(no subject)
Hey all!
All of you who went to Lumos, who like Harry Potter slash or Harry Potter in general and who, as I, don't like ignorant people speak, may want to read this and drop a line or two.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1837941,00.html
Hello,
This is a comment regarding a review written by Carole Cadwalladr on Sunday August 6, 2006, titled 'Harry Potter and the Mystery of an Academic Obsession' written for The Observer.
Some things in the said review made me feel that it is necessary to write to Carol and express my views (and, I think, views of many Harry Potter fans who, by misfortune, might have stumbled upon it).
Firstly, the thing that stroke me most is what a woman having not read the books and not seen the movies, who openly admitted to it, is doing publicly reviewing anything to do with Harry Potter. Due to that one fact and one confession, she has herself discredited herself (because, let's face it, many people would stop reading right at the part she said that she didn't read the books or seen the movies and really doesn't know what the hell is going on) AND, on top of that, took away the surprise that we might have received later on in the article of her ignorance regarding the Harry Potter books and universe.
For example, to take a part of something she writes: "Snape, who's been the baddie through six books, is almost universally adored, something which puzzles me until Debbie McLain, a volunteer and 'stay-athome mum' who's the main organiser of Lumos, explains it to me by saying that 'a lot of women are drawn to the characters who they hope may experience redemption'. Oh yes, I think, JK Rowling and the Complex Trope of Female Delusion." Well, I don't know why Carol should be puzzled that he is univesally adored if the most she knows is that he's been a "baddie" throughout six books. She, of course, not having read the books, would buy whatever anyone would tell her. She wouldn't know that 'redemption' has nothing to do with anything. The reason people like Snape is because though he is an "evil" character, he's one of the most complex and brilliantly-written one of the lot. He has the most mysterious personality, because we don't know much about him and STILL, after 6 books, no one but JKR can tell whether he's a "baddie" or not and what's on his mind. I simply don't see how anyone can be puzzled at why people like a character if they didn't even read the books. The ignorance of the reviewer is not complimenting her at all - in fact, for people who HAVE read the book, she might come off as a complete fool.
The comparison of the Harry Potter fandom and Star Trek is laughable. One can only wonder if Carol has seen Star Trek, though, one can probably guess the answer to that.
I guess, having read a lot of reviews, I am rather used to reviews that are not so obviously biased. Anyone who may read this is sure to know how strongly Carol is against the whole "Potter porn". It is quite unprofessional to make reviews based on the fact that you are against something and make it obvious, not even presenting all the facts. But then again, it's quite unprofessional and unintelligent to admit to never reading a book and then make statements about it and its characters.
Thank you for your attention,
Margot.
P.S. *points at icon* The man was a genius.
All of you who went to Lumos, who like Harry Potter slash or Harry Potter in general and who, as I, don't like ignorant people speak, may want to read this and drop a line or two.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1837941,00.html
Hello,
This is a comment regarding a review written by Carole Cadwalladr on Sunday August 6, 2006, titled 'Harry Potter and the Mystery of an Academic Obsession' written for The Observer.
Some things in the said review made me feel that it is necessary to write to Carol and express my views (and, I think, views of many Harry Potter fans who, by misfortune, might have stumbled upon it).
Firstly, the thing that stroke me most is what a woman having not read the books and not seen the movies, who openly admitted to it, is doing publicly reviewing anything to do with Harry Potter. Due to that one fact and one confession, she has herself discredited herself (because, let's face it, many people would stop reading right at the part she said that she didn't read the books or seen the movies and really doesn't know what the hell is going on) AND, on top of that, took away the surprise that we might have received later on in the article of her ignorance regarding the Harry Potter books and universe.
For example, to take a part of something she writes: "Snape, who's been the baddie through six books, is almost universally adored, something which puzzles me until Debbie McLain, a volunteer and 'stay-athome mum' who's the main organiser of Lumos, explains it to me by saying that 'a lot of women are drawn to the characters who they hope may experience redemption'. Oh yes, I think, JK Rowling and the Complex Trope of Female Delusion." Well, I don't know why Carol should be puzzled that he is univesally adored if the most she knows is that he's been a "baddie" throughout six books. She, of course, not having read the books, would buy whatever anyone would tell her. She wouldn't know that 'redemption' has nothing to do with anything. The reason people like Snape is because though he is an "evil" character, he's one of the most complex and brilliantly-written one of the lot. He has the most mysterious personality, because we don't know much about him and STILL, after 6 books, no one but JKR can tell whether he's a "baddie" or not and what's on his mind. I simply don't see how anyone can be puzzled at why people like a character if they didn't even read the books. The ignorance of the reviewer is not complimenting her at all - in fact, for people who HAVE read the book, she might come off as a complete fool.
The comparison of the Harry Potter fandom and Star Trek is laughable. One can only wonder if Carol has seen Star Trek, though, one can probably guess the answer to that.
I guess, having read a lot of reviews, I am rather used to reviews that are not so obviously biased. Anyone who may read this is sure to know how strongly Carol is against the whole "Potter porn". It is quite unprofessional to make reviews based on the fact that you are against something and make it obvious, not even presenting all the facts. But then again, it's quite unprofessional and unintelligent to admit to never reading a book and then make statements about it and its characters.
Thank you for your attention,
Margot.
P.S. *points at icon* The man was a genius.