This article has been making the rounds of CF communities: Why Do Doctors Get to Decide When a Woman Is Old Enough to Have Her 'Tubes Tied'?
Unfortunately, they forgot to address a key point: the general consensus of the medical community is that 25-year-old women are too young to decide to get their tubes tied because it's a permanent decision and they may regret it later.
So why do they have no problem with 25-year-old women having babies? That is also a permanent, life-altering choice, but if you end up regretting it the consequences are much more dire.
If I walked into my doctor's office and told her I want to get my tubes tied, she'd say "Come back when you're 30." But if I walked in and told her I wanted to have a baby, she'd say "Great! Let's get you off those birth control pills and onto some folate supplements! You'd better hurry - a woman's fertility drops after the age of 26."
No one would dare suggest that I'm too young or immature to have a baby now at 26, even if I am. In fact, there are a lot of very noisy people who would consider it my right to have a baby, even if it means ruining the kid's life. But, apparently, I don't have the right to make sure I don't ruin the kid's life.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Toilet paper
You know how when you buy toilet paper, your inner child is always afraid that someone will see you and comment on it? You adult self knows that this is unreasonable, that everyone buys toilet paper and the worst anyone can say is "So...are you planning to poo a lot?" But we've all been through middle school and we've all been or seen people be tormented for things much more innocuous than walking down the street carrying a 24-pack of Charmin.
But fear not, I have the solution.
If someone else's inner child gives you shit about buying toilet paper (pun not intended), you tell your inner child to give them shit about NOT buying toilet paper. "Wassa matter with you? Don't you wipe? You're disgusting!"
But fear not, I have the solution.
If someone else's inner child gives you shit about buying toilet paper (pun not intended), you tell your inner child to give them shit about NOT buying toilet paper. "Wassa matter with you? Don't you wipe? You're disgusting!"
Things They Should Invent: ipod jukebox
You're having a party. You need music. You need lots of music, and it needs to be way cooler than your own music.
Now imagine that instead of fretting over what music to use, you can just use all the music on all your party guests' ipods.
I'm picturing it as something you can hook up to a computer or a stereo, and a whole shitload of ipods can plug into it. Then everyone shows up, hooks up their ipod, and the jukebox plays a random shuffle of all the songs on all the ipods, perhaps favouring higher-rated songs if your guests rate their mp3s. (I don't, but the option is there.)
What would be cool about this is that if a song is popular among your guests, more people will have it on their ipods, so it has a better chance of being played. Of course, the disadvantage is if someone (like me, for example) has some really lame music on their ipod, and a really lame song comes on and the guests are all WhoTF brought this song? It's also a problem if people keep podcasts or comedy or spoken word or other mp3s that aren't music in their music folder.
Now imagine that instead of fretting over what music to use, you can just use all the music on all your party guests' ipods.
I'm picturing it as something you can hook up to a computer or a stereo, and a whole shitload of ipods can plug into it. Then everyone shows up, hooks up their ipod, and the jukebox plays a random shuffle of all the songs on all the ipods, perhaps favouring higher-rated songs if your guests rate their mp3s. (I don't, but the option is there.)
What would be cool about this is that if a song is popular among your guests, more people will have it on their ipods, so it has a better chance of being played. Of course, the disadvantage is if someone (like me, for example) has some really lame music on their ipod, and a really lame song comes on and the guests are all WhoTF brought this song? It's also a problem if people keep podcasts or comedy or spoken word or other mp3s that aren't music in their music folder.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Abstract or concrete?
A question that often comes up in Myers-Briggs and similar personality test thingies is "Do you prefer the abstract or the concrete?"
The problem with me is that I like my tangible to be abstract and my intangible to be concrete.
If we're building a bridge, I'd rather be translating the technical specifications for the bridge than attaching the girders together. If we're planning a party, I'd rather think up the menu than work out the seating plan. If we're starting a household, I'd rather draw up the budget than arrange the furniture. Whe it comes to real, hands-on things, I prefer my contribution to be more of an idea than a physical thing you can put your hands on.
