That Awful Epilogue and Lord of the Rings
Bill Blakely
help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
Tolkien, it's too bad she didn't take note of that aspect as well.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
JimboCat
> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
> Tolkien, it's too bad she didn't take note of that aspect as well.
Perhaps you don't know of the *real* epilogue to LotR -- it was cut
from the published version, and quite rightly, too, from all
accounts...and for very much the same reasons that many dislike JKR's
epilogue. It can be found somewhere in the massive compendia of
manuscripts that Tolkien's son Christopher has published. I've not
read it, but apparently it involves Sam and his kids (dunno if it is
exactly nineteen years later, though!).
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Getting people to do what you want them to do, in order to accomplish
a common goal, is called 'leadership'. Getting them to do what you
want for your own purposes is called 'manipulation'." -- Dave
Stallard
Bill Blakely
<10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 12:29 pm, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>> Tolkien, it's too bad she didn't take note of that aspect as well.
>
>Perhaps you don't know of the *real* epilogue to LotR -- it was cut
>from the published version, and quite rightly, too, from all
>accounts...and for very much the same reasons that many dislike JKR's
>epilogue. It can be found somewhere in the massive compendia of
>manuscripts that Tolkien's son Christopher has published. I've not
>read it, but apparently it involves Sam and his kids (dunno if it is
>exactly nineteen years later, though!).
>
>Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
Interesting!
None the less, Tolkien certainly wrapped up LotR in a much more
satisfactory manner than JKR did HP, and I wish she had done likewise.
And if that meant she tossed her epilogue as Tolkien did his, so much
the better!!
Steve Morrison
> On Dec 18, 12:29 pm, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>> Tolkien, it's too bad she didn't take note of that aspect as well.
>
> Perhaps you don't know of the *real* epilogue to LotR -- it was cut
> from the published version, and quite rightly, too, from all
> accounts...and for very much the same reasons that many dislike JKR's
> epilogue. It can be found somewhere in the massive compendia of
> manuscripts that Tolkien's son Christopher has published. I've not
> read it, but apparently it involves Sam and his kids (dunno if it is
> exactly nineteen years later, though!).
>
> Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
I checked my copy, and it was dated S.R. 1436 -- making it 15 years
after the ending of /LotR/ (but 17 years after the downfall of
Barad-dūr). The precise volume it's found in is /Sauron Defeated/.
David Sueme
> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
> Tolkien
I was "off the air" when the book was published and I missed the furor
over the epilogue. Care to sum up the complaints for me?
As to the Rings movies, personally I think Jackson omitted the _real_
epilogue, and thereby made a horrible mess of the ending of the saga.
The "scouring of the Shire" is very important to the conclusion of the
tale. Tolkein depicts the Hobbits as having grown as a result of
thier experiences and I think that he is offering that as a parable
about the human condition.
Frodo met Odysseus on the way home.
Dave
santosh
> Bill Blakely schrieb:
>
>> While she was borrowing so much else from Tolkien
>
> Borrowed my ass.
Whether you like it or not, quite a lot of themes and details in the HP
series have very strong parallels in LoTR. Since the latter is the
earlier work by far, it is quite reasonable to assume that it might
have been a source of inspiration and ideas for Rowling.
Even the name Dumbledore and it's connection to Bumblebee are present in
LoTR. There are many others like this.
Of course all fantasies involving wizards must, to an extent, be similar
in their basic ideas and themes, but this doesn't invalidate the
reasonable assumption that epics like LoTR had an influence on Rowling
and Potter series.
santosh
Who cares about the movies (both Peter Jackson's as well as Warner Br.'
HP series). Only the books are canon and they are infinitely better
than the movies, if only because they do not constrain your imagination
to revolve around the actors and scenes chosen by the director. Witness
the number of "young" HP fans that confuse Radcliffe with Harry, Watson
with Hermione and so on.
Toon
<10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>I've not
>read it, but apparently it involves Sam and his kids (dunno if it is
>exactly nineteen years later, though!).
18 years, 11 months, 364 days.
Toon
>Bill Blakely schrieb:
>
>> While she was borrowing so much else from Tolkien
>
>Borrowed my ass.
Why would she want that?
Toon
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 11:29 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>> Tolkien
>
>I was "off the air" when the book was published and I missed the furor
>over the epilogue. Care to sum up the complaints for me?
Where is it? It's like an excerpt of what should have been. Barely
touched on anything. The book ends with too much left unsaid, then
the epilogue picks up 19 years later, for a few minutes.
santosh
> santosh schrieb:
>
>> Whether you like it or not, quite a lot of themes and details in the
>> HP series have very strong parallels in LoTR.
>
> Strong parallels like what?
Frodo <-> Harry
Gandalf <-> Dumbledore
Nazgul <-> Dementors
Sauron <-> Voldemort
The Fellowship <-> Order of the Phoenix
Saruman <-> Grindelwald
One Ring <-> Horcrux
Beorn <-> Animagus
Morgoth <-> Salazar Slytherin
Of the top of my head. I noticed many more strikingly similar details as
I read LoTR.
>> Since the latter is the earlier work by far
>
> And concerning it's themes in no way original itself.
Yes. I didn't say LoTR was original. There is certainly extensive cross
pollination in the whole genre. However since LoTR precedes HP by a few
decades, and is a seminal work in it's genre in recent times, it's
highly likely that it was a rich source of ideas and inspiration for
Rowling when thinking about the details of the Potter series.
Yellow
You admit that Tolkien probably got inspired by older, already existent
works, but then go on to say you believe that JKR simply got her's off
Tolkien.
Am I the only one who sees a flaw in that logic? Or do you really
imagine that Tolkien is the only author ever read by fantasy novelists
and that once read it is impossible to have a thought of one's own or to
explore the pre-existing ideas found in both mythology and culture for
one's self?
You might just as well say that you believe she got it all off George
Lucas or Terry Pratchett (or Enid Blyton come to that) and you would be
just as likely to be correct. :-)
Out of interest (and you have rather got me thinking here) I've never
got on with LOTR so have never read much beyond the first few chapters
of the first book (did enjoy the films though!) where as I have found HP
accessible and enjoyable so it is as well for me that we do not say that
once themes have been explored by one author they are banned for being
revisited by others.
santosh
Yes...
> but then go on to say you believe that JKR simply got
> her's off Tolkien.
Never said that. I said it's probable that LoTR was _a_ source of
inspiration and ideas for Rowling, not _the_ source. Also I said it
might have been a source for inspiration, not for a ripoff.
> Am I the only one who sees a flaw in that logic?
I don't see any flaw in the logic. You have seen an illusory flaw in
your eagerness to contradict my statement.
> Or do you really
> imagine that Tolkien is the only author ever read by fantasy novelists
> and that once read it is impossible to have a thought of one's own or
> to explore the pre-existing ideas found in both mythology and culture
> for one's self?
I don't. You have misinterpreted what I said.
> You might just as well say that you believe she got it all off George
> Lucas or Terry Pratchett (or Enid Blyton come to that) and you would
> be just as likely to be correct. :-)
It's possible that any or all of the above authors could have been a
source of ideas for Rowling. That's different from saying "she got all
off X or Y".
> Out of interest (and you have rather got me thinking here) I've never
> got on with LOTR so have never read much beyond the first few chapters
> of the first book (did enjoy the films though!) where as I have found
> HP accessible and enjoyable so it is as well for me that we do not say
> that once themes have been explored by one author they are banned for
> being revisited by others.
I didn't say that. Ideas are never exclusive, as WIPO is finding out.
Even copyrights and patents are unnatural, though perhaps a necessary
evil in out current economic system.
remys...@yahoo.com
Aragon <_> Snape
> Frodo <-> Harry
Sam <_> Ginny
Yellow
Among other things (like paralleling characters), you actually said "it
is quite reasonable to assume that it might have been a source of
inspiration and ideas for Rowling." and "However since LoTR precedes HP
by a few decades, and is a seminal work in it's genre in recent times,
it's highly likely that it was a rich source of ideas and inspiration
for Rowling when thinking about the details of the Potter series." so I
have simply read what you wrote.
But you seem to be trying to water this sentiment down now you have been
challenged? :-)
Richard Eney
santosh <santo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Moon wrote:
>
>> santosh schrieb:
>>
>>> Whether you like it or not, quite a lot of themes and details in the
>>> HP series have very strong parallels in LoTR.
>>
>> Strong parallels like what?
>
>Frodo <-> Harry
>Gandalf <-> Dumbledore
<-> a Good Wizard
>Nazgul <-> Dementors
<-> creepy soulless beings work for the villain
(but Nazgul used to be human, Dementors never were)
>Sauron <-> Voldemort
<-> an Evil Wizard villain
>The Fellowship <-> Order of the Phoenix
>Saruman <-> Grindelwald
<-> a Big-Name Villain
>One Ring <-> Horcrux
<-> something that has to be found and destroyed, like the
heart of the villain in the fairy tale, the doomsday virus
in many modern thrillers, the Scientific Gadget in a dozen
episodes of Dr Who, etc.
