December 30, 2007
Harry Potter Family Tree
Posted by Dianne at 4:53 PM
August 2, 2007
What Is Your Patronus?
Via Count it all Joy.
Posted by Dianne at 4:27 PM | Comments (1)
Comments
Mine's an otter too. Although I really think mine would be something really odd like a lemur or a sloth. I wonder if a sloth patronus would move as slowly as a real sloth... that wouldn't be very helpful. lol
Posted by: Sonya at August 3, 2007 12:41 PM
July 31, 2007
Questions About Harry Potter?
JK's got answers! She says there will be more to come as well. She answered several of the questions I had, though not all. Check it out if you're a Harry Potter fan.
Posted by Dianne at 10:12 AM | Comments (2)
Comments
Now I'm confused... I read this article last week http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ & it has a different occupation for Ron.
Posted by: Sonya at July 31, 2007 12:54 PM
I saw that the other day. Perhaps he changed careers like Hermione. Initially she said that she was high up in Magical Law Enforcement, but then she added that she first was in the Department of Magical Creatures and straightened up a lot of the nonsense that abounded in regards to house elves, goblins, etc. Maybe Ron was an Auror for a while and then went to help George or vice versa.
Posted by: Dianne at July 31, 2007 1:15 PM
July 21, 2007
Harry Is Here!
I've already read the story, but I won't ruin it for those who haven't! At last Harry is here!
Posted by Dianne at 9:01 AM
July 7, 2007
Can You Guess?
2 weeks people!
14 days!
Do you know what I'm talking about?
Click on the extended entry below for the answer.
I'm so excited! I can't wait to see how this series ends!!
Posted by Dianne at 6:10 PM | Comments (2)
Comments
I know! I can't wait! Raf is going to read it first, though (I'm such a nice wife). I'm going to be chomping at the bit, though!
Posted by: Moni at July 12, 2007 8:34 PM
Too bad you don't live closer. I ordered two copies...One for me and one for Alexis' collection. I could let you borrow one! :o)
Posted by: Dianne at July 12, 2007 8:40 PM
March 26, 2007
Read it!
You won't be sorry! ;o)
Posted by Dianne at 9:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
February 1, 2007
Rowling unveils last Potter date
The last instalment of the Harry Potter saga will be published on 21 July, author JK Rowling has announced.She confirmed the date fans will be able to get their hands on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on her website.
Rowling has said two characters die in the final instalment and fans will want to know if Harry is one of them.
The Potter books have sold 325 million copies worldwide, have been translated into 64 languages and spawned five blockbuster movies.
This is the 10th anniversary of the first book of the hugely successful series being published.
I'll ignore the 2 characters dying right now and worry about that when the book gets here. Yeah! I'm off to order my and Alexis' copies now!
Found via BBC News.
Posted by Dianne at 8:38 AM
December 26, 2006
The Celestine Prophecy
If you have read the book the Celestine Prophecy you should check out the movie version that is also written by James Redfield! It's very good.
And if you haven't read the book you should do that:
It's very uplifting and enlightening.
Posted by Dianne at 9:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Comments
I adore the second book mentioned. Love it!
Posted by: London Southern Belle at December 27, 2006 6:11 PM
I do too! In fact I'm getting ready to reread it. It's so inspriring! :O)
Posted by: Dianne at December 28, 2006 4:35 PM
December 21, 2006
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
J.K. Rowling has announced that the final book in the Harry Potter series will be entitled Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Well I can't say I'm overly thrilled with or even interested in the titled, but hopefully the book itself will be much better!
And if she does kill of Harry in the end I am going to be extremely ticked off that I invested this much time and energy in the story!
And that goes for Ron, Hermione or Ginny as well! And I could go on, but you get the picture.
Posted by Dianne at 12:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Comments
Here, this will help make the title make more sense:
http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm#HAL
It turns out that Hallows is a noun. Learn something new every day.
Posted by: reno at December 21, 2006 5:50 PM
I realized where it came from from a mythological perspective, I just thought it was dull in a been there, done that sort of way. I expected the last title to be something with more oomph and more pizazz! I guess I just put more faith into J.K.'s creativity than what the title suggests.
Posted by: Dianne at December 23, 2006 10:59 AM
September 27, 2006
Banned Books Week
I keep forgetting to point out that fact that it's "Banned Books Week"! Some of the books they have on the list are just insane! The most challenged books of the century can be found here.
Banning books has nothing to do with anything other than people trying to exert complete power over others. In short it's insane! If you don't like a book then don't read it! That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't read it and enjoy it if we want to.
Click on the button below to visit the American Library Association's webpage for more information"
Posted by Dianne at 3:12 PM | Comments (36) | TrackBack
Comments
you've got to be kidding?!? of mice and men, i know why the caged bird sings, & forever?
Posted by: gorillabuns at September 27, 2006 4:06 PM
Makes the mind reel doesn't it?
Posted by: Dianne at September 27, 2006 5:15 PM
It's is really quite insane when you look at the books that are on the list of banned books. I've been doing a lot of research on this the past two weeks since I've got a Banned Books week display up here at teh library. Your right, it is about people trying to exert control over others. Trying to decide for them what they should and shouldnt' read, as if people are stupid and can't make up thier own minds.
Posted by: Moni at September 27, 2006 5:42 PM
Isn't the name more for effect than truth, since no books have been banned-just challenged. Our library has the papered/taped display up with "Banned Books"--I think it is rather misleading, giving the impression that all those books were banned, if people do not actually know that no books were banned. There is free speech for people to say there are books in the library that shouldn't be available to children. Many books have merely been questioned by parents and moved to different parts of the library. The parents didn’t like their children having access to graphic sex, etc. and said so. Books are questioned because parents want to have a choice as to what their children are exposed to at the library and at school.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 1:54 AM
So if you don't like the book then don't let your children read it, but raising a hoopla about how no one should read it is ridiculous! What I might find offensive, someone else might not, and who am I to say what your child can read? The Harry Potter books are the prime example. While I think people who don't like the books, and in many cases haven't even read them to know what's actually in them are off base, that doesn't mean that those parents that are concerned about them shouldn't do what they think is best for their child, and in turn it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to read them myself and to my children. Likewise I wouldn't let Alexis read a book by a right wing author or even read one myself, but you've got to do what you've go to do.
It's about personal responsibility. There are tons of books I wouldn't read myself, or want Alexis to read, but that doesn't mean they should be banned. That just means that I, as a parent, need to be aware and ensure that I do what is best for my child and myself. Banning books, even talking about banning books, is simply nuts!
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 8:32 AM
I do not think books should be banned-I just think there are two issues here. Of course people need to make their own decisions. What I am talking about-not banning books-is 1.--I do think some of the campaign is misleading. Even on the site it says vote for your favorite banned book and when you click it has a list of challenged books. Also--if there is a book in the children's section of the library--and in this day and age there are many books there, that while a person would not think they should be banned, they do not appreciate that book being in the children's section--when that book is brought to the librarians attention and asked if it maybe shoud not be in the children's section--that is treated as a threat to that book-and when you see the numbers of how often that book has been challenged=it could just be that a parent was concerned about that particular book being in the children's section. It needs to be kept in perspective-a parent showing concern about a book is not the same as someone wanting to ban books. Even saying--Free to Read that parent would not be trying to take people;s freedom to read away. There are a ligitimate issues with some books--no they should not be banned--but sometimes they do not to be in the children's section. And I'm not talking about Harry Potter. I mean books with sexual content--parents are responsible for their children-the books should be in the adult section giving the parents the choice of when/if to expose their children to those books. Like I said--I just think there are 2 diff. issues--and they can't both be lumped under "their trying to ban books and take are freedom to read away." Esp. when it concerns grade school libraries. You can't say it is up to parents to decide what is best for their children-and then have certain books in the elementary school library-because that is taking the decisions away from the parents-for when their child will be exposed to certain issues. I am not talking about books like Huck Finn --I mean in this day and age--in the world today--there are many books out there exposing various issues to children that should be up to the parents when these issues will be dicussed.
