Just Lucky

I just found out today the exact age of my personal Charles Dickens collection.... almost 106 Years!

Vultures

It never ceases to irritate me how certain groups of people (cough, hack, salvationarmyforinstance, cough) insist on hounding others when these particular individuals have left the group definately.

Stooping to such low ends as taking advantage of the feelings of people, they drag you in to their personal interpretations of the Bible or Quoran and feed you xenophobia, they foster alliumphobia, overexagerate and enforce daemonophobia with the promise of eternal evil ready to drag you down into the burning halls of HELL. Thinking of which, they enforce hadephobia and arsonphobia (to some degree) and most importantly, they cultivate hedonophobia with an over-enphazis of guilt. Yes, lots of Phobias here, but then again, most of these are completely based on the fear of the End of the World.

But they use that, fear of being left alone, fear of being punished, fear of death and fear of God to turn you to their ways. Of course they argue that it is in the end your choice. And so it is, half way. You might be seeking spiritual guidance, so yes, the intent there is yours, however, taking advantage of this situation and using psychological rape in the name of good to convince either the weak willed or the momentarily vulnerable to join your particular sect is the other half. They didn't choose. You took advantage of them and chose for them, keeping them and washing their minds with promises of friendship, a place in heaven and punishment of the wicked.

Personally, I wouldn't trust ANY Fundamentalist Christian group with LESS than 500 to 1000 years in existance. Why should I trust the words of a F.C. Pastor (for example) head of a "church" of 50 to 100 individuals, who just happens to interpret the Bible so, over the words of a proper Priest (and I don't mean catholics specifically) who comes from a school of thought and studies almost 2000 years old?

Some people just need time to think, not being dragged by these idiots.

The worst kind are those that keep up after you. Leaving snide remarks, or reminding you of "where you came from," or assuming that just because you put a reference to your beliefs that they happen to share you are on your way back to them.

I'm not saying that all individuals of those groups are like that. I have been fortunate enough to meet a few such individuals, but so far the faults of the masses outweight the merits of the few.

Thankfully this hasn't happened to me. All the religious fanatics I've known have either had the common sense of leaving me alone or have quit after finding out that unlike them, I HAVE read the Bible and/or the Quoran. And I'm not even from those religions. This rant, rather comes from something that came up on a friend's site.

Come on, Vultures. Get a grip, catch the jist of it. Leave him alone. Let him be. And get a real life.

Howl vs. Howl

I intended to write a post about this sooner, but several issues got in the way. In any case. While in LA I went with some friends to watch "Howl's Moving Castle" in the original Japanese with English subs. Having read the book around three years ago (or so,) I was surprised to find I thought the movie was good, but not brilliant. Entertaining, but not memorable. You get my drift.

However, uppon arrival to Mexico, and a few weeks after it was dubbed into Spanish I went to watch it again and to my surprise I really enjoyed it this time. I actually think, that for once in my life I really did like the dub better, and that is saying something after so long of finding it (if not mediocre) lacking. But curiously it was so. Don't get me wrong: I'm definately not complaining. I'm just surprised at the great job they did of adapting it to spanish and also getting through some things that just didn't get through properly in Japanese (and English) if you hadn't read the book.

The movie itself is enjoyable in either format, however, even for a Miyasaki adaptation... it takes too many liberties IMHO. Sullivan is... messed up. Even more than in the book. Heck Sullivan was a HE in the book and Howl's co-student.

Apparently, the importance of fairy-tale aspects were not so important to whoever adapted the text into the movie script. Possibly because they are not familiar with old bedside stories of Seven-League Boots, or being the first-born daughter out of three and how that applied to Fortune.

The Witch of the Waste changing into a kind old hag was an amusing change, but hardly worth the sacrifice of the secrets of Howl's origins, the fight with her, HER fire-demon, and the profecy. Not to mention that none of Sophie's powers made it into the movie. Or the fact that she had TWO sisters. Not one.

I was kind of disappointed with the adaptation, seeing how Mimi Wo Tsubaseba was adapted so well. (Also with some, but smaller, changes) The storytelling needed polishing, and I know they had some trouble with changing directors for the movie, but the problem was the adaptation, not the direction.

In any case, it IS worth watching, but typically, doesn't live up to the book.

Dumbledore Dies... and that's the only interesting thing in Book 6.

And that title is no lie. NOTHING much happens in the book that is remotely relevant. It is mostly plucks at trying to cover sad plotholes.

This place is called Dr. Dice's Rants. There is a reason for it, so you've been warned.

I have always said I dislike the Harry Potter series as a general rule (despite your insistence to the contrary, Ghost.) Why can I say that? Well, besides studying Literature AND Creative Writing, I have been reading books since I was 6 years old. I have read all kinds of literary genres; from fiction, to fantasy, to philosophical treaties, to National Geographic, to poetry, to science fiction (if you don't know the difference between "fiction" and "Science Fiction" you should find out. Soon. Especially if you want to keep reading.) I have never criticized any book that I haven't actually read. So, I have the knowledge, the background and the ARGUMENTS necessary to say that those books are crap.

ar.gu.ment (ärgy-mnt) n.

• A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
• A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
• A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

There are undoubtly some things that I appreciate and even find interesting or funny in those books. But I can list them and they are less than ten.

The Harry Potter series as a read is not even remotely close to deserving the popularity it got, except maybe for ADULT people that haven't read ANYTHING before it. And that speaks
worse of them than the book.

It is still surprising to me that some people (3 total, including Lurker and Ghost) I actually know for a fact have a much broader literary culture still defend HP as one of the best things they have ever read. It is not only dissapointing in a way, but also worrysome.

