creativity
sally weston
I like to think that the process is like giving birth in that there is
a seed and then a gestation period with lots of highs and lows until
eventually the book is shoved out into the big wide world to be
praised and/or criticised,indeed while typing this i have the mental
image of TP with his feet up in the stirrups surrounded by public and
publisher puffing and blowing trying to get the damn book out.
Oddly pleasing for some reason.
But what if it's not like that at all and in fact is a basic theme
with other bits and pieces randomly collected and turned or twisted to
fit the pattern, like a jigsaw.
With powerful computers permemently connected to the WWW with it's
vast store of facts,anecdotes,news and other odds and sods would it be
possible to have a program that would write stories in the style of TP
or any other author?
A part of me hopes not and that creativity will always remain a human
talent,however i do find the prospect of having my favourite authors
at my beck and call ready and waiting to write stories just for me
very attractive.
Terry Pratchett-onna disc-fifteen dollars to you squire-any takers?
Arwen Lune
Mar 2002 14:37:04 -0800. This is what it read:
> Where do authors get their ideas from?
In my case, from the hyperactive muse that just *will* *not* leave
me alone until I start writing out the storyline it has on its
mind.
Said muse also has the attentionspan of a gnat, which is why I
usually have more than 22 stories as 'work in progress'.
[note: please take a moment to look at
http://www.nl.lspace.org/faqs/subject-tags-faq.g.html so you can
tag your posts in the future. Thanking you.]
Darth Arwen (short stories and fanfiction)
--
"Bother" said Pooh. "Send out the Nine, I want my Ring!"
Arwen Lune | Ar...@meanandevil.co.uk | www.cuteandfluffy.co.uk
Mary Messall
> Where do authors get their ideas from?
Connie Willis says that's like asking Humphrey Bogart in the African
Queen, "Where do you get your leeches?"
They get you.
> indeed while typing this i have the mental
> image of TP with his feet up in the stirrups surrounded by public and
> publisher puffing and blowing trying to get the damn book out.
> Oddly pleasing for some reason.
You're mad, you know that? But we like mad. Well I like mad. Mad as in
"bananas" rather than "cheesed off" that is.
> But what if it's not like that at all and in fact is a basic theme
> with other bits and pieces randomly collected and turned or twisted to
> fit the pattern, like a jigsaw.
You know, I write. No, really, I do. And one of these days, I'll submit
my things seriously and get some published and not have to feel all
embarrassed about admitting that I write.
Anyway, I know how it works for me: I wonder about something, "What
would that be like? How do you learn to live that way? How can these
things happen?" And then I begin to imagine an answer, a person living
like that, watching or making these things happen, and the person
becomes a character, and the situation becomes a plot. And that's still
not quite a story, because I also need a world to set it in, real even
if made up (and I use made up worlds a lot so I can have made up
histories) and the world comes from a thousand different things I
notice. I describe my own walks at dusk and my resentment towards
newsbroadcasters and my own amusement at one of the thousand little
ironies of daily life, and pretty soon the world is influencing the
characters and the plot as well (that how the plot moves--it smacks
into the world and gets propelled in a new direction) and then it's a
story.
I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
to make it up as I go along, like that?
(Only I'm not sure I can do it any other way. I want to find out what's
going to happen when I write as much as when I read. I can't simply
*decide* what's going to happen; that would make it forced, artificial,
pointless. And if I work through all of the unexpected consequences in
outline form first--I have tried it--I find the itch to tell that story
scratched, and I no longer have sufficient motivation to write it out.
Even then, it usually results in a more simplistic story.)
> With powerful computers permemently connected to the WWW with it's
> vast store of facts,anecdotes,news and other odds and sods would it be
> possible to have a program that would write stories in the style of TP
> or any other author?
Very, extremely, unfathomably unlikely.
But fun to speculate about. There's a story in _Gold_ by Isaac Asimov
which offers a very nice take on this, I think. Can't recall the title,
but I'm sure someone will be along shortly who has it to hand. The word
processor begins writing all of Asimov's books for him, in logical
extension from the grammar check, and the critics hail the improvement.
> A part of me hopes not and that creativity will always remain a human
> talent,however i do find the prospect of having my favourite authors
> at my beck and call ready and waiting to write stories just for me
> very attractive.
They wouldn't be nearly as good, if they were only what you wanted to
hear, you know.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Isabel Kunkle
Mary Messall <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C8952F6...@durham.ac.uk...
.
>
> I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
> else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
Well, the way I get ideas is generally via either a character, for longer
works, where I think one up and then find a situation for him/her to get
into, a situation for the shorter ones. After that, I find that I generally
do need to write down some preliminary stuff--outline of the plot, so that I
don't create severe plot holes and miss important things, or character
details (I find the twenty-questions thing in some RPG books to be fairly
helpful in that regard) and then write. I find this works, more or less, but
I'm writing campy fantasy and not anything deep and meaningful, so I suppose
styles may differ depending on what exactly you're trying to do.
Kuro Korax
> > Where do authors get their ideas from?
>
> Connie Willis says that's like asking Humphrey Bogart in the African
> Queen, "Where do you get your leeches?"
>
> They get you.
They attack me. I stand around minding my own business and then a
story idea hits me and doesn't leave me alone. My friends call them
"Plot Bunnies". They're rabid and they bite hard! ^^;;;
>
> > indeed while typing this i have the mental
> > image of TP with his feet up in the stirrups surrounded by public and
> > publisher puffing and blowing trying to get the damn book out.
> > Oddly pleasing for some reason.
>
> You're mad, you know that? But we like mad. Well I like mad. Mad as in
> "bananas" rather than "cheesed off" that is.
I don't know, that image kinda makes me do a double take. I just can't
see it, from what I've hear TP's publishers are rather mild and just
kinda go with TP's agenda. Or am I wrong?
I wanna banana! *pouts*
>
> > But what if it's not like that at all and in fact is a basic theme
> > with other bits and pieces randomly collected and turned or twisted to
> > fit the pattern, like a jigsaw.
>
> You know, I write. No, really, I do.
So do I. And my sister is convinced that I'm going to grow up and
become some famous write and make her lots of money or something. I
doubt it, I've got no sense of style. I tend to write like I talk,
which is a bit disorganized, which humor my friends very much. But I
guess that is what drafts are for.
And one of these days, I'll submit
> my things seriously and get some published and not have to feel all
> embarrassed about admitting that I write.
Cool! People other then me are embaressed that they write, I might
actually have a chance out there!
>
>
> I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
> else write this way?
Actually I write very similar to that, but I start out with a
character. I think up a personality, a face and possible habits that
the character has. Then I think, "Now why is (insert charater here,
who doesn't have a name yet most likely) like this, what's his past,
where's he from, how old is he, every basic I should know about him
where I to first meet him. It then gets a history, a little more broad
personality, and name. I set him in one of my worlds (though some of
my characters are interchangeable with my personal worlds and the
'real' type world like I live in, but I think there's only two that
can really do that) and give it life. I've just started writing really
and I revamp things very often and set new places and towns and areas
to worlds and new characters are popping up. I think up situations
that happen in the world and then I set my characters to it.
The only person who ever really reads my stories thoough is my sister.
She's thinks they are great but I personally think them very corny and
overdone. *sighs* I need a backbone.
Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character description? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
Outlines? What are these outlines that you speak of? I've never heard
of these outlines. The characters in my head do everything, I only
write with an idea of how I think it might turn out, but more ften
then not they take a turn or smething happens that changes everything.
I thought making it up was how it was done right. . . I believe I've
probably been in way too many RPGs.
>
> (Only I'm not sure I can do it any other way. I want to find out what's
> going to happen when I write as much as when I read. I can't simply
> *decide* what's going to happen; that would make it forced, artificial,
> pointless.
Agreed, I enjoy being surprised by my own plot twists. Makes the
experience exsiting. I also love knowing exactly what the bad guys are
planning and seeing how my character's take it.
And if I work through all of the unexpected consequences in
> outline form first--I have tried it--I find the itch to tell that story
> scratched, and I no longer have sufficient motivation to write it out.
> Even then, it usually results in a more simplistic story.)
Though outlining does being about the ability ti really foreshadow
events. Like when you goback to the beginning again and find all the
little hints to the ending that you looked over before.
>
> > With powerful computers permemently connected to the WWW with it's
> > vast store of facts,anecdotes,news and other odds and sods would it be
> > possible to have a program that would write stories in the style of TP
> > or any other author?
>
> Very, extremely, unfathomably unlikely.
O_O That would be horrible. TP's and any other's style is ther own and
should stay that way, experiments maybe as long that it's only for
your pleasure, but stealing another author's style just makes me think
that you couldn't come up with your own way of telling the story and
had to steal someone elses. If you plan to make money off it, that's
just wrong. Though borrowing other people's character and world for
practice and for fun as long as its only for fun and games is ok,
though that makes me feel a bit of a hypocrite now.
>
> > A part of me hopes not and that creativity will always remain a human
> > talent,however i do find the prospect of having my favourite authors
> > at my beck and call ready and waiting to write stories just for me
> > very attractive.
I just fear the day that the world will run out of ideas, however
unlikely that is. Though an author to write stories for me is very
attractive, true, but I could never keep it. I'd have to feed it and
clea it and take it for walkies. . .
>
Korax
Beth Winter
>
> sally weston wrote:
> > Where do authors get their ideas from?
