HARRY POTTER - instead of watching TV reruns, I decided to read the books

[SFTVratings]

This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
read book one, but here's my initial impression:

- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.

The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

As for the plot:

Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

[William George Ferguson]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:46:15 -0700, SFTVratings

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

The target audience of the first book was 8-12 year olds. The books have
grown not only larger, but denser, as the audience has grown older (Harry
is 11 in the first book, he'll be 17 in the last book).

Order of the Phoenix is generally acknowledged as the most depressing of
the books (excepting the 7th, which, of course, doesn't have a general
consensus yet). It has the least overt action, the least 'adventure', and
the most social and psychological maneuvering. It's also the longest book.

The biggest things cut from the OOTP movie versus the book are

Quidditch stuff, which removes most of Ron's story (he becomes the Keeper
aka 'goaltender', and has quite a lot of story about his ups and downs as
such) and Ginny's story (she replaces Harry as Seeker when Umbridge bans
him from playing), which then expands out to Ginny's interactions with
Harry and the others (Yates tries to at least give a sense of it by giving
Bonnie Wright a reaction shot to finish each Harry/Cho moment).

The Weasley twins' war on Umbridge after she becomes headmaster. I really
miss the swamp in the middle of the hall.

The whole centaur thing, which sets up Umbridge's final fate.

The fact that Umbridge sent the Dementors to Little Whinging.

Dolores Umbridge is extremely important at that point in the series,
because she establishes that it isn't just 'the good guys' versus 'the
Deatheaters'. Umbridge doesn't support Voldemort, and is not part of any
evil conspiracy, but she is, by her own choice, evil, in that she thinks
that her goals justify any means she uses to achieve them.

[Ian Galbraith]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:35:19 -0700, William George Ferguson wrote:

[snip]

Post by William George Ferguson
Order of the Phoenix is generally acknowledged as the most depressing of
the books (excepting the 7th, which, of course, doesn't have a general
consensus yet). It has the least overt action, the least 'adventure', and
the most social and psychological maneuvering. It's also the longest book.
The biggest things cut from the OOTP movie versus the book are

[snip details of cut scenes]

All the scenes and subplots that were cut are the major reason why this
film is the worst since the second for me, too much of stuff that made the
book good is gone or just glossed over

[Derek Janssen]

Post by Ian Galbraith

Post by William George Ferguson
Order of the Phoenix is generally acknowledged as the most depressing of
the books (excepting the 7th, which, of course, doesn't have a general
consensus yet). It has the least overt action, the least 'adventure', and
the most social and psychological maneuvering. It's also the longest book.
The biggest things cut from the OOTP movie versus the book are

[snip details of cut scenes]
All the scenes and subplots that were cut are the major reason why this
film is the worst since the second for me, too much of stuff that made the
book good is gone or just glossed over

The "Ron is our king" Quidditch subplot was one of the few (...FEW -_-
) bright character spots of that Bataan-death-march of a book--
And could have used a *lot* more movie representation than the baby-Huey
subplot about Hagrid's "brother", which we were SO hoping wouldn't even
make the cut.

Derek Janssen
***@comcast.net

[Edward McArdle]

Post by Ian Galbraith
[snip]

Post by William George Ferguson
Order of the Phoenix is generally acknowledged as the most depressing of
the books (excepting the 7th, which, of course, doesn't have a general
consensus yet). It has the least overt action, the least 'adventure', and
the most social and psychological maneuvering. It's also the longest book.
The biggest things cut from the OOTP movie versus the book are

[snip details of cut scenes]
All the scenes and subplots that were cut are the major reason why this
film is the worst since the second for me, too much of stuff that made the
book good is gone or just glossed over

While I enjoyed the film - I thought some of the SFX were excellent - I
thought it was poorly edited. But that may have been local censors.
We'll see when the DVD comes out.

It did seem inordinately long, but so do a lot of films nowadays,
including some of my recent favourites - and Ben Hur, an all-time
favourite.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Edward McArdle
While I enjoyed the film - I thought some of the SFX were excellent - I
thought it was poorly edited. But that may have been local censors.
We'll see when the DVD comes out.
It did seem inordinately long, but so do a lot of films nowadays,
including some of my recent favourites - and Ben Hur, an all-time
favourite.

It was actually the shortest of the films so far. By the way, well worth
seeing in IMAX/3D [1] if that's an option.

1. Only the climax is in 3D. A good choice, I think, since 3D eventually
gives me eyestrain.

[erilar]

Post by Ian Galbraith
All the scenes and subplots that were cut are the major reason why this
film is the worst since the second for me, too much of stuff that made the
book good is gone or just glossed over

I noticed it was a bit jerky and figured they had trouble fitting in as
much as they did, but it's been some time since I read that one, I've
read the next one, and they're all a bit mushed together in my memory,
so it didn't bother me all that much. I don't memorize books 8-)

[Michael Bowker]

Post by erilar

Post by Ian Galbraith
All the scenes and subplots that were cut are the major reason why this
film is the worst since the second for me, too much of stuff that made the
book good is gone or just glossed over

I noticed it was a bit jerky and figured they had trouble fitting in as
much as they did, but it's been some time since I read that one, I've
read the next one, and they're all a bit mushed together in my memory,
so it didn't bother me all that much. I don't memorize books 8-)

I had very much the same reaction. I recognized that stuff was missing,
but I thought the movie was well done.

[David Goldfarb]

Order of the Phoenix is [...]the longest book.

By page count at least, _Goblet of Fire_ is by far the longest.
It's possible that _Order_ has things like smaller type and smaller
margins to get more words into fewer pages; I haven't compared
the book designs to see. But I don't think so.

[Followups to rasfw only, as this has nothing to do with the movies
or TV.]

[Sean O'Hara]

In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful David Goldfarb

Post by David Goldfarb

Order of the Phoenix is [...]the longest book.

By page count at least, _Goblet of Fire_ is by far the longest.
It's possible that _Order_ has things like smaller type and smaller
margins to get more words into fewer pages; I haven't compared
the book designs to see. But I don't think so.

OotP is the longest, at least in the American hardcover -- 870 pages
vs GoF's 734. DH will be second longest at 759.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Sean O'Hara
In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful David Goldfarb

Post by David Goldfarb

Order of the Phoenix is [...]the longest book.

By page count at least, _Goblet of Fire_ is by far the longest.
It's possible that _Order_ has things like smaller type and smaller
margins to get more words into fewer pages; I haven't compared
the book designs to see. But I don't think so.

OotP is the longest, at least in the American hardcover -- 870 pages
vs GoF's 734. DH will be second longest at 759.

