Merits of Harry Potter
Chris Wright
graham
"Chris Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f84Ja.255181$3C2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Gets people reading.
May get people interested in fantasy genre
Encourage people to write stories and take an interest in litriture.
Makes JKRowling richer.
Graham
Chris Wright
"graham" <grah...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bd2l70$7jq$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Chris Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:f84Ja.255181$3C2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> Gets people reading.
Disraeli said something to the effect of, the printing press is the bane of
mankind. Cute, but some truth to it. Some.
> May get people interested in fantasy genre
Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
outside and soft in the middle. And tastes like crap.
Rich, expansive, colorful, PLAUSIBLE worlds are where the heart of fantasy
resides. Potter is rich and colorful, but that is all.
> Encourage people to write stories and take an interest in litriture.
I'd be more inspired by Eddings, Feist, Tolkien, Brooks, Brothers Grimm, etc
etc. than by Rawling's vile gutterspew.
> Makes JKRowling richer.
She's the least happy person in England, whoop-de-doo-da-day.
Dresses nicely though, I give her full marks for taste in skirts, sweaters,
and leather booties.
Look hard enough in the Chamber of Secrets DVD interview, and you'll see
that she's done a little more than collaborate with her screenwriter
associate.
Jette Goldie
"Chris Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote
> > Makes JKRowling richer.
>
> She's the least happy person in England, whoop-de-doo-da-day.
She lives in Scotland.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
INTERACTION - the 63rd Worldcon
"A European Worldcon in Glasgow"
http://interaction.worldcon.org.uk/
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>
> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
a good fantasy is one you enjoy
what might be a good fantaasy fro me
might not be a good one for you
so what?
why should my enjoyment be diminished by your lack of?
Chris Wright
"coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges" <mair_...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:mair_fheal-21...@c102.ppp.tsoft.com...
Heavens above! -- a thousand times, it should not!
So what? Grow up. Unless you are twenty or younger, +/- 5 years.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote:
im three today
tommorrow ill be one hundred and one
monday ill be thirty five
Chris Wright
Good for you friend.
Patsy Litel
none! LOL
Pradera
tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
>> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
>>
>> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
>
> a good fantasy is one you enjoy
>
a good thing is something someone enjoys.
therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
somewhere who enjoys something.
hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
--
Pradera
---
Lord, here comes the flood
We will say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive
http://www.pradera-castle.prv.pl/earthdawn
http://www.pradera-castle.prv.pl/
http://www.tolkien-gen.prv.pl/
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote:
> On 22 cze 2003, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten
> tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
>
> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> >>
> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
> >
> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> >
>
> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> somewhere who enjoys something.
> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
only if by -discussing-
you meaning to forcing your views on others
Chris Wright
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns93A2EB1C258Epr...@130.133.1.4...
> On 22 cze 2003, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten
> tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
>
> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> >>
> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
> >
> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> >
>
> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> somewhere who enjoys something.
> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
>
There is culture, and there is trash.
Taking the position of relativism is perfectly valid, but I think we all
know in our hearts that soccer is a higher form of sport than pro wrestling,
and Tolkien is a higher form of literature than Potter.
What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move its
audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory delight
for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
Chris Wright
"Patsy Litel" <pli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2739-3EF...@storefull-2117.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Hey, if you can't think of any, why do think anybody else can? There are
> none! LOL
>
That was kinda the idea. =P
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> know in our hearts that soccer is a higher form of sport than pro wrestling,
> and Tolkien is a higher form of literature than Potter.
crap
this is the same crap the literati blow out when they prove
lotr is a waste of paper compared
to the true literature of the twentieth ccentury
(jerry lewis or sam beckett depending)
you dont want to watch pro wrestling then change the channel
i dont watch sports
should i pontificate about your obession with gladitorial games?
and the shallowness of proxy exertion when you should be out on a bicycle
or hiking in the hills or joingin a softball game at the park?
do with your sunday what you find most fulfilling
pursue your own happiness
and ill pursue mine
where those coincide we can share the experience and insights
where they diverge we each pursue our own interest without harming the other
> What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
> supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move its
> audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
heard the same thing about starwars
some people enjoy denouncing it as pap for a guiillbe public
others have found the notion of the force insightful to their lives
whos right?
was dh lawerence a pornographer
or exploring the importance of sexuality to spirtual wholeness?
> Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
> outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
> beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
> themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory delight
> for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
solzhenitsyn would disagree perhaps
with you that any fantasy can be of value
by refusing to deal with the real world
should i believe him or you
Steven Hunter
to the fantasy genre. Besides, they're fun little stories; it's a wonderful
in which to lose yourself for an afternoon.
Sam's the Man
> Hey, if you can't think of any, why do think anybody else can? There are
> none! LOL
Ah, ignorance is bliss then, is it?
Sam's the Man
> "Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns93A2EB1C258Epr...@130.133.1.4...
> > On 22 cze 2003, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten
> > tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
> >
> > >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> > >>
> > >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
> > >
> > > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> > >
> >
> > a good thing is something someone enjoys.
> > therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> > somewhere who enjoys something.
> > hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
> >
>
> There is culture, and there is trash.
>
> Taking the position of relativism is perfectly valid, but I think we all
> know in our hearts that soccer is a higher form of sport than pro wrestling,
> and Tolkien is a higher form of literature than Potter.
Pro wrestling is fake, soccer is not ( though soccer is overhyped and
boring, and played by gits who fall over and cry at the slightest
provocation.. ).
Tolkien is not boring, and Potter is not a fake attempt at fiction. So
your snotty little comparison really stinks.
>
> What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
> supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move its
> audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
>
I bawled my eyes out when reading 'Prior Incantatem', so your
comparison stinks again. And it's not clear to me that reading Tolkien
necessarily enlightens a person - I see plenty of ignoramuses posting
here, after all, and plenty of enlightened people posting in afhp.
> Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
> outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
> beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
> themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory delight
> for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
Both are works of fiction. Both can be enjoyed without making
pointless comparison, as if reading one made you smarter, or a better
class of person than reading the other.
