Okay. This is one podcast that I _will_ listen to because I greatly admire J.K. Rowling.
_Not_ as the author of the "Harry Potter" books, which (while I _did_ read them aloud to my children when they were growing up) I considered rather pedestrian in style though A+ in world-building. So far as magical children's literature goes, though…
Okay. This is one podcast that I _will_ listen to because I greatly admire J.K. Rowling.
_Not_ as the author of the "Harry Potter" books, which (while I _did_ read them aloud to my children when they were growing up) I considered rather pedestrian in style though A+ in world-building. So far as magical children's literature goes, though, I personally much prefer E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, and even Kipling.
But I _so_ admire that quick retort: "Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
Rowling is an absolute hero to me.
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about the feminist movement I more-or-less grew up with. I guess they'd call it first-wave feminism.
To me, the whole creeping politicization of the trans phenomenon is such a blatant attempt to co-opt that movement. It makes me want to scream.
Keep in mind that Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series for children, so I give her pedestrian writing style a pass. As a huge fan of the Potter books, I decided to try her mystery series, written under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. These minutiae-laden tomes are gratuitously gory and definitely “adult” in tone, but boring, humorless, not believable, and ultimately unreadable. I know some folks love this series, but I’ll take the weird and wonderful world of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry any day.
I know the difference between children's and adult fiction. Would not describe the style of E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, Kipling, or George MacDonald (cited below) as pedestrian.
And the Cormoran Strike books are okay. Show her growth as a writer.
But anyway, I love her, you love her. No need to argue. 😀
"I personally much prefer E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, and even Kipling."
I loved Nesbit, Lang's compilations, George McDonald... Then, there's L.M. Boston, Hugh Lofting, L. Frank Baum, Joan Aiken... I guess Rowling reminded kids that reading was a thing.
I admire Rowling most for speaking out on the Wimpund issue.
There was always a slippery slope with feminism and racial civil rights. There was the call for equality of opportunity. That is what affected me. Ivy league schools Yale and Harvard did not accept females when I was applying to college. My male peers refuse to believe that, are convinced women had equal opportunity if not preference when they were young. They look it up, find it is true, then forget it and have to be reminded again. Embedded beliefs are very hard to replace.
Then there was the focus on oppression, with victims, women and black people, and oppressors, men or white people. This was the path taken, a dark path.
The great leaders, Mandela and King, in spite of any personal faults, held up a Christian ideal rarely achieved, of reconciliation. They understood that any oppression is harmful to the oppressor as well as the oppressed, and they valued all humanity.
The other view is easier. It is cheap moral virtue, as the widely misrepresented Jordan Peterson says. It appeals to a person with a simple worldview.
Religion exists partly because most people are that simple. If a few can establish a structure that guides everyone, that is worth doing, yet such power has its own great risks.
All of the 20th-century civil rights movements have gone bad. Every one of them has degenerated into a special-interest group, demanding privileges, and enforcing conformity among its members.
Not undergraduate women. You are incorrect, as were my male friends. Radcliffe and Harvard combined their admissions in 1975, three years after I applied to college.
Radcliffe. Grad school. Med school Law school. But I could not get a Harvard undergraduate degree regardless of my qualification because of my sex. They. Did. Not. Accept. Women. I was there, then. Were you?
I refused to attend a school "for women." When Yale opened its doors to women two years later I was accepted as a math transfer.
Yale did not accept female undergrads until (1969, I believe). I was a freshperson in 72, unfortunately ran out of $ after one year but remember this clearly.
In the 60's, when I was a child, my father expected me to get a scholarship to Radcliff (Harvard's sister school for women). I remember clearly, tho i could be wrong, that Harvard was for men only at that time.
Okay. This is one podcast that I _will_ listen to because I greatly admire J.K. Rowling.
_Not_ as the author of the "Harry Potter" books, which (while I _did_ read them aloud to my children when they were growing up) I considered rather pedestrian in style though A+ in world-building. So far as magical children's literature goes, though, I personally much prefer E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, and even Kipling.
