Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Harry VI

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    I second Ms. Monk s motion. Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis and perhaps is second only to Tolkien. Rank rash dismissal of her
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I second Ms. Monk's motion.

      Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis' and
      perhaps is second only to Tolkien.

      Rank rash dismissal of her reminds me of remark made to me by a retired
      ICC earth science prof at an ol' bleeps' breakfast last week:
      "When you started teaching that Tolkien class [in 1978], there were a
      lot of people who were skeptical."

      Yeah, well, coprolites to you, chum. Tolkien is literature of the
      finest. Rowling may be nowhere near that level, but she should not be
      sneered away to the toy department, Wendell.

      As Pogo the possum used to say:
      "Rowrbazzle!"

      Cheers,
      Mike

      Walkermonk@... wrote:

      >In a message dated 7/22/2005 9:48:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
      >WendellWag@... writes:
      >The Harry Potter
      >books are still a teenage-angst series with magic names slapped on
      >everything.
      >This is incorrect. The stories are about the struggle between good and evil,
      >and how difficult it is to sometimes recognize good and the sacrifices
      >required for doing what is right. The ratio of magic names is quite low compared to
      >just regular names. And teenage angst? When did angst become the sole province
      >of teenagers and why is there contempt for teenage feelings? The situations
      >being confronted by the teenagers in the HP books aren't for the faint of heart
      >or the immature of character. Do the teenagers handle the situations
      >differently than the adults portrayed? Yes. The teens aren't always correct either. But
      >they matter, and I don't see anything wrong in that. The HP books aren't my
      >favorite and I think they have some flaws. But Wendell's contemptuous one-line
      >dismissal is far below what the books deserve.
      >
      >
      >Incidentally, I read a news story about Rowling recently in which she said
      >that she never read (or, more precisely, she never finished) either _The Lord
      >of the Rings_ or _The Chronicles of Narnia_.
      >Well, according to this particular article (which immediately loses points
      >with me by mentioning Rowling's haircolor), Rowling must have at least read "The
      >Last Battle." So if she hasn't finished Narnia, then I wonder which one(s)
      >she left out. This is at odds, btw, with many other interviews and other
      >statements about Lewis.
      >
      >Grace Monk
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/3/2005 11:47:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mafoster@direcway.com writes: Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 10/3/2005 11:47:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        mafoster@... writes:

        Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis' and
        perhaps is second only to Tolkien.


        Oh, I think that Rowling's names are superb. If only the other aspects of
        her books were as good.

        Wendell Wagner


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lezlie
        Hi all- (a bit of a ramble...) I like Rowling OK-- don t get me wrong. I just wish she d stop saying dumb things about *Witches* . As a teacher & parent, the
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all- (a bit of a ramble...)
          I like Rowling OK-- don't get me wrong. I just wish she'd stop saying
          dumb things about *Witches* . As a teacher & parent, the endless
          conversations about "pretend witches" gets a bit wearing after a
          while... it isn't as if there isn't piles of readily available
          information these days. In 2005, there is little excuse to "not know"
          any longer. Yeah-- the truth is very boring and fiction is ever so
          much more *fun* ...<sniff>... and all of *that*. (I am a *fantasy* fan
          after all.)
          Some of her folklore is a bit off, too...especially involving elfish
          critters. Of course, her knowledge of the occult in general is compete
          claptrap, but it's fine for fiction, I suppose. Her world-building
          skill is improving, however. Well, I could say all of that about a
          *lot* of writers about a *lot* of things.
          Rowling tells a good tale. Mostly. But, I haven't gone out and read
          the last. I've been reading other people I like a lot better. Personal
          taste, you know...

          Not really impressed with the name-thing... not really... a bit too
          Dickensonian, IMHO. A little *obvious* in this post modernist era (for
          a novel set in modern times with magical twists and turns that is).

