almost > without me appreciating the fact - until somebody unwittingly pulled > the trigger. > snip > Even so, I miss the sheer unadulterated fun of the good old days. > Even if they were only a year ago. > I've had the amusing experience tonight of first reading Alan Jacobs' essay over on the Lexicon and now your comments. As many know, I've long derided the non-canon drivel JKR has chosen to impart to us in the last couple of years. But as you point out, the loss of fun seems to relate also to things more central to the books themselves. It was intersesting then to read Jacobs discuss some of his observations along this line. A line from his well written essay: "I find myself thinking especially of something I have already mentioned: the draining away of delight from the books, the narrowing of Harry's horizons to a point, that point being an ultimate encounter with Lord Voldemort." This line really resonated with me. It is not just Harry's horizons which have narrowed, but also the horizons of a subset of us fans who had found our own delight in exploring, explaining and attempting to predict the events of the HP universe. The scope of exploration and explaining have decreased, not only because of Harry's reduced horizons, but because JKR has taken to giving disjointed but ever so authoritative drizels of HP "fact." As just one of the more infamous examples, we don't come to learn of the "ships" through and in the context of the story line, but have them rather inelegantly pronounced to the annointed in a gigglefest. And I won't even get started again about that W.O.M.B.A.T. exam. I selfishly hope the last book will regenerate the sense of delight that came from reading the early books, but I'm afraid I'm a step beyond skeptical with respect to that. I'm afraid I'm like the child who has come to realize there is no Santa Claus, but still hopes it isn't really so. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 12:17:43 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:17:43 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn: > A line from his well written essay: > > "I find myself thinking especially of something I have already mentioned: the draining away of delight from the books, the narrowing of Harry's horizons to a point, that point being an ultimate encounter with Lord Voldemort." > > This line really resonated with me. It is not just Harry's horizons which have narrowed, but also the horizons of a subset of us fans who had found our own delight in exploring, > explaining and attempting to predict the events of the HP universe. The scope of > exploration and explaining have decreased, not only because of Harry's reduced horizons, but because JKR has taken to giving disjointed but ever so authoritative drizels of HP "fact." As just one of the more infamous examples, we don't come to learn of the "ships" through and in the context of the story line, but have them rather inelegantly pronounced to the annointed in a gigglefest. Pippin: Are you telling me you were in some doubt about whether H/H and H/G were serious about one another after reading HBP? You really needed the interview to tell you that? Maybe the ships didn't resonate with you -- in which case I can see that it would be annoying to be told that they should. But I think the point is that JKR had done all the convincing she planned to do in the text to persuade us that those couples were going to happen. Stories often lose some of their hold on us. I still adore Tolkien, but I no longer try to fill in all the missing corners of his universe the way I now try to fill in Jo's. Part of what I see in Rowling is a dialogue with Tolkien and Lewis, and maybe with George Lucas too -- where she took what she liked about their worlds and their philosophy, but also illustrated where she had her differences. No doubt other authors will do the same with her work in the future. Or if you had the ambition, you could do it yourself. I'm not convinced that Vampire!Snape wouldn't make a good story, for example, but if I want to find out, I'm going to have to decide what would be intriguing about such a character, (obviously, the person I have in mind isn't Jo's character, I just thought he was, so no worries there) invent a world for him to exist in, just as Jo had to invent a world for her Harry instead of planting him in Narnia or Middle Earth, and see what happens to him there. Of course that would be a lot of work -- but who said Jo has to do all my imagining for me? I think the sense of delight is supposed to be missing right now--were you delighted when Frodo and Sam were dying of thirst as they struggled towards Mt Doom? As Frodo says, it is all too likely that some folks will say, "Shut the book now, dad, we don't want to read any more." Pippin From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 14:57:08 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:57:08 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A87EE@...> Pippin: > Stories often lose some of their hold on us. I still adore Tolkien, but I > no longer try > to fill in all the missing corners of his universe the way I now try to > fill > in Jo's. This is a good point. I think it's a natural progress, that eventually we change guiding stories, or experience fandom fatigue, even if the story itself *doesn't* degrade. I was a Star Wars fanatic as a teenager, to the point where it occupied my thoughts at every other second, and featured my first forays into fanfic. Now, *that* story did go entirely to the bad, in my opinion. I was shaken out of my fannishness by the prequels, and it's difficult to speak of George Lucas without some bitterness. On the other hand, I've not - and I cringe to admit this before several fellow Tolkien fans - read the Lord of the Rings in full since high school. I used to read it about twice a year, and read snippets from it when I was bored. It's not that I ever lost my love for it. I remember every single bit of it much clearer than any other book, and the memories still move me. But you can't just go back to where you were psychologically. As for Harry Potter... I may stand in a curious position here. I liked HBP ever so much, more than any of the other books except perhaps GoF. And yet, that still didn't catalyze the fan into me into rereading the books, or writing fanfic, or discussing theories (much) etc. It just doesn't appeal to me as much as other things. Basically, it's not in the nature of things to last forever. Which isn't a comforting thought to those missing the old fun, but it's true. We'll always have Paris. Here's looking at you, kid. Eileen From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 17:18:57 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:18:57 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Are you telling me you were in some doubt about whether H/H and H/G were > serious about one another after reading HBP? You really needed the interview > to tell you that? Maybe the ships didn't resonate with you -- in which case > I can see that it would be annoying to be told that they should. But I think > the point is that JKR had done all the convincing she planned to do in the > text to persuade us that those couples were going to happen. > I have to concur with Lyn. That Leaky interview was puke-making. Sheer adolescent huggy crap. It makes any reasonable person cringe. And frankly, who really gives a shit about SHIPs? Are they integral (or even influential) to the plot arc? No. They're a bolt-on extra that allows the romantically-minded to indulge in fantasies that are unlikely ever to blossom fully in the books. And it's pretty jejeune stuff anyway. Just about right for 12 year olds. But the extra-canon hints (hints, hell; they're bashes over the head with a sand-filled sock) have been very useful from Jo's point of view in that they've kept a fair proportion of fandom occupied on the trivial. Those concerned that Ginny is gonna be left alone and paley loitering are less likely to get stuffy about tear-along-the-dotted-line souls - something which is integral to the plot and something that I can't swallow. Bloody silly idea IMO. Either Voldy must know in advance how many bits this 'soul' of his naturally divides into (and with no diminution of power! Yet destroying them will weaken him significantly) and kills to match, or each succeeding fragment must get progressively smaller; a half of a half of a half sort of thing, yet each fragment is equally powerful. Nope. Sorry. I foresee an awful lot of ropy explication coming up. > Stories often lose some of their hold on us. I still adore Tolkien, but I no longer try > to fill in all the missing corners of his universe the way I now try to fill > in Jo's. Part of what I see in Rowling is a dialogue with Tolkien and Lewis, and > maybe with George Lucas too -- where she took what she liked about their > worlds and their philosophy, but also illustrated where she had her differences. > No doubt other authors will do the same with her work in the future. Or if > you had the ambition, you could do it yourself. > I don't think so. She claims never to have read LotR. Not sure about the Narnia stuff, but I'd be surprised if she were a Lucas buff. IMO her influences are more likely to be straight mythology and traditional folk-lore. After all, those are the elements that are presented with a twist in HP. But frankly, influences are a comparatively minor matter, the truly important question is "Will this tale fulfill its earlier promise?" That's something I now doubt very much and is (will be) deeply disappointing. > > I think the sense of delight is supposed to be missing right now--were > you delighted when Frodo and Sam were dying of thirst as they struggled > towards Mt Doom? Yup. Best part of the book. I considered Sam a half-wit and Frodo a wanker. I'd have made 'em suffer even more, with the addition of a patronising bloody elf spouting platitudes over them as they over-acted their way to a nasty death. Nothing was too bad for them. LotR is a very popular book, but it's an error to think that it is universally admired. It isn't. Some find pseudo-epic dialogue tedious, the characterisations wooden and predictable - and it's unforgiveable that no important character on the side of good dies - on a permanent basis, anyway. Even worse, it's the proximal excuse for uncountable fifth-rate three volume fantasy epics. Now for waking that pestilence Tolkien deserves to be burnt in effigy every mid-summer. > As Frodo says, it is all too likely that some folks will > say, "Shut the book now, dad, we don't want to read any more." > Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, the characters seem less real than before, and I don't care what happens to any of them. Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. Unfortunately it's true. Kneasy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 18:48:16 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 04:48:16 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320605121148y6259f222sd088b94c9ee7d6c3@...> On 5/13/06, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I have to concur with Lyn. That Leaky interview was puke-making. Sheer > adolescent huggy crap. It makes any reasonable person cringe. > And frankly, who really gives a shit about SHIPs? > Are they integral (or even influential) to the plot arc? > No. They're a bolt-on extra that allows the romantically-minded to indulge > in fantasies that are unlikely ever to blossom fully in the books. > And it's pretty jejeune stuff anyway. Just about right for 12 year olds. > But the extra-canon hints (hints, hell; they're bashes over the head with a > sand-filled sock) have been very useful from Jo's point of view in that they've > kept a fair proportion of fandom occupied on the trivial. Woah. Now the floodgates are well and truly open. But I was pretending to myself it was just just silliness. Now I think it's worse: a large section of HP fandom are being laughed at. Jejeune (ah, a long-missed word!) is bullseye-thwackinginly correct. > Nope. Sorry. > I foresee an awful lot of ropy explication coming up. I'm still leaning on my Agatha Christie excuses, it worked for her, it could work for JKR. > I don't think so. She claims never to have read LotR. > Not sure about the Narnia stuff, but I'd be surprised if she were a Lucas buff. > IMO her influences are more likely to be straight mythology and traditional > folk-lore. After all, those are the elements that are presented with a twist in HP. Narnia I can believe. Even a decent talking lion can't disguise half-plagiarized crap, so owls are the least of the problem. > But frankly, influences are a comparatively minor matter, the truly important > question is "Will this tale fulfill its earlier promise?" > That's something I now doubt very much and is (will be) deeply disappointing. Depends on the promises you think she is supposed to be keeping. With 20/20 foresight hindsight and sidesight I predict much disappointment, pleasure and a lifetime of demands for Harry reprises. I refer to the Agatha Christie problem as above. > Yup. > Best part of the book. > I considered Sam a half-wit and Frodo a wanker. > I'd have made 'em suffer even more, with the addition of a patronising bloody > elf spouting platitudes over them as they over-acted their way to a nasty death. > Nothing was too bad for them. > LotR is a very popular book, but it's an error to think that it is universally admired. > It isn't. Some find pseudo-epic dialogue tedious, the characterisations wooden > and predictable - and it's unforgiveable that no important character on the side > of good dies - on a permanent basis, anyway. > Even worse, it's the proximal excuse for uncountable fifth-rate three volume > fantasy epics. Now for waking that pestilence Tolkien deserves to be burnt in > effigy every mid-summer. Post-modern literature bollocks. Wouldn't know an epic tale if it bit them on the posterior. It's a bit weak to blame rampant commercialist fantasy-fodder on a tale noone thought would sell the way it did. There IS room for new universes, it's a failure of imagination, not necessarily of commercial opportunity. > Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, the characters > seem less real than before, and I don't care what happens to any of them. > Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. > Unfortunately it's true. Do I dare eat a peach? I shall wear white flannel and stroll along the beach I have heard the mermaids sing each to each I do not think they will sing to me. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 19:50:17 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:50:17 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c675fd$4ce06d70$0200a8c0@hwin> Kneasy muttered, > Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, > the characters seem less real than before, and I don't care > what happens to any of them. > Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. > Unfortunately it's true. Oddly enough, I've just discovered a really good way to improve the books: ignore them for a couple years. I just started re-reading the last three. I'd tried a couple times over the last few years, but it just didn't work - not even before Accio, to be honest. (That is, I read and enjoyed the new one and looked up patches in the old ones, but I couldn't get up enough interest to push past chapter two.) Anyway, I was talking about HP with someone at the U. last week and discovered that I couldn't remember whether it was Sirius or Lupin that bought the farm in OoP. And the really cool thing was that even more than feeling embarassed, I was suddenly, ravenously, overcome by the Lust of Reading. I didn't want to start OoP right off - I wanted to take it sloooow, so I turned down the lights, put on some soft music and began to carress the pages of GoF. Haven't had so much fun reading in a long time. So leave 'em alone, and they'll come home, waving their tales behind 'em. Worked for me anyway. YMMV It obviously depends on what you want the things to *do* for you. Baaaaaaa, Mike From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 23:08:01 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:08:01 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <001901c675fd$4ce06d70$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > Kneasy muttered, > > > Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, > > the characters seem less real than before, and I don't care > > what happens to any of them. > > Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. > > Unfortunately it's true. > > Oddly enough, I've just discovered a really good way to improve the books: > ignore them for a couple years. > > I just started re-reading the last three. I'd tried a couple times over the > last few years, but it just didn't work - not even before Accio, to be > honest. (That is, I read and enjoyed the new one and looked up patches in > the old ones, but I couldn't get up enough interest to push past chapter > two.) > > Anyway, I was talking about HP with someone at the U. last week and > discovered that I couldn't remember whether it was Sirius or Lupin that > bought the farm in OoP. And the really cool thing was that even more than > feeling embarassed, I was suddenly, ravenously, overcome by the Lust of > Reading. I didn't want to start OoP right off - I wanted to take it sloooow, > so I turned down the lights, put on some soft music and began to carress the > pages of GoF. > > Haven't had so much fun reading in a long time. So leave 'em alone, and > they'll come home, waving their tales behind 'em. > > Worked for me anyway. YMMV It obviously depends on what you want the things > to *do* for you. > > Baaaaaaa, > > Mike > I have enjoyed reading HBP to my middle son, Steve, who has read all of the other books. We have enjoyed it, but that was the only motivation to read the whole book again. I do enjoy looking up cannon to support my ideas and writing filks, but that has worn thin of late. I felt the change of the internet mood in December and wrote that dumb song to the tune of Auld Lang Syne. I guess the change in mood is like realizing that you can never go home again. However, just because you cannot be 8 years old again does not mean that you can't have fun visiting the old homestead and remembering the good times. I expect a kind of reunion party here when the seventh book comes out! Red Eye Randy From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Fri May 12 23:09:29 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:09:29 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? References: Message-ID: <006a01c67619$346daa20$482fdcd1@...> Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, the characters seem less real than before, and I don't care what happens to any of them. Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. Unfortunately it's true. Kneasy I think it is possible to get too wound up in the books, and work oneself into a state of exhaustion over them. I've tended to regard them from the beginning rather as I regard Italy: They're a nice place to spend intermittent long vacations, but I wouldn't want to live there, and there comes a time when you come home from vacation and get on with your life until the next time. I do see a maturation in the books; Harry and his friends can't stay eleven forever, like the ageless and immortal William Brown, if the plot arc is going to reach any kind of conclusion. But I don't see that as a deterioration in the quality of the books. HBP is my all-time favorite, with OotP running it a close second. (I never really "took" to GoF, book or movie, but that may just be that I'm not much for organized spectator sports.) I'm looking forward hugely to Book VII. As for the non-canon Jo stuff, I simply don't have time to keep up with it, so fail to be irritated by it. --Gatta SPONSORED LINKS Albus dumbledore Jk rowling Goblet of fire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 00:53:22 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:53:22 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? Message-ID: I'm not sure if people are saying that the problem is that we've changed, or the books have. The plot is bound to advance through the series. No doubt JKR could have written a picaresque series, in which the random delights of geographical exploration - with, perhaps, a little romance - would sustain it to the end alone. A sort of magical "Humphrey Clinker". But, really, did we ever think that was what she was writing? I would have supposed the point Alan Jacobs makes, that everything is converging on the climactic confrontation with Voldemort, is pretty well what was to be expected once we realised that she wasn't just updating "Billy Bunter". The delight has to drain away before the end (but not necessarily *at* the end): it's what was always promised. We, too, may grow old and world-weary. We may start quoting TS Eliot, a sure sign that second teenagerhood has been entered and that second childhood is not far away. But I think it's a bit rich to blame JKR for this natural state of affairs. The real loss, IMO, is not interest in Harry Potter, but *shared* interest in *something*. What's to discuss? With whom? David From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 02:18:25 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 02:18:25 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > I'm not sure if people are saying that the problem is that we've > changed, or the books have. > > The plot is bound to advance through the series. No doubt JKR could > have written a picaresque series, in which the random delights of > geographical exploration - with, perhaps, a little romance - would > sustain it to the end alone. A sort of magical "Humphrey Clinker". > But, really, did we ever think that was what she was writing? I > would have supposed the point Alan Jacobs makes, that everything is > converging on the climactic confrontation with Voldemort, is pretty > well what was to be expected once we realised that she wasn't just > updating "Billy Bunter". The delight has to drain away before the > end (but not necessarily *at* the end): it's what was always > promised. > > We, too, may grow old and world-weary. We may start quoting TS > Eliot, a sure sign that second teenagerhood has been entered and > that second childhood is not far away. But I think it's a bit rich > to blame JKR for this natural state of affairs. > > The real loss, IMO, is not interest in Harry Potter, but *shared* > interest in *something*. What's to discuss? With whom? > > David > My point is that we have all changed over the last 6 years. You once could discuss 4 books at the same time and catch the interest of several different people. Then it became a discussion of the latest book and comparing it to theories that had been postulated. Now that the possibilities are being reduced, the excitement has waned a bit because things might not be turning out the way we hoped. Regardless, it becomes inevitable that people would start to look for something else to talk about. JKR is bound to take her time on this last one, so it is hard to get excited about 2006 with no new book or movie. Since I started on these in 2000, I think it is just the seven year itch to try something new. Randy From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 03:25:13 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (rebecca) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:25:13 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What do we lose? References: Message-ID: <018101c6763c$d98cda80$6701a8c0@...