From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Tue Jan  1 21:42:37 2008
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:42:37 -0000
Subject: Amazon bought Beedle the Bard
In-Reply-To: <00c701c9237b$3755f6e0$482fdcd1@...>
Message-ID: <flec4d+srre@...>

Kat:

 I have to confess that I'm having a real time getting worked up 
about Beadle the Bard. I am having enough trouble coming to terms 
with Deathly Hallows. I don't know what the edition is like in the 
UK, but in the US, what they sold us is essentially a cheap paperback 
in a hard cover (sort of). It broke off the backing the first time I 
read it and split up the spine in one place. I recently reread it and 
while I found the story itself more coherent and enjoyable than the 
first time, I was disgusted to have it split off the spine in another 
place, so I now have three hunks of DH held together in a far from 
sturdy hardback (it looks like cheap cardboard if you take the cover 
off).
> I am considering gluing it back together, but wonder if it's worth 
the trouble. This was not a hard used book. Did anyone else have this 
problem? When I lay out $35.00 for a hardback book, I expect it to be 
stitched, not glued. My overall impression of Ms. Rowling's output is 
that it is getting tackier by the year, and I am getting very, very 
tired of all the hoop-la.


Snow:

I had the same thing happen with both copies of HBP that I had 
bought; the first 50 or so pages were barely attached from the get 
go. I suppose you had to buy the elite version if you wanted to read 
a second time without hanging on to every single word, literally. 

I'm still reeling over the nonchalant attitude of a writer, we made 
famous, towards the 24 hour digression we all pondered in length 
(which could have swayed the whole story when you include it in the 
theological mix to determine the plausible outcome). 

What ever happened to `playing fair' (that she cared so much about at 
the beginning), or about consideration (for her fandom) if she 
thought she hadn't been up front with information? Please don't 
attempt to throw the dog a mere bone; I don't have that type of 
loyalty, I prefer meat not bone.

Snow 








From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Jan  2 17:00:49 2008
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000
Subject: 24hrs
In-Reply-To: <flec4d+srre@...>
Message-ID: <flgg01+h4v8@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:

> I'm still reeling over the nonchalant attitude of a writer, we made 
> famous, towards the 24 hour digression we all pondered in length 
> (which could have swayed the whole story when you include it in the 
> theological mix to determine the plausible outcome). 
> 
> What ever happened to `playing fair' (that she cared so much about at 
> the beginning), or about consideration (for her fandom) if she 
> thought she hadn't been up front with information? Please don't 
> attempt to throw the dog a mere bone; I don't have that type of 
> loyalty, I prefer meat not bone.

Carolyn:
Likewise Snow. I was simply amazed at that casual comment, buried deep 
in a long and mainly frivolous interview on Leaky (which also contain 
some further insights into the making of hogboxes, again, mostly made 
up on the spot).

However, seeing the hour long documentary on UK TV at about the same 
time it was clear that she thought the clues and other trappings of 
her 'mystery' story came a very poor second to developing Harry, and 
she was genuinely puzzled at why fans were so bothered about such 
glitches. Remember the little boy called Evans, who famously had 
nothing to do with any part of the plot? She seemed to regard the 24hrs 
thing in much the same light.

Oh well. Our theories were frankly funnier and cleverer, IMNVHO.
Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Jan  2 20:57:44 2008
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:57:44 -0000
Subject: 24hrs
In-Reply-To: <flgg01+h4v8@...>
Message-ID: <flgts8+rquj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:

> Likewise Snow. I was simply amazed at that casual comment, buried deep 
> in a long and mainly frivolous interview on Leaky (which also contain 
> some further insights into the making of hogboxes, again, mostly made 
> up on the spot).
> 
> However, seeing the hour long documentary on UK TV at about the same 
> time it was clear that she thought the clues and other trappings of 
> her 'mystery' story came a very poor second to developing Harry, and 
> she was genuinely puzzled at why fans were so bothered about such 
> glitches. Remember the little boy called Evans, who famously had 
> nothing to do with any part of the plot? She seemed to regard the 24hrs 
> thing in much the same light.
> 
> Oh well. Our theories were frankly funnier and cleverer, IMNVHO.
>

Not another Leaky gush?
Oh, dear. Must promise myself never to read it.

