Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: rant, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 10 of 10
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: rant in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
I've been thinking a lot about the war that is being fought between story and language.
It shouldn't be a war. Language and story should work together. But people don't seem to want to let them, and so they fight.
I heard someone say recently that they didn't like books they couldn't put down. This person felt manipulated by a gripping plot. I found this astonishing.
It goes hand-in-hand with the snobbery towards mass-market fiction, chicklit (see Maureen Johnson's awesome post for more on that) and, of course, YA.
Nick Hornby has this to say:
“In a way, I think all books should be teen books. I can read them quickly without getting bogged down, and feel I’ve read something that was meant in the way literature’s supposed to be. They’re very digestible, designed not to bore people.”
But if you have a look at the kind of books that win the Miles Franklin and the Booker, it seems pretty clear that the literati don't agree. Literature needs to be dense, beautiful and obfuscating.
I love beautiful language. Writers like Margaret Atwood (pre-Oryx & Crake), Jorge Louis-Borges and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. And of course the beautiful-language YA writers Ursula Dubosarsky, Margo Lanagan and David Almond. But as well as having a truly magical control over language, all these writers also know how to tell a cracking good story.
Making stories is an art. It's difficult and complex and there are rules and structures, and if you don't want to stick to those rules and structures, then fine, but you'd better have a damn good reason. In my four years of studying creative writing at Uni, not one class mentioned the importance of structure, except of course, for my screenwriting class.
The story vs language brawl spills over into visual media as well. Film can be loved by our intellectual elite because of its 'language' - the cinematography, metaphor and mood. Television, however, is much more reliant on story. Smaller screens, heavily prescribed time limits, and a need for continuity mean that TV shows have more rules and structures. But that doesn't mean they can't be art, too. There is often more thought, care, craft, put into an episode of The West Wing, Six Feet Under or Veronica Mars, than into a feature film of the kind that our intellectual elite favour.
I'm not really sure where this rant is heading. I suppose it's a plea. Don't be ashamed to read The Da Vinci Code just because it's mass market fiction. There are plenty of other reasons to be ashamed (ie: it's crap). Embrace your love of chicklit (and its cinematic equivalent, the romcom). Read a fantasy novel. Watch Battlestar Galactica.
Yes. There is bad chicklit. And bad fantasy novels. And books like The Da Vinci Code.
But here's a revalation: there's a lot of bad books, full stop. Some of them have won prestigious literary awards.
You will judge a book by its cover - everyone does. I certainly do. But I try not to judge books by what section of the bookshop they are shelved in*.
Send in the peacekeepers! End the war! Give story a chance.
_______________
*This isn't entirely true. I tend to avoid self-help and true-crime. But in terms of fiction, I'm showing the love for all shelves.
0 Comments on Saturday morning rant (story v language) as of 1/1/1900
Penni said, on 2/22/2008 8:52:00 PM
Hallelujah sister.
limeywesty said, on 2/25/2008 12:52:00 AM
first of all, I agree. Secondly, I have learnt that I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, ever since I read a book when I was 11, that had horse poo on the cover, but in a little bubble said "do you judge a book by its cover?". It was a really great book... So, now I judge a book by its title, which is essentially on the cover, but blurbs are evil and misleading, and well, the 'Horse Apples' book knows all.
I have an email from a teacher in Australia who wants very much to teach SPEAK. She needs our help. The books have already been purchased, but the principal is having second thoughts about putting the book in curriculum.
She writes: ...could you please help me with some real examples of 'Speak' being used effectively in the classroom and/or pass on my email to someone who may be able to help me?
If you would like to help this teacher, send me your email address to laurie AT writerlady DOT com. I'll pass it on to her. Thanks!
I had another email which kept me pondering all weekend. The person heard me speak at the SCBWI conference in Michigan a few weeks ago and asked if I really meant it when I said writers should turn off the television.
The answer is no. And the answer is yes.
