This and That

[wellinghall]

"But I’m sure you’ll join me in not giving a flying Friar Tuck about World Dungeons & Dragons Day."
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=779917

Firing the cannon at Belvoir Castle
http://www.miles-hayler.ltd.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/reuben_travers_0425.jpg

"Interesting to see Philip Pullman, author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, whip up an authors campaign against publishers' modest proposals to put age banding on children's books."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article4075592.ece

"Many of today's most popular writers, like bestseller Naomi Novik, got their start writing fan fiction."
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/06.04.08/work-0823.html

"Terry Pratchett: Alzheimer's disease is now affecting my work"
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4019605.ece

"Islanders on the Orkney island of Egilsay have approached Wildlife Management International, the New Zealand-based firm used by the NTS on Canna, to advise them on tackling their rats damaging their corncrake nests."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/07/conservation.wildlife

Comments

[atreic.livejournal.com]

Either age-banding on books can be done cheaply and badly (in which case why bother, we already know 'books for 5-7 yr olds' 'young teen fiction' bands already - most bookshops arrange by them, any library could tell you them, and really, you just have to look at the cover to see if it has a pink sparkly unicorn or a vampire) or they could be done expensively and well (I guess to get a decent map of content that was calibrated rather than some individuals whim at least two people would have to read each childrens book very thoroughly) Why would people want to spend money on this - that is, in what cases is the first way not good enough? When people want to control and censor what their children are reading on a finer level than 'oh, it's called "The woods of terror-a tale of torture"'. And I bet any money that would be used mainly to keep children away from those gentle books that talk about sex but you don't know they do just from looking at the cover, like "Forever" and "Goodnight Mr Tom".

[atreic.livejournal.com]

Also, how would you do it? I think the Bromiliad trilogy is in some ways far more anti-God than Philip Pulman's books (the gentle mocking of the idea of a holy power and the explaining it all rationally once you have a human eye view of the story) but I can't think of a single thing you could point at in the books and lable as 'this book is anti-christianity and pro female equality'. And even then people might get it wrong - maybe they'd read the bit where the old nomes say 'women can't read books or their head explode' and mark it down as a sexist book...

[brightlywoven.livejournal.com]

I'm constantly surprised by just how much vitriol and low-level narkiness is directed an Philip Pullman. A lot of authors are against having publishers dictate who ought to read a book, but we can snark about Pullman because he's a nasty atheist, so we can all unite in feeling good about disliking him!

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

There is a HUGE amount of prejudice towards atheists who actually voice their opinions (rather than those who go about their non-believing quietly without making a fuss).

It's all to do with the psychology of in-groups and out-groups and social identity. But still sucks.

[brightlywoven.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was very impressed by Dawkins' writing on the importance of atheists standing up and being heard - both in terms of resisting the blurring of agnosticism and atheism, and in terms of having valid moral views. The nastiness towards Pullman is slightly less frightening than the surveys which show Americans would be more likely elect a one-armed gay black muslim woman than an atheist as president.