But if I'm writing an essay, it I want it to be about concrete ideas rather than vague abstractions. If I'm going to have a religion, I want to be able to grok everything (I've never liked that Holy Spirit fellow). If you want me to subscribe to your values, everything has to make logical sense when applied to the real world.
So I can never answer that question on the MBTI.
The problem with me is that I like my tangible to be abstract and my intangible to be concrete.
If we're building a bridge, I'd rather be translating the technical specifications for the bridge than attaching the girders together. If we're planning a party, I'd rather think up the menu than work out the seating plan. If we're starting a household, I'd rather draw up the budget than arrange the furniture. Whe it comes to real, hands-on things, I prefer my contribution to be more of an idea than a physical thing you can put your hands on.
But if I'm writing an essay, it I want it to be about concrete ideas rather than vague abstractions. If I'm going to have a religion, I want to be able to grok everything (I've never liked that Holy Spirit fellow). If you want me to subscribe to your values, everything has to make logical sense when applied to the real world.
So I can never answer that question on the MBTI.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Things They Should Invent: pay-per-use Zip.ca
Zip.ca is based on the assumption that you want to watch a lot of music. You pay per month, and can have as many movies as you want for as long as you want. And if you watch a lot of movies, that's great!
But I don't watch a lot of movies. Some months, I may not watch any movies at all. It isn't even worth paying the $10/month package for Zip because 2 movies/month is A LOT for me. The two-week free trial is far too short for me, because, unless I'm off work, I'm not necessarily going to have time to sit down and watch a movie (especially with a DVD, where I want to watch all the features too) in any given two-week period unless I'm taking significant time off work at the same time. The only reason I'm even considering subscribing to Zip is because the selection at my local Blockbuster sucks.
So what I want is the option to pay Zip for each DVD I rent, so I don't have to pay money for months where I don't watch any movies at all (or feel obligated to watch 2 movies/month to get my money's worth). I'd also be very happy if the free trial was for a certain number of DVDs rather than for a certain number of days.
But I don't watch a lot of movies. Some months, I may not watch any movies at all. It isn't even worth paying the $10/month package for Zip because 2 movies/month is A LOT for me. The two-week free trial is far too short for me, because, unless I'm off work, I'm not necessarily going to have time to sit down and watch a movie (especially with a DVD, where I want to watch all the features too) in any given two-week period unless I'm taking significant time off work at the same time. The only reason I'm even considering subscribing to Zip is because the selection at my local Blockbuster sucks.
So what I want is the option to pay Zip for each DVD I rent, so I don't have to pay money for months where I don't watch any movies at all (or feel obligated to watch 2 movies/month to get my money's worth). I'd also be very happy if the free trial was for a certain number of DVDs rather than for a certain number of days.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Y.E.T.A.N.O.T.H.E.R. "But why?" moment
Mentioned in passing as a given in Y.E.T.A.N.O.T.H.E.R. article about "OMG different generations in the workplace!"
But WHY is this the first time in history that there have been four generations together in the workplace?
The retirement age isn't older now than it has been historically - sure, some people do have to work past 65, but once upon a time retirement didn't exist at all. And while overall life expectancy was lower, it wasn't unheard of for people to live to 70. Also, historically people started working younger, thus making room for more younger generations in the workplace, and started breeding younger, thus cramming more generations into the same time period. If everyone started working at 16 and retired at 65, you've got a 50-year age range in one workplace. And if everyone had their first kid at 20, you could easily find yourself working in the same workplace as your own grandfather. And the four generations listed above aren't all direct descendents of each other. Gen Y is generally considered the children of the Boomers, and Gen X comes in between (I assume they're descendents of the lived-through-WWII generation?) I'm not exactly sure how this works since I identify as Gen X (even though I'm on the X/Y cusp) and my parents are definitely Boomers, but at any rate Gen Y is most definitely NOT the children of Gen X, so this isn't a children-parents-grandparents sequence.