A closer analogy would be 3 rings for eleven kings + 7 rings
for the dwarf lords + 9 rings for mortal men (who became
Nazgul) + 1 ring that controlled them, let's see, that's
20 rings versus a measly 7 horcruxes that weren't connected.
>Beorn <-> Animagus
<-> any shapechanger from any of hundreds of cultures. For
example: Loki. Proteus. Shiva. The Great Selkie. Any
Siberian shaman.
There were quite a few shapechangers in HP1-7; Tolkien only
put in one.
>Morgoth <-> Salazar Slytherin
<-> a long-dead villain who set up the circumstances of the
problem.
>Of the top of my head. I noticed many more strikingly
>similar details as I read LoTR.
Try reading Joseph Campbell on the Hero's Journey. You'll
find a whole lot more.
>I didn't say LoTR was original. There is certainly extensive cross
>pollination in the whole genre. However since LoTR precedes HP by a
>few decades, and is a seminal work in its genre in recent times, it's
>highly likely that it was a rich source of ideas and inspiration for
>Rowling when thinking about the details of the Potter series.
Considering the wide range of historical and mythological allusions
to be found in the HP books, many of which are /not/ found in LotR,
I think that a wide reading of history and myth was JKR's more likely
source.
=Tamar
Nate Edel
> Out of interest (and you have rather got me thinking here) I've never
> got on with LOTR so have never read much beyond the first few chapters
> of the first book (did enjoy the films though!) where as I have found HP
> accessible and enjoyable so it is as well for me that we do not say that
In fairness, depending on exactly how far you made it, you might want to
give LotR another shot if that's all you've read. _Fellowship_ starts very
slowly, relative to the pacing it reaches shortly after.
OTOH, if you've made it past the introduction of Aragorn, and still don't
like it, then it's not just the slow start.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |
Nate Edel
Other than that some fill the same archetypical roles - not surprising at
all - I'm not sure they hold up.
Even structurally, the LotR is basically one linear story without a lot of
repetition of themes, while the Harry Potter novels have a much more
cyclical structure within the overall arc across the novels.
> Frodo <-> Harry
In some ways; they're both "hero" archetypes. OTOH, Frodo would have been a
Hufflepuff, not a Gryffindor. Harry is unquestionably brave from the start;
his journey is one of growing up into manhood and learning his powers, while
Frodo's journey is much less about personal development.
By the same logic, you can compare Harry Potter to Luke Skywalker; indeed, I
think that the similarities are much closer in terms of their starting
points in the story, and their relationships to both the mentor characters
(Dumbledore and Obi-Wan/Yoda) and to some extent the main villains
(Voldemort and Darth Vader). Of course, the processes of growth are very
different as are their endpoints, and Rowling is a much, much better writer
than Lucas.
FTM, the focus of LotR is broader than just Frodo, while the focus of Harry
Potter is on Harry (and the first Star Wars film is on Luke, while the later
ones split focus more.)
> Gandalf <-> Dumbledore
Other than that they're both "old wizard" characters, I'm not sure I see it;
Dumbledore is very much the "mentor" archetype (right down to dying in a way
similar to Obi-Wan Kenobi, to stretch the point above a bit much) while
Gandalf... well, he's a bit harder to nail down in terms of his role in the
story. Only in HBP does he get enough time on camera to join the cast in the
way that Gandalf does after the Council of Elrond... and at the same time,
he develops a human backstory (discovered after his death) that Gandalf
never had.
> Nazgul <-> Dementors
Similar in appearance, and perhaps in some ways powers; not at all similar
in terms of the role in the books.
> Sauron <-> Voldemort
> One Ring <-> Horcrux
Well, the whole "horcrux" vs. "one-ring" thing is a fair cop... but they're
both just examples of "macguffin to which the big badguy's power is linked,"
which is an idea that predates Tolkien by a very long time.
On other points:
Sauron: near-deity, entirely off-camera (in the books), returned already
from a prior defeat, not particular aware of or involved with the heroes in
a direct sense.
Voldemort: bad-ass mortal, on-camera increasingly as the books go on, merely
TRYING to return from a prior defeat until book 4, and intimately linked to
our hero.
Darth Vader: bad-ass mortal, on-camera lots throughout the series,
undefeated, and intimately linked to our hero (even before the retcon in
ESB: "He betrayed and murdered your father.")
> The Fellowship <-> Order of the Phoenix
Group of people go on a quest is older than Tolkien, although he popularized
it. For that matter, the parallels are pretty limited - the OotP is very
much a group in opposition to another group, while the Fellowship has a
specific purpose. Only in Deathly Hallows, when Harry, Hermione and Ron are
hunting horcruxes does it become a quest structure.
> Saruman <-> Grindelwald
Betrayal by a peer, sure, bit of similarity there. Of course, if you go to
the prequels, that's sort of what happens with Obi-Wan and Anakin. And in
the Star Wars universe (relative to Luke's story) like in Harry Potter, it's
all backstory, while the betray of Saruman is a going concern during the
LotR novels (...although of course, Darth Vader is still around in Star
Wars.)
> Beorn <-> Animagus
Beorn doesn't even show up significantly in LotR - he was mainly a character
in The Hobbit. But yes, both universes have shape-changers who take animal
form. So? It's majorly standard mythological material (heck, I'm fairly
sure once you get into the Silmarillion, you've even got werewolves in
Tolkien.)
This IS one that Lucas skipped... or is it? Wait, he's got both Wookiees and
*bleep*ing Ewoks. No shape changing, but beastmen of sorts.
> Morgoth <-> Salazar Slytherin
An ancient enemy. Of course, that's standard mythological stuff AND a
Christian idea. I don't recall Salazar Slytherin trying to take over the
world... and his connection to Voldemort is much more indirect than
Morgoth's connection to Sauron (who was his lieutenant, basically.)
I leave (Morgoth : Sauron :: The Emperor : Vader) analogies as an exercise
for the reader.
Thomas Gagne
> On Dec 19, 12:43 pm, santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Aragon <_> Snape
>
>
>> Frodo <-> Harry
>>
>
> Sam <_> Ginny
>
movie, Sam may as well have been Ron. Help along the way--but no real
help. In the books Sam is actually the real hero of the Hobbits, having
made as many sacrifices as Frodo, receiving little of the glory, but in
the end actually having carried him finally up the slopes of Mt. Doom on
his back.
At least Sam got to hear the song of the ring and the nine-fingered Frodo!
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamco.com/anything.php> to read
my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit
<http://tggagne.blogspot.com/> for politics, society and culture.
Thomas Gagne
> santosh schrieb:
>
>
>> Of the top of my head. I noticed many more strikingly similar details as
>> I read LoTR.
>>
>
> depicted nor the way they act. Yes, there are wizards and OMG evil ppl in
> both tales but I've never thought of Gandalf reading about DD's long beard
> or vice versa.
>
Both wizards play important roles in battle, both dispense wisdom, and
both serve a greater purpose outside the perception of those around
them, and both were prepared to sacrifice their lives for the cause.
santosh
> remys...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 12:43 pm, santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Aragon <_> Snape
>>
> Hmm. Aragorn, as in Strider? I don't see a parallel character in HP.
Yes. Aragorn has no real counterpart in HP.
>>> Frodo <-> Harry
>>>
>>
>> Sam <_> Ginny
>>
> It really depends on whether you're comparing books or movies. In the
> movie, Sam may as well have been Ron. Help along the way--but no real
> help. In the books Sam is actually the real hero of the Hobbits,
> having made as many sacrifices as Frodo, receiving little of the
> glory, but in the end actually having carried him finally up the
> slopes of Mt. Doom on his back.
>
> At least Sam got to hear the song of the ring and the nine-fingered
> Frodo!
Yes. There is no comparison between the heroic Sam (arguably an even
greater hero than Frodo), and the jerk Ron. Throughout HP Ron is
virtually useless to Harry, while without Sam's devotion and common
sense, Frodo wouldn't have made it even up to the Brandywine.
santosh
> Moon wrote:
>> santosh schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> Of the top of my head. I noticed many more strikingly similar
>>> details as I read LoTR.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see any of them as strikingly similar neither by the way the
>> are depicted nor the way they act. Yes, there are wizards and OMG
>> evil ppl in both tales but I've never thought of Gandalf reading
>> about DD's long beard or vice versa.
>>
> Both wizards play important roles in battle, both dispense wisdom, and
> both serve a greater purpose outside the perception of those around
> them, and both were prepared to sacrifice their lives for the cause.
More importantly, both were tempted by the prospect of wielding immense
power (DD by the Elder Wand and the Ressurection stone, Gandalf by the
One Ring), but both realised how it would prove too tempting in the
long run and rejected power in favour of loyalty and regard from those
around them.