As for the TV thingy, sounds as if she really is following in the footsteps 
of that old fraud Aggie Christie:
Bugger the clues, they're only there as framing for this totally fascinating 
main character I've invented.

Of course, if you've never really been enthralled by the H. Potter personality
then possibly you may feel a bit hard done by.

Beedle the Bard.
Did have hopes that Beedle wasn't a proper noun but a verb, preferably
involving something nasty, like blunt skewers. Thus: "Poor devil, he's 
been beedled. Nothing we can do for him now." 

But there's the possibility that its originator may have intended it to have
a wider applicability:

Beedle - verb, trans. To be dismissive of the past imperfect. 

Kneasy




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Jan  2 23:09:34 2008
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:09:34 +1100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: 24hrs
In-Reply-To: <flgts8+rquj@...>
References: <flgg01+h4v8@...> <flgts8+rquj@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f320801021509o17efadc9peba88532dfcdc94b@...>

On Jan 3, 2008 7:57 AM, Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Likewise Snow. I was simply amazed at that casual comment, buried deep
> > in a long and mainly frivolous interview on Leaky (which also contain
> > some further insights into the making of hogboxes, again, mostly made
> > up on the spot).
> >
> > However, seeing the hour long documentary on UK TV at about the same
> > time it was clear that she thought the clues and other trappings of
> > her 'mystery' story came a very poor second to developing Harry, and
> > she was genuinely puzzled at why fans were so bothered about such
> > glitches. Remember the little boy called Evans, who famously had
> > nothing to do with any part of the plot? She seemed to regard the 24hrs
> > thing in much the same light.
> >
> > Oh well. Our theories were frankly funnier and cleverer, IMNVHO.

Here here.


>
> Not another Leaky gush?
> Oh, dear. Must promise myself never to read it.

I'm definitely not going to read it. What with gushing on one site and
war with another, I've just about had it with that particular internet
circus.

> As for the TV thingy, sounds as if she really is following in the footsteps
> of that old fraud Aggie Christie:
> Bugger the clues, they're only there as framing for this totally fascinating
> main character I've invented.

*Polite cough, taps the Agatha Christie Circle of Damnation sign
around his neck*

> Of course, if you've never really been enthralled by the H. Potter personality
> then possibly you may feel a bit hard done by.
>
> Beedle the Bard.
> Did have hopes that Beedle wasn't a proper noun but a verb, preferably
> involving something nasty, like blunt skewers. Thus: "Poor devil, he's
> been beedled. Nothing we can do for him now."
>
> But there's the possibility that its originator may have intended it to have
> a wider applicability:
>
> Beedle - verb, trans. To be dismissive of the past imperfect.
>
> Kneasy
>

I had a fascinating conversation with a friend who's just been through
the canon and had no doubt that DD was gay and Ginny was meant for
Harry. I tried to explain what we've been doing here for the last few
years (having to explain a lot about fanficdom along the way), and she
was simply flabbergasted that we'd spent all that time on "spinning
our wheels on a lot of useless guff" as she put it. I think I've been
Beedled.

penguin who almost melted from the Christmas-New Year heatwave here.
-- 
Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best



From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Jan  5 21:48:51 2008
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:48:51 -0000
Subject: Agatha Christie (was: 24 hrs, was: Beedle the Bard)
Message-ID: <flou03+unr1@...>

Kneasy wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/5166>:

<< As for the TV thingy, sounds as if she really is following in the
footsteps of that old fraud Aggie Christie: Bugger the clues, they're
only there as framing for this totally fascinating main character I've
invented. >>

Did Agatha Christie say that? Did Agatha Christie think that? I am
amazed and shocked because Christie was totally nothing at inventing
characters... I'll make an exception for Miss Marple, but all the
others, detectives, villains, victims, witnesses, red herrings, etc,
were something between cardboard and a wisp of smoke. The characters
in Barbara Cartland and Harlequin romance novels have more inner being
and more personality!

