…and this is a 
Our respectability among juvenile fans of Harry Potter may have just gone up a notch: Daniel Radcliffe has cheerfully declared himself to be an atheist.
I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch.
I understand that this same segment of society has also found a heightened interest in the works of playwrights like Peter Schaffer, so we know the Harry Potter effect can help. If only Radcliffe had an excuse to take his clothes off for atheism…
Of course there is also the complementary effect that the people who were convinced that both Harry Potter and atheism were the demon-spawned products of Hell have now had their suspicions confirmed.
Comments
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 5, 2009 4:15 PM
If Harry Potter were satanically inspired, I expect it'd be better written.
Posted by: sg | July 5, 2009 4:19 PM
Sometimes a fun book/movie series is just a fun book/movie series.
Posted by: peter | July 5, 2009 4:19 PM
"Of course there is also the complementary effect that the people who were convinced that both Harry Potter and atheism were the demon-spawned products"
I wonder how any accomodationist will handle that blow...
I guess, they too have to condemn Harry Potter now to keep atheism safe from the "new" atheists.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 5, 2009 4:22 PM
I wish it meant more than the fact that Chuck Norris is an annoying god-botherer.
Still, it's the kind of publicity that can't hurt anything. And it takes the edge off of the woo that the Harry Potter phenomenon must have inspired in at least some kids.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Whitewizard | July 5, 2009 4:24 PM
Well, he took his clothes off for Equus...
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 5, 2009 4:27 PM
Hurrah for Daniel Radcliffe!
I propose he should play the young Richard Dawkins in the movie about Dawkins' life and the revolution against religiosity.
Quick, now, somebody make that movie.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 5, 2009 4:31 PM
I could see him playing a young Dawkins... but I don't think Dawkins' life outside of the last few years is all that interesting, honestly
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 5, 2009 4:36 PM
Since these sorts of people aren't swayed by evidence anyway, empirical confirmation is irrelevant.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
July 5, 2009 4:36 PM
I'm glad the Sorting Hat placed him with us!
Posted by: Pharyngulette | July 5, 2009 4:36 PM
This story would seem to knock the stuffing out of any argument from the "anti-wizardry" crowd that Harry Potter stories inspire interest in unwholesome/ungodful or magical activities. I mean, if Dan Radcliffe isn't lured to The Dark Side of what they undoubtedly believe to be real (dark) magic by HP books, who would be?
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 5, 2009 4:37 PM
"preach" atheism?
Posted by: pcarini | July 5, 2009 4:39 PM
I'm not so sure.. they can't seem to make the distinction anything non-Christian and Satanism, let alone Atheism and Satanism.
Posted by: Radwaste | July 5, 2009 4:45 PM
Oh, but there is much fun - MUCH fun! - to be had by insisting that JK Rowling was told to write the true story of Harry's life by the real Hermione Granger. Tell that to anyone fond of citing the Bible™ as literally true, and then challenge them to distinguish between fact and fiction!
Of course magic is real! Jesus was a wizard, just read your Bible™ where it talks about what he did!
Posted by: pcarini | July 5, 2009 4:46 PM
Ahem - the distinction between anything non-Christian and Satanism, let alone between Atheism and Satanism.
Proofreading fail ;(
Posted by: Sili
|
July 5, 2009 4:46 PM
Speaking of one us: Isn't it that time Of the Month?
Posted by: eddie | July 5, 2009 4:50 PM
I'm glad about Daniel Radcliffe being so sensible but feel the need to once again rail against his (HP's) heretical followers.
Potter is the anti-rincewind!
Posted by: Carlie | July 5, 2009 4:50 PM
I wish Radcliffe wasn't too young for me to have a crush on without feeling squicky about it.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 5, 2009 4:54 PM
Meh. He just likes Dawkins because he wants to nail Hermione:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&num=100&q=richard%20dawkins%20emma%20watson%20&sa=N&safe=off&tab=wi&um=1
Posted by: Walter Silveira | July 5, 2009 5:00 PM
Oh man, this is both hilarious and awesome beyond words.
Posted by: Janeothejungle | July 5, 2009 5:00 PM
"There we go, Dan, that's half of America that's not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment."
Ha ha. Definitely one of us since he apparently has a decent sense of humor. Anyone else notice that one of the ads at the top of that article is for 'The Atheists Riddle'? Spare me.
Posted by: Canuck | July 5, 2009 5:03 PM
If only Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) could take her clothes off for Atheism. She is one very attractive young woman. If she doesn't become a superstar on the scale of Keira Knightly, I'll be amazed.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 5:06 PM
:-o
Speechless.
I won't have Internet for the next 2 weeks, so I hereby nominate Zarquon for describing this, the "university" where Matthew Seagall "studies", with the words: "Oh no! It's World of Woocraft!"
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 5:14 PM
The diversity of individual tastes amazes me again and again.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
July 5, 2009 5:15 PM
Gabba gabba, we accept him.
Posted by: Christopher | July 5, 2009 5:15 PM
I love this quote from the article:
The minister, Rev. Douglas Taylor, said, "'I'm against Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz. I'm against any kind of movie or book that has a kind of magical or cultish theme to it.'" (Ahem, what about the Bible?)
Well played, well played.
Posted by: Robyn | July 5, 2009 5:15 PM
Oh. Well that was a surprise. How about that?
Posted by: Robyn | July 5, 2009 5:18 PM
Oh. Well that was a surprise. How about that?
Posted by: Mariana Lynch
|
July 5, 2009 5:19 PM
XD
Posted by: Michael Fonda | July 5, 2009 5:20 PM
So, how's the wife?
Posted by: Zeno | July 5, 2009 5:22 PM
What did you have in mind, PZ? Radcliffe takes it all off and then the observers say,
"There is no God!"
I'm telling you that I don't think that is going to work.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 5, 2009 5:27 PM
BTW, is Radcliffe taking his clothes off to fuck a horse close enough?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=daniel+radcliffe+equus&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=fxpRSvS8D9GMtgeklsSzBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1
Posted by: wolfpurplemoon | July 5, 2009 5:28 PM
Well he is English so not much of a surprise really!