So what on earth is their logic in saying this is the first time in history that four generations have been in the same workplace? I cannot conceive of any possible way that might be true, so they really shouldn't put it in there without further clarification.
this is the first time in history that four generations — those who lived through World War II, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y — are together in the workplace.
But WHY is this the first time in history that there have been four generations together in the workplace?
The retirement age isn't older now than it has been historically - sure, some people do have to work past 65, but once upon a time retirement didn't exist at all. And while overall life expectancy was lower, it wasn't unheard of for people to live to 70. Also, historically people started working younger, thus making room for more younger generations in the workplace, and started breeding younger, thus cramming more generations into the same time period. If everyone started working at 16 and retired at 65, you've got a 50-year age range in one workplace. And if everyone had their first kid at 20, you could easily find yourself working in the same workplace as your own grandfather. And the four generations listed above aren't all direct descendents of each other. Gen Y is generally considered the children of the Boomers, and Gen X comes in between (I assume they're descendents of the lived-through-WWII generation?) I'm not exactly sure how this works since I identify as Gen X (even though I'm on the X/Y cusp) and my parents are definitely Boomers, but at any rate Gen Y is most definitely NOT the children of Gen X, so this isn't a children-parents-grandparents sequence.
So what on earth is their logic in saying this is the first time in history that four generations have been in the same workplace? I cannot conceive of any possible way that might be true, so they really shouldn't put it in there without further clarification.
I'm blogging this.
I always had the idea that if anyone ever hired me to liveblog some event or something (I know, I know, but I did come of age during the dotcom boom and I haven't yet been able to completely shake the idea that someone might one day pay me money because I can do basic computery things) I'd wear the "I'm blogging this" t-shirt.
It just occurred to me that I should get one of those shirts anyway, and wear it in tenuous customer service situations. Like if I have to make a complaint or deal with a particularly snobby company or do a certain kind of business transaction for the first time or something.
For example, my move went perfectly smoothly, but I didn't know it would ahead of time. So I might have worn the "I'm blogging this" t-shirt while the movers were moving my stuff as fair warning that I was going to blog it later (which, in fact, I was regardless of outcome).
It just occurred to me that I should get one of those shirts anyway, and wear it in tenuous customer service situations. Like if I have to make a complaint or deal with a particularly snobby company or do a certain kind of business transaction for the first time or something.
For example, my move went perfectly smoothly, but I didn't know it would ahead of time. So I might have worn the "I'm blogging this" t-shirt while the movers were moving my stuff as fair warning that I was going to blog it later (which, in fact, I was regardless of outcome).
Tales from the commute
1. There was this lady with incredibly skinny legs wearing skin-tight pants. Like her legs were unhealthily skinny, sponsor-a-starving-African-child skinny. But she was wearing skin-tight pants. And they weren't leggings, they were actual proper pants, made kind of like jeans although not made of denim. And skin-tight. Where on earth do you get pants that skinny?
2. Walking up Yonge, I saw a cameraman filming something outside of Starbucks. Being a oh-so-cool Torontonian, I pretended I didn't see the camera whilst nonchalantly altering my vector so as not to be filmed. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a guy lying on the ground in the area the camera appeared to be filming. Nu? So once I was past the camera, I turned and looked back, and saw that the guy on the ground was a puppeteer, and his puppet was "sitting" at the table outside starbucks. The puppet looked kind of like the Count from Sesame Street, but I don't think it was him.
3. There's this dog in my building with the most expressive eyes. He has the very most perfect markings to emphasize his eyes. Imagine perfect, subtle, impeccable eye makeup on a German Shepherd - that's what this guy looks like. If I had a camera, I'd take a picture. Although that would be kind of a weird interaction - "Hey, can I take a picture of your dog and post it on the internet?"