My primary point was this: if you are trying to be a writer, and if you find yourself complaining that you don't have enough time to write, then honestly examine how much time you watch TV. The average American watches 4.5 hours of television a day!. If you want to write and you fall in that category, it's a no-brainer. Turn off the television. Start writing. End of problem.
Now if you like television, and you are satisfied with the amount of time you're writing and quality of your work, by all means, keep watching.
BUT....
Some people see their television and movie-watching as a critical part of becoming better writers. They feel that the exposure to Story structure (Plot A, Plot B, Plot C, character arcs intersecting, etc.) that they get out of watching well-written shows helps their writing. I've had folks argue with me that they must watch TV to write books and write them well enough to be published.
Are you sure you want my honest opinion here?
I think that kind of viewing will help if you are trying to write a screenplay or break into television writing. But it's not going to do much for your book writing.
I see a consistent weakness in the writing of young people and writers who don't read much. They fumble with narrative description. They are great at dialog and they often get the bones of their story laid out well. But the actual description of scene action, setting, the observation of small details which reflect the emotional journey of the character - all that stuff is not up to snuff.
You learn how to write those elements of Story by reading. They are not part of "live action" storytelling - the kind we see on screens and stage. Television and film are different media than books. That's why books don't translate onto the screen without a great deal of changes.
TV and film are just as valid as books when it comes to storytelling. I don't think TV is evil. I see nothing wrong with being a fan of a show and really enjoying your time watching it. (Though I do believe American Idol is an utter waste of time.) There are plenty of shows and movies I've enjoyed. My larger point is this: if you think that watching TV will help you write a great book..... well, good luck with that. I don't think it works.
(Full disclosure - I tracked my TV viewing this week. I watched approximately two hours of news. BH and I watched most of the first Godfather movie Friday night, and some of the Ohio State vs. Penn State football game Saturday. I watched NFL football yesterday while I worked on thank-you notes and started watching a (Netflix) movie with Number One Son that was called on account of homework.)
"The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance,"
-JK Rowling
I find with all things Harry Potter, that I really enjoy it, until I start thinking, and then I get irritated. It was the same with Rowling's recent announcement about Dumbledore's sexuality.
At first I thought "awesome! positive gay characters in children's literature!"
And then I thought 4 things.
Thing #1
"He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him."
Once your book is published, it doesn't belong to you anymore. It belongs to your readers. Let THEM tell YOU what happens next, not the other round.
Thing #2
"If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"
No. You should have announced it years ago anyway. You should have put it in the books. You are probably the most influential human being in the world for young people. You have more power to influence young people's attitudes than the United Nations, Sesame Street and their parents combined. You had an opportunity to present them with a positive gay role model, and you chose not to, I assume, because you were scared of the reaction from the religious right.
Thing #3
[Rowling] didn't feel the need to be explicit about Dumbledore's sexual preferences because she wanted to focus on character development.
I'm going to skip over the fact that many gay people might find that sentence deeply offensive.
Dumbledore was brave. Dumbledore liked to stick it to the Man (no pun intended). Dumbledore was never afraid to tell anyone his opinion, no matter how powerful or dangerous they were.
Except no one in the Harry Potter world knew he was gay. Not Harry, or anyone else that we know of. So he was in the closet.
So if a man as open and brave as Dumbledore felt he needed to keep his sexuality a secret - exactly what kind of a world is the Potterverse? How homophobic must the world be for Dumbledore to conceal such an important part of his identity? That's not a "positive message" at all, or a "prolonged argument for tolerance". It's sad and regressive and scary.
Thing #4
Seriously. Like Rita Skeeter wouldn't have known and put it in her book.
6 Comments on The Inevitable Post about Dumbledore, last added: 11/1/2007
I'm very ambivalent about the whole gay Dumbledore thing. I don't know that we do know that "no one knew" -- it just didn't come up in the context of the story (except in the backstory about Grindelwald, of course, where it would have made perfect sense to at least give a hint for more sophisticated readers that Albus was infatuated -- I'll have to look again; maybe JK actually did that and I was too dense to pick it up).
