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

Re: [mythsoc] Rowling contemplates [censored]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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.