Discussion:
My Review: Deathly Hallows Part Two
(too old to reply)
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 20:31:01 UTC
Permalink
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.

Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).

I don't know what film the critics are watching but...

I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.

Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.

I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?

Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?

O well.

There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.

<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>

O well.

Grade: C
--
http://lucylou.livejournal.com/593585.html
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 20:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
O well.
Grade: C
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
She was done @ DH Part One. DH2 gets in her way and adds nothing to
her resume.
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Callie Khouri or Kenneth Branagh were up for Director, that's raking
low in the barrel IMO. :-@
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Callie Khouri or Kenneth Branagh were up for Director, that's raking
Cuaron wanted GoF but couldn't handle the schedule and didn't want the
task of cutting an enormously padded book down to movie size.
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Callie Khouri or Kenneth Branagh were up for Director, that's raking
Cuaron wanted GoF but couldn't handle the schedule and didn't want the
task of cutting an enormously padded book down to movie size.
Padded? But Rowling said every word was required. lol
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Callie Khouri or Kenneth Branagh were up for Director, that's raking
Cuaron wanted GoF but couldn't handle the schedule and didn't want the
task of cutting an enormously padded book down to movie size.
Padded? But Rowling said every word was required. lol
The famous complaint of Emperor Joseph II about The Marriage of Figaro
- "too many notes, Mozart" - is generally perceived to be a gaffe by a
blockhead. In fact, Joseph was echoing what nearly everybody, including
his admirers, said about Mozart: he was so imaginative that he couldn't
turn it off, and that made his music at times intense, even demonic.
Hence Mozart 's bad, or cautionary, reviews: "too strongly spiced";
"impenetrable labyrinths"; "bizarre flights of the soul"; "overloaded
and overstuffed".

JKR by this time has been ordained the Queen Of Modern Literature;
looks like she got the overimagination bug. ;-)
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-28 19:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
her resume.
Spot on. She lied like a dog in her pre-DH2 interviews fawning all
over the movie I could swear I saw a little holding back especially
having to do the kiss explanation thing 5million times. lol
When she does Beauty and the Beast, she will get her first serious role
with a producer who shot down HP. Guillermo del Toro turned down the
offer claiming the series seemed too “bright and happy and full of
light”. l-)
PoA got Cuaron which Watson claims is her favorite movie because of
him. This is where the Guillermo del Toro deal became easy they are
alike.
Callie Khouri or Kenneth Branagh were up for Director, that's raking
Cuaron wanted GoF but couldn't handle the schedule and didn't want the
task of cutting an enormously padded book down to movie size.
Padded? But Rowling said every word was required. lol
With her constant yabbering post-text all things HP future, I'm sure
she could have written another 4100 pages. Then she would have no HP
Encyclopedia.

Or anything to yabber on about and force the cameras to rotate in her
yabber-direction.
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
Yeah at times she looked bored. Now she loves flying dragons for half
a friggin day when less than a year ago she hated the *thought* of
flying.
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 23:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
C+
Look, I have to admit, two of the three showings I went had
PotterBookNutts shouting out the lines from the book. Then there were
the non book readers who apparently had not read a preview or seen a
trailer, they kept gasping at all the death.

It was enough to gag a mongoose I tell ya'!
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-28 00:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
C+
Look, I have to admit, two of the three showings I went had
PotterBookNutts shouting out the lines from the book. Then there were
the non book readers who apparently had not read a preview or seen a
trailer, they kept gasping at all the death.
It was enough to gag a mongoose I tell ya'!
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times): "'Harry Potter' now possesses an end
that befits the most profitable series in movie history. ... [A] solid
and satisfying conclusion."

Kenneth Turan (LA Times): "'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows --
Part 2' turns out to be more than the last of its kind. Almost
magically, it ends up being one of the best of the series as well."

David Edelstein (New York Magazine): "Expecto Patronum, it is! 'HPATDH
2' works like a charm."

Peter Rainer (Christian Science Monitor): "The collective emotion
arising from the last installment of the "Harry Potter" franchise ...
is a sense of loss. Even for those of us who have not found the films
transcendent, there is some regret."

*Salon (Andrew O'Hehir): "[T]his final installment, driven far less by
acting and characterization than any of the preceding seven, fails the
Peter Jackson test of becoming an affecting and absorbing work on its
own terms."
Sirius Black
2011-07-28 00:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
C+
Look, I have to admit, two of the three showings I went had
PotterBookNutts shouting out the lines from the book. Then there were
the non book readers who apparently had not read a preview or seen a
trailer, they kept gasping at all the death.
It was enough to gag a mongoose I tell ya'!
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times): "'Harry Potter' now possesses an end
that befits the most profitable series in movie history. ... [A] solid
and satisfying conclusion."
Ebert can have "solid and satisfying" I wanted more.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Kenneth Turan (LA Times): "'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows --
Part 2' turns out to be more than the last of its kind. Almost
magically, it ends up being one of the best of the series as well."
David Edelstein (New York Magazine): "Expecto Patronum, it is! 'HPATDH
2' works like a charm."
Peter Rainer (Christian Science Monitor): "The collective emotion
arising from the last installment of the "Harry Potter" franchise ...
is a sense of loss. Even for those of us who have not found the films
transcendent, there is some regret."
*Salon (Andrew O'Hehir): "[T]his final installment, driven far less by
acting and characterization than any of the preceding seven, fails the
Peter Jackson test of becoming an affecting and absorbing work on its
own terms."
This.
Phil
2011-10-03 23:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
C+ - I thought Emma Watson looked like she couldn't wait to get the
movie over. :-?
And get into more naughty and revealing roles, perhaps ?
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.