2. Walking up Yonge, I saw a cameraman filming something outside of Starbucks. Being a oh-so-cool Torontonian, I pretended I didn't see the camera whilst nonchalantly altering my vector so as not to be filmed. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a guy lying on the ground in the area the camera appeared to be filming. Nu? So once I was past the camera, I turned and looked back, and saw that the guy on the ground was a puppeteer, and his puppet was "sitting" at the table outside starbucks. The puppet looked kind of like the Count from Sesame Street, but I don't think it was him.
3. There's this dog in my building with the most expressive eyes. He has the very most perfect markings to emphasize his eyes. Imagine perfect, subtle, impeccable eye makeup on a German Shepherd - that's what this guy looks like. If I had a camera, I'd take a picture. Although that would be kind of a weird interaction - "Hey, can I take a picture of your dog and post it on the internet?"
Things I Don't Understand: why it's fun to spoil people
Why do people enjoy exposing other people to spoilers? Like, what's fun about it?
What's far, far more fun than spoiling people is teasing people. Drop a tantalizing little tidbit that will only make them want to read it more. For example:
You have already seen the final Horcrux. And it's right in the place where you last saw it.
Or, for those of you who don't follow HP:
Luke Skywalker isn't actually an orphan.
Then you can watch them speculate wildly. Isn't that more fun than just ruining it?
What's far, far more fun than spoiling people is teasing people. Drop a tantalizing little tidbit that will only make them want to read it more. For example:
You have already seen the final Horcrux. And it's right in the place where you last saw it.
Or, for those of you who don't follow HP:
Luke Skywalker isn't actually an orphan.
Then you can watch them speculate wildly. Isn't that more fun than just ruining it?
Monday, July 23, 2007
I can't get to Leaky, can you?
Ping Potter people:
I haven't been able to get to The Leaky Cauldron the last couple of days. Can you? I don't know whether the site's down or if there's something wrong with my own internet settings.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it if you could please click here (it's a Harry Potter site, which may have spoilers, I don't know) and tell me if you can get to the site or not.
Gracias!
Update: And now it seems to work again. Thanks everyone!
I haven't been able to get to The Leaky Cauldron the last couple of days. Can you? I don't know whether the site's down or if there's something wrong with my own internet settings.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it if you could please click here (it's a Harry Potter site, which may have spoilers, I don't know) and tell me if you can get to the site or not.
Gracias!
Update: And now it seems to work again. Thanks everyone!
Why people are so readily disappointed in J.K. Rowling
I've followed fandom through three Harry Potter releases, and every time people have been vastly disappointed in some aspect or another of the book, even if they enjoyed it as a whole.
I think this is because of Prisoner of Azkaban.
"But that one's my favourite!" you're protesting. Exactly.
Prisoner of Azkaban kicks ass. Characters who were mentioned in passing in previous books suddenly become key. There's a plot twist we never could have guessed with all kinds of clues laid out in front of us. The darkness hasn't fallen yet (in fact, there's no Voldy whatsoever in this book) so despite the lurking Dementors we get to enjoy the full whimsy of the wizarding world; adding to this whimsy is the time Harry gets to spend independently in Diagon Alley and the visits to Hogsmeade. There are multiple kick-ass Quidditch games. There's more cool and advanced magic, from the Patronus to the Marauder's Map. And then, in a thrilling, action-packed final sequence, everything from the Sirius Black plot to Hermione's odd behaviour to Prof. Lupin's illness several months ago to Ron's pet rat wraps up in a tight yet expositionary plot resolution that also provides us with extensive background on Harry's parents.
The problem is that this has raised our expectations to impossibly high levels. We now want every character mentioned in passing, from Mark Evans to the Giant Squid, to play some crucial role. We now want to know about the full history of everyone we meet, and expect equal amounts of insight on Harry's history. We now want every quirk of odd behaviour to have some key role in the ultimate plot. And we want it to all be fun and whimisical and kick-ass at the same time.
But this is impossible. The plot requires darkness, over 200 characters have had speaking roles (according to the guy who does the audiobooks), and we do need to resolve the plot rather than give the complete history of everything. There simply isn't room to give a full role to every single name and fully explain every odd twitch.