If you can find some solid ground to make a comparsion between the
works, ie an objective measure, then by all means, bring out your
ruler. Don't just ponce like a git because you didn't enjoy them while
others do.
Sam's the Man
> tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
>
> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> >>
> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
> >
> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> >
>
> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
Why deliberately misquote the OP? He said 'a good fantasy is one you
enjoy' , not that everything you enjoy is objectively good.
> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> somewhere who enjoys something.
> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
>
It's hard to discuss any topic with people who think their subjective
opinion represents what should be objectively true for anybody else.
Tastes differ. Deal with it.
Pradera
>> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
>> >>
>> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on
the
>> >
>> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
>> >
>>
>> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
>
> Why deliberately misquote the OP? He said 'a good fantasy is one you
> enjoy' , not that everything you enjoy is objectively good.
>
1) I know what his views are, or what he presents them to be
2) why the exception of fantasy? I'm just extrapolating.
>
>> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
>> somewhere who enjoys something.
>> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
>>
>
> It's hard to discuss any topic with people who think their subjective
> opinion represents what should be objectively true for anybody else.
> Tastes differ. Deal with it.
No, I won't. 'Tastes differ' is rubbish when it is used to stop any
debate. Art is not food.
John D. Goulden
instead of watching toons on the tube. This is a Good Thing.
I give HP 1 some credit for helping get my two older kids (now 10, 11)
hooked on reading in general and fantasy in particular, and for sparking
their interest in LOTR (it didn't hurt that their dad suggested that LOTR
was "way better" than HP). Both read FOTR before seing the Jackson film
(they had seen the animated versions many times so they knew the basic plot)
and they've each read the entire trilogy several times since the FOTR
release, making them among the few of their age who have had the pleasure of
exploring the books before seing the Jackson movies. I caught them the other
day debating the merits of certain seens in the Jackson and Backshi
versions of the movie in terms of how well they portrayed what was writen in
the book - they had the Backshi tape cued up in the VCR, the Jackson DVD in
the DVD player, and two copies of FOTR open on the floor. This also appears
to have primed them for other fantasy / sci-fi fare (it didn't hurt that Dad
has exposed them - overexposed, according to their mother - to Star Wars and
Star Trek since approximately birth). We watched a borrowed DVD of John
Harrison's "Dune" the other night and now my daughter wants to read the
book! My son is curious to see why I think the book on which the movie
"Starship Troopers" is based is so much better than the film - so if it
turns out that Rowling's books leads him to Heinlein (and perhaps others) I
will be pretty pleased with the merits of HP.
--
John Goulden
d30
wrote:
>"Chris Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<kXqJa.289657$Vi5.7...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>> "Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
>> news:Xns93A2EB1C258Epr...@130.133.1.4...
>> > On 22 cze 2003, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten
>> > tomys des anges) scribbled loosely:
>> >
>> > >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
>> > >>
>> > >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on the
>> > >
>> > > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
>> > >
>> >
>> > a good thing is something someone enjoys.
>> > therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
>> > somewhere who enjoys something.
>> > hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
>> >
>>
>> There is culture, and there is trash.
>>
>> Taking the position of relativism is perfectly valid, but I think we all
>> know in our hearts that soccer is a higher form of sport than pro wrestling,
>> and Tolkien is a higher form of literature than Potter.
>
>Pro wrestling is fake, soccer is not ( though soccer is overhyped and
>boring, and played by gits who fall over and cry at the slightest
>provocation.. ).
>> What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
>> supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move its
>> audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
What does it mean that both of you give the name of the author for
JRRT but the name of the character for JRK? The difficulty in seeing
the "art" in Rowling might stem from the same source, don't you think?
Tolkein does this this and this, so his fiction needs to be read on
this and this level. Fine. But then you need to say Rowling does this
this and this, so her fiction needs to be read on this and this level.
That is, you are, in essence, comparing a person with a character,
instead of comparing two authors. So, like, stop it.
>I bawled my eyes out when reading 'Prior Incantatem', so your
>comparison stinks again. And it's not clear to me that reading Tolkien
>necessarily enlightens a person - I see plenty of ignoramuses posting
>here, after all, and plenty of enlightened people posting in afhp.
>
>
>> Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
>> outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
>> beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
>> themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory delight
>> for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
The unwillingness of authority to see - Rohan, the Shire, Ministry of
Magic, the majority of witches and wizards. Death of the father -
numerous examples in LoTR, including Gandalf (father figure) for
instance, and in Potter, including father figure Sirius. Allegorical
interpretations are open for both, whether or not JRRT explicitely
stated he didn't intend to be allegorical or not. Simplicity, honesty,
bravery as most direct way to combat evil and bring about balance -
both. Cost of defeating evil - loss of some of that simplicity - both.
etc. etc. The claim that Rowling doesn't deal with "eternal human
themes" seems to be, rather, a resentiment over nomenclature - black
riders is better than dementers, the fellowship of the ring is better
than the order of the phoenix etc. etc. Frankly, the idea of talking
trees can be seen as just as silly as anything Rowling has written.
Chris Wright
Just use your common sense, that's pretty much what it all comes back to
when dealing with matters of taste.
Jette Goldie
"Sam's the Man" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8e2ac15.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Chris Wright" <cjwri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<kXqJa.289657$Vi5.7...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>
> > know in our hearts that soccer is a higher form of sport than pro
wrestling,
> > and Tolkien is a higher form of literature than Potter.
>
> Pro wrestling is fake, soccer is not ( though soccer is overhyped and
> boring, and played by gits who fall over and cry at the slightest
> provocation.. ).
"pro" Wrestling always was rather.... theatrical - even in
the days of Mick McManus and Giant Haystacks - but it
was a good deal more believeable than that WWF stuff
they show now. However there are real wrestling matches
going on even today, where the participants are paid
(making them *pros*).
(not that I'm a fan of such, per se - but I do know it happens)
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Chris Wright
Well, at least I do not call names, sir.
