On My Shelves: Harry Potter

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Looking back over my prior posts, I find myself startled to discover
that I have not yet discussed the single most successful and perhaps
influential fantasy series written since I was born: Harry Potter, by J.
K. Rowling.

The vast majority, if not all, of the people reading my columns will
know the story of Harry, but just in case: the basic concept of the
series is that Harry Potter was left as an orphan with his only
relatives, the Dursleys, and raised (poorly) by them for eleven years;
at that point he discovers (against all the efforts of the Dursleys to
hide the truth) that he is in fact a born wizard, and is to learn magic
at Hogwarts' School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry's parents were
murdered by the dark wizard Voldemort, a wizard so powerful and evil
that he had terrified the entire secret Wizarding world and was not even
referred to by name, called only the Dark Lord or He Who Must Not Be
Named. Voldemort had attempted to kill Harry as well – but for some
unknown reason the spell intended to murder the infant boy rebounded
upon the Dark Lord, killing him or at least reducing him to something so
wounded and weak that his power was instantly broken.

This event makes Harry legendary within the hidden Wizarding community,
something he doesn't find very appealing since it's based on something
he didn't even consciously do.

The series then follows Harry through his seven years at Hogwarts.

I was reluctant to write this article at first; that reluctance is
probably why it's taken so long for me to get around to it. Harry Potter
is one of the most widely read, widely-analyzed, and widely-reviewed
series in history. It's doubtful I'll say anything that hasn't been said
about it a hundred times before.

But at the same time, I can't very well just ignore Harry Potter. To a
fantasy author it's like ignoring a gigantic rampaging puppy in the room
with you; ignoring it might not harm you, but it makes you look kinda
oblivious.

Overall, I love Harry Potter. The first book, Harry Potter and the
Philosopher's Stone (called Sorcerer's Stone in America for pretty much
stupid reasons) hooked me instantly, with its very Roald Dahlian setup
(the Dursleys would fit not too far away from the aunts in James and the
Giant Peach in the pantheon of "very poor stepfamilies") and transition
to a magical world behind the real one that included a genuine English
boarding school. It was, and is, an astoundingly good first novel; I've
been writing for a long time and I'm not sure anything I've written is
as good at what it does as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is
at what it does.

In this first book of the series, Harry meets the two friends that will
be his best companions for life, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley,
becomes a student wizard, confronts mysteries, and discovers Voldemort
is not quite gone – and survives the experience, while also becoming
something of a prodigy at the Wizarding sport of Quidditch. Despite
there being a large number of inconsistencies of logic buried in the
book, Rowling's writing steers the reader mostly clear of them by
focusing on the child's sense of wonder in exploring and discovering
this literally magical world.

One thing that makes the Harry Potter series nearly unique is the way in
which the series grows. Rowling knew from the beginning that it would be
a seven-book series, one for each year at Hogwarts, and she stuck to
that plan. But what she did that was extremely unusual, if not
unprecedented, is let the books themselves grow up along with the
protagonist. Philosopher's Stone is written for, and targeted at,
children of around 11 years old – the same age as Harry in the book.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final book in the
series, is targeted at young adults of about 18 years old – again, the
same age as Harry is in that book.

As the series progresses, then, the world is shown through the eyes of
an increasingly sophisticated, and sometimes temperamental, protagonist
(for virtually all of the series, with only minor exceptions, is shown
from Harry's point of view) going through the everyday stresses of
growing up while also being put through extraordinary stresses of being
the apparent savior of his people – a savior who must be destroyed by
the forces of darkness if Voldemort is to rise again.

This allows Rowling to also slowly introduce the more complex, realistic
(though see later) aspects of the Wizarding world, turning it from a
nearly perfect place to one run by people just as fallibly human as the
Muggle world – and sometimes just as prone to human evil. Voldemort is
the Big Bad, but in some ways he pales before the sweetly-smiling,
precisely organized, implacably cruel Dolores Umbridge, the living
representative of the dark results of fear and those who exploit it.

This is a brilliant concept, and for the most part Rowling pulls it off
well. The world of Philosopher's Stone looks a lot more simple and shiny
than the world we have come to know by the end of Deathly Hallows.

At this point I must add that there will be potential SPOILERS for
anyone reading this review/retrospective/analysis. I'm not going to be
trying to discuss the entire series while avoiding all the important
events and secrets of the series, so if you're planning on somehow
reading the books unspoiled, don't go any farther!

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

SPACE for SAFETY…

Okay, here we go.