I'm not sure how Rowling could have just dropped it into the story -- oh, by the way, Harry, though this has nothing to do with the story, I'm gay? For all we know Albus and Minvera McGonagall sat around of an evening over a glass of Firewhiskey discussing their next visit to the Kweer Klub in Diagon Alley, or whatever the Potterverse equivalent might be.
Or MAYBE it never came up because in the wizarding world, nobody cares? Wouldn't that be great?
But yes, I do take the point that it could have done a whole lotta good to get it/him "out" earlier -- and let's face it, by book 7, the Hogwarts Express was unstoppable. Such reticence seems, well, wussy, and less than Gryffindor-worthy!
Jellyfish said, on 10/28/2007 11:43:00 PM
As your previous commenter says, I just wish she'd woven in some hints for us discerning older readers. I mean, there always seemed to be a lively gay subtext lurking about (in the tradition of all good english boarding school stories) and plenty of people have easily read Tonks or McGonagall as gay, to name just a couple... Seriously, Joanne, you couldn't have thrown us a freaking clue? Must we beg for everything from you like rat-pellets? Especially in the Grindelwald stuff. (I mean, if even Dollard didn't pick up on it, I refuse to believe there's anything there.) Suddenly announcing it now now is just lame, and smacks of what I believe the fangirls call 'retcon.' SUCKS.
I'm also sorry that it puts paid to Byron's theory that Dumbledore was fucking Madame Pomfrey ('Well, he's always calling her Poppy...')
James Roy said, on 10/29/2007 6:49:00 PM
All salient points, especially number 3. It seems to me to either be a convenient afterthought to continue driving publicity, or a gutless decision she took to not out D'dore during the writing of the story because of the religious right (who were already deeply divided over HP). Or - third option - her characterisation of D'dore was so cliched that she couldn't bear to disturb the frailty of that cliche through introducing something about the characer that was ... I don't know, interesting.
Shannon said, on 10/29/2007 11:34:00 PM
When I first heard about this (on Salon -- excellent article if you want to look it up) my first thought was that immortal line from "Heathers":
"I love my dead gay son!"
Where the unspoken but crystal-clear question screams out: yes, but would you love him gay if he wasn't dead?
Dumbledore alive and gay? Problematic for JK.
But she loves her dead gay wizard...
Susanne said, on 10/31/2007 6:40:00 PM
Good post. She felt free to be explicit about Harry, Hermione, Ron and Ginny's sexual preference, as well as most of the other heterosexual characters, so this seems like a cop-out.
Why not put it in the books? Is it because the books are aimed at kids? All the more reason to present them with a range of sexual preferences beyond the heterosexual norm I think.
Budgie said, on 11/1/2007 6:59:00 PM
Not that this has anything to do with yor post, but why did you e-mail me about this?
My father-in-law is responding to the meds and is awake and aware. Grandmother Death seems to have given him a pass this week.
I am at the end of the revision of my historical - huzzah - and am looking forward to getting back to the new WIP.
Our problems with Time Warner Cable - messed up cable, internet and phone - continue to drive us crazy and make their technicians curse and kick the ground. This has been going on for a month now. I am about to cancel all of the services, permanently, and see this as the Universe's way of giving me more time to write and read.
A couple of people have asked me what I think about J.K. Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore was gay. I think she misses writing, that's what I think. I suspect that now the pressure is off to finish the series, and the hoopla over the last book's publication has died down, she finds herself thinking about her characters a lot. And I wouldn't be surprised if she's writing about them, but she doesn't want to tell anybody until she'd finished.
I want a magazine that refuses advertisements that use these deceptive dollbaby images. I want models who don't look like lollipops. I want Hannah Montana to stop grinding her hips when she dances in front of an audience of 9-year-olds.
What do you want from the worlds of fashion and entertainment?
