Re: Harry Potter

[me again]

> >Our family has established its Harry Potter policy:
> >
>
> Here's ours. We pre-purchased 3 copies. No one is allowed to spoil
anything
> for those further behind. No one is to disturb anyone else's reading, or
> sleeping. No one is to neglect other duties.

LOL, my family knew from the moment it was pre-ordered (28th January) that
Mummy (me) got to read it first and then the rest of them could fight over
it when I was done.

I spent all day reading on saturday, had family commitments on the sunday
(DH made me promise to be sociable :) I read it every moment I had and I
finished it last tuesday. The laundry and the other chores got a little
neglected but everyone did get fed! DH and DS are reading in tandem now, DS
reads during the day and in his half hour nightly 'reading time' in bed then
turns it over to DH who reads during the evening. It seems to be working OK
so far.

Jane

[David desJardins]

Claire Petersky writes:
> The book arrived via Amazon yesterday. No one has cracked it open yet.
> Please congratulate us all on our self discipline.

I would, but I don't understand the policy. Why is it a good idea to
have a book policy? What are you looking to gain from this?

David desJardins

[MarjiG]

In article >, David desJardins
> writes:

>
>I would, but I don't understand the policy. Why is it a good idea to
>have a book policy? What are you looking to gain from this?

Plot-equity? I do know how much self-discipline it can take not to read ahead
in a good book. DD#1 would sneak whatever book her class was reading together
home because she couldn't stand the wait for the next installment.

-Marjorie

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Kevin Karplus > wrote:
>
>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
>England---we're reading the British editions),

I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
Anyone know if that's true?

> but I'm not sure that
>reading aloud is necessarily the way to tone-down scariness. My
>7-year-old son finds scary parts scarier when I read aloud than when
>he reads to himself. He doesn't find the HP books particularly scary
>though, and he's read the first 4 3 or 4 times each.

Ryan was almost 7 when book 4 came out. He had read the first 3 books
already and had been looking forward to #4. I insisted on reading it
first, and I had some concerns about letting him read it because at the
time he was very insistent on unambiguously happy endings with nothing
seriously bad happening to the good guys, and HP4 does not fit those
requirements. But he was dying to read it. I gave him some spoilers
and he decided he wanted to read it anyway, but have me read the scariest
chapter with him. He did fine with it. Now that he is almost 10, I
am not concerned at all about him reading book 5, which he has almost
finished (I finished first, reading while he was asleep or otherwise
occupied.) For his sake, though, I was rather glad that it took 3
years to get it out.

Now Matthew, just turned 7, is reading book 4. I have less concerns
for him because he is less sensitive than Ryan was at that age. I gave
him the same spoiler warnings and he was unconcerned. He's almost
finished it and when he does, I'll let him read book 5 as well. He is
not quite as HP-obsessed as Ryan, and may choose to wait a bit, as he
did before book 4.

Evan will probably have the advantage of having the whole series published
before he is ready to read them. Since I suspect that book 7 will have
the unambiguous happy ending so many kids crave, I think reading all 7
at once would be less disturbing than reading book 4 or 5 or 6 and then
waiting 3 (?) years for the next installment....

You have to know your own kid, as usual....

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Penny Gaines]

Robyn Kozierok wrote in >:

> In article >,
> Kevin Karplus > wrote:
>>
>>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
>>England---we're reading the British editions),
>
> I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
> Anyone know if that's true?

I finished it about an hour ago: I did notice it referred to looking
in the "boy's bathrooms" when I would have expected them to look in
the "boy's toilets."

Now to read the rest of this thread - I've been too worried about spoilers.
But probably tomorrow.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[chiam margalit]

Penny Gaines > wrote in message >...
> Robyn Kozierok wrote in >:
>
> > In article >,
> > Kevin Karplus > wrote:
> >>
> >>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
> >>England---we're reading the British editions),
> >
> > I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
> > Anyone know if that's true?
>
> I finished it about an hour ago: I did notice it referred to looking
> in the "boy's bathrooms" when I would have expected them to look in
> the "boy's toilets."

We have both the American and British versions of all 5 books. The
British versions are 'collector's items' since two have been
autographed by Rowling herself! However, I've read both versions of
all of the books. Book one had significant changes. Book 2 had a few,
and by book three I think Rowling had homogenized the British/American
slang to include a bit of both to make it less regional in sound. In
Goblet, I don't think I saw any changes at all, and I've only read the
American version of Phoenix so far, although our British version
arrived quite a while back. I'm engrossed in another huge book, the
history of London, and I don't want to put this 1000 pager down to
reread a 900 page book.

The British and American books have different page counts. The type is
smaller in the British versions but the books themselves are much
smaller as well. The paper is quite different, too. And of course, the
cover art is different in both versions.

Marjorie

>
> Now to read the rest of this thread - I've been too worried about spoilers.
> But probably tomorrow.