Again--I know with the #'s given to challenged books--the3y include a parent saying--maybe that book could be moved to a diff. section--for that to be treated with hysteria of our freedoms are being taken away!! --that is ridiculous.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 9:46 AM
I was simply using Harry Potter as an example since it appears to be quite popular on the "ban" list being in the #1 spot. And the issues you raise are one in the same. There is no distinction. It all boils down to parenting your child. You are in control, not some invisible outside force. It's about responsibility and it's as simple as that. If you aren't responsible enough to pay attention to the content of what your child is reading than that is your issue. It's not the library's job to do that for a parent. These ideas are not hysterical. You seem to be the one having the problem with that issue.
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 11:06 AM
I really don't think the campaign is misleading at all. The website is very clear about the books on their list being banned or challenged. And ALA takes both very seriously:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wbc
As and aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people. If you look at the challenged/bannned book list you will see that there are books challenged for many different reasons. For example, Harry Potter might be banned or challenged by the far-right because they think it will expose children to magic and then turn them into evil magicians. On the other side, books like Huckleberry Finn are banned or challenged because of it's use of a racial slur (that I don't want to repeat here), which is the kind of issue (political correctness and all that) people on the left are generally more concerned with. These are just very general examples. So I just want to be clear that ALA and librarians in general are concerned with book banning and challenging from all sides of the political spectrum. We just think all of it is wrong. period.
I think the point is that we believe in not only freedom of speech, but freedom of thought. What is wrong with children being exposed to ideas? Why not use these ideas as a jumping off point for a discussion? Why repress the idea completely? I hate to burst your bubble but children are exposed to things like sex and racism and Harry Potter without reading books about it. And I agree with Dianne, if you don't want your children to read these books then simply don't let them read the books. Keep track of what your children are doing. Talk to them about what they are reading so that you know.
My point is that, as Americans, we should be allowed to be exposed to works of literature, read them, and make our own decisions about them. And I include children in this. I don't think it is an American ideal to force your (again speaking generally here) your opinion about a book on others. I don't think it is right to tell others "you have to think the way I think. You have to believe the way I believe." I think that people should be exposed to knowledge and works of literature and then make their own decisions about it.
The point about questioning whether something should be in the children or adult section is a sticky one. I think the problem with this idea of challenging a book is simply that it has a chilling effect. Which is repressive and wrong.
Okay, I'll get down off of my soapbox now :)
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 12:38 PM
Very well put Monica!
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 12:43 PM
It seems like a contradiction to me to be saying on one hand that I as a parent is responsible for what my child reads and then saying there is nothing wrong with all books to be available in the school library for a child's free choosing. Contadictory.
Common sense can be used as to certain books not being in the children's section of the public library--why would that have to be threatening and chilling?
Also--are you aware that homeschooling is illegal in Germany for the same reasoning you support? They don't want a child at home where the parent is making the decisions on what to teach their children--they need to be in public school under the reasoning that all children should have the right to learn about all philosophical beliefs-which may sound goood--but is actually saying others besides the parents should be in control of what your children learn. So your reasoning can actually lead to homeschooling being banned....hmmm
It is 2 issues--being made into one with contradictions.
By the way I have a very good relationship with the librarians at our public library, book banning display and all :)
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 1:08 PM
Oh by the way
quote: As and aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people
Where did that come from? Who said anything about the right/the left? If I as a parent want to be responsible and make the decisions for my child--that is making a ref. to the right? Why would that be? Am I to conclude that only right leaning people think they will decide for their children and not the govt? (Like in Germany?)
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 1:13 PM
There is nothing contradictory about that at all. You should be responsible for your child, not the library. I don't see how that is so hard to grasp. And your link between home schooling and banning books is nuts. If that is how it is in Germany (I don't know, because I haven't ever studied the issue) then that's just wrong. There is no correlation between the two and if they are saying there is then they are grasping at straws on very shaky ground.
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 1:15 PM
I think you saying parents are responsible for what their children read and then saying it is wrong for parents to voice concern over certain books and their placement is contradictory. Esp. in schools if all books are available to all children no matter the age-that takes the responsiblity AND abilty for the parents to make the decisions for their own cildren away from the parents--and puts it in the hands of the school ie. government. Now as far as Germany is concerned--it is news-so don't have to look too far--homeschooling is illegal there and a German Consulate stated it is illegal because all children have the right to be exposed to all beliefs when they say they should be. So you say children should be allowed access to every book. They are children and parents need to be protecting them, making decisions for them. There is a diff. between adults making decisions for themselves and children beig left to make decisions for themselves. Now you said you would not have your daughter read books from a right wing author. From your other reasoning--she should be allowed to and should be exposed to all beliefs. And she should be taught them when others, not you, decide she should be taught them. And above all else, she should be taught tolerance of every right wing belief :)
And again--I am not speaking of banning books-so I make no link between that and homeschooling. What I said was if you believe others should decide what and when your children are exposed to various beliefs--that is exactly why Germany made homeschooling illegal. Do you know it was actually Hitler who first made it illegal?
I still think it is a contradiction for you to say "You should be responsible for your child, not the library." and then when a parent wants to take responsibilty and say--have a book moved to a diff. section--that is wrong. Isn't it taking responsibility for what your children are reading?
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 2:15 PM
Well, it might be taking responsibility for what your child is reading, true, but it is also exerting control over others, which I feel, is wrong. I would rather my child (if I had one) read a book that mentions things that are a little bit controversial so that I can discuss it with them then just totally repress it for my child and everyone elses child.
I don't know WTF homeschooling has to do with this discussion so I will just leave it at that.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 2:32 PM
I didn't read all of comments before I put my last comment up there. Deb, I was not targeting you when I said, "As an aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people". I was just setting the record straight because I read an article on a neocon website that did say Banned Books week was a way for "liberal librarians" to point fingers at people on the far right. I was not implying that you were saying that in your comment. I am not implying that you are a Neocon. Hence the phrase "As an aside."
I would like to add that I don't know WTF germany and Hitler have to do with this discussion either. ARe you saying librarians are like Hitler? If so I take issue with that. You are truly nuts if this is what you are implying. In fact, I think you owe me, a librarian, an apology for implying this. The difference between librarians and Hitler is that Librarians actually care about American's civil liberties. We care about freedom of thought, freedom to read, freedom of speech. We want people to actually be able to think for themselves. To have access to knowledge. Hitler, being a fascist, didn't. And he murdered millions of Jews,which librarians would NEVER do. Duh.
Furthermore, how is my argument contridictory? That doesnt' make any sense. I am telling you that, rather than being repressive by telling libraries "this book is bad because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is what children should be reading" you should, instead, deal with your child individually. Don't parent the rest of the world. Parent your own child. Librarians are not the parents of your child. You are the parent of your child. I'm not saying don't parent your child. I'm just saying do it differently. Don't force it on the rest of us.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 2:52 PM
That's not being responsible, that's just pushing your own world view. What you might find offensive, might not bother someone else and vice versa. Monica said it very well.
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 2:56 PM
Here are two scenarios that I can think of for controversial children's material:
1.The book is shelved in the general stacks of the children's section of the library and parents who don't want their child to read that book are responsible to make sure they don't pick it up. Which, BTW, they can't do in a school library--they can only allow/disallow the reading of books once they have actually been brought home.
2. The book is shelved in a 'controversial issues' area of the children's section of the library where a parent who does want their child to read it can easily find it for them.
Why would one situation be preferable to the other?
Posted by: cjmr at September 28, 2006 3:34 PM
I don't think either one of those situations are preferable. I say we keep them all together and not single anything out.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 4:14 PM
Moni, that'd be situation 1, then.
Posted by: cjmr at September 28, 2006 4:24 PM
Oh..I guess your right :P
Sorry about that!
But I just want to say that I see nothing wrong with parents allowing/dissallowing their children to read books after they are home. I don't know if you are implying that its wrong or not. Again, it's not the job of a librarian to act as parents. More specifically, is not the job of a librarian to say a child can or can't check out a certain book.
Situation 1 is preferable because it doesn't single out any books. Again, I think singling out a book and saying "this book is wrong for all children because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is wrong or right" ultimately has a chilling effect. And as soon as you do single out a book and put it in a "controversial issues" section children are going to want to read it anyway. Making something controversial makes people more interested in it.
