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

RE: [mythsoc] Re: Rowling contemplates Pottericide

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
      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 2 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
        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 3 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
          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 4 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
            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 5 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
              > 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 6 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                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 7 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                  > 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 8 of 24 , Jun 27, 2006
                    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 9 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                      --- 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 10 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                        >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 11 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                          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 12 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                            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 13 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                              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 14 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                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 15 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                  --- 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 16 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- 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 17 of 24 , Jun 28, 2006
                                      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 18 of 24 , Jun 30, 2006
                                        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.