Thursday, June 26, 2003 :::
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J K Rowling
Apologies for any typing mistakes in this. I am at home with a cold and although I've just turned the heater on full bore my fingers are numb. I hate winter in NZ, in colder countries at least people know how to plan for it. My dream house definitely has central heating.
Anyway, I've finished the latest Harry Potter, I speed-read it due to my husband's desperation to get it next, so I'll probably have more thoughts once he's read it and I've read it through a second time. At the moment, if the book series continues at this rate by the seventh book we'll need forklifts to move it and will be slitting our wrists by the end of it. But gossip at coffee on Wednesday yielded up a rumour that the seventh book isn't going to be so dark, which was promising.
Although Lord Voldemort makes his appearance in this book, the main form of not so much evil, but opposition, here, is denial of the possibility of evil, and abuse of government powers, very adult forms of evil. And, after the darkness of most of the book, there is a brilliant outbreak of frivolity towards the end. Now I am crossing my fingers that nothing happens to J K Rowling before she finishes the books.
::: posted by Tracy at Thursday, June 26, 2003
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 :::
Warning! Spoilers about the Harry Potter Books!
You know, Jennie Bristow, the author of this piece really does not like Harry Potter. I cheerfully admit to being infantile and reading Harry Potter books on the basis that some things are too good to be left to kids. (I do think however that the whole retro thing is boring and a reflection of a lack of imagination amongst our designers.) Jennie Bristow is free to not like Harry Potter, or children's books on principle (I don't really like short stories, except for mysteries, it's always a pity not to like a whole genre but hey, it happens). But reading this I did start to wonder if she's actually read the Harry Potter books.
"These books catapult the reader into a safe moral universe of Good v Evil, uncomplicated by the moral dilemmas of the real world. . . . Rowling has to locate her novels in a society that is morally black-and-white; where there are few dilemmas, only right and wrong choices"
How did she manage to miss Snape? Or the Dementors, which the wizard society uses as enforcers? Or Cornelius Fudge? Or Harry's decision not to let Sirius Black and Lupin kill Pettigrew (who betrayed Harry's parents)? Or Mr Crouch? Maybe the way J K Rowling handles the issue of law enforcement and the treatment of those who may have cooperated with Lord Voldemort is a bit too subtle for Jennie Bristow to notice, I suggest she reads The Goblet of Fire and pays close attention to the courtroom scenes, there's a fair bit of grey in there. And there is masses of grey around the relationship between Mr Crouch and his son. Mr Crouch was against Lord Voldemort, but too strongly, using the Forbidden Curses on people. Then his son is found to be on the side of Lord Voldemort, and Mr Crouch sends him to Azkaban, and in doing so suffers. Then Mr Crouch gives in to his dying wife's request to save their son's life, and then holds him hostage in his home. Where's the black and white in that?
And as other relationship issues outside death - again has Jennie Bristow read the books? How did she miss the continuing theme in Ron and Harry's relationship over the matter that Harry has money and Ron doesn't? How about the relationship between Ron and Hermione in the Goblet of Fire, especially Ron's jealousy over Viktor? How about the way she touches on racism over the pureblood/muggle-born distinction? Notice the way that Jennie Bristow in her column doesn't quote the books, and only refers to one incident in the books, a one widely talked about in the press. Instead she quotes a critic of the books. Of course it is hard to find quotes or points to prove that a book leaves something out, but it does back up my questioning of whether she's actually read the books, or if she came up with an interesting idea for a story and decided to run with it. Ah well, we all know that finding out the truth isn't important in journalism, don't we?
::: posted by Tracy at Tuesday, June 24, 2003
USS Clueless has this post on the first Harry Potter movie, which he criticises for Hermione staying behind with Ron since she can't get herself and Ron out, and would be of no use to Ron if he starts dying.
It is my firm opinion that every adult should have a basic knowledge of first aid, and also my work pays me $400 extra a year to hold a first aid certificate, and also pays for the course. The price I pay for this is a tendency to get upset at movies where through basic ignorance of first aid people die. E.g. cop movie, attractive woman gets stabbed in final fight, big ugly knife sticking out of here:
Cop A "Gertrude, can you hear me?"
Me: "Don't touch the knife"
Cop A puts hands on knife.
Me: "Look, it's fine where it is, it's not going to do any more damage is it?"
Cop A pulls out knife.
Gertrude, breathlessly "You know, Mr A, I love you"
Cop A: "I love you too."
Gertrude unsurprisingly dies.
Next scene:
Cop B to Cop A "Don't keep cutting yourself up about it, you didn't kill her"
Me: "Yes you did, if you'd immobolised the knife and gotten her to a hospital, a rather easy thing since you are in LA, she'd still be alive. Murderer!"
My friends: "Tracy, will you shut up, everyone is looking at us."