I don't think parents are really the ones who neccessarily *want* children to read controversial books. I think children get thier hands on them or are asked to find books on controverial topics by teachers for a report or something like that. I've never really had a parent come to me seeking out books on controversial topics for thier children, really.
Rather than repressing controversial subject matter why not use it as a jumping off point for discussion? Or just take the book and have them not read it after they are home. I guess that decision is up to the parent. But I think it should be something between the parent and child.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 5:06 PM
You put words into my mouth. You jump from asking if I was implying librarians were like Hitler to saying I owe you an apology for saying it. I am not linking the librarians to Germany/homeschooling or Hitler. I just had a few different thoughts going at the same time.
I don't understand why you guys can't get what I am saying, whether you disagree or not.
1. I never said "hysterical librarians". I see a pattern going here--taking what I say and misrepresenting it-why? to make it seem I am saying something I'm not? So you can fit me into your preconcieved ideas of people who think diff. from you? I don't know. But stick to the facts where what I say is concerned, please.
2. Also--saying a parent should be able to ask for a book to be removed from the children's section is not pushing my world view. It's not asking the material to be removed--just moved to a diff. section. And when I say section I was thinking the adult section of the library--not to a contoversial section in the children's section. Have the material, but in the adult section, so it is available for the parent to decide if they want it for their child. Do you think a parent should not ask for that?
3. You said that everyone, including children should have every book available to them. To have available to them every way of thinking, right? All the various beliefs etc? So--all I was pointing out was that that is the reason (or one of them)Germany has made homeschooling illegal--they want to make sure all children are being exposed to all beliefs. And then I remembered that it was Hitler who first banned homeschooling--because he wanted to be in control of what children learned--not the parents. Had nothing to do with any name calling--I know I for one have never compared anyone to Hitler--not even George W. But I know I heard that somewhere.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 5:47 PM
By asking to have it removed to a different section you ARE pushing your world view. Because you think a book is bad, you want it moved to another section, but what about the parents that don't have an issue with said book? Why should they have to live by your world view. Why should they have to go to another section to get a book, when you can just not get the book. Even in terms of a child, again be a parent!
And as for the rest of your rant, it's just that...A rant. You're trying to make "logical" connections where there is no logic. You have majorly strayed off course of what the original discussion is even about.
And there is no need to get haughty with anyone here. The whole Hitler thing is just out of line.
Posted by: Dianne at September 28, 2006 6:04 PM
Oh, yes--another inconsistency--
"Furthermore, how is my argument contridictory? That doesnt' make any sense. I am telling you that, rather than being repressive by telling libraries "this book is bad because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is what children should be reading" you should, instead, deal with your child individually."
OK--I never used that as my example--I talked about asking a book to be moved to another section. So--why does my question have to be twisted into something that sounds like I am saying what you said up there? Can you respond to what I actually said-so since I know you work in a library-going back to the beginning--let me ask--if a parent asks for a book to be moved elsewhere 1.do you consider that a neg. thing? 2. it was my understanding that by asking for a book to be moved to another area that counted as a challenge and was counted in the #'s being shown at the ALA site for how many times a book has been challenged--but maybe I was wrong in that--maybe that is not counted? 3. If a parent brought up a concern about content to you would there be situations where you would agree and actually move the book to the adult section?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 6:05 PM
Deb, I understand perfectly what you are saying. I do appreciate the clarification regarding the Hitler comment. Frankly, I don't know why you had to bring Hitler into this whole thing in the first place, but that's beside the point.
Again, I think that any kind of challenge to a book is wrong. It is forcing your viewpoint on others. I think the idea of moving book from the children's section to the adult section is better than banning the book altogether, though. But any kind of challenge to a book is an imposition of one's beliefs onto other. And that is wrong.
I think that is all I am going to say on this subject. I'm just repeating myself. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind and my mind is not going to be changed on the subject so I will just leave it at that.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 6:13 PM
okay, I lied. I was commenting above while the other comments were made.
Hmmm. okay lets see if I can address your issues. I guess I am kind of putting words in your mouth. But it really is what you are implying when you want a book moved to a different part of the library. You dont' like what is in the book. Why? Let's assume it's because of sexual content (since that is what you did say above). You feel that children shouldn't have acess to books with sexual content. But what if parent B is fine with the content of the book? What if Parent B thinks the book is a classic of Children's literature and wants her child to read it? What if parent B feels that her child is mature enough to handle the content? If I am parent B I certainly don't want someone deciding for me what should and shouldn't be in the children's collection.
Again, I don't see how I'm being inconsistant. By telling a library to move a book you are essentially saying "this book is bad." How does one define bad? It's totally subjective. Your idea of bad is different from someone elses idea of bad. So by you saying a book is bad you are essentially saying "this book doesn't fit into my mold of what is right for children to read."
Okay, I'm getting a headache at this point so let me just wrap up by answering your questions.
1) Yes I do think a parent asking to have a book moved from one collection to another is a negative thing.
2)To be honest, I don't know what is counted as challenged and I don't feel like researching it out right now. I'm not on the "Banned Books" committee. I do have work to do today and this has kind of taken up too much of my time already. I'm sure if you check out ALA's banned books week website you will find your answer. If not, why not just shoot them an e-mail?
3)I don't personally make those decisions. But we have moved books to different collections at our library. It's a compromise that is livable. It still sucks but it's a compromise.
Posted by: Moni at September 28, 2006 7:09 PM
Yeah--it is getting rather repetitive, huh.
Bye the way-I do agree parents should discuss various issues with their children; can use books to lead to discussions on differing beliefs, why we believe what we do, etc. It just seems if books with certain content are in the children's section that is kind of forcing the issue of the timeline within when those discussions will take place.
Today I also asked another librarian about parents requesting books to be moved to the adult section--here is her response:
"We recently moved a series of books, intended for children, about sex education. A parent brought up the fact that her daughter could read the title and it would bring up a subject that the parent wasn't willing to discuss with her 6 year old. The librarian agreed with her that we could certainly make that series of books available - in the adult section - for parents to read to their children. And that is where it is now - with the appropriate cataloging information changed."
Sounds like it can be done and be a reasonable solution. There was my answer--could have saved us all a lot of time. But I appreciate your time all the same.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 8:04 PM
Oh brother, and I just posted that without seeing your last post. Now I have to make one thing clear haha--
I am not saying a book is "bad", say I just think it is inapproprate for the childrens section--agewise--which is what I had in mind in the first place- that it was age inappropriate, not that I thought it was 'bad'--which is why I just wanted it moved to the adult section and I did not have classics in mind--I'm thinking more of --well like the librarian's example--so just want it moved to a more appropriate section.
Posted by: Deb at September 28, 2006 8:15 PM
ARRRRG! :pulling hair out at the moment:
Posted by: Moni at September 29, 2006 2:21 PM
Yeah Monica, I had much the same reaction. Much like talking to a brick wall isn't it?
Posted by: Dianne at September 29, 2006 2:29 PM
What I want to know is why the *?#&* are we even having this argument?!? Deb, why did you incite this argument in the first place? (i'm probably going to regret asking that....)
Posted by: Moni at September 29, 2006 3:57 PM
I'm not sure, but apparently somewhere there she thinks we agreed with her.
Posted by: Dianne at September 29, 2006 4:04 PM
I thought it was a discussion--it only sounded like anarguement because I kept having my words twisted so I had to keep clearing things up.
Bottom line--I never said I was talking about banning books--or my thinking a book is bad-or did I say IF someone did think a book was "bad" they had the right to tell others to get rid of it--but that is what you kept saying. All I was talking about was if a book--not a BAD book-was inappropriate for the childrens section-how placing it to the appropriate placxe=the adult section would be threatening. All I was looking for was a commom sense answer such as I got from the other library worker that I quoted.
Posted by: Deb at September 29, 2006 5:43 PM
And the part you don't seem to understand is that what you find "inappropriate" for children might not be what others find "inappropriate" and vice versa. Moving books is not the solution, because then you'd have to move them all, because somewhere, someone can find something wrong with any book you name. That's just he nature of human beings.