One of the key questions – throughout Harry Potter – is that of trust.
Who do you trust, why do you trust them, how far do you trust them? This
is an absolutely central element of the series, in which trust and
betrayal are major elements of most if not all of the books. Harry makes
two friends that he trusts pretty much absolutely after a while –
Hermione and Ron – but is also put in multiple positions where he must
choose to trust, or not trust, other people of various backgrounds and
apparent worthiness of that trust.

And it's not usually straightforward, even with the people it seems to
be. Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts and generally
acknowledged to be the most powerful wizard alive, seems at first to be
the classic wise mentor, observing and protecting Harry from the time he
is very young. Yet even Dumbledore turns out to have secrets that make
him perhaps not as deserving of trust as he might immediately seem, and
he does make questionable decisions – though, one must admit, usually
from perfectly reasonable motives.

The most obvious of these is trying to keep the truth of the Prophecy –
which implies strongly that one day Harry and Voldemort will have to
duel to the death – away from Harry because Dumbledore felt Harry was
too young. Understandable… but also unfair, because until Harry knew of
the Prophecy, he could not realize that Voldemort literally had no
choice but to try to hunt down Harry. Harry represented his one
prophesied weakness, and thus there was no chance at all that the Dark
Lord would cease attempts to end Harry's life.

Nowhere, however, is the question of trust more starkly shown than in
the presence and character of the Potions Master, Severus Snape. As
initially presented, Snape is a man without any apparent virtues save,
perhaps, intelligence; he is "sallow, greasy-haired", with a perpetual
sneer, contemptuous of most students (except those of the House he is
the Head of, Slytherin), and especially and inexplicably hostile to
Harry Potter himself – alone of virtually everyone we meet; even Harry's
long-term student nemesis, Draco Malfoy, originally was not hostile to
Harry and tried to bring Harry into his own clique.

It seems utterly incomprehensible that someone as kindly, wise, and
powerful as Albus Dumbledore would permit someone like Severus Snape to
even work at Hogwarts, let alone be one of the primary instructors.
Snape's behavior sometimes borders on the insane, ranting almost
incoherently against "Potter's" evasions of the rules and "getting away"
with things. As we learn more about Snape, the mystery deepens; there is
good reason to believe that Snape was a "Death Eater" – one of the close
followers of Voldemort. Why would Dumbledore trust him enough to work
with him? To even bring him, later, into The Order of the Phoenix, the
small group of wizards fighting the return of the Dark Lord?

There is a reason, however, and an extremely powerful one. Severus Snape
hates Harry for looking like, and reminding him of, Harry's father,
James Potter – a popular and at times arrogant student who tormented
Snape at times when they were both at Hogwarts, and who then married the
one woman Snape had ever loved: Lily Evans. Snape was responsible for
the betrayal that led to the deaths of the Potters… but he had not
intended it to lead to Lily's death. When he realized what he had done,
Snape threw himself on Dumbledore's mercy and was given one chance to
atone for his crime: protect Harry. Snape in fact volunteered to take
the boy in and raise him, but Dumbledore refused; ostensibly this was
because of a powerful charm of protection which could be used to keep
Harry safe as long as he lived with blood relatives, but I suspect it
was also because Snape, who was raised by a very abusive father, would
probably have been unable to be a good father to Harry, especially as
Harry grew older and looked more and more like James.

Snape is not a good man in many ways; but he is an honorable man, and
sells his life dearly to complete his oath and protect the boy who is
all that remains of the woman he loved.

This sort of complexity – of plot, and of character – is what carries
the Harry Potter series through all seven books. Even the simplest
characters often hide surprising depths and grow and change over the
years (YAY NEVILLE!). I have been reading them to all of my children as
they reach the age where they can appreciate them, and during the time
that the movies were being released it was a tradition that my son
Christopher went out to see each movie on opening day, even if it was on
a weekday; I would take that day off to see the movie with him.

The Harry Potter series is not without flaws. The most glaring for me
are those that show that Rowling doesn't think out the consequences of
various aspects of her world, and sometimes forces things to go in a
direction that, logically, they might not. She's occasionally admitted
to some of these, the most prominent being that, some years after
completing the series, she stated that she had effectively forced Ron
and Hermione together as a couple (and, in parallel, Ginny and Harry)
because it was sort of fulfilling her own childhood crush (Ron was based
on an old boyfriend of hers); in hindsight, she realized that Harry and
Hermione made a far more sensible couple. This had been clear to me in
that the character chemistry seemed much stronger between Harry and
Hermione than Hermione and Ron, and to an extent this failure of hers
damages the books in terms of how well their relationships are executed.