Both were the real "brains" behind the overall course of the respective
struggles of the Light against the Dark. All other characters are like
unwitting tools in their hands.
Steve Morrison
(snip)
> Well, the whole "horcrux" vs. "one-ring" thing is a fair cop... but they're
> both just examples of "macguffin to which the big badguy's power is linked,"
> which is an idea that predates Tolkien by a very long time.
I don't even see that much similarity between the One Ring and the
Horcruxes. Sauron didn't make the Ring to gain the ability to survive
the physical destruction of his body -- he already _had_ that ability
as one of the Maiar, and had used it in the past! The Ring was
intended solely to control the other rings of power. This has all
been discussed elsewhere on Usenet, too:
http://tinyurl.com/2zr26m
http://tinyurl.com/2sg6n2
The Horcruxes are more like the soul of Koshchei the Deathless, and
items from many analogous stories:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb06600.htm
Also, Jo probably got the word "dumbledore" from Thomas Hardy rather
than from Tolkien. This is a passage from chapter 20 of Hardy's novel
/The Mayor of Casterbridge/:
The sharp reprimand was not lost upon her, and in time it came
to pass that for "fay" she said "succeed"; that she no longer
spoke of "dumbledores" but of "humble bees"; no longer said of
young men and women that they "walked together", but that they
were "engaged"; that she grew to talk of "greggles" as "wild
hyacinths"; that when she had not slept she did not quaintly
tell the servants next morning that she had been "hagrid", but
that she had "suffered from indigestion".
http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/26/54/18114/1.html
In any case, the word doesn't occur at all in /The Lord of the
Rings/; Tolkien did use it, but only in his poem "Errantry", from
/The Adventures of Tom Bombadil/. (And there it's spelled without
a final "e".)
In general, I've been far more struck by the differences between
Tolkien and Rowling than by the similarities, even when they're
obviously working from the same source material. And speaking as
a serious Tolkien fan, I'd call that a good thing. Remember all
those unreadable fantasy novels from the 1970's and 80's, which
were slavish imitations of /LotR/? Writers had to regain a bit of
distance from Tolkien before they could write anything worthwhile
of their own.
Yellow
> Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote:
> > Out of interest (and you have rather got me thinking here) I've never
> > got on with LOTR so have never read much beyond the first few chapters
> > of the first book (did enjoy the films though!) where as I have found HP
> > accessible and enjoyable so it is as well for me that we do not say that
>
> In fairness, depending on exactly how far you made it, you might want to
> give LotR another shot if that's all you've read. _Fellowship_ starts very
> slowly, relative to the pacing it reaches shortly after.
>
> OTOH, if you've made it past the introduction of Aragorn, and still don't
> like it, then it's not just the slow start.
>
>
I cannot see me reading LOTR now to be honest, not unless I live to a
very ripe age and run out of books that I actually want to read like the
biography of Elizabeth 1st I have by my bed side for example, the one on
Alan Turing that has somehow found its way into my bathroom, and the
small collection of books on James Cook and Robert Scott I have been
building up over the last 5 years but are yet to be read.
I also want to re-read the Heechee books by Frederick Pohl and
downloaded text versions to put on my Palm only yesterday.
LOTR had it chance and failed, and now I have DVDs!
Toon
wrote:
>Nate Edel wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> Well, the whole "horcrux" vs. "one-ring" thing is a fair cop... but they're
>> both just examples of "macguffin to which the big badguy's power is linked,"
>> which is an idea that predates Tolkien by a very long time.
>
>I don't even see that much similarity between the One Ring and the
>Horcruxes. Sauron didn't make the Ring to gain the ability to survive
>the physical destruction of his body -- he already _had_ that ability
>as one of the Maiar, and had used it in the past! The Ring was
>intended solely to control the other rings of power. This has all
>been discussed elsewhere on Usenet, too:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2zr26m
>http://tinyurl.com/2sg6n2
>
The one Ring is like Wand ownership. Win one wand of somebody, win
them all.
Richard Eney
Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote:
>
>LOTR had it chance and failed, and now I have DVDs!
If you are referring to the movies of LOTR, that's like the
Cliff's Notes version. But to each his own - you can live
a long happy life without reading LOTR or HP or any of a
large number of other books.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
> A closer analogy would be 3 rings for eleven kings
Oops. 3 rings for 3 _elven_ kings.
=Tamar
DaveD
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkb6ku$qv$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
> David Sueme wrote:
>
>> On Dec 18, 11:29 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>>> Tolkien
>>
>> I was "off the air" when the book was published and I missed the furor
>> over the epilogue. Care to sum up the complaints for me?
>>
>> epilogue, and thereby made a horrible mess of the ending of the saga.
>> The "scouring of the Shire" is very important to the conclusion of the
>> tale. Tolkein depicts the Hobbits as having grown as a result of
>> thier experiences and I think that he is offering that as a parable
>> about the human condition.
>>
>> Frodo met Odysseus on the way home.
>
> Who cares about the movies (both Peter Jackson's as well as Warner Br.'
> HP series). Only the books are canon and they are infinitely better
> than the movies, if only because they do not constrain your imagination
> to revolve around the actors and scenes chosen by the director. Witness
> the number of "young" HP fans that confuse Radcliffe with Harry, Watson
> with Hermione and so on.
I have to admit, I though LOTR was good but I found the 3 films awesome,
just SO utterly good, probably my favourites of all time. I love seeing it
made real on the screen - much better than just using my imagination! And
the music is just out of this world - it fits the film so well throughout.
It's not so clear for me for the HP world: the books are really great, but
the films are more variable. The first couple had a wonderful sense of awe
of, and at, magic which was almost tangible. Again, it was great seeing it
made real on the screen. PoA was also excellent but more grown up; GoF was
fun but an action romp and started losing that sense of wonder; and OotP was
just ok, some pretty effects but even less depth and emotional connection.
And the music varies similarly - spot on in #1 and 2, very good still in #3,
subtle yet still effective in #4, but very poor in #5...
As for the LOTR epilogue - I really didn't like the book, it went on *far*
too long for my taste. And so did the film, although it had an odd slightly
saccharine feel (well, the extended DVD did, the cinema release was if I
recall correctly, somewhat shorter though still jarring with the rest of the
film).
<mode=minority-of-1> lol
And the epilogue in DH? Well, it might have been ok as a distant vague
seen-through-the-mist last chapter provided there'd been some closure after
the final battle of Hogwarts - an extra couple of chapters showing them
grieving the fallen and rebuilding for the future, setting off on their
various paths towards the rest of their lives. But instead, we had the
battle, then the book stopped with an abrupt judder, then we had this
sepia/blurry scene. JKR succeeded in writing it as if we were watching it a
distance which is what she said she'd set out to do, but that's not what I
wanted for the end of the book - after 7 books of build-up, I can't help but
think something more was needed. A shame, as I really enjoyed the rest of DH
but despite all that, it didn't stop DH being a great read over all...
</mode>
DaveD
Edward McArdle
"DaveD" <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <mode=minority-of-1> lol
> And the epilogue in DH? Well, it might have been ok as a distant vague
> seen-through-the-mist last chapter provided there'd been some closure after
> the final battle of Hogwarts - an extra couple of chapters showing them
> grieving the fallen and rebuilding for the future, setting off on their
> various paths towards the rest of their lives. But instead, we had the
> battle, then the book stopped with an abrupt judder, then we had this
> sepia/blurry scene. JKR succeeded in writing it as if we were watching it a
> distance which is what she said she'd set out to do, but that's not what I
> wanted for the end of the book - after 7 books of build-up, I can't help but
> think something more was needed. A shame, as I really enjoyed the rest of DH
> but despite all that, it didn't stop DH being a great read over all...
> </mode>
>
> DaveD
I suspect that one of the problems in making the final film will be the
large body count of *young children*! This apart from the problem of
having two/three teenagers living alone in a tent for several months.
Very easy to read past in a book, but harder to portray on a screen!
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Leon Trollski
"Yellow" <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.21d4f40af...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
>
> LOTR had it chance and failed, and now I have DVDs!
>
The book failed you? How?
Weird Beard
<mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote the following in alt.fan.harry-potter:
> I suspect that one of the problems in making the final film will be
> the large body count of *young children*! This apart from the problem
> of having two/three teenagers living alone in a tent for several
> months.
>
> Very easy to read past in a book, but harder to portray on a screen!
>
True, but let's not forget that it's a three-bedroom tent.
--
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je-ne-sais-quoi."
Peter Schickele
David Sueme
> Who cares about the movies (both Peter Jackson's as well as Warner Br.'
> HP series). Only the books are canon and they are infinitely better
> than the movies, if only because they do not constrain your imagination
> to revolve around the actors and scenes chosen by the director.
Well, this brings up an interesting theoritical point - can a movie
_ever_ be an adequate transliteration of a complex literary work?