And we weren't "debating" because you don't want to debate, you just want to beat your ideas over our heads. We've been giving you common sense answers for the past two days, but you don't see it as common sense because it doesn't fit into your world view.
Posted by: Dianne at September 29, 2006 6:02 PM
Oh, please, Diane--because my opinions do not agree with you I am beating you over the head with them? Then I could say the same thing. The only reason I had to keep repeating myself is because my words kept being twisted. And my questions would never get answered without there first being an example I had not given-therefore not answering MY question, but answering something different from what I had asked. If you guys could have just stuck to what I asked, instead of insisting I was sayiong that what some people consisdered bad should be removed, the discussion would not have gone on.
What I am calling common sense was the example given by the other library worker--that was a calm answer that showed a parents concern could just be handled as that-and not as some threat to peoples freedoms. To say there is not a case when a book is more appropriate for the adult section does not make sense-because obviously all those books in the adult section are there for a reason.
Posted by: Deb at September 29, 2006 6:27 PM
You know, I'm not going to deal with your irrationality anymore. You really are not a very nice person and your back handed comments break my rules set up for commenting here, so you have been banned in more way than one in case you get clever and try to find a way around that.
We were completely calm. You were the one that bordered on irrationality and I am sick of dealing with this kind of two faced argument where you're "right: and I'm "wrong". If you feel so strongly about your argument then start your own blog. My blog isn't here for your ideas.
And also my name is DIANNE not Diane. That just goes to show you have no respect for me and funnily enough I don't feel like continuing this conversation with someone that can't even spell my name correctly.
Posted by: Dianne at September 29, 2006 6:36 PM
"a truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone" - Jo Godwin.
Yes, I agree with Dianne. I don't like the backhanded way you are saying that we don't have common sense answers to this question (and DON'T frigging tell me I am putting words in your mouth).
Argument, discussion..WTF IS THE DIFFERENCE?!? An argument is ANOTHER FRIGGING WORD FOR DISCUSSION! I think you are the one who is twisting things around here, really.
I guess the thing that is really irritating me is that, Deb, your are just being so nitpicky. So you didn't say Bad. big deal. What's the difference between bad and inapproprate? They both have the same ultimate implication which is what Dianne and I have been trying to tell you for two days and you just don't seem to get it! And I really take issue with you telling us that we are twisting your words. Again, it all boils down to what is wrong with the whole idea behind the problem with challenging (or banning) a book. And that is the fact that you (for lack of a better way to put this. Maybe it's not YOU but someone who wants to challenge the book. Is that explicit enough for you?!???) the fact that you think the book is inapproriate for ALL children. You are imposing your beliefs about that book on everyone not just your own child. I don't care what the problem you have with teh book is. It doesn't even matter. Because what you think is inapproprate might differ from what someone else thinks is inappropriate. For the millionth time.
Ugh!
Posted by: Moni at September 29, 2006 6:42 PM
June 26, 2006
Rowling says 2 characters die in final Potter book
LONDON (Reuters) - Children's author J.K. Rowling has revealed that at least two characters will die in the seventh and final installment of her bestselling Harry Potter series, but was careful not to say who. Children and adults are expected to rush and buy the final Harry Potter novel in their tens of millions when it is complete, and if the publication of the sixth book is anything to go by, secrecy surrounding the plot will be tight.Rowling has already said that the final chapter of the seventh book was written long ago.
"The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very slightly," she said in an interview broadcast on Monday on Britain's Channel 4. "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die."
When asked to be more specific, she added: "No, I'm not going to commit myself, because I don't want the hate mail or anything else."
She did explain that she understood an author's desire to kill off the main character of a successful series.
"I've never been tempted to kill him (Harry) off before the end of book seven, because I always planned seven books and that's where I want to go.
"I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks 'Well, I'm going to kill them off because that means there can be no non-author-written sequels ... so it will end with me, and after I'm dead and gone they won't be able to bring back the character'."
If she kills Harry, Hermione, Ron or Ginny then I'm getting rid of ALL of my Harry Potter books!!
Found via Yahoo! News.
Posted by Dianne at 2:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
June 19, 2006
Conversations At The Bookstore
"I'm looking for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Would it be in the the Political section or the nature section because I didn't see the book?" I asked after I looked around the book store and couldn't locate the title.
The lady who worked at the bookstore looked at me kind of odd and told me, "Let's go look up front."
"OK, but I didn't see it up there."
I had already looked there and all I did see were the Ann Coulter/Right Wing Nutcase people books up front. So we searched the front displays again. After a few minutes she said, "Hang on...Let me go check something in the back."
After a couple of minutes she came back with the book in tow and handed it to me, "I apologize. Our manager is a right wing nut job and he's got the book buried in the back corner so people won't see it!"
"Hey! I'm standing right here!" The manager chimed in.
"It doesn't change the fact that you're a nut job! This book should be up front too! It's just as new as your beloved right wing trash!"
"I....well....I...."
"Yeah I thought so! Enjoy your book."
And with that she and I both laughed and I went on my merry way. Why is it the right wing crackpots never can defend them selves when they know they are in the wrong? I guess no one had any talking points prepared for him, but it amused me none the less.
I can't wait to read the book! I've scanned through it and it seems very well thought out so far! I'm hoping to read a chapter or two tonight before I got to bed. Check it out if you get a chance.
Posted by Dianne at 2:17 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Comments
It is the same way with the book store I go to. The witch is located right as one enters the store and they did not display any of Gore's new book. It is still in the box in the back. Only Clinton's book made it to the front.
Posted by: Royal at June 20, 2006 6:57 AM
This makes me soo mad! who do they think they are? As a librarian I am totally apalled. As much as I hate right wing nut jobs and thier books I still think they deserve equal billing with the liberal (reality-based) books. I think people can read them and decide for themselves. This is America! And what that manager is doing is censorship. ugh!
Posted by: Moni at June 20, 2006 2:18 PM
June 3, 2006
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
I just finished reading a fantastic book that I had ordered a while back after watching the episode of 30 Days where the straight, conservative, Mid-Western guy went to live in San Francisco for 30 days to see what it was like to walk in someone else shoe as it were. That's the whole premise of the show.
Anyway, at one point during the episode when the straight guy went to talk to the pastor at Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco and she suggested that he read What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, I was intrigued. So I purchased the book from Amazon.com. At the time I was still taking classes so I just recently got around to reading it and I was quite impressed!
Although Neo-Christians will stand on the hilltops and scream that the book is bad and gay people are bad, the Catholic priest that wrote it makes a very strong, a very convincing argument as to why the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. And before anyone starts screaming about verses he's got those too!
Of course hate filled Neo-Christians are not going to listen to reason and they have no understanding whatsoever about love and charity, but for those others of you out there that are capable of using your mind and appreciating a very well argued point of view I highly recommend reading this book. It's very enlightening, especially if you're struggling with understanding the subject matter.
Posted by Dianne at 6:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
Choose Your Own Adventure Returns
So, what’ll it be? After a generation out of print, the original Choose Your Own Adventure series is back. First published in 1979, the books let readers remix their own stories – and face the consequences. A quarter-billion copies sold worldwide as kids raced to discover lost civilizations, navigate black holes, and go in search of … the Yeti. This summer, eight of the original titles return to bookstores, revamped with 21st-century references (cell phones!). Will they become popular again?
I LOVED these books as a child! I'm glad to see they are making a comeback. They are so much fun!
Found via Wired.
Posted by Dianne at 5:54 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Comments
yay! I *loved* those books, too! I think I still have my old set of them at my mom's house somewhere!
Posted by: Moni at June 3, 2006 6:40 PM
I know Jamison read a few of them when he was young. Has he given up on reading any thing but RPG's?
Posted by: Royal at June 3, 2006 8:40 PM
He reads a little bit of everything. We're always reading something.
Posted by: Dianne at June 3, 2006 9:20 PM
I found our old ones at Mom's house this weekend. (well, some of them anyway - I thought we had more than I found . . . ) :) I'm glad to hear that they are re-publishing them, though. :)
Posted by: katherine at June 5, 2006 3:59 PM
May 22, 2006
Happy Birthday Sir Arthur Conan Doyle!