          Now, Charles de Lint, in comparison, has his folklore right spot on,
          spins magical yarns – if a bit awkward at times – . He shows that he
          has done his research – no question—.
          On the other hand, Rowling is incredibly successful; I have to hand
          her that. And, the kids love her. Mostly harmless (as the cliche has
          become) I guess. Lezlie



          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@d...> wrote:
          > I second Ms. Monk's motion.
          >
          > Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis' and
          > perhaps is second only to Tolkien.
          >
          > Rank rash dismissal of her reminds me of remark made to me by a retired
          > ICC earth science prof at an ol' bleeps' breakfast last week:
          > "When you started teaching that Tolkien class [in 1978], there were a
          > lot of people who were skeptical."
          >
          > Yeah, well, coprolites to you, chum. Tolkien is literature of the
          > finest. Rowling may be nowhere near that level, but she should not be
          > sneered away to the toy department, Wendell.
          >
          > As Pogo the possum used to say:
          > "Rowrbazzle!"
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Mike
          >
          > Walkermonk@a... wrote:
          >
          > >In a message dated 7/22/2005 9:48:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
          > >WendellWag@a... writes:
          > >The Harry Potter
          > >books are still a teenage-angst series with magic names slapped on
          > >everything.
          > >This is incorrect. The stories are about the struggle between good
          and evil,
          > >and how difficult it is to sometimes recognize good and the sacrifices
          > >required for doing what is right. The ratio of magic names is quite
          low compared to
          > >just regular names. And teenage angst? When did angst become the
          sole province
          > >of teenagers and why is there contempt for teenage feelings? The
          situations
          > >being confronted by the teenagers in the HP books aren't for the
          faint of heart
          > >or the immature of character. Do the teenagers handle the situations
          > >differently than the adults portrayed? Yes. The teens aren't always
          correct either. But
          > >they matter, and I don't see anything wrong in that. The HP books
          aren't my
          > >favorite and I think they have some flaws. But Wendell's
          contemptuous one-line
          > >dismissal is far below what the books deserve.
          > >
          > >
          > >Incidentally, I read a news story about Rowling recently in which
          she said
          > >that she never read (or, more precisely, she never finished) either
          _The Lord
          > >of the Rings_ or _The Chronicles of Narnia_.
          > >Well, according to this particular article (which immediately loses
          points
          > >with me by mentioning Rowling's haircolor), Rowling must have at
          least read "The
          > >Last Battle." So if she hasn't finished Narnia, then I wonder which
          one(s)
          > >she left out. This is at odds, btw, with many other interviews and
          other
          > >statements about Lewis.
          > >
          > >Grace Monk
          > >
          > >
          > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          > >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
        • Pauline J. Alama
          I think one of the reasons that stories about teenagers are popular - - whether the teenagers are named Harry Potter, Buffy Summers, Wart/Arthur, Theseus, or
          Message 4 of 30 , Oct 13, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I think one of the reasons that stories about teenagers are popular -
            - whether the teenagers are named Harry Potter, Buffy Summers,
            Wart/Arthur, Theseus, or Perceval le Galois -- is that
            adolescence/coming of age/whateveryouwwannacallit is an important
            time in most people's lives, a time when we became the people we
            are, and made some of the choices that have formed the rest of our
            lives. Rather than dismissing HP because it's "teen lit" one might
            more fairly say that part of its compelling appeal for many,
            including many adults, is because of its honesty in portraying the
            struggles and follies of adolescence. I know that in reading HP 5 I
            kept saying, with a rueful groan, "Oh, yes--I remember being 15." A
            couple of friends who are teachers found that book a bit of a
            busman's holiday, becuase Harry seemed too much like their students.
            Why make a weakness out of one of the series' strenghts? I admire
            the candor and perceptiveness with which Rowling captures the
            nuances of adolescents' mood swings, foibles, and triumphs. And she
            never cheats. She never gives Harry insights inconsistent with his
            level of maturity. She never steps out of POV in the Harry-POV
            chapters to deliver Authorial Wisdom (except indirectly through a
            more mature character's dialog). I think point of view is very
            important in fiction, and Rowling's skill at this technique is not
            often enough praised.

