The Inevitable

Well, it's happened. Some one has apparently posted portions - if not all - of Deathly Hallows online. No, I'm not going to link to it and yes, I'm going to do my best for the next few days to avoid all mention of spoilers.

I don't, however, have any problems with speculating. Check here for the Soccer Dad's predictions and here for some more.

Me? I'm going to see Order of the Phoenix again.

Climbing on Board

Over at JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire is in full Harry Potter mode:

In anticipation of the grand finale to the Harry Potter series let me tell you right now how some major plot points will turn out. And just so you know - I am so right about some of these things that you may as well call them spoiler alerts. And my credentials? I have not one but two high schoolers who have memorized the six books and are reigning trivia champs at their respective schools; I merely pass along their distilled wisdom.

I'm not so sure you can call his predictions "spoilers", after all, he also bet the bank on the 7th book being published on 7/7/07 so...

It's also interesting to follow the money and see how the betting is going, both in the UK and here.

Developing...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Yes, it's Harry Potter Week here at the Teahouse, in which all things HP will be discussed, fawned over, wished for, worried about and otherwise geeked until Friday night at midnight, when the final book is released. At that point, all public activity will cease until I've had the chance to read through it at least once and then, well, we'll see...

So, first up is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, or HPOP, or HP5, or whatever else you might want to call it. I went and saw it yesterday and here are my first impressions:

I liked it. A lot. New director David Yates and new screenwriter Michael Goldenberg have risen to the challenge of adapting the longest book of the series and given us a movie that's worthy of the series, one that's pared to the bone and races along faster than Harry's broomstick. The returning actors are all outstanding - it's a joy to see the Dursley's again, for however brief a period - and the new casting choices, specifically Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood, are wonderful.

The veteran cast reads like a who's who of British acting royalty and you do wish they could be given more to do, but ultimately it's the "kids" who bear the weight of this series and the good news is that Dan, Emma, Rupert and Matthew Lewis (as Neville) are more than up to the task.

There are quibbles, of course, but I'm not going to dwell on them now. If you're a Harry Potter fan and you haven't already seen it, what are you waiting for? If you're not a fan, go see it anyway and maybe you'll glean an inkling of what all the fuss is about. You won't understand a lot of it without knowing the books and the earlier movies, but you'll get enough, I think, to make you want to learn more.

And that's a start. Who knows, by the end of the week, you may be lining up with the rest of us - dress robes freshly pressed, wand at the ready - to buy the final book.

Weather Report

When you blog you often find out about certain things faster than you would otherwise.

Take the weather, for instance.

The last few days here in Vermont have been pretty nasty - wet, humid, drippy - the kind of days where just moving around makes it seem as if you have a runny faucet stuck in your head. Yet, when I read James Lileks (who blogs from Minnesota), he's been saying that it's in the low 70's and feels more like fall than summer. Hence, I know what's coming.

And today, thank goodness, it's arrived. The sun is shining, the air is relatively dry, and it looks like a perfect day to do something outdoors like tending a garden, playing golf or just going for a walk. In Vermont, you have to take advantage of those days when you get them because we only get around 50 completely sunny days a year (on average) and half of those are when it's -10, so...

Of course, I have to work but I will, at least, be outdoors for a good part of it.

Still, it's only early July so the wet, humid, drippy stuff will be back - yes, Virginia, it does get nasty up here, even in the summertime. In fact, there are times when I prefer the cold, freezing temps of winter to the dreary, buggy humidity of summer. Everything gets clammy; your sheets stick to you, your clothes feel like the dryer quit halfway through its cycle, the floors sweat, making it dangerous to walk in the kitchen or bathroom, and the carpet absorbs so much moisture that any past feline or human indiscretion comes back to haunt your nose like Marley's Ghost.

Yes, a dehumidifier or air-conditioner would help but I can't afford the first and the second would have to be professionally installed, owing to the fact that I live in a town home that has a home owner's association that can't bear the thought of seeing the arse end of an AC unit sticking out of a tenant's window, so...