> >Randy said: >My point is that we have all changed over the last 6 years. You >once could discuss 4 books at the same time and catch the interest >of several different people. Then it became a discussion of the >latest book and comparing it to theories that had been postulated. >Now that the possibilities are being reduced, the excitement has >waned a bit because things might not be turning out the way we hoped. >Since I started on these in 2000, I think it is just the seven year >itch to try something new. Rebecca now: I agree with you, Randy, about the discussion being more towards the latest release. I have to add that part of the issue is that when developing a mystery/epic/series such as JKR has with HP, time is of the essence for answers with hardcore fans in this regard. While I feel we have gotten a few of them over this 6 year period of HP fan servitude, many others seem shrouded in innuedo and inconsistencies and there's only so far the imagination can run before it peters itself out and only answers will do - whether they are what we theorize or not. 7 years is a long time to wait. A current example of this time, mystery, and answer dependency is the TV show "Lost." The writers of that show have been maligned by their fans for not giving more answers and just heaping mystery upon mystery - a quicksand of disjointed mysteries with no discernable answers with which a regular viewer can immediately relate. That show has only been on for less than 2 seasons (we're in the 2nd season now), and the producers and writers got the message loud and clear from viewers about midway the 2nd season- the episodes this month have FINALLY given fans something to grasp and understand. Therefore, "Lost" will probably continue to be a hit when Season 3 starts in late fall of this year. Time, mystery, answers, and maintaining fan interest look to be the equasion which must be measured and planned to be successful. Looks to me like Rowling is just, well, taking far too long and milking it for all it's worth. Lyn mentioned the WOMBATS in his post on the other thread - IMO, if JKR wants to be a teacher and grade papers, she should get her butt in a classroom and teach 5th graders or post the damn answers with explanations to give fans some fodder until the final book comes out. Personally, I was annoyed by her presumption to "test and grade" fans of her books, as I have been taught, tested, and graded by far better teachers than her. HP is entertainment for me, not a class in religion, science, sociology, philosophy or the humanities. BTW, if anyone enjoys mysteries which are influenced by characters the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Miss Marple (the latter distantly), I might recommend Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's series if you've not read them. I'm a huge fan of their Agent Pendergast character and a new book in the series is coming this month from the collaborative efforts of these 2 authors. I'm sure one of these books will be a movie at some point, as Agent Pendergast is far too compelling and mysterious a character for Hollywood to pass up. Rebecca From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 05:48:07 2006 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (Kathy King) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 01:48:07 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is late, but time being the variant that it always is, limits my response. I quite enjoyed reading everyone's reply to Kneasy's insightful reality to the end of a real and enjoyable era. No matter how phenomenal the book series is or will be, this site has had its heyday?for now?but I personally feel it's a bit premature to gnash the author or the books just yet. One of the best statements that I've seen throughout this dialog has been from Kneasy himself: Kneasy: But the extra-canon hints (hints, hell; they're bashes over the head with a sand-filled sock) have been very useful from Jo's point of view in that they've kept a fair proportion of fandom occupied on the trivial. Snow: Oh yes! it is the trivial minded that Jo seeks to deter from the very few of us who are still willing to attempt to solve the puzzle. Do not underestimate Jo! (At least until the last?I am sure I won't) Jo's last punch will come at the end and even after all has been exhausted, I am certain that She never underestimated Our ability to attempt to predict Her ending. Jo stated that it was Her story (and to me, come hell or high water, it will be). Jo is dealing with a readership of which is unrecorded in history and yet has more readers than she ever imagined?God Bless her in her attempt to tell her story. To me, when Jo announces something on her website, she has to be ever so careful not to alert those who are anal to every word she speaks of what is really going on and so I feel she is actually speaking to us (or around us) when she gives her answers. The last book, although many thought it very grand, left me empty. There was very little about that book, at first read, that I did not immediately realize was a possibility. I cannot say the same for the other five books of the series. HBP left me wondering if this book was simply filler space and a prelude to the finale. I couldn't help but think that it was, except that it would be too obvious?so?I started to look for more relevance. Sure enough I found it! ?GOF Remember She is speaking to the best of the best when She is answering questions! And it's not done till? Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 12:56:31 2006 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:56:31 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: <018101c6763c$d98cda80$6701a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" wrote: > I agree with you, Randy, about the discussion being more towards the latest release. I have to add that part of the issue is that when developing a mystery/epic/series such as JKR has with HP, time is of the essence for answers with hardcore fans in this regard. While I feel we have gotten a few of them over this 6 year period of HP fan servitude, many others seem shrouded in innuedo and inconsistencies and there's only so far the imagination can run before it peters itself out and only answers will do - whether they are what we theorize or not. 7 years is a long time to wait. > Carolyn: Have to disagree here: I don't have a problem with the timescale. If anything, I wish she'd take five years to write the final book if that's what it takes to redeem herself. The issue for me is that the first three, arguably four, books seemed full of tantalisingly adult clues and sub-text. From OOP onwards, she has seemed to want to resolutely eradicate that kind of speculation. I suppose there are only so many buckets of cold water you can take before walking off in disappointment (although, of course, I remain secretly convinced that Snape IS a vampire and Peter was betrayed). Originally I thought she was going to create a very clever, complex 21st century fairytale-cum-detective story that could be read at all sorts of levels, and be extremely ambiguous in its messages. That seems pretty unlikely now, though I suppose she could go mad and write a 1000-page finale that leaves us all breathless, confused and desperate for explanation, which she decides never to provide. In the meantime, the further adventures of Ms Whiplash are keenly anticipated. Carolyn From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 14:27:45 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 14:27:45 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > The issue for me is that the first three, arguably four, books seemed > full of tantalisingly adult clues and sub-text. From OOP onwards, she > has seemed to want to resolutely eradicate that kind of speculation. > I suppose there are only so many buckets of cold water you can take > before walking off in disappointment (although, of course, I remain > secretly convinced that Snape IS a vampire and Peter was betrayed). > > Originally I thought she was going to create a very clever, complex > 21st century fairytale-cum-detective story that could be read at all > sorts of levels, and be extremely ambiguous in its messages. That > seems pretty unlikely now, though I suppose she could go mad and > write a 1000-page finale that leaves us all breathless, confused and > desperate for explanation, which she decides never to provide. Pippin: But, erm, that's what we've got. Well, the moral message probably isn't ambiguous. Murder and racism are not the answer. The answer's behind a door in the MoM-- and what kind of an answer is that? Ursula LeGuin said something like, the only people who object to imaginary answers to the problem of evil are those who think they've got a real one. But the clever, complex 21st century fairytale is alive and kicking, IMO. Right now the issues raised in the last book have overshadowed everything else, to the grave detriment of fandom discussion groups, which suddenly seem to have nothing else to talk about. But that is classic misdirection. The howls of outrage by fans who feel they were misled about shipping will be nothing to those who feel they were misled about Snape, especially if the real villain turns out to be Lupin. :) People will feel ill-used, and woe betide JKR when people realize that they really did get the wool pulled over their eyes. She's been laughing at us all the time. How dare she! But honestly, I never thought my piddling contribution to JKR's net wealth had purchased me the right not to be laughed at -- good grief! We fans *are* a funny lot. And why shouldn't she laugh at us? We laugh at her, don't we? Call her innumerate and jeer at her for being bad at maths? It's no fun being smart and being bad at arithmetic. Everyone thinks you're doing it on purpose. I know. But I also know what this is, this sudden surge of bad feeling. It's tension. The fandom went nuts like this just before OOP came out. We knew someone we cared about was going to *die* and it made some of us more than a little crazy. But at least in those days, we knew when the release date was going to be, and we knew when there were going to be interviews and chats. We could *prepare* for them. But now information spurts unpredictably from the website and there's no knowing when a choice theory is going to be shot down or, just as bad from the point of view of discussion, confirmed. It makes the only safe objects of discussion things we *know* she's not going to tell us before 7 comes out. But that raises the tension to nutcase level. At that point, like Ginny, the only sensible thing to do is act like you don't care, whether you do or not. Pippin who agrees that Peter was betrayed From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 15:41:44 2006 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:41:44 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > But the clever, complex 21st century fairytale is alive and kicking, IMO. > > Right now the issues raised in the last book have overshadowed everything else, to the grave detriment of fandom discussion groups, which suddenly seem to have nothing else to talk about. But that is classic misdirection. The howls of outrage by fans who feel they were misled about shipping will be nothing to those who feel they were misled about Snape, especially if the real villain turns out to be Lupin. :) People will feel ill-used, and woe betide JKR when people realize that they really did get the wool pulled over their eyes. She's been laughing at us all the time. How dare she! Carolyn: Ah, Pippin, I salute you! Never say die, eh? I so wish you were going to be right, or any other wonderful variation from the archives. Surely, just a little bit of FLIRTIAC to cheer us up, or maybe a SECOND FLAMINGO? Wouldn't hurt her would it? Just a bit of back history fun?? > > But I also know what this is, this sudden surge of bad feeling. It's tension. > But now information spurts unpredictably from the website and there's no knowing when a choice theory is going to be shot down or, just as bad from the point of view of discussion, confirmed. It makes the only safe objects of discussion things we *know* she's not going to tell us before 7 comes out. But that raises the tension to nutcase level. At that point, like Ginny, the only sensible thing to do is act like you don't care, whether you do or not. > Carolyn: Are you really tense? I can honestly say, absolutely hand on heart, that I am relaxed to horizontal fast asleep as to when the next book comes out. If anything, I would rather postpone it, as all it really means to me is the break up of some fascinating discussion groups that I have so enjoyed for years now. If, as expected, it comes out in June/July 2007, in eighteen months it is all over bar the shouting. I think I'm most sad about that. > Pippin > who agrees that Peter was betrayed > Oh do you now. I thought you were disputing that last time we went over it. Good! Now, don't give up on Vampire!Snape - you know it makes sense. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 16:04:20 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (rebecca) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:04:20 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What do we lose? References: Message-ID: <028b01c676a6$e5663fd0$6701a8c0@...> >Pippin: > But that is classic misdirection. The howls of outrage by fans who feel > they were misled about shipping will > be nothing to those who feel they were misled about Snape, especially if > the real villain turns out to be Lupin. :) Rebecca: Or that Snape turns out to be the villian instead of Voldemort, or any other countless scenarios and theories that have developed over time. What is classic misdirection to you is just the mystery upon mystery path over 7 years with little discernable answers to me. That's part of the reason I think fanfiction around HP took off like it did - when one writes with such ambiguity and vague references to "clues", well naturally the fanfiction takes off, since imagination is what "can be" rather than "what is." I don't need to re-write the books to what I or others speculate might happen and I'm not married to any theory about how the series ends. To me, I feel that a majority of what's posted and discussed online at the moment deals mostly with characters and not necessarily with looking at the plot development over the last 6 books as whole - how often do you see poster tie in something that happened in CoS with something in GoF and HBP now? That model was much more in vogue back during books 1-4, and if you do that same thing now, most folks reading it are as interested in that as the Hogwarts students are in Magical History class. It's too far in the past for most readers' attention spans. Just what I'm observing in my Internet travels. Feel free to disagree - Rebecca From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat May 13 16:12:58 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 16:12:58 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > I'm not sure if people are saying that the problem is that we've > changed, or the books have. > snip > > The real loss, IMO, is not interest in Harry Potter, but *shared* > interest in *something*. What's to discuss? With whom? > You touch on important factors, I think. Time was when I could post that Jo had given us a large playground with elastic borders to romp around in. Almost anything was possible. And those that many consider to be the most entertaining posters in years past took full advantage of their opportunities. The weird, the wonderful, the gob-smackingly different, the products of devious imaginations in full overdrive made logging on something to anticipate every morning. But over quite a short time-span the boundaries have been tightened, possibilities have been discounted, what was an elastic envelope to be stretched has come to feel more like a tether - and mostly through Jo's comments and hints external from the books. It's as if we had been transported to the top of a mighty tower from where we could see the kingdoms of the world - only to be shoved into a second-storey room with one small barred window that overlooks the backyard. Claustrophobia is starting to set in. What made the boards so much fun was the diversity, subject matter and viewpoints both - and resulting mostly from how little we knew as opposed to surmised. Back then getting even the vaguest hint from herself was damn near impossible, and when one surfaced it was pawed over, stuffed under the microscope, litmus paper shoved down its ear, twisted inside-out, back-to-front, upside-down and *still* we weren't certain what it meant (if anything). But since she relaunched her site and ventured into webcasts and Q&A sessions it's all changed. (Don't get me started on some of those interviews. I don't respond well to exchanges apparently targeted at dim 14 year olds.) At the time there were those who saw it (the revamped website) as an unwelcome development (not I, though I've since changed my mind), even suggesting that the boards had become so wild and wooly, so imaginative and outrageous, that the planned climax would verge on the mundane by comparison and Jo had decided to do something about it. Dunno about that, possible I suppose, n million fertile brains do stand a chance of out-plotting a lone neophyte author, after all. But so what? Most of the posted stuff, while fiercely defended by adherents, wasn't considered as much more than an entertaining guessing game, with the guesses (sorry, that should read: 'carefully constructed theories deduced after detailed and logical analysis, doubters of which were in dire need of blinker-removal') as no more than hostage-to-fortune sitting-ducks that would come a cropper when the next book was published. That in itself was one of the most enjoyable parts of the exercise. Come release day, "who's gonna get it in the neck this time?" shortly followed by shame-faced admissions of fallibility on the boards. Great fun. The slaughter of the innocents when GoF came out kept me giggling for weeks. All this depended on us not knowing. But as menu items have been scored out (Droobles, various bloodline relationships, Vampire!Snape, ESEs without number, plus other stuff ad almost infinitem) there seems to be pretty thin fare left to chew over. Personally, I get tired repeating myself (after about the fourth time that is; up until then it's counted as subliminal messaging) and frankly I don't relish logging on to see the same old same old recycled yet again. How long has it been since a new major theory was launched? Bloody ages. OK, partly it's because most of the good ones have been snapped up long since, but I submit that Jo, having reduced the number of options available, must bear some responsibility. Not forgetting the other thing, the unkindest cut of all. As Carolyn observes in her post today we hoped, even had some reason to expect, that this was aimed at a wider market than the pre-pubescent and post adolescent, that the books would have subtleties and sub-themes that real grown-ups would find complex enough to be toothsome. IMO OoP made that doubtful and HBP pushed such hopes over the border into the realms of self-deluding optimism. Some imagined that as the denoument approached and the plot-lines became more defined, there would be a balancing complexity in character development. Has Harry's character developed? Nope. He's the same stroppy, snotty, I-know-best teenager he's always been. Has any character opened out significantly? Nope. Oh, there're possibilities if one delves into motivation (though don't expect anything radical, is my bet) but overall the actual characters have simplified, become less interesting. Sure, a lot of us are pinning our hopes on ole Sevvy for a surprise or two, but IMO one character can't carry a seven-volume series. Besides, from comments made Jo doesn't like Snapey much, or rather what he seems to represent, so even those hopes will probably be blighted. So in answer to "what do we lose?" Our illusions, probably. And the sheer unmitigated fun of letting your imagination loose and pushing the envelope to outrageous limits without someone butting in with "Jo says...". Still, there's always La Whiplash. Kneasy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun May 14 12:40:52 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:40:52 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > Not forgetting the other thing, the unkindest cut of all. > As Carolyn observes in her post today we hoped, even had some reason > to expect, that this was aimed at a wider market than the pre-pubescent > and post adolescent, that the books would have subtleties and sub-themes > that real grown-ups would find complex enough to be toothsome. IMO > OoP made that doubtful and HBP pushed such hopes over the border > into the realms of self-deluding optimism. Some imagined that as the > denoument approached and the plot-lines became more defined, there > would be a balancing complexity in character development. Pippin: What subtleties and sub-themes did you see hinted at in the earlier books that have not been addressed in the later ones? Kneasy: > Has Harry's character developed? Nope. He's the same stroppy, snotty, > I-know-best teenager he's always been. Has any character opened out > significantly? Nope. Pippin: I just re-read PS/SS and CoS, straight through as novels, not hunting for theories or evidence or such, and I disagree. Harry and Hermione have changed quite a bit. Ron would barely recognize himself. I suppose I'm one of those people who keeps butting in to say, "Jo says." But that's the game, for me, making it work within Jo's limits. If she makes it harder that makes it more fun, not less. Pippin who is quite happy that Jo has relinquished Vampire!Snape. He's all mine now and I'm not giving him back. Let *her* write fanfic. Lessee, I think I'll call him Panes... From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 05:23:57 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:23:57 +0200 Subject: Peter betrayed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c677df$c52cae90$0200a8c0@hwin> Carolyn mulled about > > Pippin > > who agrees that Peter was betrayed > > > Oh do you now. I thought you were disputing that last time we went > over it. Good! Have I missed something? Baaaaa, Mike (who, after all, once wrote a FAQ about Mr Pettigrew) From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 12:34:39 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:34:39 -0000 Subject: Peter betrayed? In-Reply-To: <000001c677df$c52cae90$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: ! > > Have I missed something? > > Baaaaa, > > Mike (who, after all, once wrote a FAQ about Mr Pettigrew) > Pippin: I'm not sure which of my theories Carolyn was referring to, but I am pretty sure that Peter's babbling and broken "I never meant for it to happen" is the truth. I don't think he voluntarily revealed to Voldemort that he was the secret-keeper. His performance in the Shrieking Shack, where he breaks down so quickly, does not argue that he could have concealed treachery for an entire year, certainly not once Dumbledore began to suspect someone close to the Potters. It is possible that he spied unwittingly at first, like Bagman, and then was blackmailed into continuing. But I don't see how he could've gotten away with it for long -- he's no occlumens and far too poor an actor. My husband says he always can spot the villain in a whodunnit -- he ignores all the clues and concentrates on spotting the character who doesn't have any other reason to be in the story. People do seem to be complaining about how useless Lupin is, don't they? ::smirk:: Pippin From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 13:37:42 2006 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:37:42 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin > who is quite happy that Jo has relinquished Vampire!Snape. He's all mine > now and I'm not giving him back. Let *her* write fanfic. Lessee, I think I'll > call him Panes... Potioncat: That is too clever by far! I love it. From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 13:47:51 2006 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:47:51 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <7223B23D-B4DD-4299-BDCB-F14B915B1527@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: The realisation struck when a > couple of old friends, more in mock sorrow than anything else, chided > me for my enthusiasm for a 'kid's book'. Not for the first time - > usually this provokes an entertaining, insulting, almost scurrilous > exchange terminating with us laughing our way to the pub. Not this > time. "Yeah, you're probably right," was the reply, followed by a > scathing assessment of clunky authorial manipulation of text and > fandom. To some extent, perhaps, we have only ourselves to blame. After years of brilliant posts regaling us with in-depth analyses on all aspects of mythology, symbology, astronomy, and alchemy (not to mention conspiracy theories of positively labyrinthine proportions) well, JKR's children's books seem to pale by comparison. For many of us, the beginning of the end came with The List. That's right, that "list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs to be completed in Book Seven" posted back in October by Pippin et al. It was, well, long. Very long. And we began to see that the volumes of theories, mysteries, hints, conspiracies, and inconsistencies which we had amassed over the years could never be resolved within the confines of one final book and we would be, ultimately and inevitably, disappointed. So, maybe Kneasy is right. Maybe this general disinterest is just a symptom of growing up and growing older. But perhaps it is something more. Perhaps we see the promise of the early books fading away under the weight of thousands of hours of meticulously written analyses and brilliantly surmised conclusions. Maybe we've just been too smart for our own good. Entropy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 15:02:08 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:02:08 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > To some extent, perhaps, we have only ourselves to blame. After > years of brilliant posts regaling us with in-depth analyses on all > aspects of mythology, symbology, astronomy, and alchemy (not to > mention conspiracy theories of positively labyrinthine proportions) > well, JKR's children's books seem to pale by comparison. > > For many of us, the beginning of the end came with The List. That's > right, that "list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs > to be completed in Book Seven" posted back in October by Pippin et > al. It was, well, long. Very long. And we began to see that the > volumes of theories, mysteries, hints, conspiracies, and > inconsistencies which we had amassed over the years could never be > resolved within the confines of one final book and we would be, > ultimately and inevitably, disappointed. > > So, maybe Kneasy is right. Maybe this general disinterest is just a > symptom of growing up and growing older. But perhaps it is something > more. Perhaps we see the promise of the early books fading away > under the weight of thousands of hours of meticulously written > analyses and brilliantly surmised conclusions. Maybe we've just been > too smart for our own good. The list ::toots own horn:: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html Is it unmanageable though? All Harry has to do is decide, following Dumbledore's lead, that knowledge of the past will lead him to the horcruxes, and presto! the hunt leads us through the backstory and the mysteries grow knottier as the darkness falls over the wizarding world, and then Jo-style, it's all resolved at breakneck speed in the last three chapters, and we emerge, blinking, as day breaks on the Saturday morning after release with the mother of all HP hangovers. Pippin From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 16:26:55 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:26:55 -0600 Subject: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A882E@...