>
>
> >
> > What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
> > supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move
its
> > audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
> >
>
> I bawled my eyes out when reading 'Prior Incantatem', so your
> comparison stinks again. And it's not clear to me that reading Tolkien
> necessarily enlightens a person - I see plenty of ignoramuses posting
> here, after all, and plenty of enlightened people posting in afhp.
Yeah, I've bawled my eyes out plenty of times, though not always because I
had just experienced something good.
Your second comment is specious in the highest degree.
Tolkien may not necessarily enlighten or enrich his audience, but he often
does.
>
>
> > Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
> > outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
> > beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
> > themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory
delight
> > for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
>
> Both are works of fiction. Both can be enjoyed without making
> pointless comparison, as if reading one made you smarter, or a better
> class of person than reading the other.
You assume too much about my intent. I only wish to explain why it is that I
feel Harry Potter to be trash, in comparison to something like LoTR. I am
not trying to come off as a classier or smarter person. Even if I was
interested in such vanities, which I assure you I am not, I know full well
that the vanglorious individual always comes off sounding like a bit of a
prick, so I wouldn't bother in the first place. Capiche?
>
> If you can find some solid ground to make a comparsion between the
> works, ie an objective measure, then by all means, bring out your
> ruler. Don't just ponce like a git because you didn't enjoy them while
> others do.
You are quite the insulting individual, congratulations.
Chris Wright
Yes, we will deal with it.
Who is making valid points, and who is not? That is the question.
Chris Wright
> On 23 cze 2003, samd...@hotmail.com (Sam's the Man) scribbled loosely:
>
> >> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> >> >>
> >> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on
> the
> >> >
> >> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> >> >
> >>
> >> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
> >
> > Why deliberately misquote the OP? He said 'a good fantasy is one you
> > enjoy' , not that everything you enjoy is objectively good.
> >
> 1) I know what his views are, or what he presents them to be
> 2) why the exception of fantasy? I'm just extrapolating.
>
> >
> >> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> >> somewhere who enjoys something.
> >> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
> >>
> >
> > It's hard to discuss any topic with people who think their subjective
> > opinion represents what should be objectively true for anybody else.
> > Tastes differ. Deal with it.
>
> No, I won't. 'Tastes differ' is rubbish when it is used to stop any
> debate. Art is not food.
>
Thank you!
The relativist position is simply a lazy excuse to not bother to defend
one's preferences in literature.
So, can someone cite a reason that Potter is so great, beyond the
entertainment value?
AC
It gets kids to turn off their Play Stations and read. For that alone
Rowlings should be knighted.
I wouldn't call it trash, as you have done, either. It's not great
literature, but you will have a hard time convincing many academics that
LotR as well (though I disagree with them). It's a good read with some
moments of rather good prose. One of the final scenes in The Goblet of Fire
where Harry breaks into tears and Mrs. Weezly comforts him actually brought
a tear to my eyes. To draw that sort of a reaction from a mean, crusty
bastard like myself (just ask the folks around here) takes some skill.
I think HP will probably become a staple of children's bookshelves in years
to come. It isn't LotR, but then again, it is written for a different group
and by a different person. She has done a fine job of crafting a
captivating world which has drawn children, and a lot of adults (myself
included) into it.
I think to call HP books trash is just plain snobbery, of the same kind that
I see in those who put down Tolkien's works.
--
Aaron Clausen
Jette Goldie
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote
> It gets kids to turn off their Play Stations and read. For that alone
> Rowlings should be knighted.
Bit tricky that - she's female, so she can't be a "sir"
;-)
Chris Wright
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbfed36.vko.m...@ts1.alberni.net...
What exactly is wrong with a PlayStation, I ask you?
>
> maureen-t...@alberni.net
Raven
news:dQGJa.3560$K22.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote
> > It gets kids to turn off their Play Stations and read. For that alone
> > Rowlings should be knighted.
> Bit tricky that - she's female, so she can't be a "sir"
If Mr. McCartney could be promoted to Sir Paul, couldn't Mrs. Rowling be
promoted to Lady Joanne? Or are knighthoods only for men in the UK, a
country which, like Denmark, does have a ruling Queen?
Just wondering.
Corbie.
Raven
news:slrnbfed36.vko.m...@ts1.alberni.net...
> I wouldn't call it trash, as you have done, either. It's not great
> literature, but you will have a hard time convincing many academics that
> LotR as well (though I disagree with them). It's a good read with some
> moments of rather good prose. One of the final scenes in The Goblet of
> Fire where Harry breaks into tears and Mrs. Weezly comforts him
> actually brought a tear to my eyes. To draw that sort of a reaction
> from a mean, crusty bastard like myself (just ask the folks around
> here) takes some skill.
I would compare the Potter books rather to The Hobbit. Written for
children, and in many places this shows, but in other places a definite
un-Winnie-the-Pooh feel. Tolkien wrote about the Battle of Five Armies:
"The elves were the first to charge. Their hatred for the goblins is cold
and bitter. Their spears and swords shone in the gloom with a gleam of
chill flame, so deadly was the wrath of the hands that held them." Rowlings
wrote about the encounter between Harry and Voldemort in The Goblet of Fire:
"Kill the spare!" Nor are Rowling's books devoid of moral sentiments that
go beyond the vanilla admonitions to be good to your friends and not tease
other children. The words of an evil person: "There is no good and evil,
there is only power, and those too weak to seek it..."
Hrafn.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> debate. Art is not food.
does that monet or picasso are still crap
compared to the true art?
Jette Goldie
"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in message
news:kRHJa.864$0L5...@news.get2net.dk...
a "Lady" is merely the wife of a knight. The equivalent female
award is a "Dame", like "Dame Thora Hird".
Sam's the Man
You called Rowlings work trash, I called your comparison snotty.
What's the difference? The difference is that I expect you to make a
retort, and you expect that Rowling won't.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What does it mean for something to be 'higher'? Well, it does what it's
> > > supposed to, more effectively. That is, entertain and enlighten and move
> its
> > > audience. Potter only accomplishes the first.