>
> Connie Willis says that's like asking Humphrey Bogart in the African
> Queen, "Where do you get your leeches?"
>
> They get you.
*nods* In my case, often after inocuous remarks in everyday
conversations and e-mail...
> I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
> else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
I usually start with an idea - it can be an image, a line, or a concept
like "what would X do if they met Y?" Sometimes I fit it into an
existing work (and thusly fanfiction is born), sometimes I start this
way but twist the characters. Then suddenly it all comes together,
filling out and twisting into a strange shape, and I realize I have
another epic saga I'll never finish on my hands >_<
Another way is to create some characters first and then worry about the
plot. I've yet to finish *anything* started in that manner, so I can
very well say it's not too good. But I *have* used those characters in
stuff that began in the former way, usually for filling the sidelines
(ie minor bad guys or comic relief) while not keeping them too cardboard
- because they've already got a history etc.
Then again, I'm not much of a writer... *sighs* Anything I've ever shown
to anyone is fanfiction in two anime fandoms - Gundam Wing and X/Tokyo
Babylon.
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://go.to/thediscworldcompendium>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Eric Jarvis
>
> With powerful computers permemently connected to the WWW with it's
> vast store of facts,anecdotes,news and other odds and sods would it be
> possible to have a program that would write stories in the style of TP
> or any other author?
>
nope
writing involves huge amounts of decision making...the human brain is good
at that...software simply fakes it rather badly
ergo it can't be done
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"I am a man of many parts,
unfortunately most are no longer in stock"
Eric Jarvis
>
> I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
> else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
>
Most of my writing has used real incidents to base the narrative on. A few
songs and stories have appeared in my mind almost fully formed. The
remainder has come from sculpting a mix of previously unused snippets and
some stream of consciousness stuff.
I've not tried to write anything novel length as yet, though I'm
collecting little bits that may eventually get used that way.
Jens Ayton
>
> nope
>
> writing involves huge amounts of decision making...the human brain is good
> at that...software simply fakes it rather badly
>
> ergo it can't be done
"Chatbots" like MegaHAL (<http://www.megahal.net>) aren't very far from
being able to simulate people's writing style at a low level; however,
writing a coherent story with a strong plot and subtle references to
other literature, situations and events is another matter entirely.
--
\\\\ Jens "not Jen" Ayton Fratello di Vetinari
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Sean Cleary
that a writer will be sure and good in their craft after they have
written their first million words. Maybe they got the idea from each
other or from a common source. But it means practice, practice and
more of the same to get to the goal.
I was reading a essay (in a Nebula winners collection) by the writer
of Flowers for Algernon. He said that he kept ideas that he had as
notes. He was reviewing his notes and matched one of his old ideas
with one of his new ideas and really kickstarted his muse. He had
grown in writing knowlege in the mean time and could tackle the
subject. He needed an idea and a character, and they met from his
prior notes and his character notes inspired by his work in a "special
ed" class.
So do not give up hope, nor give up practice. We need more good
writers.
Sean
Chess
> else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
Generally, I get a trigger idea (from the aether) and then start dreaming
it. If it survives a few scenes, I'll maybe write them up. Then I'll write
the beginning, and maybe the first couple of chapters if it's good. At that
point I tend to have a string of scenes worked out in my head, and write
down an outline. And at that point I lose all interest and just go back and
poke at it every now and again. Only one thing has ever got finished this
way, because I had two weeks holiday with nothing but a word processer to
keep me company - the other finished things have been single-scene pieces.
One of the projects I'm working on atm started life in a crazier way than
that, tho - it started off as some poorly thought-out fanfiction (RPG
character type stuff), continued as a rather dismal fanfiction story which
didn't really work (linking Pern and Star Trek universes - ohhh dear), and
then got picked up again when I was looking for a theme for a scenario I was
building with 'Blades of Exile'. I got thorougly sick of the limitations of
the Scenario Editor, and realised that there was actually a story trying to
get out under all that rubbish, so I started to write it.
Anyway, that's quite enough babbling.
Mary Messall
> At that
> point I tend to have a string of scenes worked out in my head, and write
> down an outline. And at that point I lose all interest and just go back and
> poke at it every now and again. Only one thing has ever got finished this
> way, because I had two weeks holiday with nothing but a word processer to
> keep me company - the other finished things have been single-scene pieces.
Yes, you see, it seems to me that's why professionals recommend
outlines--to keep you from getting lost and quitting in the middle. And
also to make possible such devices as foreshadowing and so on, of
course. But I find that I am *more* likely to quit in the middle with
too much advance planning, having satisfied my curiosity about the
story with the plan, and I find that foreshadowing works best for me
when something I put in at an earlier stage only as a minor detail
later develops into something significant, organically. Any conscious
attempt to insert things seems clumsy and obvious, and making
characters do things because it's in the plot I've already worked out,
rather than because it's what that character would do, always feels
false.
And I *do* finish things. I've written one whole novel length novel,
which I do intend to start sending round to agents (though I am told
that in genre fiction, it is often possible to deal directly with the
publishers, I would actually much rather have someone experienced in
the business to represent my interests) and a couple of novella length
things which I do not intend to try to publish, as they aren't good
enough, and lots of short fiction which has been published in places
like university literary magazines. But my method of making it up on
the fly (usually inserting text in brackets, to be removed later,
asking questions like, "So why is this happening?" and "How can they
possibly get out of this? and then speculating on my own plot, and
picking out the most likely speculations) does actually work for me,
and even if someone tells me it's amateurish and inefficient, I'm
unlikely to change it now. But I was hoping others had had some success
similarly ignoring the recieved wisdom. <g>
Terry Pratchett
<akuk...@earthlink.net> writes
>I don't know, that image kinda makes me do a double take. I just can't
>see it, from what I've hear TP's publishers are rather mild and just
>kinda go with TP's agenda. Or am I wrong?
No. That's pretty much it. But no one ever believes it. It's widely
assumed that they're on my back all the time, and (I love this one) that
I write books out of 'contractual obligation', as if somehow I'm part of
a process I dislike. If anything, the publishers act with a certain
amount of artistic responsibility; when it was clear that 'Maurice' was
going to be a success I was wondering aloud whether to do another
Maurice book, and both the UK and US editors said 'Our marketing
departments would jump at the idea, but unless you've got a clear story
in mind right now we're rather see what else you come up with'. So I
started The Wee Free Men, which I'd been thinking about for a couple of
years, and within a few days it had gone into overdrive. While I think
there will be at least one more Maurice book, because a wise-arse cat
wandering through a fairy tale landscape is such a useful plot device,
it won't be yet.
Apart from the children's books, the editors don't even get involved
until close to the end of the process. Generally they get a e-mail
saying 'it's got to a draft I'm happy to show you, please see attachment
in .rtf format.'
--
Terry Pratchett
elfin
[snip]
> Apart from the children's books, the editors don't even get involved
> until close to the end of the process. Generally they get a e-mail
> saying 'it's got to a draft I'm happy to show you, please see attachment
> in .rtf format.'
*cough* *splutter*
must be some large emails floating about out there...
hmmm, so that's what happened to the lost chapter!!
elfin
--
Only time will tell
(tell what?)
Andrew Irish
Hmm, maybe if we can the publisher's mailbox to automatically bounce the
mail from Terry to afp, we can read the novels before they are published!
Of course, this would be highly illegal, difficult and would lead to a
drop in book sales. And Mr. P. might get a bit angry.
So maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. Besides, its easier to read
paper books.
--
Andrew <agi...@ecs.soton.ac.uk, a_i...@yahoo.com>
Grymma
"Andrew Irish" <agi...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02031...@localhost.localdomain...
<snip, how to divert new books>
> So maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. Besides, its easier to read
> paper books.
Yeah, it's really hard to balance this monitor comfortably for reading in
bed...
--
Grymma AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; B.F.(use 'reply to')
AFPiancée to Tap, DP, Miq, XM & Chris H.; AFPhaghag;
AFPBigSis to Mike; Giver of (frnchsd) Scottish *hugs*n*kisses*
Charles A Lieberman
<b7c030fa.02030...@posting.google.com>
>Where do authors get their ideas from?
Schenectady.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[A]pproximately 70% of the students at Stuyve-
Brooklyn, NY, USA | sant fit the description of a teenage homicidal
cali...@bigfoot.com | maniac" --letter, NY Post, April 28, 1999
Charles A Lieberman
<ia$lGIASm...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
>Apart from the children's books, the editors don't even get involved
>until close to the end of the process.
Why are the children's books different?
Sherilyn
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>sally weston 8 Mar 2002 14:37:04 -0800
><b7c030fa.02030...@posting.google.com>
>>Where do authors get their ideas from?
>
>Schenectady.
I always wondered why they named the place after the sound of an old
fashioned typewriter keyboard...
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
><ia$lGIASm...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
>>Apart from the children's books, the editors don't even get involved
>>until close to the end of the process.
>
>Why are the children's books different?
I'll bet its a vocabulary requirement. An general author alone may not have
the fine control necessary to make a book work for the target age group.
Too simple, they get bored, too hard they don't enjoy it.
--
Sherilyn
Terry Pratchett
Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Why are the children's books different?
>
Interesting question. The short answer is that children's book
departments are more up front in their enthusiasm, and so you get drawn
in.
With the Truckers trilogy I was writing my first children's books for
years and so talked to my editor a lot just to make sure that we
understood one another.
