perfidy

Dude, I just never got into Harry Potter.

You know I used to dig on D&D and whatnot, but...I dunno. I tried to read the first book and couldn't get into it. I thought the flick was fun, but couldn't sit through the second one.

Maybe in a few years when my spawn is ready to enjoy books I'll have another look. But personally, I don't get it.

To each his own, GL. That goes for the Pope too, who can go pound salt. Being that my wife works at a liberry I am hoping that some providential privilege will entitle me to a first look at the library's copy when it's released. That way I won't have to drop $25.

I'm so g-d d-mn cheap.

J,
Well sure to each his own. I thought someone might talk for a minute about the allure of the Potter. You know, a paragraph of why it's good. Because I don't know. But would like to.

By the by, the last couple years the librarium here has been my very special friend. If it makes you feel any better, I'm no less cheap than you.

Well, it's hard to say exactly what the allure is. All I know is that I read the first one, found it cute and ultimately a good story, read the second one and thought it was miles better, and was hooked from there.

But of course I'll take a stab at it anyway. Part of the ongoing allure is that Rowling, though she is in dire need of an editor, has done a good job gradually, but gradually, de-cuting her world and introducing moral ambiguity, complexity of motive, and plain malice into the picture. Since the main characters start out eleven years old in the first book (they are now 16), the growing complexity of the seven-book story arc and the increasing, well, grimness, of events mirror the characters' perceptions of the world as they mature into adults and shoulder more responsibility. The first book is about fun candies and sneaking out at night and incidentially thwarting a bad guy in the pricess. By book four actions have consequences and good people are dying painful deaths.

While I wouldn't quite accuse J.K. Rowling of swinging for the fences in the same way as Philip Pullman with his His Dark Materials trilogy which among other things entirely rethought Christian theology and gnostic thought on the way to a grand philosophical statement in a book ostensibly written for teenagers, she does write good characters and leads you to care about them while she spins a hella good yarn.

And c'mon, Bucket! Of course Scholastic can keep a secret better than the CIA. Think about it.

If Harry Potter leaks out early than:
* Scholastic stands to lose the profits on their biggest title ever, screwing the balance sheet royally for years to come, not to mention the costs sunk in printing books that might not sell if pirated copies turn up alongside.
* Scholastic loses a lot of face with vendors who stand to lose their own shirts when the book doesn't sell.
* The first-week promo push is compromised, which means an up-front loss of money and time.
* The leaker and anyone around them will find their asses fired and their names mud. Their names will be in the paper.
* Scholastic look like a bunch of bumblers who botched a big job, losing them future business with authors and agencies.

If the CIA leaks classified information then:

* Some people might die somewhere. Probably not Americans, so that's a wash.
* The Senate Intelligence committee members will get a Sunday's worth of appearances on the talk shows, yammering about sanctions and penalties and outrages.
* Everyone will keep their job.
* Nothing else.

My cousin Marianne gave me the first book for Christmas years ago, and it sat on my shelf for months until, desperate for something to read, I picked it up. Once I got past the first 30-40 pages, though, I was hooked and blew through the three books then extant.

I had started the first one once before, but the strangeness of the prose set me off. Once you get into it becomes a lot more natural.

Fantastic stuff, and I agree with everything Johno said.

If you're curious for a preview of the book and didn't hear today's All">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4752475]All Things Considered piece on the matter, uh, well even if you did, you're still SOL on the plotline.

But not for much longer.

ATC's show-ending bit is an interview with a bunch of kids about what THEY think the story will be. While my daughter loves the stories, and while a lot of the entertainment stuff my daughter enjoys is the same stuff I enjoy, I have trouble getting too excited about books originally designed for the 8-to-12 set.

Which, too bad for me, appears to have put me behind the curve on a series of books that has grown to have a lot to commend it. Having missed the boat, I've remained on dry land, and will continue to do so, excepting those times Gnat allows me to watch the movies with her.

But I must confess to being a bit jealous of those who actually give enough of a shit to be looking forward to a new book. Enjoy.

Oh, and the pope should piss up a rope. What are we gonna do, start burning books again? Who gives a shit what this pope or the last thinks of fictional characters?