I suppose I should complete the revelation of what trash I read in my
teens and twenties by adding that quite a few characters in Marvel
Comics were realer than Christie characters.

Speaking of my teens and twenties, now I've been 50 for two months (as
of Monday) and it *still* doesn't feel any different from being 49.





From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid  Sun Jan  6 03:36:29 2008
From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:36:29 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard; Lexicon
In-Reply-To: <fgdv01+bqg5@...>
Message-ID: <flpibt+95g4@...>



Anne: "IF the RDR book is to reproduce the information in the Lexicon
in printed form, it would in huge part be a repackaging for sale of
vast amounts of copyrighted material..."

In other words, a *derivative work,* which specifically is not fair use.

"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
"derivative work." (17 U.S.C. ? 101)

I wish I knew how things got this far. JKR and Steve should be
collaborating, not fighting it out in court. JKR seems to be in the
right of it legally, though.

Jim Ferer




From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sun Jan  6 12:37:13 2008
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:37:13 -0000
Subject: 50 yrs young
In-Reply-To: <flou03+unr1@...>
Message-ID: <flqi1p+2jop@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> Speaking of my teens and twenties, now I've been 50 for two months (as
> of Monday) and it *still* doesn't feel any different from being 49.
>

Catlady, I am developing a morbid interest in such info, as I approach 
my 50th in a few weeks... anyone care to cheer me with (positive !) 
suggestions on how to mark the event, the year ahead etc??

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Jan  6 12:41:54 2008
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:41:54 -0000
Subject: Agatha Christie (was: 24 hrs, was: Beedle the Bard)
In-Reply-To: <flou03+unr1@...>
Message-ID: <flqiai+hqs7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Kneasy wrote in
> << As for the TV thingy, sounds as if she really is following in the
> footsteps of that old fraud Aggie Christie: Bugger the clues, they're
> only there as framing for this totally fascinating main character I've
> invented. >>
> 
> Did Agatha Christie say that? Did Agatha Christie think that? I am
> amazed and shocked because Christie was totally nothing at inventing
> characters... I'll make an exception for Miss Marple, but all the
> others, detectives, villains, victims, witnesses, red herrings, etc,
> were something between cardboard and a wisp of smoke. The characters
> in Barbara Cartland and Harlequin romance novels have more inner being
> and more personality!
> 

Er.. no. That was me, the result of serial bouts of rage at AC's cavalier 
approach to the convention of playing fair with clues to those of her readers
more interested in puzzle-solving than in marvelling at the omniscience of
that oily little creep, Poirot.

Her stuff was very much of its time (1930s/40s) and her readership was 
much less critical than the whodunnit afficianados of today's authors, IMO. 
But it's almost traditional to refer to her as the doyenne of whodunnits, 
can't think why. Much prefer Rex Stout and Nero Wolf, myself. Now there's a
fascinating central character: idiosyncratic, prejudiced, selfish and a
fully paid-up member of the awkward squad.

Cartland's books I can't comment on, never read her, though as a person
she came across as more than slightly batty. Still, takes all sorts.

> I suppose I should complete the revelation of what trash I read in my
> teens and twenties by adding that quite a few characters in Marvel
> Comics were realer than Christie characters.
> 

Oh, so true.
Though when I were nowt but a sprog wi' ringworm and rickets (a slight
exaggeration, but you get the idea) Marvel comics were almost impossible
to get hold of -  this was the early 50s - so it was Dan Dare in the Eagle
and the Incredible Wilson and Roy of the Rovers in the Wizard and Hotspur.
Everybody needs to read some trash, as you call it. How else can they come
to discriminate between what's good and what isn't? And I still indulge
in 'trashy' books occasionally - it's the literary equivalent of bingeing on
junk food. Most enjoyable as a change, to be indulged in now and again.