The Johnny Maxwell books didn't have a lot of editorial input (as
opposed to general copy-editing) now that I come to think about it, but
again there was a fair amount of phone contact.
Maurice involved quite a lot of editorial discussion mostly, I have to
say, because the editors were *interested* in it. That's not to say
that my adult DW editors aren't interested, but I've been writing the
books for long enough for everyone to be happy to leave the editorial
involvement to a crunch week or two after the last draft, whereas in the
children's book area there is traditionally a lot more editorial
contact. Anne Hoppe of HC got very involved with Maurice because, she
said, she loved the book (and would sent me detailed e-mails about bits
she did and did not think worked.) She also, gods bless her, acted as
referee between me and the copy-editor, because I get twitchy about
books being overly 'Americanized'.
--
Terry Pratchett
David Chapman
news:f$n6PKAxb...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
<grin>
Someone on a mainly-Merkin group that I frequent commented
that you can tell the difference between your adult books and
your children's books in that the children's books are darker.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
Len Oil
> Terry Pratchett wrote
> [snip]
> > Apart from the children's books, the editors don't even get involved
> > until close to the end of the process. Generally they get a e-mail
> > saying 'it's got to a draft I'm happy to show you, please see
attachment
> > in .rtf format.'
>
> *cough* *splutter*
>
> must be some large emails floating about out there...
Sherilyn
Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>
>With the Truckers trilogy I was writing my first children's books for
>years and so talked to my editor a lot just to make sure that we
>understood one another.
That was good, particularly as it came in the middle of a rather fallow
period in between your excellent Ramtops novels, Wyrd Sisters and Witches
Abroad.
Did you read that article the WRITE MORE RAMTOPS NOVELS other day
debunking WRITE MORE RAMTOPS NOVELS subliminal advertising?
--
Sherilyn
Paul E. Jamison
>
[snip]
>
> I'd be interested to hear AFP's other writers' opinions. Does anyone
> else write this way? Or do you all work to outlines and three by five
> cards with character descriptions? Do you suppose it's unprofessional
> to make it up as I go along, like that?
I write, too, and the only thing that's embarrassing about it to me
is that I didn't do it twenty years ago.
I've written several short stories and one short novel. A few years ago I
came across an interesting concept - that there is a place where our
pets' spirits go after death to wait for us humans so that we can all go
into Heaven together - and I asked a question - "What about
the Agnostics - will they go to Heaven and be reunited with their pets?"
- and I decided to write a story about it. Then I hit on other story ideas
that could be set in this venue. So I worked out plot ideas and went from
there. No outlines and stuff - I just figured out where I thought the
story would go and I'd just let it germinate in the little grey cells for
awhile before I put pen to paper, so to speak. I'd also work on
fleshing out characters, then came up with some that I liked enough
that I wanted to use them again, and hey, Presto! I had a series.
Sometimes it's about the plot; sometimes it's about the characters.
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Kuro Korax
>
> Someone on a mainly-Merkin group that I frequent commented
> that you can tell the difference between your adult books and
> your children's books in that the children's books are darker.
I'll agree! I showed Amazing Maurice to my friend, after she read it
she can up to me with a surprised expresion. When I asked her why, she
said, "Are you /sure/ this is a kids book.
It can be argued that children like darker things, blood, gore, guts
and the bad guys getting eaten seem to entertain my cousin of six. ^^
I be quiet now.
Korax~
Marco Villalta
> "Andrew Irish" <agi...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > So maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. Besides, its easier to read
> > paper books.
>
> Yeah, it's really hard to balance this monitor comfortably for reading in
> bed...
Not with a laptop.
--
Marco Villalta
My ISP is upgrading, so my "reply-to" address is currently not
working. Use the "from" address until I stop employing this sig,
and please excuse possible delays of replies. TIA.
Terry Pratchett
<sher...@suespammers.org> writes
>I'll bet its a vocabulary requirement. An general author alone may not have
>the fine control necessary to make a book work for the target age group.
>Too simple, they get bored, too hard they don't enjoy it.
Sorry, but that's insulting, quite apart from being wrong. I don't think
I've ever had vocabulary 'tweaked', apart from the aforesaid UK/US
changes. A good author knows how to introduce words that might be
unfamiliar in a way that allows them to be understood in context. I bet
most of us in this group picked up meanings that way.
--
Terry Pratchett
Marco Villalta
> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> writes
>
> >I'll bet its a vocabulary requirement. An general author alone may not have
> >the fine control necessary to make a book work for the target age group.
> >Too simple, they get bored, too hard they don't enjoy it.
>
> Sorry, but that's insulting, quite apart from being wrong. I don't think
> I've ever had vocabulary 'tweaked', apart from the aforesaid UK/US
> changes. A good author knows how to introduce words that might be
> unfamiliar in a way that allows them to be understood in context. I bet
> most of us in this group picked up meanings that way.
Yes indeed. I sure have, at least.
Sherilyn
>
>In article <slrna8q76a....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk>, Sherilyn
><sher...@suespammers.org> writes
>>I'll bet its a vocabulary requirement. An general author alone may not have
>>the fine control necessary to make a book work for the target age group.
>>Too simple, they get bored, too hard they don't enjoy it.
>
>Sorry, but that's insulting, quite apart from being wrong.
It wasn't intended to be insulting. I apologise for that, and for
being wrong.
> I don't think
>I've ever had vocabulary 'tweaked', apart from the aforesaid UK/US
>changes. A good author knows how to introduce words that might be
>unfamiliar in a way that allows them to be understood in context. I bet
>most of us in this group picked up meanings that way.
--
Sherilyn
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
Oh yeah... when I started reading books in English, I had two choices:
either taking an English-French dictionary with me all the time, which
would be _hard_ when walking while reading (not to mention that
litteral translation doesn't work(and that's when there's only _one_
translation for a given word)), or learn the words by context. It took
me a while to be able to read English fluently (that's when instead of
reading a book, you're participating in it), but far less than it
would have had I tried the first method.
Twenty years later, there are still English words I know the meaning
of without knowing the translation...
FiX
Eric Jarvis
sher...@suespammers.org says...
>
> Did you read that article the WRITE MORE RAMTOPS NOVELS other day
> debunking WRITE MORE RAMTOPS NOVELS subliminal advertising?
>
you seem to have mispelt "fnord"
--
eric
"if at first you don't succeed,
then try again with it switched on"
Aquarion
> sally weston wrote:
>> Where do authors get their ideas from?
>
> Queen, "Where do you get your leeches?"
>
> They get you.
>
>
>> But what if it's not like that at all and in fact is a basic theme
>> with other bits and pieces randomly collected and turned or twisted to
>> fit the pattern, like a jigsaw.
>
> You know, I write. No, really, I do. And one of these days, I'll submit
> my things seriously and get some published and not have to feel all
> embarrassed about admitting that I write.
My name is Aquarion Kael De'Blue, and I am a writer.
Well, sort of.
Most of the stuff I write is here. Sad, isn't it? My best stuff all
slipping silently into the AFP archives without a single word in it's
favour...
But I do write other things, and a couple have been published places
others can see them. not just the raging mass of words that makes up
Aquarionics.com. Strangly enough, most of my stories come from words, or
phrases, or locations. Charecters fit in locations, words fit in
charectors. So, for example, I might be walking the dog down a path near
where I live, and start thinking of who else could have walked down
there, and why. I see a Coke can perched atop some brambles and the idea
of something that no longer belongs comes upon me. Simmer for three
hours, sit down, and write Chris
(http://extraverse.orcon.net.nz/chris.html)
Or I could be sitting in a car being driven past a field somewhere in
the garden of England, and think of a phrase like, for example "'A human
being *what*?' said the alien", again, simmer for a week or so, take the
foil off to reveal "Sgfjxxafg"
(<http://www.sproutlore.com/mercury/mercury.php?issue=22> story at
<http://www.aquarionics.com/writings/other/sgfjxxafg.html>)
Ideas come from everywhere, all at once. You just have to pin them to
the page, like butterflies.
Yours in total sincerity
Aquarion
--
Aquarionic Industries. Doing bad things to good people since 1996
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming:
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
www.terraincognita.org.uk, www.aquarionics.com, aquarion.demon.co.uk
Aquarion
> A couple of writing books by writers (Niven, Orson Scott Card.) say
> that a writer will be sure and good in their craft after they have
> written their first million words. Maybe they got the idea from each
> other or from a common source. But it means practice, practice and
> more of the same to get to the goal.
David Eddings also. In The Riven Codex, he said to "Write your first
million words, then throw them away". I put them on the Internet, which
is roughly the same thing.
(If you want to do the "Yes, but if you're David Eddings, you publish
the second million words, do a search and replace, and repeat ad nausem"
then you can do it on alt.fan.eddings, because I *will* argue with you
:-)
Holger Metzger
> Twenty years later, there are still English words I know the meaning
> of without knowing the translation...
Yes, I know what you mean. When I started learning English, I tried to
look up every single unknown word. It was a big mistake. Then I started
reading and tried to understand and learn words by context. And,
surprisingly, it worked quite well. There are english words I can
understand perfectly, but I am unable to actually translate them into
German. :-)
--
Holger Metzger
Netscape 6 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/netscape6.html
Eric Jarvis
> François-Xavier de Montgolfier wrote:
> > Twenty years later, there are still English words I know the meaning
> > of without knowing the translation...