I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
Trust me de-rail and wail away. The movie doesn't require or expect
any more comment. What a let down. ;(
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 21:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
Trust me de-rail and wail away. The movie doesn't require or expect
any more comment. What a let down. ;(
Maybe if you had dropped your acid at the right time? :-? l-)
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
Trust me de-rail and wail away. The movie doesn't require or expect
any more comment. What a let down. ;(
Maybe if you had dropped your acid at the right time? :-? l-)
Wouldn't have made a difference unless peaking at the finale was
considered bad timing. Hell, ITC, it was. lol
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 21:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 21:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 22:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 22:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 22:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 22:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 22:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept. Text
only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material from
interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Feel left out? Grow up.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-27 22:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept.
Text only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material
from interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Feel left out? Grow up.
lol

OK OK XM radio is true the rest... :/
Sirius Black
2011-07-27 22:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept.
Text only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material
from interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Feel left out? Grow up.
lol
OK OK XM radio is true the rest... :/
har - My bet then is he gives the movie an "A" for "all about the
money he made".
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-27 22:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Grade: C
B- for botching the finale. Don't care what the book said, it was
still cinematically blah.
Not a canonite Wil? :D
What's canon? I see three lines of thought on this canon concept.
Text only, everything JKR says/does and text + "relevant" material
from interviews, etc.
Agreed.
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm a text only guy because the movies are nothing more than
entertainment and in the text is the story.
Sucking up to Dix? :-Z Can we derail Sirius' thread even more? B-)
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Feel left out? Grow up.
lol
OK OK XM radio is true the rest... :/
har - My bet then is he gives the movie an "A" for "all about the
money he made".
Victor made his money on the software side, he never would tell what
super-secret stuff that his company was coding for Universal. Good
enough to make him a VIP.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-28 19:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
I'm taking over while Dix is in Orlando. Get over it.
Orlando Leaky Con?
That and the Fall celebration, he has been hired for it.
The midnight showing on the 15-16th and they made him go to the park
afterwards. Free was key for Victor. :D
Aw fuck No. Siriously? Damn lucky dude. <finger>
:oÞ That isn't the half of it. He turned down being a speaker but I
think he did an interview on XM radio and played drums with Harry
Potter and the Potters and introduced "Harry Potter Page To Screen: The
Complete Filmmaking Journey" which he will personally distribute to
store shelves in October 2011 all 500-pages as a look at the Potter
film franchise. :oÞ
Bullshit...lol
Feel left out? Grow up.
lol
OK OK XM radio is true the rest... :/
har - My bet then is he gives the movie an "A" for "all about the
money he made".
Victor made his money on the software side, he never would tell what
super-secret stuff that his company was coding for Universal. Good
enough to make him a VIP.
Are you being serious? It's hard to tell with that deadpan face of
yours. :-Z
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-28 13:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Who marries Rolf Scamander and has two sons Lorcan and Lysander.
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-28 13:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Neville marries Hannah Abbott (Hufflepuff)
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-28 14:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.

Good for making this point.

When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed –- especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.

It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.

It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Sirius Black
2011-07-28 15:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed –- especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
You can forget that idea. Rowling has her eyes on the moohlah and
there is no moolah in SingTFU.
Chan Welbourne
2011-07-28 19:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^

Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
Wilford Dumont
2011-07-28 19:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 13:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling’s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It’s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn’t – she
should sit down and keep writing. :-@
Wilford Dumont
2011-08-05 13:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling’s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It’s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn’t – she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 14:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling’s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It’s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn’t – she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
Unlike George Steinbrenner, Rowling is a born liar *yet* to be
convicted. lol
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 14:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
On July 10, 2000 in the Newsweek interview, JKR said regarding LOTR:

“I read that when I was about 14.”

In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)

So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
John M.
2011-08-05 14:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
Let's talk Narnia:

JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.

1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html

1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html

1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html

2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm

2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.

Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm

2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm

2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
--

Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 14:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Wilford Dumont
2011-08-05 14:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 15:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.

IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Wilford Dumont
2011-08-05 15:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the future
story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an author is not
simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but making
utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a global network
of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a gratifying effect as a
deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in a
book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's just
describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her head.
It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures of
HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not happening.
JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will give her a
place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 15:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the
future story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an
author is not simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but
making utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a
global network of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a
gratifying effect as a deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in
a book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's
just describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her
head. It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures
of HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not
happening. JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will
give her a place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
I currently expect very little from JKR’s commentary on the story.
Pre-DH, it was understandable that she’d hedge and hold back, but
post-DH is another matter. To my knowledge, she hasn’t given an
interview in the to anyone who has explored the books deeply and
intelligently (I hope to find out I’m wrong).

If she’s only granting access to the Anelli’s and Emerson’s of HP
fandom, whose devotion to JKR and the story border on idolatry, then I
have no hope at all because she’ll only be asked easy questions and
there won’t be any intellectually rigorous follow-up.

Usenet newsgroups like this take the position that the story has much,
much more depth and complexity than is acknowledged by all but a
minority of fans and critics. Yet so far when JKR is asked a question —
a fairly good starting question that touches on the deeper meanings in
the story — she typically IMO gives a relatively thin answer relative
to what I hope and expect she could give. And sometimes she doesn’t
appear to remember exactly what she wrote as is the case here.