For me, though, the more important flaws are worldbuilding ones. I'm a
worldbuilder; I want to understand how the world I'm reading (or writing
in) WORKS, so that when I have character X do action Y, the results make
sense, and are consistent with other things I've had happen, and will
have happen later. Rowling… doesn't do much of that, and it shows.

Perhaps the most glaring of these omissions is the fact that she
essentially ignores the Muggle (non-magical) world as of little-to-no
consequence, handwaving it away with the idea that the wizards simply
erase memories of Muggles who encounter magic, and have magic to hide
themselves and render inert Muggle technology.

On the surface that makes some sense, but it's also made clear that even
the most educated wizards seem to know virtually nothing about
technology; Arthur Weasley, in charge of preventing magical misuse of
Muggle technology, doesn't even understand how a light switch works.
Albus Dumbledore seems a bit more familiar with it, but overall the
wizards seem less able to understand what modern technology is and what
it can do than the average Muggle can guess and understand about magic.

Without that understanding, how could they POSSIBLY grasp the potential
of satellite imaging, spy-plane overflights, and more importantly data
mining and statistical analysis? The fact that the wizarding world
hasn't been discovered yet is a fluke; there is no way it will remain so
for long, and given the way in which they are drastically outnumbered,
the sudden discovery might go poorly for them.

In the same vein, it's really incomprehensible that Hermione – a
Muggle-born girl of great brilliance, who was undoubtedly top of her
class in her mundane schools prior to being chosen to attend Hogwarts –
not only fails to use or leverage any Muggle knowledge which could have
been of use to her, but appears to almost FORGET it, replacing it with
an incredible depth of knowledge about the wizarding world which she
apparently gained in the few weeks after learning about her selection –
and somehow even internalized, because she will often react to things as
though she was raised as a wizard, which she wasn't.

There are plenty of other issues with Rowling's world; the exchange rate
between Muggle and Wizarding worlds alone should be cause for concern.
Sure, if you're raised in the Wizarding world you might not notice, but
someone coming into it from the Muggle world, like Harry or Hermione,
should notice – or at least their parents should. And such a
border-straddling wizard, as they got older, could exploit that exchange
rate to become LUDICROUSLY rich within a matter of days, or weeks at most.

The overall magic system is clearly not really worked out; Rowling's
divided magic up into several convenient-for-her-as-teaching-subjects
categories, but the way in which they work and interact isn't discussed.
This is especially prominent in areas like Potions, which imply a sort
of alchemical background, but aside from some scattered references to
material properties, doesn't appear to have any key principles
associated with it which would allow one to actually develop the potions
in the first place.

This leaves magic in a very deus-ex-machina position, one that Rowling
can use to perform pretty much any task that needs done without
justification or explanation – but also without the ability of the
reader to follow along and anticipate "oh, yeah, if they can do X then
they could do Y…", at least in most cases. She posits a few basic ground
rules (e.g., magic cannot for some reason create gold or food) but even
these aren't as clear-cut as one might like.

For some readers, these are significant flaws. They are to me, to an
extent. But Rowling's writing carries me past these flaws; she knows how
to build tension, how to present triumph, how to make me care about a
character who is in danger, how to make me really hate a character who's
an opponent – and how to do a reveal, on occasion, that will leave my
jaw on the floor. Where it really COUNTS, Rowling knows how to leave
clues and indicators that will all come together one, two, or even five
books later. The first few books, in fact, are honest-to-god mysteries
which the reader can solve if they're clever enough.

Because of that writing skill, and her careful design and perseverance
in writing the series, Rowling deserves her accolades. The Harry Potter
series is truly a great achievement, and well worth the time to read and
appreciate… perhaps more than once!




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/21/2015 7:03 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> Looking back over my prior posts, I find myself startled to discover that I have not yet discussed the single most successful
> and perhaps influential fantasy series written since I was born: Harry Potter, by J. K. Rowling.

Scanning the first paragraph, I thought that you were first talking about Perry Rhodan! Or a _Tarnsman of Gor_.

Lynn

[Greg Goss]

Gor was a niche market. HP sold to everyone. I expect that the first
Potter book outsold all the Gor books put together.