Today is Sir Arhur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes stories, was born on this day in 1859. He would have been 147 years old if he were still alive today.
Posted by Dianne at 8:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
March 25, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
Well it's almost here!! You can feel the Neo-Christian fanatics squirming in their pews at the notion. "The Da Vinci Code" movie is going to be released in the middle of May. I just noticed that they've got a new trailer out, so I figured I'd poke the hornets nest again and bring it up. For those of you that haven't read the book yet, I definitely recommend you pick it up and read it before the movie. They put out an illustrated edition that includes all the artwork that is referenced so you don't have to look it up yourself and I recommend that version. Now there are a lot of religious fanatics out there that are terrified that you will actually read the book and take a different look at their claims and they are nervous. Also the crazy folks over at Opus Dei are really going nuts, because they are being exposed for the radical organization they really are.
Anyway check out all the links. The Yahoo page on the movie, the Yahoo maximum size Quicktime and the actual movie site.
Posted by ManDrake at 11:39 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Comments
I can't wait to see the movie! I loved the book.
Posted by: Moni at March 25, 2006 5:24 PM
By 'Neo-Christian' do you mean, new Christian? Or non-Christian? Or something else?
I am a Christian am not squirming in my seat. I think that people should read the Da Vinci Code, but they should also remember that it's an idea, not necessarily the truth or fact. In fact, I hope it encourages people to read the Bible and decide for themself what the truth is.
On another note, there is also a suit going on about the author, Dan Brown, misusing ideas from 'The Holy Blood Holy Grail' for his book. He said that his wife read Holy Blood and took notes for him before he wrote Da Vinci, but that he didn't misuse the material.
Brown also references Holy Blood in his book. So my question is, if he referenced the other book, how could he have broken copyright on the other book?
From the looks of it, Holy Blood hasn't suffered any major losses. In fact, the book is now on the top 10 best seller list, so it's given the Holy Blood useful PR. According to U.S. copyright law, Da Vinci would have to have seriously compromised the major points of the book and therefore consumers would have lost purpose in purchasing the book (because they got the information from Da Vinci and that Brown didn't request permission from the Holy Blood). But I'm not sure how it works in British law...
In an interesting twist, both books are from the same publisher...lol.
Posted by: Alredhead at March 25, 2006 11:29 PM
I just finished reading this from my textbook, 'The Law of Public Communication' by Kent R. Middleton and William E. Lee, "Copyright protects expression but not the ideas or the facts contained in the expression. A writer has a copyright in a story about the Presidential election but not in the idea of writing such a story or the facts within it. Others are free to write a similar story using the same facts, provided that these authors use their own language, style, and sequencing. In other words, writers can borrow the facts and ideas of others but not the way the original writer expressed them."
So, by U.S. law, I think that Brown didn't break copyright. However, British law could be very different.
And if you are wondering if I just broke copyright by quoting my textbook, no, I haven't. I'm a student and have rights of fair use. Plus I am not using it for commercial purposes.
Posted by: Alredhead at March 26, 2006 12:01 AM
Remember our law came from British law, so the differences are that big in the grand scheme of things. The then to avoid our tendency to over legislate for corporate campaign contributors so their laws are simpler and more straight forward. To be honest, I personally think this is all a publicity stunt orchestrated by the publisher to get both books in the news for a long period of time. Think about it, it's great advertising for the movie as well. I mean people are staying up at night worried if they movie will get released at all.
Now fair use in this country is completely under attack by the Republican party and their corrupt allies in the copyright holders. The DMCA was designed to make sure that there was a steadily closing noose around the neck of fair use in hopes of stealing that fundamental right guaranteed to Americans. So the day is not that far away that reference a text book with proper notation will require you to pay the author student or not. And the Republican party will be extremely happy about it. And the quality of our educations will rapidly decrease since we will have to pay to read and reference the most modern thought. It's probably going to be worse than the dark ages, just like the Republican party dreams of. Stagnation and ignorance running rampant.
Neo-Christian is a word I made up to explain what I was seeing going on in the radical right wing religious circles. The blogosphere has different names for it, in Crashing the Gates, Markos refers to them as Theo-cons. My basic definition is a "religious point of view characterized by a return to fundamentalist principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." Here's the link to where I defined Neo-Christian and what I mean when I say Neo-con from a few years ago when I was first asked to define it. Basically we are all grasping for a word to describe the fake Christian movement most made up by Evangelicals and radicals from many other denominations that support the Republican party without question in hopes of establishing America as a cheap third world Theocracy. Most of these kind of people hate America, our freedoms (ie. freedom of religion), and the American way of life (ie. tolerance). Another common term for them is the American Taliban. They are basically the new version of the Christian Identity movement and the radical hate group known as the Republican party is their political wing.
Posted by: ManDrake at March 26, 2006 10:02 AM
February 20, 2006
Coming Home to Myself
I just finished reading Coming Home to Myself by Wynonna Judd and I have to say...if you've ever struggled with weight issues, or even just life issues you have to read this book! Her journey is inspiring! And not only that it is also motivating! Wynonna has struggled in the public eye for years and she takes you on her path as she has fought and is still fighting to get every aspect of her life in order. It's truly an amazing book. Check it out! I think it will inspire you too!
Cross posted at Lose This Weight.
Posted by Daffodil at 9:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
January 19, 2006
In Our Own Backyard
Mystery Man Places Roses on Poe GravesiteBALTIMORE - For the 57th straight year, a mystery man paid tribute to Edgar Allan Poe by placing roses and a bottle of cognac on the writer's grave to mark his birthday.
Some of the 25 spectators drawn to a tiny, locked graveyard in downtown Baltimore for the ceremony climbed over the walls of the site and were "running all over the place trying to find out how the guy gets in," according to Jeff Jerome, the most faithful viewer of the event.
Jerome, curator of the Poe House and Museum, said early Thursday he had to chase people out of the graveyard, fearing they would interfere with the mystery visitor's ceremony.
"In letting people know about this tribute, I've been contributing to these people's desire to catch this guy," Jerome said. "It's such a touching tribute, and it's been disrupted by the actions of a few people trying to interfere and expose this guy."
Jerome has seen the mysterious visitor every Jan. 19 since 1976.
"They had a game plan," Jerome said of the spectators. "They knew from previous years when the guy would appear."
But Jerome declined to reveal details of what the Poe toaster was wearing, what he did at Poe's grave, and whether he left anything besides the roses and cognac, such as a note.
It was a the crisp, cold, clear night. "I was hoping for wind and rain in keeping with a Poe story," Jerome said.
But the museum curator was saddened by the disrespectful spectators.
"I hope to preserve this tribute. It's one of those things that make Baltimore so unique," he said.
For decades, a frail figure made the visit to Poe's grave. In 1993 the original visitor left a cryptic note saying, "The torch will be passed." A later note said the man, who apparently died in 1998, had handed the tradition on to his sons.
Poe, who wrote poems and horror stories such as "The Raven" and "The Telltale Heart," died Oct. 7, 1849 in Baltimore at the age of 40 after collapsing in a tavern.
I hate that these yahoos tried to disturb this tradition. It's amazing how a few people with absolutely no clue about anything, simply hoping to "solve the mystery" can in fact ruin the whole mysterious tradition itself. I'm glad the curator gets the picture and ran them off. It's an interesting, thoughtful occurrence. I wonder if the torch will be passed on from here? Thought provoking to say the least.
Found via Yahoo! News.
Posted by Daffodil at 1:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Comments
I love Poe. I love this tradition. It makes me sad to see that people are trying to ruin it.
Thanks for posting the article.
Posted by: Dar at January 19, 2006 2:41 PM
Next time you're here we need to take you over to Baltimore to his grave site. I always forget about it when you're here.
Posted by: Dianne at January 19, 2006 3:24 PM
August 2, 2005
New chapter for book industry: 'Green' printing methods
By Carol Memmott, USA TODAYIt's not easy being green, but a small and growing number of authors are asking publishers to print their books on environmentally friendly paper.