>
> Yes, I know what you mean. When I started learning English, I tried to
> look up every single unknown word. It was a big mistake. Then I started
> reading and tried to understand and learn words by context. And,
> surprisingly, it worked quite well. There are english words I can
> understand perfectly, but I am unable to actually translate them into
> German. :-)
>
I've always tried to learn languages that way...translations are always
so imprecise...and it takes far too long...so I try to think in the
language once I've absorbed enough...then I'll have a look at the grammar
once I'm confident I've stored enough concepts to get along
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
<m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>You know, I write. No, really, I do. And one of these days, I'll submit
>my things seriously and get some published and not have to feel all
>embarrassed about admitting that I write.
I don't anymore. I used to, but having to build a funeral pyre in
order to be able to burn my works seem a little bit extreme, nowadays
;-)
FiX
Menno
"Grymma" <Gry...@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote in message news:<a6j1pf$5m4$1...@library.lspace.org>...
> Yeah, it's really hard to balance this monitor comfortably
> for reading in bed...
Actually, a book isn't ideal either. If you're lying on you back, you
have to prop yourself up against the wall. If on your side, you can
only read one page comfortably. You have to lift the book to read the
other page. Or turn over every few minutes.
I seem to remember one book specifically designed to read in bed. The
story would run first on the even pages, then when you get to the end,
you turn the entire book over and go in the other direction.
A computer screen would be very nice for reading in bed as you don't
have to turn it over at all. Just put it down, have it turn sideways
somehow and have some scrolling device.
Anyone own a factory?
Cheers,
Menno aka Flexor
Sherilyn
Menno <fle...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
[...]
>
>A computer screen would be very nice for reading in bed as you don't
>have to turn it over at all. Just put it down, have it turn sideways
>somehow and have some scrolling device.
Palm screens work out okay for reading, I find.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
John
I have a recollection that a child's vocabulary grows at a rate far in
excess of what was previously thought, certainly more words are known
than the child hears on a regular basis. It was theorised that children
gain knowledge of words mainly through context.
John
"Holger Metzger" <use...@hmetzger.de> wrote in message
news:3C8E133...@hmetzger.de...
You'd make a terrible Scientologist, they have a belief that all
problems in failing to comprehend a text lie in having "MUs"
(Misunderstood Words) and that by reading a dictionary for every
word not understood, so a text will become comprehensible.
Speaker-to-Customers
"John" wrote ...
>
(Snip)
> You'd make a terrible Scientologist,
Is there any other kind?
> they have a belief that all
> problems in failing to comprehend a text lie in having "MUs"
> (Misunderstood Words) and that by reading a dictionary for every
> word not understood, so a text will become comprehensible.
They have a number of other strange beliefs, the strangest being that
"Battlefield Earth" was a good film.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Jenny Radcliffe
> "Grymma" <Gry...@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote
> > Yeah, it's really hard to balance this monitor comfortably
> > for reading in bed...
> Actually, a book isn't ideal either. If you're lying on you back,
> you have to prop yourself up against the wall. If on your side,
> you can only read one page comfortably. You have to lift the book
> to read the other page. Or turn over every few minutes.
No, you don't. Well, I don't, anyway, as long as it's a standard-sized
paper-back. They tuck comfortably on my arm and I can see both pages fine.
> A computer screen would be very nice for reading in bed as you
> don't have to turn it over at all. Just put it down, have it turn
> sideways somehow and have some scrolling device.
It would have to be the right size, and obviously it would need to be
flat-screen as it would be far too heavy if it were a CRT. Otherwise ...
yeah, I'd *try* one ... ;)
flesh_eating_dragon
> A good author knows how to introduce words that might be unfamiliar
> in a way that allows them to be understood in context. I bet most of
> us in this group picked up meanings that way.
Absolutely.
Which reminds me:
When I first read 'The Truth', I noticed several references - more
than I had ever seen in a single book - to the exclusively (AFAICT)
British word 'droll'. When I first encountered this word, I assumed
that it was an insult, meaning "not another lame excuse for a joke",
but I got confused after a while, because cumulative usages didn't
stack up to that interpretation ... yet, I thought, surely even the
British could not use a word that sounds like a cross between 'drone'
and 'dull' to mean genuinely amusing ...! Having seen it a few more
times, I usually get the impression that it's a word for acknowledging
that humour has taken place, while also suggesting that the speaker
feels humour may not be appropriate to that particular situation (e.g.
a dry formal business meeting, or one whose mind is permanently set in
such). But I'm not sure.
Adrian.
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
(flesh_eating_dragon) wrote:
It may have something to do with the French word "drôle", which means
funny. It's also used fairly often in a derogatory sense "haha, comme
c'est drôle!", which can be translated as <*groan*> in froup language
;-)
FiX
Paul Wilkins
fdem...@capgemini.fr.nospam says...
> It may have something to do with the French word "drôle", which means
> funny. It's also used fairly often in a derogatory sense "haha, comme
> c'est drôle!", which can be translated as <*groan*> in froup language
> ;-)
Agreed. In checking with the dictionary it says "quaintly amusing".
"droll" appears in the dictionary with "droit de seigneur" immediately above
it and directly below is "dromedary" (a camel). On an "Terry was influenced
by" wave of thought, I cannot help but get the image of Terry checking the
dictionary for the spelling of those words, and being unfairly 'fluenced by
the word droll that appears between them. This conjecture of course, is no
doubt highly influenced by the amount of annotative false-positives around
here.
--
Paul Wilkins
| /\ Inform yourself | Paul Wilkins | When you ask a computer person to
| /__\ Project Mayhem | Christchurch | fix your machine, they will first
| http://tetrica.com/ | (03) 3433097 | spend hours downloading upgrades.
Graycat
>I seem to remember one book specifically designed to read in bed. The
>story would run first on the even pages, then when you get to the end,
>you turn the entire book over and go in the other direction.
But but, what if you prefer lying on your other side? Were there left
and right editions?
Elin
Sherilyn
silly!
--
Sherilyn
Graycat
wrote:
Now, why didn't I think of that?
Elin
Sherilyn
Graycat <grayca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:11:18 GMT, sher...@suespammers.org (Sherilyn)
>wrote:
>
>>In message-id <3c90badf...@news1.telia.com>,
>>Graycat <grayca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 12 Mar 2002 12:21:53 -0800, fle...@wanadoo.nl (Menno) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I seem to remember one book specifically designed to read in bed. The
>>>>story would run first on the even pages, then when you get to the end,
>>>>you turn the entire book over and go in the other direction.
>>>
>>>But but, what if you prefer lying on your other side? Were there left
>>>and right editions?
>>>
>>No need to turn over, at all. You just learn to read upside down,
>>silly!
>
>Now, why didn't I think of that?
>
--
Sherilyn
Terry Pratchett
Montgolfier <fdem...@capgemini.fr.nospam> writes
>On 13 Mar 2002 17:49:04 -0800, morgan...@netyp.com.au
>(flesh_eating_dragon) wrote:
>
>>Terry Pratchett wrote:
>>
>>> A good author knows how to introduce words that might be unfamiliar
>>> in a way that allows them to be understood in context. I bet most of
>>> us in this group picked up meanings that way.
>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
>>Which reminds me:
>>
>>When I first read 'The Truth', I noticed several references - more
>>than I had ever seen in a single book - to the exclusively (AFAICT)
>>British word 'droll'. When I first encountered this word, I assumed
>>that it was an insult, meaning "not another lame excuse for a joke",
>>but I got confused after a while, because cumulative usages didn't
>>stack up to that interpretation .
A word count of the original MS uncovers two instances.
Words come with baggage attached, and now droll has come to mean: 'meant
to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
hilarious as a sinus wash.'
--
Terry Pratchett
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
<Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Words come with baggage attached, and now droll has come to mean: 'meant
>to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
>hilarious as a sinus wash.'
Okay, I don't know if the Pratchett Quote File is still maintained,
but if so, wouldn't this be a candidate ?
FiX<not pushing;-)>
Beth Winter
I dunno about that, but I'm swiping it for my Pterryquote collection at
the Compendium ^_^
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://go.to/thediscworldcompendium>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Graycat
wrote:
>In message-id <3c90c265...@news1.telia.com>,
>Graycat <grayca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:11:18 GMT, sher...@suespammers.org (Sherilyn)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message-id <3c90badf...@news1.telia.com>,
>>>Graycat <grayca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 12 Mar 2002 12:21:53 -0800, fle...@wanadoo.nl (Menno) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I seem to remember one book specifically designed to read in bed. The
>>>>>story would run first on the even pages, then when you get to the end,
>>>>>you turn the entire book over and go in the other direction.
>>>>
>>>>But but, what if you prefer lying on your other side? Were there left
>>>>and right editions?
>>>>
>>>No need to turn over, at all. You just learn to read upside down,
>>>silly!
>>
>>Now, why didn't I think of that?
>>
>You're not lazy enough.
Ah, explains it.
Elin
John
how droll :)
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:48:47 +0000, Terry Pratchett
<Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Words come with baggage attached, and now droll has come to mean: 'meant
>to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
>hilarious as a sinus wash.'
Perhaps influenced by P G Woodhouse's Jeeves and Wooster[1] [2] as I'm
sure that on more than one occasion Wooster made some feeble joke to
which Jeeves responds "Very droll, Sir..."