Our Internet has been taken over by poltergeists, so I have limited email and web time this week. I am deep, deep in my rough draft, walking around in a fog. It's a good thing that BH is a patient man. Daughter Meredith sent me a giant vat of popcorn to feed the muse. If this keeps up, I might even meet my deadline!
I must share one more article. When working on my Masters and later PhD, I spent a great deal of time studying the history of science education since the launch of Sputnik. In today's New York Times there is an article entitled When Science Suddenly Mattered, in Space and Class.
While the launch of Sputnik spurred unprecedented reform in science education, these efforts had fallen off by the early 80s. In 1983, a bipartisan committee produced a federal report called A Nation At Risk, in which they cited the steady decline of science achievement. More than 20 years later, this situation has not changed. Fewer and fewer students these days want to pursue careers in math, science and engineering, with the number of minority students a startlingly small portion of those who do.
This article highlights a bit of the history of science education and attempts to address some of the problems plaguing us today. Here's one problem that is cited.
Dr. Malcolm said some of the blame must go to the way classes are taught, with too much emphasis on memorizing terminology and not enough on concepts. Most students receive teaching-to-the-test instruction, she and other experts say, in which science laboratories are organized like cookbooks, with ingredients, equipment and instructions — and results — known in advance.
It's a great article with much food for thought. Do head on over and check it out.
1 Comments on When Science Mattered, last added: 10/12/2007
One thing that never ceases to puzzle me is that science tends to be considered by the public at large as 'the boring subject'. You know, in the same way broccoli is the nasty vegetable (in the UK it's brussels sprouts).I want to scream. 'But science is awesome!' 'Science is mind-blowing!' And so on. And the space race was superb. Scientists playing on the paranoia of their masters to pursue
We devote a great deal of time in our pre-service preparation program to helping our future teachers grapple with issues related to teaching diverse groups of students. In a course called Diverse Learners and Environments, we introduce the wide range of diversity that exists across today's general school population and examine the increased professional demands that this diversity makes upon teachers. We explore a range of diversity issues including economic, social, racial, ethnic, religious, geographic, and physical and cognitive abilities and backgrounds of children.
Through field experiences, upper division course work and finally student teaching, we attempt to get students into schools where they will experience the full range of this diversity. We also share current research and approaches to working with different student populations.
Given our emphasis on developing teachers who are sensitive to the needs of all children, I was particularly interested in this recent article from Education Week on strategies for Native American students. Entitled Varied Strategies Sought for Native American Students, the article examines approaches taken in states where Native American students make up a large portion of the minority student population. The two contrasting approaches highlighted are worth considering and discussing. Here is an excerpt:
Subscribing to the philosophy that Indian students are best served by a focus on core academics was Ben Chavis, a former principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, Calif., who gave a keynote address on the first day of the conference.
Mr. Chavis told how over five years at the school he helped change the academic performance of students by paring down the curriculum to focus on language arts and mathematics. The school went from having one of the worst academic records in Oakland to having one of the best, he said. It also grew far more diverse, from having 27 students, most of whom were Native American, to 230 students, 12 percent of whom are Native American.
Mr. Chavis said that when he started as the principal in 2000, students were spending an hour each morning in a practice derived from Native American culture called a “talking circle,” in which they were “sitting around in the circle passing the feather.”
Though he grew up attending segregated schools for Native Americans in North Carolina, he saw that practice as a waste of time and eliminated it. He also moved cultural electives such as music to after-school programs, so the school day could be spent on core academics.
But in a breakout session that followed Mr. Chavis’ address, Sandra J. Fox, a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, and a consultant on Indian education, said she encourages schools to take a very different tack—in one school, she quipped, “we instituted a talking circle.”
In general, Ms. Fox stressed the importance of incorporating Native American culture and history into lessons and teaching in ways that are compatible with that culture. She said, for example, that many Indian parents teach their children by doing or showing, rather than telling, and that such a method works well also in school with such children.
“Indian children watch and watch and watch, and don’t want to try it until they think they can do it,” she said.
