New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
Dan Clore
12-29-1
ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans
to burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination
to God," the church pastor said on Wednesday.
Pastor Jack Brock said he would have a "holy bonfire" on
Sunday at the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo in
southern New Mexico to torch books about the fictional
teen-age wizard who is wildly popular with young people.
"These books encourage our youth to learn more about
witches, warlocks, and sorcerers, and those things are an
abomination to God and to me," Brock, 74, told Reuters.
"Harry Potter books are going to destroy the lives of many
young people."
The books, written by British author J.K. Rowling, have been
runaway bestsellers and a movie, "Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone," is currently a blockbuster hit.
Brock, whose said his Christmas Eve sermon was titled "The
Baby Jesus or Harry Potter?," described the book burning as
part of an effort to encourage Christians to remove
everything from their homes that prevents them from
communicating with God.
The books have come under fire in a few U.S communities for
supposedly encouraging devilish thoughts among the young,
but Rowling in an earlier statement issued by her publisher
Bloomsbury called the criticisms absurd.
"I have met thousands of children now, and not even one time
has a child come up to me and said, 'Ms. Rowling, I'm so
glad I've read these books because now I want to be a
witch,'" she said.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Crimso
>New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
>
>12-29-1
>
>ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans
>to burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination
>to God," the church pastor said on Wednesday.
I was wondering how long it would take for the American branch of the Taliban
to rear their ugly and inbred heads.
paghat
wrote:
Hell, I start fires in the fireplace all the time using old newspapers, &
the most slipshod articles in them are better written than Harry Potter.
So no loss. And even the religious boobs have only made this crap MORE
interesting to their own kids.
And I'd be more inclined to worry about the wellbeing of kids being raised
by fanatics than their attention-getting burning of books that indeed are
abominations in the sight of even moderately well written children's
books.
-paghat
--
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl:
http://www.angelfire.com/grrl/paghat/gardenhome.html#top
Jonathan W. Hendry
"paghat" <paghatSP...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
IIRC, New Mexico has a pretty large number of people living in poverty.
I'd think a good Christian could find a better way to spend the money than
on books to burn. Especially in the Christmas season.
Joel Rosenberg
Hey, as long as they've paid for the copies they burn, it's a whole
different thing.
Matter of fact, if they want to burn mine in any kind of quantity,
I'll be happy to use my good offices to arrange a wholesale discount.
--
-------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.
-------------------------------------
Luke Webber
news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Hell, I start fires in the fireplace all the time using old newspapers, &
> the most slipshod articles in them are better written than Harry Potter.
> So no loss.
You have either an inflated opinion of newpaper journalism or an unfairly
low opinion of Rowling's work. She actually sets a consistently high
standard as compared to other writers of children's literature, and even
compared to a good many adult writers, IMO.
As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like these
stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books themselves.
> And even the religious boobs have only made this crap MORE
> interesting to their own kids.
>
> And I'd be more inclined to worry about the wellbeing of kids being raised
> by fanatics than their attention-getting burning of books that indeed are
> abominations in the sight of even moderately well written children's
> books.
Have you ever read them yourself? Or compared them to the other trash that
is so often peddled to kids?
Luke
paghat
Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> "paghat" <paghatSP...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
>
> > Hell, I start fires in the fireplace all the time using old newspapers, &
> > the most slipshod articles in them are better written than Harry Potter.
> > So no loss.
>
> You have either an inflated opinion of newpaper journalism or an unfairly
> low opinion of Rowling's work. She actually sets a consistently high
> standard as compared to other writers of children's literature, and even
> compared to a good many adult writers, IMO.
Then your opinion is not worth a nickle. The most accurate assessment was
that of Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2000. He noted
among much else, "It seems to me to be inferior to many comic books."
Hell, it's inferior to space-filler stories in STARTLING STORIES. Bloom
points out that history is full of runaway bestsellers soon enough
consigned to "the dustbin of the ages," & it's a good bet H.P. will indeed
run its course & just like such fabulously successful writers as Mrs
Humphrey Ward or E.D.E.N. Southworth, Rowlands will be in the dustbin soon
enough, whereas the far-less-than-bestselling Joan Aiken will be collected
& loved for as long as English survives as a language. "The Harry Potter
books are long on cliches, short on imaginative vision. They don't measure
up to the classics of children's literature" Bloom states correctly. He
would compare it to Wind In The Willows, & Alice in Wonderland -- but one
can go awfully far down the list before finding anything as rubbishy as
H.P., it is not necessary to find great works to compare it to for it to
grow pale in comparison. Just pick out any stupid kidlit book at random,
nine times in ten it WILL be better. I can frankly enjoy some bad writing
-- I like Tarzan books for instance -- & capacity to enjoy something as
badly done as H.P. is not so troubling as the public's apparent inability
to even grasp the fact that they're enjoying something awful. Usually when
some scatophile puts shit in his mouth & says, "Yum yum!" he IS
nevertheless aware that it is shit. The comparison would be the way that
White Trash icon Martha Stewart gets referred to as reflecting upper
middleclass values -- yeah right, that's why her primary outlet for her
crappy products is K Mart.
H.P. is in essence the Wal*Mart of children's books -- & the Wal*Mart
crowd is terribly peevish with Bloom you can bet, sending him hate-mail
that only proves him right. The worst pulp magazine or lamest anonymous
Stratemyer Syndicate writer had better command of the English language.
Asked on NPR about the malice he's experienced from potted potter
fanatics, he said: "My e-mail is flooded with angry Harry Potterites
denouncing a piece I published on my birthday two days ago on the op-ed
page of the "Wall Street Journal," insisting that they feel their children
are benefiting enormously by reading "Harry Potter." I think they are
deluding themselves. I read the first "Harry Potter" book in order to
write that piece. I was appalled that every sentence was a string of
cliches, that there was no characterization, that every character in it
spoke with the voice of every other character, that it was finally just a
piece of goo. I think reading is in trouble no matter how many people
crowd the bookstores and no matter what profits the publishers are
turning. It's in trouble because we do not consider how to read and why."
> As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like these
> stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books themselves.
In the early 1990s the most commonly banned story in America was Little
Red Riding Hood, because she had wine in her basket. So sure, book
burners are of course cretins. But this added attention for H.P. will only
insure the current fad for pureed dogshit lasts a little longer. So the
only "loss" is that it only proves H.P. will be around a little longer, &
every kid who wastes tame reading them will be that much more diminished
for not having spent that time on something at least marginally well done.
> > And even the religious boobs have only made this crap MORE
> > interesting to their own kids.
> >
> > And I'd be more inclined to worry about the wellbeing of kids being raised
> > by fanatics than their attention-getting burning of books that indeed are
> > abominations in the sight of even moderately well written children's
> > books.
>
> Have you ever read them yourself? Or compared them to the other trash that
> is so often peddled to kids?
I'm EXTREMELY familiar with children's literature. And before I actually
sampled H.P., I went along with the widesdpread error of belief that even
if kids were only reading something awful at least they were reading &
that's good.
When I finally attempted H.P., I changed my mind that "it'll do." As well
to say that since sex is great, at least they're fucking goats, so that'll
do.
After 30 or so pages of the most abominable writing -- & it makes Alvin
Schwartz look brilliant by comparison -- I started skipping five pages at
a time without losing the thread, perturbed at every turn by howlingly bad
writing, simplemindedness, & the worst conceivable cliches sometimes
repeated a half-dozen times in a three page span. I kept at it primarily
because I was fascinated that anything so patently tenth-rate could induce
so many adults to say they as well as their kids liked it a great deal.
Left me to wonder if they'd ever actually read ANYthing else if THIS could
be mistaken for even passing fair, let alone good. Certainly I cannot
believe YOU read much beyond Alvin Schwartz if you really believe this
low-low-low level of writing is great compared to your imagined "trash
that is so often peddled to kids." Babbit's TUCK EVERLASTING, Dahl's
CHARLY & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, the Narnia books begrudgingly, Du Bois's
TWENTY-ONE BALOONS, L'Engle's WRINKLE IN TIME....works of Alan Garner,
Margaret Mahy, Hugh Lofting, Milne, Baum, Sid Fleishman, Robin McKinley,
Susan Cooper, Selma Lagerlof, Howard Garis, ad infinitum . . . books like
Where the sidewealk ends, Sylvester & the magic pebble, Harriet the spy,
Pippy Longstalkings or Paddington Bear books, Charlotte's Web oh god
Charlotte's Web, good lord there is so damned much TRANSCENDENTLY GREAT in
YA & kidlit that for anyone to speak of "other trash peddled to kids" and
actually NOT MEAN HARRY POTTER -- well, it's obscene.
Much of today's children's & young-adult literature is banal, but it is
only rarely as outright badly written as H.P. And the transcendant moments
in kidlit are SO tremendous, and SO numerous, that to suppose the best
available would be H.P. is like finding out rabbit shit has actual
nutrients in it & supposing to eat rabbit shit is better than eating food.
I will certainly never again give any of H.P. book a second try (& have
tried to avoid being dragged TOO often into discussions since these books'
fandom strike me as really only needing these books to prop up their
houses when the wheels go flat). There are too many real books to ponder
instead, hard though it is to never respond at all to popular delusions &
fads that mistake the tedious & incompetent for cooler'n'ratshit. That
Harry is essentially a nasty little bastard who should be hacked to bits &
eaten by werewolves lest his chopped up pieces regenerate, is sort of
beside the point. But the moralists should worry less about satanism &
think more about the fact that Harry is a stupid twerp who never does get
any come-uppance for being a vile putz. That the muggles are repeatedly
regarded as the vile ones when the "heroic" figures are much worse -- it
has echoes of Kikes who hate Ragheads who hate Crackers who hate Niggers.
Muggles is just a harrypotterism for niggers, the morality being truly
reprehensible. But I'd be all for reprehensible morality if it wasn't
simply incompetently written. And as some who actually loves high fantasy,
I hate to see it turned into such a kitchy second-rate cartoon usage, when
in skillful hands it can sing. The fear is now that it has been savagely
reduced to ultra-dreck, it will be hard for any reader to take it
seriously even when it's done right.
If later H.P. potboilers-for-kids have been farmed out to be ghostwritten
by someone who actually knows English & therefore wrote them ten times
better, they'd still be rubbish, but I will never know. As with most
excessively popular things, a good restaurant will never equal the
business of McDonalds, a trashy prime-time soap opera or "reality"
gameshow will always have higher ratings classic cinema, the latest
boy-band will sell more copies of a truly stupid recording in their one
year of fame than Leonard Cohen has sold in twenty years of his, &
actually brilliant kidlit writers like Joan Aiken or Robert Westall or
Jane Yolen or Lloyd Alexander -- hell, there are a thousand great
children's writers active today, & Rowlands is NOT one of them, but
McHarry or Wal*Harry is going to outpace them all because a society that
has lost all sense of aesthetic really doesn't know gourmet from fast-food
& couldn't appreciate better stuff if they tried. They've forgotten how.
-paghat
> Luke
pon
> In article <_JSX7.23347$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Luke
> Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "paghat" <paghatSP...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> >
<snip amazingly humorous pontification>
That was perhaps the most humorous thing I've read in the past week.
Kinda like Harlan Ellison ranting about copyright infringement.