            Pauline J. Alama
            THE EYE OF NIGHT

            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@d...> wrote:
            >
            > I second Ms. Monk's motion.
            >
            > Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis'
            and
            > perhaps is second only to Tolkien.
            >
            > Rank rash dismissal of her reminds me of remark made to me by a
            retired
            > ICC earth science prof at an ol' bleeps' breakfast last week:
            > "When you started teaching that Tolkien class [in 1978], there
            were a
            > lot of people who were skeptical."
            >
            > Yeah, well, coprolites to you, chum. Tolkien is literature of the
            > finest. Rowling may be nowhere near that level, but she should
            not be
            > sneered away to the toy department, Wendell.
            >
            > As Pogo the possum used to say:
            > "Rowrbazzle!"
            >
            > Cheers,
            > Mike
            >
            > Walkermonk@a... wrote:
            >
            > >In a message dated 7/22/2005 9:48:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
            > >WendellWag@a... writes:
            > >The Harry Potter
            > >books are still a teenage-angst series with magic names slapped
            on
            > >everything.
            > >This is incorrect. The stories are about the struggle between
            good and evil,
            > >and how difficult it is to sometimes recognize good and the
            sacrifices
            > >required for doing what is right. The ratio of magic names is
            quite low compared to
            > >just regular names. And teenage angst? When did angst become the
            sole province
            > >of teenagers and why is there contempt for teenage feelings? The
            situations
            > >being confronted by the teenagers in the HP books aren't for the
            faint of heart
            > >or the immature of character. Do the teenagers handle the
            situations
            > >differently than the adults portrayed? Yes. The teens aren't
            always correct either. But
            > >they matter, and I don't see anything wrong in that. The HP books
            aren't my
            > >favorite and I think they have some flaws. But Wendell's
            contemptuous one-line
            > >dismissal is far below what the books deserve.
            > >
            > >
            > >Incidentally, I read a news story about Rowling recently in which
            she said
            > >that she never read (or, more precisely, she never finished)
            either _The Lord
            > >of the Rings_ or _The Chronicles of Narnia_.
            > >Well, according to this particular article (which immediately
            loses points
            > >with me by mentioning Rowling's haircolor), Rowling must have at
            least read "The
            > >Last Battle." So if she hasn't finished Narnia, then I wonder
            which one(s)
            > >she left out. This is at odds, btw, with many other interviews
            and other
            > >statements about Lewis.
            > >
            > >Grace Monk
            > >
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            > >Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Pauline J. Alama
            I wouldn t say Rowling s folklore was off (by which I suppose you mean inaccurate ), but that she has decided to do different things with the folklore. As
            Message 5 of 30 , Oct 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I wouldn't say Rowling's folklore was "off" (by which I suppose you
              mean "inaccurate"), but that she has decided to do different things
              with the folklore.

              As Pete Seeger said of folk music, that's what makes it folk --
              everyone sings it in their own way.