I don't know if she has dodged the alchemy questions or hasn't been
asked or won't allow it to be asked. :'(
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 15:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the
future story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an
author is not simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did, but
making utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by a
global network of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a
gratifying effect as a deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it in
a book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned, she's
just describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen inside her
head. It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures
of HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not
happening. JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will
give her a place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence in
J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start writing.
It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in Harry Potter
and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
I currently expect very little from JKR’s commentary on the story.
Pre-DH, it was understandable that she’d hedge and hold back, but
post-DH is another matter. To my knowledge, she hasn’t given an
interview in the to anyone who has explored the books deeply and
intelligently (I hope to find out I’m wrong).
If she’s only granting access to the Anelli’s and Emerson’s of HP
fandom, whose devotion to JKR and the story border on idolatry, then I
have no hope at all because she’ll only be asked easy questions and
there won’t be any intellectually rigorous follow-up.
Usenet newsgroups like this take the position that the story has much,
much more depth and complexity than is acknowledged by all but a
minority of fans and critics. Yet so far when JKR is asked a question —
a fairly good starting question that touches on the deeper meanings in
the story — she typically IMO gives a relatively thin answer relative
to what I hope and expect she could give. And sometimes she doesn’t
appear to remember exactly what she wrote as is the case here.
I don't know if she has dodged the alchemy questions or hasn't been
asked or won't allow it to be asked. :'(
Re-read OOTP and the issue of the veil and Rowling's "memory lapse"
regarding Ron being scared of it. WTF?

In the one interview, JKR said, “Ron’s just scared, as I think Ron
would be – he just knows this is something he doesn’t want to dabble
with.” Bullshit.