I thought there would never be a credible Rings movie in my lifetime -
but then computer graphics programming technology advanced faster than
I expected. For the most part, Jackson's Rings almost looks good
enough. But the story got screwed - and I can't help but wonder if
that isn't largely in the name of the theatre operator's need to
refill the room as many times as possible each day.
What I am sure of now is that Rings will never be done _properly_ in
my lifetime.
Dave
David Sueme
> Where is it? It's like an excerpt of what should have been. Barely
> touched on anything. The book ends with too much left unsaid, then
> the epilogue picks up 19 years later, for a few minutes.
I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say. Would you
indulge me and be a bit more specific about what is "too much left
unsaid..."?
Dave
Yellow
I've already said.
DaveD
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-99E103...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Given how much they'll have to cut to squeeze another 600-odd pages into a 2
hour film, I suspect the body count is one of the parts that'll go. We might
see a variety of people, including students, being dropped by stupefy curses
but I bet we also see most of them coming round later, just a bit injured...
DaveD
Toon
Or maybe Harry will see a list of victims. Well, something to pause
for on the DVD (great place to insert crew names, too).
Toon
Basically, everything revealed in post DH interviews. Jobs,
marriages, continued education, Luna Lovegood.
santosh
> On Dec 19, 7:34 am, santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Who cares about the movies (both Peter Jackson's as well as Warner
>> Br.' HP series). Only the books are canon and they are infinitely
>> better than the movies, if only because they do not constrain your
>> imagination to revolve around the actors and scenes chosen by the
>> director.
>
> Well, this brings up an interesting theoritical point - can a movie
> _ever_ be an adequate transliteration of a complex literary work?
They are different media and I don't think one can *perfectly* depict
all the subtleties of the other. Books leave more to your imagination,
while films cater more to the sensations. Each has a place.
David Sueme
I sez:
> >I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say. Would you
> >indulge me and be a bit more specific about what is "too much left
> >unsaid..."?
>
> >Dave
>
> Basically, everything revealed in post DH interviews. Jobs,
> marriages, continued education, Luna Lovegood.
Do me a favor. DON'T ever tell me what was "revealed in post DH
interviews". I'll try to tell you why...
all these things - jobs, marriages, missionary or doggie style - they
exist only if there is a context which makes sense. You need to have
a "fiction" for ficticious characters to have a convincing existence.
So all this stuff is actually Rowling saying "if I was going to
continue the series, then I would have Hermione prefer on top..." but
she hasn't proven that any of this is plausible because she isn't
creating the fictional matrix that makes this stuff convincing.
And fer gawd's sake, I hope she doesn't. The series went on two books
past her prime.
The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
continued - and that really is all that is essential.
I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
"gay" character revelations.
Dave
Bill Blakely
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:30 am, Toon <t...@toon.com> wrote:
>
>I sez:
>
>> >I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say. Would you
>> >indulge me and be a bit more specific about what is "too much left
>> >unsaid..."?
>>
>> >Dave
>>
>> Basically, everything revealed in post DH interviews. Jobs,
>> marriages, continued education, Luna Lovegood.
>
>Do me a favor. DON'T ever tell me what was "revealed in post DH
>interviews". I'll try to tell you why...
If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.
>all these things - jobs, marriages, missionary or doggie style - they
>exist only if there is a context which makes sense. You need to have
>a "fiction" for ficticious characters to have a convincing existence.
>
>So all this stuff is actually Rowling saying "if I was going to
>continue the series, then I would have Hermione prefer on top..." but
>she hasn't proven that any of this is plausible because she isn't
>creating the fictional matrix that makes this stuff convincing.
None of it "exists" anywhere but in Rowling's mind.
>And fer gawd's sake, I hope she doesn't. The series went on two books
>past her prime.
So very true.
>The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
>that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
>continued - and that really is all that is essential.
The epilogue told us virtually nothing that couldn't have been
inferred without it, including Hermione's preference for being on top.
Again, the contrast with the way JRRT wrapped up LotR is quite
striking. And JRRT gave a lot of information about the world he
created outside the context of any actual story.
>I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
>she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
>"gay" character revelations.
If you know about the DD is gay revelation, you certainly know about
her many other post -DH revelations.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
Bill Blakely
If the filmmaker has any sense, they'll devote very little screen time
to the endless camping trip.
Bill Blakely
<tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>remys...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 12:43 pm, santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Aragon <_> Snape
>>
>Hmm. Aragorn, as in Strider? I don't see a parallel character in HP.
>>
>>> Frodo <-> Harry
>>>
>>
>> Sam <_> Ginny
>>
>It really depends on whether you're comparing books or movies. In the
>movie, Sam may as well have been Ron. Help along the way--but no real
>help. In the books Sam is actually the real hero of the Hobbits, having
>made as many sacrifices as Frodo, receiving little of the glory, but in
>the end actually having carried him finally up the slopes of Mt. Doom on
>his back.
Which he did in the movie, too, and that's to say nothing of saving
Frodo more than once along the way, so I don't see how you can say he
might as well have been Ron in the movies.
One thing about JKR ( which is quite different from LotR where there
are a number of genuine heroes) is that she could never let anyone
really share the limelight with Harry, Which may explain why she
never developed Ginny the way she should have.
>At least Sam got to hear the song of the ring and the nine-fingered Frodo!
And Ron got to spend the rest of his life being bossed around by
Hermione!! LOL
Toon
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
>she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
>"gay" character revelations.
>
>Dave
>
You'd be surprised how much time is available with only one gay
character reveal.
Bill Blakely
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:45:44 -0800 (PST), David Sueme
><dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 11:29 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>>> Tolkien
>>
>>I was "off the air" when the book was published and I missed the furor
>>over the epilogue. Care to sum up the complaints for me?
>
>Where is it? It's like an excerpt of what should have been. Barely
>touched on anything. The book ends with too much left unsaid, then
>the epilogue picks up 19 years later, for a few minutes.
And says almost nothing the reader wouldn't have assumed anyway.
santosh
> On Dec 22, 8:30 am, Toon <t...@toon.com> wrote:
>
> I sez:
>
>> >I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say. Would you
>> >indulge me and be a bit more specific about what is "too much left
>> >unsaid..."?
>>
>> >Dave
>>
>> Basically, everything revealed in post DH interviews. Jobs,
>> marriages, continued education, Luna Lovegood.
>
> Do me a favor. DON'T ever tell me what was "revealed in post DH
> interviews". I'll try to tell you why...
>
> all these things - jobs, marriages, missionary or doggie style - they
> exist only if there is a context which makes sense. You need to have
> a "fiction" for ficticious characters to have a convincing existence.
And we do have seven books worth of fiction. That is precisely why so
many readers want more details regarding their further lives. Because
for seven books they have formed attachments with these characters.
> So all this stuff is actually Rowling saying "if I was going to
> continue the series, then I would have Hermione prefer on top..." but
> she hasn't proven that any of this is plausible because she isn't
> creating the fictional matrix that makes this stuff convincing.
Why? So you believe her portrayal of Hermione in the books is not
consistent with what we have got to know of what she became after
Hogwarts? Similarly for the other characters...
Besides this is just fantasy. It doesn't really have to very convincing.
It just has to have internal consistency. HP suffers from many many
holes, but nothing that would make me say no to more info or stuff.
> And fer gawd's sake, I hope she doesn't. The series went on two books
> past her prime.
I think the OP was commenting about the epilogue, not that he/she wishes
for more books in the series.
> The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
> that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
> continued - and that really is all that is essential.
People expect more details after seven long books.
> I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
> she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
> "gay" character revelations.
She should have revealed everything she wanted to reveal in the books,
including Dumbledore. As it stands the info she has given out in post
DH interviews is several times the size of that useless epilogue.
Yellow
> David Sueme wrote:
,snip>
>
> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
>
> People expect more details after seven long books.
That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but never-the-less
vocal, people".
>
> > I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
> > she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
> > "gay" character revelations.
>
> She should have revealed everything she wanted to reveal in the books,
> including Dumbledore. As it stands the info she has given out in post
> DH interviews is several times the size of that useless epilogue.
>
>
Personally, I hope JKR is having a ball, winding people like you up. :-)
santosh
> santosh [santo...@gmail.com] said:
>> David Sueme wrote:
>
> ,snip>
>>
>> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
>> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
>> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
>>
>> People expect more details after seven long books.
>
> That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but
> never-the-less vocal, people".
Perhaps more than "some". Many or most I'd say, judging by the reception
of that epilogue in this and a few other forums.
<snip>
> Personally, I hope JKR is having a ball, winding people like you up.
> :-)
Rest assured that I'm not wound up at all. All these posts are merely a
mildly funny and interesting way to waste a little time. :-)
DaveD
I don't know how representative this forum is, but I'd say it's a large
majority who didn't like the epilogue, and I'm hard pressed to think of many
positive comments about it. I'm one of the few who really enjoyed DH and
even I didn't like the epilogue lol.