Anyway, there is a fair bit that Hermione could do to help Ron, even though he is unconscious. She can keep him warm, assisting in stopping him from going into shock or suffering from hypothermia. She can make sure his tongue doesn't fall back in his throat, suffocating him. She can stop him choking in his own vomit - apparently if you've been knocked unconscious and then come round it is very common to throw up as you're coming around, and there is a risk of suffocating in it, which is why you should put unconscious people in the recovery position. If his heart stops she can do CPR. And even if none of these dire events happen, she can keep a record of his vital signs, which is useful for mundane doctors at least.
So, the moral of the story is don't leave unconscious people unaccompanied. And don't pull knives out of wounds if you can possibly avoid it.
::: posted by Tracy at Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Monday, June 23, 2003 :::
The Quest for Origins by Kerry Howe
This book is about where the Polynesians, especially the Maori, came from. But what makes it more interesting than what you learnt in school is that Kerry Howe writes about the historiography of theories of where the Polynesians originated and how they spread around the Pacific.
I found the Current Ideas: How? chapter the most interesting. There Howe discusses in more detail than I learnt at school how the Polynesians navigated. There's more detail in this chaper I can cover, but one interesting point is that Polynesian navigators apparently tended to visualise, instead of a boat moving from A to B, the boat staying still while the islands moved and changed their directional relationship with each other. Which is a lovely coordinate system that appeals to the engineer in me. Another concept was that the passage from A to B is seen in relation to point C, "as the voyage from A to B progress, point C appears under different and known horizon stars." [Kerry Howe, the Quest for Origins, pg 103]. Also, the Polynesians expanded the target they were aiming for by being aware of how the sea changes around islands, of cloud shapes that form above islands, of reflections off clouds, homing birds that live on an island and head out fishing each day, leading the Hawai'ian island chain to be a target of some 1600 km. A navigator would find the island chain and then sail along it to the island they wanted.
Another interesting thing is Howe's discussion of Andrew Sharp's Ancient Voyagers in Polynesia, which seems to have contained the most badly named theory about navigation ever - Sharp apparently defined navigation as "the ability to hold a course to a known destination" [Kerry Howe, the Quest for Origins, pg 96]. Which means that not only couldn't the Polynesians not navigate, but Christopher Colombus and Abel Tasman couldn't either, since obviously they didn't know where the islands/continents where until they went looking. A more normal definition of navigation is the ability to hold a course, e.g. sail for two days into the setting sun, if land not encountered return home, which most of us would regard as a navigated voyage regardless of whether it encountered land or not. Which suggests that historians should be careful in their definitions not to wander too far from the norm.
Howe also discusses some "alternative" theories such as Polynesians came from South America (it seems fairly clear that Polynesians had contact with South America, but linguistics, DNA, culture, all points at South-East Asia), sunken continents, like Atlantis, and speculates why these theories grab so much interest.
Howe doesn't explain some things well. He discusses earlier ideas that the Polynesians could not have developed their culture in Polynesia, but instead must have come from somewhere else, e.g. the Mediterranean. But he doesn't explain why people believed such a silly-sounding idea, that cultures could only change by being influenced from the outside or by degrading. Some better explanation of what was behind that thinking would be good - was it due to the influence of ancient Greek and Roman culture on Western civilisation?
::: posted by Tracy at Monday, June 23, 2003
Sunday, June 22, 2003 :::
Tararua : the story of a mountain range by Chris MClean
Read this over the weekend while at the Wellington Tramping & Mountaineering Club's winter solstice party (for all you northern hemisphere people, it's like your Christmas without the Christainity but with the presents and the eating vast amounts and drinking mulled wine, which makes a lot more sense in the middle of winter).
A lovely book, beautifully illustrated, about the Tararuas, the mountain range just north of Wellington. Though I've never done one of the crossings, I've done a few tramps around the edges and the book evoked the Tararuas very strongly for me. But it did miss one thing, the Tararua rivers which on average are some of the prettiest in the country. Normally I use "pretty" as a tepid compliment, nice but not as good as beautiful, but the Tararua rivers, in their upper reaches, are hard to describe as anything but, and also hard not to admire. Water splashes over moss-covered rocks, ferns and lush green NZ bush lean over the edges, sun (if you're very lucky) glitters off the water, and every bend of the river, and there are many of those, brings another charming view.
Except when they flood.
Anyway good book. Those early trampers were tough bastards, I complain enough about having to lug my pack around, and I have gore-tex, nylon, ice-breaker, they were carrying wool and canvas. And hobnail boots. And they didn't have formed tracks. And Bill Sutch's journey - four people going off for a weekend tramp that wound up taking 14 days due to flooding and other such problems. They made their two days worth of food last for 9 and then went the last on tea and a bit of stock. Apparently they always knew exactly where they were, the problem was getting away from it. I recommend this book for anyone who tramps in the Tararuas. Anyone who doesn't, don't read it, it will only suck you in to tramping in a place with the most awful weather and bloody steep hills and BTW you South Island trampers, they may not be as high above sea level as the Southern ones, but unlike many tramps in the South Island, you're starting from nearly sea level.
::: posted by Tracy at Sunday, June 22, 2003
Wednesday, June 18, 2003 :::
Writing a book - from 2blowhards.
