Psssh, are you trying to say that everyone doesn't know how to read Akkadian and Sumerian?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Anyway, that's probably true enough. Thanks for the Wiki link by the way. That's really very useful.
Printable View
Psssh, are you trying to say that everyone doesn't know how to read Akkadian and Sumerian?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Anyway, that's probably true enough. Thanks for the Wiki link by the way. That's really very useful.
"...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
"yay!"
(from the simpsons)
OK, I think that taken as a whole we have demonstrated that Potter is an open work.
It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.Quote:
Originally Posted by jikan myshkin
Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.
haha how long does it take you to watch one episode of the simpsons? that's if you even do!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
JK Rowling has written a short prequel to her popular Harry Potter books.
But the 800-word tale will not be published - instead it will go under the hammer at a charity auction in London next month.
She is one of 13 authors - including Nick Hornby and Doris Lessing - asked to write storycards by Waterstone's for their What's Your Story? auction.
Rowling's story finishes with the handwritten words: "From the prequel I am not working on - but that was fun!"
All 13 cards will be sold without a reserve price. The other authors include Margaret Atwood, Lauren Child, Sebastian Faulks, Tom Stoppard and Irvine Welsh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7425041.stm
Honestly, the whole idea of such events is silly to me. Stories should be for the public, not the high paying elite. I don't care what charity it goes to, if she merely wrote more, she would make even more millions. Let her cut a piece of her pie, and hand it to the charity, rather than selling a story to some obnoxiously rich person. She already did something similar with a set of self-illuminated story books.
Note, my disapproval is transfered to the other authors as well.
I have to agree with JBI on this one. Everyone should have the chance to read what has been written by all of these authors. It is a shame that even something like reading is in this case being reduced to something that only the rich can afford. Maybe the buyer will allow it to be published - maybe that is just a vain hope on my part.
No, I don't like Harry Potter. Not just because it has little literary value (and it does have very little value), but because I just don't like any of the characters, or any of the themes, which are really too simplistic (good vs evil = good wins, and we'll do it all over again next year). It's also so, so . . . pretentious, in that annoyingly upper-class British way.
You can't do this, it's all matter of opinions.
I like Harry Potter so much... It's what got me into reading...
Thumbs down of Harry Potter! I feel that it is monotonous to read it.There's not enough vocabulary,which it is written in a simplified one.It is solely suitable for 11 years old and below.
i'd say HP was really written for 11-teens, which i am not.
I feel like writing this in Capital Letters, but I will curb my frustration and merely re-iterate: the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such. They were not written to be Literature, they were not written to provide material for Lit Crit, they were written for the entertainment of young readers. The fact they have been enjoyed by thousands and thousands of young (and young-at-heart) readers gladdens my heart - if they encourage those same readers to go on and try reading more books, it delights me even more. If they made JKR a multi-millionaire, good for her and her publisher for spotting a gap in the market and filling it. (I only wish I had sent my apprentice-wizard story to a publisher before she did, it's not a bad story, totally different from HP, but now it's unpublishable!) If you didn't enjoy it, that's a pity and maybe your loss but I'm sure you'll find something you will like; if you did enjoy it, good - now move on to the next book, there are lots out there and now you've discovered the joy of reading, you have so many treats in store, go and get on with them.
End of rant. :)
my level has not yet achieved that imaginary world.....
maybe i should like it~~...