<The comma indicates a pause which is not *quite* long enough to be
insulting, but *just* long enough to give the joker pause.>
<Hmm, reminds me of Vetinari that...!>
Cheers,
Graham.
[1] I can't remember for the life of me if this is the correct
spelling!
[2] Jeeves is the supercilious [3] butler, Wooster is the "upper-class
twit" for those who aren't familiar with them.
[3] "Supercilious" = "I may be your social 'inferior', but that's the
*only* way in which you out-rank me!"
flesh_eating_dragon
> A word count of the original MS uncovers two instances.
>
> Words come with baggage attached, and now droll has come to mean: 'meant
> to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
> hilarious as a sinus wash.'
Which is pretty much what I first thought it meant. Sometimes first
impressions turn out to be correct after all.
Here's the count of every instance I can specifically remember seeing:
- Once in Jeremy Pascall's "God: The Ultimate Autobiography"
- Once in Yes Prime Minister
- Twice (if you say so) in The Truth
Any other instances I've encountered were not memorable.
In G:TUA, the context is that God has threatened to turn the scribe
into a cactus if he doesn't respond favourably to his (God's) jokes.
So the footnotes are all very admiring of God's "humour", no matter
how lame said humour is. Then, towards the end, one of God's jokes is
described as "undoubtably very droll", whereupon I got the impression,
noting the apparent allusion to the words "drone" and "dull", that
the scribe was now tired of pretending that bad jokes were good, and
no longer cared what happened to him. Indeed, the next time the scribe
is mentioned in the text, he is a cactus.
You all know the reference in YPM and the references in TT. Most of
these instances seem to be used complimentarily, but in a mild sort of
way from someone not recognised for their sense of humour. The YPM
reference in particular gave me the impression that Humphrey was
pausing for two seconds to acknowledge a joke, before getting on with
business.
My problem has been that /no/ instance that I have seen has ever been
/clearly/ derogatory. And that made me wonder if I'd read it correctly.
Adrian.
Torak
> > > for reading in bed...
> > Actually, a book isn't ideal either. If you're lying on you back,
> > you have to prop yourself up against the wall. If on your side,
> > you can only read one page comfortably. You have to lift the book
> > to read the other page. Or turn over every few minutes.
>
> No, you don't. Well, I don't, anyway, as long as it's a standard-sized
> paper-back. They tuck comfortably on my arm and I can see both pages fine.
You try reading Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire in hardback. I missed
four hours of sleep one night on that. Finished all four books in as many
days... Irritating - I *enjoyed* disliking the Potter books, then I was
forced to read the Philosopher's Stone. Now I'm getting annoyed that Rowling
doesn't write any faster...
Torak
> >to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
> >hilarious as a sinus wash.'
>
> Okay, I don't know if the Pratchett Quote File is still maintained,
> but if so, wouldn't this be a candidate ?
Should be, yup.
Torak
> sure that on more than one occasion Wooster made some feeble joke to
> which Jeeves responds "Very droll, Sir..."
> [2] Jeeves is the supercilious [3] butler, Wooster is the "upper-class
> twit" for those who aren't familiar with them.
>
> [3] "Supercilious" = "I may be your social 'inferior', but that's the
> *only* way in which you out-rank me!"
Supercilious is more smug, stuck-up, snotty-nosed
"I'm-better-than-you'll-ever-be"-sort of thing.
"Exhibiting haughty contempt or indifference; arrogant." (Webster's)
David Chapman
news:s%gk8.186$0R6....@news.chello.be...
> Irritating - I *enjoyed* disliking the Potter books, then I was
> forced to read the Philosopher's Stone. Now I'm getting annoyed that
Rowling
> doesn't write any faster...
I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
screen that I've ever seen.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
MikeXXXX
>
>
> I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
> stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
> string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
> screen that I've ever seen.
>
Nice boat, Captain.
Plan to be out long?
Beautiful Plumage
--
And if ther be any Thyng that displese hem, I preye hem also that
They arrette it to the defaute of myn unkonnynge, and nat to my wyl,
that wolde ful fayn Have seyd bettre if I hadde had konnynge.
Torak
> > forced to read the Philosopher's Stone. Now I'm getting annoyed that
Rowling
> > doesn't write any faster...
>
> I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
> stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
> string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
> screen that I've ever seen.
I take it you dislike the books, then?
I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and vernacular
irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're highly
enjoyable books.
Cathy Young
I quite liked one from a couple of months back:
For some reason Terry Pratchett wrote:
> In article <ab9bf388.02012...@posting.google.com>, rupert
> <tas...@hotmail.com> writes
> >An author who talks to his fans on there own level? On a Newsgroup??
> >Whats going on???
>
> I'm lying down:-)
> --
> Terry Pratchett
David Chapman
> > > Irritating - I *enjoyed* disliking the Potter books, then I was
> > > forced to read the Philosopher's Stone. Now I'm getting annoyed that
> Rowling
> > > doesn't write any faster...
> >
> > I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
> > stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
> > string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
> > screen that I've ever seen.
>
> I take it you dislike the books, then?
What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
fairly spot-on comment IMO.
They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>
> I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and vernacular
> irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're highly
> enjoyable books.
Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
Sherilyn
David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
>news:JQlk8.230$0R6....@news.chello.be...
>> > > Irritating - I *enjoyed* disliking the Potter books, then I was
>> > > forced to read the Philosopher's Stone. Now I'm getting annoyed that
>> Rowling
>> > > doesn't write any faster...
>> >
>> > I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
>> > stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
>> > string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
>> > screen that I've ever seen.
>>
>> I take it you dislike the books, then?
>
>What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
>Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
>suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
>novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
>fairly spot-on comment IMO.
I haven't seen the film. I read the first book and thought it was okay,
so I recommended it to my daughter, but I don't understand why adults insist
on jumping up and down and screaming how wonderful it is. I'm sure the
author would be the first to admit that it lacks depth and pace, and I
personally found it as dull as ditchwater. I haven't read the other
Harry Potter books and I try to avoid the company of people who insist
on banging on about them, the film, or J K Rowling, who I am sure is a
perfectly inoffensive person, just somebody I rank in human interest
terms somewhere between the Scylla of Victoria Beckham and and the
Charybdis of Britney wossname.
--
Sherilyn
Mary Messall
> What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
> Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
> suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
> novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
> fairly spot-on comment IMO.
> They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
It depends on what you're looking for. Plot? Thin. Characters?
Cardboard. World? Brilliant. If you consider Hogwarts, rather than
Harry, to be the star of the books, they're fantastic. The great
wizards collector cards, the chocolate frogs and all-flavour beans, all
of Diagon alley, Hagrid's monsters, the paintings and the ghosts, the
lessons in tea-leaf reading and transmutation and repotting baby plants
that squall when you pull them up, the silly sports, the
far-from-infallible teachers, the dark forest, the lake, the maze, the
secret chambers and restricted sections, the sorting hat and the house
rivalries, the school trips, and... Well, everything. Add to that the
fact that they play on every child's worries about popularity among
peers and exasperation with parents (escape fantasty is not subtle
here) and it's easy to see why they've been such a success.
What I wonder is if they'll continue getting darker (and somewhat more
sophisticated) as they go along. It seems to be the trend so far, and
it makes them better books (they were already darker than much
children's literature, on a sort of Roald Dahl level) but I wonder if
their audience will accept it.
I got to see them filming the second movie a little bit, yesterday and
the day before. I saw the entire Gryffindor and Slytherin quidditch
teams in costume (including Malfoy) and Hermione and Neville and Ron's
stunt double, and lots of extras in Hogwarts uniforms. Good fun. I even
took a couple of illicit pictures, though only of the extras.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Torak
> Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
> suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
> novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
> fairly spot-on comment IMO.
I'd say it's okay to admit to liking them - it's a matter of taste, isn't
it? I'm sure you enjoy a lot of books I'd consider rubbish.
> They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
They're certainly not great literature, but they're definitely good books.
They're fairly well written, and Rowling's constructed a whole,
well-detailed universe. So pretty good, in my opinion.
> > I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and vernacular
> > irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're highly
> > enjoyable books.
> Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
Eh?
Torak
> > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>
> It depends on what you're looking for. Plot? Thin. Characters?
> Cardboard. World? Brilliant. If you consider Hogwarts, rather than
> Harry, to be the star of the books, they're fantastic. The great
> wizards collector cards, the chocolate frogs and all-flavour beans, all
> of Diagon alley, Hagrid's monsters, the paintings and the ghosts, the
> lessons in tea-leaf reading and transmutation and repotting baby plants
> that squall when you pull them up, the silly sports, the
> far-from-infallible teachers, the dark forest, the lake, the maze, the
> secret chambers and restricted sections, the sorting hat and the house
> rivalries, the school trips, and... Well, everything. Add to that the
> fact that they play on every child's worries about popularity among
> peers and exasperation with parents (escape fantasty is not subtle
> here) and it's easy to see why they've been such a success.
Very much agreed.
> What I wonder is if they'll continue getting darker (and somewhat more
> sophisticated) as they go along. It seems to be the trend so far, and
> it makes them better books (they were already darker than much
> children's literature, on a sort of Roald Dahl level) but I wonder if
> their audience will accept it.
The books certainly seem to be "growing up" along with the characters;
they're getting darker and more interesting with each book.
> I got to see them filming the second movie a little bit, yesterday and
> the day before. I saw the entire Gryffindor and Slytherin quidditch
> teams in costume (including Malfoy) and Hermione and Neville and Ron's
> stunt double, and lots of extras in Hogwarts uniforms. Good fun. I even
> took a couple of illicit pictures, though only of the extras.