              Pauline J. Alama
              THE EYE OF NIGHT

              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Lezlie" <lezlie1@z...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi all- (a bit of a ramble...)
              > I like Rowling OK-- don't get me wrong. I just wish she'd stop
              saying
              > dumb things about *Witches* . As a teacher & parent, the endless
              > conversations about "pretend witches" gets a bit wearing after a
              > while... it isn't as if there isn't piles of readily available
              > information these days. In 2005, there is little excuse to "not
              know"
              > any longer. Yeah-- the truth is very boring and fiction is ever so
              > much more *fun* ...<sniff>... and all of *that*. (I am a *fantasy*
              fan
              > after all.)
              > Some of her folklore is a bit off, too...especially involving
              elfish
              > critters. Of course, her knowledge of the occult in general is
              compete
              > claptrap, but it's fine for fiction, I suppose. Her world-building
              > skill is improving, however. Well, I could say all of that about a
              > *lot* of writers about a *lot* of things.
              > Rowling tells a good tale. Mostly. But, I haven't gone out and read
              > the last. I've been reading other people I like a lot better.
              Personal
              > taste, you know...
              >
              > Not really impressed with the name-thing... not really... a bit too
              > Dickensonian, IMHO. A little *obvious* in this post modernist era
              (for
              > a novel set in modern times with magical twists and turns that
              is).
              >
              > Now, Charles de Lint, in comparison, has his folklore right spot
              on,
              > spins magical yarns – if a bit awkward at times – . He shows that
              he
              > has done his research – no question—.
              > On the other hand, Rowling is incredibly successful; I have to hand
              > her that. And, the kids love her. Mostly harmless (as the cliche
              has
              > become) I guess. Lezlie
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@d...> wrote:
              > > I second Ms. Monk's motion.
              > >
              > > Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis'
              and
              > > perhaps is second only to Tolkien.
              > >
              > > Rank rash dismissal of her reminds me of remark made to me by a
              retired
              > > ICC earth science prof at an ol' bleeps' breakfast last week:
              > > "When you started teaching that Tolkien class [in 1978], there
              were a
              > > lot of people who were skeptical."
              > >
              > > Yeah, well, coprolites to you, chum. Tolkien is literature of
              the
              > > finest. Rowling may be nowhere near that level, but she should
              not be
              > > sneered away to the toy department, Wendell.
              > >
              > > As Pogo the possum used to say:
              > > "Rowrbazzle!"
              > >
              > > Cheers,
              > > Mike
              > >
              > > Walkermonk@a... wrote:
              > >
              > > >In a message dated 7/22/2005 9:48:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
              > > >WendellWag@a... writes:
              > > >The Harry Potter
              > > >books are still a teenage-angst series with magic names
              slapped on
              > > >everything.
              > > >This is incorrect. The stories are about the struggle between
              good
              > and evil,
              > > >and how difficult it is to sometimes recognize good and the
              sacrifices
              > > >required for doing what is right. The ratio of magic names is
              quite
              > low compared to
              > > >just regular names. And teenage angst? When did angst become the
              > sole province
              > > >of teenagers and why is there contempt for teenage feelings? The
              > situations
              > > >being confronted by the teenagers in the HP books aren't for the
              > faint of heart
              > > >or the immature of character. Do the teenagers handle the
              situations
              > > >differently than the adults portrayed? Yes. The teens aren't
              always
              > correct either. But
              > > >they matter, and I don't see anything wrong in that. The HP
              books
              > aren't my
              > > >favorite and I think they have some flaws. But Wendell's
              > contemptuous one-line
              > > >dismissal is far below what the books deserve.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >Incidentally, I read a news story about Rowling recently in
              which
              > she said
              > > >that she never read (or, more precisely, she never finished)
              either
              > _The Lord
              > > >of the Rings_ or _The Chronicles of Narnia_.
              > > >Well, according to this particular article (which immediately
              loses
              > points
              > > >with me by mentioning Rowling's haircolor), Rowling must have at
              > least read "The
              > > >Last Battle." So if she hasn't finished Narnia, then I wonder
              which
              > one(s)
              > > >she left out. This is at odds, btw, with many other interviews
              and
              > other
              > > >statements about Lewis.
              > > >
              > > >Grace Monk
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              >
            • Lezlie
              All I can say is this: I don t like Pete Seeger s expurgated renditions of old folk songs, either. His orgiinals are fine, very sing-alongable -- So, there
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                All I can say is this: I don't like Pete Seeger's expurgated
                renditions of old folk songs, either. His orgiinals are fine, very
                sing-alongable -- So, there you have it. Matter of personal taste, I
                *suppose*.

                There are Other authors I like better, even for youth, but Rowling
                serves a very important purpose in the literacy battle. And, that
                battle, we cannot afford to loose. More HP, I say! Bring them on!

