From: stu-pid@foodforu.ca   
      
   On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:14:23 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:   
      
   > On 12/5/2010 4:45 PM, Draco Malfoy wrote:   
   >> My burning issue with PS/SS is that I'm surprised it ever got into   
   >> print. If I were the publisher it was presented to I would have   
   >> rejected it.   
   >   
   > I haven't checked, but I doubt that HP was accepted by the very first   
   > publisher to see the manuscript.  Many successful books were rejected   
   > multiple times by editors before being accepted and published.   
   >   
   >> There is also a lot wrong with PS/SS as a book for children:   
   >   
   > This is your first serious error.  Harry Potter is not a children's   
   > story.  JKR has stated such more than once.   
   >   
   >> 1) There is a male lead, and the major female character is presented   
   >> in an unflattering light for most of the book.   
   >   
   > Perhaps you perceive this, but many of us do not.   
   >   
   >> 2) Joanne Rowling is clearly a woman, and boys may well be put off by   
   >> a woman author. Indeed the publisher insisted on the androgynous form   
   >> J K Rowling.   
   >   
   > The gender of a book's author would never cause a fair-minded editor to   
   > reject the book.  Both the Hardy Boys series and the Nancy Drew series   
   > were written by a whole host of ghostwriters, all of whom used one   
   > pseudonym for the Hardy Boys series and another one for the Nancy Drew   
   > tales.  Both men and women wrote for both series.   
   >   
   >> 3) The vocabularly used is above the reading age of most adults! What   
   >> is a philosopher¡¦s stone? Do you know the meaning of alchemy, boater,   
   >> gummy walnut, ickle, knickerbockers, moleskin, swagger stick, tailcoat   
   >> and tyke? All these are in PS/SS.   
   >   
   > I knew seven of these terms before cracking the book for the first time,   
   > and figured out the rest as I read.  People are not as ignorant as your   
   > position requires them to be.   
   >   
   >> 4) The first chapter (that prospective publishers would have seen   
   >> first) is a pre-quel about a baby ¡V quite a difficult device and theme   
   >> for a child¡¦s book.   
   >   
   > And that caused every editor on the planet to reject it.  Oh, wait, it   
   > didn't.   
   >   
   >> 5) The book is culturally restricted.   
   >   
   > *Every* book is culturally restricted.   
   >   
   >> The book is middle class in its   
   >> appeal with the world of Privet Drive, Surrey likely to be the milieu   
   >> of parents of the implied target audience. It is also Anglo-centric   
   >> (British station and trains, London, selective Hogwarts as a de facto   
   >> grammar school). A move to the US market doesn't look likely.   
   >   
   > It appears that your idea of what is "likely" is horribly wrong.   
   >   
   >> 6) The book is personal. JKR dedicates it to her daughter, mother and   
   >> sister (a real contrast to say Deathly Hallows) as if she was writing   
   >> primarily for herself. There is a sense that JKR needed to write   
   >> because she needed to write, not that she was writing for a clearly   
   >> defined audience.   
   >   
   > Seriously, nobody cares whom an author dedicates a book to.   
   >   
   >> 7) In both PS/SS and CS it is possible to work out in quite some   
   >> detail what Dumbledore must be doing chapter by chapter (presumably   
   >> JKR had done this as part of her plot planning). There is an implicit   
   >> plot as well as the overt plot, which is an odd device for a   
   >> children¡¦s book.   
   >   
   > But since Harry Potter was never intended to be a children's story, this   
   > is not a problem.   
   >   
   >> Maybe it is a form of genius that it is possible to get these issues   
   >> wrong and still write a best-seller!   
   >   
   > The only one getting issues wrong is you.  You have compared what you   
   > would do, which is based in part on huge gaps of knowledge and   
   > unwarranted assumptions, with the actions of people who know better than   
   > you and who haven't made your assumptions.   
   >   
   > Regards,   
   > John   
   >   
   > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---   
      
   Harry Potter is a dangerous movie because it has themes of sexuality   
   and black magicks, and is aimed for a child audience.   
      
   There was a homosexual wizard in the movie, of who the main character,   
   Harry Potter, had ¡¥secret time¡¦ with and was not to ¡¥tell his parents   
   or friends¡¦.   
      
   Emma Watson started off as a young witch in the movie and is now using   
   her developed body to entice young hormonal children to come catch   
   glimpses of her exposed flesh.   
      
   This movie is a cultural element to our youth and since teenage youth   
   are impressionable, they will do whatever the stars of this movie tell   
   them to do.   
      
   The movie¡¦s writer, James Rowling Tolkien, well understands this fact   
   and is instructing Harry Potter and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) to   
   go on a nude tour where they expose their bodies. I and Christwire   
   have exposed this strategy and on the Today show, the bald-headed Emma   
   Watson shocked parental audiences with a very tight, inappropriate   
   dress that accentuated her feminine curbs in very pronounced and   
   ill-tasting ways.   
      
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CmZH3Yk-rY   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)