Amazing. I disagree, of course, but damn you're good.
publius ovidius
time to re-lurk
Don D'Ammassa
paghat wrote:
>
> - but one
> can go awfully far down the list before finding anything as rubbishy as
> H.P., it is not necessary to find great works to compare it to for it to
> grow pale in comparison. Just pick out any stupid kidlit book at random,
> nine times in ten it WILL be better. I can frankly enjoy some bad writing
Not that I'm particularly fond of Harry Potter, but you haven't read much of the
recent crop of crappy kidlit fantasy novels if you think this. I'm appalled at
the quality of some of the stuff that is getting published.
J S George
J S George
Geoduck
She's been honing her art for years over on seattle.general. Glad to
see that the rest of the world is now getting a taste of it.
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Phil Fraering
>IIRC, New Mexico has a pretty large number of people living in poverty.
>I'd think a good Christian could find a better way to spend the money than
>on books to burn. Especially in the Christmas season.
I take it Ms. Rowling gets the same amount of money whether they
read the books or burn them?
"Explain this part to me again?"
Anyway, I'd post my Harry Potter conspiracy theory, but someone might
take it seriously.
But did anyone notice that Gryffindor and the US Marine Corps have the
same colors?
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Crimso
> The most accurate assessment was
>that of Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2000.
Fortunately, for the rest of us, Harold Bloom will be remembered for a lot
shorter period after his timely demise than will HP or Rowling. I don't doubt
his family, having finally been rid of the pompous coot, will not only have
forgotten where his grave lies, but for years will lay flowers on the grave of
Mrs. Ida Nussbaum thinking it's Bloom's.
paghat
wrote:
Clearly a potted potterite, & difficult to imagine it the opinion of
anyone actually familiar with Bloom's brilliant criticism & biblical
commentaries, the latter most definitively to be read a great deal longer
than Rowling even if she HAD been more than a fad of the day. But even
within the delusional worldview of a potterite in which genius like Blooms
deserves an obscure grave but Rowland's talant for the banal does not --
well hell, it's still only slaying the messenger, & it remains that the
worst paragraph ever penned in any children's story by Isaac Singer would
more greatly enrich a child than the whole of HP.
-paghat
Fred Galvin
> As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like
> these stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books
> themselves.
Hmm. Just guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong: You allow that those
morons have the right to hold and express their contemptible opinions,
but you object to their means of expressing themselves, namely, the
physical burning of books, which you consider a kind of desecration.
Is that it? Kind of like the anti-flagburners?
ObSF: Name a classic sf work by a famous author which features a
positive depiction of bookburning.
Crimso
>Clearly a potted potterite
Not at all. I have never read HP and have no desire to read HP nor any other
childrens book.
Poppy Z. Brite
>That was perhaps the most humorous thing I've read in the past week.
>Kinda like Harlan Ellison ranting about copyright infringement.
>Amazing. I disagree, of course, but damn you're good.
>
>publius ovidius
>time to re-lurk
Yes, she is. I loathe Harold Bloom and enjoy Rowling, but a good Paghat rant
is worth reading no matter whose sacred cows she's making into hamburger.
PZB
>
>
>
>
>
>
David Cowie
>
> Anyway, I'd post my Harry Potter conspiracy theory, but someone might
> take it seriously.
_Foucault's Pendulum_ by Umberto Eco shows what can happen when you
invent a really good conspiracy theory.
But tell us yours anyway.
>
> But did anyone notice that Gryffindor and the US Marine Corps have the
> same colors?
>
> Phil
>
--
David Cowie
There is no _spam in my address.
"You had to do WHAT with your seat?"
Wendy E. Betts
Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Not that I'm particularly fond of Harry Potter, but you haven't read much of the
>recent crop of crappy kidlit fantasy novels if you think this. I'm appalled at
>the quality of some of the stuff that is getting published.
I have to agree. I'm not a major HP fan - although having it read to
me by my husband ups its entertainment value considerably - but it is
far and away better than much of what is published today. Many of us
children's book fans are used to the cream of the crop, the books that
have survived for generation after generation, and don't realize just
how much dreadful stuff is out there. And I'm not talking about series
stuff that you _expect_ to be crap, either.
--
"Notes from the Windowsill": http://www.armory.com/~web/notes.html
"`Steph thinks you can wear makeup and still find Narnia.'
`Well, so do I, but why make things harder?'"
-- Pamela Dean, _Juniper, Gentian, & Rosemary_
Isaac Kuo
>After 30 or so pages of the most abominable writing -- & it makes Alvin
>Schwartz look brilliant by comparison -- I started skipping five pages at
>a time without losing the thread,
>But the moralists should worry less about satanism &
>think more about the fact that Harry is a stupid twerp who never does get
>any come-uppance for being a vile putz.
Such a pity paghat started skipping five pages at a time, and losing
the thread. Probably would have appreciated Harry's come-uppances,
especially the big one in the first book that must have been skipped.
>That the muggles are repeatedly
>regarded as the vile ones when the "heroic" figures are much worse -- it
>has echoes of Kikes who hate Ragheads who hate Crackers who hate Niggers.
>Muggles is just a harrypotterism for niggers, the morality being truly
>reprehensible.
Ho-hum. Obviously missed the point. It's so blatantly and
repeatedly written that anti-Muggle discrimination exists
among wizards and that this is a BAD thing.
Pathetic, really. Even skipping five pages at a time, paghat's
reading comprehension must have been very poor to miss that.
But I should give the benefit of the doubt and assume that paghat
simply skipped fifty or a hundred pages at a time...
It's still pathetic, of course, but in a different way.
Isaac Kuo
Lois Tilton
> Pastor Jack Brock said he would have a "holy bonfire" on
> Sunday at the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo in
> southern New Mexico to torch books about the fictional
> teen-age wizard who is wildly popular with young people.
>
> "These books encourage our youth to learn more about
> witches, warlocks, and sorcerers, and those things are an
> abomination to God and to me," Brock, 74, told Reuters.
Somebody call George Bush, I think we've found where Mullah Omar went to
ground.
--
LT
Robert Lee
30120119...@soggy72.drizzle.com:
> Hell, I start fires in the fireplace all the time using old newspapers, &
> the most slipshod articles in them are better written than Harry Potter.
> So no loss.
Heh...I thought the same thing, pretty much.
--
--Robert
The United States of America has just succeeded in bombing a country back
out of the Stone Age.
--Chris Hitchens
Robert Lee
news:a0qdo4$mdtul$2...@ID-105025.news.dfncis.de:
> Subject: Re: New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
> From: David Cowie <david_co...@lineone.net>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.horror.written,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.book
> s.childrens,alt.censorship Followup-To: rec.arts.horror.written
>
> On Monday 31 December 2001 07:20, Phil Fraering wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, I'd post my Harry Potter conspiracy theory, but someone might
>> take it seriously.
>
> _Foucault's Pendulum_ by Umberto Eco shows what can happen when you
> invent a really good conspiracy theory.
It becomes everyone's favorite doorstop?
Robert Lee
news:_JSX7.23347$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Have you ever read them yourself? Or compared them to the other trash
> that is so often peddled to kids?
Yes. They're okay. They're derivative as hell, and I guess they're better
written than Goosebumps or The Baby-Sitters Club series, if you consider
that praise.
On the "peddling trash to kids" score, however: Scholastic Book Services,
the trash peddlars behind the series novels I just mentioned and about a
million other lines of interchangable toilet paper, is also the trash
peddlar who's been pushing Harry Potter in and out of classrooms for the
past few years. The Potter books are certainly not helped by the company
they find themselves in, here in the States.
Robert Lee
news:a0q5bq$60g$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> Subject: Re: New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
> From: A_Pr...@hotmail.com (Crimso)
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.horror.written,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.book
> s.childrens,alt.censorship
>
> In article <paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com>,
> paghatSP...@netscape.net (paghat) wrote:
>
>> The most accurate assessment was that of Harold Bloom in the Wall
>> Street Journal, July 11, 2000.
>
> Fortunately, for the rest of us, Harold Bloom will be remembered for a
> lot shorter period after his timely demise than will HP or Rowling.
Yeah, 'cause, you know, nobody's ever going to make an event movie or Happy
Meals or video games out of _The Book of J_.
Robert Lee
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.011231...@titania.math.ukans.edu:
> Hmm. Just guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong: You allow that those
> morons have the right to hold and express their contemptible opinions,
> but you object to their means of expressing themselves, namely, the
> physical burning of books, which you consider a kind of desecration.
> Is that it? Kind of like the anti-flagburners?
One of my favorite arguments, too, when people wring their hands about
book-burnings. (Which I will begin worrying about just as soon as people
start burning books they don't *own.*)
Nobody ever has a very good comeback to that one, so I wouldn't hold my
breath, BTW.
Luke Webber
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.011231...@titania.math.ukans.edu...
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Luke Webber wrote:
>
> > As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like
> > these stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books
> > themselves.
>
> Hmm. Just guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong: You allow that those
> morons have the right to hold and express their contemptible opinions,
> but you object to their means of expressing themselves, namely, the
> physical burning of books, which you consider a kind of desecration.
> Is that it? Kind of like the anti-flagburners?
They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important symbol
to my mind. And yes, there are many books which I wouldn't mourn for an
instant, but I would still hate to see them heaped up for a bonfire.
> ObSF: Name a classic sf work by a famous author which features a
> positive depiction of bookburning.
Fahrenheit 451? Didn't the book-people ceremoniously burn their book once
they'd "become" that book?
Luke
paghat
Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> nobody's ever going to make an event movie or Happy
> Meals or video games out of _The Book of J_.
Happy meal prizes no, but I think a movie about Tamar, historian to the
court of David her father, could be pretty exciting. Adrien Janis
Bledstein speculated that the J author was Tamar; Bloom is not so
specific. Might also have been one of Solomon's daughters, i.e., Taphath
or Bashmath, but Tamar bat-David is a more appealing candidate because
every reference to her in scripture is heavy with quadruple-meanings with
an awful lot ultimtely known about her, & chronicling the Davidic line
with special focus on such figures as Tamar bat-Elam (for whom David's
daughter was named), Sarah, Leah, Rachel, Rebekah, Hagar, & other great
heroines, leading up to herself.
A fascinating figure through whose p.o.v. one would expect unusual "takes"
on her signal family. I could see it as a miniseries for cable -- would
have to be cable so that some of the more grotesque elements of her
experiences could be reasonably addressed. Tamar was by profession a
physician, which explains why Amnon feigned illness in order to be treated
by her [2 Sm 13:5-11]. When Tamar perceived his plan, she wanted no part
of him, & delivered an impassioned speech against his desires [13:12-13].
He raped her nonetheless, but afterward loathed her for his own sin &
threw her out of his house [13:14-19]. Some say "Amnon hated her" because
she mutilated his genitals [b. Sanhedrin 21a], good for her.
The text does not quite really say Tamar was raped however; she was forced
against her will into an "anah" ceremony, which may have resembled
marriage-by-capture but far too ritualized to qualify as rape. The usual
term for rape is elsewhere NOT anah, but shagel, an unfortunate pun for
"companion" or "queen" which may itself have alluded originally to a
Goddess ritual considered unclean by yahwists, & only much later took on
the meaning of secular (non-ritualized) rape. The word anah in association
with Amnon's plans for Tamar, & was related to violence of the Goddess
Anath with her brother-consort Baal. Amnon forced a Canaanitic ritual on
his sister, which she deplored. When she said, "No, my brother, do not
anah me, for no such thing ought to be done in Israel" [13:12] she meant
that it ought to be done only in Canaan of which nation of House of David
was set apart. She did not struggle against being raped but being forced
into a sort of mummery that cast her as the Goddess Anath, who resurrected
then mated with her slain brother Baal, as Amnon would (in mumming
pretence) have Tamar cure him of illness then mate with him. And Anath's
very name incorporates the word anah. Tamar told Amnon forcefully, "And
thou shall be as one of the fools in Israel" [13:13], meaning that to take
a wife by this shameful, Canaanitic method would render Amnon akin to the
nation's large population of worshippers of Baal & Anath.