Ms. Fox also recommended that teachers use “instructional conversation,” in which they sit in a circle with students, informally introduce a subject they are about to teach, and ask for student input. She said that Native American children also respond well to hearing lessons in a storytelling form.
I must admit that even though the first method described has raised scores, it is the same approach we are seeing in our urban schools here and one that concerns me greatly. Yes, core academics are important, but if we choose to diminish the importance of science, social studies, the arts and other experiential parts of the curriculum, we run the risk of creating children who narrowly focused, unable to see connections among disciplines and how we use these skills and ideas in the real world, and poised to see little value in their schooling. We must do more than teach/prepare students to pass a test.
That said, I'm all for Ms. Fox's method of reaching students, and think it holds promise for students who may come from different cultural backgrounds. We must learn to value who students are and what they bring to the classroom if we expect them to value what we do and can offer them in return.
Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. Fire away.
2 Comments on Academics or Culture? How Best to Raise Achievement, last added: 9/26/2007
good questions. good conversation starter. While I think the second approach has some value, particularly in its inclusion in the curriculum of American Indian history and stories, I also feel strongly that it *can* become an excuse for not having high academic expectations for all students. It can become a way to say "these kids learn different so it's okay if they don't master grade level
Tricia said, on 9/26/2007 3:59:00 AM
Hi Amy,I do agree and absolutely believe in setting high standards for all kids. The problem, as I see it, is that state standards have become for many kids, the ceiling and not the floor. We should be working from these baseic standards, not toward them. I do, however, have huge problems with saying that little beyond reading and math are important. I know these are core, but we must do more. We
I've seen this before but he still got a standing ovation at the end. I think I might have to put it on Eglantine's Cake too.
Andrew said, on 8/27/2007 10:46:00 PM
Awesome.
However, to play Devil's advocate for a moment, for every common misconception about a given profession, there's always an element of truth. I mean, I'm passionate about being a librarian, and when I have to deal with ignorant attitudes to my profession, yes, I get angry, but I can understand where they're coming from. And whilst I've had inspiring, life-changing teachers, but I've also had really really lousy ones who just would just steamroll kids through the curriculum and give them a pass/fail, who are examples of people who "can't do, so they teach", and really *don't* make a difference.
And unfortunately, their students will see this video, and say "My teacher was crap, and this guy's full of himself."
audrey said, on 8/29/2007 1:10:00 AM
I thought is was fucking amazing. I want to kiss him on the lips. The next best thing though is showing all my teacher friends.
Adam said, on 8/29/2007 6:31:00 PM
I saw him do this live in NYC in 2000. The crowd frickin' sang along - they knew all the words.
Do you know his other poem, 'Like Lili Like Wilson'? Similar theme.
Doesn't hurt that he's a goddamn spunkrat, does it?
Jellyfish said, on 8/30/2007 2:46:00 PM
Who the hell is this god-like figure and why hasn't he asked me out?
Lilo thanks so much for this! God, that bit about not letting them go to the toilet - I practically screamed! And calling the parents at dinner time, saying 'Have I called at a bad time...?' I think i've done it four times already this year!
I have such a complicated relationship with Harry.
I approach him as a reader, a fan, a critic, a children's literature professional and a writer.
I spent the weekend with my peeps, curled up on sofas under doonas, munching on pumpkin cupcakes and bagels and listening to Snaz read the book aloud. It was awesome. We laughed, we cried, we complained at the huge tracts of exposition. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, as I always have whenever I've read a HP book.
There are a lot of criticisms I could make, but I'm going to skip over most of them. You can overlook a lot of faults for a book that inspires so much hype, joy, love and enthusiasm.
BUT.
There's just this one thing.
The muggles.
I really, really, really wanted there to be a Muggle in the final battle. I wanted, just ONCE in the entire 7 part series, for there to be a Muggle who was a Good Guy. Not someone nasty or stupid or ineffectual. Someone GOOD. I really thought that we might see the New Improved Dudley again.