Reread the section, you’ll see that Ron was not at all frightened of
the veil nor was he entranced by it as Harry, Ginny, and Neville
were. Ron appears to have been curious about it (enough to examine
it), but there isn’t a skif of a suggestion that he was afraid of it.
When they left the room, Hermione pulled the entranced Ginny from the
veil while Ron pulled the entranced Neville from it. There is no
suggestion that Ron was affected by the veil or evidence that he
heard the voices.
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 15:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the
future story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an
author is not simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did,
but making utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by
a global network of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a
gratifying effect as a deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it
in a book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned,
she's just describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen
inside her head. It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures
of HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not
happening. JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will
give her a place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence
in J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start
writing. It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in
Harry Potter and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
I currently expect very little from JKR’s commentary on the story.
Pre-DH, it was understandable that she’d hedge and hold back, but
post-DH is another matter. To my knowledge, she hasn’t given an
interview in the to anyone who has explored the books deeply and
intelligently (I hope to find out I’m wrong).
If she’s only granting access to the Anelli’s and Emerson’s of HP
fandom, whose devotion to JKR and the story border on idolatry, then I
have no hope at all because she’ll only be asked easy questions and
there won’t be any intellectually rigorous follow-up.
Usenet newsgroups like this take the position that the story has much,
much more depth and complexity than is acknowledged by all but a
minority of fans and critics. Yet so far when JKR is asked a question —
a fairly good starting question that touches on the deeper meanings in
the story — she typically IMO gives a relatively thin answer relative
to what I hope and expect she could give. And sometimes she doesn’t
appear to remember exactly what she wrote as is the case here.
I don't know if she has dodged the alchemy questions or hasn't been
asked or won't allow it to be asked. :'(
Re-read OOTP and the issue of the veil and Rowling's "memory lapse"
regarding Ron being scared of it. WTF?
In the one interview,
That was with Anelli.
Post by Sirius Black
JKR said, “Ron’s just scared, as I think Ron
would be – he just knows this is something he doesn’t want to dabble
with.” Bullshit.
Reread the section, you’ll see that Ron was not at all frightened of
the veil nor was he entranced by it as Harry, Ginny, and Neville
were. Ron appears to have been curious about it (enough to examine
it), but there isn’t a skif of a suggestion that he was afraid of it.
When they left the room, Hermione pulled the entranced Ginny from the
veil while Ron pulled the entranced Neville from it. There is no
suggestion that Ron was affected by the veil or evidence that he
heard the voices.
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 18:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the
future story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an
author is not simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did,
but making utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed by
a global network of Web sites -- it seems to have not so much a
gratifying effect as a deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it
in a book, because until she does, then as far as I'm concerned,
she's just describing what's showing on the teeny TV screen
inside her head. It's time she shut up. Welcome to PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the futures
of HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not
happening. JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will
give her a place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to your
side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has influence
in J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking and start
writing. It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more investment in
Harry Potter and is not able or willing to let it go. Then she
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed liar
and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven by her
innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read LOTR
at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while at
university and apparently read the story from beginning to end. There
is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never ever
finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what she
said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis,
I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still re-reads
The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along with
other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes I
did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on as
if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to say.
8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
I currently expect very little from JKR’s commentary on the story.
Pre-DH, it was understandable that she’d hedge and hold back, but
post-DH is another matter. To my knowledge, she hasn’t given an
interview in the to anyone who has explored the books deeply and
intelligently (I hope to find out I’m wrong).
If she’s only granting access to the Anelli’s and Emerson’s of HP
fandom, whose devotion to JKR and the story border on idolatry, then I
have no hope at all because she’ll only be asked easy questions and
there won’t be any intellectually rigorous follow-up.
Usenet newsgroups like this take the position that the story has much,
much more depth and complexity than is acknowledged by all but a
minority of fans and critics. Yet so far when JKR is asked a question —
a fairly good starting question that touches on the deeper meanings in
the story — she typically IMO gives a relatively thin answer relative
to what I hope and expect she could give. And sometimes she doesn’t
appear to remember exactly what she wrote as is the case here.
I don't know if she has dodged the alchemy questions or hasn't been
asked or won't allow it to be asked. :'(
Re-read OOTP and the issue of the veil and Rowling's "memory lapse"
regarding Ron being scared of it. WTF?
In the one interview,
That was with Anelli.
Ugh!
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
JKR said, “Ron’s just scared, as I think Ron
would be – he just knows this is something he doesn’t want to dabble
with.” Bullshit.
Reread the section, you’ll see that Ron was not at all frightened of
the veil nor was he entranced by it as Harry, Ginny, and Neville
were. Ron appears to have been curious about it (enough to examine
it), but there isn’t a skif of a suggestion that he was afraid of it.
When they left the room, Hermione pulled the entranced Ginny from the
veil while Ron pulled the entranced Neville from it. There is no
suggestion that Ron was affected by the veil or evidence that he
heard the voices.
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
So you think the Oprah interview wasn't pulsating and depth charged?
lol
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 18:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
2007 link.
Good for making this point.
When too much of the back story (and, more disconcertingly, the
future story) gets revealed - especially in an age in which an
author is not simply sending letters to readers as Tolkien did,
but making utterances that will be disseminated and analyzed
by a global network of Web sites -- it seems to have not so
much a gratifying effect as a deadening one.
It is irritating. Rowling's loquaciousness (thanks HJG) and
fortune-telling. If she wants to tell us what happens, write it
in a book, because until she does, then as far as I'm
concerned, she's just describing what's showing on the teeny
TV screen inside her head. It's time she shut up. Welcome to
PotterLess.
Ah, yes, a text only canonist speaks. ^^
Don't pay attention to her when she "yabbers on" about the
futures of HP and Crew. B-)
A dog vomits and self-restraint keeps you from looking? Not
happening. JKR is ever prescient, I'm hoping that Pottermore will
give her a place to hole up.
Wil, I thought a lot about your post and find myself falling to
your side of this argument. I hope someone, somewhere who has
influence in J.K. Rowling¡¦s life will tell her to stop talking
and start writing. It¡¦s obvious that she has a whole lot more
investment in Harry Potter and is not able or willing to let it
go. Then she shouldn¡¦t ¡V she should sit down and keep writing.
You can't trust JKR's extra-text blitherings. She's a confirmed
liar and imo a supraegoist, the latter bought by money and driven
by her innate insecurities.
“I read that when I was about 14.”
In a 2000 interview on Scholastic.com, Rowling said she had read
LOTR at age 19
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm)
So JKR herself confirmed in two interviews that she read LOTR while
at university and apparently read the story from beginning to end.
There is no way to verify the assertions of JKR’s ex-husband and
ex-mother-in-law, but in the March 2001 BBC interview, JKR – without
prompting from the reporter – wanted to make it clear that she never
read LOTR more than once. Then, inexplicably, in the 2005 Time
interview with Grossman, she seems to have claimed that she never
ever finished LOTR. >:|
JKR’s references to CS Lewis and Narnia changed abruptly from what
she said between 1997-2001 to what she said in 2005. In her earliest
interviews, she strongly gives the impression that she deeply loves
the Narnia books, having joyously read them as a child (even many
times) and then again as an adult. Then suddenly in her 2005
interviews, she backed away from them, claimed not to have read all
of them, and as John pointed out, particularly criticized the content
of the final book while simultaneously claiming never to have read
it.
1997: “Rowling read and loved [Kes] as a child, but she also revelled
in [Narnia] and [Ballet Shoes] and Paul Gallico. Yet she says that
fantasy doesn’t greatly appeal to her.” Electronic Telegraph, 2
August 1997
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1997/0897-telegraph-dunn.html
1998: “[Rowling] loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a
fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she
read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she
would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one
of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.””
Electronic Telegraph, 25 July 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html
1998: “Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S.
Lewis, I have a problem with his imitators.” At 33, Rowling still
re-reads The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best) along
with other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel
Streatfield. The Australian, 7 November 1998
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1198-australian-blakeney.html
2001: Q. Did you read the Narnia books when you were a child? A. Yes
I did and I liked them though all the Christian symbolism utterly
escaped me it was only when I re-read them later in life that it
struck me forcibly. Comic Relief, March 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm
2001: “I found myself thinking about the wardrobe route to Narnia [in
the CS Lewis series including The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe]
when Harry is told he has to hurl himself at a barrier in Kings Cross
Station – it dissolves and he’s on platform Nine and Three-Quarters,
and there’s the train for Hogwarts.
Narnia is literally a different world, whereas in the Harry books you
go into a world within a world that you can see if you happen to
belong. A lot of the humour comes from collisions between the magic
and the everyday worlds. Generally there isn’t much humour in the
Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so
caught up I didn’t think CS Lewis was especially preachy. Reading
them now I find that his subliminal message isn’t very subliminal at
all.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 28, 2001
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1001-sydney-renton.htm
2005: “I actually didn’t read a lot of fantasy, funnily enough, and
although I did read the Narnia books but I never finished the series,
I never read the final book and I still haven’t read it.” ITV, 16
July 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm
2005: “Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t
even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get
compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality
about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where
Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes
interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because
she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.” Time
Magazine, 17 July, 2005
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
Lev Grossman was onboard with this sentiment when he wrote the Time
article in 2005. It’s absurd to hear her, after years of claiming to
have read and reread the Narnia stories both as a child and adult,
state that she never read the final book. Maybe she became
self-conscious about effusively praising the Narnia books for so many
years, so she felt she needed to redeem herself among
politically-correct writers and critics by “realizing” that she hadn’t
read that awful last book after all. And if she truly hadn’t read the
last book despite all those rereads over the years, I’d have more
respect for her if she had taken the time to read the last book,
considered carefully what Lewis was saying, instead of blathering on
as if Warner Brothers was poking her in the ribs telling her what to
say. 8-o
Thank you for this argument that is as close to a demonstration as we
will get that “text first” with some knowledge of English literature
and the context in which the author works is a more dependable, surer
point of reference than the author’s extra-textual spin.
For whatever reasons, authors in general are liars and Rowling as one
member of that tribe simply should not be considered the sure source
for learning either what they meant in their writing or what
influenced their work.
IOW, she/they need to STFU.
Let their books tell those with ears to hear what the texts will.
I currently expect very little from JKR’s commentary on the story.
Pre-DH, it was understandable that she’d hedge and hold back, but
post-DH is another matter. To my knowledge, she hasn’t given an
interview in the to anyone who has explored the books deeply and
intelligently (I hope to find out I’m wrong).
If she’s only granting access to the Anelli’s and Emerson’s of HP
fandom, whose devotion to JKR and the story border on idolatry, then I
have no hope at all because she’ll only be asked easy questions and
there won’t be any intellectually rigorous follow-up.
Usenet newsgroups like this take the position that the story has much,
much more depth and complexity than is acknowledged by all but a
minority of fans and critics. Yet so far when JKR is asked a question —
a fairly good starting question that touches on the deeper meanings in
the story — she typically IMO gives a relatively thin answer relative
to what I hope and expect she could give. And sometimes she doesn’t
appear to remember exactly what she wrote as is the case here.
I don't know if she has dodged the alchemy questions or hasn't been
asked or won't allow it to be asked. :'(
Re-read OOTP and the issue of the veil and Rowling's "memory lapse"
regarding Ron being scared of it. WTF?
In the one interview,
That was with Anelli.
Ugh!
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
JKR said, “Ron’s just scared, as I think Ron
would be – he just knows this is something he doesn’t want to dabble
with.” Bullshit.
Reread the section, you’ll see that Ron was not at all frightened of
the veil nor was he entranced by it as Harry, Ginny, and Neville
were. Ron appears to have been curious about it (enough to examine
it), but there isn’t a skif of a suggestion that he was afraid of it.
When they left the room, Hermione pulled the entranced Ginny from the
veil while Ron pulled the entranced Neville from it. There is no
suggestion that Ron was affected by the veil or evidence that he
heard the voices.
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
So you think the Oprah interview wasn't pulsating and depth charged?
lol
Hardly. >:|

