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

Re: Harry VI

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.