It's hard to see how some of the recent interview details could have been
included though - I don't think an epilogue is an appropriate vehicle for
much of that information as it would just become a random dumping ground.
On the other hand, given JKR had created a huge amount of backstory with
loads of detail that there just wasn't room enough for in the books, I think
it's great it's coming out in interviews rather than never see the light of
day. Even if I disagree with a few of her comments, e.g. that Harry wasn't
quite a horcrux. Honestly, hasn't she READ the books?!! :-P
DaveD
Yellow
> Yellow wrote:
>
> > santosh [santo...@gmail.com] said:
> >> David Sueme wrote:
> >
> > ,snip>
> >>
> >> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
> >> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
> >> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
> >>
> >> People expect more details after seven long books.
> >
> > That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but
> > never-the-less vocal, people".
>
> Perhaps more than "some". Many or most I'd say, judging by the reception
> of that epilogue in this and a few other forums.
Forums, while interesting, are the tiny microcosm of opinion and as a
rule, only those who feel the need to complain who speak with the
loudest voice.
Bear in mind that nine million books were sold on the first day and your
average forums will have just a few hundred regs, if that.
To really know how people feel about the epilogue, we need someone to do
a random poll, covering all age groups and including those who do not
use forums and dissect HP to within an inch of its life as a hobby.
Edward McArdle
Bill Blakely <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
"and loving it!"
Apologies to Maxwell Smart.
David Sueme
> If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.
I also shouldn't have voted for Walter Mondale. Who is perfect?
> If you know about the DD is gay revelation, you certainly know about
> her many other post -DH revelations.
No, I don't. I avoid all of JKR's "out of school" blather as best I
can - I avoid the "fan" web sites, JKR's silly web page, and so on.
The "Dumbledore is 'Gay' " business was so much bruited around here
that I couldn't avoid it.
Toon
<wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:08:21 -0800, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:45:44 -0800 (PST), David Sueme
>><dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 18, 11:29 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>>>> I just got around to watching the LotR movies on DVD, and I couldn't
>>>> help but be reminded -- it has been 35 years since I read LotR -- of
>>>> how much better an epilogue, so to speak, Tolkien gave his fantasy
>>>> epic as opposed JKR. While she was borrowing so much else from
>>>> Tolkien
>>>
>>>I was "off the air" when the book was published and I missed the furor
>>>over the epilogue. Care to sum up the complaints for me?
>>
>>Where is it? It's like an excerpt of what should have been. Barely
>>touched on anything. The book ends with too much left unsaid, then
>>the epilogue picks up 19 years later, for a few minutes.
>
>And says almost nothing the reader wouldn't have assumed anyway.
Let's see. Harry marries Ginny. Check. Ron marries Hermione. Check.
Anybody doubt Harry'd be a good godfather to Teddy? Didn't think so.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>It's hard to see how some of the recent interview details could have been
>included though - I don't think an epilogue is an appropriate vehicle for
>much of that information as it would just become a random dumping ground.
Well, Harry could muse on his days of being an Auror with Ron while
hermione helped the NonHumans out as he watches the Hogwrats Express
leave, and thinks of the wonderful life his children will have, as he
remembers his own post Hogwarts. He can remember the survivors and
the future he gave them. A bit stale and impersonal, yes, but a lot
of info can be given that way. OK, so no gay DD, but better it's not
in the books. Or else the evil JK, who's already turning kids against
god, will be trying to turn the world gay.
>On the other hand, given JKR had created a huge amount of backstory with
>loads of detail that there just wasn't room enough for in the books, I think
>it's great it's coming out in interviews rather than never see the light of
>day. Even if I disagree with a few of her comments, e.g. that Harry wasn't
>quite a horcrux.
She needs the Encyclopedia.
Harryw as a horcrux in every way possible. Now, we're to accept he
wasn't because of one little technicality, that it wasn't intentional?
Has she been in the sauce lately? Just have DD say he's in essence a
horcrux. Acts like a horcrux, but isn't.
> Honestly, hasn't she READ the books?!! :-P
Some movie writes have made errors by forgetting and being too lazy to
double check. Suffice it to say, fans aren't, and they do know how to
reach the writers and tell them..
Toon
wrote:
>Forums, while interesting, are the tiny microcosm of opinion and as a
>rule, only those who feel the need to complain who speak with the
>loudest voice.
Sadly, many Hollywood types believe that, and feel that for every
Internet belief posted, at least twice as many feel the opposite.
Course, they can't account for lurkers, yet still insist they share
the opposite belief of the vocal regulars.
Yellow
Indeed, neither of these methods gives us a device to know what opinion
really is.
Phil
"Weird Beard" <weird...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0DE989B20C3we...@204.127.36.1...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:54:24 GMT, Edward McArdle
> <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote the following in alt.fan.harry-potter:
>
>
>> I suspect that one of the problems in making the final film will be
>> the large body count of *young children*! This apart from the problem
>> of having two/three teenagers living alone in a tent for several
>> months.
>>
>> Very easy to read past in a book, but harder to portray on a screen!
>>
>
> True, but let's not forget that it's a three-bedroom tent.
>
Not to my memory it wasn't.
Toon
wrote:
>Indeed, neither of these methods gives us a device to know what opinion
>really is.
But then again, when people vote, you accept those who vote. You
don't include the quite ones, and you certainly don't base your
decisions off of those who didn't stay quite. 14% said no, 15% said
yes, 71% didn't vote, they must be voting no. Motion denied.
So, if people are all saying one thing, how can you sit there and say,
yeah but, all those quite people count too, and clearly are against
you're belief, or they'd be joining in with you.
The vocal are the sampling you need. And with world wide access, and
people made up of various categories, it's a pretty fair
representation.
Edward McArdle
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
I wouldn't have commented, but your name is yell@please:
It's QUIET!
Yellow
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:30:25 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Indeed, neither of these methods gives us a device to know what opinion
> >really is.
>
> But then again, when people vote, you accept those who vote. You
> don't include the quite ones, and you certainly don't base your
> decisions off of those who didn't stay quite. 14% said no, 15% said
> yes, 71% didn't vote, they must be voting no. Motion denied.
There are mechanisms to run random polls and they are run all the time,
so while not perfect, they give us a better idea of true opinion than
that gained by simply listening to those who wish make their opinion
known because they have a strong interest.
>
> So, if people are all saying one thing, how can you sit there and say,
> yeah but, all those quite people count too, and clearly are against
> you're belief, or they'd be joining in with you.
I've already explained my view on this but I'll try to put it another
way.
I do not have a problem with the epilogue but I do not recall mentioning
this fact ever before in my life as it really isn't an issue to me and I
really can't be bothered to debate with those who passionately dislike
it - that's their opinion and they are entitled to it. Personally I
accept JKR's books as they are, and I am grateful for them.
But, if I was actively asked, "do you hate the epilogue", I would vote
"no".
Do you see my point now? In the main, only those who dislike what is
there (in the case the epilogue but this holds true with most topics,
politics, religion, tv shows) rant on about it, and perhaps one or two
who are in the mood will disagree and/or debate. As a rule people do not
rant when they like something, or have a neutral view.
Now don't get me wrong, it might well be that the majority of HP readers
*do* hate the epilogue but using the evidence of a few posts from a
vocal minority with an axe to grind due to their disappointment simply
does not give us the evidence to be sure.
Personally, I suspect that most people really do not care about the
epilogue because they do not make a hobby of dissecting and discussing
the books and it is what it is, but is just an opinion for which I have
absolutely no evidence. :-)
>
> The vocal are the sampling you need. And with world wide access, and
> people made up of various categories, it's a pretty fair
> representation.
>
I disagree as forums attract a certain type of person, not a cross-
section of society, and they also attract those with strong opinion and
interests in the forum topic area, so again not a cross-section of those
who have read the books.
They also include very few children I'd wager.
If you disagree, come along to the F1 group and let us know strongly you
feel about Kimi winning the title and whether or not Lewis should have
got it. I am banking on the fact here that most US folk don't do F1 and
that you really couldn't give a monkey's. :-)
Toon
wrote:
>There are mechanisms to run random polls and they are run all the time,
>so while not perfect, they give us a better idea of true opinion than
>that gained by simply listening to those who wish make their opinion
>known because they have a strong interest.
Which would be great, if any such polls were used. The only thing
used is these say one thing, twice as many others not speaking up must
think otherwise.
Then TV has the Neilson ratings, but they're anything but a fair
representation of America's viewing preferences.
Yellow
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:01:17 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There are mechanisms to run random polls and they are run all the time,
> >so while not perfect, they give us a better idea of true opinion than
> >that gained by simply listening to those who wish make their opinion
> >known because they have a strong interest.
>
> Which would be great, if any such polls were used.
They are used, when commissioned, and I have been randomly called up
twice to give my opinion on topical issues.
