Tales of Beedle the Bard; why fairy tales matter; Half-Blood Prince trailer; site business
You can subscribe to the Hog’s Head PubCast through iTunes, or Odeo, and VOTE for The Hog’s Head for the month of August (NEW MONTH!) at Podcast Alley.
Pub Menu
- Pre-order The Tales of Beedle the Bard
- G.K. Chesterton: “The Ethics of Elfland” (Chesterton at The Hog’s Head Bookstore)
- Half-Blood Prince Trailer
- StarShipSofa
- SpinnersCast
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
R. Ross on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t think the release of Beedle will pre-empt or impair people’s appreciation of your first book, Travis. And it will provide lots of material for your next book: a fairy-tale that comes with its own set of fairy-tales. How self-referential and post-modern is that?
No need to apologize for the ads. There’s enough white space at the site for us to post our comments without feeling crowded. Do what you need to do.
But about that music. Is it Bach? Could you look for something a trifle less intellectually demanding? A little Vivaldi, perhaps? or Haydn?
First off, finally something with which I can disagree with Red Rocker again! Ah, Bach! Keep it if it’s Bach & even if it’s not.
Although Vivaldi would be great, too. Haydn or Brahms would be nice, too.
Back to agreeing with Red Rocker: I don’t think Beedle the Bard will distract from your book at all, Travis. In fact, it sounds like a perfect follow up book on your part.
And you know, JKR is doing in her world what Tolkien was doing in his world, providing a backstory, history, & language of Middle-Earth. Except she’s doing it in a much less scholarly way which probably is what makes it more accessible than Tolkien. Not that I don’t love Tolkien’s stuff but it is definitely scholarly as opposed to Rowling’s more familiar, folksy style. So, I agree with you that if JKR gives us more backstory, she do it in story form as opposed to an encyclopedia.
I think I wasn’t clear – I don’t think Beedle will hurt appreciation for my book; I just want the Beedle material for my book. If she had released the book just a few months earlier, I could include the tales in my analysis.
Well, it still sounds like a sequel to me.
I can’t remember at the moment who the music is written by…I’ll check when I get home.
Could you look for something a trifle less intellectually demanding?
Sure. We’ll do “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” on the next one, and then maybe “The Song that Never Ends” for the episode after that.
Alas, revgeorge, we must agree again. I had exactly the same thought about JKR doing what Tolkien was doing: providing the backstory, language, culture to her world. Not as scholarly, as you say, but more accessible.
Travis, I think Bach and Old MacDonald would just about tap either end of the intellectually challenging musical continuum. I was asking for something a little less demanding, and more easily accessible. Plus, I missed the familiar theme.
But very well, then, if you must have Bach, try the Prelude from Bach’s Cello Suite #1. Two minutes of glorious music culminating in a what can be describes as nothing less than an emotional and intellectual orgasm. Here’s Rostropovcih’s take on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU_QR_FTt3E&feature=related
Neah, I don’t need Bach. Well, I need him for my own life, but not necessarily the podcast. I was just playin’ with the music, trying something new and a little more intense. I get bored.
You will be happy to know that because of this podcast I specifically came to the Hog’s Head to order my Beedle book
And I suggest Sibelius
ned, thank you! I really appreciate it.
Travis, I am with you – fairy tales DO matter. I’ve just been re-reading a book by Rolland Hein and I’ve got to quote him: “Literary mythmakers are successful when, working for the most part within the more congenial atmorsphere of fantasy or fairy tales, their works stir the human spirit with visions of higher anagogic realities.” (I needed to look up anagogic and it means “that aspect of experience that is directly concerned w/the presence in it of the eternal and the divine”).
I think Rowling’s work definitely has a bit of that quality that “stirs the human spirit” and I look forward to reading her tales of Beedle. I’ve never read them online although I know they’ve been up for awhile. I’m waiting for the print copy!
This may not be the time or place to pose this question, but I’m wondering if anyone has anything to say about viewing the world through science. I know that the purely rationalistic approach to understanding life leaves much to be desired (hence our enthusiasm for fantasy and fairy tales) but I’ve been struggling with just how to divide my view of the world between science/intellectualization and myth/mystery.
I’m thinking, in particular, of a debate a friend and I’ve been having about medicine. She’s become very immersed in alternative medicine and naturopathy. I find myself confused and conflicted because in some ways I embrace modern scientific understanding of the world, and in others’ I reject it, or at least temper it with the understanding that some aspects of life are best understood outside of verifiable, proven, scientific methods. How do we pick and choose what areas to submit to science and what areas to transcend it? Is there an integrated approach?
Sorry this is so long; it’s been bouncing around in my head all day! I’d welcome anyone’s thoughts….
Leanne, first – can it possibly be that Beedle’s tales have been online and I missed them? I never heard the full texts of the stories were online. Can someone verify this and point us in the right direction if it’s true?
Second – wow, big questions! I only begin to wrestle with them in the opening chapters of my book, and only then to argue that an enlightenment rationalistic view of the world is not sufficient. I’d also want to say that myth/mystery is primary, but I wouldn’t want that to drift into gnosticism. So it’s really difficult to find a truly integrated approach and to work that out practically! Your illustration about science as it relates to medicine is a perfect example.
I’d want to talk about a sacramental view of life in order to start trying to get my mind around answering these questions, but I’d be typing for hours and probably just end up confusing myself and everybody.
Travis, I guess you’re right – Amazon has only the summaries of each story. They’re pretty extensive, but it’s just someone’s reviews, not Rowling’s words. Oops! Didn’t mean to mislead…
No worries! I’ve refrained from reading the summaries as well, because I want to read the story.
Thanks for the mention of StarShipSofa! I’ve also started contributing a segment on genre history every month. (My next one is coming soon.) Links to all of my podcast work are here. Again, thanks for the shout out!
Always happy to see Chesterton referenced. People have forgotten fairy tales at their peril!
Professor L, I agree!
I was listening to a lecture by Joseph Pearce, and he quoted a great Chesterton maxim: “Not facts first, truth first.”
All, I finally remembered to check the composer of the piece from this podcast. It’s Evaristo Felice Dall’Abaco.
Very interesting & somewhat poignant story on Yahoo News today about what happens when a myth that has been accepted as a truism for as long as anyone can remember begins to fade out as even myth in the light of modernity. Here’s the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_as/losing_the_yeti
Very interesting & somewhat poignant story on Yahoo News today about what happens when a myth that has been accepted as a truism for as long as anyone can remember begins to fade out as even myth in the light of modernity. Here’s the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_as/losing_the_yeti
(Okay, why the spam catcher won’t post some of my messages I don’t know. So, here’s this again. Sorry for any duplications.)
revgeorge, sometimes the spam-catcher grabs stuff with links in it. If ever a comment gets lost, just email me or Matthew, and we’ll find it and get it posted.
Anything, by the way, with two or more links, is automatically held for moderation.
I thought it might be the link causing it. But I was just bullheaded & reposted again.
Chesterton’s maxim begs the question: what is the difference between facts and the truth? Or rather, what is the relationship between facts and truth?
Anyone want to take this one on?
By “facts,” I think Chesterton refers to the mentality that only those things which can be scientifically verified can possibly be true. Many things that are true – and far more profoundly true than objective, verifiable data – cannot be proven by any experiment.
“Of course it’s happening in your head, my dear boy. But why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”