Okay, thanks to you and William George Ferguson for the correction.
My copy of _Goblet_ is currently inaccessible, but I distinctly
recall it being the *thickest* book of the series. So it may well
be that _Order_ has more words but is thinner as an object.

[David DeLaney]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Sean O'Hara
OotP is the longest, at least in the American hardcover -- 870 pages
vs GoF's 734. DH will be second longest at 759.

Okay, thanks to you and William George Ferguson for the correction.
My copy of _Goblet_ is currently inaccessible, but I distinctly
recall it being the *thickest* book of the series. So it may well
be that _Order_ has more words but is thinner as an object.

Mine's, literally, at my left hand (two Wall Of Books shelves delineate my
computer area). It's quite visibly thicker than the three before it, but I
haven't shuffled book 6 into the hardbacks yet, so not sure of the visual
comparison there.

(One of my Waldenbooks clerk ladies said she wasn't gonna be relieved as soon
as this weekend; she's gonna wait until next weekend, once all the shouting and
discussion and purchasing of it has died down.)

Dave

[Joe Bednorz]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:25:36 -0400, David DeLaney wrote in

Post by David DeLaney
(One of my Waldenbooks clerk ladies said she wasn't gonna be relieved as soon
as this weekend; she's gonna wait until next weekend, once all the shouting and
discussion and purchasing of it has died down.)

There'll be blood spilled, mark my words. Last time people went
walking along the lines in the bookstores spoiling "Half-Blood Prince."

A lot of fans have already put the Harry Potter newsgroups on hiatus
in case of spoilers intentionally posted in newsgroup headers. The
really careful ones will stay off of the Internet entirely. Griefers
are everywhere.



OT: Has anyone else noticed Google Groups search doesn't find
recent postings anymore? This thread doesn't show up in searches
at all by subject. Nor does the "sunken worlds" thread.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Joe Bednorz
A lot of fans have already put the Harry Potter newsgroups on hiatus
in case of spoilers intentionally posted in newsgroup headers. The
really careful ones will stay off of the Internet entirely. Griefers
are everywhere.

Irregular Webcomic! is already doing strips (in Lego, like always) about the
last book (1632, 1626), and is planning to do one this Saturday (it'll be
1637), but is deliberately doing them to avoid any spoilers. But he's had
to put a warning up (he explains in the warning) because he wants to head off
at the pass any readers of his comic who somehow think he _is_ posting spoilers
for the last book and get upset about it.

Dave

[William George Ferguson]

Post by David Goldfarb

Order of the Phoenix is [...]the longest book.

By page count at least, _Goblet of Fire_ is by far the longest.
It's possible that _Order_ has things like smaller type and smaller
margins to get more words into fewer pages; I haven't compared
the book designs to see. But I don't think so.
[Followups to rasfw only, as this has nothing to do with the movies
or TV.]

The Scholastic (Anerican) edition of Goblet of Fire is 734 pages
The Scholastic (American) edition of Order of the Phoenix is 897 pages

Here's all the page counts for the original US and UK hardbound editions

American British
Sorceror's Stone 309 223 (Philosopher's Stone)
Chamber of Secrets 352 251
Prisoner of Azkaban 448 317
Goblet of Fire 734 640
Order of the Phoenix 897 766
Half Blood Prince 672 607
Deathly Hallows 784 608

In all editions, OOTP is the largest.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by William George Ferguson
Here's all the page counts for the original US and UK hardbound editions
American British
Sorceror's Stone 309 223 (Philosopher's Stone)
Chamber of Secrets 352 251
Prisoner of Azkaban 448 317
Goblet of Fire 734 640
Order of the Phoenix 897 766
Half Blood Prince 672 607
Deathly Hallows 784 608

Using the word counts from Wikipedia, OOtP in the US also had the most
words/page (about 290, where the rest are 240-260), or it would have been
even longer. In the UK, the first three and OOtP are about 340 words/page,
where GoF and HPB are 300 and 280 respectively. Assuming the US DH is about
the same 260 words/page as GOF, it will be about 205,000 words, and the UK
versions is back to 340 words/page.

Word US words/ UK words/
Book Count pages page pages page
PS 76,944 309 249 223 345
CoS 85,141 352 242 251 339
PoA 107,253 448 239 317 338
GoF 190,637 734 260 640 298
OotP 257,045 897 287 766 336
HBP 168,923 672 251 607 278
DH 205,000 784 261 608 337

[Sean O'Hara]

In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful William George

Post by William George Ferguson
Dolores Umbridge is extremely important at that point in the series,
because she establishes that it isn't just 'the good guys' versus 'the
Deatheaters'. Umbridge doesn't support Voldemort, and is not part of any
evil conspiracy, but she is, by her own choice, evil, in that she thinks
that her goals justify any means she uses to achieve them.

Although in the new book, nsgre Ibyqrzbeg gnxrf bire gur Zvavfgel bs
Zntvp, fur orpbzrf n jvyyvat pbyynobengbe, cerfvqvat bire urnevatf
ba ubj gb qvfcbfr bs svefg trarengvba zhqoybbqf.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by Sean O'Hara
In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful William George

Post by William George Ferguson
Dolores Umbridge is extremely important at that point in the series,
because she establishes that it isn't just 'the good guys' versus 'the
Deatheaters'. Umbridge doesn't support Voldemort, and is not part of any
evil conspiracy, but she is, by her own choice, evil, in that she thinks
that her goals justify any means she uses to achieve them.

Although in the new book, nsgre Ibyqrzbeg gnxrf bire gur Zvavfgel bs
Zntvp, fur orpbzrf n jvyyvat pbyynobengbe, cerfvqvat bire urnevatf
ba ubj gb qvfcbfr bs svefg trarengvba zhqoybbqf.

At least until fur orpbzrf vasnghngrq jvgu gur tvnag fdhvq, whzcf va gur
ynxr, naq jr trg na ragver puncgre bs gragnpyr cbea.

[Brion K. Lienhart]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only

Welcome to 1997. Thank you for your trenchant observations that
absolutely no one else in the last 10 years has contributed.

[Mark Debo]

Post by Brion K. Lienhart

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only

Welcome to 1997. Thank you for your trenchant observations that
absolutely no one else in the last 10 years has contributed.

So what the fuck is it to you that someone posts a few comments on a book?

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by Mark Debo

Post by Brion K. Lienhart

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only

Welcome to 1997. Thank you for your trenchant observations that
absolutely no one else in the last 10 years has contributed.

So what the fuck is it to you that someone posts a few comments on a book?

Mark, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and the
self styled "most annoying man on usenet"

Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
about his mistake instead of the actual topic.

He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
net to other groups. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
that he's still managing to annoy us here.

He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.

Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.

Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
***@gmail.com,***@yahoo.com
***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com
**DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>> ***@yahoo.com

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.

wtf???

[Audie Murphy's Ghost]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

"Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting"? Pompous ass. I'll
make you eat those words.

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

Next thing you know, juvenile delinquents will be juvenile too!

[Marlene Blanshay]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

[Joe Bednorz]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay wrote in

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"

<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

[BTR1701]

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay wrote in

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"
<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

Those are freakin' hilarious. Well done. I particularly liked "Shark
Fucker".

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay wrote in

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"
<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

Those are freakin' hilarious. Well done. I particularly liked "Shark
Fucker".

Okay, that was just funny. Thanks!

[BTR1701]

In article

Post by Anim8rFSK

Post by BTR1701

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay wrote in

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"
<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

Those are freakin' hilarious. Well done. I particularly liked "Shark
Fucker".

Okay, that was just funny. Thanks!

I spit my Coke across the room when I read the blurb on the back of
"Death Hall" from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

"My wife read one page, screamed, and grew a cock."

[Marlene Blanshay]

hilarious... i laughed so hard i nearly choked. The best was 'Fuck
wars'...made me really want to read Shit wars, dick wars and cock wars.

Post by Anim8rFSK

Post by BTR1701

Post by Joe Bednorz

Post by peachy ashie passion
wtf???
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"
<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

Those are freakin' hilarious. Well done. I particularly liked "Shark
Fucker".

Okay, that was just funny. Thanks!

[RogerM]

Post by BTR1701
Those are freakin' hilarious. Well done. I particularly liked "Shark
Fucker".

Indeed. That was one of the best.

[RogerM]

Post by Joe Bednorz
"Do you love Harry Potter, but think you're too old and too awesome
to be seen reading the books?"
<http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/pottercovers.html>

LOL. Some of those are hilarious!

[Sean O'Hara]

In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful Marlene

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion
*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Because "juvenile"=/="stupid". The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia,
Alice in Wonderland, The Little Prince, and The Secret Garden are
great books despite being written for children.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Sean O'Hara

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion
*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Because "juvenile"=/="stupid". The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia,
Alice in Wonderland, The Little Prince, and The Secret Garden are
great books despite being written for children.

Also The Phantom Tollbooth, anything Edward Eager ever wrote, and Nix's
Sabriel series.

Dave "The Spaceship Under the Apple Tree, on the other hand..." DeLaney

[Joe Bednorz]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:31:00 -0400, David DeLaney wrote in

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sean O'Hara

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion
*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Because "juvenile"=/="stupid". The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia,
Alice in Wonderland, The Little Prince, and The Secret Garden are
great books despite being written for children.

Also The Phantom Tollbooth, anything Edward Eager ever wrote, and Nix's
Sabriel series.

"Henry Reed, Inc" and sequels. The post auction trading in one of
them was great. The final deadpan line still glows in my memory.
(Maybe not a precision glow, but a glow none the less.)

Post by David DeLaney
Dave "The Spaceship Under the Apple Tree, on the other hand..." DeLaney

[Joe Bednorz]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:20:31 -0400, Sean O'Hara wrote in

Post by Sean O'Hara
In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful Marlene

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion
*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Because "juvenile"=/="stupid". The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia,
Alice in Wonderland, The Little Prince, and The Secret Garden are
great books despite being written for children.

Or check out the Newbery Medal Winners.

<http://www.ala.org/ala/alsc/awardsscholarships/literaryawds/newberymedal/newberyhonors/newberymedal.htm>

I re-bought "The Phantom Tollbooth" a few years back.


"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" won the 2001 Hugo Award for
Best Novel.

[George Peatty]

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

[Joe Bednorz]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0400, George Peatty wrote in

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

Like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the 1977 StarWars, it's not how good
they are. It's how bad they're not. They had an audience just waiting
for them.


"Good Bad Books", an Essay by George Orwell from 1945
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.htmlhttp://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>

A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days,
but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the
“good bad book”: that is, the kind of book that has no literary
pretensions but which remains readable when more serious
productions have perished.

[Christopher J. Henrich]

Post by Joe Bednorz
"Good Bad Books", an Essay by George Orwell from 1945
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/Shooting
Elephant/goodbadbooks.htmlhttp://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/Or
wellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>
A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days,
but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the
“good bad book”: that is, the kind of book that has no literary
pretensions but which remains readable when more serious
productions have perished.

I think that link is broken. Here's one that works for me:
<http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/goodbadbooks.htm>

C. S. Lewis wrote a sort of rejoinder to this, "On High and Low Brows."
I don't think it is on the Net; Lewis's works are still under
copyright. It's in the collection /Selected/ /Literary/ /Essays/ .

By the way, can anyone identify the Chesterton work in which he
mentioned "good bad books?" The net doesn't help me. It seems that
everyone who uses the phrase cites Orwell.

[Joe Bednorz]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:56:22 GMT, Christopher J. Henrich wrote in

Post by Christopher J. Henrich

Post by Joe Bednorz
"Good Bad Books", an Essay by George Orwell from 1945
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>
Elephant/goodbadbooks.htmlhttp://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/Or
wellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>
A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days,
but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the
“good bad book”: that is, the kind of book that has no literary
pretensions but which remains readable when more serious
productions have perished.

<http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/goodbadbooks.htm>

Thanks for the correction.

Just in case, here's the corrected original.
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>

Post by Christopher J. Henrich
C. S. Lewis wrote a sort of rejoinder to this, "On High and Low Brows."
I don't think it is on the Net; Lewis's works are still under
copyright. It's in the collection /Selected/ /Literary/ /Essays/ .
By the way, can anyone identify the Chesterton work in which he
mentioned "good bad books?" The net doesn't help me. It seems that
everyone who uses the phrase cites Orwell.

I accidently searched Usenet instead of the Web and hit this gem among
just eight results.

<http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.south-africa/msg/802a4e8bcaaa9f34?hl=en&>

"Chesterton wrote that there are four types of book, good good
books, good bad books, bad good books and bad bad books."
- Peter H.M. Brooks


Chesterton, "good bad books" and "bad bad" led to this:

<http://jonloomis.blogspot.com/2007/06/good-bad-books.html>

'I've been trying to track down the origin of the "good bad books"
construction, which seems to go back to G. K. Chesterton, and was then
amplified a bit later by Orwell in his essay Good Bad Books. I wish I
could find the exact Chesterton quote—it may be paraphrased from his
essay "A Defence of Detective Stories,"
<http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Defendant.html>
which opens with this very funny paragraph...'



====== Begin Quote ======

In attempting to reach the genuine psychological reason for the
popularity of detective stories, it is necessary to rid ourselves of
many mere phrases.

