Dave Bell @75:
Does Marriage come under "full faith and credit" or not?
Seth Breidbart @76: Yes, it does, except when the government doesn't want it to. The new administration might have a better understanding of the Constitution.
They'd need to do more than understand it--full faith and credit is explicity suspended by the Federal Defense of Marriage Act(DoMA)
While I would LOVE it see it repealed, I doubt it's on the agenda at the moment, especially since it also exempts the feds in a host of ways that were hypothetical at the time, but would now have immediate implications, i.e., all of us married MA folks who could suddenly file our taxes that way.
Xopher at 125:
This happens (in reverse) to my wife. Apparently, no one's mom would put Jenny on a birth certificate—according to the idiots at various airlines over the years who have insisted that she has to use her “real name†for the plane tickets, as just one example.
And yeah, we do belong to the generation for which Jennifer was the number-one name, according to the SSA--but I'm talking about folks who, when corrected, pretty much just flat-out refuse to believe that she isn't just expressing a preference.
The funny thing is, she was named for her mother's grandmother, for whom Jennie was, in fact, a nickname--for Jane. (Jane was my mother-in-law's name, as well...I think she liked the idea of their names being connected, without being the same.)
Terribly off-topic for Mary Lou and Midori:
Hugo Cabret looks wonderful-- I recently had that same experience Mary Lou described with The City of Dreaming Books . It's whimsical and gruesome and all about loving books and words and reading. It also has many fabulous illustrations, so I thought I should share, just in case you haven't encountered it yet!
Kathryn from Sunnyvale:
Thanks for the link to the Rowling chat at the Leaky Cauldron. I enjoyed most of her elaborations, but I must admit she seems awfully blithe about Hermione's ability to reconcile with her parents once her spell is lifted.
I can't imagine it would be easy to find out that you'd been forced to leave behind a career, friends, family, etc., for a year, with the possibility that, if the worst had happened, it would all have been lost to you forever. Plus, I'm not a parent, but I think learning after the fact that your child had been in such grave danger could cause some pretty heavy post-tramautic stress.
Leah Miller:
what great analysis! I especially love your take on the feral car and all of Dumbledore's careful planning.
rm,
Thanks for all that! I will definitely have to check out those sources. You're right, I was asking whether the blood allusion could be used to argue that Snape was the red death (perhaps this is cheating, but maybe Dumbledore's "Sorting too soon" comment could also be used as evidence.) I guess I still think like a comp teacher, though I haven't been one for a while--in order to support the theory, I wanted the black, white, and red deaths to carry equivalent thematic weight.
That aside, story-wise, I have to say the death of one of the twins seems exactly right. The death of one of the Weasleys seemed inevitable--witness Molly's boggart. They're just too big a family to expect everyone to survive when they're all on the front lines.
Though I know Rowling has said that at one time she intended to it to be Arthur, I think there are only so many times you can have Harry lose a surrogate parent. And, IMO, Ron and Ginny are both too important to Harry not to have losing one of them fundamentally alter the story. Bill and Charlie are too remote, and Percy's death would also have seemed charged with too much extraneous meaning, considering his estrangement throughout the last 3 books.
Though I've seen some disagreement on this, I think the readers see enough of the twins to have an idea of them as people, rather than just names--we don't get to know a lot about their interior lives because they're Harry's best friend's big brothers, with all the attendant ambivalencies that can imply. (Not to mention, the thought of one of the twins having to go on without the other is just heart-breaking.)
Funny you should mention Slacktivist, another of my favorite blogs. Jenny's mother, who gave us the boxed set of the first 4 Potter books (all that were in print at the time), also gave me, at the same time, the boxed set of the first 4 "Left Behind" books. I think you would have to have known Jane to understand how she could give her lesbian daughter-in-law LB for Christmas and truly not have any motive other than that she was enjoying them and wanted someone to talk about them with. I don't know if she would've seen LB through to the finale (I certainly didn't), but I have no doubt she would've loved the resolution of HP. One of the unexpected gifts of finishing the series has been an unassailable sense that, somewhere, she knows how the story ends and is thoroughly pleased.