Posted by: progressive homeschooler | July 5, 2009 5:34 PM
That will make my 11 year old son happy. He's a huge Harry Potter fan.
Posted by: Canuck | July 5, 2009 5:36 PM
@23
Are you serious? You don't think she's attractive? Do you need to see an eye doctor? Emma is very attractive. I think I've got the majority in my camp, but that's a risk I'll take, if you can demonstrate otherwise.
Posted by: Mathematician | July 5, 2009 5:44 PM
Uh, he's British, so no need to sound so surprised he's an atheist!
Posted by: phoenixphire24 | July 5, 2009 5:44 PM
I'm pretty sure he said something like this before. Maybe he just said "non-religious" which doesn't mean atheist, but I'm sure this came up in an interview when the last movie came out. Or maybe I'm just a huge HP geek and make this stuff up in my head...
Posted by: MelM | July 5, 2009 5:46 PM
Christianity is all about "magic and wizardry". Perhaps the pious are worried that kids will come to understand that religion is just as much fictional as Harry Potter.
Posted by: savve | July 5, 2009 5:50 PM
#17
I'm with you. I squicked myself thoroughly by perving over Radcliffe sometimes after the first movies... Aw, I feel dirty admitting this in public :P
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 5:50 PM
The plane carrying Zelaya and Miguel D'Escoto from the UN is minutes from entering Honduran airspace. Thousands of people surround the airport - so far the soldiers haven't fired on them and have let the marches reach the airport. Zelaya has asked for calm and non-violence from everyone. Hopefully the military will not fire on its own people or try to stop the plane.
*deep breath*
Posted by: Steve_C | July 5, 2009 5:51 PM
Emma is indeed attractive. And may go to Cambridge.
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | July 5, 2009 5:54 PM
"I could see him playing a young Dawkins... but I don't think Dawkins' life outside of the last few years is all that interesting, honestly"
Marrying Romana isn't a life achievement in itself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalla_Ward
Posted by: nemryn | July 5, 2009 5:57 PM
eddie@16: actually, both the Potterals and Stibbonsists are merely heretical offshoots of the Hunterites.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 5:58 PM
FUCK!
Thay're firing on peaceful, unarmed demonstrators and throwing teargas!
FUCK!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 6:04 PM
***HONDURAS UPDATE***
Ambush.
Link to live coverage on Telesur:
http://bit.ly/7bq3u
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 6:05 PM
they're playing this junta-takeover-thing by-the-book, and no one is noticing. fucking hell.
also, you deserve a tentacle cluster for being such a reliable information source on this, SC
Posted by: Geoff | July 5, 2009 6:13 PM
I consider this a considerable breakthrough. He's one of the most recognizable faces in the world right now. I'm hoping legions of his fans will at least have a new respect for atheists though perusing some fan boards, it's clear a few do not.
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 6:15 PM
SC, is there any source in English, or is the whole English speaking world ignoring this?
Posted by: Demonhype | July 5, 2009 6:16 PM
#17 and #38: Add me to the roster. Comforting to hear that I'm not the only one. I remember thinking "good looker, he'll be something else one day" and then firmly shutting that door before anything else got through and squicked me out.
Though once he's eighteen, in my book he's fair game for anything as far as I'm concerned! :)
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Here is a bit from bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8135358.stm
Posted by: Pharyngula | July 5, 2009 6:22 PM
Demonhype: Radcliffe's 20! You needn't squick. (wink)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 6:26 PM
Mike, that BBC article is crap. Another one of these "fair and balanced" screeds.
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 6:29 PM
Figures. What is all the shooting? I hope that's "only" tear gas.
Where is there information I can understand, my Spanish is terrible, but by the tone of voice...
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 6:31 PM
That's not just tear gas.
FUCK!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 6:34 PM
At least two people are dead.
Thanks. Better than their reporting yesterday. Too late.
A clarification:
He was trying to hold a non-binding poll about people's support for the inclusion of a referendum during the November elections about convening a constituent assembly to develop a new constitution for a later vote. It would have been impossible for him to extend his term this way, and he was planning to leave office when his term ended in January. The charge the he was trying to remain in office for another term or indefinitely by this means doesn't even make sense, yet it keeps being repeated in the fucking media.
I posted a link to this piece several days ago:
http://rebelreports.com/post/133319827/why-president-zelayas-actions-in-honduras-were-legal
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 5, 2009 6:38 PM
This makes me wonderfully happy :)
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Best right now seems to be Narco News:
http://narconews.com/
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 5, 2009 6:41 PM
He's a friend of Chavez and Castro looking to make himself el presidente for life and destroy (well, finish destroying) Honduras like Chavez and Castro did for their countries. Damned Radcliffe.
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 6:45 PM
Thanks, SC.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 5, 2009 6:46 PM
Daniel Radcliffe has cheerfully declared himself to be an atheist.
I recently started reading a Harry Potter book I found at work (I read it at work, I have a great job that pays me for doing virtually nothing.) After reading the first three pages I was so hooked on it I bought all 7 books on amazon.
The Harry Potter actor has millions of young fans so this has got to be good news for anyone who is in favor of the complete eradication of religious stupidity from this planet.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 7:11 PM
Narco News is questioning the report of two deaths. I hope they're right. Things seem calmer.
Telesur is saying the plane should land very soon. Soldiers - doesn't look good. Trying to be optimistic.
*holds breath*
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 5, 2009 7:15 PM
I think they're probably the best children's books I ever read (and I read the three investigators)
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 5, 2009 7:19 PM
If only Radcliffe had an excuse to take his clothes off for atheism…
Some atheist playwright will just have to give him an excuse!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 5, 2009 7:21 PM
bobxxx, This MAL (MiddleAgedLady)has read all the HP books, twice. I read Kid's Lit sometimes and this series is one of the best. Some of her plotting is a little hinky, but her character development is awesome. I especially liked how HP has to come to terms with the reality that his idolized father isn't perfect.