And after the series railed for so long against the Slytherins and Death Eaters for their attitudes towards halfbloods and mudbloods and purebloods - what happened with the Good Guys in the end? All the wizards married wizards and had little pureblood wizard babies. No mixed marriages. No 'squibs'. It just totally validated everything the bad guys were gunning for.
Even the single interracial relationship (Lupin and Tonks) wasn't permitted to exist in the Happily Ever After. And tell me Dobby wasn't totally the black guy who dies in the first half of an action movie.
Finally, I just need to share the cover of Melbourne's right-wing tabloid propaganda machine Sunday Herald Sun, on the day when most of the English-speaking world were reading Harry Potter: For a moment I wasn't sure if I was seeing the Herald Sun or the Daily Prophet. Then I saw that peculiar use of the word Wizard! and wondered if there was a Harry Potter musical.
7 Comments on Spoilery Pottery Initial Thoughts, last added: 8/1/2007
I must admit, I hadn't thought of having muggles in the final battle. To be honest, I'm not sure what they might do. Any attempt to have them attack wizards as we humans seem to attack might just come across as being very slapstick.
I did however feel a bit disappointed that JK didn't leave even a couple of overage Slytherins behind to fight on the side of good. Kind of negates the whole argument that Slytherins aren't always evil.
Also, where was Luna in the epilogue? Not even a passing mention! ('friends'!)
Overall though, I completely loved it and am utterly depressed that the past ten years of one of my life's obsessions have drawn to a close. Tear.
I also loved 'Albus Severus'. It made me cry and cry.
lili said, on 7/23/2007 4:44:00 PM
I'm sure they could have found something to do... helping Trelawney lob crystal balls?
(which was pretty slapstick, btw. along with the magic snapping desks and Professor Sprout and a number of other elements. i'm sure the muggles wouldn't have felt out of place)
Susannah said, on 7/23/2007 9:52:00 PM
Good point, Lilli. I've been feeling a bit uneasy about the way that Hermione's parents were sidelined - that is to say, non existent - throughout the entire series. Did we ever lay eyes on them? Hermione seemed to spend most of her holidays at the Burrow. Did SHE ever lay eyes on them?
Love is the big answer - parental love is all important if you're Lilli Potter, if you're Mrs Weasley, even in you're Narcissa Malfoy. But if you are a muggle parent - off to Australia with you.
But, criticisms to one side: absolutely, totally and in all other ways throughly enjoyable.
Amanda said, on 7/24/2007 8:19:00 PM
I think having Muggles in the final battle would seem very out of place. Who would they be? Where would they have come from? Surely they'd spend most of their time going 'Holy fuck these people can do magic!' and then getting killed.
As for the Slytherins all being bad - don't forget Snape, Slughorn and even Draco. Might have been nice for another student or two to stick around to fight, though.
And as for 'all the wizards married wizards' - well, no. Ginny and Hermione married wizards. Draco's wife might have been a Muggle (unlikely) and we just don't know about anyone else. I think a lot of people are reading so much more into the epilogue than was actually there - eg "OMG everyone = babyfactories!!!!" - when she just doesn't mention that aspect of anyone's life. Only Neville's career is mentioned, but that doesn't mean nobody else has one.
Anyway. It seems she's considering publishing her reams of backstory so maybe the answers will all be there. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19935372/)
Penni said, on 7/28/2007 1:35:00 AM
Yeah, good point - we did really need to see some value in Muggle-kind. My prediction was that Harry would die (releasing the bit of the soul) and Hermione would use 'Muggle magic' (mouth to mouth) to bring him back - but I was wrong. It seemed that Dudley might come back into it...I also thought that Petunia knew something she wasn't telling - it always seemed to be the implication - so I was a bit disappointed about the absence of the Dursleys from most of the novel. Didn't some of the Slytherins come back? The dude in his emerald pyjamas? But yes, I agree with that too. JK said she gave Mr Weasley a 'reprieve' but she couldn't in all conscience have killed another father, could she? And it would have made Ron's motivation too much like Harry's, Harry wouldn't have been special enough anymore (well apart from the scar, Voldemort lives in his brain because he's a horcrux thing).