> Back in August of 2000, when I first read the four HP books then existing, I'd no idea of the depth of obsession the HP books would inspire in me. In fact, it wasn't until about a year later that I began to delve into their murky and ambiguous text and subtext to bring forth the marvelous treasures that lay hidden within it. I was just getting a handle on the secrets of the Potterverse when Hurricane Jo came along with OotP and laid waste to my careful interpretations. I'm still particularly annoyed by the way she slaughtered my intricate backstory for Avery by making Rabastan Lestrange the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene. What has Rabastan Lestrange done since his introduction to merit that cruel crack down? Fourth Man!Avery had so much more potential, and yet all that theorizing has been cut off by the fiat of the author. It was at that point that I began to reconsider the much-scorned theory among HP fans that the HP books might very well be meant for children. I agree that there isn't much going for this theory. The fact that they're marketed to children says nothing about the author's actual intentions, and when Rowling says their children's books, it's quite obvious that she's engaging in some of her classic misdirection. In fact, I'm quite sure I remember some quote from an interview she made once that I can't find by googling but am absolutely sure of, something along the lines of, "I think the books are too complex for children." Exactly. Furthermore, some of our best theorists have proved without a doubt that HP is actually a clever response to Umberto Eco, and how can you argue with that? Still the nagging suspicion wouldn't go away, possibly due to the increasing infantilism of JKR's work. As each book grew shorter and shorter, with a more simplified vocabulary, and much less death, violence, or general havoc, it became very hard to ignore it. Words cannot explain how horribly devastated I was by the Pensieve scene in OotP, where it was demonstrated once and for all that Rowling mindlessly adored the Marauders and nothing they did could possibly ever be wrong. She continued this simplification, of course, by unambiguously turning Snape into an unconflicted worshipper of Voldemort in HBP. Mainly, however, it's the way she tossed aside the promising Crouch subplot that irks me most. Sure, Barty Sr. was dead and Barty Jr. soul-sucked at the end of GoF, but Barty Sr. could have come back as a ghost, something that I proved beyond a doubt on HPFGU back in the day. I think it should be obvious how much this would have improved the plot, particularly if it'd turned out that Winky really had been sleeping with him. (As an example of how JKR likes to cut down on soi-disant pointless fan speculation, I refer you to an interview where she denied that Winky would ever get over her current alcoholic depression.) When I became a fan, I thought I was reading a Political Story, not some childish fantasy adventure, and that current volumes would feature less Ginny and more Percy. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for the latter to be justified in his complex political stance against his family's more na?ve response to the situation. Suffice it to say, I sincerely doubt that JKR will redeem my faith in her by this last book. The tipping point as agreed by our greatest fandom essayists was undoubtedly the interview in which JKR revealed that the J. in Remus J. Lupin stood for John. I must disagree, though, with a common assumption that this was outrageous because the initial so obviously stood for Jupiter. A more careful canon analysis reveals that the only middle name canonically indicated for Lupin is "Janus" ie. The Roman two-faced god of simultaneous beginnings and endings. The reasoning should be self-evident, but in case you are not read up on your canon discourse, remember that Lupin's appearance in PoA is both an end and a beginning for Harry, and that he also presents two faces in that book, the respectable, poor but honest teacher, and the reckless lying-to Dumbledore adventurer. John? I scoff at her John. Ah well, let bygones be bygones. In truth, the middle name thing doesn't matter very much. It's just symbolic of a larger problem, the way all our favourite avenues of theorizing are being removed from us. Alas, this is not a new dilemma. I remember far too well the despair among Tolkien fans back in the late 1940s when the Return of the King came out, shattering our favourite theories. I'd figured that Faramir was going to play a very important part in defeating Sauron, and instead he spent most of the book lying about in the hospital. What's more, in a mark of disdain for his fans, the self-absorbed professor included a few hundred pages of Appendices, leaving *nothing* to the imagination. Gone were all my Sauron-origin theories, plus then he said in an interview that Aragorn did not mean "One Tree King" as had previously been widely accepted among fans. As you all know, the result of this disastrous move on the Professor's part, has been that no one likes his books today, well no one *intelligent*, and there is a complete dearth of theorizing about the gaps in what passes for a Tolkien fandom. Rowling should take heed of this dire warning. I am exhausted and somewhat numbed by the existential grief that has filled me as I reflect on all this. I'd like to finish, however, by quoting a man who understood the numb pain that Rowling has provided her fans with. "I'm looking through you. Where did you go? I thought I knew you. What did I know? You don't look different, but that's the game. I'm looking through you. You're not the same. Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right? Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight." And so it has. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 17:14:29 2006 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:14:29 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > over quite a short time-span the boundaries have > been tightened, possibilities have been discounted, what was an elastic > envelope to be stretched has come to feel more like a tether - and mostly > through Jo's comments and hints external from the books. > > All this depended on us not knowing. But as menu items have been > scored out (Droobles, various bloodline relationships, Vampire! Snape, > ESEs without number, plus other stuff ad almost infinitem) there seems to be pretty thin fare left to chew over. > Kneasy So true. The fun of "letting your imagination loose" is simply no longer there. Is this a result of JKR's knocking down theory after theory in a frenzy of giggly confessionals? Partly. But the bigger issue must be seen in the development of her characters and the resolution of plotlines over the past two books. Or should I say the lack of? Looked at as a whole, books 1 through 4 surely showed a far more cohesive storyline than either OOP or HBP came near to showing. In fact, I think it could be said that, with a few alterations, GOF might have made a fine ending to the series. But, Geez Louise, by the time OOP came around, we were being subjected to unnecessary character anomalies like Grawp and Umbridge (why? Why?), and don't even get me started on waiting until HBP to mention horcruxes. All in all, the fun is out of it for me not so much because too much has been resolved outside of the books' covers, but because not enough has been resolved inside of them. The storyline seems to be heading more to a fine point (that is, Voldemort) but, at the same time, is also more rambling, wandering and, I fear, will not end in a satisfying, complex and cohesive way. What we all want when we read the final page of the final book is an ending with something far more intricate and surprising and cohesive than we could ever have postulated. We all want to say "Ah, of course! Why didn't we see it before!" and then search through our dog-eared copies to see clearly all the clues we had missed. I fear, sadly, that this will not be. It's a children's book, after all. Entropy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 17:31:37 2006 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060515173137.44756.qmail@...> Entropy: > For many of us, the beginning of the end came with > The List. That's right, that "list of plots, > mysteries and unfinished character arcs to be > completed in Book Seven" posted back in October by > Pippin et al. It was, well, long. Very long. And we > began to see that the volumes of theories, > mysteries, hints, conspiracies, and inconsistencies > which we had amassed over the years could never be > resolved within the confines of one final book and > we would be, ultimately and inevitably, disappointed. Pippin: > Is it unmanageable though? All Harry has to do is > decide, following Dumbledore's lead, that knowledge > of the past will lead him to the horcruxes, and > presto! the hunt leads us through the backstory and > the mysteries grow knottier as the darkness falls > over the wizarding world, and then Jo-style, it's > all resolved at breakneck speed in the last three > chapters, and we emerge, blinking, as day breaks on > the Saturday morning after release with the mother > of all HP hangovers. SSSusan: I should've known Pippin would jump on this right away. I was going to mention that Pippin's point in beginning that list, IIRC, was to show that it *is* a pretty manageable list, n'est-ce pas? Also, isn't leaving *some* mystery what many members of the fandom want? Haven't I heard grumblings that JKR's answered or likely to answer TOO much? Some people decidedly want some issues left unresolved, some characters' inner workings and motivations, at least to some degree, unexplained. Some people dread receiving too many answers. I guess I saw the list as a pretty thorough compilation of things which "people" want answered, but it's not a list that EVERY person would agree s/he wants checked off *in total*. I know it includes issues I don't give a shit about. I recognize that SOMEbody really wants to know, but it's not a list that met some "Let's vote and only those things which reach 80% or more in the poll of 'What Must Be Resolved' will be included in this list" kind of thing. IOW, I think the list is just fun. It's there to be a representation of what the fandom is buzzing about, in terms of what resolutions at least some members hope are forthcoming. It's fun to see what some people care about and to compare to what each of us might be hoping for. So, yeah, I'm with Pippin in thinking that a LOT of it is truly do-able, in less than 1000 words even. And maybe Jo'll leave a few juicy items from the list *un*resolved purposely, which will piss off some and thrill others. Entropy: > To some extent, perhaps, we have only ourselves to > blame. After years of brilliant posts regaling us > with in-depth analyses on all aspects of mythology, > symbology, astronomy, and alchemy (not to mention > conspiracy theories of positively labyrinthine > proportions) well, JKR's children's books seem to > pale by comparison. > So, maybe Kneasy is right. Maybe this general > disinterest is just a symptom of growing up and > growing older. But perhaps it is something > more. Perhaps we see the promise of the early books > fading away under the weight of thousands of hours > of meticulously written analyses and brilliantly > surmised conclusions. Maybe we've just been > too smart for our own good. SSSusan: Well. Yes. But. Do we really have Jo to blame, then? She started a series of books, which provided loads of fodder for what you've just mentioned, Entropy: "conspiracy theories of labyrinthine proportions" (love that phrase), brilliant analyses, incredibly-detailed solutions to mysteries. There was ROOM for that through the first three or four or even five books. And some pretty amazing people with pretty amazing abilities and insights and creativity had several field days with all of that. But Jo has always known where she is going with this. She's always known the wide open field of possibilities was going to narrow down to the final path she's selected. Does it make her a lesser author or a disappointment as an author because this has happened? Shouldn't we fans have KNOWN it was coming, all the time we were playing at the start? How could it not have come? I understand those (as I see them) separate complaints about what's happened in Q&As and on JKR's website, and I can more appreciate those who're annoyed by those "slap downs" of some theories. OTOH, there are those who have laughed off the discovery that their pet theory ain't gonna come to fruition and have moved on to something else. I maintain that there are likely also some who've actually appreciated knowing it was time to give up on a particular theory & move on to something else. YES, the discussions at Main (and in other places, I'm sure) are repetitious, tedious even, because there's so much less to focus on, so much less available to speculation, but wasn't that pretty much inevitable? I guess the issue, though, is whether *where* Jo is going pales in comparison to where some of the more brilliant predictions or theories proposed that we might go. I can't imagine that there would be some universal standard of "She's let us down" out there among, for instance, the adult fans vs. the teen fans or the child fans. It's all personal preference, isn't it? So some people had a blast thinking up possibilities and maybe they happen to still think their own ideas were more creative or satisfying than where JKR seems to be going. Well, there are others who seem to be quite satisfied with the possibilities still open to us. I guess to me the answer boils down to personal preference, not to whether some "standard" of literary greatness has been met or not. Many won't like where this ends, but for some that may be a function of time spent with the series. Are people just tired of it, ready to move on? Is it disappointment over where the author moved it all? OTOH, there are others who I am guessing will still love the whole shebang when it's over and will, while perhaps harboring small resentments for X or Y, still be satisfied and happy to have hung around for the whole ride. Siriusly Snapey Susan From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 18:28:13 2006 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:28:13 -0000 Subject: Peter betrayed & the lost world of theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: ! > > Have I missed something? > > Baaaaa, > > Mike (who, after all, once wrote a FAQ about Mr Pettigrew) > Pippin: I'm not sure which of my theories Carolyn was referring to, but I am pretty sure that Peter's babbling and broken "I never meant for it to happen" is the truth.I don't think he voluntarily revealed to Voldemort that he was the secret-keeper. His performance in the Shrieking Shack, where he breaks down so quickly, does not argue that he could have concealed treachery for an entire year, certainly not once Dumbledore began to suspect someone close to the Potters. It is possible that he spied unwittingly at first, like Bagman, and then was blackmailed into continuing. But I don't see how he could've gotten away with it for long -- he's no occlumens and far too poor an actor. Carolyn: Mike, in the kindest possible sense, your Peter FAQ was one of the starting points for the catalogue. It did not (IMO of course), even begin to encapsulate the reasons Peter betrayed his friends (if he did), but merely reiterated the Faith-reading that if a character acts like a rat, quacks like a rat, he must be...a rat. Children's storytelling stuff. Not that there aren't plenty of knee-jerk posts supporting you, people shrieking that Peter is the most horrible character in the book etc. To my way of thinking, the Peter story is one of the most interesting examples of where we had such high hopes of Jo, but they have been (or are likely to be) dashed. As Pippin says above, it is scarcely credible that he spied for a year without being caught. JKR has also brushed under the carpet some very unpleasant issues about why he should have done it, if he did. These are young boys that grew up together like the Trio have, remember. What did they do to him that left him open to Voldemort's approach? And what exactly did Dumbledore know? Pretty much all of it, IMO. Leading him to sacrifice Lily and James, leave Sirius in the slammer, and finally offer Lupin the poisoned chalice of the DADA job whilst he and Snape pursued a slow dance, culminating in the death scene on the tower in HBP. Don't believe a word of it? Peruse these links as a starting point: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115794 www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew (follow the link to the 'Peter Paper' in the left hand menu). As I recall, last time we discussed it here, Pippin still thought Peter was prime facie guilty, but had been set up by Lupin and was too weak to resist. Personally, I still prefer the Gryffindor explanation that Peter is an extremely brave individual who is continuing to carry out Dumbledore's orders unto the death. There just is no other reason as to why he should hide as a rat in so much danger all those years. He could have run off to deepest Manchuria and lived out his days in far more safety otherwise. Eileen: I'm still particularly annoyed by the way she slaughtered my intricate backstory for Avery by making Rabastan Lestrange the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene. What has Rabastan Lestrange done since his introduction to merit that cruel crack down? Fourth Man!Avery had so much more potential, and yet all that theorizing has been cut off by the fiat of the author. Carolyn: Eileen, yours and Elkins' Fourth Man theory is one of the treasures of the backlist, never regret it for a moment. Its psychological truth survives, even if he wasn't in the Pensieve scene. Incredible as it seems, there are people posting on the main list who still have no knowledge of SYCOPHANTS*. Their lives are the poorer. *(Society for Yes Men Cowards Ostriches Passive-Aggressives Hysterics Abject Neurotics and Toadying Sycophants) Eileen: It was at that point that I began to reconsider the much-scorned theory among HP fans that the HP books might very well be meant for children..... .... possibly due to the increasing infantilism of JKR's work. Mainly, however, it's the way she tossed aside the promising Crouch subplot thatirks me most. I think it should be obvious how much this would have improved the plot, particularly if it'd turned out that Winky really had been sleeping with him. When I became a fan, I thought I was reading a Political Story, not some childish fantasy adventure, Suffice it to say, I sincerely doubt that JKR will redeem my faith in her by this last book. The tipping point as agreed by our greatest fandom essayists was undoubtedly the interview in which JKR revealed that the J. in Remus J. Lupin stood for John. A more careful canon analysis reveals that the only middle name canonically indicated for Lupin is "Janus" ie. The Roman two-faced god of simultaneous beginnings and endings. Ah well, let bygones be bygones. In truth, the middle name thing doesn't matter very much. It's just symbolic of a larger problem, the way all our favourite avenues of theorizing are being removed from us. I am exhausted and somewhat numbed by the existential grief that has filled me as I reflect on all this. Carolyn: Your paean of rage very regrettfully snipped throughout. What a summary. Can I offer by way of balm one of Kneasy's old posts on the joy of theorising. It wears well and I commend it to you: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111642 Oh well, what does it all matter in the end? We've had a great time. I still have a vision of delivering her an edited volume of entirely alternative readings of her universe. Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 19:17:09 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:17:09 -0000 Subject: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A882E@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eileen Rebstock" wrote: > > Back in August of 2000, when I first read the four HP books then existing, I'd no idea of the depth of obsession the HP books would inspire in me. In fact, it wasn't until about a year later that I began to delve into their murky and ambiguous text and subtext to bring forth the marvelous treasures that lay hidden within it. I was just getting a handle on the secrets of the Potterverse when Hurricane Jo came along with OotP and laid waste to my careful interpretations. I'm still particularly annoyed by the way she slaughtered my intricate backstory for Avery by making Rabastan Lestrange the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene. What has Rabastan Lestrange done since his introduction to merit that cruel crack down? Fourth Man!Avery had so much more potential, and yet all that theorizing has been cut off by the fiat of the author. > > Ah, yes. The first four books. Make that 3.75 for me. Does anyone else think/suspect/feel/imagine/deduce/surmise that there're differences between those four and the last two? Besides length, that is. Maybe familiarity breeds contempt (not really, but you know what I mean), but those earlier vols were stuffed full of fascinating detail that you just knew had to mean something. The later ones - there was detail, but not nearly so fascinating and it read more like background than the "you'll be sorry if you don't take note of this" feeling of the earlier books. Could there have been a reassessment during that l-o-o-o-n-n-g break between PoA and GoF? A feeling that "if I carry on like this I'll never finish" sort of thing? Dunno. Certainly most readers favourite volumes tend to be among the earlier ones snip > > Still the nagging suspicion wouldn't go away, possibly due to the increasing infantilism of JKR's work. As each book grew shorter and shorter, with a more simplified vocabulary, and much less death, violence, or general havoc, it became very hard to ignore it. Words cannot explain how horribly devastated I was by the Pensieve scene in OotP, where it was demonstrated once and for all that Rowling mindlessly adored the Marauders and nothing they did could possibly ever be wrong. She continued this simplification, of course, by unambiguously turning Snape into an unconflicted worshipper of Voldemort in HBP. > > Less death. Yet the over-arching theme *is* death, according to Jo. There are much more interesting subjects than death, especially in the books, IMO. As a matter of fact, I've just had a Kneasy moment. Possibilities for a major post, here. Hmm. Needs some thought. Maybe in a few days... The Marauders were a bit of a let-down, but not yet a totally lost cause. Pippin et al still have a beady eye on Lupin, and I still have deep suspicions of Sirius. Never did like flash bastards. > > Mainly, however, it's the way she tossed aside the promising Crouch subplot that irks me most. Sure, Barty Sr. was dead and Barty Jr. soul-sucked at the end of GoF, but Barty Sr. could have come back as a ghost, something that I proved beyond a doubt on HPFGU back in the day. I think it should be obvious how much this would have improved the plot, particularly if it'd turned out that Winky really had been sleeping with him. (As an example of how JKR likes to cut down on soi-disant pointless fan speculation, I refer you to an interview where she denied that Winky would ever get over her current alcoholic depression.) When I became a fan, I thought I was reading a Political Story, not some childish fantasy adventure, and that current volumes would feature less Ginny and more Percy. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for the latter to be justified in his complex political stance against his family's more na?ve response to the situation. Suffice it to say, I sincerely doubt that JKR will redeem my faith in her by this last book. > > Yes, the Crouches. There's a nice little theory that Barty Jnr was set up to be caught; a plot to bring down Barty Snr, allowing the more malleable Fudge into a key position. Bagman, too, where's he gone? And yes, Percy. Come to that, where the hell is Trevor? Ripe seams for exploitation, all of them - well, perhaps not Trevor, but I still feel that there ought to be a plot-connected tale or two centering on him as well. The kids I'm not paricularly interested in, never have been, and it looked for a while as if it was the adults that had the greatest potential. Sure; the books are "Harry Potter and whatever" but he's more like a chess piece, a bemused teenager being manoeuvred around by those who really know what's what. But, admittedly with one book to come, it looks as if young Lochinvar will be girding up his loins and polishing his wand before the traditional showdown. Um. Breaking the genre? snip > > Ah well, let bygones be bygones. In truth, the middle name thing doesn't matter very much. It's just symbolic of a larger problem, the way all our favourite avenues of theorizing are being removed from us. Alas, this is not a new dilemma. I remember far too well the despair among Tolkien fans back in the late 1940s when the Return of the King came out, shattering our favourite theories. I'd figured that Faramir was going to play a very important part in defeating Sauron, and instead he spent most of the book lying about in the hospital. What's more, in a mark of disdain for his fans, the self-absorbed professor included a few hundred pages of Appendices, leaving *nothing* to the imagination. Gone were all my Sauron-origin theories, plus then he said in an interview that Aragorn did not mean "One Tree King" as had previously been widely accepted among fans. As you all know, the result of this disastrous move on the Professor's part, has been that no one likes his books today, well no one *intelligent*, and there is a complete dearth of theorizing about the gaps in what passes for a Tolkien fandom. Rowling should take heed of this dire warning. > > Well, the excuse is that he deliberately wrote a 'closed universe' fantasy, it's not open to theorising and extrapolation, there is no contact, no contiguity with our world, so our real life experiences and expectations aren't transferrable in the way that they are in HP. Can't comment on the validity of that, that's for committed fans and critics to dispute. By all accounts he was a mind-numbingly boring lecturer at university. > > I am exhausted and somewhat numbed by the existential grief that has filled me as I reflect on all this. I'd like to finish, however, by quoting a man who understood the numb pain that Rowling has provided her fans with. > > > "I'm looking through you. Where did you go? > I thought I knew you. What did I know? > You don't look different, but that's the game. > I'm looking through you. You're not the same. > > > Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right? > Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight." > > > And so it has. > Early-ish Beatles lyrics. '64? '65? Don't see those about very often. Reminds me of the good old days. It's that nostalgia thing again. Kneasy From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 19:24:39 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:24:39 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? References: Message-ID: <003401c67855$475a6ea0$482fdcd1@...> First, let me felicitate Kneasy on his devious, underhanded, duplicitous, shifty, sneaky, underhanded, and utterly meritorious gambit to get this list moving again! Second, what got me interested in the list in the first place was Something Silmariel said about floating the theory that Snape's patronus, and perhaps his animagus form as well, was a thestral, and having Kneasy take up arms against it. I've searched the archive and haven't turned up anything on the subject, and short of reading the entire archive, which I'd love to do but don't have time for, I am simply left feeling curious, a common enough affliction for creatures of my species. I would be most grateful if someone on the list could enlighten me. My own views in regard to Snape and thestrals are to be found at HP4GU#145637. --La Gatta > > To some extent, perhaps, we have only ourselves to blame. After > years of brilliant posts regaling us with in-depth analyses on all > aspects of mythology, symbology, astronomy, and alchemy (not to > mention conspiracy theories of positively labyrinthine proportions) . > well, JKR's children's books seem to pale by comparison. > > For many of us, the beginning of the end came with The List. That's > right, that "list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs > to be completed in Book Seven" posted back in October by Pippin et > al. It was, well, long. Very long. And we began to see that the > volumes of theories, mysteries, hints, conspiracies, and > inconsistencies which we had amassed over the years could never be > resolved within the confines of one final book and we would be, > ultimately and inevitably, disappointed. > > So, maybe Kneasy is right. Maybe this general disinterest is just a > symptom of growing up and growing older. But perhaps it is something > more. Perhaps we see the promise of the early books fading away > under the weight of thousands of hours of meticulously written > analyses and brilliantly surmised conclusions. Maybe we've just been > too smart for our own good. The list ::toots own horn:: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html Is it unmanageable though? All Harry has to do is decide, following Dumbledore's lead, that knowledge of the past will lead him to the horcruxes, and presto! the hunt leads us through the backstory and the mysteries grow knottier as the darkness falls over the wizarding world, and then Jo-style, it's all resolved at breakneck speed in the last three chapters, and we emerge, blinking, as day breaks on the Saturday morning after release with the mother of all HP hangovers. Pippin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 19:48:50 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:48:50 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <003401c67855$475a6ea0$482fdcd1@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kat Macfarlane" wrote: > > First, let me felicitate Kneasy on his devious, underhanded, duplicitous, shifty, sneaky, underhanded, and utterly meritorious gambit to get this list moving again! > Second, what got me interested in the list in the first place was Something Silmariel said about floating the theory that Snape's patronus, and perhaps his animagus form as well, was a thestral, and having Kneasy take up arms against it. I've searched the archive and haven't turned up anything on the subject, and short of reading the entire archive, which I'd love to do but don't have time for, I am simply left feeling curious, a common enough affliction for creatures of my species. I would be most grateful if someone on the list could enlighten me. > Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3454 Oh, and you forgot 'noble, handsome and brave' in my list of attributes. Kneasy From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 19:58:00 2006 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:58:00 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Aaaah, the good old days! > Remember them? > The world was bright, we were young(er) and the future was replete > with possibilities. > Joy was it then to be alive. > And now? > What happened? Are the golden lads and girls finally come to dust? > Geoff: Something strange has happened. I have found myself agreeing (to an extent) with Kneasy. I did an analysis of my posts just out of interest. In the nearly three years I have belonged to the main group, I have up to this moment in time contributed 1858 messages. (Did I hear someone say 1858 too many?). My accuracy is because I learned early on to distrust the labyrinth which lurks behind the button marked Search and have kept an archive of my posts so that I can easily track an older message or thread topic down if I want to quote, Of these, 1502 were sent prior to the publication of HBP which happened almost on my second 'birthday" in the group so I was averaging about 750 posts per year. In the ten months since that day, I have posted on 356 occasions which is going to pan out at about 420 if I keep up the same rate. That is a hefty reduction in my output. Why? I felt that last July marked a watershed in traffic on HPFGU. Prior to that, there were always several threads running covering a wide range of topics - delightful things such as the identity of Mark Evans and a long thread mainly between myself and Shaun Hately discussing the whereabouts of the newsagents in Vauxhall Road where TR bought the infamous diary and a host of other, sometimes inconsequential, topics. Since HBP, we have had thread after thread analysing Sanpe's behaviour; what are the other Horcruxes; can Harry be a Horcrux and such like. Often, these have turned into "table tennis" matches between two or so people holding opposite views and hanging onto their theories like Dementors onto Barty Crouch Junior. Then, from time to time, a new poster appears writing "I have just had this great thought about X" . Everyone groans inwardly and thinks "Yes and Queen Anne's dead. You're the 32nd person to suggest that. Have you looked back two days on the group?" Perhaps we are getting jaded. Perhaps the tension of a likely wait into next year for Book 7 is getting to us. The camaradie seems a little thin sometimes. I have on occasions in the past remarked that perhaps we take ourselves and our HP obsession/interest/critical analysis/... too seriously. I read the books as an escape from the real world and don't want to be dragged back in because someone is complaining at the lack of correlation between them and us. I like to approach my reading in an attitude of "the willing suspension of belief for the moment", an approach which allows me to enter Hogwarts or Middle-Earth or Narnia with perhaps child-like excitement; anybody suggesting second childhood will receive a week's worth of detentions. Maybe, I'm a one-off in that respect; I suspect I'm not. I don't anticipate that everyone will agree with me anymore than many group members will agree with my Christian approach to the books but it is that gentle disagreement and interchange of ideas - both on the group and sometimes in off-group emails ? which makes HPFGU a unique place. Finally, I am sorry that Kneasy holds such a low opinion of LOTR. I would point out that Tolkien did not expect everyone to beat a path to his door to acclaim his success. He summed up people's reaction very succinctly as follows: The Lord of the Rings is one of those things: if you like it you do: if you don't, then you boo! "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are..." From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Mon May 15 21:08:36 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:08:36 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale References: Message-ID: <00a101c67863$c93ab0c0$482fdcd1@...> ...and then Kneasy writes: Less death. Yet the over-arching theme *is* death, according to Jo. There are much more interesting subjects than death, especially in the books, IMO. As a matter of fact, I've just had a Kneasy moment. Possibilities for a major post, here. Hmm. Needs some thought. Maybe in a few days... The Marauders were a bit of a let-down, but not yet a totally lost cause. Pippin et al still have a beady eye on Lupin, and I still have deep suspicions of Sirius. Never did like flash bastards. Oh, Kneasy, you do this little kitty cat's heart good! I haven't liked that particular flash bastard from the get-go, and I don't think it's just because he's a big black d*g! Yes, the Crouches. There's a nice little theory that Barty Jnr was set up to be caught; a plot to bring down Barty Snr, allowing the more malleable Fudge into a key position. Bagman, too, where's he gone? And yes, Percy. Come to that, where the hell is Trevor? Ripe seams for exploitation, all of them - well, perhaps not Trevor, but I still feel that there ought to be a plot-connected tale or two centering on him as well. Gatta rather thinks Trevor inherited his family's stately pile, and is now off tootling around the Sceptred Isle in a big red motor car impressing the socks off all the girl toads. Or maybe he eloped with Winky? Purrs! La Gatta [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 01:11:19 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:11:19 -0000 Subject: Peter betrayed? In-Reply-To: <000001c677df$c52cae90$0200a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > Carolyn mulled about > > > > Pippin > > > who agrees that Peter was betrayed > > > > > Oh do you now. I thought you were disputing that last time we went > > over it. Good! > > Have I missed something? > > Baaaaa, > > Mike (who, after all, once wrote a FAQ about Mr Pettigrew) > Speaking of missing something all this time....I have been wanting to know for a long time.... What is it that makes you angry ? I am referring to your email address, of course... Randy ;0) From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 02:19:04 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:19:04 -0000 Subject: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <00a101c67863$c93ab0c0$482fdcd1@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kat Macfarlane" wrote: > > > SNIP > Yes, the Crouches. There's a nice little theory that Barty Jnr was set up to be caught; > a plot to bring down Barty Snr, allowing the more malleable Fudge into a key position. > Bagman, too, where's he gone? And yes, Percy. Come to that, where the hell is Trevor? > Ripe seams for exploitation, all of them - well, perhaps not Trevor, but I still feel that > there ought to be a plot-connected tale or two centering on him as well. > SNIP > Purrs! > > La Gatta > THAT's IT ! He yells and the boy at the toy piano does a back flip! TREVOR !!!!! Trevor is really RAB! The King has been turned into a toad for once instead of vice versa! Regulus, the King is now a toad! How brilliant! So when Luna accidently kisses him in book 7, he turns back and tells Harry where all of the Hornbuckles are located. Then after a sex change, Trevor runs off with Peter Pettigrew to live happily ever after! Red Eye Randy (who downs his glass of ale and belches irreverently) He turns to see the old man with a slogan written on his back start to stand up with much effort. As Kneasy is paying the man outside with the cart. The old man with the Old Crowd written on his back says "I'm not dead yet!" "I'm feeling much better!" "Oh shut up!" someone yells and clobbers him on the back of the head. From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 02:13:58 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:13:58 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? References: Message-ID: <000501c6788e$6e9e6000$482fdcd1@...> Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3454 Oh, and you forgot 'noble, handsome and brave' in my list of attributes. Kneasy The last fellow who handed me a line like that turned out to look like Peter Pettigrew. And I pounced on him and ate him for breakfast, with toast and marmalade. And, of course, cream. Purrs! La Gatta [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 02:42:51 2006 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:42:51 -0000 Subject: What do we lose? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: >snip > But the bigger issue must be seen in the development of her > characters and the resolution of plotlines over the past two books. > Or should I say the lack of? Looked at as a whole, books 1 through 4 > surely showed a far more cohesive storyline than either OOP or HBP > came near to showing. I totally agree. In fact, I think it could be said that, with a > few alterations, GOF might have made a fine ending to the series. Yes, the last book where I felt satisfied when it ended. It also was the last book, IMO, where HP's character was consistent in its development > > But, Geez Louise, by the time OOP came around, we were being > subjected to unnecessary character anomalies like Grawp and Umbridge > (why? Why?), and don't even get me started on waiting until HBP to > mention horcruxes. Yes, new characters and props now seem to be contrived to maintain some arbitrary rule of X number of new characters and x number of new props and x number of new spells, etc. for each book. Could the "inferi" have been any more useless to the plot, or Grawp? Rather than better development of past themes and storylines (say DA), we have the page space stolen by useless additions that clutter up the story. The final straw came for me when Harry's interaction with Snape in the DADA class were essentially left out of the last book. So much rich interaction was there to be written, and instead she skirted the hard work for silliness like the inferi. > > All in all, the fun is out of it for me not so much because too much > has been resolved outside of the books' covers, but because not > enough has been resolved inside of them. Exactly. This is what Pippin missed when she to exception to me complaining about the giggly revelations in that infamous interview. If your such a good story teller, and indeed she ofen has been, then give us the information in the context of the story. Have it revealed in the text. The storyline seems to be > heading more to a fine point (that is, Voldemort) but, at the same > time, is also more rambling, wandering and, I fear, will not end in a > satisfying, complex and cohesive way. What we all want when we read > the final page of the final book is an ending with something far more > intricate and surprising and cohesive than we could ever have > postulated. Yes, and if she truly pulls that off, she will have my greatest respect. But right now, I believe she has squandered her opportunity to write a truly great story. Lyn From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 03:08:46 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:08:46 -0000 Subject: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A882E@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eileen Rebstock" wrote: > > SNIP SNIPPY SNIP SNIP SNIPPY SNIP SNIP SNIP SNEROOOOO> > I am exhausted and somewhat numbed by the existential grief that has filled me as I reflect on all this. I'd like to finish, however, by quoting a man who understood the numb pain that Rowling has provided her fans with. > > > > "I'm looking through you. Where did you go? > > I thought I knew you. What did I know? > > You don't look different, but that's the game. > > I'm looking through you. You're not the same. > > > > Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right? > > Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight." > > > > And so it has. > > AH Yes "I'm Looking Through You" off the Rubber Soul Album How about this one to some up our grief "Once there was a way To get back homeward. Once there was a way To get back home Sleep pretty darling do not cry She wrote those books, but don't ask why!" Boy, we're gonna carry that weight Carry that Weight a long time!" Randy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 07:40:25 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:40:25 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320605160040j698bb684l7e32c29364aa754d@...> On 5/16/06, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Since HBP, we have had thread after thread analysing Sanpe's > behaviour; what are the other Horcruxes; can Harry be a Horcrux > and such like. Yes, I haven't had the heart to even read anything on Main for a long long time. I had hoped the initial discussions would widen into a similar delta of inquiry but the Horrucks fixation has been death to such enthusiasm. > Often, these have turned into "table tennis" matches between two > or so people holding opposite views and hanging onto their theories > like Dementors onto Barty Crouch Junior. > > Then, from time to time, a new poster appears writing "I have just > had this great thought about X" . Everyone groans inwardly and > thinks "Yes and Queen Anne's dead. You're the 32nd person to > suggest that. Have you looked back two days on the group?" This phenomenon goes back much further than you think; the penultimate nature of the series has only foccused the dynamic much more narrowly. You could throw fully half to three quarters of everything said about Snape on the lists and not lose any information, just for example. > Maybe, I'm a one-off in that respect; I suspect I'm not. I don't > anticipate that everyone will agree with me anymore than many > group members will agree with my Christian approach to the books > but it is that gentle disagreement and interchange of ideas - both > on the group and sometimes in off-group emails ? which > makes HPFGU a unique place. Agreed, we just need more things to disagree about :) When I say "disagree", I don't mean the kind of oddness I'll mention below. > The Lord of the Rings > is one of those things: > if you like it you do: > if you don't, then you boo! This is true. I feel the argument is curiously slanted with a fear of having one's worldview taken over, as if to like Narnia is proof that you cannot like LOTR, for never the twain shall meet, like some absolute dualism that cannot be questioned (Linux vs Windows for instance). It's part of a more general cultural force that often seems to be saying you must either be owned by state, church or corporation, anything else is a tragic flaw in character. On such lists as these, this kind of mentality turns up often, and that intrigues me. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 08:09:24 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:09:24 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Peter betrayed & the lost world of theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c678c0$0c1f2720$0200a8c0@hwin> Quoth Carolyn: > Mike, in the kindest possible sense, your Peter FAQ was one > of the starting points for the catalogue. It did not (IMO of > course), even begin to encapsulate the reasons Peter betrayed > his friends (if he did), but merely reiterated the > Faith-reading that if a character acts like a rat, quacks > like a rat, he must be...a rat. There is a difference, you know, between a farfetched reading and a sophisticated one. Not that the books haven't taken the far road less fetched now and again - the Polyjuice!Moody ending to GoF comes to mind - but these HP books have never given me the feeling of being the sort of stories that are fueled by plot twists which confound perceptions about major characters created by a simple reading of the text. BTW, I say "confound" and not "challenged." I'd say that HBP "challenges" the perception of Draco created by a simple reading of the earlier books and sets the stage for just about anything to happen with him in the final book. "Confounded" would have if we had discovered at the end of HBP that Draco had actually been an agent of the Order of Phoenix all along. "Requested-removal-of-Rowling-to-St-Mungos" would have been if Draco had turned out to be an Auror on ployjuice. > Not that there aren't plenty of knee-jerk posts > supporting you, people shrieking that Peter is the most > horrible character in the book etc. Geeze. Did I ever say stuff like that - or even say stuff that would be supported by stuff like that? I really ought to see if I can find that old FAQ somewhere. I have this odd recollection of thinking that Pete can't be all bad - while at the same time (assuming he's a Gryffindor) kind of wishing he *is* just to give the Sorting Hat one in the eye. I certainly seem to remember assuming that Pete'll end up redeeming himself and make a sort of tragic hero of himself in the process. But perhaps the ravages or age have been gnawing on my synapses again. * * * * Anyway, two (rather tangential) thoughts: (1) I think it's important to distinguich between a *critique* and an *interpretation.* It's one thing to argue that the text doesn't do a psychologically convincing job of portraying Peter as a traitor, or Dumbledore as a wise man, or Ron and Hermione as (potentially happy) lovers. It's an entirely different thing to argue that the text actually *doesn't* portray Peter as a traitor, Dumbledore as a wise man or R&H as lovers because it does not do so in a psychologically convincing manner. Earlier on, of course, it was easier to argue that these psychological gaps (assuming their existence, of course) were either intentional or unintentional clues of future plot developments. This is an option that we don't usually have when we read stories, but since the series was (and is still) incomplete, some of us readers have used those gaps to build some rather amazing constructions. Now that the series is winding down, however, a lot of the gaps look they aren't clues at all, and the plot contructions built over them are teetering on the edge of a critical abyss. As they fall, the old interpretations become new critiques. One reason I've never been able to work up much enthusiasism for a lot of the theorizing in the fandom is that I've generally assumed that the gaps in question were simply lacunae and accepted them as critiques. (And I've often felt that they expect a sort of psychological realism I would never dream of finding in these texts - but that's another story, for another day.) (2) The one other thing: the way the word "theory" is used around here. When people in my lagoon of the fandom (just another sort of gap, I suppose) talk about theories, they seem to mean something like a scientific hypothesis. "Theory" has to do producing prediction about the plot based on textual evidence of some kind; theories may or may not hold, as more evidence comes into view. Years ago I actually planned to set up a web site (called the Goat's Den) where people could advance theories and place (pretend) bets on them. Whoever ended up winning the most money at the end of the series would have bagged the biggest pot in fandom. Since I'm pants at html I never got going - and anyway, nowdays you can place real bets on the HP books ... In my other life (as a theologian with a specialization in hermeneutics) theory means something completely different: it has to do with interpretive approaches to texts. "New hermeneutics" or "psychoanalytic theory" or "reader response theory" or "aesthetics of reception" or "marxist theory" or "feminist theory" are all theories about the way texts do their thing. They are very interesting theories, too - most of them, anyway. They're very hard to prove wrong - partly because they're just tools for looking at texts, partly because people use so many incomprehensible words about them that no one knows what they're talking about anyway and hence can't disprove them. Just figuring out what the theory *is* is half the fun. I actually think both sorts of theory are fun. And the nice thing about the latter sort is that you can keep on squabbling about it for practically forever. Having the books finished certainly won't hurt any. Perhaps we fans can discover the joys of the latter sort of theory once the earlier sort has been swallowed up by _Harry Potter and the Tragic End of Life as We Know It_. Baaaaa, Mike (who has to get to a meeting as has no time to reread or spell check, so sorry!) From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 08:11:29 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:11:29 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Peter betrayed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c678c0$56b14570$0200a8c0@hwin> Randy wondered, > Speaking of missing something all this time....I have been > wanting to know for a long time.... > What is it that makes you angry ? > I am referring to your email address, of course... Et tu, Brute? My wife is named Susan. I'll let you work out the rest! The angry part never even occurred to me - but a number of fandom people have asked me the same question over the years! Mike From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 10:02:06 2006 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:02:06 -0000 Subject: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: <91d14f320605160040j698bb684l7e32c29364aa754d@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: Geoff: > > The Lord of the Rings > > is one of those things: > > if you like it you do: > > if you don't, then you boo! ewe2: > This is true. I feel the argument is curiously slanted with a fear of > having one's worldview taken over, as if to like Narnia is proof that > you cannot like LOTR, for never the twain shall meet, like some > absolute dualism that cannot be questioned (Linux vs Windows for > instance). It's part of a more general cultural force that often seems > to be saying you must either be owned by state, church or corporation, > anything else is a tragic flaw in character. On such lists as these, > this kind of mentality turns up often, and that intrigues me. Geoff: I couldn't agree more. I have been an LOTR fan since I first read the book in 1955/6 and have no trouble reconciling Tolkien's work with Harry Potter. They fit the same 'worldview'. LOTR is set in an unspecified but very ancient period of our own world while Harry fits comfortably into a virtually contemporaneous setting. I took early retirement from teaching just at the same time that Harry was sorting out the Basilisk. And for my future world view, I've got Star Trek. :-) Narnia doesn't quite fit in but, as I commented in my last post, I am happy to exercise the "willing suspension of disbelief" in visiting Narnia and Charn and the Lone Islands... From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 11:43:22 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:43:22 -0000 Subject: Hoy! Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4985812.stm "The Da Vinci Code is possibly the greatest phenomenon in the history of fiction publishing... It has sold more than 40 million copies across the world" Just a minute. Mike painstakingly established that HP has sold 300 million. Even allowing for 6 books, that's 50 million per volume. I think JKR should sue. There's always the Bible, too What's that? You want something substantial to discuss? OK, do you think the popularity of DVC is for similar reasons to HP? Back to nostalgia when I get the time, probably in 2001. David From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 14:01:48 2006 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:01:48 -0000 Subject: Hoy! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > What's that? You want something substantial to discuss? OK, do you > think the popularity of DVC is for similar reasons to HP? Funny how this ties in with everything that's going on here. My twelve year old's fascination with HP has been waning (whether it is due to the quality of the writing or the length of time between books, I'm not sure), so I suggested that he try out the DaVinci Code. He's mature enough to deal with the sex and level-headed enough to work out the religious stuff on his own, so I thought he should give it a shot. Well, he loved it, and I have to believe it is because of the same things that he so loved about HP, only moreso. The intrigue, the characters who are not what they seem, and the wonderfully infuriating code-breaking! What more could an HP fan ask for? Granted the "magical" world is missing, but the mysteriously clandestine world of Opus Dei is a great stand-in. He's now making his way through DVC's predecessor, Angels and Demons. And, to answer your question on another level: yes, DVC's popularity has probably benefited greatly from the publicity generated by Christian protestations of blasphemy, as has HP. :: Entropy :: From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 14:38:33 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:38:33 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A884D@...> Oh god, now we're going to discuss *real* trash on list? Ahem... I don't think the popularity of the DVC is *that* similar to HP, except to the extent that they both play off the mystery genre. DVC does play off the secret knowledge trope that drives conspiracy theories and certain aspects of religion, while HP (despite the usual attacks by that nut Michael O'Brien on the subject) doesn't. The allure of the DVC is stated on the front page where it's stated (incorrectly) that all the descriptions of art, rituals etc. in the book are *true*, even though the story is made-up. Whereas it's only the people who hate HP who see anything real in HP. I've heard more people than I count saying "Wow, I learnt so many things about the Catholic Church/Classical history/Opus Dei/the Templars/Leonardo da Vinci the Da Vinci Code!" I've never heard anyone saying, "I've learnt so much about Witchcraft/Alchemy/Divination from HP!" Plenty of people read DVC just for the fun of the story, but it definitely appeals on the Secret Knowledge basis. And yes, the protest against both books probably aids their popularity, but in the DVC's case the protest was kind of built-in in the first place. It presents itself as a shocking tale of heroism prevailing against Christian oppression. The Christian protest is part and parcel of the package. Whereas with HP it seems rather accidental, that this particularly book was the focus of such a tempest, when other children's fantasy got off almost scot free. I've a very poor opinion of the DVC, though, and am restraining myself from turning this into a no-holds-barred DVC bashing. Can you tell? ;-) Eileen > -----Original Message----- > From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of entropymail > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:02 AM > To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" > wrote: > > > What's that? You want something substantial to discuss? OK, > do you > > think the popularity of DVC is for similar reasons to HP? > > Funny how this ties in with everything that's going on here. My > twelve year old's fascination with HP has been waning (whether it is > due to the quality of the writing or the length of time between > books, I'm not sure), so I suggested that he try out the DaVinci > Code. He's mature enough to deal with the sex and level-headed > enough to work out the religious stuff on his own, so I thought he > should give it a shot. > > Well, he loved it, and I have to believe it is because of the same > things that he so loved about HP, only moreso. The intrigue, the > characters who are not what they seem, and the wonderfully > infuriating code-breaking! What more could an HP fan ask for? Granted > the "magical" world is missing, but the mysteriously clandestine > world of Opus Dei is a great stand-in. He's now making his way > through DVC's predecessor, Angels and Demons. > > And, to answer your question on another level: yes, DVC's popularity > has probably benefited greatly from the publicity generated by > Christian protestations of blasphemy, as has HP. > > :: Entropy :: > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 14:56:21 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:56:21 -0000 Subject: Hoy! In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A884D@...> Message-ID: Eileen wrote: > I've a very poor opinion of the DVC, though, and am restraining myself from turning this into a no-holds-barred DVC bashing. Can you tell? ;-) For shame! We all know that one of the best ways to promote community solidarity is to manufacture an artificial enemy. I have not read this great work myself, but it amazes me the number of people who have trouble understanding that fiction contains propositional falsehoods. David From sherriola at ... Tue May 16 15:03:59 2006 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:03:59 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eileen wrote: > I've a very poor opinion of the DVC, though, and am restraining myself from turning this into a no-holds-barred DVC bashing. Can you tell? ;-) For shame! We all know that one of the best ways to promote community solidarity is to manufacture an artificial enemy. I have not read this great work myself, but it amazes me the number of people who have trouble understanding that fiction contains propositional falsehoods. David Sherry: I didn't like the DVC either. I found it mind numbingly boring! The killer's identity was so obvious from the first time I met him in the story, and obvious that it wasn't the person the reader was supposed to suspect. There would be about 15 minutes of hair raising action, then 45 minutes of boring exposition, with the characters explaining all their theories. I describe it in minutes, because I read it in audio. I understand fiction is fiction and wasn't bothered or intrigued by the ideas put forth. I just thought it was dull. Sherry From kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 15:33:42 2006 From: kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid (Kirstin Innes) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:33:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re.How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <1147789364.667.23825.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060516153342.94069.qmail@...> >Furthermore, some of our best > theorists have proved without a doubt that HP is > actually a clever response to Umberto Eco, and how > can you argue with that? Oh Eileen, Eileen. Thank you for your wit and grace and for making a very subtle and bloody amusing point brilliantly. The ennui has been bothering me for some time, too. Kirstin Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 15:43:27 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:43:27 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re.How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <20060516153342.94069.qmail@...> Message-ID: <000301c678ff$7b125370$0200a8c0@hwin> Eileen essayed, and Kirsten echoed, > > Furthermore, some of our best > > theorists have proved without a doubt that HP is actually a clever > > response to Umberto Eco, and how can you argue with that? OK. I can't take it any more. I just can't keep up the pretense - I'm been dying to know - and obviously everybody knows but me: What's Umberto got to do with it?? Peace, Mike From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 15:46:22 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:22 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8859@...> > -----Original Message----- > From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of davewitley > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:56 AM > To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! >> I have not read this great work myself, but it amazes me the number of > people who have trouble understanding that fiction contains > propositional falsehoods. I think the reason people get worked up on the subject is that Dan Brown *does* claim the book's propositions are true. He allows that his story is made up but insists that pretty much everything else in the book is factual. The book includes an infamous page of FACTs, apart from the the fiction. Particularly dubious is the assertion that the Priory of Sion is a real organization dating back to the eleventh century, instead of the 1950s invention of a royalist French crank. Though this disclaimer takes the cake, imho: "FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." They are demonstrably wrong in almost every possible way. Secondly, an annoyingly high proportion of his fans treat his fiction as FACT. If the general population treated the Da Vinci Code as fiction, there wouldn't be the big debate there is about it. Instead, it's difficult to take a step these days without running into someone who will inform you that they've learnt "interesting things" from the Da Vinci Code. Some of it's just *headdesky*. It drives me nuts the same way it drives me nuts to hear the widespread, "Before Columbus, people thought the world was flat." There. I've let a lot of it out. Eileen From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 15:50:16 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:50:16 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re.How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A885B@...> > Eileen essayed, and Kirsten echoed, > > > > Furthermore, some of our best > > > theorists have proved without a doubt that HP is actually a clever > > > response to Umberto Eco, and how can you argue with that? > > OK. I can't take it any more. I just can't keep up the pretense - I'm been > dying to know - and obviously everybody knows but me: > > What's Umberto got to do with it?? > Being as the author is dead, she is not at liberty to explain this or to comment on the possibility that yesterday's post contained any satirization of HP fandom, the author included. Eileen From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 16:00:31 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:00:31 -0600 Subject: The End Draws Near. Or Does it? Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A885C@...> Do you think that HP Book VII is the end of the Potterverse? The more I think about it, the more I wonder. I *do* believe JKR's assertion that she isn't going to write more books focused on Harry, and she isn't planning on writing prequels about James and Lily at Hogwarts. I also know she wants to write other stuff, outside the Potterverse. But abandoning the Potterverse entirely? After all the work she pours into it? It seems to me that she's hooked on it. A lot of the stuff on her website and in interviews isn't important to the books at all, but she just enjoys playing about in that world. Now, I doubt she's planning anything like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if after Book VII is finished with, she revisits this magical world from some other angle down the road. Perhaps stuff that interests her, but was too far off Harry's path to write. There's plenty of such stuff we already know about, that had to be cut for Harry's behalf. I'm angling for Theodore Nott's story, of course, but I think the idea in general holds true. "There are many stories between the lines." Eileen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 16:12:34 2006 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:12:34 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! References: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8859@...> Message-ID: <007301c67903$8b880d90$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Eileen: >>> I think the reason people get worked up on the subject is that Dan Brown *does* claim the book's propositions are true. He allows that his story is made up but insists that pretty much everything else in the book is factual. The book includes an infamous page of FACTs, apart from the the fiction. Particularly dubious is the assertion that the Priory of Sion is a real organization dating back to the eleventh century, instead of the 1950s invention of a royalist French crank. Though this disclaimer takes the cake, imho: "FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." They are demonstrably wrong in almost every possible way. Secondly, an annoyingly high proportion of his fans treat his fiction as FACT. If the general population treated the Da Vinci Code as fiction, there wouldn't be the big debate there is about it. Instead, it's difficult to take a step these days without running into someone who will inform you that they've learnt "interesting things" from the Da Vinci Code. Some of it's just *headdesky*. <<< SSSusan: This reflects my major annoyance with DVC as well. I thought it was an *interesting* read; it did raise a lot of questions for me about church history (and I had a very helpful talk with a clergy member about those). OTOH, I find it "unfair" and irresponsible of Brown to both paste the subtitle "A Novel" across the front of his book and to then include this list of "Facts," which is, as you point out, an incredibly questionable list. But does the average reader *know* that it is? To me it's similar to Oliver Stone's film "JFK." [Try typing "JFK" now. It's very hard after so much "JKR"!] He doesn't come out and say, "My movie is ALL TRUE." Yet he intermingles fact w/ fiction, he makes *new* film to match old footage, and the "splices" aren't readily apparent to the audience. Same thing with intermingling fact/evidence and theory. As a high school history teacher, it was brought home to me that the kids I was teaching had no *idea* how to evaluate that movie. DVC has a similar problem, imo. Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 19:51:03 2006 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:51:03 -0000 Subject: The End Draws Near. Or Does it? In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A885C@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eileen Rebstock" wrote: Eileen: > Do you think that HP Book VII is the end of the Potterverse? > The more I think about it, the more I wonder. I *do* believe JKR's > assertion that she isn't going to write more books focused on Harry, and > she isn't planning on writing prequels about James and Lily at Hogwarts. > I also know she wants to write other stuff, outside the Potterverse. > But abandoning the Potterverse entirely? After all the work she pours > into it? It seems to me that she's hooked on it. A lot of the stuff on > her website and in interviews isn't important to the books at all, but > she just enjoys playing about in that world. Now, I doubt she's planning > anything like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if after Book VII is > finished with, she revisits this magical world from some other angle > down the road. Perhaps stuff that interests her, but was too far off > Harry's path to write. There's plenty of such stuff we already know > about, that had to be cut for Harry's behalf. > I'm angling for Theodore Nott's story, of course, but I think the idea > in general holds true. "There are many stories between the lines." Geoff: I have seen it rumoured that she might write an Encyclopaedia of HP which might tie up a few loose ends rather ? la Tolkien Appendices. That would keep her - and us - going for a good while. From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 19:58:07 2006 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Whatever happened to nostalgia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060516195807.36076.qmail@...