It is not true, for example, that the populace prefer bad literature
to good, and accept detective stories because they are bad literature.
The mere absence of artistic subtlety does not make a book popular.

Bradshaw's Railway Guide contains few gleams of psychological comedy,
yet it is not read aloud uproariously on winter evenings. If detective
stories are read with more exuberance than railway guides, it is
certainly because they are more artistic.

Many good books have fortunately been popular; many bad books, still
more fortunately, have been unpopular. A good detective story would
probably be even more popular than a bad one. The trouble in this
matter is that many people do not realize that there is such a thing as
a good detective story; it is to them like speaking of a good devil.

To write a story about a burglary is, in their eyes, a sort of
spiritual manner of committing it. To persons of somewhat weak
sensibility this is natural enough; it must be confessed that many
detective stories are as full of sensational crime as one of
Shakespeare's plays.

====== End Quote ======


That's all so far.

[Anthony Nance]

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:56:22 GMT, Christopher J. Henrich wrote in

Post by Christopher J. Henrich
C. S. Lewis wrote a sort of rejoinder to this, "On High and Low Brows."
I don't think it is on the Net; Lewis's works are still under
copyright. It's in the collection /Selected/ /Literary/ /Essays/ .
By the way, can anyone identify the Chesterton work in which he
mentioned "good bad books?" The net doesn't help me. It seems that
everyone who uses the phrase cites Orwell.

I accidently searched Usenet instead of the Web and hit this gem among
just eight results.
<http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.south-africa/msg/802a4e8bcaaa9f34?hl=en&>
<http://jonloomis.blogspot.com/2007/06/good-bad-books.html>
<http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Defendant.html>
That's all so far.

Nice detective work Joe!
- Tony

[Anthony Nance]

Post by Christopher J. Henrich

Post by Joe Bednorz
"Good Bad Books", an Essay by George Orwell from 1945
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/Shooting
Elephant/goodbadbooks.htmlhttp://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/Or
wellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>
A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days,
but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the
?good bad book?: that is, the kind of book that has no literary
pretensions but which remains readable when more serious
productions have perished.

<http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/goodbadbooks.htm>
C. S. Lewis wrote a sort of rejoinder to this, "On High and Low Brows."
I don't think it is on the Net; Lewis's works are still under
copyright. It's in the collection /Selected/ /Literary/ /Essays/ .
By the way, can anyone identify the Chesterton work in which he
mentioned "good bad books?" The net doesn't help me. It seems that
everyone who uses the phrase cites Orwell.

Orwell himself credits Chesterton with the phrase and idea
in Orwell's own "Good Bad Books" essay from 1945. However,
I am also not finding where Chesterton committed this idea
to paper - if he ever did; perhaps it occurred in private
correspondence or conversation.

Tony

[Marlene Blanshay]

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0400, George Peatty wrote in

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

Like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the 1977 StarWars, it's not how good
they are. It's how bad they're not. They had an audience just waiting
for them.
"Good Bad Books", an Essay by George Orwell from 1945
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.htmlhttp://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/goodbadbooks.html>
A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days,
but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the
“good bad book”: that is, the kind of book that has no literary
pretensions but which remains readable when more serious
productions have perished.

great essay...more people should read his entire essay collection. They
are what everyone should think of when they think 'essays'. Hey, instead
of reading harry potter, shark fucker or the prisoner of ass cabin, or
watching reruns...

[Ben Goodman]

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

I find that Rowling matches up very well to L. Frank Baum: widely
popular among both kids and adults, fun reads, memorable characters
and scenes, and horrible inconsistancies. Harry Potter is the new Oz.
The differnce is that Harry and Co. age and mature, while it was a
plot point that Dorothy and her bunch didn't. Also the publishers
aren't likely to be able to milk the franchise for years like they did
Oz. There were something like 40+ "official" Oz books after Baum wrote
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s. Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ben Goodman

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

I find that Rowling matches up very well to L. Frank Baum: widely
popular among both kids and adults, fun reads, memorable characters
and scenes, and horrible inconsistancies.

Much as I love Oz (reading the series to my 6-year old now), nothing
in Potter comes CLOSE to the inconsistencies in Oz.

Post by Ben Goodman
Harry Potter is the new Oz.

I suspect she'd be honored by that comparison. I know *I* would. If I
produce anything that survives half as well as Oz, I'll have done well.

Post by Ben Goodman
The differnce is that Harry and Co. age and mature, while it was a
plot point that Dorothy and her bunch didn't. Also the publishers
aren't likely to be able to milk the franchise for years like they did
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s.

The 40 includes Baum's 12 - 13 originals, BTW. Of the "add-ons" I've
read, only one of them really felt "Ozzy" to me.

Post by Ben Goodman
Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short. If The Wizard of Oz is considered a
success, the Potter movies are damn near perfect.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s.

The 40 includes Baum's 12 - 13 originals, BTW.

14, actually. (I was in the equivalent of junior high when I found out there
had been more than one; over the next few years I devoured all of Baum's, all
of Ruth Plumly Thompson's that I could find, and several one-offs that either
the downtown Cleveland library, or the Cleveland Hts library, had in huge
oversized hardback form.)

Post by Sea Wasp
Of the "add-ons" I've
read, only one of them really felt "Ozzy" to me.

Several of them did to me, but Thompson's seemed to be reaching a lot of the
time. (But I still read them.)

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short. If The Wizard of Oz is considered a
success, the Potter movies are damn near perfect.

Yep. People who've only ever seen the movie have missed a good bit of what
went on in the book. ("What are ... Quadlings? ...Gillikins? You're making
those UP!")

Dave

[Sea Wasp]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s.

The 40 includes Baum's 12 - 13 originals, BTW.

14, actually.

Really? I coulda sworn it was less than that -- that it was "14" only
if you counted "Royal Book", which was really Thompson (something
painfully obvious my last time through; it was clear that much of the
material had been derived from something Baum invented, but that the
actual writer was trying "too hard", and it didn't work nearly as well).

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp
Of the "add-ons" I've
read, only one of them really felt "Ozzy" to me.

Several of them did to me, but Thompson's seemed to be reaching a lot of the
time. (But I still read them.)

Oddly, the only one that *really* pushed my "Oz" button well was the
last of the 40; "Merry-Go-Round in Oz". I don't know why, either,
because it has some aspects that aren't, taken objectively, what I'd
expect in an Oz book, but somehow the overall effect is indeed very
much Oz for me.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short. If The Wizard of Oz is considered a
success, the Potter movies are damn near perfect.

Yep. People who've only ever seen the movie have missed a good bit of what
went on in the book. ("What are ... Quadlings? ...Gillikins? You're making
those UP!")