Where's that?
joe khol
> David Chapman wrote:
> >
> >
> > I thought the Harry Potter movie was plotless drivel with irritating,
> > stupid characters and a villain who is about as menacing as wet
> > string. It's one of the most faithful adaptations of a book for the
> > screen that I've ever seen.
> >
>
> Nice boat, Captain.
> Plan to be out long?
>
> Beautiful Plumage
While I don't feel quite as strongly as David, I thought Harry Potter
was a mediocre film at best. Certainly not up to all the damn hype it
got.
Joe Khol
David Chapman
news:3C91FC40...@durham.ac.uk...
> David Chapman wrote:
> > What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
> > Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
> > suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
> > novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
> > fairly spot-on comment IMO.
> > They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>
> It depends on what you're looking for. Plot? Thin. Characters?
> Cardboard. World? Brilliant. If you consider Hogwarts, rather than
> Harry, to be the star of the books, they're fantastic. The great
> wizards collector cards, the chocolate frogs and all-flavour beans,
All of which can now be bought in the shops! The magic just
drains away when it costs 40p, doesn't it?
all
> of Diagon alley,
If I wanted bad puns, I'd read Piers Anthony.
> Hagrid's monsters, the paintings and the ghosts, the
> lessons in tea-leaf reading and transmutation and repotting baby plants
> that squall when you pull them up, the silly sports, the
> far-from-infallible teachers, the dark forest, the lake, the maze, the
> secret chambers and restricted sections, the sorting hat and the house
> rivalries, the school trips, and... Well, everything.
Most of which was done far better by Enid Blyton at some
point.
> What I wonder is if they'll continue getting darker (and somewhat more
> sophisticated) as they go along. It seems to be the trend so far, and
> it makes them better books (they were already darker than much
> children's literature, on a sort of Roald Dahl level) but I wonder if
> their audience will accept it.
Probably not. I'm given to understand that a major character
dies in one of the upcoming books, and nothing puts people off
a series faster.
David Chapman
> > What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
> > Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
> > suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
> > novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
> > fairly spot-on comment IMO.
>
> I'd say it's okay to admit to liking them - it's a matter of taste, isn't
> it? I'm sure you enjoy a lot of books I'd consider rubbish.
If you seriously think Harry Potter is the current acme of reading,
then I'd agree with that.
>
> > They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>
> They're certainly not great literature, but they're definitely good books.
> They're fairly well written, and Rowling's constructed a whole,
> well-detailed universe. So pretty good, in my opinion.
There's more to writing a good book than having a good setting.
Plot, for one thing. All four Potter books can be summarised thus:
Harry goes [back] to Hogwarts for a new school year.
There's a new DADA teacher who turns out to be other than
what he seems.
<insert Quidditch match at a random point>
Harry and Co. bumble through a series of potentially threatening
events without being scratched, despite not having a clue what
they're doing.
The menace is defeated.
That's not a good book.
>
> > > I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and vernacular
> > > irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're highly
> > > enjoyable books.
> > Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
Go read a bit of Famous Five, or However-Many-Children-It-Was
and It, and you'll soon see where I'm coming from.
Torak
>
> If I wanted bad puns, I'd read Piers Anthony.
OK, so the names are daft. People aren't named after the subjects they write
about.
> > Hagrid's monsters, the paintings and the ghosts, the
> > lessons in tea-leaf reading and transmutation and repotting baby plants
> > that squall when you pull them up, the silly sports, the
> > far-from-infallible teachers, the dark forest, the lake, the maze, the
> > secret chambers and restricted sections, the sorting hat and the house
> > rivalries, the school trips, and... Well, everything.
>
> Most of which was done far better by Enid Blyton at some point.
What, Quidditch?
> > What I wonder is if they'll continue getting darker (and somewhat more
> > sophisticated) as they go along. It seems to be the trend so far, and
> > it makes them better books (they were already darker than much
> > children's literature, on a sort of Roald Dahl level) but I wonder if
> > their audience will accept it.
>
> Probably not. I'm given to understand that a major character
> dies in one of the upcoming books, and nothing puts people off
> a series faster.
Wonder which one. I reckon sales will plummet if she bumps off one of the
Big Three, but I wouldn't be surprised at one of the others; a teacher,
perhaps, or a rather fatal resolution to Harry's Cho Vs Hermione dilemma?
Torak
The
> > > Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
> > > suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry
Potter
> > > novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
> > > fairly spot-on comment IMO.
> >
> > I'd say it's okay to admit to liking them - it's a matter of taste,
isn't
> > it? I'm sure you enjoy a lot of books I'd consider rubbish.
>
> If you seriously think Harry Potter is the current acme of reading,
> then I'd agree with that.
Considering some of the rubbish that gets published nowadays...
Either way, you may not like the books, but you can't deny that they are
ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the same age
group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your choice,
but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
> > > They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> > > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> > > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> > > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>
> > They're certainly not great literature, but they're definitely good
books.
> > They're fairly well written, and Rowling's constructed a whole,
> > well-detailed universe. So pretty good, in my opinion.
>
> There's more to writing a good book than having a good setting.
> Plot, for one thing. All four Potter books can be summarised thus:
Of course - the plot is one of the few things that's lacking, with its
usually single-track story. However, for young teens you need a simple story
to keep their attention. Parallel stories would go above their heads, in
most cases.
> Harry goes [back] to Hogwarts for a new school year.
> There's a new DADA teacher who turns out to be other than what he seems.
> <insert Quidditch match at a random point>
> Harry and Co. bumble through a series of potentially threatening
> events without being scratched, despite not having a clue what they're
doing.
> The menace is defeated.
Ah, but you forgot to have a bad guy turn out to be a good guy and vice
versa!
And, of course, in the later books, Harry gets infatuated with some girl,
who scarpers with someone else. And he doesn't notice Hermy.
> > > > I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and vernacular
> > > > irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're highly
> > > > enjoyable books.
>
> > > Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
>
> Go read a bit of Famous Five, or However-Many-Children-It-Was
> and It, and you'll soon see where I'm coming from.
"Fatty and friends eat. They find a mystery, and eat. Then they talk to
Fatty's friend (who happens to be a high-ranking rozzer) over tea. Then they
eat. They go out, have an adventure, eat again. They solve the mystery, and
eat. They come home and explain it all to Mr Rozzer, while eating."
I don't see where you get the classism from, though. My main complaint with
the books, as I say, is the names: "Muggles," "Dumbledore," and what have
you...
Sherilyn
Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>Either way, you may not like the books, but you can't deny that they are
>ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the same age
>group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your choice,
>but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
I don't think anybody in this thread has even contemplated denying this.
The objection, I seem to recall, was to adults pretending that they have
literary merit beyond that. And my specific objection is to people
endlessly banging on about how great Harry Potter is, but then I have
the same problem with people going on about football, especially when
they insist on shouting. Why do sports commentators always have to
shout?
[...]
--
Sherilyn "and why do weather forecasters go on and on when all they have
to say is whether it'll rain tomorrow, and you know I hate it when people
insist on giving you blow-by-blow accounts of their DIY, and where they
went for their holiday, and they go on and on and on..."
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
wrote:
[...]
>but then I have
>the same problem with people going on about football, especially when
>they insist on shouting. Why do sports commentators always have to
>shout?
Why did I read this as "...especially when they insist on shooting"?
;-)
FiX
Sherilyn
here, do they, not like at home" - and stopping at Majorcan bodegas
selling fish and chips and Watney's Red Barrel and calamares and
two veg and sitting in their cotton frocks squirting Timothy White's
suncream all over their puffy raw swollen purulent flesh 'cos they
"overdid it on the first day." And being herded into endless Hotel
Miramars and Bellvueses and Continentales with their modern international
luxury roomettes and draught Red Barrel and swimming pools full of fat
German businessmen pretending they're acrobats forming pyramids and
frightening the children...
--
Sherilyn
Torak
> >ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the same
age
> >group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your
choice,
> >but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
>
> I don't think anybody in this thread has even contemplated denying this.
> The objection, I seem to recall, was to adults pretending that they have
> literary merit beyond that. And my specific objection is to people
> endlessly banging on about how great Harry Potter is, but then I have
> the same problem with people going on about football, especially when
> they insist on shouting. Why do sports commentators always have to
> shout?
Heartily agreed. Then again, there are many books taught in lit crit classes
that have no literary merit whatsoever. Take Farewell To Arms, for
instance... (Ducks and grabs asbestos suit)
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:10:33 +0100, "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com>
wrote:
>> [2] Jeeves is the supercilious [3] butler,
>> [3] "Supercilious" = "I may be your social 'inferior', but that's the
>> *only* way in which you out-rank me!"
>
>Supercilious is more smug, stuck-up, snotty-nosed
>"I'm-better-than-you'll-ever-be"-sort of thing.
>
>"Exhibiting haughty contempt or indifference; arrogant." (Webster's)
But the point is that Jeeves does it *without* Wooster ever
*realising* it!
Cheers,
Graham.
Charles A Lieberman
<slrna91fcm....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk>
>>But but, what if you prefer lying on your other side? Were there left
>>and right editions?
>>
>No need to turn over, at all. You just learn to read upside down,
>silly!