Recently, there has been some arguments over this letter sent by Terry Pratchet on regards to J.K. Rowling interview in "The Sunday Times" on July 25th, 2005.

From The Sunday Times - 31st July 2005

WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.”

In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with “the dark heart of the real world” being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.

Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?

Terry Pratchett
Salisbury, Wiltshire

Well. Most people didn't even read what the whole interview was about, and the fandom response by Potter fans (predictably) ranged on these type of comments:

L.a.m.b

08-09-2005 07:53 PM

---

That LOSER ON HER BIRTHDAY WHAT A CHEAP JERK HOW DARE HE ATTACK JO ROWLING I'M TOALLY DISGUSTED HE WANTS A CRY FOR PUBLICITY WHAT A SOUR GRAPE NOW REALLY . i CAN'T BELIEVE JO ROWLING HAD 2 PUT UP WITH THIS JERK! I WOULD GIVE THAT GUY A PIECE OF MY MIND IF I WERE JO!

That was taken from HERE. Most people, like this L.a.m.b troll (if he's a normal user he needs to work on his approach) mindlesly attack Pratchet for a well made point over Rowling's criticism of the Fantasy Genre in general and her honest stupidity with claims regarding her ignorance of the genre of what she was writing until the book was published. Other comments in the same place include saying that Pratchet is jealous of her. (heh)

They also tend to ignore the fact that Pratchet's letter was intended for the writer and publishers of the article, rather that Rowling herself. The small pun at the end is what got the idiots going.

Even more sadly, most of them admit to not having never read a Terry Pratchet book (some of them because they didn't like the covers) but they claim that he's not as good a writer (when he's actually better.)

Another sad truth is that the average Harry Potter fan is a complete git, who knows absolutely nothing about the Fantasy genre besides HP for the simple reason that they don't read anything else. Talk about lack of culture!

How can they defend someone that is asked THIS stupid question:

Cara McKenzie for Radio Forth - Every year since Harry has been to Hogwarts the defence against the dark arts teacher has left Hogwarts or died every year. Does that mean that something will stop Snape from being the defence against the dark arts in book 7?

Obviously, McKenzie hadn't even read the book, but Rowling goes and answers this:

JK Rowling: Yes. I really can't say more than that. That is because one of those questions that is a very good question and everyone would like to know the answer but it gives a lot away. There must obviously be a new one.

Eh... logic? Coherence? Hello?

From the interview:

The most popular living fantasy writer in the world doesn't even especially like fantasy novels. It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone was published that it even occurred to her that she had written one. "That's the honest truth," she says. "You know, the unicorns were in there. There was the castle, God knows. But I really had not thought that that's what I was doing. And I think maybe the reason that it didn't occur to me is that I'm not a huge fan of fantasy." Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot.

My dear Rowling... I think you just declared yourself stupid. Publicly. Not because you don't like fantasy; not because you didn't finish reading the Lord of the Rings; and certainly NOT because you dislike that idiot Lewis. In today's bookstores ANY book containing ANYTHING remotely similar to a story including wizards, dragons, unicorns and three-headed dogs (not to mention a school of magic users) is under the FANTASY Genre.

Another priceless paragraph from the interview is this one:

The genre tends to be deeply conservative--politically, culturally, psychologically. It looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves. Rowling's books aren't like that. They take place in the 1990s--not in some never-never Narnia but in modern-day Mugglish England, with cars, telephones and PlayStations. Rowling adapts an inherently conservative genre for her own progressive purposes.

Are we talking about the same Fantasy genre? Terry Pratchet, Neil Gaiman, Philip Pullman? (Just to name a few.) Lev Grossman, who wrote the article now reveals that he/she/it knows even LESS than Rowling about the Fantasy genre.

Rowling claims in the interview that:

"But I think I really planned the hell out of this one. I took three months and just sat there and went over and over and over the plan, really fine-tuned it, looked at it from every angle. I had learnt, maybe, from past mistakes."

Planned the hell out of this one? HAH! Does she even understand how much time a real writer dedicates to creating the "rules of the world" where he/she is working on alone? 3 Months? And she calls it planning the hell out of it? Amateur. No wonder HP has so many plotholes all through it and she has to cover them every time on the next book. She probably thinks a week planning is enough for most novels.

"I think I can say categorically that I will not write another fantasy after Harry," she says, making herself and her publicists, who hover nearby, visibly nervous. "Wait, now I'm panicking. Oh, my God! Yes, I'm sure I can say that. I think I will have exhausted the possibilities of that. For me."

Too bad it's just another fantasy and not another book. Fortunately, people will realize after just how much she lacks as a writer; when muggles and wizards cease to exist in her literature.

Although, I would bet that it won't take long for her to despair and return to the genre after she has finished the last HP book.

Anyway, I'll end this rant with two tests plucked (I feel like Rowling, plucking stuff from everywhere and putting it among my text) from Elf's webpage.

Fox Furry (actually, this pic is of a Dhole, but I
loved the facial expression so much that I had
to use it anyway). ART COPYRIGHT TO:
www.redpanda.com (Sara Palmer)


What Kind of Furry Are You? (with lovely images)
brought to you by Quizilla

The Keys to Your Heart

You are attracted to good manners and elegance.

In love, you feel the most alive when everything is uncertain, one moment heaven... the next moment hell.

You'd like to your lover to think you are stylish and alluring.

You would be forced to break up with someone who was ruthless, cold-blooded, and sarcastic.

Your ideal relationship is lasting. You want a relationship that looks to the future... one you can grow with.

Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment.

You think of marriage as something precious. You'll treasure marriage and treat it as sacred.

In this moment, you think of love as something you thirst for. You'll do anything for love, but you won't fall for it easily.

What Are The Keys To Your Heart?