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

Rowling contemplates Pottericide

Expand Messages
  • Patrick H. Wynne
    According to the following article http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626232443.lhc6qc94.html J.K. Rowling is hinting that Harry Potter might be
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      According to the following article

      http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626232443.lhc6qc94.html

      J.K. Rowling is hinting that Harry Potter might be killed off
      in the next book:

      "Asked whether one of the casualties would be Potter himself,
      Rowling said she had never been tempted to kill off the magician
      before the finale.

      "At the same time, she added: 'I can completely understand,
      however, the mentality of an author who thinks, "Well I'm gonna
      kill them off because that means there can be no non-author
      written sequels. So it will end with me and after I'm dead and
      gone they won't be able to bring back the character".' "

      Obviously Rowling has never watched _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ ...

      -- Pat
    • visualweasel
      Pat, I had to drop a quick reply here to say that some people (like myself) would consider this a spoiler -- even though it s far from definite -- and would
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Pat,

        I had to drop a quick reply here to say that some people (like
        myself) would consider this a spoiler -- even though it's far from
        definite -- and would prefer not to read things like "Rowling
        contemplates Pottercide" in subject lines. Of course, the thought
        has crossed my mind, as I'm sure it has most everybody's, but
        speaking for myself, I would rather not see subject lines like this.
        I deliberately do not read any interviews or articles about the
        books before they come out. Back when Order of the Phoenix was
        nearing release, I remember the huge leak (from Rowling herself)
        that "someone important was going to die" -- and of course, I was
        distracted during the whole read by waiting for it. And it would
        have had far more impact had I not seen it coming.

        Anybody else agree? If not, I guess I'm just out of luck and will
        have to see what I happen to see. For myself, I wish the media would
        just not even ask questions that end up leading Rowling to hint at
        this or that. I'd rather just get the book into my hands with
        nothing but my own guesses or theories.

        Wishful thinking, I know. Perhaps I'm just a bit obsessive /
        compulsive about spoilers -- even possibly untrue ones.

        Jason
      • David Bratman
        ... Or read any Marvel comics. ... Or she could just shut up. It s not like she has to be hyping Harry Potter books in this way. It ll sell anyway. In
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:57 AM 6/27/2006 +0000, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

          >Obviously Rowling has never watched _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ ...

          Or read any Marvel comics.


          At 01:50 PM 6/27/2006 +0000, visualweasel wrote:

          >For myself, I wish the media would
          >just not even ask questions that end up leading Rowling to hint at
          >this or that. I'd rather just get the book into my hands with
          >nothing but my own guesses or theories.

          Or she could just shut up. It's not like she has to be hyping Harry Potter
          books in this way. It'll sell anyway.

          In general I tend to agree with you - unless I don't care about the story.
          (At this point I have long since given up caring about Harry Potter.) You
          can only read something for the first time once.
        • Mike Foster
          Although I d already received another version of the same news, I agree with Jason. Spoilers spoil. When I taught my Tolkien course in the last century (that
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Although I'd already received another version of the same news, I agree
            with Jason. Spoilers spoil.

            When I taught my Tolkien course in the last century (that is, the era
            BJ--Before Jackson), students who'd read all the books were strictly
            admonished to respect first-time readers and not to reveal, for
            instance, that this Gollum critter in THE HOBBIT will turn up later.

            Ooops! Spoiler!

            Mike

            visualweasel wrote:

            >Pat,
            >
            >I had to drop a quick reply here to say that some people (like
            >myself) would consider this a spoiler -- even though it's far from
            >definite -- and would prefer not to read things like "Rowling
            >contemplates Pottercide" in subject lines. Of course, the thought
            >has crossed my mind, as I'm sure it has most everybody's, but
            >speaking for myself, I would rather not see subject lines like this.
            >I deliberately do not read any interviews or articles about the
            >books before they come out. Back when Order of the Phoenix was
            >nearing release, I remember the huge leak (from Rowling herself)
            >that "someone important was going to die" -- and of course, I was
            >distracted during the whole read by waiting for it. And it would
            >have had far more impact had I not seen it coming.
            >
            >Anybody else agree? If not, I guess I'm just out of luck and will
            >have to see what I happen to see. For myself, I wish the media would
            >just not even ask questions that end up leading Rowling to hint at
            >this or that. I'd rather just get the book into my hands with
            >nothing but my own guesses or theories.
            >
            >Wishful thinking, I know. Perhaps I'm just a bit obsessive /
            >compulsive about spoilers -- even possibly untrue ones.
            >
            >Jason
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Joan.Marie.Verba@sff.net
            ... However, you d have to be in isolation not to have heard this one. It s all over the Internet, it s on the TV and cable news, it ll probably be in the
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Original Message ---