And Longbottom, who is first presented as the stereotypical dumb fat kid, proves to be an "everyday" hero, both in his personal life and when he is called on to fight. He became my favorite character in the book.
Jim Dale narrates the HP audiobooks and does an awesome job.
But, as wonderful as it is to have Daniel on our side, it will only confirm that godbots worst fear that "exposure to this Satan-y literature will turn you into an atheist".
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 5, 2009 7:28 PM
Nice blockquoting there...
Perhap' you fail to realise just what a great paper the guardian is. It's currently on th front page of their site.
Posted by: MikeG | July 5, 2009 7:34 PM
Though snarky, I appreciate your reply and further information, Marc.
I shall check out the Guardian.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 5, 2009 7:40 PM
Daniel Radcliffe can take his clothes off for atheism any time he wants as long as I get to hear about it!
*ahem*
I've never read the HP books, though I do read a fair bit of children's literature. One of the best children's books I know, Bridge to Terabithia has two main characters who are Christian and atheist.
Yesterday I popped into a charity shop and emerged with a stack of books. I then stayed up most of the night reading one of them, A Hat Full of Sky. It's one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld for younger readers novels (the second in the Tiffany Aching series). Absolutely absolutely excellent (as ever)! Pratchett is, of course, a well known atheist. (His atheism is perhaps most clearly expressed in The Bromilliad (a.k.a. The Nome Trillogy) which is also intended for younger readers.)
I'm yet to read Philip Pullman, too. I've bought some of his books, though, so he's on my list.
TRiG.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | July 5, 2009 7:46 PM
"Richard Dawkins... anything he does on television, I'll watch.
Does Radcliffe know Richard Dawkins writes "books"?
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 5, 2009 7:48 PM
Just to agree with Hypatia's Daughter, while it would be easy to find something to dislike in Rowling's HP series (given there are 7 huge books) the same can be said of any other fantasy series, only more so. You may say her plotting is bad, but it's pretty impressive to me to arrive at book 7 as coherently as she does. I recall all the contortions Anne Macaffrey went through to make her dragon books cohere.
What Rowling does better than any other writer in the genre is understand her audience. What other author can captivate the spectrum from young child to retired adult, and appeal to male and female? She understands the power of the domestic in ways male fantasy writers generally don't (the magic in good food, a warm bed, an enchanted bathroom, a mother to knit ill-fitting sweaters); her humour succeeds on many levels; so too does her depiction of relationships. She doesn't deal in binaries and superficial contrasts between good and evil--look at the myriad of father figures: his own, who proves imperfect; Dumbledore, the same; Lupin; Sirius; Mr Weasley; and even Malfoy Sr.--whose antipathy towards Harry is contrasted by his great love for his own son. She shows that life can be complicated and unpredictable; that even great people have their dark secrets; and she offers a convincing morality that doesn't demand the edicts of a great sky fairy but draws all its strength from communities of people.
I'm usually a cynic when it comes to fantasy series, but Rowling captivated me. My own opinion is that those who dislike her books (excluding deluded religious nutters of course) either haven't read them properly, or they share the age-old error that writing for children equates with childish writing.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 7:50 PM
I realize that I'll be decried and ridiculed for my blasphemy, but I don't care for the Harry Potter books. The characters are black and white, either good, intelligent and heroic or evil, stupid and cowardly. The plots are simplistic. I read the first two books and was midway through the third book when I realized that I was reading the same book for the third time.
I enjoy fantasy. Pratchett is one of my favorite authors. Rowling is mediocre at best.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 7:51 PM
If Telesur could tell Hugo Chavez to STFU, we could know what was going on.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 5, 2009 7:58 PM
Oh, those fundaMENTAL hicks are so funny:
"They also watched a film that drew parallels between Harry Potter and 'real' witchcraft."
This reminds me of the nuts condemning "Bewitched" while one of the regular stars (Agnes Moorehead) was a devout christian and didn't believe in witchcraft at all. I wonder how many of the Potter characters believe in witches? Well, we can safely bet that Mr. Radcliffe doesn't believe in such nonsense.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 8:03 PM
FUCK.
They're landing in Nicaragua. I knew they'd block the runway. Helicopter would've been better, but I understand the need to be straightforward...
FUCK.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 8:04 PM
Tis Himself wrote this:
Ever read any David Eddings? If you haven't - and find character simplicity a problem - don't. He makes JK Rowling look like James Joyce.
Anyway, I think you should try reading the rest of them; she develops her characters a lot more as the series goes on - she probably realised she had to - and the whole black/white thing gets very grey at times.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2009 8:07 PM
I am exactly there--my extremely enthusiastic daughter has finally convinced me that I should put down the latest Pynchon (which, as ever, I am enjoying immensely) and read the damn HP series so I know what she and her mother are talking about. At the moment I am well into book 3.
I certainly agree that the plotting (at the within-book scale) is a little bit silly (hinging every time on Harry making a stupid choice not to mention things to people in authority), but I think you would have found that had you stuck with it, the characters emerge in later books as far more real and complicated than the black-&-white caricatures you have experienced so far (at least that's what my daughter promises).
Posted by: CelticGoddess1326 | July 5, 2009 8:07 PM
Here's a thought: let's get the Skepchicks to ask him to pose for next year's Skepdudes calendar - I bet sales would go through the roof!! (assuming, of course, that he's old enough - I love HP books, but am rather meh on the movies.)
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 8:11 PM
Take a helicopter tomorrow, Zelaya.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 8:11 PM
Happy Kiwi #68
My major objection to Rowling is she's not a particularly good writer. In his early books, Pratchett wasn't either. The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic are readable, but nowhere near the same level as Going Postal or the Tiffany Aching books.
Let me consider racism as handled by Rowling and Pratchett. The racism in Harry Potter is stereotypical racism, portrayed in black and white. It's the whole reason of existence for the bad guys. It is pronounced so blatantly and obvious, and by characters who Rowling goes to great lengths to portray as petty and stupid: In HP, all racists are either stupid or evil. The racists are different from "us," because we readers, like the main characters with whom we identify, are the smart and good guys. In the end, Rowling doesn't really criticize anyone. She doesn't tell us anything, she just makes us feel good because we're so obviously not racists.