> Speaking of my teens and twenties, now I've been 50 for two months (as
> of Monday) and it *still* doesn't feel any different from being 49.
>

Ha!
Speaking as someone about to hit 64, I can tell you that doesn't change
much, the mind and attitudes remain much the same - though eventually,
as someone once commented, comes the realisation that 'inside every old 
person there's a young person who wonders what the hell happened'.
Some of us react by becoming grumpy old buggers.
That can be fun, too.

Kneasy




From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Sun Jan  6 18:41:05 2008
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:41:05 -0000
Subject: HEY, Carole and Carolyn!
Message-ID: <flr7c1+9ej0@...>

*staggers in, glass in hand*

Well, well, well.

It seems there's a bit of a party in your honor going on in OTC.

Happy birthday, you two!

Anne





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Mon Jan  7 03:58:05 2008
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:58:05 -0000
Subject: 50 yrs young
In-Reply-To: <flqi1p+2jop@...>
Message-ID: <fls80d+de6u@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
<carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:

> Catlady, I am developing a morbid interest in such info, as I 
> approach my 50th in a few weeks... anyone care to cheer me with 
> (positive !) suggestions on how to mark the event, the year ahead
> etc??

On my birthday, my friend Regina told me a superstition of which I'd
never heard before (and which doesn't correlate with any astrology or
numerology I've ever heard, and I suspect she made it up) that people
have bad luck when their age is divisible by 7. 

So when I was 49, I had that expensive and stressful problem with the
health inspector, and that expensive and stressful problem with
bedbugs, and my apartment building where I live was put up for sale
(which is stressful to contemplate because surely the purchasers would
want to tear it down and build more densely on this large, grassy lot
with flowerbeds and a few very thick old trees), and I had to move
cubicle at work, and had a lot of stress with a consultant who thought
he could ensure renewal of his contract by keeping his work secret,
and now that I'm no longer 49, those bad things will stop happening. 
I told her that moving cubicle wasn't so bad and my building is still
up for sale and I'm not convinced I'm free of bedbugs yet ... It's
true that that consultant's contract wasn't renewed. It's even true
that Tim's car insurance for 2008 cost a lot less than I expected.

I suppose that would have been more comforting if I'd argued more
forcefully in favor of Regina's superstition being true.





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Mon Jan  7 04:10:47 2008
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:10:47 -0000
Subject: Agatha Christie (was: 24 hrs, was: Beedle the Bard)
In-Reply-To: <flqiai+hqs7@...>
Message-ID: <fls8o7+k5vf@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

<< AC's cavalier approach to the convention of playing fair with clues
to those of her readers more interested in puzzle-solving >>

Me, I've never tried to solve the puzzles when I read mysteries, so I
don't notice who plays fair.

<< Her stuff was very much of its time (1930s/40s) and her readership
was much less critical than the whodunnit afficianados of today's
authors, IMO. But it's almost traditional to refer to her as the
doyenne of whodunnits, can't think why. Much prefer Rex Stout and Nero
Wolf, myself. Now there's a fascinating central character:
idiosyncratic, prejudiced, selfish and a fully paid-up member of the
awkward squad. >>

And weighs one-seventh of a ton. I can relate to that part. I liked
the window into times past, but eventually got tired of Archie's
remarks about women.

I liked John Dixon Carr. The Gideon Fell ones sometimes made me laugh
until my tummy hurt.




From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sun Jan 20 13:49:43 2008
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:49:43 -0000
Subject: 50 yrs young
In-Reply-To: <fls80d+de6u@...>
Message-ID: <fmvjhn+pasq@...>

Hey  50 is the new 40, 40 is the new 30 and so on. So if you are 
wondering why the twentysomething group seems so juvenile it's 
because they are the new 10 <g>  
Hippo Birdie 2 Ewe! I turned 50 last year. So far, I have not 
developed a dowagers hump and still no gray hairs!

