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

Re: [mythsoc] Who will JKR bump off?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    David, And remember that trick ending...actually, I don t. I leave home at 4:45 a.m. tomorrow, too early to be bright. See you there. Travelling mercies.
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      David,
      And remember that trick ending...actually, I don't.

      I leave home at 4:45 a.m. tomorrow, too early to be bright. See you
      there. Travelling mercies.

      Mike

      Oberhelman, D wrote:

      >Looking at that subject line gave me a flashback to "Who Shot J.R.?" in
      >1980 (?). This is the 21st-century literary equivalent!
      >
      >
      >
      >(By the way Mike, I will see you bright and early on Saturday for more
      >JRRT and CSL. I leave for Toronto tomorrow.)
      >
      >
      >
      >David
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >________________________________
      >
      >From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      >Of Mike Foster
      >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:10 AM
      >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Who will JKR bump off?
      >
      >
      >
      >The Sportin' Life in me begins to think we should maybe start a little
      >pool up on this. $1 an entry, write down your two guesses, one entry
      >per contestant. Winner[s] take[s] all in 2007. Far Westfarthing smial
      >is already up and at this. A member wrote of her daughter, an HP
      >devotee:
      >
      >"Amber says
      >that Rowling gives clues every other book. Clues in bk 2 for bk 4,
      >clues in 1 for 3 with the idea that readers tend to forget in between.
      >She says we should look to book 5 OotP for clues to 7. Amber has also
      >said though the last time she made predictions, every one was wrong....
      >And that JKR is the master of the 'Red Herring'."
      >
      >JKR is simply stoking the star-making machinery--as if she needs to.
      >
      >Mike
      >
      >David Bratman wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >>I think what has been proven here, and which my previous post was
      >>
      >>
      >intended
      >
      >
      >>to say - if not, perhaps, as clearly as it should have - is that
      >>
      >>
      >something
      >
      >
      >>supposedly being on "every major news outlet" is a completely
      >>
      >>
      >inadequate
      >
      >
      >>device for determining whether announcing it will be a spoiler. It was
      >>not, in fact, on "every major news outlet", though it may have been on
      >>
      >>
      >a
      >
      >
      >>lot, and it wasn't in big flashing headlines, so it was easily missed.
      >>This was not exactly a news story on the level of, say, September 11th.
      >>
      >>Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the future, or perhaps they
      >>will sit secure in the confidence that what they see, everybody sees.
      >>
      >>
      >The
      >
      >
      >>Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they thought
      >>
      >>
      >he
      >
      >
      >>grasped everything that they did.
      >>
      >>Furthermore, there's a huge yawning difference between being
      >>
      >>
      >_unsurprised_
      >
      >
      >>that Rowling is considering killing Harry off, and reading that she
      >>actually _said_ she was considering it.
      >>
      >>DB
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >>
      >>
      ><http://www.mythsoc.org>
      >
      >
      >>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • visualweasel
      ... CNN = Crebain News Network? ;-)
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > If all the major news sources we have now existed in
        > Middle-earth during the Third Age, and were broadcasting
        > the Fellowship's movements and plans, then they would
        > have been fools to think that Sauron DIDN'T know.

        CNN = Crebain News Network? ;-)
      • Walkermonk@aol.com
        I second that emotion! Grace Walker Monk In a message dated 6/29/2006 12:32:00 PM Central Standard Time, Edith.Crowe@sjsu.edu writes: Speaking not as a Steward
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I second that emotion!

          Grace Walker Monk

          In a message dated 6/29/2006 12:32:00 PM Central Standard Time,
          Edith.Crowe@... writes:
          Speaking not as a Steward but as someone who's getting tired if this
          thread, could we get back to discussing books, or the Inklings, or all
          that stuff?


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mike Foster
          Had JRRT experienced the same dazzling success in 1954 as JKR, and he told the media that at least five major characters would face death in the third volume,
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Had JRRT experienced the same dazzling success in 1954 as JKR, and he
            told the media that at least five major characters would face death in
            the third volume, ooh la la.

            Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

            >On Jun 29, 2006, at 9:21 AM, David Bratman wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >>Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the future, or perhaps
            >>they will sit secure in the confidence that what they see,
            >>everybody sees.
            >>
            >>
            >
            >You've elevated a silent, unconscious, and completely reasonable
            >instinct to the level of a conscious and deliberate determination,
            >which of course it wasn't: Pat didn't say to himself, "Gee, even
            >though this is a spoiler, I'm going to post this, since everyone
            >knows it anyways". It never occurred to him that it could conceivably
            >BE a "spoiler", just as it would never have occurred to me to think
            >it was, and still wouldn't if someone hadn't claimed it was. In fact,
            >I STILL don't think it IS a spoiler, and I doubt that Pat does
            >either. AGAIN: Pat had NO REASON to think the news item was a
            >"spoiler", so "sitting secure in confidence" never entered the picture.
            >
            >So what you're in fact asking is that no one trust their own judgment
            >and instinct as to what is or is not a spoiler, but instead to
            >deliberately second-guess every instinct before posting in this
            >forum. I rather expect that what will actually happen is that Pat,
            >having been called on the carpet for doing something he didn't intend
            >and doesn't feel he actually did -- and neither do I -- will simply
            >not bother to post here again, the cost of doing so having been made
            >too great, both in terms of demanded second-guessing of instinct in
            >forethought and in wearisomeness of reaction.
            >
            >
            >
            >>The Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they
            >>thought he grasped everything that they did.
            >>
            >>
            >If all the major news sources we have now existed in Middle-earth
            >during the Third Age, and were broadcasting the Fellowship's
            >movements and plans, then they would have been fools to think that
            >Sauron DIDN'T know.
            >
            >Also, I note that you've just given out a MAJOR "spoiler" for _The
            >Lord of the Rings_. You shouldn't ASSUME that everyone here has read
            >the books, just because the story now surrounds us in the mass media
            >and culture, right? And yet I don't see the big flashing "SPOLER
            >WARNING" anywhere in your post....
            >
            >
            >
            >>Furthermore, there's a huge yawning difference between being
            >>_unsurprised_ that Rowling is considering killing Harry off, and
            >>reading that she actually _said_ she was considering it.
            >>
            >>
            >
            >No, there isn't. There may be a difference, but it is slight and
            >insignificant, in that it doesn't change ANYTHING about what one does
            >or does not expect with regard to the H.P. series; this is hardly
            >"huge" or "yawning".
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Walter Padgett
            What s Crebain? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              What's Crebain?

              On 6/29/06, visualweasel <visualweasel@...> wrote:
              >
              > > If all the major news sources we have now existed in
              > > Middle-earth during the Third Age, and were broadcasting
              > > the Fellowship's movements and plans, then they would
              > > have been fools to think that Sauron DIDN'T know.
              >
              > CNN = Crebain News Network? ;-)
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Linda DeMars
              If you have the opportunity, try to take in Jef Murray s workshop. He talks about Tolkien s handling of a universal longing for home as illustrated in his
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                If you have the opportunity, try to take in Jef Murray's workshop. He
                talks about Tolkien's handling of a universal longing for home as
                illustrated in his beautiful paintings. I had the privilege to hear
                a "trial run" of Jef's presentation a few weeks ago.

                Linda D.
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... Indeed. And if he had, the fault for the spoiler (if it is to be regarded as such) would have lay with him, not with whoever subsequently commented on
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jun 29, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                  > Had JRRT experienced the same dazzling success in 1954 as JKR, and he
                  > told the media that at least five major characters would face death in
                  > the third volume, ooh la la.
                  Indeed. And if he had, the "fault" for the "spoiler" (if it is to be
                  regarded as such) would have lay with him, not with whoever
                  subsequently commented on what he said to media.
                • John D Rateliff
                  Crebain are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they make their way through Eregion. Cf. The Ring Goes South (LotR Bk II Chapter III).
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Crebain" are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they
                    make their way through Eregion. Cf. "The Ring Goes South" (LotR Bk II
                    Chapter III).


                    On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Walter Padgett wrote:

                    > What's Crebain?
                  • David Bratman
                    ... I suggest you look in the mirror when you say that. Such a claim is only in your imagination. I am offering not castigations, but guidance for the future.
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:35 AM 6/29/2006 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                      >You've elevated a silent, unconscious, and completely reasonable
                      >instinct to the level of a conscious and deliberate determination,

                      I suggest you look in the mirror when you say that. Such a claim is only
                      in your imagination.

