Convention Alley 2008 summary thoughts; George MacDonald; voicemail and E-Owls
You can subscribe to the Hog’s Head PubCast through iTunes, and VOTE for The Hog’s Head for the month of June at Podcast Alley.
Want your voice on the next podcast? Call 206-222-2491 and leave a voicemail!
Pub Menu
- Portus 2008
- Journey to the Sea
- Phantastes online
- The Hog’s Head Bookstore – George MacDonald
- Christianaudio.com – George MacDonald
- Librivox.org – George MacDonald
- Mythopoeic Society
- Travis Prinzi at Suite101.com – new article today: Interview with Sheryll Townsend on the Origin of Harry Potter Conferences
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Great pubcast, Travis. Lots of stuff for discussion.
The study of what makes Umbridge tick could take up volumes. She has a very strong plot function – Harry’s adversary, the school’s bane, FredandGeorge’s liberator – and also serves as Dumbledore’s Shadow, and a caricature of educational tyranny, as you pointed out. But beyond all that, she is a fascinating study in repressed sexuality and sadism. I must confess, however, that Imelda Staunton’s brilliant portrayal gets in the way of my text-based understanding. The frisson of pleasure she experiences as the pen is cutting into Harry’s hand and her near-orgasmic pleasure as she justifies the use of the Cruciatus on a student dominate any other, less sexually-charged interpretation of her motives.
In response to the theory from the contributor in Singapore about how the portraits work: I am moved by the lengths that readers go to in an effort to maintain the internal consistency of Potterverse. We all have a need, I think, to believe that there is a logical explanation for everything that happens, including fantasy worlds. But in this particular case, I think that Dumbledore’s portrait-participation in the action is mainly driven by the dynamics of the story. Dumbledore has been such a necessary part of the plot – almost as much a driving part as Voldemort – that it feels unnatural for the story to carry on without his participation. I think JKR could have written DH without as much hands-on involvement from Dumbledore, but it would have lost a lot of its dramatic impact. Besides, we would have missed the old deceiver. As would she, I think.
Which ties in to your observations about Suite 101 and what engages people’s interest, i.e. Harry Potter. No surprise there, really. And it’s the same phenomenon we’ve been discussing elsewhere: given how attached readers are to HP, how hungry they are for more things Potter, will the author be able to move on to other things?
One last word: I thought that the comment about flashier sites was a left-handed compliment. I’m not sure what’s meant by flashy: more visuals? more colour? pop-ups? I would personally find that kind of stuff distracting. I like to focus on the ideas and the discussion, not the eye-candy.
Red Rocker, very excellent and helpful observations.
I think you’re right about the need to make it all consistent, magically. She’s given us a pretty dang consistent world to begin with. Probably the best explanation is that she simply changed her mind about the extent to which portraits can act in the stead of whom they represent. She needed to do so for DH, and the throwaway comment from the interview may have never even crossed her mind when writing Dumbledore’s portrait.
I am intrigued, nonetheless, by Tan’s idea, primarily from an sacramental, iconic point of view.
Yeah, I really don’t want to be flashy. So we’re definitely agreed there. Leaky, for example, (my apologies to Leaky fans and staff) has become difficult to even navigate. (I’m not alone in that opinion…a few folks at Convention Alley shared the same sentiment). It would be near impossible for me, at least, to successful join forums there, because there’s such a history. I want to get more people coming here, of course, but I like our cozy pub atmosphere.
Bob Trexler sent along this corrective note to the podcast:
Greetings and salutations! Just listened to your latest podcast (which I enjoyed) and needed to vent one of my pet peeves regarding Eerdman’s publication of Phantastes and Lilith. C.S. Lewis never wrote an introduction to those books, however much Eerdmans would like readers to believe otherwise. The introduction in their book was moved and altered (without comment or attribution) from Lewis’s introduction to his George MacDonald: An Anthology printed in 1946.
The Anthology includes 365 reading from MacDonald, probably 75% of which are taken from MacDonald’s Unspoken Sermons (not his fiction). Moreover, most MacDonald scholars (including myself) do not think Lewis did MacDonald justice regarding his skills as a writer of fiction and CSL’s statement that words are not important in the works of a master-mythmaker seem ridiculous by any measure. MacDonald’s brilliant choice of words are part and parcel of his genious. Lewis was having a bad day when he penned the intro to the Anthology.
The best study of MacDonald’s influence on Lewis is in a recent book called Shadows and Chivalry which I reviewed briefly in the January issue of CSL(attached).
Having worked for a few Umbridge wanabees, I have found a rather consistent personality type–insecurity coupled with an unreasonable tunnel vision. I have found this in a principal from both the ‘liberal’ view of education, as well as the ‘conservative’ view. It is not so much the philosophy of education as the need to be in complete control of everything at the school. Micromanagers from hell. And absolutely no dissent. That is seen as insubordination. And I was the music teacher!
I hate to also point out that both were women–as was Umbridge.
We women can be very hard on each other and see everything as a grab for power in our pecking order.
I suspect everyone has worked for an Umbridge no matter what their profession.
Completely agree with Red Rocker on keeping things simple on the site. Leaky’s become ridiculously overloaded with banner ads and the like. Quite annoying.
As a woman employed in the investment industry, the very worst bosses I have ever had were women. I have made it a point for the last 8 years to only work for men.
I’ve only worked for one female boss, and many males. So far, the female boss has been the best. And the worst boss I ever had was male. He was truly awful. Incredibly primitive power and control needs – he’d sit at his subordinates’ workstations just to show that he could. Demand to see personal e-mails.
I agree with the adage that power corrupts. I think it corrupts male and female equally. I’m not sure it corrupts us differentially.
I’m not sure how you feel about fanfic, Travis, but after listening to your podcast today (I was on vacation so I’m a little behind), I thought you might like to read a short story that my friend wrote about how Umbridge acquired Moody’s magical eye. Here’s a link if you’re interested. I highly recommend it.