Comments on: >RedSoxtober

By: anne

anne — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:29:00 +0000

>On the subject of between and among, among should be used for more than two items UNLESS the items much all be considered individually. So the three grey women had one eye between them, because they were indistinct from one another, but you choose between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry because they are distinct choices. Also, among and amongst mean the same thing.

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:22:00 +0000

>Go Red Sox!

That's a great Bill Buckner joke but it belongs to the pre 2004 Sox era. Ill have to go find the Gutman
book on the shelf.

By: Stella

Stella — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:38:00 +0000

>*cries a little*

Go Indians! Forever!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:29:00 +0000

>maybe because Rowling needs publicity like a fish needs a bicycle?

–R.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:02:00 +0000

>of course it should be “among” but more inportant, why hasn’t it occurred to any of you how much free publicity Rowling is getting by her “spontaneous” revelation to a possibly planted question?

By: sdn

sdn — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:00 +0000

>see you tomorrow night.

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:33:00 +0000

>I'm among the among crowd on that issue, but I'm with you on the sporting event attendance thing: I grew up less than a mile from Kinnick Stadium at the University of Iowa and never once set foot in the place.

But I did read In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson when it was first serialized in Cricket, so let it not be said that I have no love for games.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:57:00 +0000

>The Red Sox thing is the least of it, Roger. You lived within spitting distance of Wrigley Field for years and never attended a Cubs game. God, I loved that ballpark.

Anyway, I edited a book by Dan Gutman years ago called “Baseball’s Biggest Bloopers.” We were able to include my favorite joke. It went “A few days after the ’86 series, Bill Buckner was so depressed he decided to kill himself. He went to Park Street and jumped in front of a subway car entering the station…unfortunately, the train went between his legs.

By: Andy Laties

Andy Laties — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:28:00 +0000

>Rowling created a fantasy universe so naturally we should assume there’s a lot of background material she developed that didn’t make it into the seven books. Probably an enormous amount! (Some historical background appears already in the form of flashbacks to Harry’s parents’ youth.)

I’ve read a fair amount of the now-published Tolkien background material; I find it fascinating. The appendices he published during his lifetime constituted a very small sampling.

Lots of people enjoy this sort of literary production. Perhaps Rowling is planning to release some sort of “historical” book — or an encyclopedia — and is planting the seeds for this in the public imagination, through “revelations”. Such a “fact-based” pre-marketing approach would distract future buyers from focusing on Harry himself. Inevitably he’d be a peripheral presence in any such “Hogwarts’ World” books Rowling might be planning to publish. Whereas, for instance, Dumbledore might be a heroic figure whose audience can be built up through “leaks”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:58:00 +0000

>I recently got called out on this one when I was editing a Greek myth. I said the Three Gray Women had one eye between them. Oops.

As for Dumbledore-I’m more than in favor of gay characters, but show me the evidence of this from the beginning. If you don’t plant the seed early on, you can’t just shove it in at the end. I wonder if this will be an issue when Rowling creates her Encyclopedia of characters. Will she be inserting information about the characters that has no evidence in the books? Just as Tolkin had that annoying appendix that told of Aragon’s love affair with Arwin?