Tamar for safety's sake afterward lived in the house of Absalom, & plotted
with Absalom to obtain vengeance [2 Sm 13:20-22]. It was during this time
that women of Israel began in unison to demand stronger laws to protect
them, for if such things could happen to the daughter of David, what hope
had women of the common citizenry [b. Sanhedrin 21a]. Two years later
vengeance was served & Amnon was slain [2 Sm 13:23-33], & Absalom had to
flee to the land of his and Tamar's mother, living three years under the
protection of his maternal grandfather, King Talmai of Geshur [3:3;
13:34-38]. Due to Absalom's crime of fratricide, & because Tamar could not
legally (re)marry after having been forced into the anah ceremony &
afterward cast aside by her brother, Tamar lived the rest of her life
independent of any husband -- wealthy & independent & head of the house in
Absalom's absence -- with all resources nearby to write a nationalist
history focusing greatly on the maternal lines. There are worse fates, &
no sense that Tamar was actually stigmatized, since Absalom had no qualms
naming his own daughter after Tamar [14:27; Josephus Antiquities 7:10.3].
A tale of heretical sexual rites, vengeance & murder, from the point of
view of a court chronicler & physician who happened to be the daughter of
the king, is hot stuff, & would make a first-rate sleezy movie.
-paghat
Kyle Haight
Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>
>They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important symbol
>to my mind.
So, in other words, it's different when it's your ox being gored?
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Paul Ilechko
> Clearly a potted potterite, & difficult to imagine it the opinion of
> anyone actually familiar with Bloom's brilliant criticism & biblical
> commentaries, the latter most definitively to be read a great deal longer
> than Rowling even if she HAD been more than a fad of the day. But even
> within the delusional worldview of a potterite in which genius like Blooms
> deserves an obscure grave but Rowland's talant for the banal does not --
> well hell, it's still only slaying the messenger, & it remains that the
> worst paragraph ever penned in any children's story by Isaac Singer would
> more greatly enrich a child than the whole of HP.
You are a bore, aren't you?
Luke Webber
news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Then your opinion is not worth a nickle. The most accurate assessment was
> that of Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2000.
"Most accurate" because it agrees with your own jaundiced evaluation, no
doubt. Clearly, in your world, literature is a subject upon which there is
no room for such matters as taste.
> He noted
> among much else, "It seems to me to be inferior to many comic books."
> Hell, it's inferior to space-filler stories in STARTLING STORIES. Bloom
> points out that history is full of runaway bestsellers soon enough
> consigned to "the dustbin of the ages," & it's a good bet H.P. will indeed
> run its course & just like such fabulously successful writers as Mrs
> Humphrey Ward or E.D.E.N. Southworth, Rowlands will be in the dustbin soon
> enough, whereas the far-less-than-bestselling Joan Aiken will be collected
> & loved for as long as English survives as a language. "The Harry Potter
> books are long on cliches, short on imaginative vision. They don't measure
> up to the classics of children's literature" Bloom states correctly. He
> would compare it to Wind In The Willows, & Alice in Wonderland -- but one
> can go awfully far down the list before finding anything as rubbishy as
> H.P., it is not necessary to find great works to compare it to for it to
> grow pale in comparison.
So you and Bloom have a kink in your tails because HP is written in current
vernacular and lacks references to the classics and obscure parables of
modern life? Try reading Alice in Wonderland to most modern kids and see
where it gets you. In fact, reading AiW to a kid is a great eye-opener. It
makes you realise that the story comes across as the dope-dream that it was.
The Wind in the Willows is wonderful, but most kids over the age of eleven
or twelve will spurn it.
I suspect that the real problem that most detractors have with the HP books
is that they view its success as disproportionate to its literary merit.
It's hard to argue against such a case, because it is undoubtedly true. But
so what? They're not as bad as you're painting them, and that's for sure.
Try comparing the books to other publishing phenomena of recent times.
Goosebumps, Animorphs, the Babysitters' Club. Successful series which
appeared in pride of place in bookshops everywhere, but which were/are
undeniably awful. HP stacks up pretty damned well against those. Better
still, Rowling only plans seven of them, not forty-seven. <g>
> Just pick out any stupid kidlit book at random,
> nine times in ten it WILL be better. I can frankly enjoy some bad writing
> -- I like Tarzan books for instance -- & capacity to enjoy something as
> badly done as H.P. is not so troubling as the public's apparent inability
> to even grasp the fact that they're enjoying something awful. Usually when
> some scatophile puts shit in his mouth & says, "Yum yum!" he IS
> nevertheless aware that it is shit. The comparison would be the way that
> White Trash icon Martha Stewart gets referred to as reflecting upper
> middleclass values -- yeah right, that's why her primary outlet for her
> crappy products is K Mart.
Ho-hum. I haven't noticed a lot of references to the HP books as
"literature", if that's any help. Most of us can easily recognise that
they're not great works of imagination, and that they don't embody all of
the trditional literary values. That doesn't stop us from viewing them as a
bloody good read. Your rantings are misplaced and overblown.
> H.P. is in essence the Wal*Mart of children's books -- & the Wal*Mart
> crowd is terribly peevish with Bloom you can bet, sending him hate-mail
> that only proves him right.
Crud. Hate-mail proves no such thing. And WalMart are, AFAIK, strictly a
US-based chain, while HP is a far more successful phenomenon. Though I don't
doubt that WalMart carry the HP books, as do Borders, Barnes and Nobler,
Bloomingdales and every other store which sells books.
> The worst pulp magazine or lamest anonymous
> Stratemyer Syndicate writer had better command of the English language.
> Asked on NPR about the malice he's experienced from potted potter
> fanatics, he said: "My e-mail is flooded with angry Harry Potterites
> denouncing a piece I published on my birthday two days ago on the op-ed
> page of the "Wall Street Journal," insisting that they feel their children
> are benefiting enormously by reading "Harry Potter." I think they are
> deluding themselves. I read the first "Harry Potter" book in order to
> write that piece. I was appalled that every sentence was a string of
> cliches, that there was no characterization, that every character in it
> spoke with the voice of every other character, that it was finally just a
> piece of goo. I think reading is in trouble no matter how many people
> crowd the bookstores and no matter what profits the publishers are
> turning. It's in trouble because we do not consider how to read and why."
And I think that neither Bloom nor you have anything to say on the matter.
The books are successful, and the vast bulk of humanity is plainly arrayed
against you. I'm not about to say that popularity is a definite measure of
merit, but I've read the books and I have no problem with their success.
They may not be literary masterpieces, but they're perfectly OK as stories.
Oh, and both of my daughters have also read the HP books, but here's a clue.
They've read a lot of other books as well. If HP was all that they read, and
if it came in forty volumes, each worse than the last, I'd probably be
bemoaning the phenomenon as well, but either way, it'd be something which
would blow over soon enough, and they'd be back looking for other stories by
other writers, some better, some probably worse.
OTOH, there are plenty of kids out there who need to be handcuffed to a
chair before they'll open a book. If HP is the wedge which opened some of
those minds to reading, I'm all in favour. Great literature almost never
works for kids like that, at least to start with.
> > As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like these
> > stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books themselves.
>
> In the early 1990s the most commonly banned story in America was Little
> Red Riding Hood, because she had wine in her basket. So sure, book
> burners are of course cretins. But this added attention for H.P. will only
> insure the current fad for pureed dogshit lasts a little longer. So the
> only "loss" is that it only proves H.P. will be around a little longer, &
> every kid who wastes tame reading them will be that much more diminished
> for not having spent that time on something at least marginally well done.
And marginally less interesting, perhaps. Which they'll be marginally more
likely to set aside in favour of Nintendo.
My advice is to live with it. If your blood boils every time you see a
stuffed owl toy, you're destined for the coronary ward. ;^)
[snip]
And do you think that my kids aren't reading and haven't read some of those
great works? And do you honestly believe that Paddington Bear, Harriet the
Spy and even The Wizard of Oz are morally and intellectually superior to HP?
On what basis? Age? The Wizard of Oz is a long way from being great
literature by most yardsticks that I know of, many of which you've applied
to HP. I'm staggered at your lack of rigour and at your personal bias. If
skipping five pages at a time is your yardstick, I'm outta here.
> Much of today's children's & young-adult literature is banal, but it is
> only rarely as outright badly written as H.P. And the transcendant moments
> in kidlit are SO tremendous, and SO numerous, that to suppose the best
> available would be H.P. is like finding out rabbit shit has actual
> nutrients in it & supposing to eat rabbit shit is better than eating food.
Back to the shit again? This is getting boring. If anybody in this
discussion has come out and stated that HP is great literature, let's both
hale them forth and have it out with them. I haven't seen it said.
> I will certainly never again give any of H.P. book a second try (& have
> tried to avoid being dragged TOO often into discussions since these books'
> fandom strike me as really only needing these books to prop up their
> houses when the wheels go flat). There are too many real books to ponder
> instead, hard though it is to never respond at all to popular delusions &
> fads that mistake the tedious & incompetent for cooler'n'ratshit. That
> Harry is essentially a nasty little bastard who should be hacked to bits &
> eaten by werewolves lest his chopped up pieces regenerate, is sort of
> beside the point. But the moralists should worry less about satanism &
> think more about the fact that Harry is a stupid twerp who never does get
> any come-uppance for being a vile putz. That the muggles are repeatedly
> regarded as the vile ones when the "heroic" figures are much worse -- it
> has echoes of Kikes who hate Ragheads who hate Crackers who hate Niggers.
> Muggles is just a harrypotterism for niggers, the morality being truly
> reprehensible.
So this is the basis of your dislike? Over-simplification and stereotyping?
If you'd read further you'd know that the true vilains of the books are
Voldemort and his followers, including and possibly especially the Malfoys.
Wizards, not Muggles. The Dursleys aren't to be taken as typical of all
Muggles. It'd be awfully hard to turn kids against Muggles, wouldn't it,
since any child over the age of eleven, plus his entire family, are almost
certainly Muggles themselves? In any case, this sort of stereotyping is
everywhere present in children's literature. And much adult literature, for
that matter.
Oh, and HP also contains numerous warnings against such rash
value-judgements. Take the case of Snape, a nasty piece of work who is
presumed to be and agent of Veldemort, but who, as the plot devolves, is
really working for Dumbledore and The Good Guys. Nasty, but not actually
evil. A useful distinction, IMO.
> But I'd be all for reprehensible morality if it wasn't
> simply incompetently written. And as some who actually loves high fantasy,
> I hate to see it turned into such a kitchy second-rate cartoon usage, when
> in skillful hands it can sing. The fear is now that it has been savagely
> reduced to ultra-dreck, it will be hard for any reader to take it
> seriously even when it's done right.
>
> If later H.P. potboilers-for-kids have been farmed out to be ghostwritten
> by someone who actually knows English & therefore wrote them ten times
> better, they'd still be rubbish, but I will never know.
[snip]
You'll never know how the first one turned out either, and that's obvious
from your own errors and over-simplifications. If you;d read more than the
odd page of the book, you might claim some qualifications for your
criticisms, but you've missed the point entirely.