I always thought I was really smart for being able to read upside down
about as well as right side up. Then I found that many of my friends and
acquaintances possessed the selfsame "skill."
Of course, it's possible my F&As are really smart.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[A]pproximately 70% of the students at Stuyve-
Brooklyn, NY, USA | sant fit the description of a teenage homicidal
cali...@bigfoot.com | maniac" --letter, NY Post, April 28, 1999
Sherilyn
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:11:18 GMT
><slrna91fcm....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk>
>>>But but, what if you prefer lying on your other side? Were there left
>>>and right editions?
>>>
>>No need to turn over, at all. You just learn to read upside down,
>>silly!
>
>I always thought I was really smart for being able to read upside down
>about as well as right side up. Then I found that many of my friends and
>acquaintances possessed the selfsame "skill."
>Of course, it's possible my F&As are really smart.
>
upside down (a very useful skill at interviews) I don't think I'll be
reading upside down in bed in the near future (changing sides every now
and then is better for the circulation, I'm sure!)
--
Sherilyn
David Chapman
> > > > What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as
> The
> > > > Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere,
I
> > > > suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry
> Potter
> > > > novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's
a
> > > > fairly spot-on comment IMO.
> > >
> > > I'd say it's okay to admit to liking them - it's a matter of taste,
> isn't
> > > it? I'm sure you enjoy a lot of books I'd consider rubbish.
> >
> > If you seriously think Harry Potter is the current acme of reading,
> > then I'd agree with that.
>
> Considering some of the rubbish that gets published nowadays...
>
> Either way, you may not like the books, but you can't deny that they are
> ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the same
age
> group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your choice,
> but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
I wouldn't dream of denying that they're ideal for small children.
Those of us with full adult mental capacities should demand better,
though.
>
> > > > They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
> > > > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
> > > > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
> > > > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
> >
> > > They're certainly not great literature, but they're definitely good
> books.
> > > They're fairly well written, and Rowling's constructed a whole,
> > > well-detailed universe. So pretty good, in my opinion.
> >
> > There's more to writing a good book than having a good setting.
> > Plot, for one thing. All four Potter books can be summarised thus:
>
> Of course - the plot is one of the few things that's lacking, with its
> usually single-track story. However, for young teens you need a simple
story
> to keep their attention. Parallel stories would go above their heads, in
> most cases.
Potter books don't have *one* good story.
> > Harry goes [back] to Hogwarts for a new school year.
> > There's a new DADA teacher who turns out to be other than what he seems.
> > <insert Quidditch match at a random point>
> > Harry and Co. bumble through a series of potentially threatening
> > events without being scratched, despite not having a clue what they're
> doing.
> > The menace is defeated.
>
> Ah, but you forgot to have a bad guy turn out to be a good guy and vice
> versa!
> And, of course, in the later books, Harry gets infatuated with some girl,
> who scarpers with someone else. And he doesn't notice Hermy.
That he didn't strangle Hermione to death within five minutes of meeting
her is solely due to it being out of character for a goodie.
>
> > > > > I must admit, Voldie could be spookier. And the names and
vernacular
> > > > > irritate me ("muggles", anyone?). But apart from that they're
highly
> > > > > enjoyable books.
> >
> > > > Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
> >
> > Go read a bit of Famous Five, or However-Many-Children-It-Was
> > and It, and you'll soon see where I'm coming from.
>
> "Fatty and friends eat. They find a mystery, and eat. Then they talk to
> Fatty's friend (who happens to be a high-ranking rozzer) over tea. Then
they
> eat. They go out, have an adventure, eat again. They solve the mystery,
and
> eat. They come home and explain it all to Mr Rozzer, while eating."
You forgot, "with a *little* style".
>
> I don't see where you get the classism from, though.
Are you kidding? The magical crowd are constantly looking down
on these poor muggles, who don't understand *real* things like
magic and should be treated like children in their oh-so-humble
opinion.
Here's a fun game to play - take any Harry Potter book and
replace every incidence of "muggle" with "nigger". If it takes
longer than three pages for you to become utterly disgusted,
then congratulations - you're a racist! Good God, man, the
words even *sound* similar.
David Jensen
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote in
<3c923da6...@news.ntlworld.com>:
Getting something past Bertie isn't one of the great challenges of life.
Kimberley Verburg
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:48:47 +0000, Terry Pratchett
><Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Words come with baggage attached, and now droll has come to mean: 'meant
>>to be funny in an embarrassingly lame kind of way, and in reality as
>>hilarious as a sinus wash.'
>
>Okay, I don't know if the Pratchett Quote File is still maintained,
I was in the process of updating it but was interrupted when February
suddenly turned vicious on me. I've only just managed to subdue March, so
once the bite marks have healed, I'll get back on the job. Honest. :-)
>but if so, wouldn't this be a candidate ?
Absolutely. If you, or anyone else, have any more quote suggestions for
the Pratchett Quote File, they will be gratefully received at
p...@lspace.org. (If the quotes are from a book, citing page numbers is
encouraged.)
--
Kimberley Verburg k...@lspace.org
New here? Try http://www.lspace.org/
Need more help? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
Sherilyn
Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote:
>"David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> writes:
>
>> Most of which was done far better by Enid Blyton at some
>> point.
>
>their local store, etc.
?
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Torak
> >> [3] "Supercilious" = "I may be your social 'inferior', but that's the
> >> *only* way in which you out-rank me!"
> >
> >Supercilious is more smug, stuck-up, snotty-nosed
> >"I'm-better-than-you'll-ever-be"-sort of thing.
> >
> >"Exhibiting haughty contempt or indifference; arrogant." (Webster's)
>
> But the point is that Jeeves does it *without* Wooster ever
> *realising* it!
Well.... He never seems supercilious - he doesn't need to, his superiority
is just so obvious anyway.
Torak
> > ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the same
age
> > group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your
choice,
> > but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
>
> I wouldn't dream of denying that they're ideal for small children.
> Those of us with full adult mental capacities should demand better,
though.
Not necessarily; you don't always have to read "deep", meaningful books. I
personally hate books that try to be "deep" (and I heartily dislike that
expression, as well...), they usually end up more rubbish than other books.
> > Of course - the plot is one of the few things that's lacking, with its
> > usually single-track story. However, for young teens you need a simple
story
> > to keep their attention. Parallel stories would go above their heads, in
> > most cases.
>
> Potter books don't have *one* good story.
Well... Come on, be fair. They do have a plot, and in the later books it
gets more and more complicated. If you've only read the first one your
comments are understandable, but you shouldn't base your opinions on the
later books on that.
> > > Harry goes [back] to Hogwarts for a new school year.
> > > There's a new DADA teacher who turns out to be other than what he
seems.
> > > <insert Quidditch match at a random point>
> > > Harry and Co. bumble through a series of potentially threatening
> > > events without being scratched, despite not having a clue what they're
doing.
> > > The menace is defeated.
> >
> > Ah, but you forgot to have a bad guy turn out to be a good guy and vice
versa!
> > And, of course, in the later books, Harry gets infatuated with some
girl,
> > who scarpers with someone else. And he doesn't notice Hermy.
>
> That he didn't strangle Hermione to death within five minutes of meeting
> her is solely due to it being out of character for a goodie.
Actually, I rather like Hermione. She's sensible, and a bookworm. If she was
my age, *I'd* be considerably infatuated.
> > I don't see where you get the classism from, though.
>
> Are you kidding? The magical crowd are constantly looking down
> on these poor muggles, who don't understand *real* things like
> magic and should be treated like children in their oh-so-humble
> opinion.
That's not class, but I agree with the sentiment. But hey, there ain't no
wizards (as far as we know), so it's a moot point.
> Here's a fun game to play - take any Harry Potter book and
> replace every incidence of "muggle" with "nigger". If it takes
> longer than three pages for you to become utterly disgusted,
> then congratulations - you're a racist! Good God, man, the
> words even *sound* similar.
Oh, good heavens... It's plonkers like you who caused that epidemic of
political correctness. "If you read such-and-such instead of so-and-so,
you'll see the Hidden MeaningsT..." Next thing you know, you'll be telling
us to read it backwards, taking every fourth letter, to find out the Real
TruthT about, I dunno, ageism or something....
MikeXXXX
>
> While I don't feel quite as strongly as David, I thought Harry Potter
> was a mediocre film at best.
Fair enough, how would you rank it against "Never Ending Story", Babe,
Charlottes Web and, say, the first Pokemon movie.
> Certainly not up to all the damn hype it got.
well - you can't blame the book for the marketing, can you?
(or, more to the point, the marketers - CMOT Dibbler would
have dreamt likewise)
If you like I'll try and get an experts opinion. He's 7 and has read both
the Rawlings 4 books and just finished all the Secret Seven and Famous Five.
I think he's now devouring a Roald Dahl.
regards
Mike
--
And if ther be any Thyng that displese hem, I preye hem also that
They arrette it to the defaute of myn unkonnynge, and nat to my wyl,
that wolde ful fayn Have seyd bettre if I hadde had konnynge.
Diane L.
Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:slrna95bjg....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
Blyton.
Diane L.
Diane L.
David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:u94be0g...@corp.supernews.com...
<snips>
>
> There's more to writing a good book than having a good setting.
> Plot, for one thing. All four Potter books can be summarised thus:
>
> Harry goes [back] to Hogwarts for a new school year.
> There's a new DADA teacher who turns out to be other than
> what he seems.