> > >
> >
> > I bawled my eyes out when reading 'Prior Incantatem', so your
> > comparison stinks again. And it's not clear to me that reading Tolkien
> > necessarily enlightens a person - I see plenty of ignoramuses posting
> > here, after all, and plenty of enlightened people posting in afhp.
>
> Yeah, I've bawled my eyes out plenty of times, though not always because I
> had just experienced something good.
>
Have you read the book in question?
> Your second comment is specious in the highest degree.
>
> Tolkien may not necessarily enlighten or enrich his audience, but he often
> does.
>
As does Rowling. Not always ( obviously ) . But often. It has to be
said at this point, Rowling is known to be an admirer of the Inklings.
In many ways, her writing reflects that respect.
> >
> >
> > > Fantasy literature may primarly be about transporting people to a world
> > > outside their own, but there are certain aspects of Tolkein that put it
> > > beyond the category of mere escapism. Tolkien deals with eternal human
> > > themes, whilst Rowlings seems more concerned with pure titillatory
> delight
> > > for her fans. Which is higher? I leave that judgement to you.
> >
> > Both are works of fiction. Both can be enjoyed without making
> > pointless comparison, as if reading one made you smarter, or a better
> > class of person than reading the other.
>
> You assume too much about my intent. I only wish to explain why it is that I
> feel Harry Potter to be trash, in comparison to something like LoTR. I am
> not trying to come off as a classier or smarter person. Even if I was
> interested in such vanities, which I assure you I am not, I know full well
> that the vanglorious individual always comes off sounding like a bit of a
> prick, so I wouldn't bother in the first place. Capiche?
Capiched. In the future, don't express your point of view as if you
were expecting us to take it as objective truth.
>
> >
> > If you can find some solid ground to make a comparsion between the
> > works, ie an objective measure, then by all means, bring out your
> > ruler. Don't just ponce like a git because you didn't enjoy them while
> > others do.
>
> You are quite the insulting individual, congratulations.
Thanks. It is really practice in this setting that has made me so.
Sam's the Man
> On 23 cze 2003, samd...@hotmail.com (Sam's the Man) scribbled loosely:
>
> >> >> > May get people interested in fantasy genre
> >> >>
> >> >> Witches & wizards do not a good fantasy make. More like, burnt on
> the
> >> >
> >> > a good fantasy is one you enjoy
> >> >
> >>
> >> a good thing is something someone enjoys.
> >
> > Why deliberately misquote the OP? He said 'a good fantasy is one you
> > enjoy' , not that everything you enjoy is objectively good.
> >
> 1) I know what his views are, or what he presents them to be
I have had many dealings with coyote, and if you think that universal
relativism represents his point of view, you are reading with
unnecessary (and uncharacteristic) haste.
> 2) why the exception of fantasy? I'm just extrapolating.
>
The extrapolation is not valid, as seen.
> >
> >> therefore, there are no bad things, as always there will be someone
> >> somewhere who enjoys something.
> >> hard to discuss anything this way, isn't it.
> >>
> >
> > It's hard to discuss any topic with people who think their subjective
> > opinion represents what should be objectively true for anybody else.
> > Tastes differ. Deal with it.
>
> No, I won't. 'Tastes differ' is rubbish when it is used to stop any
> debate. Art is not food.
If you wish to comment on HP with respect to it's work, then do so in
objective terms. Debate doesn't consist of "It's rubbish!" "No it's
not!"
Sam's the Man
Yes, a good question. Let's touch on what we have so far. So far, you
have said - Rowling only writes trash because Tolkien is better and
LOTR represents a 'higher' form of literature. But of course, when
pressed to reveal what makes a form of literature 'higher' , you said
"to entertain, move, and enlighten it's audience". Now, we have
pointed out that in fact, HP has done all three of those things. And
you have admitted that the Three aren't universally applicable (not
everyone is entertained, moved, or enlightened by reading Tolkien). So
you whole argument is based on subjective reasoning.
Why not tell us the real reason? You were scorned at school by a girl
with big teeth, weren't you? Go on, you can tell us.
Chris Wright
There is no pride in winning a battle of the wits against an unarmed man, so
just believe that you made a fair jest, little man.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Pro wrestling is fake, soccer is not ( though soccer is overhyped and
> boring, and played by gits who fall over and cry at the slightest
> provocation.. ).
At least it is not played by wimps who werar so much padded protection that
they look like teddy bears. And the interesting things is that outside
America and Canada, countless millions think that football ("soccer" to you)
is a thrilling game, taxing the dedication and stamina of the players in a
way that the American game does not.
Öjevind
Sam's the Man
{sigh} Does it really LOOK like I come from Canada or the US?
Therefore, what possible interest would I have in their obscure
version of 'football' ? Try trading insults with someone who cares.
Raven
> a "Lady" is merely the wife of a knight. The equivalent female
> award is a "Dame", like "Dame Thora Hird".
But a woman doesn't become "knighted" to become a Dame, the term for the
ceremony is another?
Corbie.
Beeblebear
"Sam's the Man" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If you wish to comment on HP with respect to it's work, then do so in
> objective terms. Debate doesn't consist of "It's rubbish!" "No it's
> not!"
Yeah, that's not an argument, its just contradiction
--
--
Chris Lyth (CL...@ifis.org.uk)
The hinge that squeaks gets the grease
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
its actually a quite painful ceremony
requiring driving through a crowd of angry prostitute customers
so that you end up with john clawed van dames
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<ch...@clyth.JFK.co.uk shoot the president to reply> wrote:
> "Sam's the Man" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > If you wish to comment on HP with respect to it's work, then do so in
> > objective terms. Debate doesn't consist of "It's rubbish!" "No it's
> > not!"
>
> Yeah, that's not an argument, its just contradiction
no its not
Donald Shepherd
alleged...
> {sigh} Does it really LOOK like I come from Canada or the US?
Yep. "Sam's the Man" has a very North American accent to it. I can hear
it now...
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_shepherd @ hotmail . com>
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open
sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
Jette Goldie
Let me introduce you to a custom from another newsgroup
for moments like this.