Luke
Terry Austin
"Kyle Haight" <kha...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
news:a0qtvq$ani$1...@og1.olagrande.net...
> In article <Lu6Y7.24319$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important
symbol
> >to my mind.
>
> So, in other words, it's different when it's your ox being gored?
>
will on others?
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Luke Webber" <nos...@spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:Lu6Y7.24319$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Fred Galvin" <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.011231...@titania.math.ukans.edu...
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Luke Webber wrote:
> >
> > > As for "no loss", there is always something lost when morons like
> > > these stoop to book-burning. And I'm not talking about the books
> > > themselves.
> >
> > Hmm. Just guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong: You allow that those
> > morons have the right to hold and express their contemptible opinions,
> > but you object to their means of expressing themselves, namely, the
> > physical burning of books, which you consider a kind of desecration.
> > Is that it? Kind of like the anti-flagburners?
>
> They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important
symbol
> to my mind. And yes, there are many books which I wouldn't mourn for an
> instant, but I would still hate to see them heaped up for a bonfire.
There are many who feel the same way about flags. Feel free to demonstrate
why your opinion is more valid than theirs.
Terry Austin
Luke Webber
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important
symbol
> >to my mind.
>
> So, in other words, it's different when it's your ox being gored?
Nope. To be more specific, I see the flag-burnings of the seventies as
justifiable protests against actions taken by the US. The flag is the symbol
of the state, so by burning it you register your strong disagreement and
disillusioment with that state.
By contrast, book-burners are registering a desire to destroy an idea with
which they happen to disagree. It's not a far stretch from burning books to
burning the writers and readers of those books, and to breaking into
bookshops, looting all copies from the shelves and burning those.
Book-burners are never sympathetic figures in my eyes, no matter whether the
book in question is Harry Potter and the Philosoper's Stone or Mein Kampf.
Luke
Fred Galvin
> > ObSF: Name a classic sf work by a famous author which features a
> > positive depiction of bookburning.
>
> Fahrenheit 451? Didn't the book-people ceremoniously burn their
> book once they'd "become" that book?
Never read that one. I was thinking of another Bradbury yarn -- is
bookburning a recurring theme of his? -- I was thinking of the joyful
bonfire in "The Million-Year Picnic", at the end of _The Martian
Chronicles_. "All the laws and beliefs of Earth were burnt into small
hot ashes which soon would be carried off in a wind."
Captain Button
In rec.arts.sf.written Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Fred Galvin <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote in
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.011231...@titania.math.ukans.edu:
>> Hmm. Just guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong: You allow that those
>> morons have the right to hold and express their contemptible opinions,
>> but you object to their means of expressing themselves, namely, the
>> physical burning of books, which you consider a kind of desecration.
>> Is that it? Kind of like the anti-flagburners?
> One of my favorite arguments, too, when people wring their hands about
> book-burnings. (Which I will begin worrying about just as soon as people
> start burning books they don't *own.*)
> Nobody ever has a very good comeback to that one, so I wouldn't hold my
> breath, BTW.
I fail to see the relevance of this comparison. I've heard lots
of people denounce book burning as barbaric.
I've never heard anyone threaten to beat people up for it.
I've never heard anyone call for reinventing outlawry for
flag burners. (Like making violent assault have a maximum penalty
of a $20 fine if the victim was buring a flag.)
I've never heard anyone demand that the government make it illegal.
I've never heard of demands for a constitutional amendment to ban it.
I've never heard of proposals of gutless hypocritical pretexts to
ban it or excuse violent assualt on those doing it under some
other law which is being perverted by extremely selective enforcement.
People in a free society should have the right to burn books they
own if they want to because they dislike the message.
And other people (like myself) should have the right to call
them ignorant bigoted intolerant totalitarian wannabe scumbags.
Same thing for flag burning.
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
David Buckna
> New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
>
>
> ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans
> to burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination
> to God," the church pastor said on Wednesday.
> Pastor Jack Brock said he would have a "holy bonfire" on
> Sunday at the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo in
> southern New Mexico to torch books about the fictional
> teen-age wizard who is wildly popular with young people.
Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/31/potter.book.burning.ap/index.html
---
Jack Brock, pastor of Christ Community Church, is quoted as saying the
Harry Potter books burned Sunday are "a masterpiece of satanic
deception."
I find Brock's statement highly ironic. If Brock and members of his
flock had taken the time to examine the Potter books more closely,
they may have found a variety of Christian themes and symbols within
their pages.
Baylor University philosophy professor Scott Moore cites several
examples:
* The phoenix belonging to headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Although
originally a pre-Christian symbol, Christians in the Middle Ages
appropriated it as a symbol for Christ.
* The unicorn found in the forest near Hogwarts. Moore says the
unicorn was another ancient symbol of Christianity, sometimes used to
represent Christ's vulnerability -- the life-giving blood of the
unicorn reminiscent of Christian communion. The evil Voldemort slays a
unicorn and attempts to drink its blood so he can continue to live.
Moore notes: "This is a very rich and evocative symbol. Parents who
are reading this with their kids can talk about this."
* An emphasis on truth-telling. Moore says while Harry and his friends
sometimes get away with telling lies, the overall message is that
truth always is the best course. Dumbledore tells Harry truth "is a
beautiful and terrifying thing." He adds: "I will tell you what I can.
I will not, of course, lie."
* The classical and Christian virtues taught at Hogwarts include:
courage, prudence, self-control and justice. Moore says faith, hope
and love are also exemplified.
By pointing one's browser to
<www.hollywoodjesus.com/harry_potter_1.htm>
Sol O. Mann's Top 10 quiz on Harry Potter can be viewed, which
includes the following question:
Lord Voldemort, an evil wizard, tried to kill the infant Harry. What
king gave orders to kill all boys in Bethlehem and vicinity who were
two years old and under, in an attempt to kill Jesus?
A Dec. 28 editorial in Canada's National Post <www.nationalpost.com>
states: "In one seminal scene from her first book, Harry is tempted
with power if he should join the dark side, yet rejects it. (Does Mr.
Brock recall Jesus being shown the world from the mountaintop and
offered power over it if only He would worship the Devil?) Harry
Potter is not an analogue for Jesus, but he is not working for the
Devil, either."
As King Solomon once observed, there is nothing new under the sun.
David Buckna
For further reference:
Bible study with Harry [October 27, 2001]
http://www.charlotte.com/partners/news/briefs/news_briefs_1_Oct27.htm
Harry Potter from a Christian Perspective
http://www.www.gbgm-umc.org/prospect/Harry.htm
Cleric finds virtue in Harry Potter [September 10, 2001]
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/2001/09/10/FFXMQX1QDRC.html
"A Charmed Life: The Spirituality of Potterworld" by Reverend Dr.
Francis Bridger (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, London, November, 2001)
http://www.thegoodbookstall.org.uk/publishers/publishers_d.html
William December Starr
paghatSP...@netscape.net (paghat) said:
> Clearly a potted potterite, & difficult to imagine it the opinion of
> anyone actually familiar with Bloom's brilliant criticism & biblical
> commentaries, the latter most definitively to be read a great deal
> longer than Rowling even if she HAD been more than a fad of the
> day. But even within the delusional worldview of a potterite in
> which genius like Blooms deserves an obscure grave but Rowland's
> talant for the banal does not -- well hell, it's still only slaying
> the messenger, & it remains that the worst paragraph ever penned in
> any children's story by Isaac Singer would more greatly enrich a
> child than the whole of HP.
What *are* you?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
"Luke Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> said:
>> They don't measure up to the classics of children's literature"
>> Bloom states correctly. He would compare it to Wind In The Willows,
>> & Alice in Wonderland -- but one can go awfully far down the list
>> before finding anything as rubbishy as H.P., it is not necessary to
>> find great works to compare it to for it to grow pale in
>> comparison. [paghat]
>
> So you and Bloom have a kink in your tails because HP is written in
> current vernacular and lacks references to the classics and obscure
> parables of modern life?
I think their joint problem is anger at the way that people are
enjoying all the _wrong_ stuff. How *dare* they? Don't they know
what's *good* for them?
> Try reading Alice in Wonderland to most modern kids and see where it
> gets you. In fact, reading AiW to a kid is a great eye-opener. It
> makes you realise that the story comes across as the dope-dream that
> it was. The Wind in the Willows is wonderful, but most kids over
> the age of eleven or twelve will spurn it.
Heck, even as a much younger kid than that _The Wind in the Willows_
didn't work for me. I think it was something about the way it made a
big deal about how one of the characters had a *motorcar*, as if it was
a big deal or something. (Well, look at it from a modern middle-class
American kid's point of view...)
Terry Austin
>"Kyle Haight" <kha...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
>news:a0qtvq$ani$1...@og1.olagrande.net...
>> In article <Lu6Y7.24319$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >They can do what they like to flags, books are a much more important
>symbol
>> >to my mind.
>>
>> So, in other words, it's different when it's your ox being gored?
>
>Nope. To be more specific, I see the flag-burnings of the seventies as
>justifiable protests against actions taken by the US. The flag is the symbol
>of the state, so by burning it you register your strong disagreement and
>disillusioment with that state.
Once again, you assume your perspective is more valid than those who
disagree with. The book burners in question see the Harry Potter book as a
symbol of the Powers Of Evil, so by burning the books they register their
strong disagreement and disillusionment with our godless state.
>
>By contrast, book-burners are registering a desire to destroy an idea with
>which they happen to disagree. It's not a far stretch from burning books to
>burning the writers and readers of those books, and to breaking into
>bookshops, looting all copies from the shelves and burning those.
Flag burners are, just as often, registering a desire to destroy the US,
with which they happen to disagree. It's not a far stretch from burning
flags to burning soldiers and their families (and committing other acts of
terrorism), and to breaking into armories and stealing more effective
weapons, with which to burn far more than flags.
Again, why is your perspective more valid than theirs?
>Book-burners are never sympathetic figures in my eyes,
Censorship hypocrites are never sympathetic figures in my eyes, regardless
of what drum they are banging.
>no matter whether the
>book in question is Harry Potter and the Philosoper's Stone or Mein Kampf.
>
Or the flag.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Metacreator character software now available
William December Starr
A_Pr...@hotmail.com (Crimso) said:
>> ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans to
>> burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination to God,"
>> the church pastor said on Wednesday.
>
> I was wondering how long it would take for the American branch of
> the Taliban to rear their ugly and inbred heads.
Hey, if this is as vile as our Talibananas get...
mich
I disagree with you about book burning vs. flag-burning. Its simply the
typical view of the left.-- Free speech for me but not for thee. Many
moderates and conservatives, although they find flag-burning repugnant, see
it as a form of free expression (as long as the flag belongs to you). I
see book burning the same way. As long as the book belongs to the burner,
then its their right to dispose of it in any way they see fit. And by the
way, I do not see the flag as simply a symbol of the "state". When I look
at the flag of my country, the United States of America, I see and feel the
strength of my ancestors, who came to this country in steerage. They came,
seeking opportunity and a better way of life, with only the clothes on their
backs, and little else. So when I see the American flag, I see a lot more
than you do, obviously. It has power and meaning for me on a personal
level. I am deeply grateful that my ancestors came here so that I may live
a life of freedom. It is because I believe in the strength of the American
dream that I would uphold the right to criticize it. I am not afraid. But
Luke, by being afraid of book burning, you give the process evern more
power. Don't you see that?
I don't believe that books are inherently good, or evil, for that matter. I
love books, but if you took every single one away from me you still
couldn't kill my dreams, ideas, or ideals. Those things don't come from
books. That is the stuff of the mind.