Fran
--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
> <carolynwhite2@> wrote:
> 
> > Catlady, I am developing a morbid interest in such info, as I 
> > approach my 50th in a few weeks... anyone care to cheer me with 
> > (positive !) suggestions on how to mark the event, the year ahead
> > etc??
> 
> On my birthday, my friend Regina told me a superstition of which I'd
> never heard before (and which doesn't correlate with any astrology 
or
> numerology I've ever heard, and I suspect she made it up) that 
people
> have bad luck when their age is divisible by 7. 
> 
> So when I was 49, I had that expensive and stressful problem with 
the
> health inspector, and that expensive and stressful problem with
> bedbugs, and my apartment building where I live was put up for sale
> (which is stressful to contemplate because surely the purchasers 
would
> want to tear it down and build more densely on this large, grassy 
lot
> with flowerbeds and a few very thick old trees), and I had to move
> cubicle at work, and had a lot of stress with a consultant who 
thought
> he could ensure renewal of his contract by keeping his work secret,
> and now that I'm no longer 49, those bad things will stop 
happening. 
> I told her that moving cubicle wasn't so bad and my building is 
still
> up for sale and I'm not convinced I'm free of bedbugs yet ... It's
> true that that consultant's contract wasn't renewed. It's even true
> that Tim's car insurance for 2008 cost a lot less than I expected.
> 
> I suppose that would have been more comforting if I'd argued more
> forcefully in favor of Regina's superstition being true.
>





From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid  Mon Jan 21 23:33:53 2008
From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:33:53 -0800
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: 50 yrs young
References: <fmvjhn+pasq@...>
Message-ID: <002601c85c86$3ee18800$482fdcd1@...>

Gee, that makes me feel so much better. It means I'm only 54!

Purrs!

Gatta
Quantum me cogitis omnes!


  Hey 50 is the new 40, 40 is the new 30 and so on. So if you are 
  wondering why the twentysomething group seems so juvenile it's 
  because they are the new 10 <g> 
  Hippo Birdie 2 Ewe! I turned 50 last year. So far, I have not 
  developed a dowagers hump and still no gray hairs!

  Fran
  --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
  <catlady at ...> wrote:
  >
  > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
  > <carolynwhite2@> wrote:
  > 
  > > Catlady, I am developing a morbid interest in such info, as I 
  > > approach my 50th in a few weeks... anyone care to cheer me with 
  > > (positive !) suggestions on how to mark the event, the year ahead
  > > etc??
  > 
  > On my birthday, my friend Regina told me a superstition of which I'd
  > never heard before (and which doesn't correlate with any astrology 
  or
  > numerology I've ever heard, and I suspect she made it up) that 
  people
  > have bad luck when their age is divisible by 7. 
  > 
  > So when I was 49, I had that expensive and stressful problem with 
  the
  > health inspector, and that expensive and stressful problem with
  > bedbugs, and my apartment building where I live was put up for sale
  > (which is stressful to contemplate because surely the purchasers 
  would
  > want to tear it down and build more densely on this large, grassy 
  lot
  > with flowerbeds and a few very thick old trees), and I had to move
  > cubicle at work, and had a lot of stress with a consultant who 
  thought
  > he could ensure renewal of his contract by keeping his work secret,
  > and now that I'm no longer 49, those bad things will stop 
  happening. 
  > I told her that moving cubicle wasn't so bad and my building is 
  still
  > up for sale and I'm not convinced I'm free of bedbugs yet ... It's
  > true that that consultant's contract wasn't renewed. It's even true
  > that Tim's car insurance for 2008 cost a lot less than I expected.
  > 
  > I suppose that would have been more comforting if I'd argued more
  > forcefully in favor of Regina's superstition being true.
  >



   

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