888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888
Those are peanuts and I'm throwing them at you - you
punster you!
;-)
--
Jette
Never bet on Star Trek trivia if your opponent speaks Klingon.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Donald Shepherd
alleged...
>
> Those are peanuts and I'm throwing them at you - you
> punster you!
You're pun-ishing him?
(And why on earth would a NG give away free peanuts? It's not like
anyone'd do it for peanuts...)
Jette Goldie
"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19647c2a5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:35:25 GMT, Jette Goldie <j...@blueyonder.com.uk>
> alleged...
> >
> > Those are peanuts and I'm throwing them at you - you
> > punster you!
>
> You're pun-ishing him?
>
> (And why on earth would a NG give away free peanuts? It's not like
> anyone'd do it for peanuts...)
Sometimes we even throw pretzels &&&&&&
;-)
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> "coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges" <mair_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:mair_fheal-24...@c118.ppp.tsoft.com...
> > In article <9E4Ka.156$W0...@news.get2net.dk>, "Raven"
> > <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:leIJa.3676$pG2.27...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > >
> > > > a "Lady" is merely the wife of a knight. The equivalent female
> > > > award is a "Dame", like "Dame Thora Hird".
> > > But a woman doesn't become "knighted" to become a Dame, the term for
> the
> > > ceremony is another?
> >
> > its actually a quite painful ceremony
> > requiring driving through a crowd of angry prostitute customers
> > so that you end up with john clawed van dames
>
> Let me introduce you to a custom from another newsgroup
> for moments like this.
>
>
> 888888888888888888888
> 888888888888888888888
> 888888888888888888888
> 888888888888888888888
> 888888888888888888888
>
>
> Those are peanuts and I'm throwing them at you - you
> punster you!
do you have a cold
that sound phlegmish
Öjevind Lång
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:<ElZJa.407$aD4...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
[snip]
> > At least it is not played by wimps who werar so much padded protection
that
> > they look like teddy bears. And the interesting things is that outside
> > America and Canada, countless millions think that football ("soccer" to
you)
> > is a thrilling game, taxing the dedication and stamina of the players in
a
> > way that the American game does not.
> >
> > Öjevind
>
>
> {sigh} Does it really LOOK like I come from Canada or the US?
> Therefore, what possible interest would I have in their obscure
> version of 'football' ? Try trading insults with someone who cares.
Damn! A perfectly good flame gone to waste. Shame on you for misleading me!
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
The ceremony is somewhat different. Instead of touching the honoured one's
shoulder with a sword, as is the case when bestowing a knighthood, the
monarch cuts the head off the Dame instead. The tradition was introduced by
Henry VIII.
Öjevind
AC
And happily adopted by Elizabeth I during her renowned knighting of Mary,
Queen of Scots.
Of course, the Monarchy decided it would be best to abandon this form of
knighting after Oliver Cromwell decided it would be a right jolly way to
bestow honors upon Charles I.
--
Aaron Clausen
Morgil
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:slrnbfkbqf.heg.m...@ts1.alberni.net...
> > The ceremony is somewhat different. Instead of touching the honoured
one's
> > shoulder with a sword, as is the case when bestowing a knighthood, the
> > monarch cuts the head off the Dame instead. The tradition was introduced
by
> > Henry VIII.
>
> And happily adopted by Elizabeth I during her renowned knighting of Mary,
> Queen of Scots.
Bhaaaaa... she had it coming.
(<g>)
Morgil
Brenda Selwyn
>It has children reading quite sizeable books, and perhaps introducing them
>to the fantasy genre. Besides, they're fun little stories; it's a wonderful [way]
>in which to lose yourself for an afternoon.
My God, you read quickly! Unless of course you have a time-turner...
Brenda
--
*************************************************************************
Brenda Selwyn
"In England's green and pleasant land"
"Osama bin Laden is unlikely to have surfaced in Potters Bar"
- Nina Bawden
John VanSickle
>
> At least it is not played by wimps who werar so much padded protection
> that they look like teddy bears.
And you, not being a wimp, have no qualms playing a quarter against them
in your street clothes.
In the collegiate system, prior to the development of the modern
padding, a couple dozen players died from game injuries every year.
Since that doesn't happen with either European football or rugby, your
comparison has a serious reality deficit.
> And the interesting things is that outside America and Canada,
> countless millions think that football ("soccer" to you) is a
> thrilling game, taxing the dedication and stamina of the players in a
> way that the American game does not.
In America, European football is a girls' game.
Regards,
John
Morgil
"John VanSickle" <evilsna...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3F049768...@hotmail.com...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
> > And the interesting things is that outside America and Canada,
> > countless millions think that football ("soccer" to you) is a
> > thrilling game, taxing the dedication and stamina of the players in a
> > way that the American game does not.
>
> In America, European football is a girls' game.
Well, girls *are* generally smarter then boys <g>
Morgil
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> In America, European football is a girls' game.
"European" football? It is played all over the world. In Africa, in Asia, in
Latin America. It is only the Americans, the Canadians and the Australians
who play varieties of bastard rugby instead. Of course, it takes some
brains, as well as tenacity and endurance, to play international football,
not just a big body and a padded clown costume.
Also, it is played without the constant breaks and huddles that seem to be
an integral part of American hand ball. As is the principle of one goal
every fifth minute so as not to overtax the short attention span of the
audicence.
Öjevind
The American
> "John VanSickle" whittered:
>
> [snip]
>
> > In America, European football is a girls' game.
>
:~)
T.A.
Öjevind Lång
Can Altinbay
The frequent interruptions make it a perfect game for TV (commercials).
Can Altinbay
Yeah, well, can't argue intelligently, just put down the other party.
Een wilde Ier
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"John VanSickle" whittered:
>
>[snip]
>
>> In America, European football is a girls' game.
>
>"European" football? It is played all over the world. In Africa, in Asia, in
>Latin America. It is only the Americans, the Canadians and the Australians
>who play varieties of bastard rugby instead. Of course, it takes some
>brains, as well as tenacity and endurance, to play international football,
>not just a big body and a padded clown costume.
