[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
I wish I had a pony.
[/QUOTE]
I wish I had a magic pony.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I wish I had a magic pony.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Not being snarky: this is a genuine enquiry: I’ve heard of “anymore” being misused in the US on these boards, so I’m prepared to see it out of context, but I honestly have no idea what this adjective is meant to mean.
[/QUOTE]
I thought this was just an error, but as people have pointed out:
But like jjimm, I am honestly uncertain of the meaning. Does “I am cynical anymore” imply that you didn’t used to be cynical but now you are? Or does it just mean “I am currently cynical?”
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Heh. First thing I thought of when I was reading the OP, too…
[/QUOTE]
Well, I haven’t read that book, but I’ve read a fair amount of Russian literature, like “The Overcoat” by Gogol. Very very depressing. Poor Akaky Akakievich.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
The only complaint I have about Rowling is she needs to **shut the fuck up **with all these spoilers. Just shut up! It’s on the fucking first page of my Yahoo! account and I can’t avoid the damn thing. I like to get my spoilers from the traditional place, ya know, the goddamn book. :mad:
Wow, I guess I was madder than I thought.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a spoiler to say that 2 characters are going to die in the finale? Given how the series has been progressing, isn’t that pretty much a given.
Didn’t 4 characters die in Half-Blood Prince, 3 of whom had actually been in the books?
Emmeline Vance, Amelia Bones, Hannah Abbott’s mother and Dumbledore. Plus Ollivandier and Florian Fortescue disappeared. Did I miss anybody, other than those who died in the flashbacks?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
A magic apocalypse pony?
[/QUOTE]
You laugh now, godless sinner, but those whose eyes are open to the wiles of Satan know full well the diabolical truth about My Little Pony:
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Not being snarky: this is a genuine enquiry: I’ve heard of “anymore” being misused in the US on these boards, so I’m prepared to see it out of context, but I honestly have no idea what this adjective is meant to mean..
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you are snarky at all.
Actually it is an unclear and grammatically non-sensical word (when used in this context) that has worked it’s way into the common language of the U.S. The best way to describe it’s meaning is to say that the characteristic it is modifying exists henceforth. Such as, this really does not bother me anymore. It also tends to imply that the condition may have been different in the past. For example, in my statement, I was stipulating that I used to have a sense of optimism about many things.
Your are correct though, it was a poor choice of words because I allowed common use “slang” to creep into my writing.
[QUOTE=Miller]
But none of that depends remotely on wether or not the main character lives or dies. “Harry Potter might die at the end of the series,” does not rule out the possibility that the ending of the novel will be good, decent, or just. Tragedy is not a negative message. It does not preclude hope. In contrast, I’d say it is a rather necessary component to hope. After all, if everything were perfect, there’d be nothing to hope for, would there?
Wanting any of those things you listed is not childish. Looking for them in Harry Potter is not childish. Throwing a snit because the main character from your favorite book does not have exactly the happy-sunshine-and-lollipops ending you want him to have is profoundly immature. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the transformative effects of great literature, both on the individual and the cultural level. But fan-service does not great literature make, and that’s what the OP is whining about: the possibility that her favorite character might not get the ending she wants him to have, that she won’t get the fan service she wants from Rowling. Well, great literature is like life: it doesn’t always turn out the way you want. And nine times out of ten, that’s what makes it great.
[/QUOTE]
Very true, I agree with you on almost all points. However, it is prudent to also point out that since the target audience of the book is children (theoretically) then a lollipop ending may have it’s purpose. But, I also agree that the ending of books like “a Separate Peace” also serve a valuable purpose for young people.
You know, when i reflect on it, I was really writing about any criticism people leveled based solely on the notion that an individual who wanted a happy ending is wrong. I really can’t say i have much more of a point. I don’t know why it struck me, but my hubby had just told me a long story about a tough day on the job and he seemed to be in so much despair. I guess my post was more of an outpouring about that and the fact that despite the seemingly impossible task of dealing with what he experiences I hope it does not crush his hope for a happy ending.
I’ll bow out now…
[QUOTE=Lissa]
I don’t think you are snarky at all.
Actually it is an unclear and grammatically non-sensical word (when used in this context) that has worked it’s way into the common language of the U.S. The best way to describe it’s meaning is to say that the characteristic it is modifying exists henceforth. Such as, this really does not bother me anymore. It also tends to imply that the condition may have been different in the past. For example, in my statement, I was stipulating that I used to have a sense of optimism about many things.
Your are correct though, it was a poor choice of words because I allowed common use “slang” to creep into my writing.
[/QUOTE]
In North America, “this does not bother me anymore” would not be considered slang, whereas “this bothers me anymore” definately would be. In the first case, “anymore” is identical to “any longer,” which is not nonsense.
See my citation above for more info. The word “anymore” is said to appear in most if not all American dictionaries, but not so much in British ones.