I want Keith Olbermann or Tim Russert to get her on a live interview.
Sirius Black
2011-08-11 23:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-11 23:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ

The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.


“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.

Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
Sirius Black
2011-08-11 23:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-11 23:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol

That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.

What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
John M.
2011-08-11 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.

Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.

I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
--
http://youtu.be/xQVbBjgBS6A
Sirius Black
2011-08-11 23:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.
Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.
I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
I got one. I got one. Kreacher’s Tale.

Of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder my Black family is
all but extinct. lol

So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn’t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.

How dumb is that?
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-11 23:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.
Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.
I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
I got one. I got one. Kreacher’s Tale.
Of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder my Black family is
all but extinct. lol
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn’t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I used to keep a Live Journal of all the discrepancies, had to quit. It
took all my time, ruined the books and was so long it was unreadable.

Point is, Rowling knew and she didn't care. It's almost like she did it
on purpose.
Sirius Black
2011-08-12 00:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.
Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.
I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
I got one. I got one. Kreacher’s Tale.
Of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder my Black family is
all but extinct. lol
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn’t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I used to keep a Live Journal of all the discrepancies, had to quit. It
took all my time, ruined the books and was so long it was unreadable.
Point is, Rowling knew and she didn't care. It's almost like she did it
on purpose.
...to fuck with out heads, yeah, no doubt about it. “Voldemort is
playing a very clever game" and so is Rowling.