Perry Rhodan? I've never understood that market, but I expect it's
smaller, too.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 5:03:34 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> The Harry Potter series is not without flaws. The most glaring for me
> are those that show that Rowling doesn't think out the consequences of
> various aspects of her world, and sometimes forces things to go in a
> direction that, logically, they might not. She's occasionally admitted
> to some of these, the most prominent being that, some years after
> completing the series, she stated that she had effectively forced Ron
> and Hermione together as a couple (and, in parallel, Ginny and Harry)
> because it was sort of fulfilling her own childhood crush (Ron was based
> on an old boyfriend of hers); in hindsight, she realized that Harry and
> Hermione made a far more sensible couple. This had been clear to me in
> that the character chemistry seemed much stronger between Harry and
> Hermione than Hermione and Ron, and to an extent this failure of hers
> damages the books in terms of how well their relationships are executed.

Problem is, Hermione is muggle born. Harry HAS to marry a Weasley to complete his entry into the wizarding world and ensure his ultimate happiness. And Hermione doing the same for her entry. Damn shame Ginny was such a damp rag.

I can see Harry and Hermione as friends (duh), but not as lovers. I was kind of hoping futilely for Harry and Luna, as they went together great. But, yeah, there really wasn't all that much chemistry between Ron and Hermione and it's very heard to see what he does for her.

[Lynn McGuire]

Sorry, that was a joke. And your statements are very true as the Gor series is claimed to have sold 15 million books whereas the
first HP book is over 100 million in sales now???

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 5:03:34 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrot=
>e:
>
>
>> The Harry Potter series is not without flaws. The most glaring for me=20
>> are those that show that Rowling doesn't think out the consequences of=20
>> various aspects of her world, and sometimes forces things to go in a=20
>> direction that, logically, they might not. She's occasionally admitted=20
>> to some of these, the most prominent being that, some years after=20
>> completing the series, she stated that she had effectively forced Ron=20
>> and Hermione together as a couple (and, in parallel, Ginny and Harry)=20
>> because it was sort of fulfilling her own childhood crush (Ron was based=
>=20
>> on an old boyfriend of hers); in hindsight, she realized that Harry and=
>=20
>> Hermione made a far more sensible couple. This had been clear to me in=20
>> that the character chemistry seemed much stronger between Harry and=20
>> Hermione than Hermione and Ron, and to an extent this failure of hers=20

>> damages the books in terms of how well their relationships are executed.
>
>

>Problem is, Hermione is muggle born. Harry HAS to marry a Weasley to compl=
>ete his entry into the wizarding world and ensure his ultimate happiness. =
>And Hermione doing the same for her entry. Damn shame Ginny was such a dam=
>p rag. =20

Well, outside of canon, Ginny is a slayer:

_Harry Potter and the Key of Dagon_

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> The Harry Potter series is not without flaws. The most glaring for me
> are those that show that Rowling doesn't think out the consequences of
> various aspects of her world, and sometimes forces things to go in a
> direction that, logically, they might not.

I wasn't bother by either of those, even though I did notice them
while reading. The flaw that annoyed me the most is that the main
villains just aren't very interesting. With the exception of Snape,
Voldemort and the Death Eathers are just cardboard cut-out villains
with little personality and all the motivation and desires of a
Hydra or SPECTRE lieutenant, and of course all of Slytherin is
basically reduced to "House evidently evil."

Some of her second-line antagonists, like Umbridge, are much better,
but the big, overarching, seven-books-in-the-defeating main villains?
Meh.

Still like the books a lot, mind.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

(A) Perry Rhodan isn't fantasy, it's SF (space opera). (B) Perry
started in 1961, which is after I was born.

> Or a _Tarnsman of Gor_.
>

All the Gor books put together, through decades, might, just possibly,
match the number of copies of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"
sold in the FIRST DAY of release. Compared to the series as a whole,
it's not even a blip on the radar.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Okay, Gor sold slightly more than I thought. It sold about twice as
much, through all volumes and decades, as HP&tDH did in the first day of
release.

[T Guy]

Absolutely.

In was hoping, but not futilely. i thought that Rowling was setting it up as the Romance and that it was going to come to fruition. Alas, it was not to be (Harry may have realised that he was not good enough for her).

But, yeah, there really wasn't all that much chemistry between Ron and Hermione and it's very heard to see what he does for her.

Again, agreed. And ISTR the same about Harry and Ginny. Ginny thinking that Harry is a hero, worshipping him, and hoping for a romantic relationship convinces; the actual transpiring of that romance doesn't.

[T Guy]

Me too, and I find Head Villain Voldemort one of the most convincing, interesting villains in heroic fiction.