But we've had 10 years with these books, rereading, analyzing, theorizing, ficcing. We've had plenty of time to grow attached to Florean Fortescue or become deeply invested in identifying the Heir of Hufflepuff or created an entire universe around what Dudley saw when attacked by Dementors. Everyone has their own little corner of the Potterverse to which they are attached, about which they wanted full background, which they wanted to play a key role in the resolution of the overall plot arc. We've been developing our little hopes and dreams for the series for 10 years, and JKR cannot possibly meet them all.
I think this is because of Prisoner of Azkaban.
"But that one's my favourite!" you're protesting. Exactly.
Prisoner of Azkaban kicks ass. Characters who were mentioned in passing in previous books suddenly become key. There's a plot twist we never could have guessed with all kinds of clues laid out in front of us. The darkness hasn't fallen yet (in fact, there's no Voldy whatsoever in this book) so despite the lurking Dementors we get to enjoy the full whimsy of the wizarding world; adding to this whimsy is the time Harry gets to spend independently in Diagon Alley and the visits to Hogsmeade. There are multiple kick-ass Quidditch games. There's more cool and advanced magic, from the Patronus to the Marauder's Map. And then, in a thrilling, action-packed final sequence, everything from the Sirius Black plot to Hermione's odd behaviour to Prof. Lupin's illness several months ago to Ron's pet rat wraps up in a tight yet expositionary plot resolution that also provides us with extensive background on Harry's parents.
The problem is that this has raised our expectations to impossibly high levels. We now want every character mentioned in passing, from Mark Evans to the Giant Squid, to play some crucial role. We now want to know about the full history of everyone we meet, and expect equal amounts of insight on Harry's history. We now want every quirk of odd behaviour to have some key role in the ultimate plot. And we want it to all be fun and whimisical and kick-ass at the same time.
But this is impossible. The plot requires darkness, over 200 characters have had speaking roles (according to the guy who does the audiobooks), and we do need to resolve the plot rather than give the complete history of everything. There simply isn't room to give a full role to every single name and fully explain every odd twitch.
But we've had 10 years with these books, rereading, analyzing, theorizing, ficcing. We've had plenty of time to grow attached to Florean Fortescue or become deeply invested in identifying the Heir of Hufflepuff or created an entire universe around what Dudley saw when attacked by Dementors. Everyone has their own little corner of the Potterverse to which they are attached, about which they wanted full background, which they wanted to play a key role in the resolution of the overall plot arc. We've been developing our little hopes and dreams for the series for 10 years, and JKR cannot possibly meet them all.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Food commercials
An awful lot of food commercials seem to be based on the premise that you can't just go out and buy the food anywhere. They always have people resorting to massive subterfuge to steal the food from other people or trick people into giving them the food. That's really weird. IRL, people just go and buy food.
Why I don't think small towns are better
The Toronto Star talks about lessons we could learn from a small town.
I have some questions about this Leamington place:
- Can you walk down the street holding hands with a member of the same sex and be treated with just as much respect as if you were holding hands with a member of the opposite sex?
- Can you go about your business in a headscarf and get treated with just as much respect as if your clothing was unmarked (in the linguistic sense of the word?)
- Can you be an atheist without people trying to convert you or force you to pray in public?
- Can you cross the street on foot without drivers honking impatiently and telling you to get a car?
- Are groceries available at 2 am?
- Is makeup available to suit non-aryan skintones?
- Can you have your lover spend the night without the neighbours gossiping?
- Can you have crabgrass in your lawn without the neighbours bitching?
- Can you have a public conversation in a foreign language without people complaining?
I grew up in a town about the size of Leamington, and the answer to all these questions was no. In my Toronto life, the answer is yes.
Now I've never been to Leamington. Maybe there the answer to all these questions is yes. Maybe it's just that my small-town experience is pre-21st-century. But personally, if the cost of living somewhere where all the answers are yes is that no one will pull over for my funeral procession, I'll quite happily accept that deal.