[Penny Gaines]

Penny Gaines wrote in >:

> Robyn Kozierok wrote in >:
>
>> In article >,
>> Kevin Karplus > wrote:
>>>
>>>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
>>>England---we're reading the British editions),
>>
>> I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
>> Anyone know if that's true?
>
> I finished it about an hour ago: I did notice it referred to looking
> in the "boy's bathrooms" when I would have expected them to look in
> the "boy's toilets."
>
> Now to read the rest of this thread - I've been too worried about
> spoilers. But probably tomorrow.

I know I shouldn't follow my own post up, but...

A couple of posts have referred to the book being 800+ pages long.
Our copy is 766 pages.

As an aside, our copy says it is "First published in Great Britain 2003"
and that is printed in Great Britain.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
chiam margalit > wrote:

*arrived quite a while back. I'm engrossed in another huge book, the
*history of London, and I don't want to put this 1000 pager down to
*reread a 900 page book.

OOh, are you reading London by Edward Rutherford? The 1152-pager? :) I
enjoyed that immensely.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Penny Gaines > writes:
> Robyn Kozierok wrote in >:
>> Kevin Karplus > wrote:

>>>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
>>>England---we're reading the British editions),

>> I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
>> Anyone know if that's true?
>
> I finished it about an hour ago: I did notice it referred to looking
> in the "boy's bathrooms" when I would have expected them to look in
> the "boy's toilets."

Far more Britishisms this time around, (or at least non-midwesternisms)
'trainers' for shoes, <heh> whatever the British word is for 'sweater'
were among those that caught my eye.

Robert

[chiam margalit]

(Hillary Israeli) wrote in message >...
> In >,
> chiam margalit > wrote:
>
> *arrived quite a while back. I'm engrossed in another huge book, the
> *history of London, and I don't want to put this 1000 pager down to
> *reread a 900 page book.
>
> OOh, are you reading London by Edward Rutherford? The 1152-pager? :) I
> enjoyed that immensely.


Yes, I am, and yes, I'm enjoying it, but geesh, it weighs a tonne! :-)

Marjorie

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Penny Gaines > wrote:
>Penny Gaines wrote in >:
>
>> Robyn Kozierok wrote in >:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Kevin Karplus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>We haven't got our copy of HP5 yet (still waiting for it to come from
>>>>England---we're reading the British editions),
>>>
>>> I heard a rumor that they had "unified" the texts in the later books.
>>> Anyone know if that's true?
>>
>> I finished it about an hour ago: I did notice it referred to looking
>> in the "boy's bathrooms" when I would have expected them to look in
>> the "boy's toilets."
>>
>> Now to read the rest of this thread - I've been too worried about
>> spoilers. But probably tomorrow.
>
>I know I shouldn't follow my own post up, but...
>
>A couple of posts have referred to the book being 800+ pages long.
>Our copy is 766 pages.
>
>As an aside, our copy says it is "First published in Great Britain 2003"
>and that is printed in Great Britain.

The pages are different. I believe it is just a different font/margins.

I heard the "rumor" of unified text in relation to book 3 or 4, but I
noticed that book 5 has a brief reference to the Sorcerer's stone, which
of course would be wrong in the UK, so I imagine they must have at least
changed that. I was meaning to be on the lookout for British spelling,
but I didn't notice any in my American edition. Then again, I spent a
good part of my childhood in Canada, so the British spellings don't look
odd to me, so I might just not have noticed...?

--Robyn

[Cathy Kearns]

We are going through the Britishisms alot lately, not only due to picking up
Harry Potter while on vacation in Italy, so it is the British version, but
due
to just how small the world is. My 13 year old daughter's friend was
visiting
England. She wrote a postcard to my daughter, addressed it, and gave it to
her mother to mail. Her mother lost the postcard, and it was found by two
young ladies in the Oxford train station. The young ladies packaged the
postcard, as well as a rebuttal (they really thought English food wasn't so
bad) and included i-zone pictures of themselves as well as their email
address,
mailing it all off to the one address they had, my daughter's. Well, they
all
started instant messaging, and lo and behold, they are all the same age,
going through the same things. My daughter does have a few hiccups
communicating, in attempting to decipher "cheeky" she responded with
a few apparent americanisms they hadn't heard.

The amazing thing about Harry Potter in England was it was everywhere. We
got to London one week after the latest had been released, and my eight year
old was discussing it with every cab driver we ran into. Apparently cab
drivers need a book for waiting, and Harry Potter seemed to be the book of
the week. We also saw many a professionally dressed worker on the tube,
with their Harry Potter book for the ride.
"me again" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Far more Britishisms this time around, (or at least non-midwesternisms)
> > 'trainers' for shoes, <heh>
>
> our trainers are your sneakers. Sweaters are usually called jumpers over
> here.
>
> > whatever the British word is for 'sweater'
> > were among those that caught my eye.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
>