*NOT* How stupid does she think her readers are? DH is an 800 page "go
fuck yourself" slap in the face not counting the cartoonish
characters. Counting them it's a "go fuck yourself with a dry corn
cob".
Wilford Dumont
2011-08-12 00:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.
Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.
I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
I got one. I got one. Kreacher’s Tale.
Of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder my Black family is
all but extinct. lol
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn’t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I used to keep a Live Journal of all the discrepancies, had to quit. It
took all my time, ruined the books and was so long it was unreadable.
Point is, Rowling knew and she didn't care. It's almost like she did it
on purpose.
...to fuck with out heads, yeah, no doubt about it. “Voldemort is
playing a very clever game" and so is Rowling.
*NOT* How stupid does she think her readers are? DH is an 800 page "go
fuck yourself" slap in the face not counting the cartoonish
characters. Counting them it's a "go fuck yourself with a dry corn
cob".
Like I said, you can't trust her interviews, you can't trust anything
she wrote extra-text and you can't trust the text. There really isn't
a canon except for those parts of the text that are trustworthy. I'm
not interested in working a Simms diagram to ream out the crap from
the keep.
VD
2011-08-12 00:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by John M.
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
I do believe there would be interest and value in having JKR comment on
the books on a deep level, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We would certainly get better answers from her if she allowed
interviews with people who will challenge her about the deeper meaning
of the books, but will she? And if she does, I hope she gives the
series a reread first. B-)
Rowling knows her books are full of timeline problems, misdirections
and downright awful mistakes. She isn't about to let a Victor Dix or
you or John or Wil get their hands on her. It would be damned
embarrassing.
Thanks! :oÞ
The worst of the worst was when Dumbledore makes this statement toward
the end of the first chapter of PS/SS in response to Minerva’s fussing
over the excessive jubilation attendant upon the fall of the Dark Lord.
“We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” He goes on
to underline the matter by stating on the following page that for
eleven years he has been trying to persuade people to call
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by his proper name, Voldemort.
Looking back, we should have known that JKR was going to play foot
loose and fancy free with timelines from that glaring error alone. :/
What's wrong with that?
Do the math. lol
That statement was made in 1981. Less 11 = 1970. In 1996 Fudge claims
to have be hunting LV for 30 years. 1996-30 = 1966.
What's this boils down to is JKR didn't give a damn. :-[
I will one up you, she didn't respect or care for her characters
either. We are also expected to believe that the Harry who mended
Demelza Roberts’s split lip from a collision in Quidditch practice
without problems in HBP suddenly doesn’t know how to heal wounds by
Chapter 2 in DHs. It makes him look like a real dumbcluck.
Or the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents
personal histories and pack them off to Australia by chapter 6, and
yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters
later. This is one of the reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t
actually edited at all. JKR didn't care enough to do the editing,
someone did the proofreading and would have had to catch this error.
I know 11 year old schoolchildren that did so JKR said to heck with
it.
I got one. I got one. Kreacher’s Tale.
Of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder my Black family is
all but extinct. lol
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn’t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I used to keep a Live Journal of all the discrepancies, had to quit. It
took all my time, ruined the books and was so long it was unreadable.
Point is, Rowling knew and she didn't care. It's almost like she did it
on purpose.
...to fuck with out heads, yeah, no doubt about it. “Voldemort is
playing a very clever game" and so is Rowling.
*NOT* How stupid does she think her readers are? DH is an 800 page "go
fuck yourself" slap in the face not counting the cartoonish
characters. Counting them it's a "go fuck yourself with a dry corn
cob".
Like I said, you can't trust her interviews, you can't trust anything
she wrote extra-text and you can't trust the text. There really isn't
a canon except for those parts of the text that are trustworthy. I'm
not interested in working a Simms diagram to ream out the crap from
the keep.
This is my favorite book in the series! It’s so messed-up we can talk
about it for YEARS! :0)

No, I'd rather not. It is painful.

Instead, let's say the Ms. Rowling was so concerned about her
alchemical statement, hidden Christian agenda and other things od
similar matter that she dropped the ball on the simple stuff. :)
--
http://harrypotterforseekers.com/alchemy/alchemy.php
<http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/resources/documents/chymical_wedding.pdf>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages?o=1
Igenlode Wordsmith
2011-08-23 20:29:33 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn‘t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I never really understood that one either...

I suspect it's a case of having come up with a predetermined plot point
while planning the whole story in outline, which then 'had to have
happened' (because subsequent events had been hung on it).

In other words, it was probably established early on that Sirius Black
had a brother who sacrificed his life to destroy one of the Horcruxes
(just as James had to have "saved the life" of Snape, who hated him);
but when she came to write the specifics of both sections, the
explanation she came up with didn't quite match up to the ringing
grandeur of the original idea :-(
Post by Chan Welbourne
I used to keep a Live Journal of all the discrepancies, had to quit. It
took all my time, ruined the books and was so long it was unreadable.
Point is, Rowling knew and she didn't care. It's almost like she did it
on purpose.
We long since came to the conclusion that Rowling has a basic blind
spot for figures (see the whole 'number of pupils at Hogwarts'
controversy, not to mention the Deathday Party and other attempts to pin
down a consistent timeline).

Added to that, I think there is the problem that she got 'too big to
edit' (rarely a good stage for an author: a good editor is a blessing)
and that she is basically not of the scientifically-minded type that
would be capable of compiling all the cross-references and indexes
needed to keep track of consistency in a series of that length.

Some authors do (Georgette Heyer, for example, may have written Regency
comedies but she had a vast and complex card-index system to make sure
she got the historical allusions -- events, fashions, slang all
specific down to a particular year -- as accurate as possible:
Tolkien agonised about lexical derivations for snippets of elven
speech and drew up a chart to eliminate inconsistencies in his phases
of the moon), but I don't think Rowling could, or would, or at the start
ever envisioned its mattering to millions of readers some day...

So no, I don't think she cared too much about absolute consistency: her
talent was always (so far as I was concerned) in the embroidery of minor
detail in her world-building. She has a deaf ear for romance (and angst;
she has a much better grasp of children's emotions than of adults', or
at least is better at depicting them), she likes to trail red herrings
both in interviews and in her books, and she has a weak spot where
numbers are concerned. She also has a tendency to get lost in her
sub-plots.