              > I had to drop a quick reply here to say that some people (like
              > myself) would consider this a spoiler -- even though it's far from
              > definite

              However, you'd have to be in isolation not to have heard this one. It's all over
              the Internet, it's on the TV and cable news, it'll probably be in the newspaper
              tomorrow. Further, this possibility has been discussed long before now.

              As the Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator, I have no objection to
              spoilers since I don't mind spoilers myself. I also have no objection to list
              members attempting to shield other members from spoilers if they so desire.

              Joan
              Still Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
            • visualweasel
              ... Then I must qualify as in isolation, hehe, since I hadn t heard it until Pat s post. I ve had my head too deeply buried in material for my upcoming
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                > However, you'd have to be in isolation not to have heard this one.
                > It's all over the Internet, it's on the TV and cable news, it'll
                > probably be in the newspaper tomorrow. Further, this possibility
                > has been discussed long before now.

                Then I must qualify as "in isolation," hehe, since I hadn't heard it
                until Pat's post. I've had my head too deeply buried in material for
                my upcoming Mythcon paper, I guess. :) Still, you're right that the
                possibility has probably occurred to most readers by now.

                Jason
              • Oberhelman, D
                Rowling revealed this information in an interview on the Richard and Judy show on Channel 4 in the UK, so it s a spoiler that will be very hard to avoid. I
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rowling revealed this information in an interview on the "Richard and
                  Judy" show on Channel 4 in the UK, so it's a spoiler that will be very
                  hard to avoid. I guess she wanted to steal some of the limelight from
                  Harper Lee's letter to Oprah.









                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mike Foster
                  It was on the local gossip page right between Brittney and Jennifer Aniston.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It was on the local gossip page right between Brittney and Jennifer Aniston.

                    Oberhelman, D wrote:

                    >Rowling revealed this information in an interview on the "Richard and
                    >Judy" show on Channel 4 in the UK, so it's a spoiler that will be very
                    >hard to avoid. I guess she wanted to steal some of the limelight from
                    >Harper Lee's letter to Oprah.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Stolzi
                    It should be added that Rowling says one character gets a reprieve. Wh could be our Harry. Diamond Proudbrook [Non-text portions of this message have been
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It should be added that Rowling says one character "gets a reprieve."

                      Wh could be our Harry.

                      Diamond Proudbrook

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      The chick s a dude, the guy s actually dead, and Rosebud is his sled. Oops.
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The chick's a dude, the guy's actually dead, and Rosebud is his sled.

                        Oops.
                      • Jason Fisher
                        ... It s official. You just spoiled everything, everywhere. Nice going. :)
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > The chick's a dude, the guy's actually dead, and Rosebud is his sled.
                          >
                          > Oops.

                          It's official. You just spoiled everything, everywhere. Nice going. :)
                        • Mike Foster
                          Already Jo and I have our ideas, but this is all rather like the legendary if apocryphal lottery on date of Mamie Eisenhower s death, isn t it? Mike
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Already Jo and I have our ideas, but this is all rather like the
                            legendary if apocryphal lottery on date of Mamie Eisenhower's death,
                            isn't it?

                            Mike

                            Stolzi wrote:

                            >It should be added that Rowling says one character "gets a reprieve."
                            >
                            >Wh could be our Harry.
                            >
                            >Diamond Proudbrook
                            >
                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Jason Fisher
                            ... Yes. Another thing I would rather not have known ahead of time. :-|
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > It should be added that Rowling says one character "gets a reprieve."
                              > Wh could be our Harry.

                              Yes. Another thing I would rather not have known ahead of time. :-|
                            • Walkermonk@aol.com
                              Then don t read the posts with the above subject line. I hate spoilers too, but this is a literary list. We re gonna talk about books and things related to
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Then don't read the posts with the above subject line.

