and naturally what first came across as pandering for no good reason turned quickly into full on TERF bullshit. what was a real eye opener for me (not a surprise really, but still) was her novel under her male pen name (which, again, is nothing unheard of but context matters) with the trans woman who conveniently serves as a vehicle for all of Rowling's hatred towards trans women. I'm still not sure if she purposely outed herself with that pile of transphobic crap, or if she thought she could get away with it.
If you asked the kids if they liked the books, it was either a short reply (they wanted to start reading!) or a stream of conscious run on of the parts and characters they liked. The parents were sometimes reading along with the kids. It was the adults without kids reading the books that was the headscratcher. I did attribute that to the fact that British authors don't write down to their readers the way that American writers tend to do (Yup, I read some kids books. One has to be familiar with the merchandise. Just not HP.). And I blame that writing down on the publishers.
The British have never despised nor pandered to their audiences the way that American publishers do. So much of the popular books, fiction and non-fiction, are poorly written and, as you said, at a 5th grade level. And these are the books for adults, not children.Harry Potter was written for children. It only assumes that children can be smarter. I had lots of kids below the reading level reading those books. I mean 1st and 2nd graders. Those are the kids who saw the films first and wanted to read the books.
I think, in part, the length of the books from the third one on is what put me on my opinion. Most American books at the time were much shorter and tended to unsubtly hammer home a moral or lesson. It doesn't mean that excellent American children's books weren't being written but aside from a few classics from the 60's most of what we received was the equivalent of sugary breakfast cereals: strong on taste but short on nutritional value. Some better written books started to flow in after HP but most were just more wizards and magic and dragons and such. Copycat material.
TBH, I liked them in spite of the gross gender roles. The first one was very funny and charming. The second one was in the same vein. The third one is positively moving; the ending of it is really beautiful. Then they get pretty slow. Then the last one ends well.
WHich makes your minority opinion look, well, pompous and whiny... Let's tear down whatever is most popular is hardly a new position, and can come off as disingenuous, but since you don't care... I mean, it's the reason you expressed an opinion on a public forum, right?
Robert Heinlein had a small stroke that went undetected but affected him mentally. The result was a not-very-good book. Since he was such a huge name in the field at that time, his editor didn't dare change a word. It wasn't pretty.
After Robert Heinlein died, his widow released a new edition of "Stranger In A Strange Land" with the 20,000 words originally cut from the published edition. His editor should have gotten an award for how much he improved that book.
I find it hard to articulate my thoughts on this subject too.
For me it is because I just don´t get gender.
Back when I didn´t really think beyond the traditional binary I never understood why men and women are treated differently. My increasing awareness of more genders hasn´t improved my understanding: People are still just people to me. If they want to behave a certain way they should just do so without feeling the need to first identify as the kind of person that is allowed to act that way. You don´t need anyone's permission, not even your own.
As I said, I don't get it. Obviously, I will defend the right of people to be any gender they want, and I will try to treat everyone how they want to be treated. But that's just basic human behaviour, it shouldn't even need mentioning.
Thank you for telling me I should ignore easily documented facts - that MacKinnon wrote "decency" laws struck down as violating the First Amendment by federal courts is easily verified in the Federal Reports - because of you personal feelings
It makes you sound so creditable 🙄
My favorite law school professor was a former Scalia law clerk complete RWNJ, btw - that I enjoyed his classes and thought that he is a good teacher doesn't mean I agree with his wacko beliefs
and naturally what first came across as pandering for no good reason turned quickly into full on TERF bullshit. what was a real eye opener for me (not a surprise really, but still) was her novel under her male pen name (which, again, is nothing unheard of but context matters) with the trans woman who conveniently serves as a vehicle for all of Rowling's hatred towards trans women. I'm still not sure if she purposely outed herself with that pile of transphobic crap, or if she thought she could get away with it.
If you asked the kids if they liked the books, it was either a short reply (they wanted to start reading!) or a stream of conscious run on of the parts and characters they liked. The parents were sometimes reading along with the kids. It was the adults without kids reading the books that was the headscratcher. I did attribute that to the fact that British authors don't write down to their readers the way that American writers tend to do (Yup, I read some kids books. One has to be familiar with the merchandise. Just not HP.). And I blame that writing down on the publishers.
The British have never despised nor pandered to their audiences the way that American publishers do. So much of the popular books, fiction and non-fiction, are poorly written and, as you said, at a 5th grade level. And these are the books for adults, not children.Harry Potter was written for children. It only assumes that children can be smarter. I had lots of kids below the reading level reading those books. I mean 1st and 2nd graders. Those are the kids who saw the films first and wanted to read the books.
Never implied, but curious you jumped to that.Was just saying that was the high water mark.
I think, in part, the length of the books from the third one on is what put me on my opinion. Most American books at the time were much shorter and tended to unsubtly hammer home a moral or lesson. It doesn't mean that excellent American children's books weren't being written but aside from a few classics from the 60's most of what we received was the equivalent of sugary breakfast cereals: strong on taste but short on nutritional value. Some better written books started to flow in after HP but most were just more wizards and magic and dragons and such. Copycat material.
I borrowed the HP books from a neighbor's kid. I enjoyed them. That kid is now a college grad.
TBH, I liked them in spite of the gross gender roles. The first one was very funny and charming. The second one was in the same vein. The third one is positively moving; the ending of it is really beautiful. Then they get pretty slow. Then the last one ends well.
WHich makes your minority opinion look, well, pompous and whiny... Let's tear down whatever is most popular is hardly a new position, and can come off as disingenuous, but since you don't care... I mean, it's the reason you expressed an opinion on a public forum, right?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
The Heinlein Syndrome.
Robert Heinlein had a small stroke that went undetected but affected him mentally. The result was a not-very-good book. Since he was such a huge name in the field at that time, his editor didn't dare change a word. It wasn't pretty.
After Robert Heinlein died, his widow released a new edition of "Stranger In A Strange Land" with the 20,000 words originally cut from the published edition. His editor should have gotten an award for how much he improved that book.
I think Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality pointed that out.
Digging in your heels when attacked is a common human behaviour. It should be a key part of every guide on how to radicalize people.
I find it hard to articulate my thoughts on this subject too.
For me it is because I just don´t get gender.
Back when I didn´t really think beyond the traditional binary I never understood why men and women are treated differently. My increasing awareness of more genders hasn´t improved my understanding: People are still just people to me. If they want to behave a certain way they should just do so without feeling the need to first identify as the kind of person that is allowed to act that way. You don´t need anyone's permission, not even your own.
As I said, I don't get it. Obviously, I will defend the right of people to be any gender they want, and I will try to treat everyone how they want to be treated. But that's just basic human behaviour, it shouldn't even need mentioning.
Lessee, two white people get together and find a shared hatred of black women and the gender-reassigned. Fuck 'em.
Thank you for telling me I should ignore easily documented facts - that MacKinnon wrote "decency" laws struck down as violating the First Amendment by federal courts is easily verified in the Federal Reports - because of you personal feelings
It makes you sound so creditable 🙄
My favorite law school professor was a former Scalia law clerk complete RWNJ, btw - that I enjoyed his classes and thought that he is a good teacher doesn't mean I agree with his wacko beliefs