Still on this side of the threshold (but only just).
As announced on this blog on 2010-12-03: Theoria magiae non est magia mere theoretica (ut probatur) will lose its focus on things HP. I'm saying Goodbye to the metapotterverse.
Scholarly potterism as of now has not come to an end, - this is well documented in (and by) Cornelia Rémi's magnificent Harry Potter Bibliography, which has recently (2011-01-16) been updated once again.
But: I have lost interest. The way I see it: the madness, the hilarity, the interactions between fans and scholars and fans-as-scholars and scholars-as-friends, the magic: they have all come to an end - or have become imperceptible to me. (Interaction with some of the old crowd continues via facebook and other channels, but mostly not on things HP. So: no reason here to continue this journal here the way it is. I'll continue to use it, but - at least in writing - I will continue as to something new and different, probably starting later this day.)
I still owe you some sort of a mini-review of: Gregory Bassham (ed.): The Ultimate Harry Potter And Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles, Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons 2010, ISBN 978-0-470-39825-8 (USD 17.95):
The TOC can be found at http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470398256,descCd-tableOfContents.html, so I won't repeat it here.
According to one of the authors (Jeremy Pierce), part of what the articles in that volume are now is due to the editor(s), not the authors: see http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2010/03/ultimate-hpp.html - which is not completely devoid of interest when you take into account Tamar Szabó Gendler's views on authorial authority in the same volume (pp.143-156).
The authors' community is "USA-only" (no idea why), and includes "traditional" and less "traditional" scholars. The quality of the articles is uneven; this is the case with each and every book collecting articles by several authors; but in this case it's even more uneven than usual, ranging from passages which I would have criticised severely had they been written by any of my students (and passages showing - at best - superficial knowledge of the canon) to articles which I enjoyed reading very much.
This is for example true for Scott Sehon's The Soul in Harry Potter (pp. 7- 21). I don't agree on some minor points (soul as immaterial substance in Aristotle, immortality of the soul in the potterverse) but it does something very very difficult to do: it gives a consistent explanation of what "soul" is in the potterverse. The publishers' decision to make this item available free of cost on the internet (at URL http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/56/04703982/0470398256.pdf) IMO is an excellent one.
No, this here isn't a great review.
No, this here isn't a great entry.
But this is fitting for this "goodbye to the metapotterverse": It makes saying this "goodbye" easier for me, and perhaps it makes saying "goodbye" to this blog as it was easier for you.
I'll continue this blog with observations, remarks, comments, musings etc. in German on university politics, philosophy as a job, political philosophy, the weather, books, whatever: something between a salad and a mishmash. Keeping in mind that doing philosophy and not doing philosophy is doing philosophy.
Scholarly potterism as of now has not come to an end, - this is well documented in (and by) Cornelia Rémi's magnificent Harry Potter Bibliography, which has recently (2011-01-16) been updated once again.
But: I have lost interest. The way I see it: the madness, the hilarity, the interactions between fans and scholars and fans-as-scholars and scholars-as-friends, the magic: they have all come to an end - or have become imperceptible to me. (Interaction with some of the old crowd continues via facebook and other channels, but mostly not on things HP. So: no reason here to continue this journal here the way it is. I'll continue to use it, but - at least in writing - I will continue as to something new and different, probably starting later this day.)
I still owe you some sort of a mini-review of: Gregory Bassham (ed.): The Ultimate Harry Potter And Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles, Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons 2010, ISBN 978-0-470-39825-8 (USD 17.95):
The TOC can be found at http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470398256,descCd-tableOfContents.html, so I won't repeat it here.
According to one of the authors (Jeremy Pierce), part of what the articles in that volume are now is due to the editor(s), not the authors: see http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2010/03/ultimate-hpp.html - which is not completely devoid of interest when you take into account Tamar Szabó Gendler's views on authorial authority in the same volume (pp.143-156).
The authors' community is "USA-only" (no idea why), and includes "traditional" and less "traditional" scholars. The quality of the articles is uneven; this is the case with each and every book collecting articles by several authors; but in this case it's even more uneven than usual, ranging from passages which I would have criticised severely had they been written by any of my students (and passages showing - at best - superficial knowledge of the canon) to articles which I enjoyed reading very much.
This is for example true for Scott Sehon's The Soul in Harry Potter (pp. 7- 21). I don't agree on some minor points (soul as immaterial substance in Aristotle, immortality of the soul in the potterverse) but it does something very very difficult to do: it gives a consistent explanation of what "soul" is in the potterverse. The publishers' decision to make this item available free of cost on the internet (at URL http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/56/04703982/0470398256.pdf) IMO is an excellent one.
No, this here isn't a great review.
No, this here isn't a great entry.
But this is fitting for this "goodbye to the metapotterverse": It makes saying this "goodbye" easier for me, and perhaps it makes saying "goodbye" to this blog as it was easier for you.
I'll continue this blog with observations, remarks, comments, musings etc. in German on university politics, philosophy as a job, political philosophy, the weather, books, whatever: something between a salad and a mishmash. Keeping in mind that doing philosophy and not doing philosophy is doing philosophy.