> The only thing
> used is these say one thing, twice as many others not speaking up must
> think otherwise.
Eh?
> Then TV has the Neilson ratings, but they're anything but a fair
> representation of America's viewing preferences.
>
Sorry, I'm a Brit so that's a whoosh. :-)
Jack Cuyler
>> > You admit that Tolkien probably got inspired by older, already
>> > existent works,
>>
>> Yes...
>>
>> > but then go on to say you believe that JKR simply got her's off
>> > Tolkien.
>>
>> Never said that. I said it's probable that LoTR was _a_ source of
>> inspiration and ideas for Rowling, not _the_ source. Also I said it
>> might have been a source for inspiration, not for a ripoff.
>
> Among other things (like paralleling characters), you actually said "it
> is quite reasonable to assume that it might have been a source of
> inspiration and ideas for Rowling." and "However since LoTR precedes HP
> by a few decades, and is a seminal work in it's genre in recent times,
> it's highly likely that it was a rich source of ideas and inspiration
> for Rowling when thinking about the details of the Potter series." so I
> have simply read what you wrote.
>
> But you seem to be trying to water this sentiment down now you have been
> challenged? :-)
Did you actually read what you were quoting? Exactly what is watered
down?
"it is quite reasonable to assume that it might have been a source of
inspiration and ideas for Rowling."
"I said it's probable that LoTR was _a_ source of inspiration and ideas
for Rowling, not _the_ source."
"it's highly likely that it was a rich source of ideas and inspiration
for Rowling when thinking about the details of the Potter series."
"Also I said it might have been a source for inspiration, not for a
ripoff."
Seems like exactly the same sentiment, using the same strength words.
There's nothing watered down at all.
--
Cheers,
Jack
I WILL NEVER WIN AN EMMY
I WILL NEVER WIN AN EMMY
I WILL NEVER WIN AN EMMY
I WILL NEVER WIN AN EMMY
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 9F21
Yellow
I disagree.
Toon
wrote:
>> Which would be great, if any such polls were used.
>
>They are used, when commissioned, and I have been randomly called up
>twice to give my opinion on topical issues.
But most writes/producers/etc do not commission such things.
>> Then TV has the Neilson ratings, but they're anything but a fair
>> representation of America's viewing preferences.
>>
>
>Sorry, I'm a Brit so that's a whoosh. :-)
Let's just say a great idea to randomly sample TV Viewers viewing
habits was perverted do to the fact that those who get to rate the
shows are not a fair representation of American TV Viewers. The
Neilsons also only just begun adapting to TIVO's and such, as well,
having previously skewered information.
Instead of seeing what the country generally likes and dislikes, we
get a bunch of Midwesterners calling the shots, and they seem to have
tastes that differ from the rest of the country.
Yellow
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:06:18 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Which would be great, if any such polls were used.
> >
> >They are used, when commissioned, and I have been randomly called up
> >twice to give my opinion on topical issues.
>
> But most writes/producers/etc do not commission such things.
But unfortunately that doesn't make opinions expressed in forums more
reliable. :-)
>
> >> Then TV has the Neilson ratings, but they're anything but a fair
> >> representation of America's viewing preferences.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, I'm a Brit so that's a whoosh. :-)
>
> Let's just say a great idea to randomly sample TV Viewers viewing
> habits was perverted do to the fact that those who get to rate the
> shows are not a fair representation of American TV Viewers. The
> Neilsons also only just begun adapting to TIVO's and such, as well,
> having previously skewered information.
>
> Instead of seeing what the country generally likes and dislikes, we
> get a bunch of Midwesterners calling the shots, and they seem to have
> tastes that differ from the rest of the country.
>
OK - Thanks!
David Sueme
The
> Neilsons also only just begun adapting to TIVO's and such, as well,
> having previously skewered information.
Toon - this is the Potter group, not the Buffy group.
> Instead of seeing what the country generally likes and dislikes, we
> get a bunch of Midwesterners calling the shots, and they seem to have
> tastes that differ from the rest of the country.
If it were not for the midwest the country would be eating oranges,
avacodoes and cotton. I have several recipies for cotton that I'd
just love to share with you, Toon.
Dave
Toon
wrote:
>> But most writes/producers/etc do not commission such things.
>
>But unfortunately that doesn't make opinions expressed in forums more
>reliable. :-)
Reliable, no, but it's something to go on. And wouldn't people be
disagreeing if they did indeed disagree? But, it's not any more
reliable to say those not speaking do disagree, and outnumber the
speakers.
George Johnson
news:xg64oinm3df4$.536hdbm1ffeg.dlg@40tude.net...
| Bill Blakely schrieb:
|
| > While she was borrowing so much else from Tolkien
|
| --
So how do you sit down?
George Johnson
news:MPG.21d4f40af...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
| Nate Edel [arch...@sfchat.org] said:
| > Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote:
| > > Out of interest (and you have rather got me thinking here) I've never
| > > got on with LOTR so have never read much beyond the first few chapters
| > > of the first book (did enjoy the films though!) where as I have found
HP
| > > accessible and enjoyable so it is as well for me that we do not say
that
| >
| > In fairness, depending on exactly how far you made it, you might want to
| > give LotR another shot if that's all you've read. _Fellowship_ starts
very
| > slowly, relative to the pacing it reaches shortly after.
| >
| > OTOH, if you've made it past the introduction of Aragorn, and still
don't
| > like it, then it's not just the slow start.
| >
| >
|
| I cannot see me reading LOTR now to be honest, not unless I live to a
| very ripe age and run out of books that I actually want to read like the
| biography of Elizabeth 1st I have by my bed side for example, the one on
| Alan Turing that has somehow found its way into my bathroom, and the
| small collection of books on James Cook and Robert Scott I have been
| building up over the last 5 years but are yet to be read.
|
| I also want to re-read the Heechee books by Frederick Pohl and
| downloaded text versions to put on my Palm only yesterday.
|
|
| LOTR had it chance and failed, and now I have DVDs!
Just remember that the first Heechee book is slow and a bit plodding and
the series doesn't really pick up until the second book. It's been about 2
decades since I read the first one, but the later ones are modestly
memorable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heechee
I kind of like pondering on the series using the perspective of
"Stargate SG1" (humans finding the scattered junk piles of long lost alien
races and not exactly getting along well in the process yet still proving
themselves competent once they get the ability to conceptualize the science
behind the artifacts).
Another good one to take a look at in a similar genre is Greg Bear's
"The Way" series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_%28Greg_Bear%29
I am also rather fond of "Diasporia" with its "yeah we were some
seriously fucked-up-in-the-head organic creatures, but we got past that
self-destructive nonsense" mindset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28novel%29
. Bear's Infinite Hexamon in "The Way" plays off nicely conceptually with
the "Diasporia" universe. I got a nice mental tweak overlay later when I
read Asimov's "Foundation" series (plus the extended imagining of
"Foundation's Friends") and started to mentally look at humanity in 100-year
bursts and consider human associations (social clubs, religions, families,
political groups, businesses, active military, celebrity cults, fan clubs,
etc) as multi-person organisms which have group goals and must feed on money
and replenish themselves with new members to replace the ones that died off
or strayed. These meta-mind organisms also must fight off other meta-mind
organisms (sometimes to the death of all its members) and aquire natural
resources to keep its members healthy and employed. Some meta-mind
organisms are literally mindless in that it has a meta-body seeking a vague
goal, yet no "brain functions" working for the survival of the meta-mind
organism. Meta-mind organisms have lasting memories beyond the individual
humans making up the meta-mind creature by usage of printed materials,
audio-video recordings, and computer networks. Some meta-mind creatures are
far more aggressive and ruthless than others and should be taken down by
force if they seek to gobble up the stray unassociated humans. That led me
to appreciate some facets of often illogical humanity that made no sense
unless thought of in the meta-mind train of thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series
Yellow
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:34:25 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> But most writes/producers/etc do not commission such things.
> >
> >But unfortunately that doesn't make opinions expressed in forums more
> >reliable. :-)
>
> Reliable, no, but it's something to go on.
Yes, so is a toilet bowl.
> And wouldn't people be
> disagreeing if they did indeed disagree?
I've already addressed that point at extraordinary length and in a
nutshell, not necessarily and probably not, as they do not care what
your opinion is.
> But, it's not any more
> reliable to say those not speaking do disagree, and outnumber the
> speakers.
What is true is that we don't know the truth. That isn't changed by
saying that because we do not know the truth, unreliable data should be
used, as a kind of pseudo truth, instead.
What we have to do instead, as I have been saying over and over, is just
say we do not know. :-)
Yellow
> | LOTR had it chance and failed, and now I have DVDs!
>
> Just remember that the first Heechee book is slow and a bit plodding and
> the series doesn't really pick up until the second book. It's been about 2
> decades since I read the first one, but the later ones are modestly
> memorable.
Plodding? I ate Gateway up and was probably still only a teenager at the
time!
