Comments: 12
Hol 3 weeks ago
Lovely photos and I love those editions. Jealous!
I'm so happy I decided to buy them after all ... I'd initially decided against (I mean, how many editions of the same book(s) do you need, right?), but I'm already totally in love with them.
Darth Pony 3 weeks ago
Oooh! I have that same box set of HP hardcovers! So far my answer to "how many editions of the same book(s) do you need" is at least three, probably more later. (I covet the anniversary editions and the illustrated editions.)
IKR? So far I'd managed to limit my "I need that edition regardless how many other editions of the same book I already own" fandom to Shakespeare, Austen, Conan Doyle and Christie, but I guess Harry Potter is now officially in the same league as well.
BrokenTune 3 weeks ago
I love those HP editions! And isn't Fry's narration great?

Also, I'm excited that you got to the Distant Echo. I have to say that St. Andrews has never been the same since reading the book.

There is something really odd about Unnatural Death in that I really enjoyed the "quirks" of that particular story, but find it hard to remember much of the plot. Maybe that is where other books in the series outshine this one?
Fry really does an amazing job with these. Never mind that it's audio ... he actually conveys all the visuals, too; I had a complete 3D experience inside my head while I was listening (with sort of a mix of the visuals from the movies and my surviving mental images from before -- e.g., I'd always imagined Ron -- and Fred and George, too -- to have more of a "red mop" of hair than they do in the movies).

St. Andrews -- oh, wow, yes. And it definitely helped having visited ...

Re: "Unnatural Death", yes, that's exactly how I feel about it, too. I've got a somewhat firmer grip on the plot at the moment, but I really wonder how long that will last -- and yet, there are things I remembered from my previous reads that will doubtlessly stick in my mind all over again this time.
I would guess that when an author finishes a novel, his/her last read through is out loud, either privately or to a patient friend. The best way for an author to spot problems is to hear their own work out loud. (They may have read it so many times they missed errors.) You often hear a writer's style described as his/her voice. Writers write with their ears. The oral tradition began with Homer and continued through the 19th Century, when reading circles were popular family and social events. It lasted into the 20th century and only began to decline when Penguin and Paperback Books launched their inexpensive editions. The only way to get many children to go to bed is to give in to their demands that you "read me a story." Being read to is how many learn their language. Sounding out words in a book by a parent or teacher is how we learn to read. I love audio books. They are entertaining. They fill a lot of wasted hours driving a car. I just wish my brain was wired differently to allow me to really enjoy listening to fiction. I've got no problem with listening to non fiction,but fiction is a different matter altogether. I must attend classes on how to enjoy a book on Audio...lol.

NB: Frigging wonderful editions!!!!
Haha, true, my mom told me stories every night before I went to bed when I was little, and I was 2 when I learned to operate our record player to listen to my favorite fairy tale records. So I guess I'm just reverting to that now! :D

With me it's the other way round, though. Nonfiction I actually have to read -- and be able to go back and forth, or reread a given passage; if I just listen to it, it washes over me, and my attention wanders. It's been like that ever since university: I didn't retain a whole lot from my lectures, however good teachers the professors might have been, but reading about the same issues for myself, or applying what I'd read in a paper I would then write was what drove the contents home. -- Fiction, on the other hand, is able to capture me entirely if I listen to it just as well as with any book that I read.

I'm not sure all authors read their texts aloud once they're finished, though. It's a recommended practice, and actually there's many a text that would greatly benefit from it IMHO -- but I don't think they all do. Then again, having a text read to you by a one-of-a-kind narrator like Stephen Fry (or, for that matter, Derek Jacobi, Ian Carmichael, Hugh Fraser or Gordon Griffin) is a wholly different experience altogether ...
"Dennis McCarthy & June Schlueter: "A Brief Discourse of Rebellion and Rebels" by George North -- A Newly Uncovered Manuscript Source for Shakespeare's Plays" is already on my list-to-buy...

It is not the plot that is important, throughout history stories are told over and over, it is the telling and retelling that matters. Shakespeare did that in a way that lasted. Artistic plagiarism these days is all about money (Eurovision Song Context comes to mind). Academia is about acknowledging sources. I’m not sure how they’ll do it, but the Oxfordians will be along soon to tell us that this is yet more ‘proof’ that the farting Earl is the true author...Dear me...lol
They (the Oxfordians) already are:

https://books.google.de/books?id=kzav7JrRRJsC&pg=PA466&lpg=PA466&dq=%22thomas+north%22+%22Elizabeth+I%22+%22Earl+of+Oxford%22&source=bl&ots=HfxI1CxrQa&sig=ws-oqkbA7j-WfqekgI9yxvyfBsU&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5x7qP-53aAhUNLewKHbxcAMgQ6AEIUTAF#v=onepage&q=%22thomas%20north%22%20%22Elizabeth%20I%22%20%22Earl%20of%20Oxford%22&f=false

(Sorry for the tapeworm link.) -- Look at the note beginning "Shakespeare and Plutarch and Chaucer": Thomas North's collection is the one that also housed the text by George North, who was a relative of his.

McCarthy in a self-pubbed (?) 2009 book apparently went so far as to claim that George North had provided the text for pretty much all of Shakespeare, which obviously was fodder to the conspiracy theorists on a wholly different level. (See http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/shakespeare/ ) In fairness, he seems to have withdrawn that book and disowned the claim, and at this point I'm only taking him seriously because he has managed to convince a bona fide Shakespearean scholar (June Schlueter) to co-publish with him, and authenticate his research (also, there's some level of guarded endorsement by the Folger: https://www.folger.edu/shakespeare-unlimited/george-north-manuscript ). But David Bevington so far has only found it in himself to say that if the discovery proves one thing, it's that handwritten manuscripts from the period have obviously been neglected too long in Shakespearean scholarship and it's time to do something about that; and for all I can see Stanley Wells has not yet pronounced on the find (at least not publicly) at all. And you know me: unless and until the now-finally-knighted dean of all things Shakespeare in Britain validates this thing, I won't put too much store in it, however striking the find may be at first blush.
Oh no!!! They have already attacked!!! Haven't they got a life...?

Wells will wait out a bit. Investigation by the book as always...
Well, I'm still somewhat stunned all these years later how quickly he opined publicly on the Cobbe Portrait, but yeah -- he's going to want to take his time with this one, I suspect. And well he should!