Hah! Real men's football is neither the effete histrionics of soccer,
nor the mindless grid-iron of American.
Enter the GAA http://www.gaa.ie and Gaelic Football.
cheers,
David
"I speak better English than this villain Bush"
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
(Former) Iraqi Minister of Information
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<tr...@no1.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:21:15 +0200, "Öjevind Lång"
> <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> >"John VanSickle" whittered:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> In America, European football is a girls' game.
> >
> >"European" football? It is played all over the world. In Africa, in Asia, in
> >Latin America. It is only the Americans, the Canadians and the Australians
> >who play varieties of bastard rugby instead. Of course, it takes some
> >brains, as well as tenacity and endurance, to play international football,
> >not just a big body and a padded clown costume.
>
> Hah! Real men's football is neither the effete histrionics of soccer,
> nor the mindless grid-iron of American.
>
> Enter the GAA http://www.gaa.ie and Gaelic Football.
hows that next to australian rules
Een wilde Ier
Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
We regularly field international sides against each other in the
Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
Dianne van Dulken
sang the following in a piercing false falsetto:
Well, that is, they won this year. But not last year. Or, IIRC, the
year before.
Cheers
Di
(who thinks that Aussie Rules is the best game in the world, after
cricket, and Quiddich)
--
Dianne van Dulken
http://www.dogmac.com
http://www.cricketwoman.com
See Adara's page - http://www.dogmac.com/adara/
or Bartholomew's - http://www.dogmac.com/bartholomew/
Donald Shepherd
<dia...@dogmac.com> alleged...
> (who thinks that Aussie Rules is the best game in the world, after
> cricket, and Quiddich)
Now _that's_ someone with good taste.
(Quidditch'd be one hell of a spectator sport)
Tom
just a lurker wandering through, but I just wanted to mention one of
the little literary advantages of the hp books no-one seems to have
mentioned yet; the fact that they are allowed to grow in subtlety and
complexity as the series continues. There are probably other examples
of childrens books which do this, but they are extremely rare- most
are happy to stay at one level, with perhaps another sitting beneath
strictly for the pleasure of any adults forced to read the stories.
The trick is that as a child (or, hell, an adult- I'll admit to
reading them, they're fun) reads further through the series the moral
universe increases in complexity- much as the moral universe a young
person inhabits in their life (hopefully) grows in complexity as they
get older.
Consider the relationship of Harry and his friends to Professor Snape;
throughout much of the first novel, Snape is nothing more than a
deeply unpleasant and unfair teacher to our protagonist, and the
reader feels much the same way towards him; yet throughout the novels,
we are allowed to see more and more who Snape is, and what has made
him what he is; the thumbnail sketch is gradually broadened into
something much more like a living person, with whom the reader can
strongly empathise. (While still disliking him for being an arsehole-
this isn't some silly whitewash.) Conversely, Harry's dead parents
have been seen, up until the most recent novel, as almost perfect in
nature- fitting neatly the classic child's fantasy of the "real"
parent, who is better than those they live with. Yet now, we and Harry
are allowed to catch a glimpse of his parents, and his father
particularly, in a more subtle light, showing again a more rounded
portrait of a decent man who nonetheless had at times behaved in a
thoroughly unpleasant way. One final example; the house elves. In
earlier books, Hermione's half-cocked attempts to make the subservient
little house-elves throw off their shackles have been source of much
humour; yet in the last couple of books, there has been a creeping
sense that in fact house elves have been universally mistreated by
wizards, and that it is something that may need to come to a
conclusion.
One thing Rowling does in Potter books, then, is allows first
impressions to develop, but then forces the reader to reassess these
impressions, and allows a more subtle picture to emerge- a worthwhile
trick to teach children to think for themselves and question what is
presented to them, and one which also applies to adults. This is
probably a large part of why the hp books have become so ludicrously
popular, and why they are a great gateway to further reading; they
provide a gentle slope of development which nevertheless is starting
to reach a height of genuine subtlety of character and themes. I
reckon it also shows a form of serious literary merit, if we're
looking on that as an ability to reflect and comment on the world; put
simply, I think the way characters are shown in JKRs work is a lot
like how we see people in real life; on first encounter we inevitably
put people into a certain grouping but then, if we have good sense, we
start to appreciate the further dimensions of their personalities.
Anyway, I'm afraid I've rambled on rather further than I had intended;
I'll just finish by saying that JKR writes damn fine kids books, and
no adult should ever be ashamed of reading a damn fine kids book.
Thanyewverymuch.
Tom.
"John D. Goulden" <jgould...@goulden.org> wrote in message news:<bd737...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> HP 5 caused my children to spend Saturday morning reading in their bedrooms
> instead of watching toons on the tube. This is a Good Thing.
>
> I give HP 1 some credit for helping get my two older kids (now 10, 11)
> hooked on reading in general and fantasy in particular, and for sparking
> their interest in LOTR (it didn't hurt that their dad suggested that LOTR
> was "way better" than HP). Both read FOTR before seing the Jackson film
> (they had seen the animated versions many times so they knew the basic plot)
> and they've each read the entire trilogy several times since the FOTR
> release, making them among the few of their age who have had the pleasure of
> exploring the books before seing the Jackson movies. I caught them the other
> day debating the merits of certain seens in the Jackson and Backshi
> versions of the movie in terms of how well they portrayed what was writen in
> the book - they had the Backshi tape cued up in the VCR, the Jackson DVD in
> the DVD player, and two copies of FOTR open on the floor. This also appears
> to have primed them for other fantasy / sci-fi fare (it didn't hurt that Dad
> has exposed them - overexposed, according to their mother - to Star Wars and
> Star Trek since approximately birth). We watched a borrowed DVD of John
> Harrison's "Dune" the other night and now my daughter wants to read the
> book! My son is curious to see why I think the book on which the movie
> "Starship Troopers" is based is so much better than the film - so if it
> turns out that Rowling's books leads him to Heinlein (and perhaps others) I
> will be pretty pleased with the merits of HP.