But I _so_ admire that quick retort: "Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
Rowling is an absolute hero to me.
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about the feminist movement I more-or-less grew up with. I guess they'd call it first-wave feminism.
To me, the whole creeping politicization of the trans phenomenon is such a blatant attempt to co-opt that movement. It makes me want to scream.
Keep in mind that Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series for children, so I give her pedestrian writing style a pass. As a huge fan of the Potter books, I decided to try her mystery series, written under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. These minutiae-laden tomes are gratuitously gory and definitely “adult” in tone, but boring, humorless, not believable, and ultimately unreadable. I know some folks love this series, but I’ll take the weird and wonderful world of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry any day.
Don't agree.
I know the difference between children's and adult fiction. Would not describe the style of E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, Kipling, or George MacDonald (cited below) as pedestrian.
And the Cormoran Strike books are okay. Show her growth as a writer.
But anyway, I love her, you love her. No need to argue. 😀
Really?! I am one of those who loved her Galbraith mysteries. Just riveting IMO.
I respected and read all the Harry Potter books as a cultural phenomenon, and watched all the movies, but I found those more of a slog.
So something for everyone! Terrific! My witch's hat off to Rowling!
Yes, something for everyone. My mind is open to trying out whatever she writes, I have such respect for her.
I agree with all of this including:
"I personally much prefer E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Andrew Lang, and even Kipling."
I loved Nesbit, Lang's compilations, George McDonald... Then, there's L.M. Boston, Hugh Lofting, L. Frank Baum, Joan Aiken... I guess Rowling reminded kids that reading was a thing.
I admire Rowling most for speaking out on the Wimpund issue.
Have you read Edward Eager?
Top rate! I can't recommend him highly enough. 😀
He was the one on the list I didn't know. I need to be a grandma someday and do the children's book thing all over again :)
I don't give them credit for the foresight but it certainly is becoming the effect.
The gay rights movement has been co-opted, too.
There was always a slippery slope with feminism and racial civil rights. There was the call for equality of opportunity. That is what affected me. Ivy league schools Yale and Harvard did not accept females when I was applying to college. My male peers refuse to believe that, are convinced women had equal opportunity if not preference when they were young. They look it up, find it is true, then forget it and have to be reminded again. Embedded beliefs are very hard to replace.
Then there was the focus on oppression, with victims, women and black people, and oppressors, men or white people. This was the path taken, a dark path.
The great leaders, Mandela and King, in spite of any personal faults, held up a Christian ideal rarely achieved, of reconciliation. They understood that any oppression is harmful to the oppressor as well as the oppressed, and they valued all humanity.
The other view is easier. It is cheap moral virtue, as the widely misrepresented Jordan Peterson says. It appeals to a person with a simple worldview.
Religion exists partly because most people are that simple. If a few can establish a structure that guides everyone, that is worth doing, yet such power has its own great risks.
Such and interesting set of statements you've made here. Loved paragraphs 3-5.
After smart phones and social media, time seems to have sped up and experience distorted.
All of the 20th-century civil rights movements have gone bad. Every one of them has degenerated into a special-interest group, demanding privileges, and enforcing conformity among its members.
Women have been admitted to Harvard since the 1930s.
Not undergraduate women. You are incorrect, as were my male friends. Radcliffe and Harvard combined their admissions in 1975, three years after I applied to college.
Radcliffe. Grad school. Med school Law school. But I could not get a Harvard undergraduate degree regardless of my qualification because of my sex. They. Did. Not. Accept. Women. I was there, then. Were you?
I refused to attend a school "for women." When Yale opened its doors to women two years later I was accepted as a math transfer.
Yale did not accept female undergrads until (1969, I believe). I was a freshperson in 72, unfortunately ran out of $ after one year but remember this clearly.
In the 60's, when I was a child, my father expected me to get a scholarship to Radcliff (Harvard's sister school for women). I remember clearly, tho i could be wrong, that Harvard was for men only at that time.