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

Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter

Expand Messages
  • David F. Porteous
    David Bratman wrote:
    Message 1 of 100 , Jun 25, 2000
      David Bratman wrote: <<David Porteous implies that Harry is
      a bubble due to be pricked: this is only partially true. What the media
      is writing is hype, and the media is apt at any time to decide that its
      latest darling needs to be brought down to size and have mud thrown at it.
      But in this case the hype is based on genuine popularity, and it's the
      kids, collectively, who will decide whether Harry is continually worth
      reading. The worst possible scenario would be that Rowling has decided
      she's infallible and can do no wrong, and let her instincts carry her
      astray. If so, there will be millions of unsold Harry 4's the way there
      were millions of unsold Phantom Menace novelizations. We shall soon see
      that too. For all that the earlier volumes were already as popular as
      they are now, no such fuss attended the appearance of no. 3 as is being
      assembled for no. 4.>>

      Even though I loved being right, it would be very pleased if JK made me
      wrong by a writing a compelling 700 that KIDS (not us, not critics, but
      kids) would actually read and actually enjoy. Partly because I am pleased
      for the success of any Scottish writer, being a Scottish writer myself ;),
      but also because I see it is good for children to be reading ANYTHING --
      even if it's just the articles in the TV guide. The promotion of literacy
      is vital and those books I consider "worthy" do nothing to address this.
      Rowling fills a vital role and the more publicity she, and thus writers as a
      whole get, the better.

      However David did mention the phantom menace. I think during previous
      discussions we established what hype did for that film. This may boost
      Rowling's sales for this book, but if it isn't as good as the hype IMPLIES
      it must be then surely she will hurt the sales long term. And I repeat, if
      JK has written a 700 page, dark-and-terrible novel then I seriously doubt
      she will enjoy success as large as she has had to date. All of this depends
      on the book being rubbish, of course. If it turns out the woman is to
      children's fantasy what Milton was to epic poetry then I shall print a
      grovelling retraction.

      D. (which is in no way a form of signature stolen from a certain novel by
      Bram Stoker... did I mention I wanted to bite your neck?)
    • Berni Phillips
      From: Stolzi ... Wow, I didn t know they were still publishing Nancy! I see they ve updated the look of her aunt s but not Nancy
      Message 100 of 100 , Aug 17, 2005
        From: "Stolzi" <Stolzi@...>

        > http://www.comics.com/comics/nancy/archive/nancy-20050817.html
        > or
        > http://tinyurl.com/c5mr8

        Wow, I didn't know they were still publishing Nancy! I see they've updated
        the look of her aunt's but not Nancy herself. I guess it would be like
        Blondie and Dagwood getting different hairstyles. They're all prisoners of
        their hairdos.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.