Regards,
Happy New Year,
And let us pray that Peace On Earth finally comes in 2002. (well, okay, it
doesn't look promising, but it doesn't hurt to think about it!)
Silver
--
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy
Luke Webber
news:8le23uoc06n0jtv3f...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Flag burners are, just as often, registering a desire to destroy the US,
> with which they happen to disagree. It's not a far stretch from burning
> flags to burning soldiers and their families (and committing other acts of
> terrorism), and to breaking into armories and stealing more effective
> weapons, with which to burn far more than flags.
>
> Again, why is your perspective more valid than theirs?
I don't believe I ever said that it was, Terry. Just venturing my own
opinion.
> >Book-burners are never sympathetic figures in my eyes,
>
> Censorship hypocrites are never sympathetic figures in my eyes, regardless
> of what drum they are banging.
>
> >no matter whether the
> >book in question is Harry Potter and the Philosoper's Stone or Mein
Kampf.
> >
> Or the flag.
Which flag?
Luke
Luke Webber
news:a0reja$fdt$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <pY7Y7.24476$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Luke Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> said:
> > So you and Bloom have a kink in your tails because HP is written in
> > current vernacular and lacks references to the classics and obscure
> > parables of modern life?
>
> I think their joint problem is anger at the way that people are
> enjoying all the _wrong_ stuff. How *dare* they? Don't they know
> what's *good* for them?
Agreed. Ironically, I suspect that paghat's favourite children's literature
would find as little favour with Bloom as HP. I can't find his original
article online, but from what I *can* find of his elitist rantings, he seems
the type who would start all kids on Cervantes and Shakespeare, then shake
his head and blame the resultant fall-off in reading on the young and/or
their parents. A puffed-up intellectual snob of the type who equate
obscurity with brilliance and entertainment with mediocrity.
Luke
Michael Caldwell
> New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
> ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans
> to burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination
> to God," the church pastor said on Wednesday.
Good shit, I'm sure Ms Rowlings can use the extra dollars.
Actually, this brings about a thought. If you were a struggling author who
needed the money, you could write an "evil book" and then encourage
book burnings as a way to earn the neccessary income / generate the
desired notoriety, and make sure of large sell-throughs on print runs,
which will hopefully mean more book contracts in future. A sort of
reverse of the scien<<<ogy thing.
--
Matt Cardin
(Crimso)
wrote:
> Fortunately, for the rest of us, Harold Bloom will be remembered
> for a lot shorter period after his timely demise than will HP or
> Rowling. I don't doubt his family, having finally been rid of
> the pompous coot, will not only have forgotten where his grave
> lies, but for years will lay flowers on the grave of Mrs. Ida
> Nussbaum thinking it's Bloom's.
To which paghat responded:
> Clearly a potted potterite, & difficult to imagine it the opinion of
> anyone actually familiar with Bloom's brilliant criticism & biblical
> commentaries, the latter most definitively to be read a great deal longer
> than Rowling even if she HAD been more than a fad of the day. But even
> within the delusional worldview of a potterite in which genius like Blooms
> deserves an obscure grave but Rowland's talant for the banal does not --
> well hell, it's still only slaying the messenger, & it remains that the
> worst paragraph ever penned in any children's story by Isaac Singer would
> more greatly enrich a child than the whole of HP.
Not that anyone should care what I have to say, but then, what the
hell. I haven't read a single word by Rowling, so I can't comment one
way or the other on the literary merits of her work. On the other
hand, I *have* read some of Bloom's work, and I have to side with
paghat regarding the astonishing absurdity of glibly claiming that he
will fade into obscurity the moment his corpse is cold, while
Rowling's literary legacy will live on through the ages. Such
comments are obviously the product of a glaring gap in knowledge.
Okay, so maybe the guy is better known in academic circles than among
the general populace, but even that may be doing a disservice to his
prominence and influence in the world of letters in general. By any
standard, whether Rowling's work has any merit or not, I think the
Harry Potter books have to be classed as light reading. Bloom's work,
by contrast, is scholarly, and is informed by a sweeping knowledge of
and passion for the sweeping scope of world literature. His words
have illuminated many areas of literary endeavor, and I think the
world is richer for his having written. As I grow older I'm becoming
increasingly annoyed by the complaints of those who think that anybody
who takes the time to read, reflect, and speak or write about the
product of these two activities -- i.e., anybody who is *educated* --
is thereby an elitist, a pedant, a prisoner of the ivory tower, a cold
intellectual, out-of-touch, etc.
Of course I'm not claiming we should bow to Bloom simply because of
his erudition or reputation. But methinks the above glib dismissal of
him is offered by somebody who knows and loves Rowling's work, but who
doesn't have the faintest clue as to who this Harold Bloom guy is. In
other words, by somebody who doesn't know what he or she is talking
about, and is therefore simply talking to much.
Kind of like me.
All best,
Matt Cardin
paghat
Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:a0reja$fdt$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > In article <pY7Y7.24476$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > "Luke Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> said:
> > > So you and Bloom have a kink in your tails because HP is written in
> > > current vernacular and lacks references to the classics and obscure
> > > parables of modern life?
> >
> > I think their joint problem is anger at the way that people are
> > enjoying all the _wrong_ stuff. How *dare* they? Don't they know
> > what's *good* for them?
>
> Agreed. Ironically, I suspect that paghat's favourite children's literature
> would find as little favour with Bloom as HP.
You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
can't. Get used to it, muggle.
> I can't find his original
> article online, but from what I *can* find of his elitist rantings, he seems
> the type who would start all kids on Cervantes and Shakespeare,
If I wanted proof that HP enthusiasts have GOT to be morons, you just
added "and lying morons at that" to your baseless assumptions about Bloom.
He was as fannishly interested in fantastic literature as someone without
a Yale professorship, in addition to being well-grounded in the classics.
And he was an elitist only if you define failing to be amazingly devoid of
intelligence or critical capacity as elitism.
> then shake
> his head and blame the resultant fall-off in reading on the young and/or
> their parents. A puffed-up intellectual snob of the type who equate
> obscurity with brilliance and entertainment with mediocrity.
Now you add "obscurity" to your delusional comparisons. Bloom's examples
for comparison included Wind in the Willows & Alice Through the Looking
Glass -- personally I think he reached too high as one doesn't have to
look at the best of the best to find just about everything superior to HP
-- but if his examples strike you as obscure works loved by snobs, then
you're not merely amazingly ill-read (as most HP enthusiasts would have to
be) but you're not even living on Earth.
-paggers
> Luke
Sea Wasp
> You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
> wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
> His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
> cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
> literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
> can't. Get used to it, muggle.
Why, look, it's a troll.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Johnny1A
These people are not even representative of America's Christian
Fundamentalists.
The total number of people in America who _genuinely_ represent a
potential equivalent to the Taliban quite tiny.
Shermanlee
Robert Whelan
> paghat wrote:
>
> > You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
> > wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
> > His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
> > cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
> > literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
> > can't. Get used to it, muggle.
>
> Why, look, it's a troll.
I don't think it is. My reaction to the first Harry Potter book was
similar to Paghat's and Bloom's. I couldn't believe how badly it
was written. It was so badly written that I invoked my "not worth
hurting my eyes" rule, and dropped it, not once, but several
times. I then ran across the audio tapes in the library, and
considered this as a way around the "not worth hurting my eyes"
rule, as I could listen while getting exercise. Even then, the
first book is atrociously sloppy, and often mindlessly cruel
in it's blatant indulgence of it's audience. The characters
ARE cartoons. Harry IS a loathesome, selfish, self-righteous
little ass. My favorite character in the whole book was
Snape, because he was the only adult to show any sign of
adulthood, of concern for the welfare of his charges. Everyone
else seemed to have either their heads up their asses (Dumbledore)
or be criminally negligent (Hagrid). It's all about toys, toys,
toys, and more toys, and every frustration is resolved often
within paragraphs of being encountered.
But, as it happens, I found myself being touched quite a few
times by Rowling becoming immersed in the tale herself, not
just condescendingly serving up pablum for her audience (who
I suspect were her own child/children at a very young age)
and the closing encounter with Voldemort was fairly vivid,
though I am rather disturbed that a person writing for children
should take what seems to be a rather sadistic pleasure in
focusing on pain, as Rowling seems to do. I don't think I'm
imagining that her skill as a storyteller improved in the
second book, though there is always the effect of dulling
of the senses as one gets used to irritating features and
flaws.
The second book "Chamber of Secrets" actually seems to be the
first book, rewritten to be actually readable. (well, listenable,
anyway), and I think if I were to recommend any book, it
would be that one. The third book is mediocre, but the fourth
book seems to spend a lot more time tooling around Hogwarts,
which, as a setting, is really the most interesting element of
the books. The most disturbing thing about the books is the
way Rowling seems incapable of allowing Harry any lasting
frustration, resolving any obstacle by novel's end (though
it's better than the first book's pandering.) I find it odd
that Rowling seems to idolize Harry, who is the most shallow
and underdeveloped character in the whole series, while
far more interesting characters go wasted (like Hermione
and Ron, for instance).
Robert Whelan
The truly boring can pass without comment.
Me
"mich" <silve...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a0rrd5$fth$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Luke,
> I disagree with you about book burning vs. flag-burning. Its simply the
> typical view of the left.-- Free speech for me but not for thee
One comment: flag burning isn't usually a communal, "let's get a bunch
of flags together and burn 'em" activity, while book burning usually is.
Flag burning, it seems to me, is usually an individual's act, while
book burnings tend to be group activities incited by an authority figure,
and taken part in by subordinates.
You might have a bunch of people together at a protest at which a
flag is burnt, but I don't think it's very common for a bunch of people
to gather for a "flag burning event" called by a group leader. And if
such ever occur, they probably aren't announced to the media beforehand.
Flag burnings IMHO more likely to be fairly spontaneous, while book
burnings are more premeditated.
The authoritarian, pre-planned, publicity stunt group-think nature
of book burnings is the reason they bother me more than flag burning.
On the other hand, I do think flag burning is a bit misguided. In the
case of the US, the message of the flag burning is typically directed
at a particular administration, while the flag IMHO represents the
entirety of the country and its history. Most Americans who've burned
the flag probably didn't have problems with the country as a whole,
and our general values, but didn't agree with the way certain issues
were being handled. The contrast would be an American burning a
Soviet flag, due to disagreeing with the _fundamentals_ of the Soviet
system. Most Americans who've burned our flag probably wouldn't have
wanted to scrap the Constitution altogether.
Burning presidents in effigy is probably more on-target, but doesn't
carry as much symbolic oomph. Plus, making a good effigy is tough,
there's a risk of it coming off a bit cartoony.
judi
the three. this is not to say it's poorly written; i'm just not as
interested in the story, whereas the third book has a more complicated plot,
so i find it a lot more enjoyable. and of course, the first book is the one
i always recommend; starting in the middle of a continuing plot doesn't
really make sense to me, unless you suspect the person will only read one of
them.
would you catch me if i was falling
kiss me if i was leaving
hold me cause i'm lonely without you
--cc
Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
paghat
<k_je...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "mich" <silve...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:a0rrd5$fth$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > Luke,
> > I disagree with you about book burning vs. flag-burning. Its simply the
> > typical view of the left.-- Free speech for me but not for thee
>
> One comment: flag burning isn't usually a communal, "let's get a bunch
> of flags together and burn 'em" activity, while book burning usually is.