While no one keeps count, well-known writers, including Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Munro, Margaret Atwood and Alice Walker, are part of the trend. It reflects a growing green movement in the entertainment world that includes musicians such as U2 and Bonnie Raitt, who are packaging their CDs in recycled materials.Walker spokeswoman Wendy Weil says the author's last two books were printed on recycled paper, and the practice is built into her contract with Random House.
Less than 5% of U.S. books are printed that way, says Tyson Miller of the Green Press Initiative, a group working to interest publishers and authors.
Jerome Kramer, editor in chief of Kirkus Reviews, says the involvement of big-name writers can help increase that number. "It's always important to bear in mind what a small tip of the iceberg any author is. When an author with some cachet gets behind the issue, the reasonable assumption is that the impact would be exponential and would get the conversation going."
Environmental groups are hoping he is right. "If authors are working to push the publishers along with us, it sends a strong message," says Pam Wellner of Greenpeace, one of several groups calling for changes in publishing. Greenpeace wants book paper to be 100% recycled or, at least, a combination of recycled paper and wood pulp not harvested from old-growth or endangered forests.
The issue recently drew attention when 2.5-million-member Greenpeace asked the 300,000 on its e-mail list to request that Scholastic, the U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter series, conform to the group's standard. Scholastic heard from more than 12,500, Wellner says.
Scholastic's Kyle Good says that while Potter books weren't published on recycled paper, "we absolutely don't use wood fiber from ancient forests."
Publishers can guarantee their wood fiber only if they purchase it from companies certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, which keeps track of fiber sources. Manufacturing book pages from recycled paper is considered more environmentally responsible because no new wood fiber is involved.
Canadian publisher Raincoast printed the past two Potter books on recycled paper, and Italian and Israeli editions, due this fall, are expected to be printed on ancient-forest-friendly paper.
This is extremely interesting to me. I wonder what kind of paper BookSurge uses? I think I need to do a little research and find out.
Read more here.
Posted by Daffodil at 8:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
July 17, 2005
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE YET DON'T TAKE THE LINK BELOW. SPOILER AND RANT ALERT AHEAD!
For the rest of you, who have either read the book or don’t want to read the book, feel free to keep reading the extended entry by clicking the link below.
So much for predictions, I wasn't even close on most of them! I finished reading the book this morning around 2:30 am and I must say I WAS IN COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHOCK! That shock wore of this morning and at the moment I'm extremely angry with J.K. Rowling. Being a writer myself I understand that the characters in your book are your own and you are free to do what you might with them, but I also think you owe some loyalty to your readers, but we'll get into that in a little bit. For now let’s focus on the story line of this book.
First off I have to say that by far this is my least favorite Harry Potter book in the series so far. I felt like it had too much superfluous information to bring us up to speed in terms of Lord Voldemort. While the information was interesting somewhat, it got to be a bit tedious. All of the information that was given to Harry in his and Dumbledore’s “lessons” could have easily been incorporated into one session. Although it was nice for Harry to spend time with Dumbledore, I felt he could have been teaching Harry something more valuable than simple history. While he did glean some very important information from these little sessions such as the locket and Hufflepuff’s cup (Holy Grail anyone?) I still feel they could have been condensed. Plus it would have been nice to find out more about Harry’s parents, but I think we may get that glimpse when Harry goes to Godric’s Hollow in book 7.
Obviously I was thrilled with the Harry/Ginny developments, even though I don’t think he should have broken it off with her at the end of the book. Ginny adores Harry, she’s a powerful witch and he would be more than lucky to have her by his side, but somehow I don’t think we’ve heard the end of Miss Weasley. Don’t count her out, she’s scrappy and come hell or high water I have a feeling she’ll be fighting at Harry’s side, if not dying by his side. She loves him. Too bad Harry didn’t wake up sooner and realize that she was perfect for him, but sometimes love is not only blind, it’s deaf, dumb and stupid as well. I particularly enjoyed Harry’s silent battles within himself about Ginny being Ron’s sister. Those were priceless!
The Ron/Lavender/Hermione story line was sort of amusing too, but it got old after a point. Rowling left it up in the air at whether Ron and Hermione we actually together at the end of the book with them hugging and comforting one another. She could take it either way, just good friends, or finally realizing their love for one another. I prefer the latter, and ultimately that is where I think it will go, but what do I know about the way Rowling thinks? And there is always the distinct possibility she will kill one or both of them off. She seems to relish doing that. Ultimately it would have been nice to see Hermione slap Lavender silly because that girl has some serious issues!
And what the hell is up with the reappearance of Delores Umbridge at the end of the book? That woman should be in an effing prison cell after all the stuff she pulled! Surely abusing students alone could land you some time in Azkaban. I’m not sure where Rowling is going with that one either, but I guess we’ll find out in due time.
And while we’re on the subject of Ministry officials I do not like the new Minister of Magic. What a dolt! Seriously, what is it with the Minster of Magic being a complete moron? Is it in the job description? I loved Harry putting him in his place and declaring his loyalty to Dumbledore, not once but twice. Priceless!
Fred and George seem to be doing well for themselves, but they come off as a bit arrogant to me, but then again they’ve always been that way. I think they should cut Ron a break.
And Percy. Maybe he is just a huge prat. I mean come on! They proved Harry was right, what the hell is his problem? Suck it up and get over it already! You belong with your family, especially in times like the ones they are going through now. But maybe’s he’s still under cover for the Order, or maybe like I said in the second sentence, he’s just a huge prat.
The Malfoys. What can you say about the Malfoys that hasn’t been hashed a thousand times? I thought he was sent by Voldemort to kill Harry, but I should have know that wasn’t the case, because Voldemort wants to take care of Harry himself. I don’t think he has it in him to kill anyone though. Malfoy’s one of those all talk, no action kind of people. You know the ones, that huff and puff and bitch and moan and do absolutely nothing! He’s a bully. And his mother, what a witch and I don’t mean that in a good way! Really, how can anyone be that unpleasant, but then again she’s a Death Eater so what was I expecting? I am happy though that Lucius Malfoy’s sad butt is in a prison cell. May it rot there!
Well obviously Justin Finch-Fletchly was not the Half-Blood Prince, in fact to my recollection he wasn’t even mentioned in this book at all. I had my suspicions pretty early on that this was the case when it became obvious that the Half-Blood Prince was a previous student, and I even suspected Snape at one point, if not Voldemort himself. I wasn’t surprised at all when Snape was revealed, although at that point in the book you want to flog him senseless, not that I haven’t wanted to do that to Snape since day one.
On to the cave. That was a very weird sequence. I’m sorry, but Dumbledore is smarter than drinking some strange substance left behind by Voldemort, wizard of all evil. Why couldn’t he have siphoned the stuff off and dumped it on the ground or into the water surrounding them. He could have cast a protective spell of fire to deal with the zombies. It makes no sense. And since when has Harry blindly followed anyone’s orders? I know he trust Dumbledore implicitly, but come on!
The other thing I found of interest is that this is the first book in the series in which Voldemort did not make an appearance himself, unless you count the third book, but we’ll get to that in a minute. The first book you had him possessing Quirrell, the second book had him in the form of his former self through his enchanted diary (which we found out in this book was actually a Horocrux), the third had Wormtail returning to Voldemort and he ultimately helped him return to his body in the fourth book where Harry faced him again and Cedric died and in the fifth book of course you had the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in the Ministry of Magic building at the end of the book. In this book however he was very low key and almost suspiciously absent. Aside from the Death Eaters and the mentioning of his quest for Draco what was he up to?
Now to R.A.B. Who is R.A.B. One thought that did cross my mind was Sirius’s brother Regulus. I know Sirius mentioned that Voldemort had killed him when he tried to resign from the Death Eaters, but what if that was just a cover story? What if Regulus actually did more good than first thought? What if he wasn’t bad at all? Just a thought considering I don’t believe that his middle name was ever mentioned so I’m not sure if it started with an A or not. So far I haven’t put any other people to those initials, but I’m still tossing it around in the back of my head.