                                I hate spoilers too, but this is a literary list. We're gonna talk about
                                books and things related to said books and maybe not all of us have read the book
                                and so find out stuff we didn't want to know but still. It's a literary list.

                                Grace Walker Monk

                                In a message dated 6/27/2006 8:51:47 PM Central Standard Time,
                                visualweasel@... writes:
                                > It should be added that Rowling says one character "gets a reprieve."
                                > Wh could be our Harry.

                                Yes. Another thing I would rather not have known ahead of time. :-|


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Patrick H. Wynne
                                ... Thank you, Grace, for the rare voice of reason! My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler -- the story of Rowling s statements in her interview were plastered
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Walkermonk@... wrote:

                                  > Then don't read the posts with the above subject line.
                                  >
                                  > I hate spoilers too, but this is a literary list. We're gonna talk about
                                  > books and things related to said books and maybe not all of us have read the book
                                  > and so find out stuff we didn't want to know but still. It's a literary list.

                                  Thank you, Grace, for the rare voice of reason!

                                  My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler -- the story of Rowling's
                                  statements in her interview were plastered all over the Internet
                                  yesterday and were quite unavoidable. If people are going to be
                                  so hyper-sensitive to alleged "spoilers", then I would suggest that
                                  rather than taking me to task, a more practical strategy would be
                                  to unsubscribe to the MythSoc list, sell your computer, unplug the
                                  tv, cancel all subscriptions to magazines and newspapers, throw
                                  the radio in the lake, paint your windows black, and put beeswax
                                  in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loudly as you
                                  can should anybody approach you and attempt to engage you in
                                  conversation.

                                  Because otherwise, news happens.

                                  -- Pat
                                • Beth Russell
                                  ... Let s have a lottery about which ones are killed off. My vote is for Percy and Snape. Cheers, Beth
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >this is all rather like the
                                    >legendary if apocryphal lottery on date of Mamie Eisenhower's death,
                                    >isn't it?

                                    Let's have a lottery about which ones are killed off.

                                    My vote is for Percy and Snape.

                                    Cheers,

                                    Beth
                                  • visualweasel
                                    Rather than reply to one tirade with another, I ll just bow out of this thread gracefully. :)
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Rather than reply to one tirade with another, I'll just bow out of
                                      this thread gracefully. :)
                                    • Stolzi
                                      Good idea, Beth! I think that either Harry will die to redeem the Potterverse, or Snape will die to save Harry and thus indirectly redeem the Potterverse (and
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Good idea, Beth!

                                        I think that either Harry will die to redeem the Potterverse, or Snape will die to save Harry and thus indirectly redeem the Potterverse (and himself from his rather questionable record).

                                        But then I'm somewhat force-fed on John Granger's ideas about the Christian symbolism which he finds rife throughout the series.

                                        http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php?page=books



                                        Diamond Proudbrook

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Berni Phillips
                                        From: Beth Russell ... I had thought of Percy, too. That boy needs some redemption for how he s hurt his poor parents. I m more
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          From: "Beth Russell" <russells@...>



                                          > >this is all rather like the
                                          >>legendary if apocryphal lottery on date of Mamie Eisenhower's death,
                                          >>isn't it?
                                          >
                                          > Let's have a lottery about which ones are killed off.
                                          >
                                          > My vote is for Percy and Snape.

                                          I had thought of Percy, too. That boy needs some redemption for how he's
                                          hurt his poor parents. I'm more afraid it will be Mr. Weasley, whom I'm
                                          quite fond of. Hopefully not Hermione. I could see Rowling offing Tonks,
                                          although she's another character I really like. Malfoy, on the other hand,
                                          she can off as quickly as possible.

                                          Berni
                                        • David Bratman
                                          ... That would be a tricky proposition to submit to the anti-spoilerite person, since the subject line contains not just the spoilers but the discussion about
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Grace Monk wrote:

                                            > Then don't read the posts with the above subject line.

                                            That would be a tricky proposition to submit to the anti-spoilerite person,
                                            since the subject line contains not just the spoilers but the discussion
                                            about spoilers. By not having changed the subject line (which I did), you
                                            are in fact advising him not to read the very post in which you advise him
                                            not to read it. If that's a voice of reason, it's reason disappearing up
                                            its own fundament.