AC
Tom <thomas....@new.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> I'll just finish by saying that JKR writes damn fine kids books, and
> no adult should ever be ashamed of reading a damn fine kids book.
I agree absolutely. I don't think she's quite the author that Tolkien was,
but I have found the HP series thus far (I haven't managed to get the latest
installment out of my kids' hands yet) very enjoyable. I compare them to
The Hobbit, which I don't think is damning them with false praise at all, as
The Hobbit is a very extraordinary children's book which really sparked
Tolkien's later enormous success.
I find that some of the people that don't like HP show the same sort of
literary snobbery that I see a lot in those that belittle Tolkien's
writings. But let's be blunt. In both cases, whatever the literary
community may think, the consumer has spoken. The books are smashes and the
movies are making fortunes.
Tolkien, I think, has already won the historical battle. Fifty years after
the first publication of LotR, it is still an enormously successful and very
influential book. I suspect that this will remain much the same in fifty
years. With Rowlings we'll have to wait and see whether HP is just a fad.
--
Aaron Clausen
Jamie Armstrong
>
> Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
> careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
>
> We regularly field international sides against each other in the
> Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
> hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
>
Right, that's it <tears up British passport and pulls out Irish passport
application form>
:)
Jamie
--
"The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and
every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human
characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the
appearance of either merit or sense."
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
SRubin5190
>> no adult should ever be ashamed of reading a damn fine kids book.
>
I enjoyed your analysis. It really explains why her books may be so popular,
without overanalyzing the plot, her motives etc. Sometimes I think people tend
to do that to art, movies, books etc. I would also add that no adult should
ever be ashamed of watching a fine kids movie or television show either. Many
of them are better than the adult entertainment and some of them are quite
funny. Regarding kids books, I couldn't put down Holes either.
Sue in PA
Een wilde Ier
What matters is who won *this* year <smirk>
Luckily for you, I can't find the appropriate link on the GAA site at
the moment ;-)
>(who thinks that Aussie Rules is the best game in the world, after
>cricket, and Quiddich)
*Cricket*?
Donald Shepherd
<j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> alleged...
> Een wilde Ier wrote:
> >
> > Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
> > careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
> >
> > We regularly field international sides against each other in the
> > Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
> > hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
> >
> What??? A sport where the Aussies get whupped?!
>
> Right, that's it <tears up British passport and pulls out Irish passport
> application form>
You could always try Tiddlywinks... you wouldn't even have to change
natoinality to boast about that. ;)
Een wilde Ier
>Een wilde Ier wrote:
>>
>> Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
>> careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
>>
>> We regularly field international sides against each other in the
>> Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
>> hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
>>
>What??? A sport where the Aussies get whupped?!
>
>Right, that's it <tears up British passport and pulls out Irish passport
>application form>
Which runs something like this:
(1) Are you an English soccer player?
(1.1) If (1) is YES, has any member of your family ever been to
Ireland or indeed ever drunk Guinness [important hint: answer to above
is YES]
--
Journalist: Where in Northern Ireland will the two leaders meet?
Ari Fleischer: Dublin.
Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer,
George W. Bush's chief spokesman
April 4, 2003
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> You could always try Tiddlywinks... you wouldn't even have to change
> natoinality to boast about that. ;)
Popular all over the British Isles, I'm told.
Öjevind
Jamie Armstrong
;)
Jamie (not played tiddleywinks since I was very ickle!
Jamie Armstrong
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:50:39 +0100, Jamie Armstrong
> <j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Een wilde Ier wrote:
>>
>>>Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
>>>careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
>>>
>>>We regularly field international sides against each other in the
>>>Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
>>>hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
>>
>>What??? A sport where the Aussies get whupped?!
>>
>>Right, that's it <tears up British passport and pulls out Irish passport
>>application form>
>
> Which runs something like this:
>
> (1) Are you an English soccer player?
Oh.
> (1.1) If (1) is YES, has any member of your family ever been to
> Ireland or indeed ever drunk Guinness [important hint: answer to above
> is YES]
I qualify here in spades: drunk Guinness loads, my Gran's been to
Ireland, as has my Mam (indeed, they *are* Irish...), and best of all, I
can actually *find* Ireland on the map (a distinct advantage over the
Irish-merkans, IMO).
Am I in then?
Brenda Selwyn
>Death of the father -
>numerous examples in LoTR, including Gandalf (father figure) for
>instance, and in Potter, including father figure Sirius.
I'm glad I'd finished HP5 before reading this! I know we don't worry
about spoilers for JRRT's works, but what about spoilers for other
books?
Brenda
--
*************************************************************************
Brenda Selwyn
"In England's green and pleasant land"
I may look in on this thread again before it is all over, but in
the meanwhile I have some other pressing business to attend to.
Brenda Selwyn
> I would compare the Potter books rather to The Hobbit. Written for
>children, and in many places this shows, but in other places a definite
>un-Winnie-the-Pooh feel.
I'd very much agree with this anaysis, though I'm not sure what's
wrong with Winnie-the-Pooh...
Brenda Selwyn
> I would also add that no adult should
>ever be ashamed of watching a fine kids movie or television show either. Many
>of them are better than the adult entertainment and some of them are quite
>funny. Regarding kids books, I couldn't put down Holes either.
I've finally found the quote I was looking for from Philip Pullman
(though I may have gone off him slightly after reading the "Opiates,
fantasy, &c" thread) which I was going to contribute to the "Fantasy
is the opium of the ignorant and the indolent" thread. As it turns
out I'd misremembered it; I thought he was talking about fantasy, but
in fact he was talking about children's literature, so perhaps it's
more appropriate here anyway:
"One mistake that adults used to make about children's books is to
think that children's books deal with trivial things - little things
that please little minds and little concerns about little people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the contrary, it's
been my observation that a lot of highly praised adult books, or
highly successful adult books, of recent years have dealt with trivial
things, such as 'Does my bum look big in this?', 'Will my favourite
football team win the cup?' or "Oh dear, my girlfriend's left me,
whatever am I going to do?'. Whereas the children's books have dealt
with ultimate questions: 'Where do we come from?', 'What's that nature
of being a human being?', 'What must I do to be good?'. These are
profound questions, very deeply important questions, and they're being
dealt with, largely, not in the books that adults read, but in the
books that children read."