And last, but certainly not least, Dumbledore. Dear Dumbledore. What the hell happened there? Snape killed him? How is that possible? At first I thought was a trick, and to be completely honest I still haven’t ruled that possibility out, but it certainly appears to be what actually happened. Let’s think about that for a second…greasy, dark, nasty Snape killed Dumbledore? How is that possible? Dumbledore is infinitely more powerful than Snape and certainly more powerful that Draco Malfoy. I have the distinct feeling Dumbledore let Malfoy disarm him on purpose. The next thing that is bothering me is why Dumbledore asked Harry to go find Snape? Did he know he had to die for the greater good and he wanted to keep Snape’s cover in tack so he wanted Snape to do it? The rest of the Order certainly thinks Snape’s a bad apple now and this proves to Voldemort that he definitely is “on their side”, but why? Did Snape and Dumbledore have an understanding? I find it hard to believe that he didn’t have a very good reason for trusting Snape? So what happened there? What broke down, if anything? Did Snape really slink back to the dark side or were he and Dumbledore in cahoots all along?
Ultimately several things finally convinced me that Dumbledore was really dead. 1) His portrait appearing on the wall in the Head Master’s Office. If he wasn’t really dead the portrait would not have appeared. I would have however liked to have seen his portrait awake and not snoring when Harry was in the office. Some word as to what really happened, but in all reality he may have been feigning sleep, you never know as the other portraits have done that on several occasions. 2) Fawkes’ song on grief. Fawkes was truly anguished, and while he might have been acting on Dumbledore’s behalf, I had the distinct feeling that the grief was real. 3) And lastly Dumbledore’s burial at Hogwart’s. It was a fitting burial place and I felt like it lent some sort of protection to the grounds, but I haven’t figured that out completely yet.
There are so many questions surrounding this death though that I don’t even know where the begin. First, why kill him off in this book? I realize he can still talk to them through his portrait, but Harry made it very clear he had no intention of returning to Hogwarts for his seventh year. And Dumbledore doesn’t strike me as the ghost type, so how does this play into the story line? If he did ultimately stage the biggest ruse in wizarding history then why? Perhaps he was hoping Voldemort would lower his guard if he thought Dumbledore was dead? The possibilities and the questions are endless and I’m sorry to say we won’t have any answers for some time now. I just hope Rowling truly ties up the missing pieces in the last book.
Overall this book was ok. It has some very nice moments, but for the most part, as I mentioned before, it was definitely not my favorite Harry Potter book so far in the series. So far I would have to say that book 3 is my favorite, followed by book 2, book 1, book 5, book 4 and now book 6. Where does it go from here? Only Rowling knows, but I have a feeling that book 7 will make me just as furious, if not more furious than book 6. As a writer you have certain duties to uphold, one of which is telling the story in a way to which the essential story line is not splintered. Of course if Dumbledore’s death was truly an elaborate ruse then this rant is for not, but otherwise it was extremely unwise to kill him off in this book. You can see my rant about Dumbledore’s importance in my predictions and I’m not going to go into them again here, but sufficed to say he is integral to the story line and I’m not sure how this plays into the grand scheme of things.
Rowling has often said that the story will not make a lot of people happy, and ultimately it is her story to write and finish as she sees fit. While as a writer I agree with that sentiment to an extent, I still think you also have to consider your readers while you are on the journey to finish your story. In fact without those readers, who delve into your story and lose themselves in the world you created, you would be no where. The readers are a key part to your story and you should keep that in mind as you are writing. Yes tragedy happens in stories, it is a fundamental part of the story line in many cases, but make the tragedy serve some greater purpose. Perhaps the greater purpose will make itself clear, but I didn’t see it with Sirius’ death. The arch could have been explained a little bit more in depth as to what was on the other side. I suspect it was the other realm or the spirit plane, but that was never clear. So I have my doubts whether we will see how this fits into the greater story, but anything is possible. I guess all we can do now is wait for a couple of years until the next book comes out and hope she gets the story right and doesn’t leave us hanging.
Posted by Daffodil at 11:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Comments
I won't get my HP6 until Friday (probably) because we ordered the British edition from amazon.co.uk. It has been shipped (at 12:01 a.m. UK time) but it will take at least a week to get here. I suppose it is just as well since I'm teaching VBS all week and then Saturday will be making a cake, wrapping presents, etc. for Marilyn--so I won't get a chance to read it until next Sunday anyway...
Oh well...I was really annoyed with J.K. Rowling at the end of the HP5 for killing off my favorite character. It's been a long wait just to get annoyed with her again.
Posted by: cjmr at July 18, 2005 9:04 AM
Yeah I wasn't too happy with that one either. I understand that death is essential to this story line, but isolating Harry only makes him bitter, it doesn't help him, unless she's trying to make him so angry he goes balistic, which I suppose is possible.
Posted by: Dianne at July 18, 2005 9:17 AM
I finally finished HP5 today so I can read this post! LOL! You kind of summed up my thoughts...I can't believe how pathetic Dumbledore's death was. It seems like his death should have been better. And I wasn't surprised that Snape did it, either. He always seemed evil to me, too.
Posted by: Monica at September 18, 2005 9:49 PM
July 13, 2005
Bookseller to Move Harry Potter Launch
For anyone that has read the Harry Potter series you know that King's Cross station is where the fabled boy wizard catches the Hogwarts Express each September to go to school. In the past, one of the bookstores within the station has had a Harry Potter party on the night of the book's release, but given the recent events in London and the fact that a nearby tunnel and the station itself are a crime scene the book seller has moved their party to another location out of deference to those killed:
LONDONA British bookseller said Wednesday that it would move a launch party planned for the sixth
Harry Potter book away from a central London train station that was involved in last week's terrorist bombings.Bookseller WH Smith held a launch party for the fifth Harry Potter book at central London's King's Cross station — which features in the books as the home of Platform 9 3/4 from which Harry and other young wizards take a train to the Hogwarts School. The store had planned to host a similar party Friday for the launch of "Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince."
King's Cross station was the site of the worst subway attack last week. Twenty-one people died on the London Underground Piccadilly line as it passed between King's Cross and Russell Square stations on Thursday morning.
"In light of the attacks in London last Thursday and the fact that it (King's Cross station) is an ongoing crime scene, we felt it was insensitive and inappropriate to continue with the launch event there," WH Smith spokeswoman Sarah Hodson said.
Hodson said the event, which attracted 500 people last year, would be held at another store in southwest London. The King's Cross store would still open late Friday evening and into early Saturday morning to allow fans to purchase a copy of the book, she said.
Read it all here.
Posted by Daffodil at 4:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
June 21, 2005
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Predictions
So as the date of release for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince comes closer and closer I thought I'd write up my predictions and see which ones of them come true.
Note: If you haven't read any of the books and want to read them without knowing what happens beforehand stop reading here! Spoilers from the first 5 books ahead!!
Prediction #1:
Justin Finch-Fletchly is the half-blood prince.
Reason:
In The Chamber of Secrets when Harry is talking to Justin he mentions he was down on the list to attend Eaton. Eaton is known in England as the school of Kings. Justin also is from a Muggle family. I think his muggle family might possibly be the royal family. In a previous book Fudge mentioned that the English Prime Minister knew about the wizarding community, and I only think it would follow that the royal family might too even though their role is largely ceremonial, especially if one of their number was invited to attend Hogwarts.
Prediction #2:
Dumbledore will NOT die in this book.
Reason:
The buzz around the internet is that Dumbledore will die in this book and I think it just a smoke screen. I'm not saying he might not die in Book 7, but for the time being it doesn't make sense to kill Dumbledore if they are still fighting Voldemort because as it has been stated many times, Dumbledore is the only person Voldemort has ever been afraid of. He's powerful and he's essential to the story line at this point.
Prediction #3:
I think Ron and Hermione will get closer in this book, possibly even become a couple. If not in this book definitely in Book 7.
Reason:
Well I think it's obvious that this has been coming. Look how they react to each other up to this point. The scene in Book 4 where they yell at each other across the common room after the Yuletide Ball is but one example. Of course there are two schools of thought when it comes to Hermione. Some are adamant that she will end up with Harry, although I don't think J.K. Rowling has even hinted to this little scenario in any of the books up to this point, and those that are adamant about Ron. Ms. Rowling has even said on her website that some people are downright passionate about this to the point of being a little scary on both sides of the fence. I hate to burst bubbles out there, but I think it's Ron, but I'm not going to get upset if it isn't, even though that's what I'd ultimately like to see.