What Pratchett portrays, starting in the Ankh-Morpork books, is the everyday racism of passive prejudice and discrimination of which we're all guilty. Ankh-Morpork faces a very real challenge: Increasing immigration of foreign ethnic groups, inevitably changing the demography and culture of the city, and people acting in response to that. The Human-Dwarf-Troll relations are all about normal people trying to lead entirely normal lives; not stupid or evil, just people, like us. Furthermore, in Rowling's HP, the victims of racism remain just that, victims. They sit idly and wait for the good guys to liberate them from hate and violence. In Ankh-Morpork, alienation and frustration lead the Dwarves and the Trolls into forming aggressive countercultural groups (vividly described in Thud), very much like many Muslims in today's West. Pratchett explores not just racist expressions, but also the reasons for them and their consequences for society.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 5, 2009 8:13 PM
Happy Kiwi, I didn't mean to criticize her plotting. What I meant by "hinky" was only that she drew out her story lines to fall over a full school term. An attempt on HP's life in Sept. would not be followed through until the next June. An unlikely contrivance but not a serious flaw.
And using the Goblet of Fire as a portkey? - hmm, wouldn't it have been easier to use his backpack or shoe? But that wouldn't have made the story half as exciting.
I agree with everything else you said - and you said it with much more eloquence than I could muster!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 5, 2009 8:15 PM
I'll stop you right there cowboy, the snark was directed at myself for failing to blockquote properly, not you.
Oh no wonder you don't like it. It improves significantly after the first 2 books, peaking nicely at book six.
Was anyone else badly let down by the 7th?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 8:21 PM
Zelaya is asking for a statement about the repression and military violence from the Catholic Church, which fanned the coup flames, before and since. (The evangelicals also called the military coup "an answer to our prayers.")
Catholics trying to claim that the Church didn't support the coup are on thin ice.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 5, 2009 8:29 PM
TH @ 77, Yes, I agree with you entirely about the comparison between Rowling and Pratchett in terms of racism. Nice points. I always think of Pratchett as a more particularly adult writer--I know lots of children read and enjoy him, but he has particular rewards for adults. I think Smoggy Batzrubble would function naturally and happily in Ankh Morepork.
And I see what you mean about Rowling's plotting HD.
Another question, semi-related. Have any of you found that Philip Pullman doesn't stand up so well to re-reading? I was absolutely rivited by the HDM trilogy--read them all in one sitting on a long series of flights and transit lounges from London to NZ. I think he's brilliant--I wish I had written that series. Yet when I went back to re-read them, I lost interest quickly. I can't think why. Normally I'll re-read books I like time and again if the yarn is good. Yet Pullman only worked once for me. I found that very strange.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 5, 2009 8:31 PM
Timothy: I'm yet to read Philip Pullman, too. I've bought some of his books, though, so he's on my list.
I absolutely LOVED His Dark Materials (which I read fairly recently) and I'm kind of shocked that people consider it children's lit. YA, maybe, but definitely too dark for little kids.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 8:32 PM
[Slight spoiler alert]
Yeah, a little. Some of the plot contrivances had me cringing (getting into Gringott's is the main one) and the fighting was a bit ludicrous considering the discrepanies in skill and experience of the combatants.
Posted by: Carlie | July 5, 2009 8:33 PM
HP is not complicated writing. The characters are fairly stock characters, down to the bad guy who's really a good guy. The plots are fairly stock plots. But they're fun, and enjoyable. As a dessert, HP isn't a chili cinnamon truffle made with single-plantation cacao and Madagascar vanilla. It's Jell-O chocolate pudding with a little Cool Whip on top. So what? No matter how much you can criticize it, chocolate pudding with whipped cream is still good.
Posted by: Geoff | July 5, 2009 8:33 PM
@67
As Radcliffe has a solid reputation for being very well read, I'd assume he's actually read everything by Dawkins, which leaves TV appearances.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 8:40 PM
Watch the video on Telesur. Murdering scumbags.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 5, 2009 8:43 PM
Wowbagger,
Seconded;I prefer Pratchett myself, but it takes getting beyond the third or fourth book in the HP series to see the machinations in the plot that paint both Dumbledore and Snape as something other than black and white.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 8:45 PM
Eddings (who died recently) was an uneven writer. I was amused with how Eddings wrote The Belgariad and then rewrote it as The Malloreon. He then did the same thing with the Sparhawk novels. These books weren't great fantasy but certainly readable.
The Redemption of Althalus had not one but two massive plot holes. His last series, The Dreamers, was horrible. The ending to the series was maybe half a point higher than "then he woke up and it was all a dream."
Posted by: john | July 5, 2009 8:47 PM
Seriously?
Who cares.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2009 8:47 PM
SC, thanks for the (stomach-churning) updates, seriously.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 5, 2009 8:52 PM
'Tis Himself,
Rowling's tries to handle two aspects of racism - the "slavery" of the elves and other magical creatures; and the prejudice against Muggles. She handles the latter better than the former.
But her books are not specifically about racism; they are about fighting fascism. The parallels to the rise of Hitler run all through it. (The persecution of the Muggles is much like the anti-Semitism of the Nazi's.)
You are criticizing her for failing to write a good book about racism, but that was not her intent.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 8:58 PM
Carlie, #84 - very well put.
You've got to appreciate any text for what it is, not just compared to something else. I generally prefer what gets labeled as literature, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy -- or am somehow compromising myself by reading - something like Harry Potter.
And everything tastes better with Cool Hwip - just ask Stewie Griffin...
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | July 5, 2009 9:04 PM
I agree with Happy Kiwi about His Dark Materials not really being re-readable, which is a shame because I SO enjoyed them the first time through. Maybe it's because I knew the ending to the trilogy, which {SPOILER} was such a damned downer? Seriously, it may have been realistic (if you can say that about a fantasy novel) but it was incredibly depressing.