                      I am offering not castigations, but guidance for the future. If people
                      didn't know before now that what appears on the home page of USA Today is
                      not automatically known to the entire world the same morning, well then,
                      they know it now. Perhaps they will take this into consideration. Or,
                      perhaps, they will prefer to write indignant posts full of words in
                      all-caps. Their choice.

                      My wife informs me that the news appeared in the gossip column of our local
                      paper. Which I skim over if I read it at all, as I have no interest in the
                      doings of overhyped movie stars like Brad and Janet (or whatever their
                      names are) who are the normal fare of gossip columns.

                      It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's gossip
                      columns were expected of members of a society founded to honor two men
                      whose unworldliness was such that one of them had never heard of Ava
                      Gardner even when personally introduced to her, and the other thought Tito
                      was the King of Greece.

                      Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth replying to.

                      DB
                    • David Bratman
                      ... No, don t _tell_ him! Um, Crebain are the evil biscuits from the Lonely Mountain that the Fellowship ate on their journey, and that caused Boromir to go
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 03:29 PM 6/29/2006 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

                        >"Crebain" are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they
                        >make their way through Eregion. Cf. "The Ring Goes South" (LotR Bk II
                        >Chapter III).

                        No, don't _tell_ him!

                        Um, "Crebain" are the evil biscuits from the Lonely Mountain that the
                        Fellowship ate on their journey, and that caused Boromir to go all wormy
                        and Ring-lusty.

                        DB
                      • Walkermonk@aol.com
                        Wow. The same man who wrote, Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth replying to. also wrote, Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wow.

                          The same man who wrote, "Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth
                          replying to." also wrote, "Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
                          future, or perhaps they
                          will sit secure in the confidence that what they see, everybody sees. The
                          Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they thought he
                          grasped everything that they did."

                          Somehow posting a note about a well-publicized interview on a book not yet
                          finished is become worth comparing to the struggles of the Fellowship of the
                          Ring. Ouucchhh. My brain just will not go into that shape!


                          I haven't giggled this much while reading email in, well, weeks. Thanks for
                          the fun!

                          Grace Walker Monk






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Bratman
                          ... If the implication is that I expected that the absurdity of the arguments should be self-evident, that is mistaken. The statement was only to say that I
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 11:30 PM 6/29/2006 -0400, Walkermonk@... wrote:

                            >The same man who wrote, "Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth
                            >replying to." also wrote, "Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
                            >future, or perhaps they
                            >will sit secure in the confidence that what they see, everybody sees. The
                            >Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they thought he
                            >grasped everything that they did."

                            If the implication is that I expected that the absurdity of the arguments
                            should be self-evident, that is mistaken. The statement was only to say
                            that I acknowledged reading the arguments, but found them not worth
                            replying to.


                            >Somehow posting a note about a well-publicized interview on a book not yet
                            >finished is become worth comparing to the struggles of the Fellowship of the
                            >Ring. Ouucchhh. My brain just will not go into that shape!

                            In the Mythopoeic Society that I belong to, people make comparisons to
                            events in The Lord of the Rings all the time. Ask Mike Foster, for
                            instance, who wrote a quite sober scholarly paper comparing the Hobbits to
                            the Beatles.


                            >I haven't giggled this much while reading email in, well, weeks. Thanks for
                            >the fun!

                            You are more easily amused than I thought.

                            DB
                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                            ... I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you look up the definition of straw man . NO ONE has suggested anything like this about
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                              > If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
                              > of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
                              > same morning, well then, they know it now.
                              I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
                              look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
                              like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet. You
                              might find things less _absurdam_ if you didn't employ such straw-man
                              _reductio_.

                              I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
                              that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
                              alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here. The fact
                              is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
                              major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
                              which happened to be USA Today. YOU now prefer to act as though that
                              is the only one Pat mentioned.
                              > It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
                              > gossip columns were expected of members
                              Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
                              absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
                              either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

                              Condescend much?
                            • David Bratman
                              ... Actually, I think someone did. See below. ... No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp the difference between [see my
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 12:38 AM 6/30/2006 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                                >On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                                >> If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
                                >> of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
                                >> same morning, well then, they know it now.
                                >I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
                                >look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
                                >like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet.

