Thread II: A Catholic Homeschooling Father Reads Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets

Gloria Romanorum blog ^ | 8/20/07 | Florentius

[Claud]

Every time she brings up a new creature, I think to myself, Monster Manual, 3HD, 1-8 hp damage per attack.

ROFL

[Claud]

Rephrase the whole statement to avoid the linking verb. (When I get in a really bad mood, I torture my children by making them write without linking verbs.)

LOL...ahh, that sounds exactly like the editing job I'm working at right now. Can't figure it out, completely avoid the problem!! ;)

When I'm in a really bad mood, I just point out that since grammarians get their rules from usage and noted authors, I should be telling them what to do and not the other way around!

[Claud]

started in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church was ascendant when pretty much every ancient pagan culture made the practice of sorcery an offense deserving death.

Oh, they LOVE when you point that out!!! :D

[Antoninus]

Antoninus, your new tagline has subject-verb disagreement.

Wrong! My new tagline had a subject-verb disagreement.

You're on a role today!

Kaiser, judging by your demands for ruthless grammatical efficiency.

[Antoninus]

The greatest gift ARE siblings? You have a singular subject and a plural "object" connected by "be". You can avoid the problem by pluralizing "gifts" but let's suppose you want to keep it singular.

When one has a linking verb, is there a rule for which word is the subject and which is the predicate nominative? If so, I've never heard it. I just pluralized everything. Hopefully, that will satisfy the grammar gestapo. :-)

[ArrogantBustard]

Careful, there ... you're ruffling my feathers.

It'll take me simply hours to get them all preened again!

Why, you have no idea what a chore it is ...

[Claud]

I think the one after the verb is the predicate nominative.

[Tax-chick]

I’m not demanding efficiency, or even correctness ... just mildly suggesting.

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

[Antoninus]

I think the one after the verb is the predicate nominative.

That's what I thought. So technically, my original construction was correct. Lotta hufflepuff over nothing...

[Antoninus]

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

Too bad nobody had JKR do that for Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Claud]

I thought it was ok. But I’m a bit antinomian when it comes to grammar. :)

[Tax-chick]

You turned "gift" into a plural noun with the singularis pluribus charm?

[Claud]

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

That's an excellent idea. Most people (myself included) get caught up in putting tons of words on the page instead of being concise.

[Antoninus]

I thought it was ok. But I’m a bit antinomian when it comes to grammar. :)

From now on, I'm writing all my essays in the aorist, middle voice, and sprinkling them liberally with ablative absolutes.

[Antoninus]

You turned "gift" into a plural noun with the singularis pluribus charm?

Something like that.

[Tax-chick]

Too bad nobody had JKR do that for Prisoner of Azkaban.

I don't entirely agree. It's true that it goes on and on, and that the essential events could have been covered much more efficiently. However, I found plenty of the "filler" material entertaining, and I'm sure other readers enjoyed parts that didn't interest me.

[Tax-chick]

I learned this trick from a composition teacher in high school. Almost anything can be cut by a third, if not by half.

[Tanniker Smith]

Chamber of Secrets almost seems to be a continuation of Sorceror's Stone rather than a separate book. As a sometimes writer, I was impressed at how things are foreshadowed in the first book that show up in the second. A poorer writer might've discovered Harry's ability to talk to snakes in book two rather than book one.

Likewise, both Ginny and Myrtle (as well as Myrtle's bathroom) play big parts in this book but were introduced in the first one. And a basilisk is a standard creature from fantasy which resembles a snake (fitting in with the overall theme) and having the power to turn someone to stone. (Medusa, with her snakes, had a similar power. Pity Ms. Rowling left her out of it.)

Overall, the story was weaker and I wish the director of the movie had done a partial rewrite and told more of the film from Ginny's POV.

You'll be in for a treat with Book #3. It's a definite improvement over the second, and has more surprises dealing with characters that we already know or have heard of.

[Antoninus]

You'll be in for a treat with Book #3. It's a definite improvement over the second, and has more surprises dealing with characters that we already know or have heard of.

Yep. I'm actually enjoying #3 a lot more than #2.

[Antoninus]

I don't entirely agree. It's true that it goes on and on, and that the essential events could have been covered much more efficiently. However, I found plenty of the "filler" material entertaining, and I'm sure other readers enjoyed parts that didn't interest me.

Also, I'm sure that by the time #3 was in production, there was less pressure from the publisher to keep the page count down. They just slapped a big price tag on it and knew that millions people would buy it regardless.