But she did manage to produce some very vivid characters and settings,
and to fascinate a lot of people with the content of her books... we had
more fun anticipating them and analysing the inconsistencies than we did
in reading them, really!
--
Igenlode Visit the Ivory Tower http://ivory.vlexofree.com/Tower/

* The old that is strong does not wither *
Sky Rider
2011-08-29 08:00:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:29:33 +0100, Igenlode Wordsmith
Post by Igenlode Wordsmith
[snip]
Post by Sirius Black
So, let me get this straight: Regulus boasted, in writing, of his
intention to destroy the Locket, then suicided (unnecessarily, since
it sounds like he didn‘t have to die) in a grand gesture, in order to
steal it, and made no attempt to destroy it whatsoever. Leaving it up
to his House Elf to actually perform that task.
How dumb is that?
I never really understood that one either...
I suspect it's a case of having come up with a predetermined plot point
while planning the whole story in outline, which then 'had to have
happened' (because subsequent events had been hung on it).
In other words, it was probably established early on that Sirius Black
had a brother who sacrificed his life to destroy one of the Horcruxes
(just as James had to have "saved the life" of Snape, who hated him);
but when she came to write the specifics of both sections, the
explanation she came up with didn't quite match up to the ringing
grandeur of the original idea :-(
I never understood why Regulus didn't instruct Kreacher to save him
and take him back to Grimmauld Place. That is another part of the book
that furrows my brow. To me it isn't logical at all! :)
VD
2011-08-01 19:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie.
You ought to have seen it in http://www.d-box.com/ ;0)
--
http://harrypotterforseekers.com/alchemy/alchemy.php
<http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/resources/documents/chymical_wedding.pdf>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages?o=1
Sirius Black
2011-08-01 19:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie.
You ought to have seen it in http://www.d-box.com/ ;0)
Weak suace...
VD
2011-08-01 19:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie.
You ought to have seen it in http://www.d-box.com/ ;0)
Weak suace...
Not if it was your butt in the seat.

D-box experience, the motion was not overdone and it is user intensity
controlled. Dial in the amount of butt shimmy you desire. ;)

Along with 3D/IMAX, it was a real treat but(t) it isn't for everyone.
I wouldn't and didn't watch DH2 D-box initially.
--
http://harrypotterforseekers.com/alchemy/alchemy.php
<http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/resources/documents/chymical_wedding.pdf>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages?o=1
Trevor
2011-08-01 20:40:37 UTC
Permalink
the WeaseLey/Granger kiss<yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12?
I thought it was pretty good after all that had led up to it. What did
you expect them to do, rip each others' clothes off?

- Trevor
VD
2011-08-05 17:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.

Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.

Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.

I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.

It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.

After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)

Grade: B
--
http://harrypotterforseekers.com/alchemy/alchemy.php
<http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/resources/documents/chymical_wedding.pdf>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages?o=1
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 17:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 17:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.

I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.

Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 17:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 17:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 17:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^

Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 18:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.



Btw, this look at all familiar?

<Loading Image...>

<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-05 18:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
;o)

I don't think Emma shows the same ability that ET did at the same age
*but* ET had Jane Eyre, National Velvet and a couple of Lassie episodes
under her hat. :-)

I read that Emma wants to do Broadway, author, write, produce, direct,
act and make the popcorn but I wouldn't at all be surprised if she
ended up cutting all that adventure shortish to become a mother.
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 18:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
;o)
I don't think Emma shows the same ability that ET did at the same age
*but* ET had Jane Eyre, National Velvet and a couple of Lassie episodes
under her hat. :-)
I read that Emma wants to do Broadway, author, write, produce, direct,
act and make the popcorn but I wouldn't at all be surprised if she
ended up cutting all that adventure shortish to become a mother.
Me either but she has decades to do whatever it is she wants.
Wilford Dumont
2011-08-05 18:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Give it up. You're never getting any.
Sirius Black
2011-08-05 18:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
I swore I wasn't gonna do this but "O Well". Went three times before I
wrote this.
Nice eye candy it was, 3D/IMAX wasn't overpowering the movie. Reviews
continue to tell me how this was the greatest of the series. Potential
Oscar winner (lol).
I don't know what film the critics are watching but...
I thought Neville was downright stupid. The limp, the hokey-pokey too
long "Long Live Harry" rah-rah bullshit, "Oh I'll kill the snake now",
miraculous no injury-no death fall from the destroyed
bridge...puhleeese.
Luna gets tough with Harry, the WeaseLey/Granger kiss <yawn> followed
by the "insane with Love" clown act (faces included) by Ron and Good
God Emma is all you could do is close your legs and hold hands like
you tow were 12? I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't into
this R-H shit.
I’ve enjoyed all the hp movies, and this one was no exception. I view
them as a sort of glorified semi-official
fanfiction. The additional Trio scene before Harry went to the forest
should have been in the book. It ranks up there with the (in)famous
dance scene in the last movie.
Having read the books x times and seen all the movies now, I’ll have
to say the films generally handle the romances among the trio better
than the books do. Not that this says much. Movie Ginny isn’t quite
the nonentity that Book Ginny is. At least she is visible much of the
time. The more attractive (to us and each other) film personalities
of Ron and Hermione help as well.
Post by Sirius Black
I guess the super-screwed Voldemort-Potter final duel is what did it
for me. WTF was that? He dies an extraordinary magical death, almost
evaporating but why? Isn't this the mortal Tom Riddle whose supposed
to be dying? A mortal death?
Voldemort doesn’t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesn’t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
O well.
The additional Hollywood junk, like the obligatory roller coaster
scene in Gringotts (ugh) and the heavily CGIed extended duel between
Harry and LV were par for the course in a contemporary action movie.
Go watch Princess Bride or one of the big MGM B&W swashbucklers to see
how it used to be done. There must have been some kind of cast
in-house joke about that bizarre down-the-shirt shot of Ms. Watson
during the arresto momentum sequence in Gringotts. I did hear a
couple people chuckle around me in the theater. :0)
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
O well.
Grade: C
The polyjuiced Bellatrix was delightful. That as well as polyjuiced
Ministry scene during the last movie were sheer genius, and much
needed comic relief.
I guess just considering the movies alone, the Prince’s Tale sequence
was effective. Rickman’s Snape is a much nicer guy than Book Snape.
Canon Snape is little more than a stalker. And who am I to complain?
My favorite character (Hermione) is influenced by the much less
shrewish Watson as well. Still, Snape hugging Lily’s corpse was
creepyish, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see the inevitable film remake/reboot of
Harry Potter down the road. There is just too much money to be made
for it not to happen.
After all, Hollywood is desperate enough for source material to make a
Smurf movie, and to remake Tron. ;)
Grade: B
Is it me or Dan? After GoF, he seemed as if he was really struggling to
get his hands around Harry. His performance in DH1/2 was surprising
albeit not Oscar level surprising. ;o)
I've had this argument before with the Aussie Trolls, Dumbo and Sky
Crapper et al. I pay zero attention to what these three kids HRH did;
there wasn't much acting allowed and the screenplay didn't give much
acting a chance.
I understand this, it's about the money. The last thing WB needed was
to have Rupert actually attempt to act (fail) or put DanRad in a
position where he had to pull off something Burtonesque. Ain't
happening.
Even Emma isn't /there/ yet as an actor.
*WHAT* Did you actually diss Emma Watson? l-)
Kinda Sorta Not Really. I still am yuching over her and Grint holding
hands and grinning like a couple of freshmen who found out one has a
wee-wee and the other... a teenier one. lol
^^
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Give it up. You're never getting any.
yeah yeah yeah yeah
VD
2011-08-06 04:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Give it up. You're never getting any.
yeah yeah yeah yeah
More like no no no? ;)