I have some questions about this Leamington place:
- Can you walk down the street holding hands with a member of the same sex and be treated with just as much respect as if you were holding hands with a member of the opposite sex?
- Can you go about your business in a headscarf and get treated with just as much respect as if your clothing was unmarked (in the linguistic sense of the word?)
- Can you be an atheist without people trying to convert you or force you to pray in public?
- Can you cross the street on foot without drivers honking impatiently and telling you to get a car?
- Are groceries available at 2 am?
- Is makeup available to suit non-aryan skintones?
- Can you have your lover spend the night without the neighbours gossiping?
- Can you have crabgrass in your lawn without the neighbours bitching?
- Can you have a public conversation in a foreign language without people complaining?
I grew up in a town about the size of Leamington, and the answer to all these questions was no. In my Toronto life, the answer is yes.
Now I've never been to Leamington. Maybe there the answer to all these questions is yes. Maybe it's just that my small-town experience is pre-21st-century. But personally, if the cost of living somewhere where all the answers are yes is that no one will pull over for my funeral procession, I'll quite happily accept that deal.
Open letter to everyone involved in disseminating Harry Potter spoilers
Dear everyone who had any hand in putting Harry Potter spoilers where people who don't want them might accidentally stumble upon them, and all media outlets who reported or gave the impression that they were reporting Harry Potter spoilers:
FUCK YOU!!!!
Because there were so many spoilers floating around where I might accidentally stumble upon them, I had to put myself on a media blackout in the last couple of weeks leading up to Deathly Hallows, just so that I could enjoy the actual denouement of the plot rather than having bombshells dropped on me without any setup.
Because I had to be on media blackout, I completely missed the fact that Eddie Izzard was playing at Just For Laughs this weekend. Eddie Izzard!!!! Just For Laughs!!!! And I completely missed it because I had to completely ignore all news media just to make sure I'd be able to enjoy this one last book properly!
Oh I am pissed!
FUCK YOU!!!!
Because there were so many spoilers floating around where I might accidentally stumble upon them, I had to put myself on a media blackout in the last couple of weeks leading up to Deathly Hallows, just so that I could enjoy the actual denouement of the plot rather than having bombshells dropped on me without any setup.
Because I had to be on media blackout, I completely missed the fact that Eddie Izzard was playing at Just For Laughs this weekend. Eddie Izzard!!!! Just For Laughs!!!! And I completely missed it because I had to completely ignore all news media just to make sure I'd be able to enjoy this one last book properly!
Oh I am pissed!
How to read this blog if you care about Harry Potter
Until July 28, I will be keeping any spoiler posts about HP under the spoiler warning below, and any non-spoiler HP posts and non-HP posts above the spoiler warning. This means that the dates and times for HP spoiler posts will be manipulated, and if you want to see my spoilered thoughts on HP you'll have to scroll down yourself to see if I've put up anything new.
If you're reading this through a feed and don't want to be spoiled, I'd recommend not reading me at all (and perhaps removing me from your feed reader) until you're finished reading DH.
After July 28, I will post whatever occurs to me whenever it occurs to me without manipulating the date and time. That should give everyone one week to finish the book, which I think is plenty of time.
If you don't care about Harry Potter, none of this should affect your user experience, apart from the fact that you may miss a few posts that are deconstructing Harry Potter.
I'm torn between wanting to deconstruct everything I've just read and wanting to get back into the real world (I've been neglecting chores and news and all kinds of stuff to finish HP), so I don't know how much I'll be posting in the next couple of days or what about.
If you're reading this through a feed and don't want to be spoiled, I'd recommend not reading me at all (and perhaps removing me from your feed reader) until you're finished reading DH.
After July 28, I will post whatever occurs to me whenever it occurs to me without manipulating the date and time. That should give everyone one week to finish the book, which I think is plenty of time.