> --- Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Getting close to that stage with HP. It no longer engages, the > characters > seem less real than before, and I don't care what happens to any of > them. Now that's something I never believed that I'd say. > Unfortunately it's true. > > Kneasy I'm a little more sanguine than this, although it's probably for the wrong reason. I'll read Book 7 (just as I read books 5 and 6) to find out what happens to Snape, not Harry. I haven't really cared about Harry since POA. IMO, Harry and the books got thicker at the same time. And yeah, I wish she'd shut up about the shipping - she really can't "do" romance very well. Magda (who predicts that such respect as JKR will enjoy in future years will concern her creation of Snape, the most ambiguous character ever sustained over 7 books in history) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 20:05:29 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:05:29 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re.How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A885B@...> Message-ID: <002201c67924$163c1e20$0200a8c0@hwin> The Voice of the Text said, > Being as the author is dead, she is not at liberty to explain > this or to comment on the possibility that yesterday's post > contained any satirization of HP fandom, the author included. Giggle. Any chance you could direct me to wherever it was that whichever Model Authors had their discussion about Zio Umberto? (I doesn't seem to have been on this list. I looked.) I was talking about that with my chair a couple weeks ago (I'm using his Model Reader thing in my work), and we got into a disagreement about whether Umberto really thinks authors are irrelevant. I said he does, Chair (who is om,iscient) says he doesn't really. He didn't explain, though, and darned if I have the guts to bug him about it. One thing's for sure: HPfGU has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that a text is a machine designed to produce interpretations. And interpretations. And interpretations. Baaaaaaa, Mike From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 22:28:12 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:28:12 -0700 Subject: Thestrals Redux Message-ID: <001201c67938$0f368ac0$482fdcd1@...> Kneasy wrote: Interesting. If ole Sevvy has a Thestral as Patronus then - yes, it fits in neatly with Blackwidower Theory - those he saw die (at Voldy's instigation if not directly by Voldy's hand) being Snape's own wife and son. Gatta now: O.K., I'll get back to this one later. I think I must have been out moongazing and caterwauling when this was discussed. Mind you, I can see a few Billywigs in the unguent. For a start we assume that the form of Patronus is decided more or less from the time of character development or even earlier. Unless the poor bugger has had at least one childhood episode watching somebody die - well, when he/she gets around to learning how to produce one they'll never know that they succeeded - it'll be invisible. I think Jo pretty much established in HBP that one can, if one is so disposed, change one's Patronus in adult life. Frustrating or what? And if like Harry he were asked to produce a Patronus under exam conditions some of the examiners might not be able to see it either. "Sorry, Snape. You've failed this part." "But sir! I did it! It's just that my Patronus is invisible!" "Pull the other one, lad - it's got bells on." This, of course, is assuming that a Patronus has all the attributes of the creature it looks like, as opposed to simply looking like it. Ditto for one's Animagus form. E.g., Snape is the one thestral, at this point, that Hermione can see (when he's in Animagus form), because (a) he's visible, and (b) he has dark eyes. Secondly - can Dementors 'see' a Threstral - real or Patronic? If they can't - well, there ain't much point in having one. Oh, I don't know. It might actually be rather useful, kind of like a Stealth Bomber. They'd never know what hit them. (This is assuming that a thestral Patronus is in fact invisible to some beings, which I'm inclined to doubt.) Additionally herself has restricted Patronic forms to real, non-magical beasties - so far at least. Oh, most fans suspect, probably correctly, that DD has a Phoenix Pat, but it's never actually been spelled out, and he could be a special case. I think Jo has pretty much admitted, in an off-canon interview, that Dumbledore's Patronus is a phoenix. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that that was what Harry saw rising from his pyre (or whatever it was). Everyone else seems to be stuck with boring old stags, otters, hamsters and the like. If magical beasts were allowed a dragon form would be a fun thing to play around with, or even having your own pet Dementor Patronus - just so long as it didn't go feral and join it's pals in making your life a misery. Yup. If Marvin the Paranoid Android has a Patronus, it's a Dementor. Kneasy Tribbles. Definitely tribbles. They EAT dementors. Purrs! La Gatta [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 23:09:10 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:09:10 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re.How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale References: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A885B@...> Message-ID: <003801c6793d$cbd90040$482fdcd1@...> > Eileen essayed, and Kirsten echoed, > > > > Furthermore, some of our best > > > theorists have proved without a doubt that HP is actually a clever > > > response to Umberto Eco, and how can you argue with that? > > OK. I can't take it any more. I just can't keep up the pretense - I'm been > dying to know - and obviously everybody knows but me: > > What's Umberto got to do with it?? > Being as the author is dead, she is not at liberty to explain this or to comment on the possibility that yesterday's post contained any sanitization of HP fandom, the author included. Eileen Um, er... About which author are we speaking? It can't be Umberto Eco, because he is a he, and the last time I looked, he was alive and well and traveling with a salmon. Purrs! La Gatta [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 23:26:57 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:26:57 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002401c67940$3aa5f3a0$0200a8c0@hwin> David wrote, > I have not read this great work myself, but it amazes me the > number of people who have trouble understanding that fiction > contains propositional falsehoods. Just for the record, I thought the book was a hoot, and I'm looking forward to the film. But I am tired of the Mary-M.-and-Jesus-sitting-in-the-tree trope. It doesn't bother me; it bores me. The first time I heard that one (it was in some film) I was about 14 and properly scandalized. (And improperly excited, too. Not because of the people involved, just because it was SEX.) About 27 Jesus & Mary M. stories later the novelty has worn a bit thin. I mean, would somebody please point out to all the authors intent on doing SHOCKING!, STUNNING!!, SEXY!!! biblical fanfic that Mary M. was probably not the only nubile woman in the ancient near east between around 15 through 30 CE? Heck - why not try slash ... they'd at least have 12 people to choose from ... That also goes for all the Jesus DNA stories. Baaaaa Humbug. Mike (who is, for the record, a Christian. And who notes a statistical likelihood that Jesus was married - perhaps later widowed - to a presumably lucky young lady who possibly grew up around Nazereth. Yawn.) From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Tue May 16 23:51:56 2006 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:51:56 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Umberto and the Mystery of the Vanishing Author In-Reply-To: <003801c6793d$cbd90040$482fdcd1@...> Message-ID: <002501c67943$b8647980$0200a8c0@hwin> La Gatta miaowed (with a beady eye on Signor Eco's salmon), > About which author are we speaking? It can't be Umberto Eco, > because he is a he, and the last time I looked, he was alive > and well and traveling with a salmon. LOL. Just in case this all got too obscure: Uncle Umberto is known for saying that the empirical author is irrelevant to understanding a text. Neither the author's intentions while writing nor his opinions afterward have any special bearing on the way a text should be interpreted. I think he takes it too far, but he has reasons for what he says. See the following article (by Eco himself), where he tells a whole bunch of stories about how his own perceptions of his writing process were out of sync with the texts he actually wrote. Whether this begs the point (since he's correcting himself) is for you to judge. It's a fasciniating read: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_author.html JKR, on the other hand, has created a cottage industry out of people attacking every sentence she's ever spoken with a fine toothed comb. (Of course, people like Steve might take very nicely to Eco's theory: if authors *don't* count, we don't have to get fussed when they prove that they *can't* count.) The textual device called Eileen, OTOH, quite properly points out that it doesn't have a clue about the correct interpretation of an earlier post nominally attributed to the same textual device. Baaaaaaa, Mike, who should probably shut the heck up and go back into hibernation. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 00:08:38 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (rebecca) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:08:38 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! References: Message-ID: <00ff01c67946$0ce6c600$6501a8c0@...> > David said: > For shame! We all know that one of the best ways to promote community > solidarity is to manufacture an artificial enemy. > > I have not read this great work myself, but it amazes me the number of > people who have trouble understanding that fiction contains propositional > falsehoods. and then this: >:: Entropy :: >And, to answer your question on another level: yes, DVC's popularity >has probably benefited greatly from the publicity generated by >Christian protestations of blasphemy, as has HP. Rebecca now: I like the DVC, but not for the "facts" page. I like it for different reasons: I'm a Leonardo da Vinci fan (I think he was brilliant), and it takes what has been speculated covertly (parties, art history class, galleries etc) probably since the Last Supper has been restored and viewed and openly discusses it, whether fiction or not. Then there's fact that after 20 some odd years of restoration, the painting does not look like the one painted in the16th century which is now located in an abbey in Belgium. It's simply seeped in the mystery of time, to me, that's a strong pull. The 16th century painting I referenced prior has a great deal more detail , but when viewing da Vinci's restored work, you can count on one person in a group of 10 or 15 asking the question, "Is that a man or a woman as John?" Combine that with the architecture of Rosslyn Chapel (it is my wish in my lifetime to see it) and the legend of the Holy Grail, it inspired me to me to embark on research to increase my knowledge, including the Bible and the Nag Hammadi texts just to name a few. To me, this is no different than quests I embark on when reading HP and LoTR - Greek mythology, Roman history, British history and the like. It's all about understanding and educating one's self. I find it totally compelling the specific vehement Catholic opposition to this movie, which is far more overt than the book's release and other denominations - they've even dedicated a website to counter arguments, some of which I read with a chuckle. Some evangelists here in the US are treating it differently; they've arrange special Bible studies class devoted to answering questions about the movie, and one evangelist was quoted in the Washington Post as saying this event is an greater-than-average opportunity to to bring more sheep into the flock. Just thought I'd share - Rebecca From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 01:07:35 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:07:35 -0000 Subject: Hoy! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > > What's that? You want something substantial to discuss? OK, do you > think the popularity of DVC is for similar reasons to HP? > Yeah. People will buy anything about Nicholas Flammel Seriously. ...fast-paced adventure stories set in exotic locales and full of fascinating minutia usually find an audience. I 've read DVC only once. It was a bit of a giggle, as an art history minor, but I found the puzzles disappointingly simple and as for the supposedly scandalous revelations, the assertions of conventional Christianity are far more challenging, from my Jewish pov, than anything in Brown. Pippin From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 05:39:19 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:39:19 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: How the HP Books Let Me Down: A Tragic Tale In-Reply-To: References: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A882E@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320605162239t5e5658c4y4f615c2b1952efce@...> On 5/16/06, Randy wrote: > AH Yes "I'm Looking Through You" off the Rubber Soul Album > > How about this one to some up our grief > > "Once there was a way > To get back homeward. > Once there was a way > To get back home > Sleep pretty darling do not cry > She wrote those books, but don't ask why!" > > Boy, we're gonna carry that weight > Carry that Weight a long time!" > > Randy Luxury. Here's my prediction in Beatleish-lyrics for book 7 (shamelessly distorting a fine song from the White Album in the process): I'm so tired I haven't slept a wink I'm so tired my mind is on the blink I wonder should I get up and fix myself a drink? No no no! I'm so tired insomnia really sucks I'm so tired I'm seeing Horcrux I wonder should I blame you for settling for the bucks? You say, I'm putting you on but it's no joke it's doing me harm You know I can't sleep, I can't stop my brain devising hexes I'm going insane you know I'd give you everything I've got for a little piece of mind! Thank God the books are all in storage! -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 09:20:20 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:20:20 +0200 Subject: Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk Message-ID: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> I'm a bit lost in the threads... Kneasy: > The Marauders were a bit of a let-down, but not yet a totally lost cause. > Pippin et al still have a beady eye on Lupin, and I still have deep > suspicions of Sirius. Never did like flash bastards. Gatta: > Oh, Kneasy, you do this little kitty cat's heart good! I haven't liked that > particular flash bastard from the get-go, and I don't think it's just > because he's a big black d*g! Count me on the anti-Sirius clan. ?Do we have an acronim for it? I decided that after all, Sirius was Good, because he ended dead, that counts as strong evidence, but still, I have some reserves. Before his death, I though that the prophecy also applied to him. The fun thing with the second prophecy is that makes DD's opinion on how the prophecies work worthless. So it was Voldie who made it real? Buuut... this second prophecy is not heard by the actors implicated, no one does a thing to prevent it or not, and it plays in an unpredictable way. It fulfills as announced, smoothly. Iirc, that is. On Peter, I think he's outed in part of the dialogue (conserved in the GoF film, btw) at the Riddle House. 'It could be done without Harry Potter, my Lord' ...Voldie's reaction 'My Lord, I do not say this out of concern for the boy!- -The boy is nothing to me, nothing at all! (rambles long excuse) Sure Peter, you ain't concerned. Then why say it? - instead of 'My Lord! I'm not suggesting your mightyness can't overcome any obstacle! + ramble excuse'. Why do you bring up love for the boy as a reason? You were supossed by default not to like the boy, you know, or so I thought before reading the line. Kneasy: > Ah, yes. > The first four books. > Make that 3.75 for me. > Does anyone else think/suspect/feel/imagine/deduce/surmise that there're > differences between those four and the last two? Besides length, that is. > > Maybe familiarity breeds contempt (not really, but you know what I mean), > but those earlier vols were stuffed full of fascinating detail that you > just knew had to mean something. The later ones - there was detail, but not > nearly so fascinating and it read more like background than the "you'll be > sorry if you don't take note of this" feeling of the earlier books. You nailed it. The first three books shine with that feeling, GoF was a little more tiring but still fun to reread. First books were quick and to the point, easy to read, cinematographic, in a sense, and still, full of details that screamed I'm_a_plot_point. I tried to reread OoP recently and left it at page ~200, instead, I reread CoS. HBP is in the way to be the same. As fascinating as TR's background can be, it weights the storytelling like lead. Maybe she's been trying to write 'better' and as a result has lost her freshness, maybe she decided Harry had to be depressed/enraged so the text had to recreate a nightmarish ambient for long, long, long pages so that we also felt it. I know I can't stand the agonizing hero, those long stream-of-consciousness each five pages, telling always the same, or purely predictable (read chicled) things, bore me to death. They use to plage the mega trilogies. Could be also that she wants to hide more the clues, but I find what she has done is counterproductive, it is better to outsmart the author that to loose the feeling that there is a mistery at all, and that's what I have with OoP and HBP, the feeling that OoP contained absolutely no misteries and HBP tries to rescue the old 'surprise' feeling, but doesn't quite reach it. I didn't mind she invented new canon, or her plot holes, or her agatha moments, because clues were, even when not logical, highlighted, as well as red herrings, so it felt fair and it gave us wings to theorize. The last two books are sunken with detail. Now, it is possible that after book 7 we have to eat this words? It is. Just doesn't fare well, by the last interviews. But she may be delivering a book full of answers. Let me difference between magical answers and the rest. I want to be given background, to know who betrayed whom, who loved whom, if something was stolen, etc. I expect magical explanations about horcruxes and the like not to be logical. Problem is, she could have had some revelations planted in the last two books. Yes, she has told us some things, but looking at the mistery mountain, she could have offered a lot more. Unless it is all tied together, what's the paranoia about not resolving questions and adding more with each book? About fandoms - Mainly I don't get bitter in fandoms because I'm used to ignore the parts I don't like (I'm a ruthless audience), and ignore authors when I feel they've lost it. It worked with Dune, to me it is only one book. I just ignore the others, selective memory is a wonderful thing. I'm still a fan of star wars (and star trek, talking of apparent dichotomies), because I don't let Lucas ruin the day for me. I didn't see epidodes 2&3 in cinema, the DVD helps, it gives you the 'edit' option to skip or shorten (forward) scenes. And glad I didn't because the only thing I loved from episode I and made me endure the boring film and the urge to strangle Jar-Jar was the sable laser fights between Maul and our heroes (fantastic, imo), and that kind of choreography had disappeared in the second prequel. If book 7 is a mess, I'll happily cut HPverse at GoF as worthy material and classify the rest. It worked with Alien, also. Alien 3&4 are Alternate Universes, that I'm aware, they just don't cross the make believe line, I can't help but be reminded, while seeing them, that they're just only big-budget films, and that's a big no-no. In contrast, some of the comic books are interesting. - - - Pippin asked on TOL the opinion on the TWT by someone who considered Kirk a cheater, from the Kobayashi Maru test in... the third Star Trek film? I considered him a cheater, and also very in character for him. It striked to me that by aproving his actions Starfleet wasn't rewarding him for being a cheater, but for showing survival skills. It wasn't a contest, the only one suffering by lack of experience with a no win scenario was him. But, of course, it was cheating. On the TWT, I had already disengaged in the second trial so I didn't mind who was receiving points or why. The fist trial was so obviously cheated that I disengaged from the sports-competition thing. I was more interested in what the trials were than in the champions doing them. It happens the same with house points and the House Cup. I know it can acid rain over the Griffindors entire set of books and housework, rats eat their broomsticks, they can be all petrified and still, they'll get the house cup. PS/SS end told me that, it was just a nice add-on for the heroes to win, so good if you want to cheer up spirits and give a 'heroes win' final, so bad if you want to maintain house points as something to be paid attention to. Sideways... 'Intentions Detector' have been mentioned/challenged on TOL, but we've seen at least one, the charm DD used on the PS and the mirror of Erised. The mirror appeared to know your intentions with regard to the stone. - - - No one thinks is curious that when Harry&Ron hide in the staff room in CoS the chimney in the room isn't mentioned? Has the staff room moved or the chimney been removed? (I warned I was wondering about Binns) Silmariel From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 09:35:05 2006 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:35:05 -0000 Subject: Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: Silmariel: > It happens the same with house points and the House Cup. I know it can acid > rain over the Griffindors entire set of books and housework, rats eat their > broomsticks, they can be all petrified and still, they'll get the house cup. > PS/SS end told me that, it was just a nice add-on for the heroes to win, so > good if you want to cheer up spirits and give a 'heroes win' final, so bad if > you want to maintain house points as something to be paid attention to. Geoff: Naughty, naughty! I agree that the extra allocation of housepoints at the end of Philsophre's Stone was rather suspect, but your following deduction is totally wrong. Somebody isn't consulting canon. 