For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around
the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID
go to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in
Kansas. She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity
with an aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.

The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

[Mike Schilling]

For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around the
ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID go to Oz.
She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in Kansas. She
learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity with an aplomb
and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

`There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint,' he remarked to her, as
he munched away.

`I should think throwing cold water over you would be better,' Alice
suggested: `or some sal-volatile.'

`I didn't say there was nothing BETTER,' the King replied. `I said there was
nothing LIKE it.'

[Marlene Blanshay]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s.

The 40 includes Baum's 12 - 13 originals, BTW.

14, actually.

Really? I coulda sworn it was less than that -- that it was "14"
only if you counted "Royal Book", which was really Thompson (something
painfully obvious my last time through; it was clear that much of the
material had been derived from something Baum invented, but that the
actual writer was trying "too hard", and it didn't work nearly as well).

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp
Of the "add-ons" I've read, only one of them really felt "Ozzy" to me.

Several of them did to me, but Thompson's seemed to be reaching a lot of the
time. (But I still read them.)

Oddly, the only one that *really* pushed my "Oz" button well was the
last of the 40; "Merry-Go-Round in Oz". I don't know why, either,
because it has some aspects that aren't, taken objectively, what I'd
expect in an Oz book, but somehow the overall effect is indeed very much
Oz for me.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Goodman
Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short. If The Wizard of Oz is considered a
success, the Potter movies are damn near perfect.

Yep. People who've only ever seen the movie have missed a good bit of what
went on in the book. ("What are ... Quadlings? ...Gillikins? You're making
those UP!")

For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around
the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID go
to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in Kansas.
She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity with an
aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

well...that's hollywood...even back then a happy ending would triumph. I
wonder if maybe that had something to do with the climate at the
time...war in europe, people needed escapism. Or maybe that it was
probably less complicated to film or write it that way. I always
wondered. And yet, Gone with the wind, released the same year, did NOT
have a typical hollywood ending at all!

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by Sea Wasp
For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns
around the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really
Really DID go to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then
reappears in Kansas. She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind
of adversity with an aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

well...that's hollywood...even back then a happy ending would triumph. I
wonder if maybe that had something to do with the climate at the
time...war in europe, people needed escapism. Or maybe that it was
probably less complicated to film or write it that way. I always
wondered. And yet, Gone with the wind, released the same year, did NOT
have a typical hollywood ending at all!

And none of those would explain it anyway. It DOES have a happy
ending in the book: Dorothy gets through her adventures, her friends
all get what they wanted from the (humbug) Wizard, and Dorothy gets
back home to the happy welcome of Aunt Em and Uncle Henry. You
wouldn't have to do anything different with the ending except to
change her "waking up in bed" to "suddenly standing in the road near
the rebuilt farmhouse".

(Okay, there would be one more expense, but in those days it wasn't
as large as today: you'd be wise to have other actors doing the "real
world" parts if you had such a long lead-in. The "it was all a dream"
actually REQUIRED the fairly long lead-in to the twister, so that
Dorothy could be shown interacting with all these people who would
become the characters in Oz. In the book there's essentially no lead
in, except to introduce Dorothy, Toto, and her Aunt and Uncle. We get
straight to the cyclone [tornado]).

[ravenlynne]

Post by Sea Wasp
For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around
the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID go
to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in Kansas.
She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity with an
aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

I've purchased the e books...I really need to start diving in to
them....This is sounding to good to miss, although I've suspected for a
while that the books are better.

I preferred the sequel movie "Return to OZ" to the original...how does
it compare to the books?

[Derek Janssen]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Sea Wasp
For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns
around the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really
Really DID go to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then
reappears in Kansas. She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind
of adversity with an aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

I've purchased the e books...I really need to start diving in to
them....This is sounding to good to miss, although I've suspected for a
while that the books are better.

Others are okay, but first one isn't--Too repetitive and disorganized;
needed a second-draft, and the movie's screenwriter gave it one.
Noel Langley gave the MGM movie lines you could have sworn were in the
original book, and have to look up the text twice to make sure they weren't.

Post by ravenlynne
I preferred the sequel movie "Return to OZ" to the original...how does
it compare to the books?

Comparatively speaking, ummm....a complete travesty. 0_0'''

This always opens the same old debate for nostalgic 80's-survivors and
remake-revisionists--
But the appeal of Baum's books were his attempts to write Oz as
adventurous, but still a mix of silliness and Yankee logic where nobody
really got hurt (as he always reminded us ten or twelve times in the
story)...
Somehow, in the bloodlust for remake-revisionism, that got translated
into "It's just as SCARY as the original books!" (er, huh? 0_o??), and
we get an unholy mess that flails between post-ET 80's-FX schmaltz and
sadistically intentional kiddy-nightmare fodder.
There's a scene at the end that shows what somebody *could* have done
with an Oz movie, and the fact that it's at the VERY end of a bleak 90
minutes is just one last bit of audience torture to top the whole thing
off. -_-

(I'll be fair and say that if you read the script cold, okay, maybe the
writer was *trying* for a bit of Baum-ese in the original dialect--
But the director just didn't speak the language.)

Derek Janssen
***@comcast.net

[ravenlynne]

Post by Derek Janssen

Post by ravenlynne
I preferred the sequel movie "Return to OZ" to the original...how does
it compare to the books?

Comparatively speaking, ummm....a complete travesty. 0_0'''
This always opens the same old debate for nostalgic 80's-survivors and
remake-revisionists--
But the appeal of Baum's books were his attempts to write Oz as
adventurous, but still a mix of silliness and Yankee logic where nobody
really got hurt (as he always reminded us ten or twelve times in the
story)...
Somehow, in the bloodlust for remake-revisionism, that got translated
into "It's just as SCARY as the original books!" (er, huh? 0_o??), and
we get an unholy mess that flails between post-ET 80's-FX schmaltz and
sadistically intentional kiddy-nightmare fodder.
There's a scene at the end that shows what somebody *could* have done
with an Oz movie, and the fact that it's at the VERY end of a bleak 90
minutes is just one last bit of audience torture to top the whole thing
off. -_-
(I'll be fair and say that if you read the script cold, okay, maybe the
writer was *trying* for a bit of Baum-ese in the original dialect--
But the director just didn't speak the language.)
Derek Janssen

Thank you for the analysis :-) When I start to read I'll keep in mind
that I just need to throw out any ideas about the story that I got from
the movies.

[David DeLaney]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Sea Wasp
For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around
the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID go
to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in Kansas.
She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity with an
aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

I've purchased the e books...I really need to start diving in to
them....This is sounding to good to miss, although I've suspected for a
while that the books are better.