>
> Flag burning, it seems to me, is usually an individual's act, while
> book burnings tend to be group activities incited by an authority figure,
> and taken part in by subordinates.
>
> You might have a bunch of people together at a protest at which a
> flag is burnt, but I don't think it's very common for a bunch of people
> to gather for a "flag burning event" called by a group leader. And if
> such ever occur, they probably aren't announced to the media beforehand.
>
> Flag burnings IMHO more likely to be fairly spontaneous, while book
> burnings are more premeditated.
>
> The authoritarian, pre-planned, publicity stunt group-think nature
> of book burnings is the reason they bother me more than flag burning.
If the government did it, if an effort was made to round up ALL copies of
something, if a book is outright banned, if authors or publishers or
readers are thrown in jail for it -- all of which has happened -- then the
issue becomes real & important. A bunch of rightwing religious bozos
burning as many copies as their own kids are willing to donate -- fact is,
a spraying tom cat is a bigger threat to books. And if it is the ignorant
& intolerant speech you're actually worried about, then your fretfulness
that dopes have as many rights as you have is a much bigger problem, but
easily gotten over if you try real hard.
If it were the "loss of books that were the issue, the way typical
libraries discard them would be the greater threat. The laws that exist in
some states that don't even permit discards to be sold to the public --
but requires they go into landfills -- would be more troubling. Simple
mishandling of books so that they're ready for the garbage bin after only
one person has turned it inside out, mashed in a hip pocket, or dropped it
while reading in the bathtub, would be the greater problem. Like
bookburning, none of it's a problem. Bookbanning bad; but ripping &
shredding & burning something that made an enclave of wussy morons
peevish, that's all about who they are, it's not about books.
The burning of Sir Richard Burton's unpublished manuscripts by his wife as
soon as he was dead was a crime against humanity. A bunch of trailer park
rednecks convincing their children to donate allegedly satanic books for
burning has many inherent worries built into it, but what they do to their
own books is not one for the worry category. That such people reproduce is
horrible; that they unite to stop gay rights or women's right is horrible;
that they tend furtively to be members of the KKK is revolting; that they
make intelligent people leery of ALL people of faith as potential
crackpots is unfortunate; that their trailer parks are a blight on the
planet is horrific; that they're inbred & their daughters pregnant at
thirteen is truly sorryass. But none of that is nearly as horrible as the
blithering masses embracing Rowling for a writer who can enrich their
lives, since what a few marginalized rednecks think is not nearly so
damning a reflection on the taste & critical capacity & low level of
intellectual & spiritual & artistic enrichment that seems to suffice
within mainstream population.
-paghat
Sea Wasp
>
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > paghat wrote:
> >
> > > You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
> > > wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
> > > His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
> > > cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
> > > literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
> > > can't. Get used to it, muggle.
> >
> > Why, look, it's a troll.
>
> I don't think it is. My reaction to the first Harry Potter book was
> similar to Paghat's and Bloom's. I couldn't believe how badly it
> was written. It was so badly written that I invoked my "not worth
> hurting my eyes" rule, and dropped it, not once, but several
> times. I then ran across the audio tapes in the library, and
> considered this as a way around the "not worth hurting my eyes"
> rule, as I could listen while getting exercise. Even then, the
> first book is atrociously sloppy, and often mindlessly cruel
> in it's blatant indulgence of it's audience. The characters
> ARE cartoons. Harry IS a loathesome, selfish, self-righteous
> little ass.
You must forward me a copy of what you're reading, since it doesn't
seem to accord, in any way, shape, or form aside from some identical
names, to what I read.
I was struck by the skill in writing the first book. Cruder than, say,
Roald Dahl, which it reminds me of rather strongly, yes, but stunningly
well written given that this was the author's first book, written under
less than ideal circumstances.
And your characterization of Harry... well, let's just say you appear
to have a copy where Harry and Malfoy have exchanged lines.
Is Harry perfect? No. But he's basically a nice kid -- reminds me of a
nicer version of myself at his age, though not quite as bright but then
again a lot less arrogant, too. (Hermione reflects my bright side).
Fred Galvin
> The burning of Sir Richard Burton's unpublished manuscripts by his
> wife as soon as he was dead was a crime against humanity. A bunch
> of trailer park rednecks convincing their children to donate
> allegedly satanic books for burning has many inherent worries
> built into it, but what they do to their own books is not one for
> the worry category. That such people reproduce is horrible; that
> they unite to stop gay rights or women's right is horrible; that
> they tend furtively to be members of the KKK is revolting; that
> they make intelligent people leery of ALL people of faith as
> potential crackpots is unfortunate; that their trailer parks are a
> blight on the planet is horrific; that they're inbred & their
> daughters pregnant at thirteen is truly sorryass. But none of that
> is nearly as horrible as the blithering masses embracing Rowling
> for a writer who can enrich their lives, since what a few
> marginalized rednecks think is not nearly so damning a reflection
> on the taste & critical capacity & low level of intellectual &
> spiritual & artistic enrichment that seems to suffice within
> mainstream population.
What is truly sorryass is that, in A.D. 2002, people of good taste &
critical capacity & high level of intellectual & spiritual & artistic
enrichment can still see nothing wrong with using ethnic pejoratives
such as "wop", "nigger", and "redneck".
Terry Austin
>On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> paghat wrote:
>>
>> > You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
>> > wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
>> > His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
>> > cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
>> > literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
>> > can't. Get used to it, muggle.
>>
>> Why, look, it's a troll.
>
>I don't think it is.
Heh. You need to do some research on the paghat the ratgirl creature, then.
It's been a troll for a long, long time. Not even an especially clever one.
Terry Austin
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>news:8le23uoc06n0jtv3f...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
>> Flag burners are, just as often, registering a desire to destroy the US,
>> with which they happen to disagree. It's not a far stretch from burning
>> flags to burning soldiers and their families (and committing other acts of
>> terrorism), and to breaking into armories and stealing more effective
>> weapons, with which to burn far more than flags.
>>
>> Again, why is your perspective more valid than theirs?
>
>I don't believe I ever said that it was, Terry. Just venturing my own
>opinion.
Just pointing out that your opinion is identical, except for one detail, as
those you decry, and that you ignore this.
And that your opinions is worth exactly as much as anyone else's.
>
>> >Book-burners are never sympathetic figures in my eyes,
>>
>> Censorship hypocrites are never sympathetic figures in my eyes, regardless
>> of what drum they are banging.
>>
>> >no matter whether the
>> >book in question is Harry Potter and the Philosoper's Stone or Mein
>Kampf.
>> >
>> Or the flag.
>
>Which flag?
>
Any flag.
Terry Austin
>
>"mich" <silve...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:a0rrd5$fth$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> Luke,
>> I disagree with you about book burning vs. flag-burning. Its simply the
>> typical view of the left.-- Free speech for me but not for thee
>
>One comment: flag burning isn't usually a communal, "let's get a bunch
>of flags together and burn 'em" activity, while book burning usually is.
Bullshit.
Jason Bontrager
> A puffed-up intellectual snob of the type who equate
> obscurity with brilliance and entertainment with mediocrity.
I am reminded of a quote that seem apposite:
"I really should say that - I do not direct these remarks against the
vast army of folk song lovers, but merely against that peculiar hard
core who seem to equate authenticity with artistic merit and illiteracy
with charm." - Tom Lehrer, Dean of Living American Composers
Jason B.
Luke Webber
news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> In article <gPfY7.25680$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Luke
> Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> > Agreed. Ironically, I suspect that paghat's favourite children's
literature
> > would find as little favour with Bloom as HP.
>
> You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
> wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
> His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
> cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
> literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
> can't. Get used to it, muggle.
Funny. The only Bloom books I can find which refer to children's fiction are
"Stories and Poems for Extremely Intelligent Children of All Ages" (an
unpromising beginning) and possibly "How to Read and Why", which is possibly
even less promising. If there's a dime novel mentioned in among the Camus
and Proust, it's probably going to be hard to find.
> > I can't find his original
> > article online, but from what I *can* find of his elitist rantings, he
seems
> > the type who would start all kids on Cervantes and Shakespeare,
>
> If I wanted proof that HP enthusiasts have GOT to be morons, you just
> added "and lying morons at that" to your baseless assumptions about Bloom.
> He was as fannishly interested in fantastic literature as someone without
> a Yale professorship, in addition to being well-grounded in the classics.
> And he was an elitist only if you define failing to be amazingly devoid of
> intelligence or critical capacity as elitism.
I can find nothing on the Web which refers to anything in the way of popular
fantasy. He apparently published some critical essays if Ray Bradbury, but I
don't know the content thereof. I've never been one for reading litcrit, and
even if I was, I very much doubt that I could have suffered Bloom. Certainly
he seems to have been passionate about his reading, and he's at least as
entitled to his opinion as the next man, but I don't see why I should have
his opinion thrust up my nose as gospel.
> > then shake
> > his head and blame the resultant fall-off in reading on the young and/or
> > their parents. A puffed-up intellectual snob of the type who equate
> > obscurity with brilliance and entertainment with mediocrity.
>
> Now you add "obscurity" to your delusional comparisons. Bloom's examples
> for comparison included Wind in the Willows & Alice Through the Looking
> Glass -- personally I think he reached too high as one doesn't have to
> look at the best of the best to find just about everything superior to HP
> -- but if his examples strike you as obscure works loved by snobs, then
> you're not merely amazingly ill-read (as most HP enthusiasts would have to
> be) but you're not even living on Earth.
The Wind in the Willows is delightful, no argument. Alice, OTOH suffers from
so many problems that I'm continually amazed to see it treated with such
reverence. Many of the same problems which have been used against the HP
books. Cartoonish characters, poor conitnuity, dreamlike, unreal action and
clever, parabolic references which will completely miss most children. Now
try comparing HP to other children's "classics" like the Famous Five (ugh!)
and see where it gets you. The HP characters *are* somewhat sketchy, but
sufficiently well-developed that the major characters are clearly
distinguished. Sure, Ron and Harry act and speak in similar ways - they're
both British high-school boys, and kindred spirits besides.
Are there better-written works available for children? My bloody word there
are! Will the kids read them? I can give books to my kids all I like, but
now that they read for themselves, I simply *cannot* make them read what I
choose unless I happen to choose something which takes their interest from
the outset. I've read some pretty awful stuff to my kids in the past, simply
because it was what *they* wanted to hear, and it kept them coming back,
wanting more. Somtimes to the point that our evening's half-hour of reading
got stretched well past an hour. And yes, I've also read them Alice and The
Wind in the Willows, plus Pooh, Dr Seuss (love that Lorax) and Dahl. And
Rowling too. I think they're richer for the experience of *all* of those
books. Because they've developed a true love of reading.
Ask either of my kids who their favourite writer is. They both loved the HP
books, but they both have writers that they prefer. My 13YO's favourite is
John Marsden and my 10YO's is Michelle Magorian. Fine by me, they get to
choose. They both also have to read the books imposed upon them by their
teachers, which suits me.
I suspect that the people criticisng the HP books have failed to approach
the books with a child's eye. It's very easy to pick holes in most
children's stories. Bloom appears to have been suffering from late-life
angst over the failing of the youth of today to accept the challenge of the
classics. Well tough. That's the way it has *always* been, since kids began
reading. A good yarn is prized more highly by most than the most intricate,
polished prose, because it *entertains*. It doesn't challenge us? Perhaps we
aren't reading for the *challenge*. At least not today. Perhaps tomorrow
we'll read something challenging, or over the holidays, when we have more
time. That's the way it works.