If you don't care about Harry Potter, none of this should affect your user experience, apart from the fact that you may miss a few posts that are deconstructing Harry Potter.
I'm torn between wanting to deconstruct everything I've just read and wanting to get back into the real world (I've been neglecting chores and news and all kinds of stuff to finish HP), so I don't know how much I'll be posting in the next couple of days or what about.
WARNING: HARRY POTTER SPOILERS BELOW!
There are Harry Potter spoilers below this post!
If you would like to skip the spoilers, use your browser's search function to skip to the post entitled "End of Harry Potter spoilers." If you cannot find this post, it has probably been pushed off the bottom of the page by my liveblogging. Go to my July 2007 archives to see posts written before DH.
If you would like to skip the spoilers, use your browser's search function to skip to the post entitled "End of Harry Potter spoilers." If you cannot find this post, it has probably been pushed off the bottom of the page by my liveblogging. Go to my July 2007 archives to see posts written before DH.
The problem with the deaths
I think there were just a few too many meaningless deaths in DH. Overall, actually, most of the deaths in the series have been meaningless. James and Lily's deaths had a purpose, of course. Dumbledore's did, sort of, as did Mad-Eye's and Dobby's. But the big three (for me) in DH - Fred, Lupin and Tonks - had no meaning whatsoever. I think I needed at least one of these to have a purpose.
I think perhaps JKR thinks of Lupin and Tonks as smaller characters than I do. I was just thinking of I wrote this that it would be appropriate if some of the named extras were seen among the body count - Hannah Abbott, for example - but then I realized that this was how Lupin and Tonks were being presented. I can see Tonks being a named extra - I don't think of her that way because I think she's cool, but I can see that interepretation - but I think Lupin is more important and his death, at least, deserves an explanation.
I think perhaps JKR thinks of Lupin and Tonks as smaller characters than I do. I was just thinking of I wrote this that it would be appropriate if some of the named extras were seen among the body count - Hannah Abbott, for example - but then I realized that this was how Lupin and Tonks were being presented. I can see Tonks being a named extra - I don't think of her that way because I think she's cool, but I can see that interepretation - but I think Lupin is more important and his death, at least, deserves an explanation.
Things I still want to know
1. So who raised Teddy Lupin?
2. What did the trio (and everyone else who left Hogwarts early) end up doing for education/careers? I know Harry is independently wealthy, but Ron and Hermione aren't, and I can't imagine Hermione settling for a job that doesn't require NEWTS. Did they go back and do their 7th year?
3. What happened to the Dursleys when they went into hiding?
Edit: And what was that place where Harry was when he talked to Dumbledore? No, I can't accept that it's a great mystery. I must know!
2. What did the trio (and everyone else who left Hogwarts early) end up doing for education/careers? I know Harry is independently wealthy, but Ron and Hermione aren't, and I can't imagine Hermione settling for a job that doesn't require NEWTS. Did they go back and do their 7th year?
3. What happened to the Dursleys when they went into hiding?
Edit: And what was that place where Harry was when he talked to Dumbledore? No, I can't accept that it's a great mystery. I must know!
Epilogue
But WHO are Ron and Hermione's kids named after? And what are H&G&H&R doing for careers etc?
And, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that the point of Harry's eyes looking like Lily's has been addressed!
More tomorrow.
Overall, I'm satisfied with the resolution of the arc, I'm not crying despite mourning for three people, but frankly I don't feel like I've groked everything - all the science of magic that made the plot resolution possible - the first time through. I'm going to have to reread bits later on. But now, schlafenzeit!
PS: The word bitch is used! In a Harry Potter book!
And, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that the point of Harry's eyes looking like Lily's has been addressed!
More tomorrow.
Overall, I'm satisfied with the resolution of the arc, I'm not crying despite mourning for three people, but frankly I don't feel like I've groked everything - all the science of magic that made the plot resolution possible - the first time through. I'm going to have to reread bits later on. But now, schlafenzeit!
PS: The word bitch is used! In a Harry Potter book!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)