OT The Book, was: Once more - with questions. part 2.

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
> 
> I'm shocked you didn't even know your were given credit, not just any 
> credit but the lead credit of the Acknowledgements and Thanks section 
> at the back end of the book. I must enlighten you of what was written:
> 
> "When I write a book, I need a good many people to get behind and 
> shove hard. Thanks are due to all the following:
> 
> Barry Arrowsmith, for the Ravenclaw-Tarot-Wand theory and other 
> interesting comments on this book's hardback edition." (The End Of 
> Harry Potter? By David Langford)
> 
> The list continues on to include Rich Coad, Malcolm Edwards, Nick 
> Lowe, Christopher Priest, Lizzy Priest, Mark Rodgers, J.K. Rowling 
> (credit given before the author), Yvonne Rousseau, Gordon Smith, 
> Martin Morse Wooster and W. Fredrick Zimmerman. 
> 

Not surprising I'm first; it's one of the benefits of having a surname
starting with a letter from the front end of the alphabet.

I recognise a couple of heavyweights from the UK SF crowd amongst
the names - Malcolm Edwards and Chris Priest (he wrote 'The Prestige'
recently filmed, along with many other good books). The others, I'm
not familiar with, though Fred Zimmerman rings a faint bell.

> The wand in the window was part of the scenario but no specifics as 
> to who gave the actual idea appeared at the citation so I would say 
> you were off the hook as to whether or not you attempted to take 
> credit for that particular idea within the theory. In fact, I'm 
> rather curious what other ideas you gave him after reading his first 
> hard back edition, since he doesn't specify directly. (Hell, you 
> might be asking yourself the same question once you read this edition)
> 

None, as a matter of fact. Though I did push the idea that Possession 
Theory had wider applicability than many currently appreciate.  
(In retrospect it didn't matter. The 2nd ed. was intended to correct
errors, not introduce new material, though this only emerged later.
There was a tight time-frame, too. Gollancz wanted the corrections 
like, yesterday. This was in January.)

In the 1st. ed. he suggests linking the Mirror to RR because it has
clawed feet - reaching a bit IMO, so my opening gambit was to
posit a Tarot connection (plenty of other Tarot references in HBP) to 
identify the Ravenclaw relic as a wand and as a theory with pointers
already in the text. 
"Ah," said he,"mind if I use that?"
"Feel free," says I, "but I didn't think up the Olivander window bit."
(That was Neri, I think; must check back.)

The main reason I contacted him was to lead up to the suggestion 
that someone, sometime, ought to produce a book looking at the 
HP phenomenon from the *adult* fan perspective, including the 
boards, theorising, fan-fiction and so on, and since his book 
seemed to be clearly aimed at that end of  the market, had he 
ever considered the idea?
Hell of a cheek, but he has written a lot of reviews, analyses and 
lit. crit. pieces on SF and Whodunnit books and phenomena already.

Mostly it was an exercise in trying to tempt/persuade him to
get more heavily involved in adult Potterdom (he's a fan but by
no means a Potterhead). Swamping him with theories and 
extracts of posts from distinguished posters was ajudged as 
probably being counter-productive. 

Caused him enough trouble as it was - a comment from Carolyn
questioning the quality of his research - an observation he made
re: Jo's plotting and info dumps becoming more sophisticated, and
using the scene in the PM's office at the start of  HBP to highlight 
his contention (even though Jo has stated that she had considered
using this scene as far back as book 2). That caused a groan - he 
knew this but didn't think fans would bother about it and wasn't 
aware that such a piece of trivia misuse could cause outrage. 
It was then that I introduced him to the existence of LOONs and
the possibility of doubts being cast on his credibility. 
I assume that's been tidied up as well.

> Langford was an interesting read, unlike the majority of 
> the `unauthorized' guild. There were a few delicious tidbits that I 
> hadn't thought of which brought the old mind back to churning out new 
> possibilities. I hadn't read Langford's first copy but in this one he 
> questions whether Voldy is an animagus of the snake in the 
> ministry...and I thought I scoped everything. 
> 

He's a good bloke, has a pleasant and informed writing style and has 
an eye for plotting and clues. Seemed an ideal candidate for authoring
more on HP. Unfortunately he's committed to other stuff and so
escaped the net. For the time being, anyway. I plan a further campaign
at a later date.

> It was very cool to see your name in the book...although I always 
> thought, like many, that you would have broke down and wrote one 
> yourself. (I remember you being encouraged to do so some time ago) 
> 

Yes, it will be... when I eventually get a copy.
Mind you, conscientiously quoting sources, references etc. is inbred,
he started life as a nuclear physicist and in the sciences any back-
sliding in that area results in a professional lynching.

Me write a book? Too much like hard work.
Besides, can you imagine the quantity of unsolicited HP related material
from unknowns that's already cluttering up publishers offices?
How much of it will actually be read, do you think?
Much better if someone who already has a foot in the door does it.

Kneasy