Luke
Catherine B. Krusberg
> What is truly sorryass is that, in A.D. 2002, people of good taste &
> critical capacity & high level of intellectual & spiritual & artistic
> enrichment can still see nothing wrong with using ethnic pejoratives
> such as "wop", "nigger", and "redneck".
"Redneck" is ethnic? I didn't think even rednecks were inbred
enough to qualify as an "eth."
Cathy Krusberg, amazed at all the groups in the header of this
Internet: ckb...@ix.netcom.com
Luke Webber
news:3C324F4E...@gslis.utexas.edu...
Caught with my hand in the biscuit barrell, by God! Well after all, if
you're going to steal, why not steal from a master? <g>
Luke
David Swanson
>
> I don't think it is.
snip
Very well said. The point of the book seems to be that there are evil
people and good people, and never the twain shall meet. It encourages
sadism and bigotry, which of course are also prominent characteristics
of those who would ban it for entirely the wrong reasons, namely
superstitious objections to its more imaginative and praiseworthy
elements.
See also:
http://webspace4me.net/~swanson/columns/potter.html
paghat
<Pine.LNX.4.21.02010...@titania.math.ukans.edu>, Fred
Galvin <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:
Nine times in ten it's a honky worryin' 'bout it & keeping his Klan
membership up to date on the sly.
-paggers
Steve Hayes
>A_Pr...@hotmail.com (Crimso) writes:
>
>> In article <3C2FCB8C...@columbia-center.org>, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >New Mexico Church Plans Harry Potter Book-Burning
>> >
>> >12-29-1
>> >
>> >ALAMOGORDO, New Mexico (Reuters) - A New Mexico church plans
>> >to burn Harry Potter books because they are "an abomination
>> >to God," the church pastor said on Wednesday.
>>
>> I was wondering how long it would take for the American branch of the Taliban
>> to rear their ugly and inbred heads.
>
>Hey, as long as they've paid for the copies they burn, it's a whole
>different thing.
>
>Matter of fact, if they want to burn mine in any kind of quantity,
>I'll be happy to use my good offices to arrange a wholesale discount.
They burn the books to get free publicity for their cause, and it's pretty
effective, considering the amount of discussion it has generated here.
If the newspapers hadn't been informed in advance, they might not have burnt
the books at all.
Back in the days of protests against the Vietnam war, some protesters burnt a
dog in some US West Coast city. They made their point -- there was a huge
storm of protest over the burning of one dog, far bigger than the protests
against the burning of children with napalm in the US. Whether it recruited
anyone to their cause, or whether it was an ethical protest is a moot point.
Actually, it has the ring of an urban legend, but then so does the New Mexico
one.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/litmain.htm
Shaad M. Ahmad
Michael Caldwell <absu...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>Actually, this brings about a thought. If you were a struggling author who
>needed the money, you could write an "evil book" and then encourage
>book burnings as a way to earn the neccessary income / generate the
>desired notoriety, and make sure of large sell-throughs on print runs,
>which will hopefully mean more book contracts in future. A sort of
>reverse of the scien<<<ogy thing.
Just make certain it isn't too "evil", or someone could toss off a
"fatwa" putting a price on your head, a la Rushdie.
- Shaad
Lewis Mammel
"Catherine B. Krusberg" wrote:
> "Redneck" is ethnic? I didn't think even rednecks were inbred
> enough to qualify as an "eth."
You may be a redneck. Have you seen the Chunky Soup ad where
the black football player's mom sprays shaving cream in the
artsy-fartsy wimpy white-guy director's face? I think he's
Italian or something, or maybe just faggy.
I saw a movie ad not long ago where some big hulking black
college guys smack down some white guy for making some
kind of pipsqueak remark. It was amazing; they're sitting
around in a dorm room and going "Yo" etc. when the white
guy pipes up, "pippity pipsqueak" - WHAM! Just like that.
"They're doin' that stuff. They're doin' it." - DEVO
Lew Mammel, Jr.
William December Starr
paghatSP...@netscape.net (paghat) said:
> You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended
> it to wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against
> good stuff). His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed
> everything from cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre
> fantasy & children's literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten
> book from a good one. You can't. Get used to it, muggle.
Because, after all, "good" and "rotten" are matters of objective fact,
not personal opinion.
Oh, and everybody who doesn't agree with paghat and Bloom is a Henry
Potter groupie.
William December Starr
"Luke Webber" <lu...@webber.com.au> said:
> I suspect that the people criticisng the HP books have failed to
> approach the books with a child's eye. It's very easy to pick holes
> in most children's stories. Bloom appears to have been suffering
> from late-life angst over the failing of the youth of today to
> accept the challenge of the classics.
And, perhaps, late-life angst over the failing of the youth of today
to accept the challenge of giving a damn about what Harold Bloom says?
> Well tough. That's the way it has *always* been, since kids began
> reading. A good yarn is prized more highly by most than the most
> intricate, polished prose, because it *entertains*. It doesn't
> challenge us? Perhaps we aren't reading for the *challenge*. At
> least not today. Perhaps tomorrow we'll read something challenging,
> or over the holidays, when we have more time. That's the way it
> works.
Well said.
Chris Byler
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> paghat wrote:
>>>
>>> > You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
>>> > wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
>>> > His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
>>> > cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
>>> > literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
>>> > can't. Get used to it, muggle.
>>>
>>> Why, look, it's a troll.
>>
>>I don't think it is.
>
>Heh. You need to do some research on the paghat the ratgirl creature, then.
>It's been a troll for a long, long time. Not even an especially clever one.
Why on earth should he do _research_ on the poster of a potentially
trollish message, rather than read the message itself to determine
trollishness?
Not to mention that "troll" in this context is ambiguous, since it can
refer to either the poster or the post.
To return to the point (if there is one): Nobody can "tell a rotten
book from a good one"; it's a distinction without a difference. We've
had this thread over and over and _over_ again. Let's stop.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker that we expect our supper, but from their regard to their own
interest." -- Adam Smith, _The Wealth of Nations_
mich
while
book burnings tend to be group activities incited by an authority figure,and
taken part in by subordinates
my comment: you've got to be kidding. Do you actually expect me to believe
that you believe that? Or do you think that I would be so gullible to
believe it myself? :-)
I have never ever heard of some lonely soul going out individually to go
burn a flag in protest. In fact, the left, being extremely media savvy,
usually very carefully plans such events for maximum impact at important
times of the day--i.e. 5:00, 6:00, 10:00, and 11:00 local news. If any
group is capable of manipulating the media--its the leftists. Of course,
the majority of the media is on their side, so half the battle is won.
A very interesting book is Bernard Goldberg's book entitled "Bias: A CBS
Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News". Bernard is very well aware
of how the media and the left are bed partners.
Another book I encourage everyone to read is Tammy Brice's book " The New
Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds"
by Tammy Bruce.
And guess what? These books, both scathing indictments of the left, are
written by authors who are from left of center, and have witnessed firsthand
what they write about.
Happy New Year (its got to be better than 2001)
Mich Silver
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy
mich
example of human tolerance. NOT.
--
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy
"paghat" <paghatSP...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAMMERSDIE...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
mich
Another comment to poster named "Me":
One of the problems with the tactics the leftists used to take and be very
successful with is that THEY DON'T WORK ANYMORE. For example, your
statement about flag burning is almost funny. This kind of mis-information,
which the left is so good at, used to work because a) moderates and
conservatives were too busy working and contributing to the economy to worry
about such things; b) there wasn't any way for the common man to know such
crap was really crap; and c) there wasn't a medium that made everyone truly
equal as to information--i.e. the internet. Now there is, and like Gleason
used to say "HOW SWEET IT IS".
So, it seems, the left is fighting a battle with the same old tired lies,
cliches, platitudes, and outright deceptions, in the hope that people are
still as gullible as they used to be. But most aren't. Of course, there is
still a large part of the literary community which refuse to yield their
faith in the left, but even they are coming around to the truth that the
left has deceived them for far too long. (I'm one of those souls who vow to
do life-long pennance for voting for Clinton twice lol).
For a research study, I monitor both far-left and far-right wing groups,
and it gets really hard to tell them apart--the same whining, complaining,
hate filled speech. The real difference is that the left-wing has the media
on its side, and so over the years has become very adept at controlling and
manipulating it.
Woo! The truth is painful for you guys--but there is still hope! Join us
on the reasonable side of the continuum.
Mich Silver
Terry Austin
>On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:12:08 -0800, Terry Austin
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>> paghat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > You've taken a false conclusion (that HP is great stuff) & extended it to
>>>> > wild supposition (that Bloom is generally bigotted against good stuff).
>>>> > His knowledge of fantasy was extensive. He enjoyed everything from
>>>> > cheapy-ass dime novels & pulps to modern genre fantasy & children's
>>>> > literature. The fact is he could tell a rotten book from a good one. You
>>>> > can't. Get used to it, muggle.
>>>>
>>>> Why, look, it's a troll.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is.
>>
>>Heh. You need to do some research on the paghat the ratgirl creature, then.
>>It's been a troll for a long, long time. Not even an especially clever one.
>
>Why on earth should he do _research_ on the poster of a potentially
>trollish message, rather than read the message itself to determine
>trollishness?
He seems unconvinced by the evidence at hand. If that's the case, there's
plenty more.
>
>Not to mention that "troll" in this context is ambiguous, since it can
>refer to either the poster or the post.
Indeed. Hence, the recommendation that more research is in order.
>
>
>To return to the point (if there is one): Nobody can "tell a rotten
>book from a good one"; it's a distinction without a difference. We've
>had this thread over and over and _over_ again. Let's stop.
I dunno. I'd say a rotten book is one that crumbles to moldy dust in your
hands.
Anatoly Vorobey
Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Fortunately, for the rest of us, Harold Bloom will be remembered for a
>> lot shorter period after his timely demise than will HP or Rowling.
>
>Yeah, 'cause, you know, nobody's ever going to make an event movie or Happy
>Meals or video games out of _The Book of J_.
I wanna see a video game made out of _The Western Canon_.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mel...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:44:56 GMT,
>Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fortunately, for the rest of us, Harold Bloom will be remembered for a
>>> lot shorter period after his timely demise than will HP or Rowling.
>>
>>Yeah, 'cause, you know, nobody's ever going to make an event movie or Happy
>>Meals or video games out of _The Book of J_.
>
>I wanna see a video game made out of _The Western Canon_.
It wouldn't work with Bloom specifically, but I can imagine a video
game called _Canoneer_ where you have to defend the Ivory Tower
against marauding genre writers, multiculturalists, etc.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
(paghat) wrote:
>If I wanted proof that HP enthusiasts have GOT to be morons, you just
>added "and lying morons at that" to your baseless assumptions about Bloom.
>He was as fannishly interested in fantastic literature as someone without
>a Yale professorship, in addition to being well-grounded in the classics.
>And he was an elitist only if you define failing to be amazingly devoid of
>intelligence or critical capacity as elitism.
Many people do.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
wrote:
>What is truly sorryass is that, in A.D. 2002, people of good taste &
>critical capacity & high level of intellectual & spiritual & artistic
>enrichment can still see nothing wrong with using ethnic pejoratives
>such as "wop", "nigger", and "redneck".
Good point. "Redneck" falsely presupposes that the Dumb White People
in the South are dumber than those elsewhere.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
<ckb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Fred Galvin wrote:
>
>> What is truly sorryass is that, in A.D. 2002, people of good taste &
>> critical capacity & high level of intellectual & spiritual & artistic
>> enrichment can still see nothing wrong with using ethnic pejoratives
>> such as "wop", "nigger", and "redneck".