I was not at all let down by HPVII -- I thought she gave everyone the ending they deserved, for good or ill. Rowling's writing did improve immensely over the seven books, although one could make the argument that she pitched her writing to the age of both her heroes and her audience, and increased the complexity as everyone grew older.
And yay for Radcliffe being one of us!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 5, 2009 9:04 PM
Yeah SC, you're earning that OM. I didn't know there was a coup until you linked to something about it a few days ago.
No, but it's got something about it. I don't know why, but I have never read anything as voraciously as I read those books.
Though I didn't like The Da Vinci Code, there was something similar going on there.
Posted by: Duust | July 5, 2009 9:06 PM
Marc Abian quiried "Was anyone else badly let down by the 7th?
Yes, I was. It was too long, could have lost about 300 pages of fluff and been better for it. The fight action for me was just boring and rather silly; she went from a good story to a cop out shoot 'em up ending. Nothin' new there for me.
Happy Kiwi noted Have any of you found that Philip Pullman doesn't stand up so well to re-reading. I was absolutely rivited by the HDM trilogy--read them all in one sitting on a long series of flights and transit lounges from London to NZ. I think he's brilliant--I wish I had written that series. Yet when I went back to re-read them, I lost interest quickly. I can't think why.
I loved HDM also, and really enjoyed re-reading them, sorry to hear that you were disappointed.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 9:10 PM
Hypatia's Daughter #91
I am taking a theme which both Rowling and Pratchett write about and comparing the two authors. I realize they're writing for different audiences (although Pratchett's Tiffany Aching books are aimed at children and are, IMNSHO, better books than HP). There aren't many themes that both Rowling and Pratchett both write about, so I chose one that both did consider.
I think that Thud is not Pratchett's best work. It does some great stuff with the racism issue, but it also gets pretty preachy. I do, however, have an extreme fondness for the scene in which a bloodstained, deranged Vimes faces down a group of armed dwarves, one with a flame thrower, while shrieking "THAT IS NOT MY COW!"
I think the niche Rowling's found is that she's writes very accessible, easy to read fantasy for children. Children's literature either tends to be puerile rubbish, or darker and more serious and therefore with less mass appeal. She's hit that lucky medium that appeals to lots of kids, without talking down to them.
Posted by: Carlie | July 5, 2009 9:11 PM
No, but it's got something about it.
Exactly. I didn't mean to sound like saying it isn't complex is a real criticism. I think the simplicity is a benefit, to be honest. HP is something I can re-read late at night and not think too hard about it. It's comfort reading, like the pudding. I wouldn't want it to be the only thing someone reads, but I wouldn't look down on anyone for loving it, either. (10 days to the next movie!!!)
Posted by: Monado | July 5, 2009 9:12 PM
Harry Potter is just a British boarding school story with magic. I think half the strangeness for American & Canadian readers is the boarding-school customs.
I also liked the Narnia series by C.S. Lewis, even with its Christian symbolism. Some readers don't even notice it.
Definitely read Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy.
I highly recommend Bridge to Terabithia, which is for children but is just a plain good story.
I also recommend Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar trilogy, about the conflict between good and evil (in another universe), for adults. Tastes differ, but I think it's as good as Lord of the Rings without being reminiscent of it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 9:14 PM
It's interesting that there are two conversations going on in this thread, one on literary criticism and the other on the Honduran coup.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 5, 2009 9:15 PM
Thinking about it, I wonder whether I didn't enjoy re-reading HDM as much because Pullman's writing is so crisp and focused. There's no surprise the second time, it all follows so vividly and inevitably. I've found on re-reading HP to my children that things keep cropping up that I'd forgotten about. Case in point--the mad Sir Cadogan turning up in a painting when they're trying to find the room for their first divination class. In HP there are numerous little side stories that add to the texture of the place. Pullman's HDM trilogy moves relentlessly forward with its single destination in mind. I'm not that disappointed with his ending--the idea that sexuality isn't sinful works for me as an atheist who thinks the original Adam & Eve story has a lot to answer for.
I'm not saying one's better or worse. And I still rate HDM as a brilliant achievement. I'm certainly not dissing Pullman's work at all.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | July 5, 2009 9:17 PM
Wowbagger: Say 'whip'. Now say, 'cool whip'.
/Brian Griffin
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 9:21 PM
I'm about three-quarters of the way through re-reading The Amber Spyglass. I'm actually enjoying the second time around more than I thought I would. I still consider the first book in the series (Northern Lights or The Golden Compass, depending on where you are) to be one of the cleverest fantasy novels I've read, just in terms of originality (to me at least) of the concepts.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 9:24 PM
***NEWSFLASH****
***ATTENTION***
LEFTIST SOCIALIST COMMUNIST ANARCHIST 'THEM' FORCES APPROACH HONDURAS VIA NICARAGUA!!!!!1111!!!!!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 9:27 PM
THEMIST.
That's it.
Posted by: Dana | July 5, 2009 9:31 PM
"I realize that I'll be decried and ridiculed for my blasphemy, but I don't care for the Harry Potter books. The characters are black and white, either good, intelligent and heroic or evil, stupid and cowardly."
Oh, I totally disagree...the way she keeps you guessing over Snape's true loyalties, the way Dumbledore is revealed in the final book to be flawed and to have made mistakes, the way she makes you sympathize in the last two books with Draco Malfoy and see him as trapped in circumstances beyond his control; even Harry's father himself is revealed to have been a bit of an arrogant jerk as a teenager...I think all the characters over the course of the series become very real and three-dimensional. Each of the "good" characters is portrayed as having flaws, even Harry, and the only one of the "bad" characters for whom I can't think of some redeeming characteristic is Voldemort himself, and even with him you are led to understand somewhat how he turned into what he became.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 5, 2009 9:31 PM
I'm not that disappointed with his ending--the idea that sexuality isn't sinful works for me as an atheist who thinks the original Adam & Eve story has a lot to answer for.
Totally agree. And Pullman points out that god isn't necessary at all and I find that kind of fantastic.