Why am I thinking of the Stephen King book Misery?
She has to kill him and Ron and Hermione or she will never ever be allowed to retire.
[QUOTE=OKFMDOA]
In North America, “this does not bother me anymore” would not be considered slang, whereas “this bothers me anymore” definately would be. In the first case, “anymore” is identical to “any longer,” which is not nonsense.
See my citation above for more info. The word “anymore” is said to appear in most if not all American dictionaries, but not so much in British ones.
[/QUOTE]
“Oh, You’re No Fun Anymore…”
-Monty Phyton (1969)
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Very true, I agree with you on almost all points. However, it is prudent to also point out that since the target audience of the book is children (theoretically) then a lollipop ending may have it’s purpose. But, I also agree that the ending of books like “a Separate Peace” also serve a valuable purpose for young people.
You know, when i reflect on it, I was really writing about any criticism people leveled based solely on the notion that an individual who wanted a happy ending is wrong. I really can’t say i have much more of a point. I don’t know why it struck me, but my hubby had just told me a long story about a tough day on the job and he seemed to be in so much despair. I guess my post was more of an outpouring about that and the fact that despite the seemingly impossible task of dealing with what he experiences I hope it does not crush his hope for a happy ending.
I’ll bow out now…
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a happy ending. I guess what I was reacting to was more the OP’s sense of entitlement to a happy ending. Like she deserved one, and JK Rowling was going to take it away from her. That’s what’s immature, here.
[QUOTE=pudytat72]
I wish I had a bit of good magic in my world right now.
[/QUOTE]
Uh Magic has AIDS, might not want him in your world right now.
Not aware of any other magic proven to exist.
[QUOTE=Sattua]
And it’s not misused. It’s a dialectic usage that happens to not be yours.
[/QUOTE]
I apologise. Having seen it pitted here by fellow Yanks, I didn’t realise it was dialectical rather than a common error - is it new or archaic - where does it come from?
[QUOTE=jjimm]
I apologise. Having seen it pitted here by fellow Yanks, I didn’t realise it was dialectical rather than a common error - is it new or archaic - where does it come from?
[/QUOTE]
sigh (see also my above posts)
I think we can assume that it’s new - I don’t think that Americans would have remembered it while the Brits all forgot.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Uh Magic has AIDS, might not want him in your world right now.
[/QUOTE]
This is rather offensive. It’s also not funny.
I can understand someone getting so sick of their characters that they can’t be bothered to write about them any longer, and so they kill them off.
I can understand someone wanting to make sure that some hack doesn’t mess around with their story and characters, so they decide to finish things unambiguously to prevent hackneyed “sequels”.
I can understand that someone may have thought out a story arc and a plot for several years, know exactly where they’re going with it, and not want to change that to suit the whims of others.
So, whatever JK Rowling writes, I want it to be because it is the story she wants to be told, not because it’s the story that will sell the most books or please the fans the most, or even make the ickle kiddies sleep better at night.
Her characters, her story, her plot- and she can do whatever the hell she wants with them. I want the final book to be the book she always wanted to write, not some half-arsed, half-hearted compromise because she doesn’t want to risk upsetting the poor kiddiwinkles.
So, I don’t care who lives and who dies in the books, as long as it’s a good story and it works as an ending to the series.
So what we need, see, for all these Happiness Addicts, are happy versions of every freaking thing made: books, movies, yada yada.
We need Romeo&Juliet, living happily, providing happy grandchildren to their happy in-laws and parents.
We need Star non-Wars, where the Jedi never fell, and the Sith came 'round, all happy and shit.
We need Beowulf, only with Happy! Grendel! and Happy! Gendel’s! Mother!, bringing Beowulf’s happy! friends! a picnic, and not eating them instead.
We need Scylla and Charybdys serving as happy! lifeguards!, protecting the Greek sailors, who visited Troy and actually brought them happy! things!: none of that mean wife stealing and warring here. Just happy Greeks.
We need Oedipus, happy! Not killing his father and boinking his Mother. None of that.
I can see it now.
We need a staff to rewrite every freaking thing ever made, only happy, see?
[QUOTE=glee]
What a sophisticated rant. :rolleyes:
Of course you’d never get a top author like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to behave like this.
[/QUOTE]
So you’re saying she’ll bring Harry back from the dead for a series of sequels? 
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Gandalf died and those who read the series had to get through most of The Two Towers to discover he came back.
Frodo lived in pain until he disappeared into the West.
Bilbo went senile.
Stuff happens.
[/QUOTE]
Plus, the Elves went into the West, and (more or less) all the magic went out of Middle Earth. They saved the world but destroyed a lot of its wonder in the process.
[QUOTE=OKFMDOA]
I don’t think that Americans would have remembered it while the Brits all forgot.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know where you could have gotten that idea.