I think you have a treat awaiting you. (And they're not Potter-size, either,
so they don't take forever to read.)

Post by ravenlynne
I preferred the sequel movie "Return to OZ" to the original...how does
it compare to the books?

... Well, it wasn't based on _any_ of the books (I don't know why). And I
never actually saw it - I did see The Wiz though. But from what I heard it
didn't really measure up well?

Dave

[Sea Wasp]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Sea Wasp
For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns
around the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really
Really DID go to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then
reappears in Kansas. She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind
of adversity with an aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

I've purchased the e books...I really need to start diving in to
them....This is sounding to good to miss, although I've suspected for a
while that the books are better.
I preferred the sequel movie "Return to OZ" to the original...how does
it compare to the books?

It feels considerably more "Ozzy" than its famous predecessor,
despite (again) having additional framing material and changing a
number of other aspects of the series.

Be warned: these were written late in the 1800s and early in the
1900s. They show a lot of signs of that era which modern readers may
find jarring. (I'm currently in "Emerald City" which has a neat plot
by the Nome King that's considerably weakened by both a "travelogue"
secondary plot and by the fact that in this book Baum's socialist
hobbyhorse is all too visible; I consider Emerald City one of the
weaker books in the canon, though it has some really neat ideas and
images)

[David DeLaney]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Sea Wasp

his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the 1970s.

The 40 includes Baum's 12 - 13 originals, BTW.

14, actually.

Really? I coulda sworn it was less than that

(It's actually noted in what you quoted up there. :) )

Post by Sea Wasp
--that it was "14" only
if you counted "Royal Book", which was really Thompson (something
painfully obvious my last time through; it was clear that much of the
material had been derived from something Baum invented, but that the
actual writer was trying "too hard", and it didn't work nearly as well).

Nope - 14, all his. In order (because hey, if you can't keep track of the
ordering of a series in your own private notepad database, what's the point?):

The Wizard of Oz, The Land of Oz, Ozma of Oz, Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, The
Road to Oz, The Emerald City of Oz, The Patchwork Girl of Oz, Tik-Tok of Oz,
The Scarecrow of Oz, Rinkitink in Oz, The Lost Princess of Oz, The Tin Woodsman
of Oz, The Magic of Oz, Glinda of Oz

Thompson did 15 more, and I think there's about 10 or 15 one-offs by various
people out there too, but since I don't _have_ any of them, I can't count them
up.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by David DeLaney
Yep. People who've only ever seen the movie have missed a good bit of what
went on in the book. ("What are ... Quadlings? ...Gillikins? You're making
those UP!")

For me the biggest problem is that the movie completely turns around
the ENTIRE point of the book. In the book, Dorothy Really Really DID
go to Oz. She disappears for weeks or months and then reappears in
Kansas. She learns how to deal with just about ANY kind of adversity
with an aplomb and dignity that many adults couldn't match.
The movie just drops all of that for a saccharine "no place like home".

And in the rest of the books, she goes _back_ again and again, and finally
moves there for good; a bit later (I think), Aunt Em and Uncle Henry ("who?",
I hear emanating from the movie-watchers) move there too.

Dave

[Sea Wasp]

Post by David DeLaney
And in the rest of the books,

Well, many of the books. Not all the books feature Dorothy at all
(the second book takes place entirely in Oz)

Post by David DeLaney
she goes _back_ again and again, and finally
moves there for good; a bit later (I think), Aunt Em and Uncle Henry ("who?",
I hear emanating from the movie-watchers) move there too.

What? The movie-watchers know Henry and Em.

It's not really a "bit later", unless you count a lapse of a day.
Ozma brings Henry and Em to Oz the day after Dorothy decides to move
there.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:42:41 -0400, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short.

Thank you for specifying the famous one. Many people don't realize
there were several earlier versions, all of which were reportedly
dreadful. (I've seen one of the earliest silent ones, not the
others.)

[Joseph Nebus]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:42:41 -0400, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short.

Thank you for specifying the famous one. Many people don't realize
there were several earlier versions, all of which were reportedly
dreadful. (I've seen one of the earliest silent ones, not the
others.)

A couple of them are included in the 84 Extras DVDs on the
recent 'Wizard of Oz' DVD set release. I don't think I'd describe the
ones on there as dreadful, although the 1925 feature-length adaptation
is weak. (It's got much more slapstick and, frankly, cruelty than is
really in tune.)

A ... I think ... 1910 version is also on the set; since that's
only a 13 minute adaptation it's *incredibly* compressed, the way that
Scooby-Doo or the Superfriends would race through Oz in their versions
of the story. That's reasonable fun, though one character's introduction
at the point he is introduced (I know this is hard to parse, but I'm
trying to not spoil it for folks since this movie happens to be fairly
available) distracted me more than it really should.

The 1914 'His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz' is also in the set
and it's great fun. That's not adapting the original novel, though.
There are other movies of varying quality and I'm not sure I could
give opinions on each. Many of them delved further into the Oz canon,
though.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Joseph Nebus

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:42:41 -0400, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short.

Thank you for specifying the famous one. Many people don't realize
there were several earlier versions, all of which were reportedly
dreadful. (I've seen one of the earliest silent ones, not the
others.)

A ... I think ... 1910 version is also on the set; since that's
only a 13 minute adaptation it's *incredibly* compressed, the way that
Scooby-Doo or the Superfriends would race through Oz in their versions
of the story.

I believe that's the one I saw, but I'm not sure. I found it pretty
incoherent.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Joseph Nebus

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:42:41 -0400, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short.

Thank you for specifying the famous one. Many people don't realize
there were several earlier versions, all of which were reportedly
dreadful. (I've seen one of the earliest silent ones, not the
others.)

A ... I think ... 1910 version is also on the set; since that's
only a 13 minute adaptation it's *incredibly* compressed, the way that
Scooby-Doo or the Superfriends would race through Oz in their versions
of the story.

I believe that's the one I saw, but I'm not sure. I found it pretty
incoherent.

There was a very nice, though completely unpromoted, live-action
Disney entry from the late 70s or early 80s which brought in Tik-Tok,
the Nome King & Princess Mombe.

Ted

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:42:41 -0400, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
I disagree. The famous Wizard of Oz movie falls terribly short on
critical areas, especially viewed by the same lens that would judge
the Potter movies to fall short.

Thank you for specifying the famous one. Many people don't realize
there were several earlier versions, all of which were reportedly
dreadful. (I've seen one of the earliest silent ones, not the
others.)

"Return to Oz" actually came closer than the more famous predecessor
in much of the spirit, if not the details.