                Lezlie

                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Pauline J. Alama" <PJAlama@e...> wrote:
                >
                > I wouldn't say Rowling's folklore was "off" (by which I suppose you
                > mean "inaccurate"), but that she has decided to do different things
                > with the folklore.
                >
                > As Pete Seeger said of folk music, that's what makes it folk --
                > everyone sings it in their own way.
                >
                > Pauline J. Alama
                > THE EYE OF NIGHT
                >
                > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Lezlie" <lezlie1@z...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi all- (a bit of a ramble...)
                > > I like Rowling OK-- don't get me wrong. I just wish she'd stop
                > saying
                > > dumb things about *Witches* . As a teacher & parent, the endless
                > > conversations about "pretend witches" gets a bit wearing after a
                > > while... it isn't as if there isn't piles of readily available
                > > information these days. In 2005, there is little excuse to "not
                > know"
                > > any longer. Yeah-- the truth is very boring and fiction is ever so
                > > much more *fun* ...<sniff>... and all of *that*. (I am a *fantasy*
                > fan
                > > after all.)
                > > Some of her folklore is a bit off, too...especially involving
                > elfish
                > > critters. Of course, her knowledge of the occult in general is
                > compete
                > > claptrap, but it's fine for fiction, I suppose. Her world-building
                > > skill is improving, however. Well, I could say all of that about a
                > > *lot* of writers about a *lot* of things.
                > > Rowling tells a good tale. Mostly. But, I haven't gone out and read
                > > the last. I've been reading other people I like a lot better.
                > Personal
                > > taste, you know...
                > >
                > > Not really impressed with the name-thing... not really... a bit too
                > > Dickensonian, IMHO. A little *obvious* in this post modernist era
                > (for
                > > a novel set in modern times with magical twists and turns that
                > is).
                > >
                > > Now, Charles de Lint, in comparison, has his folklore right spot
                > on,
                > > spins magical yarns – if a bit awkward at times – . He shows that
                > he
                > > has done his research – no question—.
                > > On the other hand, Rowling is incredibly successful; I have to hand
                > > her that. And, the kids love her. Mostly harmless (as the cliche
                > has
                > > become) I guess. Lezlie
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@d...> wrote:
                > > > I second Ms. Monk's motion.
                > > >
                > > > Rowling has a nominative (name-giving) gift that exceeds Lewis'
                > and
                > > > perhaps is second only to Tolkien.
                > > >
                > > > Rank rash dismissal of her reminds me of remark made to me by a
                > retired
                > > > ICC earth science prof at an ol' bleeps' breakfast last week:
                > > > "When you started teaching that Tolkien class [in 1978], there
                > were a
                > > > lot of people who were skeptical."
                > > >
                > > > Yeah, well, coprolites to you, chum. Tolkien is literature of
                > the
                > > > finest. Rowling may be nowhere near that level, but she should
                > not be
                > > > sneered away to the toy department, Wendell.
                > > >
                > > > As Pogo the possum used to say:
                > > > "Rowrbazzle!"
                > > >
                > > > Cheers,
                > > > Mike
                > > >
                > > > Walkermonk@a... wrote:
                > > >
                > > > >In a message dated 7/22/2005 9:48:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
                > > > >WendellWag@a... writes:
                > > > >The Harry Potter
                > > > >books are still a teenage-angst series with magic names
                > slapped on
                > > > >everything.
                > > > >This is incorrect. The stories are about the struggle between
                > good
                > > and evil,
                > > > >and how difficult it is to sometimes recognize good and the
                > sacrifices
                > > > >required for doing what is right. The ratio of magic names is
                > quite
                > > low compared to
                > > > >just regular names. And teenage angst? When did angst become the
                > > sole province
                > > > >of teenagers and why is there contempt for teenage feelings? The
                > > situations
                > > > >being confronted by the teenagers in the HP books aren't for the
                > > faint of heart
                > > > >or the immature of character. Do the teenagers handle the
                > situations
                > > > >differently than the adults portrayed? Yes. The teens aren't
                > always
                > > correct either. But
                > > > >they matter, and I don't see anything wrong in that. The HP
                > books
                > > aren't my
                > > > >favorite and I think they have some flaws. But Wendell's
                > > contemptuous one-line
                > > > >dismissal is far below what the books deserve.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >Incidentally, I read a news story about Rowling recently in
                > which
                > > she said
                > > > >that she never read (or, more precisely, she never finished)
                > either
                > > _The Lord
                > > > >of the Rings_ or _The Chronicles of Narnia_.
                > > > >Well, according to this particular article (which immediately
                > loses
                > > points
                > > > >with me by mentioning Rowling's haircolor), Rowling must have at
                > > least read "The
                > > > >Last Battle." So if she hasn't finished Narnia, then I wonder
                > which
                > > one(s)
                > > > >she left out. This is at odds, btw, with many other interviews
                > and
                > > other
                > > > >statements about Lewis.
                > > > >
                > > > >Grace Monk
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.