Een wilde Ier
Seeing as the "British Isles" essentially just means Britain, it seems
you're right.
D.
Een wilde Ier
<j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Een wilde Ier wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:50:39 +0100, Jamie Armstrong
>> <j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Een wilde Ier wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aussie Rules largely derives from Gaelic (a few GAA players have made
>>>>careers for themselves playing A.R. out in Oz).
>>>>
>>>>We regularly field international sides against each other in the
>>>>Compromise Rules series, where the (amateur) GAA players usually
>>>>hammer them (the "professional" Australians) ;-)
>>>
>>>What??? A sport where the Aussies get whupped?!
>>>
>>>Right, that's it <tears up British passport and pulls out Irish passport
>>>application form>
>>
>> Which runs something like this:
>>
>> (1) Are you an English soccer player?
>
>Oh.
>
>> (1.1) If (1) is YES, has any member of your family ever been to
>> Ireland or indeed ever drunk Guinness [important hint: answer to above
>> is YES]
>
>I qualify here in spades: drunk Guinness loads, my Gran's been to
>Ireland, as has my Mam (indeed, they *are* Irish...), and best of all, I
>can actually *find* Ireland on the map (a distinct advantage over the
>Irish-merkans, IMO).
>
>Am I in then?
You forgot to state whether your contribution to the deal is either
(a) soccer skills or (b) lots of money.
David
Jamie Armstrong
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:03:43 +0100, Jamie Armstrong
> <j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>I qualify here in spades: drunk Guinness loads, my Gran's been to
>>Ireland, as has my Mam (indeed, they *are* Irish...), and best of all, I
>>can actually *find* Ireland on the map (a distinct advantage over the
>>Irish-merkans, IMO).
>>
>>Am I in then?
>
> You forgot to state whether your contribution to the deal is either
> (a) soccer skills or (b) lots of money.
>
Een wilde Ier
<j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Een wilde Ier wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:03:43 +0100, Jamie Armstrong
>> <j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I qualify here in spades: drunk Guinness loads, my Gran's been to
>>>Ireland, as has my Mam (indeed, they *are* Irish...), and best of all, I
>>>can actually *find* Ireland on the map (a distinct advantage over the
>>>Irish-merkans, IMO).
>>>
>>>Am I in then?
>>
>> You forgot to state whether your contribution to the deal is either
>> (a) soccer skills or (b) lots of money.
>>
>Damn!
Or, you could just "do an Oliver North" and put an Irish passport
together using some green cardboard and a decent laser printer ;-)
cheers,
Raven
news:240ugvgjso7vqdben...@4ax.com...
> >"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> > I would compare the Potter books rather to The Hobbit. Written for
> >children, and in many places this shows, but in other places a definite
> >un-Winnie-the-Pooh feel.
> I'd very much agree with this anaysis, though I'm not sure what's
> wrong with Winnie-the-Pooh...
Wrong?
Hrafn.
The American
"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in message
news:6efTa.170$7C...@news.get2net.dk...
Wrong?
I'll tell you what's wrong.
Here's the first page:
HERE is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back
of his head, behind Christopher
Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but
sometimes he feels that there really is another
way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.
And then he feels that perhaps there isn't. Anyhow, here he is at the
bottom, and ready to be introduced to you.
Winnie-the-Pooh.
When I first heard his name, I said, just as you are going to say, "But I
thought he was a boy?"
"So did I," said Christopher Robin.
"Then you can't call him Winnie?"
"I don't."
"But you said -- "
"He's Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don't you know what 'ther' means?"
"Ah, yes, now I do," I said quickly; and I hope you do too, because it is
all the explanation you are going to get.
Sometimes Winnie-the-Pooh likes a game of some sort when he comes
downstairs, and sometimes he likes to sit
quietly in front of the fire and listen to a story. This evening --
"What about a story?" said Christopher Robin.
"What about a story?" I said.
"Could you very sweetly tell Winnie-the-Pooh one?"
"I suppose I could," I said. "What sort of stories does he like?"
"About himself. Because he's that sort of Bear."
"Oh, I see."
"So could you very sweetly?"
"I'll try," I said.
So I tried.
Once upon a time, a very long time ago now, about last Friday,
Winnie-the-Pooh lived in a forest all by himself under
the name of Sanders.
("What does 'under the name' mean?" asked Christopher Robin. "It means he
had the name over the door in gold
letters, and lived under it."
"Winnie-the-Pooh wasn't quite sure," said Christopher Robin.
"Now I am," said a growly voice.
"Then I will go on," said I.)
It takes about 20 minutes to get past this page with an inquisitive 4 year
old.
And the 4 year old is never satisfied with the answers.
T.A.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Wrong?
> I'll tell you what's wrong.
> Here's the first page:
>
> HERE is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the
[snip]
> It takes about 20 minutes to get past this page with an inquisitive 4 year
> old.
> And the 4 year old is never satisfied with the answers.
In other words, the four-year old has a glorious time, though the same may
not be true of parent who is reading aloud to it.
Öjevind
Brenda Selwyn
Well,I thought you said HP had an "un-Winnie-the-Pooh feel" as though
that was a good thing, inferring there must be something wrong with
W-t-P. I probably misunderstood you - just ignore me, most people do.
Brenda Selwyn
>In other words, the four-year old has a glorious time, though the same may
>not be true of parent who is reading aloud to it.
IMHO the best childrens' books are those which are as enjoyable for
the parent as for the child. If sharing a book with your child is a
chore, you're not going to communicate the necessary enthusiasm for
reading. This has nothing to do with target age - I've enjoyed
sharing books intended for 3-year-olds.
Raven
> I probably misunderstood you - just ignore me, most people do.
OK, I'll ignore you then.
<dang, i blew it already>
Marghvran.