[Marlene Blanshay]

Post by Ben Goodman

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

I find that Rowling matches up very well to L. Frank Baum: widely
popular among both kids and adults, fun reads, memorable characters
and scenes, and horrible inconsistancies. Harry Potter is the new Oz.
The differnce is that Harry and Co. age and mature, while it was a
plot point that Dorothy and her bunch didn't. Also the publishers
aren't likely to be able to milk the franchise for years like they did
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s. Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

it would have been interesting to see other movies made from the Baum
books...he wrote several, but The wizard was the only one made into a film.

[Logan Kearsley]

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by Ben Goodman

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now.
I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

I find that Rowling matches up very well to L. Frank Baum: widely
popular among both kids and adults, fun reads, memorable characters
and scenes, and horrible inconsistancies. Harry Potter is the new Oz.
The differnce is that Harry and Co. age and mature, while it was a
plot point that Dorothy and her bunch didn't. Also the publishers
aren't likely to be able to milk the franchise for years like they did
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s. Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

it would have been interesting to see other movies made from the Baum
books...he wrote several, but The wizard was the only one made into a film.

Not quite. Bits of _Ozma of Oz_ and _The Marvelous Land of Oz_ were mushed
together to make the movie _Return to Oz_.
But there's quite sufficient distortion that I suppose it can easily be
considered to not count.

-l.
------------------------------------
My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy.

[Marlene Blanshay]

Post by Logan Kearsley

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by Ben Goodman

Post by Joe Bednorz
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:57 -0400, Marlene Blanshay

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now.
I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

I find that Rowling matches up very well to L. Frank Baum: widely
popular among both kids and adults, fun reads, memorable characters
and scenes, and horrible inconsistancies. Harry Potter is the new Oz.
The differnce is that Harry and Co. age and mature, while it was a
plot point that Dorothy and her bunch didn't. Also the publishers
aren't likely to be able to milk the franchise for years like they did
his 14 and died around 1921, coming out every year or two until the
1970s. Sadly, the Potter movies fall short where the Wizard of Oz
movie didn't.

it would have been interesting to see other movies made from the Baum
books...he wrote several, but The wizard was the only one made into a film.

Not quite. Bits of _Ozma of Oz_ and _The Marvelous Land of Oz_ were mushed
together to make the movie _Return to Oz_.
But there's quite sufficient distortion that I suppose it can easily be
considered to not count.

yeah, i remember that as well...i always thought it was too bad that
they never showed the good witch of the south as well...but that film
had a large enough cast as it was.

[ravenlynne]

Post by Marlene Blanshay
it would have been interesting to see other movies made from the Baum
books...he wrote several, but The wizard was the only one made into a film.

Return to oz contained several components.

[Marlene Blanshay]

i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic. In fact, when people rave about
them, what they rave about are the characters and the stories. I never
hear anyone rave about the writing style. Danielle steele has sold
billions of books but she's a shit writer.

Post by George Peatty

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Well, they have *something* They've sold enough copies to make Rowling one
of the richest women in the world .. The real test, though, is whether
anyone is talking about Harry Potter fifty or a hundred years from now. I
expect they will, but I also believe it will be in the same context as we
talk about L. Frank Baum and Lewis Carroll today ..

[Gene Ward Smith]

Post by Marlene Blanshay
i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic.

Actually it isn't. You try writing something as funny or funnier than the
first scene of the first book, with weird wizards running around
congratulating each other, and if you can--keep writing. Anyone can scoff
at the terrible doggerel of the sorting hat songs, but the funny thing
about that is, very few people can write verse up to that level. It's not
Lewis Carroll, but not much is. I don't think you could do as well. Try it.

[Marlene Blanshay]

i wouldn't even try writing for fifth graders....

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by Marlene Blanshay
i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic.

Actually it isn't. You try writing something as funny or funnier than the
first scene of the first book, with weird wizards running around
congratulating each other, and if you can--keep writing. Anyone can scoff
at the terrible doggerel of the sorting hat songs, but the funny thing
about that is, very few people can write verse up to that level. It's not
Lewis Carroll, but not much is. I don't think you could do as well. Try it.

[ravenlynne]

Post by Marlene Blanshay
i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic. In fact, when people rave about
them, what they rave about are the characters and the stories. I never
hear anyone rave about the writing style. Danielle steele has sold
billions of books but she's a shit writer.

Exactly how complicated would you need a novel written for an 8 year old
to be.

This whole conversation is ridiculous. If you don't want a simplisticly
written novel, get out of the kids' section.

[David Johnston]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Marlene Blanshay
i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic. In fact, when people rave about
them, what they rave about are the characters and the stories. I never
hear anyone rave about the writing style. Danielle steele has sold
billions of books but she's a shit writer.

Exactly how complicated would you need a novel written for an 8 year old
to be.

Well yes but we aren't 8 years old. Perhaps more important, though,
is how complex the thoughts of a 8 year old viewpoint character should
be.

[ravenlynne]

Post by David Johnston

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Marlene Blanshay
i don't think she's in the same league...from what i've seen the writing
is actually very bland and simplistic. In fact, when people rave about
them, what they rave about are the characters and the stories. I never
hear anyone rave about the writing style. Danielle steele has sold
billions of books but she's a shit writer.

Exactly how complicated would you need a novel written for an 8 year old
to be.

Well yes but we aren't 8 years old. Perhaps more important, though,
is how complex the thoughts of a 8 year old viewpoint character should
be.

The novel wasn't necessarily written for us though.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Marlene Blanshay

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.

*GASP* How utterly shocking, that a juvenile book be juvenile.
wtf???

yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

The first book had a very Roald Dahl-ish quality -- something utterly
stunning for a first novel. The others have gotten better, more
complex, and less juvenile, as she's advancing the target reading age
with each book. By now, they're not juvies AT ALL. I'm not even sure
my 11-year-old will want me to read the last one to him, nor whether
I'd WANT to yet; some of the rumors are pretty disturbing.

[Sean O'Hara]

Post by Sea Wasp
The first book had a very Roald Dahl-ish quality -- something
utterly stunning for a first novel. The others have gotten better, more
complex, and less juvenile, as she's advancing the target reading age
with each book. By now, they're not juvies AT ALL. I'm not even sure my
11-year-old will want me to read the last one to him, nor whether I'd
WANT to yet; some of the rumors are pretty disturbing.