Yes, some of his faithful lieutenants are not up to it, however.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:03:30 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Looking back over my prior posts, I find myself startled to discover
>that I have not yet discussed the single most successful and perhaps
>influential fantasy series written since I was born: Harry Potter, by J.
>K. Rowling.

Fie! For shame!

[snip]

>There are plenty of other issues with Rowling's world; the exchange rate
>between Muggle and Wizarding worlds alone should be cause for concern.
>Sure, if you're raised in the Wizarding world you might not notice, but
>someone coming into it from the Muggle world, like Harry or Hermione,
>should notice – or at least their parents should. And such a
>border-straddling wizard, as they got older, could exploit that exchange
>rate to become LUDICROUSLY rich within a matter of days, or weeks at most.

My favourite quote out of "Harry Potter and the Methods of
Rationality" is just after this very point is made in some detail: "On
the other hand, one competent hedge fundie could probably own the
whole wizarding world within a week. Harry filed away this notion in
case he ever ran out of money, or had a week free."

[snip]

>Because of that writing skill, and her careful design and perseverance
>in writing the series, Rowling deserves her accolades. The Harry Potter
>series is truly a great achievement, and well worth the time to read and
>appreciate… perhaps more than once!

Quite. I have nitpicked other works myself. I only bother when
the work is worth re(re)(re)(...)reading.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[William December Starr]

In article <mjkhge$d6i$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> Harry's parents were murdered by the dark wizard Voldemort, a
> wizard so powerful and evil that he had terrified the entire
> secret Wizarding world and was not even referred to by name,
> called only the Dark Lord or He Who Must Not Be Named.

But for some reason never "That Dude With No Nose."

-- wds

[Andrew Plotkin]

I think he had a nose during that period. He didn't get snakey until
he re-embodied, mid-series.

--Z


--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*

[Kevrob]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:08:17 PM UTC-4, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Here, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <mjkhge$d6i$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> >
> > > Harry's parents were murdered by the dark wizard Voldemort, a
> > > wizard so powerful and evil that he had terrified the entire
> > > secret Wizarding world and was not even referred to by name,
> > > called only the Dark Lord or He Who Must Not Be Named.
> >
> > But for some reason never "That Dude With No Nose."

How does he smell?

> I think he had a nose during that period. He didn't get snakey until
> he re-embodied, mid-series.
>
> --Z

Kevin R

(preparing rimshot.)

[Moriarty]

Really? I thought he was one of the most one-dimensional, cardboard cutout villains I've ever read.

The series was great despite Voldy, not because of him.

-Moriarty

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I agree, really. Moldywart is not a terribly convincing villain; he's a
fairly standard sociopath, who makes his sociopathy worse with his
magical creation of horcruxes.

[erilar]

In article <mjtsc4$cdh$1...@dont-email.me>,

I enjoyed the world, the system of magic, and the varied characters
except for the rather one-dimensional arch-villain 8-)

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <drache-CD7FB8....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

I think in some ways Hagrid is the best example character for what
Rowling was doing with HP. He's introduced as the kids' stalwart
buddy in the adult world, salt-of-the-earth & true-blue... and he
stays that for the entire series, *but* as the kids grow up, they come
to gradually realize (as we do) over the course of years, that he has
*horrible* judgement. *He* never changes, but Rowling skillfully adjusts
our preceptions..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Andrew Plotkin]

Voldemort is stock. The relationship between Voldemort, thr Death
Eaters, and the racist strain in wizarding Britain is really pretty
interesting and well-considered.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <mjsv83$kff$1...@panix2.panix.com>, wds...@panix.com says...

I haven't even seen that in fanfiction for some reason. I have seen
things like The Dork Lord, MoldyShorts, Old Red Eyes, and Lord Vol-au-
vent... (I think I like the last best...)

--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Moldywart is the one I tend to use. "Moldypants" I saw in Sluggy
Freelance.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <mk1lm4$27v$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 5/26/15 12:38 AM, Kay Shapero wrote:
>> In article <mjsv83$kff$1...@panix2.panix.com>, wds...@panix.com says...
>>>
>>> In article <mjkhge$d6i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Harry's parents were murdered by the dark wizard Voldemort, a
>>>> wizard so powerful and evil that he had terrified the entire
>>>> secret Wizarding world and was not even referred to by name,
>>>> called only the Dark Lord or He Who Must Not Be Named.
>>>
>>> But for some reason never "That Dude With No Nose."
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>> I haven't even seen that in fanfiction for some reason. I have seen
>> things like The Dork Lord, MoldyShorts, Old Red Eyes, and Lord Vol-au-
>> vent... (I think I like the last best...)
>>
>
> Moldywart is the one I tend to use. "Moldypants" I saw in Sluggy
>Freelance.
>

But if you use TDWNN, you can always set up the classic joke..