(grits teeth)
Of course, it was Fade Manley's question, to which Julia was responding...sorry to you both. I am now officially afraid to re-read that post and see what other goofs may be lurking.
I think I'll blame Jenny (my better half)--she was already in bed, so she couldn't help me proofread (of course, she isn't following this thread, so she's probably not going to catch the name mistake. But I can still blame her, right?)
I'm going away now (literally, because I am in no way stealthy enough to pull off posting from work.) I'll try to have all my wits about me when I come back.
Ugh, I shouldn't be posting after midnight...that should be "But your use of the phrase..." without the extra 2 words that belonged in my first attempt at that sentence.
rm@579:
Okay, I'm fascinated...I don't know anything about alchemical symbolism except what you posted, so I hope you won't mind a question.
This seems terrible to say, but though Harry (and I) love all the Weasleys, it seems hard to see Fred's death as carrying the same weight as Sirius and Dumbledore's.
But the way your use of the phrase "blood-red stone" made me think immediately of the "half-blood prince"...and I can certainly see how Snape's death might be described as a final purification (but maybe this is more for him than for Harry?) Would his signifigance in the earlier steps of the sequence preclude his also playing this part?
I'm so glad you posted this (and that Julia asked)! (and I hope everyone will forgive me, I don't really mean to suggest that Fred's dying is unimportant.)
Fade Manley @553:
(and others since talking about Kreacher....I actually started this comment about 8:15 this morning, right before our power went out. Since it was already 80-something here in Boston, the sudden lack of fans/internet/fully-perked coffee drove us rather precipitously from the house. But we spent a lovely day in Salem, so I can't complain.)
While I think that all the positive reasons you suggest for Harry's ability to forgive Kreacher are definitely in the mix, I'd like to add one that's less worthy—it's expedient. Harry forces himself to be nicer to Kreacher because they need his help and that's the way to get it.
As he becomes more useful, the kids' appreciation of him increases...Ron all but says his personal change of heart has mostly been influenced by the fact that Kreacher makes them such good dinner.
I think this is why the change in the relationship seemed entirely believable to me, rather than mawkish or preachy. Harry does begin to understand and feel compassion for Kreacher as he gets to know him, but the opportunity only comes up because he's willing to use and manipulate him. Not pretty, but oh so very real.
I also like that when Kreacher leads the charge into battle, it is Regulus's name he shouts. I don't think Kreacher is unaware of the motives behind Harry's seeming change of heart during that first encounter in the kitchen, but it is consistent with his character that the gift of the locket would still resonate powerfully. It is a recognition of his love for the Black family as worthy of praise, the opposite attitude to the kind of scorn Sirius thought Kreacher's devotion to his relatives deserved.
The transfer of his loyalty to Harry is only possible because it is laid on this foundation. This, too, seems far more credible to me than if everyone just suddenly starts doing something because it is the right thing to do...I've see that kind of easy sentimentality in way too many other stories (for kids and grown-ups) not to appreciate its absence here.
(and rm...I never thought of that Harry-as-house-elf motif, either, but I love it!)
Greg @ 521:
I guess it's just a case of YMMV.
Textually, Rowling's resolutions just don't strike me as relying on wishful thinking at all, whereas House keeping his job, not to mention any semblance of a relationship with his colleagues, in the face of his grand-scale prescription forgery, seemed ridiculously false, something viewers are expected to buy because there's no show if he loses his license and/or goes to prison.
Anyway, I'm still enjoying the discussion!
Greg:
Thanks for asking about favoriteist scenes! I usually hate that question, cuz I can never make up my mind and just pick one. Thinking about it, however, made me come up something that also kind of answers one of your earlier questions (what do I like best about the series overall.)
In book 5, there is a scene where Harry sneaks a look into one of Snape's memories, and sees his father and Sirius subjecting Snape to some very cruel bullying. It rocks him--because he has been that kid, but also because it shakes his faith in the idea he has of the kind of person his dad was. When he goes to Sirius looking for some kind of comforting explanation for James's behavior, being told that they were only 15 just makes him feel worse--he's 15, he knows that no excuse.