Hmm, I've always known that I wasn't cut out to be an author - writing a full length document is too much like hard work. But this makes me wonder why anyone ever tries. If I ever have kids I'll try to persuade them to do anything but be an author, or at least set their hearts on being an author fulltime. Read this if you think otherwise.
::: posted by Tracy at Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Thursday, June 12, 2003 :::
What constitutes an addiction?
From the New Scientist, 1 February 2003 - which just got to my desk at work. That month's copy had a lead article called "All American High: Can Fast Food Alter Your Brain in the Same Way as Food and Heroin?"
And in a side-bar in this article they list the DSM-IV criteria for whether a substance is addictive. There are 7 criteria, and if a substance meets three of them, it's addictive. I've decided to go through them for food (in general) and mystery novels.
| Criteria | Food | Mystery Novels |
| Taken in larger amounts, or over a longer period than intendend | Definitely, especially when the chef is good. | Definitely the longer period - I've gone low on sleep because I spent the last night thinking just a couple more pages. |
| Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use | Yes, we all know the rates at which diets fail, and how popular they are despite that. | Does anyone try to cut down on mystery novel reading? Not just try to put down a book so you can do something urgent, like take your small child to the hospital because they just apparently swallowed five teaspoonfuls of a medicine that's given in drops, but actually try to cut down on your total reading? I don't think this counts. |
| A great deal of time spent seeking the substance out, using it, or recovering from its effects. | Yes. Think of all the time I spent supermarket shooping, at restaurants, cooking tea, thinking about what to cook for tea, or lunch, or breakfast, or midnight snack. | Yes. Enough said. |
| Important social, occupational or recreational activities given up or reduced because of substance abuse. | In our society, important social, occupational or recreational activities are organised around substance use. | Not really. At least in my case. May be different in some other people |
| Continued use despite knowledge of harmful consequences | If we take into account the failure rate of diets, and assume that not everyone going on a diet is anorexic or otherwise in desperate need of food. | No. |
| Increased tolerance with use. | Don't know of any general evidence of this. | No, at least not in my experience. |
| Withdrawal symptoms | Definitely. Up to and including death. | Yep, I start really longing for a book concentrating on the plot, with a good puzzle and an attempt at seeing if I can figure it out ahead of the author. |
Ta da! Lots of things are addictive, including things that never actually directly physically interact with your system. I think we should be taxing mystery books. Or the American Psychiatric Association should do some more thinking about their criteria.
::: posted by Tracy at Thursday, June 12, 2003
Sunday, June 08, 2003 :::
Okay, rant time. All you fantasy authors out there, I don't demand much on the characterisation side, but please try to give your villains and heros slightly different personalities. You know, a way I could tell the difference between the two of them on a dark night without having to actually question them about how often they get up to evil stuff. I'm so sick of heros and villains who are the same, intelligent, calm, rational guy but with different names and moral systems. I'd hire that personality in a second if it came to a co-worker (at least, if attached to the good moral system), but I'm glad that the world isn't exclusively populated with this personality.
There's all sorts of things you could try - different ways of talking, your hero having a tendency to bring out witty comments, your evil guy using big long words, your hero struggling with a bit of a temper, your evil guy maybe making decisions based on passions from time to time, how about it?
::: posted by Tracy at Sunday, June 08, 2003
Tuesday, June 03, 2003 :::
Cool, I just found an answer to that google game of entering two commonly used English words and seeing if you can come back with only one entry. The words were handkerchief and sharemarket.
I found those two out because I was searching on skirt and sharemarket - I should have searched on skirt and stockmarket apparently. I was just thinking that the relationship between skirt length and sharemarket performance was a wonderful example of a spurious correlation and was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. The story is that rises and falls in women's skirt lengths, at least in the US, closely match the rise and falls of the sharemarket. I first came across this in the book Manwatching which in its later version notes that this relationship appears to have fallen apart in the 1980s and '90s, especially since a variety of skirt lengths are fashionable. Which is a pity, I wonder what the market would have made of the asymmetrical hemline of my current skirt.
It shows all the normal signs of being a spurious correlation, no one appears to have expected a relationship before it was found, and the story explaining why is just as likely if the correlation was the other way. The story of why there is, or was, a relationship is that when times are good women feel more sexually attractive and show more skin to attract men more. It strikes me as equally likely to argue that when times are bad, women need men's financial support more (two can live as cheaply as one), and thus would wear shorter skirts then. Not that what women in general wear seems to have any effect on how appealing men find them.
If you don't believe me, look at it this way. There are about 50 million possible numerical series out there. A numerical series only has three options for each new number, it can be smaller than the previous one, it can be larger, it can be equal. By pure chance, you're going to get a lot of series that for a time match each other in either going up, going down or staying the same. Toss a lot of coins a lot of times if you don't believe me.
BTW, here's a cool site on a skirt whose length does closely match the sharemarket.
::: posted by Tracy at Tuesday, June 03, 2003
