www.clairecaterer.com
about Claire M. Caterer books by Claire M. Caterer blog with Claire M. Caterer Press for Claire M. Caterer Fun Extras with Claire M. Caterer Contact Claire M. Caterer Other Writing by Claire M. Caterer
NOTE: I don't post to this blog super-duper often anymore, because I'm busy writing, well, books. (Read more about that here.) For more up-to-date, day-to-day ramblings, visit my Facebook page.
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2014

Fun Friday: #BookadayUK No. 27



A final Friday contribution to #BookadayUK explores characters I'd like to be. These won't be a shock to anyone who's ever looked at this blog or anything else I've written. Ever.

BOOK A DAY No. 27: I Want to Be a Character in These Books

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Scholastic, 1997
Can I be Hermione? Please? I'm really good in school and my hair is sometimes a nightmare, so I'd fit right in. And I'd learn all the spells. Over summer holidays. Honest.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis
HarperCollins, 2006 (orig. 1952)
The only character to be is Lucy--she of the unshakeable faith. Also, my sister is prettier than I am, so again, I'm a natural. I want to look through the old magician's book all day.

The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett
Children's Classics, 1998 (orig. 1911)
I'm pretty bad at growing things, but I love gardens. And I want to meet all Dickon's animal friends. I can scowl with the best of them, so I'm a natural for Mary Lennox.
















Friday, May 16, 2014

Fun Friday: Dan Radcliffe Chats with JKR

Okay, another newsflash: I'm a huge fan of Harry Potter, both on the page and on film. (I know. Shocker.) This is one of the best behind-the-scenes videos I've seen (and I've seen many), in which Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe talks to Potter author J.K. Rowling about the books, the films, and the wild ride they both embarked on. Spoiler Alert: They do discuss things you won't want to hear if you've not read all 7 books.



Tuesday, February 11, 2014

CLAIRE, the CLAIRE Blog


Just a mini-rant. I promise.*

Let me state up front that I like LEGOs. I'm in favor of LEGOs. When my daughter was three years old, an astute grandma gave her a big set of LEGO blocks. They didn't have a theme or a movie tie-in; they were just random blocks with a couple of random LEGO people thrown in. They also came in a cool box with a sliding lid that doubled as a LEGO platform, with the little raised circles that LEGOs can bond to.

Genius. My kid played with that toy from age three till about age 13. No joke. Because there was no theme, no model to build, she used her imagination to create whatever she wanted. At age three, she made kitties (kind of weird-looking ones, to be honest). At 13, she was making whole scenes of stories from inside her head.

Later, we did get a couple of the Harry Potter-themed LEGO sets because she was wild about Harry and LEGOs, too. Those didn't have the long-term play value of the original set, but that was okay. I still approve of the idea.

What I don't get is how LEGO Harry Potter figures came to star in their own games. We have the original HP computer games. They're fun. The characters in the games look like Harry and Ron and Hermione. You can be Harry and learn spells and follow the stories. The wizards have more than two expressions on their faces. Fun.

And with the building sets, you can play with LEGO Harry and make your own scenes and stories. Fun.

But how does LEGO Harry branch off into his own animated world? And why does anyone care? I don't want to play a game in which Harry is reduced to a plastic block. And here's why this all came up: I don't get the LEGO movie, better known as The LEGO Movie. (Really? That's the title? Why yes, yes it is.) I love cool animation, whether traditional or computerized; I don't mind hearing Morgan Freeman's voice emerge from an animated figure. But an animated figure that's a representation of a toy figure ... I guess that's too far for my feeble brain to go. It's a layer of metareality I don't really understand, and frankly, I don't like it, either. We already dictate to kids how to play with their toys by making them more and more representational, and thus restrictive. A refrigerator box can be a rocket ship, a race car, a TARDIS, a clubhouse. But a race car is a race car. A LEGO Harry Potter is a LEGO Harry Potter. You can call him something else, but in your heart, you know what he is.

That said, I longed for representational toys when I was a kid. I wanted the "real" playhouse. My TV-fed brain would have eagerly lapped up toy versions of my favorite movie characters. But my imagination was better fed by the generic. And I'm glad now that it was.


And don't even get me started on the novelization of the film of the toys that don't represent anything real. And yeah, it's on the New York Times Best Seller List.

*SIGH*

*Yeah, I know. Promise broken. Sorry.


Friday, February 7, 2014

The Potter Blasphemy

Okay, so I know a lot of people were furious, teary-faced, and gnashing their teeth over J.K. Rowling's little reveal about the love life of Harry Potter last week. In case you've been living under a rock, or you've been lately hit with an Obliviate charm, here's what she said:
I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That's how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione with Ron. [...] In some ways Hermione and Harry are a better fit and I'll tell you something very strange. When I wrote Hallows, I felt this quite strongly when I had Hermione and Harry together in the tent! I hadn't told [screenwriter Steve] Kloves that and when he wrote the script he felt exactly the same thing at exactly the same point.
It's amazing to me that seven years after the end of the series, this announcement made headline news all over the place, reported not only by Entertainment Weekly but CNN and The Sunday Times. And the shippers rose up, as Rowling feared, in "rage and fury."

But as much as I hate to say it, I can see her point.

The thing is, I love Ron. He may have always been the second banana, but he's a crucial character. Harry was the hero, Hermione was the brain, and Ron was along for the ride--except that without him, both of the other two take themselves a wee bit too seriously. So of course I wanted Ron to end up with the girl of his dreams. And let's face it, he chose a girl somewhat like his mother--a bossy know-it-all. There's little doubt who runs the Ron Weasley household.

But it always nagged at me: Why does Hermione choose him? I don't know if she'd be better off with Harry, necessarily, but apart from the fact that Ron makes her laugh, what does he bring to the relationship? He's a good chum and all, but it seems more plausible that Hermione would find someone a bit more bookish to be her husband. And she and Ron fought so much. He was always going to feel inferior to her, and she was always going to let him think that was true.

It's a relationship forged in fire. What happens when that fire goes out, just as they enter adulthood? How would that affect the life they build together from that point forward, as they settle into the humdrum world of kids and laundry and bill paying? (Lord. You can see why no one wants to read about that.) And who the heck does Hermione talk to about all the great stuff she reads? Not Ron. And not Harry, either. Let's hope she has a book club or something.



To soften the blow a bit, Rowling adds:
They'll probably be fine [with some counseling]. He needs to work on his self-esteem issues and she needs to work on being a little less critical.

And yet, and yet. Maybe their shared experiences helped them grow out of these archetypes a little--the brainiac and the clown. I wonder if Hermione wouldn't have softened quite a bit already. We do see a lot of the necessary transformation happen in the series itself. Hermione is still bookish--she's the researcher, much like Willow Rosenberg on Buffy the Vampire Slayer--and Ron is still the funny second banana. But Hermione has seen the value of other traits, and Ron has seized his own destiny and made his own heroic choices. They've come through this experience quite different people from when they began.

So, like JKR, I love Ron and Hermione together, perhaps mostly out of sentiment. But I think there's a case to be made that they could stay together. What about you? Should Ron and Hermione have walked off into the sunset? Should Harry and Hermione? What about Ginny? (That's another blog post altogether. I was never wild about the Harry-Ginny pairing.) Tell me your thoughts, blogfrogs!