The version leaked on the Internet, which appears genuine, is a real
blood bath, and there are several deaths that I think will be
traumatic for kids, particularly Urqjvt -- vs gung'f va gur cevagrq
obbx, Ebjyvat zhfg unir gur ovttrfg onyyf ba Rnegu. The language
isn't too bad, mostly "Merlin's saggy left--" "Ron!" but there are a
few "damns" and Molly punaaryf Evcyrl jura Oryyngevk gevrf gb xvyy
Tvaal. But there's no sex unless you count Hermione telling Ron it
doesn't matter how powerful his wand is as long as he knows how to
wave it right.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Have you read them? If not, shut up. *

[Jasper Janssen]

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Marlene Blanshay
yeah, but i keep seeing people in their adult years raving about them
like they're the greatest books ever written. WTF???

Have you read them? If not, shut up. *

And by "them", it means more than the first 2.

Jasper

[curmudgeon]

Try to imagine the Emmy Award wining TV comedy *MONK* in book form,
especially if it were written in the first person narrative!


"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"

[BTR1701]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.

I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by BTR1701

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

I quite like them. I think you'll enjoy.

[BTR1701]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by BTR1701

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

I quite like them. I think you'll enjoy.

If nothing else they'll give me some insight into King's "Dark Tower"
saga. I had no idea he was referencing Harry Potter in "Wolves of the
Calla" when he had the Wolves hurling explosive little flying gold balls
at the villagers.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by BTR1701

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by BTR1701

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

I quite like them. I think you'll enjoy.

If nothing else they'll give me some insight into King's "Dark Tower"
saga. I had no idea he was referencing Harry Potter in "Wolves of the
Calla" when he had the Wolves hurling explosive little flying gold balls
at the villagers.

Hehe, now you know how I've felt for years. Since I've never read
Dark Tower, I miss all those references. :)

[Ian Galbraith]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:57:24 -0400, BTR1701 wrote:

[snip]

Post by BTR1701
I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

Make sure you read book 3 before giving up, thats the book where Rowling
really made great strides as a writer. Book 2 is the worst of the lot IMHO.

[ravenlynne]

Post by BTR1701
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan, KWIM?

[Gene Ward Smith]

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan.

Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

[ravenlynne]

Post by Gene Ward Smith

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan.

Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

[Gene Ward Smith]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

[ravenlynne]

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

I'm paying off a lot in my next life. Why not add one more thing?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

I'm paying off a lot in my next life. Why not add one more thing?

But then it seems like some sort of inspiration
To let the next life off the hook
Or she'll say "Look what I had to overcome from my last life.
Maybe I'll write a book."

[William George Ferguson]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:24:16 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

I'm paying off a lot in my next life. Why not add one more thing?

But then it seems like some sort of inspiration
To let the next life off the hook
Or she'll say "Look what I had to overcome from my last life.
Maybe I'll write a book."

You know, us big manly men aren't supposed to know Indigo Girls lyrics off
the tops of your heads (ashamed to admit that 'Galileo' had also
immediately popped into my mind)

[ravenlynne]

Post by William George Ferguson
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:24:16 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

I'm paying off a lot in my next life. Why not add one more thing?

But then it seems like some sort of inspiration
To let the next life off the hook
Or she'll say "Look what I had to overcome from my last life.
Maybe I'll write a book."

You know, us big manly men aren't supposed to know Indigo Girls lyrics off
the tops of your heads (ashamed to admit that 'Galileo' had also
immediately popped into my mind)

Wow..I'm a chick and didn't place the lyrics. Go you..lol.

[D.F. Manno]

Post by William George Ferguson

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith
Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

Considering that it keeps wheeling, that's kind of dumb of them. It goes
round and round, and the Pattern of the Ages decrees that if you steal a
joke in this lifetime, you must pay for it in the next.

I'm paying off a lot in my next life. Why not add one more thing?

But then it seems like some sort of inspiration
To let the next life off the hook
Or she'll say "Look what I had to overcome from my last life.
Maybe I'll write a book."

You know, us big manly men aren't supposed to know Indigo Girls lyrics off
the tops of your heads (ashamed to admit that 'Galileo' had also
immediately popped into my mind)

One line from "Closer to Fine" often ran through my mind in grad school:
"I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind/Got my paper and I was
free."

[erilar]

Post by ravenlynne

Post by Gene Ward Smith

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan.

Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

<monty python> No one expects the Wheel of Time!</monty python>

The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand. . .

[erilar]

Post by Gene Ward Smith

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan.

Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

Not I. Boooorrrrrring

[ravenlynne]

Post by erilar

Post by Gene Ward Smith

They're good as long as you're not expecting Robert Jordan.

Everyone always expects Robert Jordan.

Not I. Boooorrrrrring

I just think that people expecting high fantasy out of a modern youth
novel are expecting too much.

And I agree, Jordan is a great cure for insomnia.

[erilar]

Post by BTR1701

Post by SFTVratings
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.

Like Ernest Hemingway. . .

Post by BTR1701
I've been resisting these books up until now but my favorite author
(Stephen King) keeps singing their praises so I decided to give them a
shot and ordered the entire set from Amazon.

Well, fortunately I began reading them years before I read this: I
don't think much of King, but I know he's popular.

Post by BTR1701
I figure if I like them, at least I won't have to wait several years
between books like everyone else did.

That is a major advantage 8-) I saw the first movie with my daughter
and granddaughter(then a teenager who loved and still loves fantasy),
who were forbidden to tell me anything about Harry Potter in advance,
and quite enjoyed it. THEN I began reading said granddaughter's Potter
books and enjoyed them as well. I've bought her the last few and I read
them when I get down there to visit. They definitely are getting more
and more complex and darker, as are the movies based on them. There are
innumerable "adult" fantasy books that are much thinner in texture and
more poorly written than the Potter books.

[ravenlynne]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.

They're youth novels aimed at 5th graders, idiot.

[Merrick Baldelli]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:46:15 -0700, SFTVratings

Post by SFTVratings
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.

Troy -- given your reading comprehension skills, I would think
that something written for pre-teens would be right up your alley.

[o***@aol.com]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books.

Sorry, but no one who's had to endure your posts will believe you can
read. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.

So far I've only

Post by SFTVratings
- JK Rowling uses an extremely simplistic writing style.
The grammar consists of short, easy-to-digest sentences with very few
compound sentences, and the words are mostly monosyllabic. As I read
the book, I was left with the impression of a Grade School Reader.
Not at all the rich prose I'm used to digesting.
Overall I'd say reading the book was about equal in satisfaction as
watching the movie. Good story; interesting characters; nice
introduction to this new world.

[Johan Larson]

Post by SFTVratings
This past weekend, instead of watching the Harry Potter reruns on
various TV channels, I decided to read the books. So far I've only

Harry Potter? Who?

Johan Larson

[Gene Ward Smith]

Post by Johan Larson
Harry Potter? Who?

I think he wrote the Alcibiades: Zombie Executioner series.