>
>"Redneck" is ethnic? I didn't think even rednecks were inbred
>enough to qualify as an "eth."
Actually, that's another part of the stereotype: What was the problem
with testing the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress? Everybody in
Arkansas has the same DNA.
judi
sorry, i'd say more but i'm late for contributing to the economy. :)
would you catch me if i was falling
kiss me if i was leaving
hold me cause i'm lonely without you
--cc
mich wrote in message ...
Frank Ney
"Luke Webber" <nos...@spam.me.not.com> to write in rec.arts.sf.written :
>Are there better-written works available for children? My bloody word there
>are! Will the kids read them? I can give books to my kids all I like, but
>now that they read for themselves, I simply *cannot* make them read what I
>choose unless I happen to choose something which takes their interest from
>the outset. I've read some pretty awful stuff to my kids in the past, simply
>because it was what *they* wanted to hear, and it kept them coming back,
>wanting more. Somtimes to the point that our evening's half-hour of reading
>got stretched well past an hour. And yes, I've also read them Alice and The
>Wind in the Willows, plus Pooh, Dr Seuss (love that Lorax)
The bane of my father's existence when I was little was _Green Eggs And
Ham_. He hates that book with a passion, which is why I always asked for
it. I'm tempted to get him a copy for his three grandchildren...
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is
more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."
-- Ted Nugent
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://reduce.to/justsayno/
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
Frank Ney
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) to write in rec.arts.sf.written
:
>> I suspect that the people criticisng the HP books have failed to
>> approach the books with a child's eye. It's very easy to pick holes
>> in most children's stories. Bloom appears to have been suffering
>> from late-life angst over the failing of the youth of today to
>> accept the challenge of the classics.
>
>And, perhaps, late-life angst over the failing of the youth of today
>to accept the challenge of giving a damn about what Harold Bloom says?
Hell, as a 37 year old I have a hard time accepting that challenge.
Harold Bloom can go screw himself with a prickly pear for all I care.
Frank Ney
"Luke Webber" <nos...@spam.me.not.com> to write in rec.arts.sf.written :
>> I am reminded of a quote that seem apposite:
>>
>> "I really should say that - I do not direct these remarks against the
>> vast army of folk song lovers, but merely against that peculiar hard
>> core who seem to equate authenticity with artistic merit and illiteracy
>> with charm." - Tom Lehrer, Dean of Living American Composers
>
>Caught with my hand in the biscuit barrell, by God! Well after all, if
>you're going to steal, why not steal from a master? <g>
Plagiarize!
Let no one else's work evade your eyes!
Remember why the Good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes but
Plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize!
(But remember to call it, please, "research")
Frank Ney
>Oh, and everybody who doesn't agree with paghat and Bloom is a Henry
>Potter groupie.
On this subject, paghat and Bloom can eat my shorts, french my anal
sphincter and <voicemode = Della_Reese> kiss my *entire* ass. </voicemode>
Oh, and getting back to the subject, can someone let me know when and where
the Harry Potter book burning is so I can bring my baseball bat and do my
Sheriff Buford Pusser act? Thanks. (I'm kidding)
Frank Ney
Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> to write in rec.arts.sf.written :
>>"Redneck" is ethnic? I didn't think even rednecks were inbred
>>enough to qualify as an "eth."
>
>Actually, that's another part of the stereotype: What was the problem
>with testing the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress? Everybody in
>Arkansas has the same DNA.
If you line the bed of your pick-up truck with Astroturf(tm)...
If the directions to your house include the phrase "turn off the paved
road"...
If you view a family reunion as a good way to pick up women...
Et Cetera...
Frank Ney
Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> to write in rec.arts.sf.written :
>>I wanna see a video game made out of _The Western Canon_.
>
>It wouldn't work with Bloom specifically, but I can imagine a video
>game called _Canoneer_ where you have to defend the Ivory Tower
>against marauding genre writers, multiculturalists, etc.
Except that I'd want to play the other side...
Robert Lee
news:pY7Y7.24476$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> OTOH, there are plenty of kids out there who need to be handcuffed to a
> chair before they'll open a book. If HP is the wedge which opened some
> of those minds to reading, I'm all in favour.
Always nice to hear the PR line, repeated endlessly through puff pieces
promoting the books, that "Harry Potter makes kids who won't read read!"
I love how people throw that around like it's something they think nobody
else ever heard before...just like most good PR.
My own suspicions about the books started the first time I heard that
line, actually, and my responses remain the same:
1. Really? Is there some study or studies I'm unaware of that show a
dramatic rise in the number of regular preteen readers post-Harry? If so,
could you point me to them? If not, do you have a better idea for where
the notion came from besides a publicist's head?
2. So? Even if this is slightly true, in the sense that regular readers
haven't been created by Harry Potter, but a faddish sense of peer
pressure combined with relentless in-classroom marketing blitzes by
Scholastic has made lots of kids read the Harry Potter books, who cares?
--
--Robert
The United States of America has just succeeded in bombing a country back
out of the Stone Age.
--Chris Hitchens
Karen
> "mich" <silve...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:a0rrd5$fth$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > Luke,
> > I disagree with you about book burning vs. flag-burning. Its simply the
> > typical view of the left.-- Free speech for me but not for thee
>
> One comment: flag burning isn't usually a communal, "let's get a bunch
> of flags together and burn 'em" activity, while book burning usually is.
>
> Flag burning, it seems to me, is usually an individual's act, while
> book burnings tend to be group activities incited by an authority figure,
> and taken part in by subordinates.
>
> You might have a bunch of people together at a protest at which a
> flag is burnt, but I don't think it's very common for a bunch of people
> to gather for a "flag burning event" called by a group leader. And if
> such ever occur, they probably aren't announced to the media beforehand.
>
> Flag burnings IMHO more likely to be fairly spontaneous, while book
> burnings are more premeditated.
You've written lot's of unsubtantiated silly stuff here. Although I
think all of it is wrong, I will specifically point out to you that
your last paragraph that I quoted doesn't make sense.
Flag burnings are spontatneous implies that the flag burner just
happened to be carrying a flag around for some other purpose. This
would be unusual, it would only happen if a person came to a rally
prepared to wave the flag and had has opinion completely turned around.
In my experience, flag burning is as much a premeditated group activity
as book burning and effigy burning.
Karen
mich
You've just proved my point about the in-tolerance of the left, Judi. Thank
you. If you disagree with someone, then just hurl names at them. That's a
really good argument.
But since you made a comment, I will respond. I was referring to the
left-wing tyranny that has come out of the University system. And sorry,
but Academics and students and even most media types (including, broadly,
literary) are not contributing too much to the economy. The vast majority
of working Americans are moderate or conservative. Its simply that the
tyrannical left has been in control of the media for so long, and they like
to pretend that they are representative of working America. Nothing could
be further than the truth.
The gig is up, Judi. Get used to it. And stop calling people names.
Mich
mich
I don't know if it was intentional or not, but you made it sound as if I
made the original silly statement about flag burning . It was the poster
"me".
I was simply pointing out how silly it was. Flag burning is and always was,
a very carefully planned leftist media event.
Regards,
Mich
mich
When I made a post disagreeing with someone, you attacked me and called me
names.
You just disagreed with someone. I suppose you must now call yourself a
name.
The leftist tactics are out of the bag! The gig is up!
Too bad, Judi. I am sorry you are so intolerant.
Regards,
Mich Silver
mich
Louann Miller
wrote:
(four messages in ten minutes in the same thread with the sense of)
>Another message of tolerance from the intolerant University system.
Have you GOT any other opinions? As in, at all?
paghat
cro...@barkingmad.org wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 23:35:27 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> "Luke Webber" <nos...@spam.me.not.com> to write in rec.arts.sf.written :
>
> >Are there better-written works available for children? My bloody word there
> >are! Will the kids read them? I can give books to my kids all I like, but
> >now that they read for themselves, I simply *cannot* make them read what I
> >choose unless I happen to choose something which takes their interest from
> >the outset. I've read some pretty awful stuff to my kids in the past, simply
> >because it was what *they* wanted to hear, and it kept them coming back,
> >wanting more. Somtimes to the point that our evening's half-hour of reading
> >got stretched well past an hour. And yes, I've also read them Alice and The
> >Wind in the Willows, plus Pooh, Dr Seuss (love that Lorax)
>
> The bane of my father's existence when I was little was _Green Eggs And
> Ham_. He hates that book with a passion, which is why I always asked for
> it. I'm tempted to get him a copy for his three grandchildren...
>
> Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Poppy's original theme song ran:
"I yam what I yam
I yam green eggs & ham
Don't eat me, eat spam
don't eat green eggs & ham"
When he converted to judaism Popeye would only
eat spinach cuz nothing in the navy was kosher.
Luke Webber
news:22o63usum8erjh1dp...@4ax.com...
> The bane of my father's existence when I was little was _Green Eggs And
> Ham_. He hates that book with a passion, which is why I always asked for
> it. I'm tempted to get him a copy for his three grandchildren...
Dr Seuss was not a feature of my childhood, but I well recall discovering
Green Eggs and Ham by watching my own father, in his seventies, reading it
to my twin nephews, and later to my own girls. The old boy just *loved* that
book - couldn't get enough of it.
Luke
Francis Muir
By Golly, Mich, that's really telling her.
mich
opinion.
Geez,
You can't argue with the left, because they are too busy hitting you over
the head.
Regards,
Mich
--
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l3173u4bt4sdoiebr...@4ax.com...
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Louann--what is YOUR problem? I noticed your comment wasn't even an
>opinion.
No, it was an outburst of boredom. If iterating your position (I do
not say defending, that would involve evidence) is good once, doing it
five times is not five times as good.
Luke Webber
news:Xns918A830F44586ro...@207.217.77.25...
> Always nice to hear the PR line, repeated endlessly through puff pieces
> promoting the books, that "Harry Potter makes kids who won't read read!"
> I love how people throw that around like it's something they think nobody
> else ever heard before...just like most good PR.
>
> My own suspicions about the books started the first time I heard that
> line, actually, and my responses remain the same:
>
> 1. Really? Is there some study or studies I'm unaware of that show a
> dramatic rise in the number of regular preteen readers post-Harry? If so,
> could you point me to them? If not, do you have a better idea for where
> the notion came from besides a publicist's head?
>
> 2. So? Even if this is slightly true, in the sense that regular readers
> haven't been created by Harry Potter, but a faddish sense of peer
> pressure combined with relentless in-classroom marketing blitzes by
> Scholastic has made lots of kids read the Harry Potter books, who cares?
You mistake my meaning. I'm not trying to say that HP is the only book to
have the effect of turning kids into readers, just that it is one of the
latest in a long succession of accessible and enjoyable reading, and that
dumping on it just because of its success is just sour grapes.
OTOH, the power of the PR engine behind HP probably has been more effective
in shoving the books down the throats of unwilling readers. If so, why
shouldn't it be the case that some of those affected will become
subsequently readers?
I have a friend who credits me with turning him into a reader. All I did was
to lend him a copy of Harry Harrison's light farce The Stainless Steel Rat
back when he was 21 and a *total* non-reader, and he has kept the habit of
reading into his forties. So I am in a position to know that the claims for
light entertainment do have a basis in truth. Hell, I and a lot of the
subscribers to rec.arts.sf got their start on reading with comic books.
Luke