'Harry made his way down to the end-of-year feast alone that night. He had been held up by Madam Pomfrey's fussing-about, insisting on giving him one last check-up, so the Great Hall was already full. It was decked out in the Slytherin colours of green and silver to celebrate Slytherin's winning the House Cup for the seventh year in a row. A huge banner showing the Slytherin serpent covered the wall behind the high table.' (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.220 UK edition) This is the summer of 1992 so Gryffindor could not have won the Cup more recently than 1985..... From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 11:38:21 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:38:21 -0000 Subject: Plotting the Unplottable Message-ID: Pippin: It occurs to me that there are five Voldie bits to be disposed of, and by an *astonishingly* unlikely coincidence;-) there are also five major backstory mysteries to be resolved. In no particular order: What is the real story of the Founder's split? How did the horcrux get swapped? What happened at Godric's Hollow? What happened with the Prank? What happened on the Tower? Granted it would be tought to fit within the confines of a Hogwarts year, especially if Harry isn't coming back. But-- What if all the action in Book Seven ends with the opening feast on September 1? That allows 7th year to be summed up in the epilogue, everybody gets a chance to study for and sit their NEWTS, JKR can easily declare that the couples postponed marriage till they'd finished their auror training, and the school song can be sung at the opening feast to tell us that everything is back to what passes for normal in the WW. Works for me. Pippin From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 12:15:07 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:15:07 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200605171415.07191.silmariel@...> Geoff Bannister: > I agree that the extra allocation of housepoints at the end of > Philsophre's Stone was rather suspect, but your following deduction is > totally wrong. > > Somebody isn't consulting canon. You are right. I consulted the second prophecy part to look for hidden rats, but I don't usually check the fair amount of fuzzy canon and movie contamination. *resist urge to iron hands* > 'Harry made his way down to the end-of-year feast alone that night. He had > been held up by Madam Pomfrey's fussing-about, insisting on giving him one > last check-up, so the Great Hall was already full. It was decked out in the > Slytherin colours of green and silver to celebrate Slytherin's winning the > House Cup for the seventh year in a row. A huge banner showing the > Slytherin serpent covered the wall behind the high table.' > > (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.220 UK edition) > > This is the summer of 1992 so Gryffindor could not have won the Cup more > recently than 1985..... Oh, sorry, I meant only as far as the years we read on-book, that are touched by Harry's heroic aura, I know Slytherin held the cup in previous years, and I understand for the storyline it was a nice coup the grace, but it made it a bit obvious new Slytherin status as loser. Asking for Slytherin to win, is too much, but maybe making Ravenclaw win one year would have made less predictable the outcome, and give me the idea that there was actual competition taking place. Silmariel From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 13:24:10 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 07:24:10 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8873@...> > -----Original Message----- > From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of rebecca > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:09 PM > To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! > > I find it totally compelling the specific vehement Catholic opposition to > this movie, which is far more overt than the book's release and other > denominations - they've even dedicated a website to counter arguments, > some > of which I read with a chuckle. Some evangelists here in the US are > treating > it differently; they've arrange special Bible studies class devoted to > answering questions about the movie, and one evangelist was quoted in the > Washington Post as saying this event is an greater-than-average > opportunity > to to bring more sheep into the flock. Well, not surprising, since the book doesn't *target* Evangelicals as the ones who have clamped down on the truth over the centuries and employ Albino monks as assassins. Eileen From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 14:01:32 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:01:32 -0000 Subject: Plotting the Unplottable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > What if all the action in Book Seven ends with the opening > feast on September 1? pitifully responding to her own post: Delaying the opening of school to October 31 would work even better. Then it could rightfully be Harry Potter Day. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 14:34:31 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:34:31 +0100 Subject: Et tu, Brute? Message-ID: <4154694D-E48B-49B5-9480-3CC1519EDBEC@...> Anyone who has scanned the HP boards when a new volume was due can't have helped but notice. And most salivating fans, wrenching the volume from the molasses-slow bookshop assistant, clutching it to their palpitating breast and scuttling back to their lair (where they will remain in self-imposed isolation for as long as it takes) have the same thought running through their mind - "Who's going to do the dirty on Harry this time?" Yep. That's it. Skullduggery, mayhem, dirty work at the crossroads, dark deeds and - betrayal. To my mind betrayal is the defining theme of the HP books. Betrayal in all its forms; betrayal direct, betrayal oblique, betrayal tangential, betrayal of principles, betrayal of individuals, betrayal of groups, betrayal voluntary or coerced, betrayal wholesale, retail and in penny packets. Throughout the series somebody somewhere always seems to be in the frame for either actual or suspected betrayal. The only exception seems to be betrayal on the romantic front. But I'm sure that'll be rectified in the next book. Jo reckons death is a main theme, but really, not all that many have died in the timeline of the series. Quirrell (or so we're led to believe), Frank Bryce, Cedric, Crouch Snr, Sirius, DD, perhaps one or two more. Remarkably few for a war where one side at least gives no quarter. Sure, there are plenty of references to larger numbers having shuffled off this mortal coil before PS/SS starts, but the numbers are surprisingly limited since Harry was dumped in Privet Drive. Pity, that. I do enjoy a good blood-fest, quite perks me up. Others, they go for love. Oh dear. A bit fluffy for me, though love does have the potential for entertaining consequences - think Romeo and Juliet, the Trojan War, Oedipus... but I can't quite see HP turning out to be like that. I may be mistaken, but the 'love' that many fans envisage for the books seems to be some sort of all- embracing glow of fellow-feeling, forgiveness and rehabilitation - with occasional spasms of self-sacrifice pour encourager les autres. Nah. Sorry, it doesn't appeal - a dirty, double-dealing traitor is much more fun. Fair do's - if the fan reactions outlined above at the top are in any way accurate, then betrayal is what we've come to expect. Every character (even Harry) has at some time been considered as a possible or potential minion of Voldy. Which smiling friend will indulge in a little light back-stabbing this time? is what we wonder when we crack the covers of the latest. Everyone has an opinion on that subject, ESE is probably the most used (and abused) abbreviation on the boards I've frequented. Fair warms the cockles, it does. An infamous real-life spy once said "Before one can betray, one must first belong." It's the deception that matters, an expressed adherence to a person or principle (real or pretended) is turned on its head with no warning - and often a continuing pretence of loyalty is maintained. Avowed enemies can't betray you, there is no pretence, no duplicity involved. Draco could not betray Harry - he hates his guts and everybody knows it. The conflict might be fun, but it's not betrayal - it can't be. With others the situation is different, so let's have a closer look at the variations on a theme, betrayal in all its manifestations and guises in HP. Firstly, it all seems to go one way, 'goodies' turn out to be 'baddies'. Um. Correction. There could be two major exceptions. But we'll deal with them at the end. Simple betrayal is not very interesting, IMO. Episodes like Marrietta cuddling up to Dear Dolly to drop the DAs in the soup or Tom setting up a family member to take the fall for him may be nicely nasty, but I doubt if either did much soul-searching before doing the dirty. The same goes for magical coercion; the 'betrayal' is involuntary and the perpetrator does not act from his/her own personal convictions. Pretty boring, really. It gets better when an internal conflict finds an individual wanting. Barty Crouch Jnr. was a nasty little scrote who more or less openly cast his vote for Voldy. But his father is much more interesting. He shows that he is wedded to his principles by throwing the son and heir in the slammer as an associate of undesirables. Yet he betrays those principles for love of his wife. For a pillar of rectitude like old Barty, this must have been a traumatic decision. But he did it. He gave his word and he stuck to it. He sheltered and protected Jnr. even after his wife's death, even though he had few if any warm feelings for the ungrateful little shit. Conversely, Jnr stayed loyal to his own beliefs and killed his father because of them. Poor old Barty. Just can't win, can you? There's something of a Greek tragedy about the Crouches. Betrayal of family, bloodline or social class is a commonplace in HP. Mind you, there're different views depending on which side of the division you're standing. Marrying 'out', as it were, can cause ructions in even the best regulated of families, and in the end boils down to a choice between personal preference and family solidarity. The one leaving may have a sense of loss, but at least they'll have something that they feel is of more personal importance. Those left behind have no consolations whatsoever and striking the offender from the family escutcheon salves no wounds. One that belonged no longer does, rejecting the blood imperative that signifies family cohesion - an unforgivable act to those whose pedigree defines who and what they are. Although we don't have all the details, Bagman's 'betrayal' looks as if it was the reverse. A minor celebrity, apparently comfortable with the norms of the society that has garlanded him with praise, he reverts and shows himself true to his blood. Following in his father's footsteps he cosies up to a DE, passing on (unknown though presumably helpful) information to the detriment of the society that feted him. He then has the bare-faced gall to call on his fame to side-step censure and judgement. Without doubt one of the enemies within, a smiling traitor. Would you class Fudge along with Bagman? Depends on whether he was as thick as two short planks and a coward to boot, or whether he really was willing to compromise the safety of the WW by stubbornly denying that Voldy was back in exchange for political and financial support from the likes of Malfoy. Witting or unwitting, he provided aid and comfort to the enemy when his job was to do the opposite. He could do with the heavies sweating him in the back room to determine which. One would be ineptitude, the other betrayal. Get your brass knuckles polished, lads. Some may feel that Dobby betrayed the Malfoys, betrayed also the imperative that to serve is to obey. I'm not so sure. I think he was obeying Lucius's instructions. Slipping the leash once is believable, zipping backwards and forwards to Privet Drive and Hogwarts like a bloody yo-yo defies belief. Which would imply that Lucius has his own agenda, that he might, as per Wodehouse, donate the frozen optic to his Lord and Master. Voldy seems to suspect it could happen, too. This has real potential as a sub-plot. But will it be played out in glorious technicolour in book 7? Probably not, which is a pity. How do you fancy DD as betrayer, hmm? It's a bit marginal, but arguable. At the very least it's the triumph of pragmatism and hypocrisy over fine sentiments. Twice. First, Godric's Hollow. It's difficult to credit that he didn't keep a very close eye on the Potters and the Longbottoms. He knew what could happen and took some steps to provide extra protection - for Harry. Not, it seems, for James and Lily. Logic states that he did the same for Neville - *if* he didn't know in advance that the Potters were first on Voldy's little list and that that was as far down it as Voldy would get. The protection was cute; there'd be a magical blowback nailing Voldy when he attacked Harry, but only if Lily were killed first. There was that prophecy thingy; genuine or fake? Take your pick. What was important was that Voldy was winning - fairly easily. Harry was designed as a trap - but Lily had to die. Did she know this in advance? Can't tell. If she did, it was hopeless bravery; if she didn't she can be considered to have been betrayed by DD, a respected mentor sacrificing an unknowing, trusting but disposable pawn to advance his plan. If the Dursleys really are the sole surviving remnants of Lily's bloodline, then DD had no choice but to park Harry on them. Unfortunate for Harry but better than some of the possible alternatives. But post-Privet Drive, the Hogwarts years, he's up to his old tricks again. He professes that the care and protection of Harry is his sole concern. Like hell. His main objective is the forging of Weapon!Harry, the last, best hope of the WW against the eventual triumph of Voldy. His prime concern is not for Harry as is, but for the putative Harry for what he can do. As I say, it's marginal whether this is a betrayal of trust. Why don't we ask Harry what he feels about it? Then the two odd men out. Nothing simple (we hope) about this pair. There's Peter. Peter's ratings depend on what you think has been going on - and that'll be dependent on how simple you think the plot-lines are. Simple - Peter is a scum-bag who caved in to a few threats and sold out James and Lily. Complicated - Peter is playing a double-game at the behest of DD, either right from the beginning or as retribution for the Potters. The simple solution is the most frequently accepted (especially after that dire performance in that bloody film) and has comparatively few loose ends that need to be tidied up. The complicated version appeals to fans of Le Carre and Deighton (shades of Fiona Samson through six of his books. Six? - now there's a coincidence!). Those who think that all has not been as it has been presented usually refuse to believe that DD didn't know about the Marauders night-time school outings and also find it difficult to swallow Peter/Scabbers wandering round Hogwarts for years without DD latching on to who/what he was. The letter in PS/SS allowing students an owl, cat or toad is counted as a blatant clue. The pros and cons have been fussed over many times on the boards, but for the purposes of this particular post are largely irrelevant. Whichever is correct Peter has/will betray somebody. Might even manage to betray both sides consecutively. Splendid! An equal opportunity traitor! Dear old Snapey is an almost exact mirror image and his words, actions and possible intentions have received more examination than anything else in the books. He (supposedly) starts bad, sees the light and becomes DD's trusted hench-wizard. 'Supposedly' because in the Pensieve court scene DD says "He came back to us," a very intriguing statement. But now he's apparently switched back to Voldy again! Lovely jubbly! A triple! Possibly a quadruple agent; or maybe even quintuple? Whoever it is he's betraying, he's very good at it, isn't he? This piece has gone on long enough though it could be extended to two or three times the length. Betrayal is everywhere in the series, lots more examples than those I've mentioned; have a look for yourself. The books are fairly haunching with it in one form or another, but it's been accepted as so common-place that it ceases to surprise or to register as an almost ubiquitous plot /subplot driving-force in the tale. Sort of not seeing the wood for the trees, though the forest stretches from horizon to horizon. Though with even the most innocent repeatedly suspected of it on the boards it's definitely sunk into fandom's collective consciousness on one level. And we mustn't forget those who aren't so innocent but proof is lacking - so far. Watch it, Sirius. I've still got my eye on you. Suspicious lot, aren't we? Mind you, from what's gone before it's probably justified. Kneasy From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 14:42:23 2006 From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:42:23 -0600 Subject: A Rant on the DVC and Anti-Catholicism Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8878@...> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com > [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of rebecca > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:09 PM > > To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hoy! > > > > I find it totally compelling the specific vehement Catholic opposition > to > > this movie, which is far more overt than the book's release and other > > denominations - they've even dedicated a website to counter arguments, > > some > > of which I read with a chuckle. Some evangelists here in the US are > > treating > > it differently; they've arrange special Bible studies class devoted > to > > answering questions about the movie, and one evangelist was quoted in > the > > Washington Post as saying this event is an greater-than-average > > opportunity > > to to bring more sheep into the flock. > > Well, not surprising, since the book doesn't *target* Evangelicals as > the ones who have clamped down on the truth over the centuries and > employ Albino monks as assassins. > > Eileen Back from a work meeting and now fully encaffienated and awake, Not to mention, since when was debunking not a form of education? I see a WHOLE load of the usual anti-Catholic Anglo-American prejudice in the way the general public is reacting to this. Catholics are stupid for not understanding it's just fiction, even though the author, half his fans, and much of the general public is joining in to say that it is very much the truth. And how on *earth* could you possibly get the idea from this reaction that there's an anti-Catholic prejudice to this? That just *proves* how stupid and close-minded Catholics are! Secondly, what exactly is the propriety of even *fiction* portraying a REAL religious organization as having assassins on its pay roll to hunt down the defenders of the truth. If Dan Brown had written any real Jewish or Muslim organization in this fashion, he'd be called a bigot by everyone, and quite rightly. But for goodness sake, how on earth could those Catholics have got the idea that they're an acceptable target for bigotry? Once again, it proves how ignorant they are! I highly recommend Philip Jenkin's "The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice" Read it with an open mind, and you may *begin* to understand the position Catholics are regularly put in within the English speaking world. Eileen From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed May 17 17:22:20 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:22:20 -0000 Subject: A Rant on the DVC and Anti-Catholicism In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8878@...> Message-ID: Eileen: > > Secondly, what exactly is the propriety of even *fiction* portraying a > REAL religious organization as having assassins on its pay roll to hunt > down the defenders of the truth. If Dan Brown had written any real > Jewish or Muslim organization in this fashion, he'd be called a bigot by > everyone, and quite rightly. But for goodness sake, how on earth could > those Catholics have got the idea that they're an acceptable target for > bigotry? Once again, it proves how ignorant they are! > Pippin: Oh Eileen, I am so sorry you have to go through this. My dry cleaner, who listens to Arab language television in his shop, has put up a placard of The Virgin so no one will think he is a terrorist. Many of my friends have comments very much like yours -- but they're talking about "Munich". Pippin From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Thu May 18 01:45:09 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (rebecca) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:45:09 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A Rant on the DVC and Anti-Catholicism References: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8878@...> Message-ID: <007001c67a1c$b29f11c0$6501a8c0@...> >Eileen: >Not to mention, since when was debunking not a form of education? >I see a WHOLE load of the usual anti-Catholic Anglo-American prejudice >in the way the general public is reacting to this. Catholics are stupid >for not understanding it's just fiction, even though the author, half >his fans, and much of the general public is joining in to say that it is >very much the truth. And how on *earth* could you possibly get the idea >from this reaction that there's an anti-Catholic prejudice to this? That >just *proves* how stupid and close-minded Catholics are! >But for goodness sake, how on earth could >those Catholics have got the idea that they're an acceptable target for >bigotry? Once again, it proves how ignorant they are Rebecca now: I didn't say debunking wasn't another way to educate oneself - at least in my quest for what I decide to be comfortable for me, I do go to both sides of the aisle to increase my knowledge no matter what topic that may be. That alone may make the search for personal answers slightly different from some segment of the public. For you, Eileen, I also wish to be clear that I never stated or believe that Catholics were stupid and closed minded by any means - I didn't say it, nor did *I* imply it. However, I am guilty of chuckling at some of the verbiage contained in the "debunking" Catholic site I visited - sorry, I'm only human and a portion of it, IMO, is more verbose than it needs to be. I said I find it compelling this reaction is far more overt than the original release of the book and for good reason. I feel that an equal and opposite reaction such that anyone has takes so vehemently against the release of any entertainment based on fiction only increases its popularity and viewership. IMO, as such leaders in Christianity lending that amount of disagreement and hostility to a book or a movie, it will make the general public more curious about what all the yelling is about and most of them won't be nearly as anal as the rest of us for discovering any truths for themselves. >Eileen said: >I highly recommend Philip Jenkin's "The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last >Acceptable Prejudice" Read it with an open mind, and you may *begin* to >understand the position Catholics are regularly put in within the >English speaking world. Rebecca: Since you used my post to "rant", I can only surmise you think that I haven't read it or that I wasn't raised Catholic or am deluded about Catholicism - forgive me, but those are not correct assumptions to make. And BTW, the only trouble I had with the Jenkins' book is the suggestion I feel he makes that any criticism of the Catholic Church is a definition of bigotry - I'm not quite comfortable with that, although I do respect the books he has created thus far - and a certain portion towards the ending chapters that I feel is a problem that could be better solved by the Church. Rebecca From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Thu May 18 03:20:13 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:20:13 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Plotting the Unplottable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320605172020k1d8cb3ddub25f35047ed3f50f@...