Prediction #4:
Either in this book or in book 7 I think we will find out that Percy Weasley has not in fact forsaken his family for monetary gain, but is working undercover for the Order of the Phoenix.
Reason:
Percy is a prat, but he's not the kind of guy who would forsake his family. The Weasley's are a tight knit group and I don't think he'd just jump ship like that. It just doesn't make sense.
Prediction #5:
At some point I think we will find out that Aunt Petunia was offered an invitation to Hogwarts too and perhaps even attended for a while much to Uncle Vernon's surprise.
Reason:
She knows too much about the wizarding world not to have been a part of it, especially if she and Lilly didn't speak as all signs seem to indicate. Something more is there with that story and I think we'll find out more in this book and possibly in book 7.
Now for what I'd like to see in the next two books:
1. Obviously I'd like to see Harry survive. I ultimately think he will even though J.K. Rowling is tight lipped about this. If he dies then Voldemort lives, unless of course the prophecy is indeed about Neville and he kicks Voldemort's mean spirited butt!
2. I'd like to see Harry end up with Ginny Weasley. Call me a softy, but I love the implications of this scenario. Harry marries into a family that obviously adores him, Ginny is crazy about him and he gains Ron as a real "brother". Also I believe Ginny is a seriously powerful witch. It would be a good match. Of course this all hinges on whether he survives or not.
3. As mentioned in prediction #3 I'd like to see Ron and Hermione end up together.
4. I'd like to see Neville find someone too. I'd also like to see him end up doing something like maybe teaching Herbology at Hogwarts. Of course this is all a pipe dream on the chance that he doesn't die.
5. Expanding on #4 I'd like to see Ron, Hermione and Harry survive as well as their families. While we're at it I'll add Hagrid, Professor McGonagall and Dumbledore to that list, although I think it's inevitable that someone from that list will die, but I could be wrong. You just never know.
For now that's it. As I think of more I'll write it up. I can't wait for this book to arrive! We'll revisit this after I read the book and see if anything I predicted comes true. :o)
Posted by Daffodil at 9:24 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Comments
Wow Di, you really put a lot of thought into all of this. I'm impressed!
As you know, I have all of the movies, but I haven't read the books. Chelcee has the first 5 books, but her step-dad won't let her read them. Some ridiculous ideology is behind it...so don't ask. Any way, I think I may borrow them, and start reading them.
Posted by: Dar at June 22, 2005 10:47 AM
They are really good books, involved and challenging for children. Plus, they keep them away from the tv, which for me, is good thing.
Posted by: Donna at June 22, 2005 11:40 AM
Dar,
Yeah, I've argued with people in the past about Harry. Their reasons for not reading him are completely off base. I don't see how you can base your ideas of a book without reading it. There was a satirical peice put out by the Onion about how the Harry Potter books were promoting satan worship and many religious folks point to that peice over and over again, even though it's satire, as the reason why the books should be banned, yet at the same time they'll let their kids watch and read The Lord of the Rings and The Wizard of Oz. A wizard and a witch are a wizard and witch. It's stupid. People need to research these things a little before they go shooting off at the mouth.
Anyway, you should read them. I think you'd enjoy them, I really do.
Donna,
You're right about that. Some kids that don't read at all will pick up these books and actually read them. It's a good thing.
Posted by: Dianne at June 22, 2005 11:46 AM
June 7, 2005
Pottermania Gone Wrong
By Sarah HallCertain Muggles are getting a little too carried away over the secrets contained in the upcoming Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
On Friday, British police arrested two men suspected of trying to sell stolen copies of the sixth installment in the boy wizard series, which is not due for release until July 16.
U.K. tabloid the Sun reported that it had been contacted about purchasing the book for close to $91,000. The newspaper said it had dispatched a reporter and a photographer to obtain the book with the intent of returning it to the publisher.
According to the Sun, shots were fired as its reporter met with the men in an attempt to buy the book. No one was injured.
London's Daily Mirror said it had also been contacted about buying a copy of the book and that it had notified police of the offer.
Police confirmed they had arrested a 37-year-old man and a 19-year-old man in connection with the incident and had retrieved two copies of the book.
The older man was charged with possession of a handgun and handling a stolen book, while the younger man was charged with the theft of the book and possessing an imitation firearm with the intent of causing fear of violence.
Both men were released on bail and are due in court early next week.
After news of the theft surfaced, J.K. Rowling's legal team obtained an injunction against the two men, prohibiting them from leaking secrets from the book.
"This order was made following our client's discovery that a copy of the forthcoming Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, had been obtained by unauthorized persons who had subsequently offered the book to newspaper journalists," Rowling's lawyers said in a statement.
I don't know why people can't just be patient. The books is coming out in a few weeks! And I'm also amused by the fact that people are so shocked that a criminal had and used a gun. He's a criminal. It's not rocket science folks!
Anyway, read it all here.
Posted by Daffodil at 1:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
May 1, 2005
Silent Bob Speaks, The Collected Writings of Kevin Smith
As I mentioned before I ordered a copy of Kevin Smith's new book and it arrived yesterday. I had had it up to my eyeballs with projects and homework and finals, and decided to take a little break from all that and do a little reading that had nothing to do with learning, and had everything to do with laughing my head off! I had intended to read a few pages and then get back to work, but I couldn't put this book down! It's a fast read and it's hilarious! Next thing I knew I had read all 325 pages! (OK, well I didn't read the whole section with the interview with Tom Cruise, because quite frankly I've never understood why a sane man would leave Nicole Kidman, and he's a little creepy, and while we are on the subject what the hell is the deal with Katie Holmes?? How does a seemingly intelligent young woman find herself dating a freaky man that was stupid enough to dump Nicole Kidman? But oh well that's really a rant for another time!) Anyway, I HIGHLY recomend this book! It's irreverant, tacky, crude, dirty, funny, heart warming, rude and oh so Kevin Smith!
Posted by Daffodil at 7:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Comments
oh I love Kevin Smith..I will have to check this one out! btw, I totally agree with on on Tom Cruise :)
Posted by: Monica at May 2, 2005 1:54 PM
April 4, 2005
Speaking of Kevin Smith...
Kevin Smith has a new book out called Silent Bob Speaks - The Collected Writings of Kevin Smith:
From the award-winning screenwriter and director -- a collection of irreverent and hilarious rants on the absurdity of just about everything. In this side-splitting rant-fest, Kevin Smith waxes rhapsodic and obnoxious on everything from his platonic infatuation with Ben Affleck to his bloodcurdling hatred of Britney Spears, from his shocking diagnosis with morbid obesity to the fatal flaws of SpiderMan -- all done in his inimitable, raunchy style.
Sounds like a winner to me! Take the link above and get a copy for yourself.
Posted by Daffodil at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Comments
March 10, 2005
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Not only can you pre-order the Harry Potter book, but now they also have released what the cover art is going to look like! Take the link below and check it out. It looks as if it prominently displays Harry and Dumbledore. I can't wait!
Posted by Daffodil at 10:27 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Comments
Ok, that's getting annoying. Why is the iframe causing problems with FireFox. Is anyone else seeing two imagines?
Posted by: ManDrake at March 10, 2005 10:51 AM
I have no idea. It looks ok on Explorer. I wonder if there is a fix out there somewhere?
Posted by: Dianne at March 10, 2005 10:55 AM
I was just checking, doesn't appear that anyone has reported the problem yet. Maybe if we put it in a table it would stop. I'll send you the code.
Posted by: ManDrake at March 10, 2005 11:07 AM
Too bad that didn't work.
Posted by: Dianne at March 10, 2005 11:24 AM
Yeah, I'm going to have to go into Bugzilla and see if it's there, if not I'm going to have to report it.
Posted by: ManDrake at March 10, 2005 11:33 AM
January 24, 2005
Congrats to J.K. Rowling!
Congrats to J.K. Rowling and her husband on the birth of t