<snip>
Toon
Very carefully, on an inflatable donut.
Toon
wrote:
>> And wouldn't people be
>> disagreeing if they did indeed disagree?
>
>I've already addressed that point at extraordinary length and in a
>nutshell, not necessarily and probably not, as they do not care what
>your opinion is.
Exactly. And it's stupid to ignore the only people giving an opinion
on the assumption those who aren't must by default disagree, and those
silent people are in larger numbers.
>What is true is that we don't know the truth. That isn't changed by
>saying that because we do not know the truth, unreliable data should be
>used, as a kind of pseudo truth, instead.
It's all there is to even guess a basis for. At least you know some
truth. Makes no sense to claim the truth must be the opposite.
>What we have to do instead, as I have been saying over and over, is just
>say we do not know. :-)
But they don't. They say they do know, and it's the opposite of what
is said.
If you want to know what the fans like and don't like, which is
logical? Listening to those who share their opinions, or assuming
those not sharing their opinions disagree with the few vocal ones, and
represent a much larger fan base? The logical choice to see how your
audience likes your programming is to use the info at hand: what
people are actually saying. It's not scientific, but it's not
supposed to be scientific. It's supposed to just be a quick way to
gage audience reaction to your ideas. But the execs reverse it.
Instead of listening to the only comments around, they insist it's
opposite of what the majority believe. Which is the most unscientific
research of all. It's not psuedo truth, it's imagined truth. "Well,
if 50 online folks say this is a bad idea, the rest of the fans must
think it's a good idea. Let's keep doing it. It's what the majority
of fans want."
Bill Blakely
wrote:
>Moon wrote:
>
>> santosh schrieb:
>>
>>> Whether you like it or not, quite a lot of themes and details in the
>>> HP series have very strong parallels in LoTR.
>>
>> Strong parallels like what?
>
>Frodo <-> Harry
>Gandalf <-> Dumbledore
>Nazgul <-> Dementors
>Sauron <-> Voldemort
>The Fellowship <-> Order of the Phoenix
>Saruman <-> Grindelwald
>One Ring <-> Horcrux
>Beorn <-> Animagus
>Morgoth <-> Salazar Slytherin
>
>Of the top of my head. I noticed many more strikingly similar details as
>I read LoTR.
Watching the LotR movies inspired me to start re-reading the books
over the holidays, and now, more than half way through, I'm more
struck than ever by how much JKR seems to have been inspired by
certain aspects of LotR.
Also, the more I read the books, the less I think of the movies. The
look and feel of the movies is great but they really mangle the story
and some of the characters, more so than the HP movies.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Bill Blakely
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fkmacc$abn$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Yellow wrote:
>>
>>> santosh [santo...@gmail.com] said:
>>>> David Sueme wrote:
>>>
>>> ,snip>
>>>>
>>>> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
>>>> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
>>>> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
>>>>
>>>> People expect more details after seven long books.
>>>
>>> That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but
>>> never-the-less vocal, people".
>>
>> Perhaps more than "some". Many or most I'd say, judging by the reception
>> of that epilogue in this and a few other forums.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Personally, I hope JKR is having a ball, winding people like you up.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Rest assured that I'm not wound up at all. All these posts are merely a
>> mildly funny and interesting way to waste a little time. :-)
>
>
>I don't know how representative this forum is, but I'd say it's a large
>majority who didn't like the epilogue, and I'm hard pressed to think of many
>positive comments about it. I'm one of the few who really enjoyed DH and
>even I didn't like the epilogue lol.
>
>It's hard to see how some of the recent interview details could have been
>included though - I don't think an epilogue is an appropriate vehicle for
>much of that information as it would just become a random dumping ground.
JKR should have thought of it as an appendix, not an epilogue.
>On the other hand, given JKR had created a huge amount of backstory with
>loads of detail that there just wasn't room enough for in the books,
People keep saying this, but I don't think it would have taken more
than 30 pages to sum up the post-DH story well enough to make most
readers happy. And people would have still bought the encyclopedia.
> I think
>it's great it's coming out in interviews rather than never see the light of
>day. Even if I disagree with a few of her comments, e.g. that Harry wasn't
>quite a horcrux. Honestly, hasn't she READ the books?!! :-P
>
>DaveD
Consistency, like mathematics, doesn't seem to be JKR's forte. But
then I understand that Tolkien wasn't always consistent about his
world either.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
>santosh [santo...@gmail.com] said:
>> David Sueme wrote:
>
>,snip>
>>
>> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
>> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
>> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
>>
>> People expect more details after seven long books.
>
>That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but never-the-less
>vocal, people".
>
>>
>> > I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
>> > she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
>> > "gay" character revelations.
>>
>> She should have revealed everything she wanted to reveal in the books,
>> including Dumbledore. As it stands the info she has given out in post
>> DH interviews is several times the size of that useless epilogue.
>>
>>
>
>Personally, I hope JKR is having a ball, winding people like you up. :-)
You seem more wound up than anyone you're addressing.
I do think that disappointment with the epilogue may, in part, reflect
disappointment with the way the HP series ended without fulfilling its
earlier promise. Thanks to the lame epilogue, DH ended not with a
bang but with a whimper, and the same can be said of the whole series.
Yellow
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:25:07 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >santosh [santo...@gmail.com] said:
> >> David Sueme wrote:
> >
> >,snip>
> >>
> >> > The sense of the epiloge was it's economy. It stated, essentially,
> >> > that the Voldemort war was truly won and that the wizarding world
> >> > continued - and that really is all that is essential.
> >>
> >> People expect more details after seven long books.
> >
> >That should read "some" people, or even "just a few, but never-the-less
> >vocal, people".
> >
> >>
> >> > I take it from you that Rowling's sense failed her. I wonder where
> >> > she found time to answer detail questions with a schedule full of
> >> > "gay" character revelations.
> >>
> >> She should have revealed everything she wanted to reveal in the books,
> >> including Dumbledore. As it stands the info she has given out in post
> >> DH interviews is several times the size of that useless epilogue.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Personally, I hope JKR is having a ball, winding people like you up. :-)
>
> You seem more wound up than anyone you're addressing.
Why do you say that? I love all JKR's little revelations and long may
they continue. I especially liked the one about Dumbledore - wonderful
stuff! :-)
>
> I do think that disappointment with the epilogue may, in part, reflect
> disappointment with the way the HP series ended without fulfilling its
> earlier promise. Thanks to the lame epilogue, DH ended not with a
> bang but with a whimper, and the same can be said of the whole series.
If you can only define the series by the epilogue, a couple of pages
long at that, then I guess the books have missed their mark where you
are concerned.
David Sueme
> Watching the LotR movies inspired me to start re-reading the books
> over the holidays, and now, more than half way through, I'm more
> struck than ever by how much JKR seems to have been inspired by
> certain aspects of LotR.
Not to mention Narnia, e.g. the room in HP7 that is such a parallel to
the tent in "The Last Battle", where DD = Aslan, Harry = Narnians, and
future Voldy = the dwarves who refuse to be taken in. In this
instance I suspect that the similarities are deliberate and that JK
Nitwit is reaching for an "allusion" to one of the greats of British
fantasy fiction.
> Also, the more I read the books, the less I think of the movies. The
> look and feel of the movies is great but they really mangle the story
> and some of the characters, more so than the HP movies.
In each case, the problem is one of simplification. In the HP movies
the issue is that WB insists that the movies be no longer than the
"standard" length, so that theatre operators would not be discouraged
from handling an HP film due to less turnover in his room. In the
Rings case, Jackson simply seems to have missed the subtleties of some
characters or else assumed that the audience wouldn't know any
better. The case in point is Gimli. Gimli is in some small respects
the comic relief of the Rings cycle; Jackson siezes on that and
reduces the proud dwarf to a buffoon. It's more than wrong - it's
stupid.
Dave
Bill Blakely
wrote:
That not being at all what I said, I think my post missed its mark
where you are concerned.
I was positing a synecdochic relationship where disappointment in the
epilogue stands for disappointment in the way the whole series ended,
which to me means disappointment in the last two books. I define the
series by the first five books, which were all very good to excellent
and almost seem to have been written by a different author.
Bill Blakely
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 9:58 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Watching the LotR movies inspired me to start re-reading the books
>> over the holidays, and now, more than half way through, I'm more
>> struck than ever by how much JKR seems to have been inspired by
>> certain aspects of LotR.
>
>Not to mention Narnia, e.g. the room in HP7 that is such a parallel to
>the tent in "The Last Battle", where DD = Aslan, Harry = Narnians, and
>future Voldy = the dwarves who refuse to be taken in. In this
>instance I suspect that the similarities are deliberate and that JK
>Nitwit is reaching for an "allusion" to one of the greats of British
>fantasy fiction.
>
>> Also, the more I read the books, the less I think of the movies. The
>> look and feel of the movies is great but they really mangle the story
>> and some of the characters, more so than the HP movies.