> On 5/17/06, pippin_999 wrote: > Pippin: > It occurs to me that there are five Voldie bits to be disposed of, > and by an *astonishingly* unlikely coincidence;-) there are also five > major backstory mysteries to be resolved. > > In no particular order: > What is the real story of the Founder's split? > How did the horcrux get swapped? > What happened at Godric's Hollow? > What happened with the Prank? > What happened on the Tower? > > Granted it would be tought to fit within the confines of a > Hogwarts year, especially if Harry isn't coming back. But-- > > What if all the action in Book Seven ends with the opening > feast on September 1? > > That allows 7th year to be summed up in the epilogue, everybody > gets a chance to study for and sit their NEWTS, JKR can easily > declare that the couples postponed marriage till they'd finished their > auror training, and the school song can be sung at the opening > feast to tell us that everything is back to what passes for normal > in the WW. > > Works for me. > Very nice, but a bit Christie. Or perhaps that's what she *wants* us to think...?!?!? -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Thu May 18 03:31:05 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:31:05 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> References: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320605172031n572fd677r55bd46f48f8ef1ff@...> On 5/17/06, silmariel wrote: > On Peter, I think he's outed in part of the dialogue (conserved in the GoF > film, btw) at the Riddle House. > > 'It could be done without Harry Potter, my Lord' > ...Voldie's reaction > 'My Lord, I do not say this out of concern for the boy!- -The boy is nothing > to me, nothing at all! (rambles long excuse) Interesting.. > About fandoms - Mainly I don't get bitter in fandoms because I'm used to > ignore the parts I don't like (I'm a ruthless audience), and ignore authors > when I feel they've lost it. It worked with Dune, to me it is only one book. > I just ignore the others, selective memory is a wonderful thing. I'm still a > fan of star wars (and star trek, talking of apparent dichotomies), because I > don't let Lucas ruin the day for me. I didn't see epidodes 2&3 in cinema, the > DVD helps, it gives you the 'edit' option to skip or shorten (forward) > scenes. And glad I didn't because the only thing I loved from episode I and > made me endure the boring film and the urge to strangle Jar-Jar was the sable > laser fights between Maul and our heroes (fantastic, imo), and that kind of > choreography had disappeared in the second prequel. Now imagine if an author had that kind of power to steer audiences around...in a sense this kind of feedback loop already exists, as myth. Sooner or later someone will own the archetypes... > It happens the same with house points and the House Cup. I know it can acid > rain over the Griffindors entire set of books and housework, rats eat their > broomsticks, they can be all petrified and still, they'll get the house cup. > PS/SS end told me that, it was just a nice add-on for the heroes to win, so > good if you want to cheer up spirits and give a 'heroes win' final, so bad if > you want to maintain house points as something to be paid attention to. Can post-modernist fairytales really ring true? Slapping a "bad" ending on things is just as unsatisfying. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Thu May 18 03:51:12 2006 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 03:51:12 -0000 Subject: A Rant on the DVC and Anti-Catholicism In-Reply-To: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F1A8878@...> Message-ID: > > I highly recommend Philip Jenkin's "The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last > Acceptable Prejudice" Even more strongly, I recommend Jenkin's The Next Christendom (2001). The book's argument is that Christianity is in the process of becoming a non-Western religion, with massive gains in Asia and Africa (as well as great Evangelical progress in Catholic Latin America), while it continues to shrink its way into European extinction. And if you don't already know who's poised to take over Europe around the year 2030, well, it ain't the secular humanists: http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/02/12/100opi_charen001.cfm - CMC From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Fri May 19 12:26:13 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:26:13 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: <91d14f320605172031n572fd677r55bd46f48f8ef1ff@...> References: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> <91d14f320605172031n572fd677r55bd46f48f8ef1ff@...> Message-ID: <200605191426.13764.silmariel@...> ewe2: > Now imagine if an author had that kind of power to steer audiences > around...in a sense this kind of feedback loop already exists, as > myth. Excuse me, but I think I don't understand. What are you saying? That myth changes the population (or the other way around) or that our modern myths tend to make hero-worshipped authors able to gather 'prisoner audience'? - Matrix - I was just flippant that people though it was a new concept and praised the film as if they'd had a mystic experience. >Sooner or later someone will own the archetypes... Sooner or later someone will fight for owning them, I agree - with a lot of surprise, I must add, I thought my perception in the question was very apocaliptic. It is very ominous but each year gives me more reason to think everything that could be media-profited is to be nicely secluded under a few hands. Unless I've misundertood you completely. > Can post-modernist fairytales really ring true? Slapping a "bad" > ending on things is just as unsatisfying. You have used the doomed word. Guess what, I don't have idea of what the standard meaning of postmodernism is. Subverting, deconstructing, untraditional changes, or just from some time period? And the wikipedia isn't helping, it gives too much definitions some contradicting the others (usual, as they are from different authors). For I know some tales with good ending and fairly reasonable, but I don't have a clue if they fit the pattern asked: Neverending Story, Labyrinth, Dark Cristal. I don't think bad endings per se are at fault, as a child I found the little mermaid's sad but beautiful in a way that the happy ending version just couldn't be. It was happy, but not thought-provoking. I guess what isn't fair is making all endings bad endings. I remember most of fairytales ended fine, some ended really bad. HP feels very real, imo, and that's why I think the books walk over a very fine line, fairytales do not stress so much the coming of age point, and when you mix genres... it's your risk, and a high one. Silmariel From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri May 19 14:46:54 2006 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:46:54 -0000 Subject: Plotting the Unplottable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin wrote: > > > What if all the action in Book Seven ends with the opening > > feast on September 1? > > pitifully responding to her own post: > Delaying the opening of school to October 31 would work even better. > Then it could rightfully be Harry Potter Day. > Neri: It would also considerably help Harry with his first homework assignment of the school year: What I did on my summer vacation. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri May 19 15:06:08 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 01:06:08 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: <200605191426.13764.silmariel@...> References: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> <91d14f320605172031n572fd677r55bd46f48f8ef1ff@...> <200605191426.13764.silmariel@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320605190806i51c46e0atce80b1da37d6f6d9@...> On 5/19/06, silmariel wrote: > ewe2: > > Now imagine if an author had that kind of power to steer audiences > > around...in a sense this kind of feedback loop already exists, as > > myth. > > Excuse me, but I think I don't understand. What are you saying? That myth > changes the population (or the other way around) or that our modern myths > tend to make hero-worshipped authors able to gather 'prisoner audience'? - > Matrix - I was just flippant that people though it was a new concept and > praised the film as if they'd had a mystic experience. Myth, as I understand it, is a story passed on from author to author, each with their own touches or angles. In this sense, the audience cannot "edit" the story, it's being "edited" for them, the good edits (according to cultural taste) survive, the bad do not. Do myths "change" their audiences? There are better authorities than I on this list to argue this point. Not all myths are on the page or screen. > >Sooner or later someone will own the archetypes... > > Sooner or later someone will fight for owning them, I agree - with a lot of > surprise, I must add, I thought my perception in the question was very > apocaliptic. It is very ominous but each year gives me more reason to think > everything that could be media-profited is to be nicely secluded under a few > hands. > > Unless I've misundertood you completely. No, that is precisely what I meant. Apart from myth, there are very few original stories. Once their intellectual property is owned, where do you go from there? > > Can post-modernist fairytales really ring true? Slapping a "bad" > > ending on things is just as unsatisfying. > > You have used the doomed word. Guess what, I don't have idea of what the > standard meaning of postmodernism is. Subverting, deconstructing, > untraditional changes, or just from some time period? Some claim that "reality" requires bad endings or no endings at all. Culturally, we're predisposed to good endings or at least endings that are definitive. > And the wikipedia isn't helping, it gives too much definitions some > contradicting the others (usual, as they are from different authors). This is called keeping your tenure. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat May 20 23:06:08 2006 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 23:06:08 -0000 Subject: a little HP and a lot of theory Message-ID: Kneasy wrote in : << Jo reckons death is a main theme, but really, not all that many have died in the timeline of the series. Quirrell (or so we're led to believe), Frank Bryce, Cedric, Crouch Snr, Sirius, DD, perhaps one or two more. >> Amelia Bones, Emmeline Vance, the Montgomery sisters' little brother... Muggles killed in a bridge collapse and a 'hurricane' ... Pippin wrote in ; << quite happy that Jo has relinquished Vampire!Snape. He's all mine now and I'm not giving him back. Let *her* write fanfic. Lessee, I think I'll call him Panes... >> 'Panes' because his motivations are so transparent? Because he's such a pain in the, excuse me, neck? David wrote in : << it amazes me the number of people who have trouble understanding that fiction contains propositional falsehoods.>> In some ways a valid comment ... my friend's maid thought E.T. was a documentary. In other ways a misguided comment. Start with fiction set in the real world. A mystery set in a chocolate candy factory *ought* to depict the chocolate candy process accurately and a tale of sibling rivalry unto death set in Cairo ought to be written by someone who lives in Cairo. Science fiction is usually not set in the real world, but 'hard sf' prides itself on explaining laws of physics correctly. Sometimes the fictional 'story' (the plot) is only a thin excuse to spread the background information And there is the tradition of writing 'fiction' which is a real life story with the names changed. It counts as fiction nowdays because, like the history written by Thucydides, the words spoken and thoughts thought by the characters were made up by the author to express what the author figured the characters' motivations were, rather than each one having a footnote about which witness told the writer that the person actually said those words. I have read neither DVC nor Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but ten-some years ago, people were going on and on about HBHG and I thought it was a great deal of nonsense. When people starting going on about DVC, I thought 'What's the big deal? All that was already published in HBHG.' HBHG was non-fiction, which proves that non-fiction doesn't have to be true, it only has to be claimed to be true. I was amazed at the plagiarism lawsuit: if the authors of HBHG accuse someone of stealing their idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and ancestored the French royal family, doesn't that mean they're admitting that they invented the idea, rather that it being a truth lying around reality for anyone to discover? Eileen wrote in : << Do you think that HP Book VII is the end of the Potterverse? >> I think there is a real possibility that Book 7 will include the destruction of Voldemort, the destruction of magic, the destruction of all wizarding culture and geography, and the death of most wizards. I used to expect that Hermione would be the only survivor, and go on to write the history of Harry disguised as fiction, but now I think Harry and Ginny might survive to live as Muggles. << I wouldn't be surprised if after Book VII is finished with, she revisits this magical world from some other angle down the road. >> I just wish she allows all her notes to be edited and published. Mike Gray wrote in : << I mean, would somebody please point out to all the authors intent on doing SHOCKING!, STUNNING!!, SEXY!!! biblical fanfic that Mary M. was probably not the only nubile woman in the ancient near east between around 15 through 30 CE? >> I have read such a story somewhere, in which the wedding at Cana was his own wedding, at which he married both Mary and Martha. Mike wrote in : <> I obeyed and found << Two students from the Parisian Ecole des Beaux Arts recently came to show me a photograph album in which they had reconstructed the entire route taken by my character, having gone and photographed the places I had mentioned, one by one, at the same time of night. Given that at the end of the chapter Casaubon comes up out of the city drains and enters through the cellar an oriental bar full of sweating customers, beer-jugs and greasy spits, they succeeded in finding that bar and took a photo of it. It goes without saying that that bar was an invention of mine, even though I have designed it thinking of the many bars of that kind in the area, but those two boys had undoubtedly discovered the bar described in my book. >> I laughed happily, recognizing us Potter fans finding and photographing the location of the (invisible to us) Leaky Cauldron. << At a given point she remarks that there exists a book by Emile Henriot (La rose de Bratislava, 1946) where it can be found the hunting of a mysterious manuscript and a final fire of a library. The story takes place in Prague, and at the beginning of my novel I mention Prague. Moreover one of my librarians is named Berengar and one of the librarians of Henriot was named Berngard Marre. (snip) However, Helena Costiucovich wrote something more to prove the analogy between me and Henriot. She said that that in Henriot's novel the coveted manuscript was the original copy of the Memorie of Casanova. It happens that in my novel there is a minor character called Hugh of Newcastle (and in the Italian version, Ugo di Novocastro). The conclusion of Costiucovich is that "only by passing from a name to another it is possible to conceive of the name of the rose". >> See, this is why I think that all the Literature classes forced upon students (i.e. me) from upper primary though freshman year of college are a bunch of garbage. They start with forcing children of 10 or so to make lists of 'Freudian symbols' in the story and get more creative from there. They all consist of making up your own theory, the wilder the better, and imposing it on the text by searching out words that can, in isolation, be twisted to have some remote connection with your theory. That might be good training for lawyers (it is my lay view of what lawyers do, with the law codes as the text being twisted), but for the rest of us, serve only to sort out the students who are patient and obedient to nonsensical commands, therefore desireable employees of nonsensical companies, from the students with minds of their own, therefore undesireable employees. << But suddenly I realized that while writing I had under my eyes the map of the abbey (as a matter of fact before writing I carefully design the world where my story has to take place) >> I recall that when reading TNOTR, I felt as if he had borrowed the map of the alphageobetic library from some clever gamemaster's D&D dungeon. From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Sun May 21 02:26:48 2006 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (Kathy King) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 22:26:48 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] re: a little HP and a lot of theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Gray: << I mean, would somebody please point out to all the authors intent on doing SHOCKING!, STUNNING!!, SEXY!!! biblical fanfic that Mary M. was probably not the only nubile woman in the ancient near east between around 15 through 30 CE? >> Catlady: I have read such a story somewhere, in which the wedding at Cana was his own wedding, at which he married both Mary and Martha. Snow: Lazarus' sisters would never! He was just a friend of the family who resurrected their dead brother. (Listerine was administered directly after the aWAKEening!) (I represented Mary in a church play many years ago?although I looked more like Mary M. about to wash Jesus feet at the time given the fact that my hair in those days surpassed three feet in length. One of the lines that I was to say was that Jesus didn't have any real friends, I had so much trouble with this line that I inadvertently dismissed it) The topic book/movie is simply a movie and the book is just a book. It does not, and cannot, change the view of a person who is steadfast in their convictions, so why the big hullabaloo?unless you believe it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Thu May 25 18:36:16 2006 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:36:16 -0000 Subject: An important question Re: a little HP and a lot of theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > A mystery set in a chocolate candy factory *ought* to depict > the chocolate candy process accurately Does this imply that chocolate factories really are run by Oompa Loompas? From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Thu May 25 20:29:41 2006 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 22:29:41 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Marauders/End/Fandoms/TWT&Kirk In-Reply-To: <91d14f320605190806i51c46e0atce80b1da37d6f6d9@...> References: <200605171120.20073.silmariel@...> <200605191426.13764.silmariel@...> <91d14f320605190806i51c46e0atce80b1da37d6f6d9@...> Message-ID: <200605252229.41411.silmariel@...> ewe2: > Myth, as I understand it, is a story passed on from author to author, > each with their own touches or angles. In this sense, the audience > cannot "edit" the story, it's being "edited" for them, the good edits > (according to cultural taste) survive, the bad do not. Do myths > "change" their audiences? There are better authorities than I on this > list to argue this point. Is media market changing survivors from "good" to "well-marketed"? Guess DVC is a good example, but it may be a default. Arturo Perez Reverte says a writer that doesn't sell is like a bad w****. (textual) > Not all myths are on the page or screen. No... but movies and books are my main source of consume material. Comics are just too expensive, as games, so secondary. Theatre, opera, 'happenings' and the like, too an ocasional experience. Though I'd love to write a game script. ewe2: > No, that is precisely what I meant. Apart from myth, there are very > few original stories. Once their intellectual property is owned, where > do you go from there? To micropayment on everything under the sun and macro payment on the really interesting stuff, as seen per the license managers. Why not? Extending the intellectual property has only needed that Mickey Mouse growed older, and if they think it's fair to register XOR, the same mentality can tax even the lesser mental gaps. I read 'A Right to Read' a couple of years ago, and it scared me to actually know that the system depicted there was in use in a real career. Guess they've been put to court since, but I'm not sure. My goverment has all the chances to let the spurious General Society of Authors (it functions like the BSA, in theory they are a private group, in fact, they do what they want and the government usually agrees and passes laws for them) tax everything that can be connected to a computer just in case you are using it to copy protected material. Hard disks, printers, digital cameras. As I'm on the side of the fence that never copies anything from the net and follows the photocopy legislation, I feel insulted and I do understand perfectly why it's easier to copy than to buy. I'd feel less stupid, to start. As with the passing of time, the number of things that are authomatically made to connect to a computer extends, they are forcing me to enter in the game and extending the game field. I liked to take photos. Now it's a bittersweet question. Can I join the Rebel Alliance? Anytime... 'more and more systems will get out of your hands'... Resident Evil chose a perfect name for his Evil Company of Doom, Umbrella. I see the DRM technologies as the tool Umbrella would crave to have. Of course, we can pretend it is not happening, awareness is low... but as far as I'm concerned, it's in my agenda. ewe2: > Some claim that "reality" requires bad endings or no endings at all. > Culturally, we're predisposed to good endings or at least endings that > are definitive. This would need another post. Reality is very bad edited. But chapter 5 is telling me to go and finish it... Silmariel From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Fri May 26 00:20:08 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:20:08 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] An important question Re: a little HP and a lot of theory References: Message-ID: <000801c6805a$3321c160$482fdcd1@...> No, just that the Oompa Loompas know the right way to prepare chocolate. ;D --Gatta --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > A mystery set in a chocolate candy factory *ought* to depict > the chocolate candy process accurately Does this imply that chocolate factories really are run by Oompa Loompas? SPONSORED LINKS Albus dumbledore Jk rowling Goblet of fire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Fri May 26 03:26:41 2006 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 03:26:41 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter Filks: May Update Message-ID: Harry Potter Filks was updated today with two new full-length musicals: The Phoenix of the Order by SchmergoWeasley, an OOP musical based on The Phantom of the Opera (The D.A., set to Masquerade, is especially striking), and Tom Riddle by Anon E. Mouse, based on Evita. Also filks by veteran contributors Murasaki, Constance Vigilance, Jill, RJ Lupin and the Final Stillness of Saturn. Drop by for a visit today (we need the traffic!) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri May 26 09:19:07 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:19:07 -0000 Subject: a little HP and a lot of theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > David wrote in : > > << it amazes me the number of people who have trouble understanding > that fiction contains propositional falsehoods.>> > > In some ways a valid comment ... my friend's maid thought E.T. was a > documentary. A good job she wasn't watching Beetlejuice. > In other ways a misguided comment. Start with fiction set in the real > world. A mystery set in a chocolate candy factory *ought* to depict > the chocolate candy process accurately and a tale of sibling rivalry > unto death set in Cairo ought to be written by someone who lives in > Cairo. Science fiction is usually not set in the real world, but 'hard > sf' prides itself on explaining laws of physics correctly. > > Sometimes the fictional 'story' (the plot) is only a thin excuse to > spread the background information You are right. I'm assuming that DVC is not intended as SF or 'faction', though. I can see I'm going to end up reading the darn thing - though I will try to ensure that Brown is not rewarded for that - but I guess the issue is that there are conventions about the suspension of disbelief, and the question is whether Brown is breaking them or his audience is failing to apply them. Certainly if the Priory of Syon is a modern invention then IMO he is breaking them with his foreword. David