                                Actually, I think someone did. See below.

                                >I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
                                >that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
                                >alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here.

                                No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp
                                the difference between [see my quote above] "not automatically known" and
                                "automatically not known," the latter of which being what I'd have to have
                                written for his argument to have any validity. But I didn't. Some linguist.

                                We also have, perhaps with better excuse, his failing to remember that in
                                an earlier post I drew the precise distinction he's insisting on here. I
                                wrote: "it wasn't in big flashing headlines, so it was easily missed. This
                                was not exactly a news story on the level of, say, September 11th." You
                                couldn't read a newspaper the next day and fail to notice that one. You
                                could read one and fail to notice J.K. Rowling. There's a difference.

                                Also: if I understand the timing correctly, Pat posted on the same day that
                                he read the Rowling news. I'm not sure how early on that day, but by
                                comparison there were actually people in the world, not out in a desert or
                                on top of a mountain, who didn't hear about the September 11th attacks
                                until much later in the day. They might even have first heard about the
                                attacks by reading someone's e-mail. I heard about them in a telephone
                                call, not from a media news source at all. Only after the call, and
                                because of it, did I turn on the radio.


                                >The fact
                                >is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
                                >major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
                                >which happened to be USA Today.

                                Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall Pat
                                saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about the Rowling
                                thing.

                                If he conducted that Google search of his before sending his first post on
                                the subject to the list, then I apologize. But I got the impression, when
                                he wrote of his search, that he had conducted it _after_ the complaint was
                                made, and did so for the purpose of defending his claim that the news was
                                wide-spread.

                                If these suppositions are correct, then it was the appearance of the news
                                in USA Today, and not the results of the Google search, that led Pat to
                                assume the news would be no spoiler. That is why I referred to USA Today.

                                In any case, if you see a news item on USA Today, you don't need a Google
                                search to reasonably conclude that it will be widespread elsewhere. All
                                the Google search provided was concrete evidence of that conclusion. It is
                                not wrong to make that conclusion, Google search or no Google search. But
                                that still makes it no less incorrect to conclude that everybody in your
                                readership will therefore have heard the news in the same day. That is the
                                point, and the whole point.


                                >> It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
                                >> gossip columns were expected of members
                                >Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
                                >absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
                                >either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

                                Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place where
                                _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all. And I am one of
                                those who is being told that I should not have missed this story. Which
                                requires me to have read the gossip column, since I didn't see the thing on
                                any web searching I did that day either.

                                Even if you disallow that, the general point is still relevant. The men
                                who did not know Ava Gardner or Tito were not the type to be checking daily
                                newspapers every morning for the hot feature news items. And this is a
                                feature story. It's not September 11th. You seem to have trouble grasping
                                the difference.

                                DB
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                ... I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling s spoilers yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today homepage . THREE.
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 30, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:44 AM, David Bratman wrote:

                                  > Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall
                                  > Pat saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about
                                  > the Rowling thing.

                                  "I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling's "spoilers"
                                  yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today
                                  homepage".

                                  THREE. Including AP and Reuters.

                                  > Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place
                                  > where _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all.
                                  > And I am one of those who is being told that I should not have
                                  > missed this story. Which requires me to have read the gossip
                                  > column, since I didn't see the thing on any web searching I did
                                  > that day either.

                                  So is everyone now required to poll YOU before we decide to comment
                                  upon a news item or any other piece of information?

                                  I'd ask YOU to spend some time in front of the mirror today
                                  reflecting on the fact that you've gone out of your way to publicly
                                  insult at least three people on this list, at least two of whom count
                                  you as a friend, all in order to establish that, despite it being
                                  reported in all the major news outlets, YOU didn't read or hear a
                                  news item concerning a wildly popular series of books, and that
                                  therefore it was wrong for Pat to trust his instinct that most people
                                  HAD already heard the news item, again despite it having appeared in
                                  at least three major news outlets; all because Pat posted a
                                  lighthearted comment concerning a POSSIBLE development in a series of
                                  books that you've already stated you don't care about.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.