But today, it's truly, awesomely gorgeous. I'd better take a few minutes to enjoy it before it passes.

Perceptions

Over at the Dlbert Blog, Scott Adams poses a question:

Let’s say your spouse decides to cook you an extra special meal. It’s your favorite. It takes him/her a lot of work. You enjoy the meal and naturally offer to do the cleaning up by yourself.

But here’s the kicker: Your spouse loves to cook, and you hate to clean up, especially after a long day and a big meal. As you wipe down the table and wash the extra-high pile of pots and pans from the extra-special meal, which thought do you have?

1. My spouse gave me something special tonight.

2. I got screwed in this deal.

I have to confess that the scenario which popped into my mind immediately after reading this would lead me to answer "Both".

The scenario? Trying to get comfortable in the wet spot just after having sex.

First, They Came for Our Cars...

More global warming idiocy:

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.

Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.

D'oh!

Somehow, it all makes sense now. As Homer might say "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try".

Oh, wait...

Custom Cuts

Over at Word Around the Net, Christopher Taylor has an interesting post up about the movie, Blade Runner. The main point of the post is that - in this case, at least - the original, studio cut of the film is better than the Director's Cut that was issued on DVD a few years later. All of which brings up the question of who really does know best when it comes to an artistic creation.

The theatrical release of the film included a voice-over by Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard, the titular character assigned to terminate the replicants who have broken the law by coming to earth. The voice-over was designed to add more of a film-noir aspect to the movie and also help explain some of the narrative that might otherwise be confusing. The director, Ridley Scott, objected to the studio version and released his Director's Cut on DVD. The original did well at the box office and is considered a classic of the genre. The DVD has sold well, although my understanding is that a "definitive" version of the film won't be released until later this year.

So, which one is the better film?

Chris Taylor feels the studio release is better and, after watching the Director's Cut the other night, I would agree with him. But does that make us right? I mean, what is the criteria for judging? Is it strictly popularity? The truth is, neither version of the film is one of my favorites, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick the theatrical version as the one I liked better. The movie has a lot of things going for it: Interesting characters, good casting, excellent cinematography and groundbreaking special effects, and a story that makes you think.

However, it is remorselessly downbeat in its attitude, with a very bleak outlook on humanity and the future. The saving grace of the theatrical version - and the point of the studio interference, I think - is that it leaves you with the hope that Deckard and Rachael may somehow surmount their grim future or at least live their few remaining years with some measure of happiness. The ending of the Director's Cut reminds me of Alien 3, which, while also a well-made, well-told, visually arresting film, leaves you with an ending that makes you wonder why in the hell you ever invested any time or emotion in the characters to begin with.

But that's just me. So does that make my reaction to the director's version the right one? If 60% of the people who watch it agree with me, does that mean the director was clueless about his own film? I would argue that the point of any artistic work is to be read, seen, etc. but is it necessarily to be liked? Ridley Scott might very well respond to my reaction to his version and say "Well, guess what? That's the film I wanted to make and if you don't like it, tough rocks".

Of course, in Hollywood the name of the game is money and any film that doesn't make any (or enough) is, by definition, a failure. From that standpoint, the studio changes make sense because it led to a more successful release. But how would you feel if you wrote a story or made a film that became wildly popular only after someone else got hold of it and made changes to it that you didn't agree with?

Would you still feel like it was your story? And how much would that matter?

Yankee Doodle

A few years ago, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy tried to have Lake Champlain designated a "Great Lake". Now, no one actually believed - even in Vermont - that Lake Champlain qualifies for that status - I mean, look at a map, for crying out loud - but that wasn't the point. No, the reason was simple: money. Senator Leahy was trying to grab some of the funds the Feds dish out each year for the care and maintenance of the lakes, something which Lake Champlain needed then and still needs. Senator Leahy's attempt to have our lake designated "Great" failed and, as I like to point out to visitors to Vermont, what we have here is a "pretty good" lake.