But the worst is that he does not want to feel, even for a moment, any empathy for Snape. Snape has been horrible to him, he wants to be able to hate him with a clear conscience. It is a totally wrenching, totally real moment, the kind of thing that I think happens to most of us growing up, when we finally begin to learn that everything isn't necessarily the way we thought it was.
Harry's mother is also in the memory--she attempts to intercede on Snape's behalf, and he tells her he needs no help from a Mudblood. The antagonism between James and Lily is clear, and it is natural for Harry (and, I think, the reader) to focus on that, rather than the interaction between Lily and Snape.
Rowling titles this chapter "Snape's Worst Memory."
In Book 7, Harry sees this memory again, along with several others that reveal that Lily and Snape had, at one time, shared a close friendship that could trace its end to that very second, when mortified that she should see him in this position, he lashes out and breaks something he will never be able to fix. It is another wrenching, human moment, a reminder of how costly our mistakes can be, and it changes, utterly, the context of why this memory is so very painful.
I find that this happens again and again when I re-read these books, moments that make me re-evaluate what I think I already know, and I find that a richly satisfying experience.
Keir@461:
I see your point, but the original purpose of the Ministry of Magic was not to govern Muggles at all--it was not a shadow government, but a separate one, two countries sharing the same boundaries. Both the ability and the desire of the wizarding world to maintain such segregation is, in fact, one of the central questions.
And we don't know, 19 years later, to what extent such secrecy is still the case.
Greg:
In "Order of the Phoenix", Harry tries, and fails, to use the Cruciatus Curse against Bellatrix, even though he has just watched her kill Sirius, arguably the most important person in his life at that moment.
This scene is deliberately recalled in "Deathly Hallows", when he curses Amycus Carrow. Harry even says that he now understands what Bellatrix meant by "you have to mean it" in order to perform such a curse.
While I admit I found Carrow spitting in Minerva McGonagall's face quite provoking, you can't really compare it to Sirius dying. Harry can use Cruciatus not because the inspiring act is sufficiently terrible, but because of who has become over the intervening 2 years.
It is oversimplifying to insist that just because a given character has not killed, their innocence has not been lost. And I think we could fill several feet of parchment with examples of characters in these books being forced to face that things are out of their control.
Keir at 434: despite her best attempts to avoid it, the Ministry is always going to be a bad thing
What makes you think this is unintentional? I think there's plenty of evidence that we are supposed to question pretty much everything about the Ministry and how power/connections work in the wizarding world:
--Arthur Weasley's love for all things Muggle is cited as part of what keeps him from getting promoted to a higher post
__the first time we see Fudge is in "Chamber of Secrets", when he bends to pressure to send Hagrid to Azkaban and dismiss Dumbledore as headmaster, the latter attributed to Lucius Malfoy's direct involvement
--good, decent wizards, like the Weasleys. may have afforded a house-elf better treatment, if they'd had status enough to get one, but still see nothing wrong with the treatment of house-elves in general
And those are just off the top of my head. It seems to me that Rowling is working rather directly along the lines of "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"--I don't see how you think she could've gotten there by mistake.
(I did see the link to the interview above where Rowling says the Ministry they re-build afer Voldemort is a better place--as Hermione, the founder of S.P.E.W. at fourteen, is said to have gone on to do important work in re-thinking magical law, I see no reason to believe this might not be true....)
I know I'm coming late to the discussion (cuz the wife and I went through it the first time reading it aloud to each other and then I had to go back and read it again to make sure I got all the bits in the chapters I listened to), but I thought we should consider an example where I think JKR really successfully establishes the frame of reference...Polyjuice Potion.