                                            Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

                                            >My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler -- the story of Rowling's
                                            >statements in her interview were plastered all over the Internet
                                            >yesterday and were quite unavoidable.

                                            I keep up with the news, but I only heard about this here.

                                            >If people are going to be
                                            >so hyper-sensitive to alleged "spoilers", then I would suggest that
                                            >rather than taking me to task, a more practical strategy would be
                                            >to unsubscribe to the MythSoc list, sell your computer, unplug the
                                            >tv, cancel all subscriptions to magazines and newspapers, throw
                                            >the radio in the lake, paint your windows black, and put beeswax
                                            >in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loudly as you
                                            >can should anybody approach you and attempt to engage you in
                                            >conversation.

                                            You know, back when a certain series of films were a major subject on this
                                            list, one of our posters who didn't want to have to read any criticism of
                                            her beloved movies suggested that I, rather than complain about them, just
                                            not watch them. I replied that not watching the films would not enable me
                                            to avoid the blizzard of publicity. I would have to do pretty much what
                                            you're outlining here. I didn't consider that practical, and I gather
                                            you're saying the same thing.

                                            Instead, I registered my complaints. And the anti-spoilerite person is
                                            doing the same thing. It seems to me that this shoe fits either foot.

                                            DB
                                          • Patrick H. Wynne
                                            ... Huh -- go figure! I DON T keep up with the news, to a truly pathetic degree -- I m far more interested in pretend fairy languages than in what s actually
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:

                                              > Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler -- the story of Rowling's
                                              > >statements in her interview were plastered all over the Internet
                                              > >yesterday and were quite unavoidable.
                                              >
                                              > I keep up with the news, but I only heard about this here.

                                              Huh -- go figure! I DON'T keep up with the news, to a truly pathetic
                                              degree -- I'm far more interested in pretend fairy languages than in
                                              what's actually happening in the Real World ;-) -- and yet I stumbled
                                              across at least three stories about Rowling's "spoilers" yesterday on
                                              my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today homepage
                                              (yes, I am such a boring person that USA Today is my homepage --
                                              <sigh>). Hence my post to this list.

                                              And if you Google "Harry Potter characters die", you'll see (among the
                                              six and a half million hits) that this story has appeared on theatlantic.com,
                                              abcnews.go.com, movieweb.com, cbsnews.com, theglobeandmail.com,
                                              dallasnews.com, news.bbc.co.uk, netscape.cnn.com, foxnews.com,
                                              dailymail.co.uk, reuters.com, cinematical.com, accesshollywood.com,
                                              and newsmax.com, to cite just a very few. So yes, the Potter story WAS,
                                              quite objectively speaking, "plastered all over the Internet yesterday",
                                              as I said. And if you get your news primarily from the Internet (as I do),
                                              it really _was_ hard to miss the story!

                                              -- Pat
                                            • Larry Swain
                                              ... I have to express some incredulity there too: It was posted to 3 literary listservs that I m on, was on MyYahoo News and headlines at My Excite page too;
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Patrick H. Wynne wrote: >My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler
                                                > > -- the story of Rowling's
                                                > > >statements in her interview were plastered all over the Internet
                                                > > >yesterday and were quite unavoidable.
                                                > >
                                                > > I keep up with the news, but I only heard about this here.
                                                >
                                                > Huh -- go figure! I DON'T keep up with the news, to a truly pathetic
                                                > degree -- I'm far more interested in pretend fairy languages than in
                                                > what's actually happening in the Real World ;-) -- and yet I stumbled
                                                > across at least three stories about Rowling's "spoilers" yesterday on
                                                > my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today homepage
                                                > (yes, I am such a boring person that USA Today is my homepage --
                                                > <sigh>). Hence my post to this list.


                                                I have to express some incredulity there too: It was posted to 3 literary listservs that I'm on, was on MyYahoo News and headlines at My Excite page too; My BBC newsfeed featured the story; both of the local Chicago papers carried the story, and so did my edition of the NYT (ok, folks I'm a news junkie!); what's more I heard it on both API radio news, and BBC radio news broadcast on the public radio stations I regularly listen to; and in the morning news it was mentioned, but featured on All Things Considered. About the only news medium I don't watch is television, so I can't say what happened there. I can't be the only one who was clobbered with the news from almost every angle one can think of......oh wait I lied, it was also mentioned on Access Hollywood, which was on when I returned from walking the dogs waiting for a show I had programmed at the top of the hour (always have it turn a few minutes early). So I did get it through TV too. So with Patrick I have to say that this was truly a hard to miss story--there are even sites taking bets now on which characters!