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:34:35 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:mk1lm4$27v$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Moldywart is the one I tend to use. [...]

I can’t see that without reading it <moldiwarp>, a dialect
term for a mole.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

But Kuririn has no trouble smelling things until you point out to him
that he doesn't have a nose.

[rexg...@yahoo.co.uk]

Well the movies are an aside, but can I say Rickman nailed Snape so well

[Moriarty]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 7:26:16 AM UTC+10, rexg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Well the movies are an aside, but can I say Rickman nailed Snape so well

There were very few of the adult roles that weren't nailed perfectly in the movies.

Both Dumbledores, McGonagall, various DAtDA teachers, all great. The black hats like Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix LeStrange, even Voldy were great too. Even Umbridge, who looked nothing like the character as described, pulled off the manner and attitude perfectly.

IMO the only roles that didn't work for me were some of the supporting cast kids in the later movies. The problem was that they were cast as 11/12 year olds with their 11yo characters in mind and by the time they were 18/19 they didn't really fit the characters they were meant to be. Draco and Neville are the standout ones here but there were others as well.

-Moriarty

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 3:03:02 PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:


> IMO the only roles that didn't work for me were some of the supporting cast kids in the later movies. The problem was that they were cast as 11/12 year olds with their 11yo characters in mind and by the time they were 18/19 they didn't really fit the characters they were meant to be. Draco and Neville are the standout ones here but there were others as well.

Something of an unavoidable problem with child actors.

[Cryptoengineer]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1ecd59d9-09f9-4a8a...@googlegroups.com:

I'm pretty amazed that Linklater was able to get 'Boyhood'
funded (though it's an independent, and shot on a
pretty low budget). It required an 11 year commitment from
all the principles, not just the boy.

pt

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-05-26, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>> Moldywart is the one I tend to use. [...]
>

> I can???t see that without reading it <moldiwarp>, a dialect term for a mole.

You're living a Pratchett plot - you're too well educated, and are now seeing
holy symbols everywhere...

Dave, recoils, hisses, flees, trips; later, one tire rolls out of the flaming
wreckage
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Robert Carnegie]

Joining late:

It is, after all, not a romance story, and many real lives
don't make great romances (in my opinion: I'm not a keen
reader of romance).

Some of J. K. Rowling's statements about her own work
make me wonder how she pulled it off while apparently
missing the point. If anyone realised that Dumbledore
was gay (celibate?) in /all/ the books before she said so,
I think haven't heard of it - it seems to have surprised
Michael Gambon (Dumbledore). And Harry getting and then
keeping a steady girlfriend through seven years of
increasingly grim wizard warfare doesn't work. Any sane
woman would ditch him, or would be made to by parents.
So Hermione has to be just a good friend.

And I prefer to see it that Grindelwald seduced Dumbledore
politically, not physically. That he represents the danger
of attractive but immoral ideas of how to arrange the world.
Although that chimes with Tom Riddle also being handsome as
well as ingratiating. They learn politics well in
Slytherin House, and that's part of it.

Having said that - the Slytherins as well as the Death Eaters
do spend a lot of time acting as generic bad guys when the
story requires that, instead of characters with depth.
They're just there to be played at Quidditch or to beat the
good guys or to be beaten by them. The story functions
when read in those simple terms. But they are rarely given
realistic characters - at least, not realistic characters
that aren't psychopaths; psychopaths are real, are difficult
to relate to personally, are sometimes charming, and,
of course, are just the sort of person who /will/ join
the Death Eaters. But still - not sympathetic.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 2:30:17 AM UTC+10, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> It is, after all, not a romance story, and many real lives
> don't make great romances (in my opinion: I'm not a keen
> reader of romance).
>
> Some of J. K. Rowling's statements about her own work
> make me wonder how she pulled it off while apparently
> missing the point.

Of course it's the Author who's missed the point...

> If anyone realised that Dumbledore
> was gay (celibate?) in /all/ the books before she said so,
> I think haven't heard of it - it seems to have surprised
> Michael Gambon (Dumbledore).

So what?
Many authors have massive amounts of information about characters which are never apparent to readers.

