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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Rowling and spoilers and bears, oh my!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.