Pullman rocks my world.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 9:38 PM
oy...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 9:40 PM
One fantasy series that I'm reading and enjoying is Steven Erikson's The Malazan Book of the Fallen.
These books are dense and well written, with a cast of thousands (the list of characters in the front of each book is really handy). Characters will disappear and pop again two books later. I find the system of magic to be interesting, and totally unlike any other I've come across. (There are "warrens" from which magicians can draw power.)
I was fascinated by the way people can get promoted into godhood. There's a nonhuman character named Karsa Orlong who is made a demigod by The Crippled God against his will, and both he and Heboric (a former priest who has accidentally killed his god) recognise that the Crippled God is going to regret having promoted Karsa Orlong.
Another unwilling promotion is of the human Ganoes Paran to Master of the Deck of Dragons, a tarot-like deck of cards with some control over the warrens. He simply doesn't want the job, because he thinks that it will give him more power than he can properly use.
There are other interesting characters. Tehol Beddict appears to have lost everything in a stock market crash and so lives in poverty with his manservant Bugge (who is actually a god, living with Tehol Beddict because he amuses him), yet Tehol Beddict actually engineered the crash and is really an extremely wealthy manipulator.
Erickson has a remarkable ability to write battle scenes, whether one-on-one fights between assassins, or armies in the thousands battling over a piece of land or the rights to a city. (The second novel, Deadhouse Gates, is largely concerned with the retreat of an army across much of a continent.) Soldiers stumble into battle confused and terrified. Some fight with the grim determination of those who mean to stay alive no matter what and wouldn't be above sticking a knife in an officer's back if it was thought he would lead them into unnecessary danger. When Ganoes Paran first joins the Bridgeburners as its captain, wagers are placed on the likelihood of his making it from an inn to his barracks, with the odds running against him.
Interesting characters, good plots, good writing. What more can you ask for?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 5, 2009 9:45 PM
"It's interesting that there are two conversations going on in this thread, one on literary criticism and the other on the Honduran coup."
Yes, it's almost disturbing. SC had no choice but to interrupt an on-going thread to bring us the news. I wish PZ had some way to initiate a thread for times like this...but I guess it can't be done.
And I've only read The Golden Compass and I was not overly impressed. I will try the next 2 in the series just to be fair.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 9:46 PM
Tis Himself wrote (about David Eddings):
Yeah, that much is true; I read them all, many times, in my teens. However, I consider that the period before I really knew what 'good' was - in fantasy or writing in general. But I look back on his stuff and to call it two-dimensional would be kind.
And the ridiculous racism - whole nations of people who are almost identical in behaviour - makes me cringe on several levels.
I tend to describe his work as the fantasy equivalent of 'Sweet Valley High'. Appropriate for kids just getting into the fantasy genre, but not something anyone who can get their hands on anything else has an excuse to read.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 9:47 PM
Sadly, africangenesis' version of current events appears to have triumphed internationally...
(We're all Palestinians...)
Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 9:54 PM
Yeah - sorry. Don't want to hijack, but too important and urgent not to post about.
Posted by: Geoff | July 5, 2009 10:04 PM
No doubt Pullman's prose is superior to Rowling's, but Rowling's characters are flawed in a real way and better drawn and aren't mouthpieces for a point of view.
Like Terry Gilliam said of the HP novels, "the pages turn" and that's her strength and Stephen King had a point when he said Rowling got better, and so did the HP books. I agree with the commentators who noted the books story arc really came into play with the 3rd and 4th books. Most people I know who hate the series stopped reading after the second book which is the worst of the series.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 5, 2009 10:09 PM
Wowbagger,
There's other criticisms about Eddings.
In The Belgariad and The Malloreon two continents, wossisplace and the other one, have almost no contact for thousands of years. Yet everyone in both places speak the same language. But that's a cliche in most fantasy. Both series were one cliche after another. Swords? Check. Magic? Check. Wise Mentor? Check. Journey to destroy/retrieve some powerful artifact? Check. Fierce warrior companions? Check. Dastardly villain who wants to take over the world? Check. Plot? Wait, I'll get back to you on that one.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 5, 2009 10:10 PM
Yeah, I also thought the second was the weakest. It felt rushed, like it was brought out in a hurry in order to cash in on the success of the first, and on the off-chance it proved to be a flash-in-the-pan and people stopped caring.
I think that once everyone (JK & the publishers) realised they'd found an audience who'd stick with it, they decided it'd be better if they took more time; she was then able to put in more effort on the subsequent stories.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 5, 2009 10:38 PM
SC, OM
If it were really that important wouldn't CNN interrupt their non-stop coverage of Michael Jackson's death?
Posted by: Simon Scott | July 5, 2009 11:01 PM
He was on Rove last night - they spoke about magic, and apparently Radcliffe is a fan (card tricks anyone?) but displayed utter contempt for anyone who claimed to perform "real" magic.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 5, 2009 11:02 PM
And another Internet law :
On any given internet talk involving Daniel Radcliffe or Harry Potter,the probability that the " I want to f*** Emma Watson she's so damn hot" mob rears its ugly head, appproaches 1.
Radcliffe is gifted and a rare talent,but I dont really care whether he's an atheist,satanist or fundie xtian,I can enjoy his performances without that.
Posted by: Akiko | July 5, 2009 11:34 PM
Oh no. Now Laura Mallory, the crazed, southern christianish mom with tons of time on her hands, who tried to get Harry Potter books banned at her local library, will be all over this like stink on poop.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | July 5, 2009 11:52 PM
Oh, I totally disagree...the way she keeps you guessing over Snape's true loyalties, the way Dumbledore is revealed in the final book to be flawed and to have made mistakes, the way she makes you sympathize in the last two books with Draco Malfoy and see him as trapped in circumstances beyond his control; even Harry's father himself is revealed to have been a bit of an arrogant jerk as a teenager...I think all the characters over the course of the series become very real and three-dimensional. Each of the "good" characters is portrayed as having flaws, even Harry, and the only one of the "bad" characters for whom I can't think of some redeeming characteristic is Voldemort himself, and even with him you are led to understand somewhat how he turned into what he became.