> And Harry getting and then
> keeping a steady girlfriend through seven years of
> increasingly grim wizard warfare doesn't work.

yes, all soldiers, police etc are single...

> Any sane
> woman would ditch him, or would be made to by parents.
> So Hermione has to be just a good friend.

Considering the time she spent with Harry and how central she was to the fight the whole way through I don't see how her dating Harry would have increased her level of exposure to danger

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/06/2015 12:30 am, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Having said that - the Slytherins as well as the Death Eaters
> do spend a lot of time acting as generic bad guys when the
> story requires that, instead of characters with depth.
> They're just there to be played at Quidditch or to beat the
> good guys or to be beaten by them. The story functions
> when read in those simple terms. But they are rarely given
> realistic characters - at least, not realistic characters
> that aren't psychopaths; psychopaths are real, are difficult
> to relate to personally, are sometimes charming, and,
> of course, are just the sort of person who /will/ join
> the Death Eaters. But still - not sympathetic.
>

It strikes me as fitting in a school context. At school, sport and other
contests like debating are rather like warfare whether you take part or
just stand on the sidelines - the "enemy" is demonised. As you grow
older, you realise that they are just as human as you and your friends,
even though you may find other reasons for disliking them.
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[David Johnston]

Yeah that evolution never really happened.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <mmd87j$nsq$1...@dont-email.me>,

To a very limited extent it happened with Malfoy, but *very* limited.

OTOH, the bit with Dudley was quite nice, and I'm really sorry it
didn't make it into the movie.

[Don Bruder]

In article <cuuofu...@mid.individual.net>,

Yah, surprisingly enough, Dudley actually managed to turn into a human
being by the end of things. The rest of the Dursleys were, from start to
finish, nothing but exaggerated-to-the-point-of-ridiculous caricatures
of a generic "Evil Stepparent", and as such, were roughly as interesting
to me as watching paint dry. Even cardboard cutouts would have been more
interesting. (and probably more believable, to boot!)

How to write the Dursleys as demonstrated by JKR: Take anything
resembling a reasonable human response to anything at all, and reverse
it. If a typical person would say "Oh, what a bummer that you crashed
your bike", a Dursley would say "serves you right, you pathetic little
scumball - why didn't you split your head open on the curb while you
were at it?"

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 03:48:24 UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 2:30:17 AM UTC+10, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> > It is, after all, not a romance story, and many real lives
> > don't make great romances (in my opinion: I'm not a keen
> > reader of romance).
> >
> > Some of J. K. Rowling's statements about her own work
> > make me wonder how she pulled it off while apparently
> > missing the point.
>
> Of course it's the Author who's missed the point...

I should have said: how and why readers enjoy the stories.

Like when she's deciding who gets to be arbitrarily killed
in each book: best if she doesn't do that in front of us.

> > If anyone realised that Dumbledore
> > was gay (celibate?) in /all/ the books before she said so,
> > I think haven't heard of it - it seems to have surprised
> > Michael Gambon (Dumbledore).
>
> So what?
> Many authors have massive amounts of information about characters
> which are never apparent to readers.

I thought Sirius and Remus were a couple since they ended up
living together. But then, it turns out, no...

But if Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald romantically
then he didn't admit it afterwards even to the people closest
to him - or to the reader. I don't think that qualifies
as "subtle"; I may be wrong. I've said I prefer it as
a political seduction. Also, I thought he had a crush
on Madam Pomfrey, while Professor McGonagall was in love
with him... I may have been half right.

> > And Harry getting and then
> > keeping a steady girlfriend through seven years of
> > increasingly grim wizard warfare doesn't work.
>
> yes, all soldiers, police etc are single...

For those - in media, if we're shown their romantic
life, it tends to be complicated. There are exceptions
like Sherlock Holmes and Mrs. Hudson :-)

> > Any sane
> > woman would ditch him, or would be made to by parents.
> > So Hermione has to be just a good friend.
>
> Considering the time she spent with Harry and how central
> she was to the fight the whole way through I don't see
> how her dating Harry would have increased her level of
> exposure to danger

The way I see it, Voldemort needs to attack Harry just
to gain face after he blew up while trying to kill Harry.
But if his other targets are children then he loses face.
The state of his face is a measure of how things are
going for him throughout the story... anyway, someone
who thwarts Voldemort /and/ is Harry's girlfriend
becomes more of a target. And would reasonably
reconsider the "girlfriend" part. Indeed, when it
becomes an issue with Ginny, Harry suspends the
relationship first.