> <insert Quidditch match at a random point>
> Harry and Co. bumble through a series of potentially threatening
> events without being scratched, despite not having a clue what
> they're doing.
> The menace is defeated.
Oh no, I'm half way through book 4 and you've just ruined the plot
for me :-)
>
> That's not a good book.
At the moment I'm looking for something that will take my mind off
things and not make me think too much. HP does the job. I've
enjoyed they way the world has been developed, even though I
wish Harry wouldn't sail through every difficulty quite so effortlessly.
As an undemanding read for an adult, or a way of getting a child
interested in reading for pleasure, I'd recommend the HP books.
>
> > > Sub-par Enid Blyton with classism, more like.
I must admit, the egalitarianism in Enid Blyton passed me by :-)
She treated anyone who wasn't from a rather narrow middle-class
background as either a villain or a clown, AFAIR. Then again, it's
a while since I read them (I had all the FF books as a child, but
gave them away at the age of nine, as I'd outgrown them)
> Go read a bit of Famous Five, or However-Many-Children-It-Was
> and It, and you'll soon see where I'm coming from.
"Five children and It" was by E. Nesbitt, a _much_ better writer
than either Blyton or Rowling, IMO.
Diane L.
Sherilyn
Diane L. <diane....@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>I believe Darin lives in the USA, where they've probably never heard of
>Blyton.
Perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate at this point to send missionaries...
--
Sherilyn
David Chapman
news:cu1u1rh...@thatch.nwr...
> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> writes:
>
> > Most of which was done far better by Enid Blyton at some
> > point.
>
> their local store, etc.
SFAIAA, Enid Blyton's works haven't been out of print since
they were first written. If your bookshop doesn't have them,
then get a new bookshop.
David Chapman
> > > Either way, you may not like the books, but you can't deny that they
are
> > > ideal for their target audience; kids in their early teens, in the
same
> age
> > > group as Harry and sidekicks. Whether you like them or not is your
> choice,
> > > but they are well written and detailed; that you cannot deny.
> >
> > I wouldn't dream of denying that they're ideal for small children.
> > Those of us with full adult mental capacities should demand better,
> though.
>
> Not necessarily; you don't always have to read "deep", meaningful books. I
> personally hate books that try to be "deep" (and I heartily dislike that
> expression, as well...), they usually end up more rubbish than other
books.
Books don't have to be deep in order to have interesting plots or
likeable, wellformed characters; nor do deep books automatically
have these things. But Potter books have neither depth, plot, nor
character.
> > Potter books don't have *one* good story.
>
> Well... Come on, be fair. They do have a plot, and in the later books it
> gets more and more complicated. If you've only read the first one your
> comments are understandable, but you shouldn't base your opinions on the
> later books on that.
I've read all four. I stand by my point.
> > > I don't see where you get the classism from, though.
> >
> > Are you kidding? The magical crowd are constantly looking down
> > on these poor muggles, who don't understand *real* things like
> > magic and should be treated like children in their oh-so-humble
> > opinion.
>
> That's not class, but I agree with the sentiment. But hey, there ain't no
> wizards (as far as we know), so it's a moot point.
There are wizards in the books, so it's not moot at all.
>
> > Here's a fun game to play - take any Harry Potter book and
> > replace every incidence of "muggle" with "nigger". If it takes
> > longer than three pages for you to become utterly disgusted,
> > then congratulations - you're a racist! Good God, man, the
> > words even *sound* similar.
>
> Oh, good heavens... It's plonkers like you who caused that epidemic of
> political correctness.
You do realise you're talking to one of the least - if not actually
*the* least - PC posters on AFP, don't you?
"If you read such-and-such instead of so-and-so,
> you'll see the Hidden MeaningsT..." Next thing you know, you'll be telling
> us to read it backwards, taking every fourth letter, to find out the Real
> TruthT about, I dunno, ageism or something....
You don't need to look for any hidden meanings at all. That the
wizards are an el*t* cl*q*e is laid out plain for all to see.
David Chapman
news:a6vj06$hnoul$1...@ID-100447.news.dfncis.de...
> > Go read a bit of Famous Five, or However-Many-Children-It-Was
> > and It, and you'll soon see where I'm coming from.
>
> "Five children and It" was by E. Nesbitt, a _much_ better writer
> than either Blyton or Rowling, IMO.
So it was. It's all the Es, they're confusing me.
Even so, Five Children and It is still of the same school of
plots as the others and wasn't written by Juvenile Krap
Rowling, so is still a good example.
Quantum Moth
them out of here.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
Snails stick to the walls of people who have been unfaitful to their
spider
Torak
I
> > personally hate books that try to be "deep" (and I heartily dislike that
> > expression, as well...), they usually end up more rubbish than other
books.
>
> Books don't have to be deep in order to have interesting plots or
> likeable, wellformed characters; nor do deep books automatically
> have these things. But Potter books have neither depth, plot, nor
> character.
Well, that's certainly a matter of taste.
> > That's not class, but I agree with the sentiment. But hey, there ain't
no
> > wizards (as far as we know), so it's a moot point.
>
> There are wizards in the books, so it's not moot at all.
If you say so.
> > > Here's a fun game to play - take any Harry Potter book and
> > > replace every incidence of "muggle" with "nigger". If it takes
> > > longer than three pages for you to become utterly disgusted,
> > > then congratulations - you're a racist! Good God, man, the
> > > words even *sound* similar.
> >
> > Oh, good heavens... It's plonkers like you who caused that epidemic of
> > political correctness.
>
> You do realise you're talking to one of the least - if not actually
> *the* least - PC posters on AFP, don't you?
Then what's with the "a word in HP can be replaced with another that sounds
like a word that might suggest, if taken out of context, that a distant
relative of the author's might at one stage have uttered a racist remark"?
> "If you read such-and-such instead of so-and-so,
> > you'll see the Hidden MeaningsT..." Next thing you know, you'll be
telling
> > us to read it backwards, taking every fourth letter, to find out the
Real
> > TruthT about, I dunno, ageism or something....
>
> You don't need to look for any hidden meanings at all. That the
> wizards are an el*t* cl*q*e is laid out plain for all to see.
Of course, but that's because they have actual powers that "muggles" (I hate
that word) don't; they have to become wizards to learn to control said
powers. Could be dangerous for everyone otherwise.
Graycat
wrote:
Huh? It's Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Cho. They just had to kill
Cedric to make Cho free, that's all...
They're kid's books, and all the children I've talked to have really
liked them, so If grownups like them or not isn't really the issue. As
for Enid Blyton; she's really good if you like to read about a time
that has nothing to do with you, that you have no interest in and
can't recognise, which most 7-13 year olds don't.
Elin
Graycat
<evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>"Mary Messall" <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3C91FC40...@durham.ac.uk...
>> David Chapman wrote:
>> > What I dislike is supposedly intelligent adults proclaiming them as The
>> > Big Thing. Someone said - I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, I
>> > suspect elsewhere - that it's OK for adults to admit liking Harry Potter
>> > novels, so long as they also admit that they're slumming it. That's a
>> > fairly spot-on comment IMO.
>> > They're not great literature. They're not even good books. They're
>> > adequate reading matter for the under-10s, but whatever positive
>> > aspect that had in getting kids into reading was lost the second the
>> > visual media - films, computer games etc - were released.
>>
>> It depends on what you're looking for. Plot? Thin. Characters?
>> Cardboard. World? Brilliant. If you consider Hogwarts, rather than
>> Harry, to be the star of the books, they're fantastic. The great
>> wizards collector cards, the chocolate frogs and all-flavour beans,
>
>All of which can now be bought in the shops! The magic just
>drains away when it costs 40p, doesn't it?
>
> all
>> of Diagon alley,
>
>If I wanted bad puns, I'd read Piers Anthony.
>
>> Hagrid's monsters, the paintings and the ghosts, the
>> lessons in tea-leaf reading and transmutation and repotting baby plants
>> that squall when you pull them up, the silly sports, the
>> far-from-infallible teachers, the dark forest, the lake, the maze, the
>> secret chambers and restricted sections, the sorting hat and the house
>> rivalries, the school trips, and... Well, everything.
>
>Most of which was done far better by Enid Blyton at some
>point.
One girl who wants to be a boy and one who gets to do nothing, the dog
has more say than Anne. The only time she actually does something is
when she gat's mad about people not helping her do the dishes.
Chapter names that tell you exactly what is going to happen before you
start reading, not that it matters because it's all cleverly disgiused
as a boring picknick. Oh, wait, that's because if there was no food to
prepare Anne's existence would be utterly pointless.
Oh yes, Enid Blyton is certinly better...
Elin
Torak
> >> dies in one of the upcoming books, and nothing puts people off
> >> a series faster.
> >
> >Wonder which one. I reckon sales will plummet if she bumps off one of the
> >Big Three, but I wouldn't be surprised at one of the others; a teacher,
> >perhaps, or a rather fatal resolution to Harry's Cho Vs Hermione dilemma?
>
> Huh? It's Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Cho. They just had to kill
> Cedric to make Cho free, that's all...
Well... I was hoping for Hermione and me, but failing that I'd prefer Harry
and Hermy. Difficult choice, actually, because I like both. Ron's a bit of a
prat, though... ;-)
Graycat
wrote:
Dunbno, I thought it was pretty much decided by that dance in #4 when
Hermione got her teeth shrunk and hair straight and Ron was all
"ungh...."
Elin