<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/celebrities/emma-watson-loved-up-with-co-star-126861843.html>

I pray for our pain. ;0)
--
http://harrypotterforseekers.com/alchemy/alchemy.php
<http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/resources/documents/chymical_wedding.pdf>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages?o=1
Chan Welbourne
2011-08-06 07:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Give it up. You're never getting any.
yeah yeah yeah yeah
More like no no no? ;)
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/celebrities/emma-watson-loved-up-with-co-star-126861843.html>
I pray for our pain. ;0)
:o)

Oh my, is Black going to be upset. :-(
Sirius Black
2011-08-07 00:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan Welbourne
Post by VD
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Wilford Dumont
Post by Sirius Black
Post by Chan Welbourne
Can she pull off Elizabeth Taylor?
Right now? Don't know but ET had some dog films (Cleopatra, VIPs) but
she had a real actor's part in her career - Velvet Brown - amazing
how startlingly beautiful she already was at 12 years old.
http://youtu.be/suyvmzPZAEI
Btw, this look at all familiar?
<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4500000/Liz-Taylor-elizabeth-taylor-4582577-296-222.jpg>
<http://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2552023/emma-watson-vogue-july-2011-03/>
Give it up. You're never getting any.
yeah yeah yeah yeah
More like no no no? ;)
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/celebrities/emma-watson-loved-up-with-co-star-126861843.html>
I pray for our pain. ;0)
:o)
Oh my, is Black going to be upset. :-(
Black is fine. Emma is fine. Hollywood gossips.
Timothy Bruening
2016-07-09 17:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Voldemort doesnοΏ½t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesnοΏ½t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
When Voldemort realized that his Horcruxes were being destroyed, why didn't he just make some more?
RC
2016-07-09 18:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Voldemort doesnοΏ½t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesnοΏ½t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
When Voldemort realized that his Horcruxes were being destroyed, why didn't he just make some more?
He would have to kill more people,work more dark magic and split himself some more. By the time he made more Horcruxes, there would be nothing left of him. Besides, he had the supper wand so what did he have to fear?
RC
Timothy Bruening
2016-07-10 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by RC
Post by Timothy Bruening
Voldemort doesnοΏ½t just happen to make some idiotic moral and tactical
errors and fail in his quest to evade death; the quest itself is the
failure. Tom fails to be a man because he doesnοΏ½t think a man is worth
being. Yet he gets to die like a supernaturalist?
When Voldemort realized that his Horcruxes were being destroyed, why didn't he just make some more?
He would have to kill more people,work more dark magic and split himself some more. By the time he made more Horcruxes, there would be nothing left of him. Besides, he had the supper wand so what did he have to fear?
RC
A wand that makes evening meals?

Voldemort was quite good at killing people, so working the Horcrux spell some more should not bother him.

Voldemort was quite interested in immortality. This should motivate him to make more Horcruxes to replace the ones that have been destroyed, before doing anything else.

Wouldn't Voldemort know that the Eider wand had in fact been defeated on many occasions? (so shouldn't depend on it to save him).
Timothy Bruening
2016-07-09 17:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Black
There are enough loopholes and loose ends and downright plants for the
next generation of Potter films. Voldemort is embryonic, Harry's and
et als kids are (near) school age; Neville is sniggling up to Luna;
Olivander lives and the Jew-Goblins are still in business.
You say that J.K. Rowlings is anti-Semitic?
Post by Sirius Black
<http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ns/today-wild_about_harry/t/finished-potter-rowling-tells-what-happens-next/>
Nothing in there about House Elves.
Loading...