[J. Clarke]

In article <cuulmp...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

Well, some people realize that. Others don't--they'll go on at length
about world leaders as if they know them personally.

[William December Starr]

In article <cuulmp...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:

> It strikes me as fitting in a school context. At school, sport and
> other contests like debating are rather like warfare whether you
> take part or just stand on the sidelines - the "enemy" is
> demonised.

The few times I stood on the sidelines at my high school's sporting
events I mostly watched the cheerleaders.

-- wds

[Dimensional Traveler]

You fell for the propaganda then. :)

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:15:34 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
in<news:cuulmp...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> At school, sport and other contests like debating are
> rather like warfare whether you take part or just stand
> on the sidelines - the "enemy" is demonised.

They are? This, I think, depends very much on specific
traditions and the individual student. It was certainly
not the case for me or for most of my fellow students in
either high school or college.

[...]

[Robert Bannister]

Wish we had had cheerleaders.

[erilar]

In article <1bi93u6g6ctfl.1...@40tude.net>,

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:15:34 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
> in<news:cuulmp...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > At school, sport and other contests like debating are
> > rather like warfare whether you take part or just stand
> > on the sidelines - the "enemy" is demonised.
>
> They are? This, I think, depends very much on specific
> traditions and the individual student. It was certainly
> not the case for me or for most of my fellow students in
> either high school or college.

We just remember further back, perhaps? 8-) I do remember one fellow
high school school's football team known throughout the conference for
their rough play, but that was as close to enemy as we got.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:15:34 +0800, Robert Bannister

<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 24/06/2015 12:30 am, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> Having said that - the Slytherins as well as the Death Eaters
>> do spend a lot of time acting as generic bad guys when the
>> story requires that, instead of characters with depth.
>> They're just there to be played at Quidditch or to beat the
>> good guys or to be beaten by them. The story functions
>> when read in those simple terms. But they are rarely given
>> realistic characters - at least, not realistic characters
>> that aren't psychopaths; psychopaths are real, are difficult
>> to relate to personally, are sometimes charming, and,
>> of course, are just the sort of person who /will/ join
>> the Death Eaters. But still - not sympathetic.
>>
>
>It strikes me as fitting in a school context. At school, sport and other
>contests like debating are rather like warfare whether you take part or
>just stand on the sidelines - the "enemy" is demonised. As you grow

Nicely subverted in http://xkcd.com/588/

>older, you realise that they are just as human as you and your friends,
>even though you may find other reasons for disliking them.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Kevrob]

Thr arch-rival to the co-ed Catholic high school I attended was an all-
boys Catholic school to the North and West of us. The catchment area of
the two schools overlapped. None of my elementary school classmates
went there, but plenty of my high school classmates knew guys who did.
In my 4 years, our rivals never beat us at (gridiron) football. They did
hold their own against us in basketball, baseball, etc, but football was
king, and our school was in the midst of a record 23-0-1 unbeaten streak
when I matriculated, so this wasn't surprising. What we didn't like
about them, is that these poor guys, locked up as they were with just
themselves every weekday, would try to date the girls from our school.

Atavistic alarm bells would go off in our heads:

"DERE STEELIN' OUR WINNENZ!"

Our sports league had only Catholic schools, but non-league games or
track meets against Lutheran schools, or public schools were a matter
of honor. The public schools could usually womp us - they didn't have
a qualifying entrance exam keeping out C students who had superior
vertical leaps and the ability to dunk.

Now, as for debating....

I was a member of a team that won the state junior varsity championship in
my junior year. I wasn't debating varsity because our seniors were better.
I did go to the Catholic Forensic League Nationals in my last two years.
WE did, in fact, both admire and sometimes hate, teams we opposed. We hated
some of the public school teams from areas with money - they dressed
better, traveled more often and farther, and were allowed to wear their
hair longer. (It was the 1970s). Some of our families probably made as much
money, but they were paying tuition, and sometimes that ate into the budget
for luxuries. They also seemed to play fast and loose with the rules, in
ways that wouldn't be tolerated in sports. One very clever fellow I jousted
with from time to time would compete for more than one school in his district.
(Not in the same tournament.) The public high school in my town didn't
compete in debate. If they had, I would have bled to defeat those guys.
The tax bills my folks had to pay for that palace that we didn't even
use!

When my (private) university played basketball against the giant state
university, that was a "must win." Had to beat those commies. :)

More than one cynical wag would refer to "Nuremberg High" on Pep Rally
days.

Kevin R