                                                Larry Swain

                                                --
                                                _______________________________________________
                                                Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                                                Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

                                                Powered by Outblaze
                                              • Walkermonk@aol.com
                                                Is it worse to have a spoiler title or a spoiler post with a deceptively bland title? Do we give a warning yet vague title and then at the beginning of the
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Is it worse to have a spoiler title or a spoiler post with a deceptively
                                                  bland title? Do we give a warning yet vague title and then at the beginning of
                                                  the message type the word "spoiler" in all caps followed by about 20 lines
                                                  worth of asterisks so that one must scroll down to see the post? Upon which side
                                                  does the burden of effort properly lie?

                                                  Just for the record, I didn't call *myself* the voice of reason. After
                                                  stating his displeasure with the spoiler in the title, Jason was still obviously
                                                  reading the posts with the hated spoiler in the title and, unfortunately for
                                                  him, read something he didn't want to read. My advice was simply to stop. But
                                                  if he wasn't reading the posts and I was in fact causing a logic loop to
                                                  explode, I honestly couldn't care less. In truth, I could not possibly care less
                                                  about any of this. My only point here is that I didn't call myself the voice
                                                  of reason.

                                                  In response to Pat's contention that this is news, I have to admit I've been
                                                  hearing and reading these speculations about JKR killing Harry vs. not
                                                  killing Harry for at least two years now. Since #5 was published, if memory
                                                  serves. So while it's news, it's not new news. There: another logic loop is
                                                  exploding. (I like the pretty lights!)

                                                  Grace Walker Monk

                                                  In a message dated 6/28/2006 10:30:57 PM Central Standard Time,
                                                  dbratman@... writes:

                                                  Grace Monk wrote:

                                                  > Then don't read the posts with the above subject line.

                                                  That would be a tricky proposition to submit to the anti-spoilerite person,
                                                  since the subject line contains not just the spoilers but the discussion
                                                  about spoilers. By not having changed the subject line (which I did), you
                                                  are in fact advising him not to read the very post in which you advise him
                                                  not to read it. If that's a voice of reason, it's reason disappearing up
                                                  its own fundament.

                                                  Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

                                                  >My Potter post was NEWS, not a spoiler -- the story of Rowling's
                                                  >statements in her interview were plastered all over the Internet
                                                  >yesterday and were quite unavoidable.

                                                  I keep up with the news, but I only heard about this here.

                                                  >If people are going to be
                                                  >so hyper-sensitive to alleged "spoilers", then I would suggest that
                                                  >rather than taking me to task, a more practical strategy would be
                                                  >to unsubscribe to the MythSoc list, sell your computer, unplug the
                                                  >tv, cancel all subscriptions to magazines and newspapers, throw
                                                  >the radio in the lake, paint your windows black, and put beeswax
                                                  >in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loudly as you
                                                  >can should anybody approach you and attempt to engage you in
                                                  >conversation.

                                                  You know, back when a certain series of films were a major subject on this
                                                  list, one of our posters who didn't want to have to read any criticism of
                                                  her beloved movies suggested that I, rather than complain about them, just
                                                  not watch them. I replied that not watching the films would not enable me
                                                  to avoid the blizzard of publicity. I would have to do pretty much what
                                                  you're outlining here. I didn't consider that practical, and I gather
                                                  you're saying the same thing.

                                                  Instead, I registered my complaints. And the anti-spoilerite person is
                                                  doing the same thing. It seems to me that this shoe fits either foot.

                                                  DB






                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Lezlie
                                                  ROTHFLOL!! Thanks, you just made my morning. Lezlie
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Jun 30, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ROTHFLOL!! Thanks, you just made my morning. Lezlie

                                                    --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > The chick's a dude, the guy's actually dead, and Rosebud is his sled.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Oops.
                                                    >
                                                    > It's official. You just spoiled everything, everywhere. Nice going. :)
                                                    >
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.