By the way, the guy who was the basis for Snape is JKR's old chemistry teacher, John Nettleship. He was known as a very strict, quirky, brilliant guy, who worked like a dog and was often snappish, yet would break his own back to help you if you were one of his pupils. He helped JKR's mum get a job with the school when the Rowling family was going through a rough spot.
Posted by: LadyRhian | July 6, 2009 12:13 AM
Speaking of fantasy cliches, has anyone read Diana Wynne Jones' "Tough Guide to Fantasyland"? It also spawned two books: "Dark Lord of Derkholme" and "The Year of the Griffin". Lovely stuff, especially the first book, where an entire fantasy world is co-opted to run bad fantasy quests, and Derk, a wizard who raises Griffins, is selected to be this year's "Dark Lord", and at the same time, must figure out a way to save his world from the indignity bu finding out the secrets of the man behind the scheme.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 6, 2009 12:23 AM
SC, OM (et al.) - I'm finding lots of Honduran coverage here. I hope you likes -- I heard of STRATFOR only a few weeks ago. They remind me of "Foreign Affairs" in their coverage.
Posted by: windy | July 6, 2009 12:57 AM
Figures. What is all the shooting?
I hear dodging bullets in the streets is "sort of like Twittering, for poor people"
So, the US has troops in Honduras?? Not that it would necessarily be a good thing for them to intervene, but isn't it kind of bad form to have military presence in a country where there's a military coup going on?
Posted by: Kevin Schreck | July 6, 2009 1:15 AM
Okay, that's pretty cool of him. Maybe I'll see his movie...
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 6, 2009 1:34 AM
Reading through a web comic tonight, I ran across this fitting one:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html
Posted by: Troy
|
July 6, 2009 3:08 AM
This is very pleasant news, more famous people should make statements like that, although the "preaching atheism" bit was rather dumb.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 6, 2009 4:41 AM
Oh good scheme Windy get some US air force types without a secure supply line take on their hosts in what exactly? a counter coup? You are aware the Honduran military are not exactly on 'your' side are you?
You have been watching to much Hollywood US Power wish fulfilment flicks. The world is not like that as you and us are finding out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not to mention that the US military does not have a good rep in Central America and US involvement would induce Chavez to make good on his military intervention threat and suddenly the whole region erupts in a war you don't really have the resources to fight since you are engaged elsewhere. Do you really think your fellow Americans want their youth and treasure spent on this?
Posted by: windy | July 6, 2009 5:40 AM
I wasn't proposing a "scheme" you... kneejerky person, I was saying that sitting there with their thumbs up their asses while their allies perform a military coup puts the US military in a rather awkward position.
Well I doubt they are on 'my' side, but as far as the US goes, did you notice that the two countries have a JOINT MILITARY BASE in Honduras?
(I don't know if this qualifies as a "scheme" but commenters on that BoRev site ask, if the US does support the return of the president, why not allow his plane to land on the base?)
Posted by: MaxH
|
July 6, 2009 5:53 AM
"If only Radcliffe had an excuse to take his clothes off for atheism"
Talk about good television.
Well, if he took 'em off for the Postal Service, I'd tune in, and cheer on the mail.
Posted by: SEF | July 6, 2009 6:54 AM
Re the black/white only becoming grey later in the HP series: it might help if you were children of the relevant instead of adults (despite people claiming the books also appeal to adults). The protagonists and the likely target readership (ie of around the same age or fractionally younger) are at just that age when human children* do start shifting from a starkly black and white view of morality to recognising the shades of grey much more. That's not to say that JKRowling definitely did think the series out that way in advance. But she could have done so.
* apart from the religiously retarded of course.
Posted by: toth | July 6, 2009 10:06 AM
Personally, I'm more a fan of the His Dark Materials trilogy (also by a fervent atheist), but HP was enjoyable in a light reading kind of fashion. Good on Radcliffe for "coming out".
Posted by: GregB | July 6, 2009 11:01 AM
I teach private music lessons and most of my students are of high school age.
I'm very happy to say that the vast majority of them are atheist. I don't ask them, but sometimes it comes up in conversation. I even have one student who is culturally Jewish (his parents were born and raised in Israel) and he sees himself as one of these new "Atheist Jews" who keep the cultural aspect of their religion, but ignore the supernatural stuff.
Quite a few times I've heard my students say something like "Pretty much everyone at our school is non-religious. There are only a few of those weird kids at our school".
That's right, the believers are the weird ones.
There is hope here. This generation is ignoring the stupidity, ignorance and magical thinking that is religion. I hope it continues.
The down side is that I've also taught a large number of home schooled kids. And they tend to be incredibly ignorant young earth creationist gay hating hellfire bible thumpers. Those people are just freakin' crazy. It makes me sad to see young minds filled with so much religious crap.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 6, 2009 11:19 AM
@130: "Children of the relevant" is an excellent typo and should be a bandname.
Posted by: SEF | July 6, 2009 11:34 AM
How very odd that the other instance of "age" disappeared. It was definitely still there on at least one occasion when I was reviewing the post before pressing the button. So it must have vanished during some last minute edit.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 6, 2009 11:36 AM
I'm late to the party, and several others have already made the points I would've re the so-called "black-or-white" nature of HP characters. I would only add that, in retrospect, you can see seeds of complexity even in the first book (e.g., Hermione thinks Snape is trying kill Harry during his first Quidditch match, but we eventually learn he was trying to protect Harry from the real bad guy)... and Dumbledore's message to Harry is always, from the very first, that things are not as they seem. Remember that even though the books are not told in first person, we essentially see everything through Harry's eyes, and since Harry matures from 11 to 17 over the course of the series, it's hardly surprising that his ability to percieve nuance and complexity develops.