>
>In each case, the problem is one of simplification.
It's more than mere simplification, which I can understand; it's
substantially altering the plot and some of the characters.
> In the HP movies
>the issue is that WB insists that the movies be no longer than the
>"standard" length, so that theatre operators would not be discouraged
>from handling an HP film due to less turnover in his room. In the
>Rings case, Jackson simply seems to have missed the subtleties of some
>characters or else assumed that the audience wouldn't know any
>better. The case in point is Gimli. Gimli is in some small respects
>the comic relief of the Rings cycle; Jackson siezes on that and
>reduces the proud dwarf to a buffoon. It's more than wrong - it's
>stupid.
Treating Gimli as a buffoon reminds me of all the Sherlock Holmes
filmmakers who have treated Dr. Watson as a buffoon. But Gimil was
far from the only managled character. The various "special features"
that come with the DVDs repeatedly assure the viewer that the
filmmakers had the utmost respect for the original material, but
having re-read the original material, I see they treated it with a
distinct lack of respect, as filmmakers almost invariably do.
Yellow
Did you look that word up special?
Thom Madura
There is another explanation possible (Lots of them probably) - Maybe
JKR is hedging her bets about not writing about Harry Potter again. SHe
could technically do it by writing about all the other characters
except Harry - for instance.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
No.
>> where disappointment in the
>> epilogue stands for disappointment in the way the whole series ended,
>> which to me means disappointment in the last two books. I define the
>> series by the first five books, which were all very good to excellent
>> and almost seem to have been written by a different author.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
--
Yellow
> Yellow wrote:
> There is another explanation possible (Lots of them probably) - Maybe
> JKR is hedging her bets about not writing about Harry Potter again. SHe
> could technically do it by writing about all the other characters
> except Harry - for instance.
>
If you get a chance, watch the documentary that was shown on British TV
the other night - it has just been posted to the binary group.
Quite a revelation, in lots of ways.
Thom Madura
I cannot access the binary group from remote - I am in Hong Kong again.
But I do work in the - which gives me access in another way.
Thom Madura
I just went through the interview quickly - I will see it again. I am
sure I missed something.
At least some of the story of her life was known to me - and was not a
surprise. Some of it brought back memories that had me laughing. At
least one time - early on in my career - I remember having a reported
and camera crew follow me into men's room (Yes - a female reporter at
that). Noting that I am 66 - back then this was unimagined. I am happy
that my time in the sun ended early. I would not want to have gone
through that all my life. I wish her luck.
I take note she continues writing because she needs it - as an
unsuccessful retiree myself - I have had the same problem. I also note
that she wished to be the authority on her story - because it was her
story - something a few people here could try to understand.
She considers that last book to be her best - I have always considered
the first one the best one - she introduced the world so very well in
it. Yes - POA may have been better written - but it was not as engaging
to me as the first one was.
My only problem is the topic of her next book - which she says is for
younger readers than the last HP book. I am interested to see what she
means by "political".
Back to work - see ya!
David Sueme
I define the
> >> series by the first five books, which were all very good to excellent
> >> and almost seem to have been written by a different author.
Book six was written by a different author. I first raised this
possibility.
When I first started posting in this newsgroup I was villified as a
troublemaker.
I accept your apoligies in advance.
Dave
Thomas Gagne
> <snip>
>
> Watching the LotR movies inspired me to start re-reading the books
> over the holidays, and now, more than half way through, I'm more
> struck than ever by how much JKR seems to have been inspired by
> certain aspects of LotR.
>
> Also, the more I read the books, the less I think of the movies. The
> look and feel of the movies is great but they really mangle the story
> and some of the characters, more so than the HP movies.
>
/main/ characters there would have been in the movies had they all been
preserved?
HP has done it's share of trimming characters. Doby has all but
disappeared since his introduction in CoS, and Crouch's house elf
(what's her name) never even showed up in GOF--much less Doby.
And in OOtP, the fact they blasted a wall into the Room of Requirements
seems totally outside cannon, but it does eliminate a bunch of screen
time for Malfoy (who was notably mostly absent) in OOtP.
Reckless, is all I can say of the transition from book to movie for OOtP.
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamco.com/anything.php> to read
my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit
<http://tggagne.blogspot.com/> for politics, society and culture.
Yellow
> Yellow wrote:
> > Thom Madura [Tomm...@optonline.net] said:
> >> Yellow wrote:
> >
> >> There is another explanation possible (Lots of them probably) - Maybe
> >> JKR is hedging her bets about not writing about Harry Potter again. SHe
> >> could technically do it by writing about all the other characters
> >> except Harry - for instance.
> >>
> >
> > If you get a chance, watch the documentary that was shown on British TV
> > the other night - it has just been posted to the binary group.
> >
> > Quite a revelation, in lots of ways.
>
>
> I just went through the interview quickly - I will see it again. I am
> sure I missed something.
>
> At least some of the story of her life was known to me - and was not a
> surprise. Some of it brought back memories that had me laughing. At
> least one time - early on in my career - I remember having a reported
> and camera crew follow me into men's room (Yes - a female reporter at
> that). Noting that I am 66 - back then this was unimagined. I am happy
> that my time in the sun ended early. I would not want to have gone
> through that all my life. I wish her luck.
As a relative newcomer to this group, may I ask about your moment in the
sun? I have picked up that you have worked within a creative field (for
the want of a better description) and to be honest, I'm just damned
nosy. :-)
> I take note she continues writing because she needs it - as an
> unsuccessful retiree myself - I have had the same problem. I also note
> that she wished to be the authority on her story - because it was her
> story - something a few people here could try to understand.
I thought that was quite key too.
I have always had my hackles raised by people who resent that the books
are not what they want them to be because they are *her* stories (and of
course we have had the copyright issue) and it was good to hear how she
feels about her writing.
She offers some clarity on the subject and hopefully those who seem to
see JKR as some kind of bystander in all this, might rethink their
attitudes after listening to how she feels about it all.
> She considers that last book to be her best - I have always considered
> the first one the best one - she introduced the world so very well in
> it. Yes - POA may have been better written - but it was not as engaging
> to me as the first one was.
While OOTP will always be my personal favourite, I agree that the first
book is probably the best for the reason you give - it pulled us into
her world and left us begging for more.
> My only problem is the topic of her next book - which she says is for
> younger readers than the last HP book. I am interested to see what she
> means by "political".
I'll have to watch again (new PVR for Christmas!) because I could have
sworn she said older readers but I probably miss heard.
> Back to work - see ya!
>
Have fun!
Thom Madura
Actually - no one here really knows about my moment in the sun. When I
was quite young, I was a very gifted Pianist. I was always the second
coming of some great one. I started playing when I was three. I played
with Arthur Fiedler and the Pops before I was 6 (Rhapsody in Blue no
less) and was a full union member at age 7. I regularly played in
recording sessions in NYC by more well known names than I care to
remember. One of my songs became a very big hit in another country -
where that situation happened during a visit. One of my jingles that I
wrote back then created more than 50 years of royalties and still pays
some bills.
Physical problems, surgery, and radiation unfortunately took its toll -
causing nerve damage in my right hand that ended much of this part of my
life by age 12. I am not sure I would have wanted any of my family to
give up their childhood in the same way - but I do not regret the time.
I sure wish I could play as well today as I did then - but I still had
my musical Knowledge. If life is a series of great ups and downs - I
have sure had a few.
Edward McArdle
Thomas Gagne <tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>
> And in OOtP, the fact they blasted a wall into the Room of Requirements
> seems totally outside cannon,
One of those misspellings that really works!
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Bill Blakely
<tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>Bill Blakely wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> Watching the LotR movies inspired me to start re-reading the books
>> over the holidays, and now, more than half way through, I'm more
>> struck than ever by how much JKR seems to have been inspired by
>> certain aspects of LotR.
>>
>> Also, the more I read the books, the less I think of the movies. The
>> look and feel of the movies is great but they really mangle the story
>> and some of the characters, more so than the HP movies.
>>
>I think some of that was out of necessity. Can you imagine how many
>/main/ characters there would have been in the movies had they all been
>preserved?
The main characters are all preserved in LotR but they're changed
significantly, along with the plot, and one major character -- Arwen,
who barely appears in the books -- is actually added.
>HP has done it's share of trimming characters. Doby has all but
>disappeared since his introduction in CoS, and Crouch's house elf
>(what's her name) never even showed up in GOF--much less Doby.
>
>And in OOtP, the fact they blasted a wall into the Room of Requirements
>seems totally outside cannon, but it does eliminate a bunch of screen
>time for Malfoy (who was notably mostly absent) in OOtP.
>
>Reckless, is all I can say of the transition from book to movie for OOtP.
I haven't seen the OotP movie yet, but through GoF they were more
faithful to the books than LotR.
Yellow
That's fascinating and thanks for not minding telling it to us!