Now, some might call the Senator's efforts noble, some might call them misguided but what no one can argue with is that he told a lie, or what the good Irish stock from which Leahy comes would call a "makeeup". Like the myth of the Lake Champlain Monster - called "Champ", naturally - Leahy tried to stretch the truth a bit to get what he wanted for his home state. And since stretching the truth and members of congress are not mutually exclusive terms, there no reason for any of us to be surprised or shocked by this.

So why bring it up? Glad you asked.

This past Sunday, Senator Leahy had the following exchange with host Tim Russert on "Meet the Press":

SEN. LEAHY: ...what I don’t want is this open-ended idea that they had at the White House, until the press found out about it, which would allow, for example, if they didn’t like some comment that you made on NBC, they could then go without any warrant, wiretap your phone, check out your bank account, surveil you. Well, we don’t want that in America.

MR. RUSSERT: Even if I had no contact with someone overseas?

SEN. LEAHY: Even if you had no contact with someone overseas under the broad way that they were talking about...I don’t want us to ever go back to the situation that we had 30 years ago when we put into place this FISA court, as you called it, where they were wiretapping somebody who disagreed with the government on the Vietnam war. In this case, somebody disagrees with the administration on the Iraq war, under their broad views, you could just go in and wiretap them. This, this is America. This is not a, this is not a dictatorship.

So Senator Leahy is concerned about domestic wiretapping and the stifling of political dissent. Fair enough. However, here is the Vice-President describing the program he's talking about:

"This notion [is] peddled out there by some that this is, quote, 'domestic surveillance' or 'domestic spying.' No, it's not. It is the interception of communications, one end of which is outside the United States, and one end of which, either outside the U.S. or inside, we have reason to believe is al-Qaeda-connected. Those are two pretty clear requirements, both of which need to be met."

Now, as James Taranto of Best of the Web points out, based on the above statement by the VP, Leahy's statement about the administration's intent with this program is either a "shocking revelation or a scurrilous charge" and the Senator should either back it up or stop making it up.

But then, maybe Senator Leahy still believes he's got a Great Lake to support.

Waiting

Okay, so a year ago today I posted this. A week from now the 5th movie will open and 8 days after that, the final book will appear. And I guess I'm reminded of the question posted last year:

Then what?

The series will be done (if Rowling sticks to her word). All the secrets will be revealed, we'll know who lives and who doesn't, and the story of the "boy who lived" will come full circle. For many of us, it will be Christmas in July. But no matter how good the final book is, there's going to be a letdown.

There are many wonderful "firsts" in life: your first kiss, your first time riding a bike, driving a car, etc. All of us can look back over our life and remember our "firsts", some of them good and some not-so-good, but all of them memorable and all of them unique. There is only one first time to do anything and while it may seem strange to put reading a book in the category, I think it fits.

I remember vividly being introduced to "The Lord of the Rings", for example, and my first Stephen King book (The Shining). I can remember my first introduction to so many wonderful writers: John D. Macdonald, James Ellroy, Richard Matheson, Elmore Leonard, Neal Stephenson, William Goldman, and on and on. There is nothing like the experience of having an author wrap you in his or her world for the first time, taking you by the hand and leading you into a land of love or terror or excitement - or maybe all of them at once - and all the time gently whispering in your ear "It's okay. I've got you. Don't worry. Just keep going." Like your father running alongside as you pedal furiously on your Schwinn and then, suddenly, he's not there and you're on your own, flying down the sidewalk, the threshold crossed, and now the new world is yours to make of what you will.

For the past couple of months, I've been re-reading all the Harry Potter books, in anticipation of the last. I've taken my time, lingering over certain passages, racing through others, and I'm now about a third of the way through Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. My goal is to finish it the day before the final book is released.

In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the moments leading up to the final book. Much of the joy of a thing is the anticipation of it; the waiting and wanting, the little tingle that runs through your skin when you think about it. For now, I will read all the stories and gossip and rumors that surround the book - that's all part of the fun. Once out, I will do my best to tune out all of the spoilers and reviews and savor the experience, linger over it, stretch it out for as long as I can.

After all, the first time only happens once.