One point that's been mentioned but not much commented on, from early in the thread:
I've been exposed to quite a number of HP geeks through my daughter (believe it or not, we actually attended a Yule Ball concert a few years ago, featuring wizard-rock pioneers Harry and the Pottes and Draco and the Malfoys!), and I've yet to meet a single one who's been influenced by the books to believe in anything occult, nor have I met any who've had their preexisting belief in any traditional religious faith shaken by the Potter books. Kids (esp. the adolescents and young adults that make up the core HP audience) are surprisingly good at recognizing fiction when they see it (well, except for the Bible, but that's a special case); they're no more likely to believe in magic because of HP than they are to believe in FTL space travel because they've read Heinlein or Niven (or dragons because they've read McCaffrey).
FWIW, the Potter books really don't promote any consistent supernatural belief system. Yeah, magic works, and there are ghosts and poltergeists... but there's no creation myth, no coherent version of an afterlife (i.e., some sort of afterlife is implied by ghosts, and a "soul" is implied by Voldemort's shenanigans with horcruxes, but there's no heaven/hell talk, and no more detail about ghosts and souls presented beyond what advances the immediate story), and certainly no occult worship tradition (in fact, Hogwarts observes Christian holidays, albeit apparently in a fairly secular, C-of-E, cake-or-death sort of way).
Magic itself is presented as a skill to be learned (albeit there's clearly some inherent magical power at work, else how could there be "squibs"?); IIRC one wag turned Clarke's Third Law around on the HP canon, making it "Any sufficiently well described magic is indistinguishable from technology."
If any of you have met even one kid who's surrendered to woo because of reading HP, I'd love to hear about it.
PS: The fact that I've written about kids' books here doesn't mean I don't care about Honduras.
Posted by: Watchman | July 6, 2009 12:15 PM
Anyone who's only read the first two and one-half HP books is qualified only to comment on the first two and one-half HP books. Two and one-half books do not a seven-book series make.
It is true that the first two books closely follow the same story template. There is some divergence starting with the third.
I do agree with Sven that Harry's tendency to keep important information from Dumbledore (or other authority figures allies like McGonagall or Lupin) is guaranteed to frustrate the adult reader, but I'd like to point out that this behavior isn't inconsistent with Harry's backstory. (FWIW: It's also de rigueur for British boarding-school tales.)
I'd never accuse Rowling of being an economical writer, but I would accuse her of being witty and inventive. Nor would I t call the larger story arcs uncomplicated or shallow. Keep in mind, also, that the age of Rowling's target audience changed with each book; her intention was that the target audience be approximately the same age as Harry and his classmates. The books get progressively darker and more complex as you go along.
I loved Pullman's trilogy. It's a beautiful and powerful work. I haven't tried re-reading it. I'm deep into books by Guy Gavriel Kay and Richard Dawkins at the moment. :-)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 6, 2009 12:27 PM
BTW, to compound my sin of talking about relative trivialities while Honduras burns...
She is certainly that. Perhaps not outstandingly more beautiful than other actresses of an age to play pretty schoolgirls, but that in itself is quite beautiful enough to justify wanting to see her naked.1
I'd be amazed if she did become a superstar: Among the young principals of the HP movies (including not only Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, but also the kids playing Fred and George, Neville, Draco, et al.), she seems to be the one least interested in pursuing a career in acting, or in becoming famous (she's reported going to attend Brown University, apparently because she wants to be "normal," and because she hopes she'll be more anonymous there than she would be at university in the UK).
Further, my resident HP critic (aka, my lovely daughter) insists that Watson is a lousy actor. Of course, she also thinks Natalie Portman2 is a lousy actor (based on her work in the Star Wars movies), and that doesn't seem to have hurt her career! ;^)
1 Note that she's 19 now, so no need to feel squicky about lusting after her, at least in the abstract.
2 Speaking of people worth seeing naked!
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 6, 2009 12:29 PM
Headslap! Well Duh! maybe because it is a Joint base which is not US soil? and it is also full of the Honduran military who are opposed to Zalaya's return? Again this is not an episode of wish fulfilment fantasies like The Unit, it is real life.
Posted by: Ken | July 6, 2009 12:30 PM
More atheism in the British media:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/07/that-mitchell-and-webb-look-proof-there.html
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 6, 2009 12:49 PM
Is she aware that Brown is the prestigious and celebrated alma mater of both J*hn Kw*k and his many acclaimed and well-known classmates and fellow alumni?
Posted by: Watchman | July 6, 2009 12:53 PM
Yeah, like th*s g*y.
Emma shoulda gone to Princeton (like Brooke) or Yale (like Jodie).
(My Hampshire-bound son may now be disappointed at being turned down by Brown.)
Posted by: SC, OM | July 6, 2009 1:57 PM
Here's a little piece from Harper's:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005301
And here's what appears the coup's "foreign minister," Enrique Ortez Colindres, calling Obama a "negrito":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B6mtl7Q7HM
Posted by: windy | July 6, 2009 2:03 PM
Apparently questioning the US military presence in other countries is the new imperialism. Well, right now they share a joint base with a military junta. Do you disagree that it's an awkward situation (to put it mildly)?
You seem to believe that the US troops are cowering there surrounded by a hostile Honduran military (trained and funded by the US...) - all the more reason to get them out of there then. But did they really have no idea what the Honduran air force was planning?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 6, 2009 3:14 PM
BTW, here's a call for the US government to act:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1965/68/
Most of the media continues to spread lies, acting as the propaganda arm for the coupmongers. Grr.
Posted by: toth | July 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Not to mention my little brother, starting next year. He's kind of excited about that.
Posted by: Chris Swanson | July 6, 2009 6:17 PM
"If only Radcliffe had an excuse to take his clothes off for atheism…"
Pft. I've seen him naked. Too much hair and uncut. No thanks. :P He's one of the few people out there who I find vastly more attractive clothed.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 6, 2009 6:27 PM
Oh, fuck, not another cut vs. uncut brouhahah!
(That is to say, I disagree. And damn is that kid sculpted. :jiggles abdominal fat:)
Posted by: Samnell | July 7, 2009 1:07 AM
"Pft. I've seen him naked. Too much hair and uncut."
The things one can learn at Pharyngula. :)