If we had never heard of Polyjuice, having Mad-Eye turn out to be Crouch Jr. after some 650+ pages might, indeed, have seemed like a cheat. But we know how the potion works and how it is made--the first time I read "GOF", when Snape accuses Harry of stealing the necessary supplies from his office, it skated right by me. So what if the theft I thought he was referencing had been 2 years ago--Snape had a proven record of harping on old crimes. It didn't occur to me that someone was brewing up a fresh supply, just like it didn't occur to Harry.
What I like even better is how it gets deployed in Book 7--the kids know and (think) they understand Polyjuice, so they rely on it...and it gets them into trouble, not once, but twice. Breaking into the Ministry, they know they'll have perfect disguises, appearance-wise; they don't think through all the other implications of what it means to really be able to "pass" as the employees they're impersonating.
The Hermione-as-Bellatrix plan is even less well-thought-out. Harry goes so far as to say that having her actual wand will make the trick easier, realizing too late that the exact opposite is true--the Death Eaters know who stole the wand, so having it is a dead giveaway.
And this gets me to what I love most about these books. Dumbledore tells Snape to keep an eye on whatever schemes Draco might attempt, because "a frightened teenage boy is a danger to others, as well as to himself." This is hardly less true of Harry, Ron, and Hermione...granted, the Cattermoles are already in a precarious position before Ron takes on Reg's identity, but we're clearly meant to recognize the kids' ability to cause grave collateral damage.
Aberforth's derision, when he asks if the job Harry has been left is "the sort of thing you'd expect an unqualified wizard kid to be able to do without overstretching", echoes this exact concern, except he is speaking of Dumbledore, rather than Voldemort.
re: SF for young readers
The first book that came to mind is the truly wonderful Robert C. O'Brien's Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH , because I was the age your reader is when I first encountered it. Then I thought "but is it SF?" which is patently silly...I have somehow never thought of it in that context before, but of course it is! I remember how excited I was a few years later when I realized what those letters stood for and that NIMH was a real place.
It so happens I work for mental health agency these days, and have had to learn to spell the letters out, because I was clearly annoying my colleagues by referring to our major grant-giving resource as "Nim".
As far as the other major theme in this thread, I just want to say that, as someone who came way late to the party, I'm enjoying all the Buffy talk...after refusing to be drawn in for years, my wife and I devoured all 7 seasons in about 6 months (yay, Netflix).
Losing a job, not getting housing, being at risk when you walk down the street--sure, these can be dangers for gay folks. They can be dangers for female folks or black folks, too. The difference being that, in the latter two cases, people can't usually opt out of having other people know that's who they are.
Can I understand why some people remain in the closet? Of course I can. I'm even capable of feeling a great deal of compassion for some of them. But I don't believe, any more, that it is just a matter of personal choice--to maintain the closet as a safe place for someone else, the ordinary daylight world has to continue to be dangerous for me and mine. Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary. Which is why I feel like debating the moral merits of outing is completely beside the point, and exactly what the Other Guys will hope we do.
My favorite pasta-sausage-no tomatoes combo, which has an exceedingly short season (at least here in Boston):
You need a nice roomy skillet (I actually use a one-handled stovetop wok.)
Remove one lb of sweet Italian sausage from its casing, and brown it until it’s mostly cooked.
Add 1 pint of beautifully-ripe fresh figs, cut into quarters or halves, plus several cloves of rough-chopped garlic and a couple of handfuls of torn fresh basil. Pour in a good measure of olive oil and let the whole thing carmelize. When your pasta is ready (fusilli is best), just drain it and throw it in the pan with everything else. Mix well, and serve with parmesan and fresh ground black pepper.
I believe my mom first saw this in the Wednesday food section of the Globe a few years ago, and it’s glorious (and easy!!)
I mostly lurk here, but I hope it's okay if I take a moment to express my appreciation to all the folks who posted back when Teresa first put up the "Serenity" trailer. On the strength of the collective enthusiasm, I spent the last month getting the DVDs from Netflix, and am now happily counting down til the 6:30 show. I haven't had a Friday this fun in quite a while--so, thanks!!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 14 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 6 |
Total: 25 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Lisa Spadafora:
Show all comments by Lisa Spadafora.