Anyway. It was completely flawed, but the best things are, and I loved every moment of it anyway.
Naomi said, on 8/1/2007 5:18:00 PM
You weren't the only ones with the feeling things were left unanswered. J K Rowling had a chat on Bloomsbury.com where she was asked over 120,000 questions! She obviously couldn't answer them all, but she did answer a great number of them.
Here's a transcript courtesy of The-Leaky-Cauldron.org: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript
Here are some of the 'unanswereds' from the gap in time in Deathly Hallows:
* Harry returned to Hogwarts for his final year and took his NEWTs. * Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner. * After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet. * Luna ended up marrying (rather later than Harry and company) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander named Rolf. * When Dudley was attacked by the Dementors, he saw himself for the first time as he really was. This was an extremely painful, but ultimately a salutory lesson and began the transformation in him. * Remus was killed by Dolohov and Tonks by Bellatrix. * The absence of Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's office was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles. Rowling would like to think that Harry would be instrumental in ensuring that Snape’s portrait would appear there in due course. * George would never get over losing Fred. He names his first child and son Fred. * Lockhart will never recover. * Teddy Lupin isn't a werewolf, but rather he is Metamorphmagus like his mother. * Harry doesn't give away the Marauder's Map, but James sneaks it out of his father’s desk one day. * Umbridge was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned for crimes against Muggleborns. * Dumbledore's boggart is the corpse of his sister. * Hermione brought her parents home right away and undid the memory damage.
Naomi said, on 8/1/2007 5:21:00 PM
However- some of these answers raised MORE questions for me... like WHY wasn't Tonks and LUpins son a werewolf? Seems a copout that he's a more acceptable type of wizard.
And it wasn't a case of pure bloods marrying pure bloods. Ron marries Hermione, a Muggle. So they have Mudblood kids. Ginny marries Harry, a Mudblood- so what are their kids? How does one refer to a half Mudblood?
I personally hated the '19 years later'. Lame, and raised too many questions, the answers to which seemed far too white picket and lowest-common-denominator-pleasing for my liking. But yay for the book, the series, and the new generation of readers it produced. I still love it, despite my criticisms :)
At the launch of Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist*, both Ros Price (the publisher) and David Levithan (one of the two authors) said some very nice things.
I don't think it's entirely true to say that the book only got published in Australia because Mike and I pushed so hard for it. The book got published in Australia because it's fucking awesome. We just pointed that out to some people (okay, everyone we met), and Allen & Unwin were nice enough to listen.
It is very gratifying to learn that, when it comes to YA in Australia, my opinions count for something. It's flattering. It also feels like a responsibility.
I have a pile of signed books from Reading Matters, from writers who I respect more than I can say. And many of these authors, above their signatures, thanked me for "fighting the good fight".
This is, in part, a reference to David Levithan's amazing, moving, provocative and inspiring talk about "Killing the Vampires" and making sure the right books get to the teens who really need to see themselves on the shelves of their library.
I can't do justice to what he said with a neat summary. You will have to hear it yourselves. It was a talk for librarians, but everyone needs to hear it. At the conference, it received a standing ovation. I was not the only person moved to tears.
And you need to do more than hear it. You need to copy it, you need to put it on your blog, you need to tell people about it, talk about it, think about it. It has a Creative Commons license, so use it as you will.
Help us fight the good fight.
--------------------------------------------- * review here and first chapter here
2 Comments on The Good Fight, last added: 6/23/2007
Hallelujah sister.
first of all, I agree.
Secondly, I have learnt that I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, ever since I read a book when I was 11, that had horse poo on the cover, but in a little bubble said "do you judge a book by its cover?". It was a really great book...
So, now I judge a book by its title, which is essentially on the cover, but blurbs are evil and misleading, and well, the 'Horse Apples' book knows all.