I was lulled into a false sense of security, believing that the closed classroom door was somehow an impenetrable barrier that my nightmares could not cross. Annoyances, idiocy, mild disturbances...I knew these could enter but I had grown so accustomed to their presence that I hadn't given my defenses a second thought. Adding to this complacence was the fact that it was halfway through our second meeting, a time when the roster and seating arrangement should have been entirely static. When the door creaked open whilst we were discussing the desperate tale of a slave girl, my eyes were greeted with a horrific sight.
The Beast stood at least six feet tall, broad at the shoulders and square in the jaw. Its bulging frame was poorly restrained by the unisex white undershirt tucked fiercely into the khaki capri pants. The Beast's muffin top strained for freedom, stretching and pushing at the fabric of the unwitting shirt-victim, billowing over the two-sizes-too-small short pants. As my eyes traveled up the hulking figure, I was horrified to find sagging orbs hanging nearly to the waistline, accentuated by the taut cotton covering. Two chins later, I discovered, to my great dismay, a wispy salt and pepper mustache speckled onto the Beast's upper lip. Said 'stache did nothing to mask the deep trenches of wrinkles that surrounded its mouth like tiny spokes of a wagon wheel.
The most terrifying feature of this thing did not become apparent until it began to approach the rear of the room, where (until this moment) I had been seated with relative comfort and safety. The Beast had moist, thin hair of the same color of its mustache. The hair had been parted in the middle and pulled back even tighter than the aforementioned t-shirt, constrained to two small pigtail-style buns at the base of the Beast's neck. As I gaped in horror at the sight before me, it opened its mouth and began to speak of signing up late, being on the new roster, and, pain of all pains, intending not only to remain but to return weekly. Not only was the content of this brief conversation scary beyond all measure, but also was the Beast's low and rasping voice, indicative of years of smoking, drinking, or both. The teeth, revealed only for short periods and not completely, were not white but a strange melange of grey and yellow.
I had yet to process the strange assortment of visual and auditory information when I realized the Beast was heading directly toward me. I stiffened, hoping that a lack of movement or breath would somehow disguise my presence. Thankfully, it passed, but my relief was short-lived. It took a seat directly behind me and then, as if to cause me the greatest possible discomfort, pulled its squeaky-wheeled chair up to within a foot of my own seat. I imagined I could feel the Beast's breath on the back of my neck, and though I am fairly certain this was a creation of my own, it still haunts me as though it were indeed reality.
The rest of the class seemed oblivious or otherwise indifferent to the Beast's presence, as if enormous trolls were known to roam these parts and occasionally join classrooms for a spell. They continued to discuss the story of the slave, citing pages from the novel and even engaging in conversation with the cursed creature. Each time it was addressed, the Beast would inhale a great breath, filling its massive lungs with the stench of my fear, and respond with remarkably syntactically-correct prose. It had undoubtedly spent many months, possibly years, living in the human world and attempting to pass as one of us. From what I can tell from the reactions of those around me, the Beast's plan was working.
Even now, as I reflect upon this incredible encounter, I count down the minutes until the next appointed time when I am to share a room with the Beast. It lurks in my mind, breaking into even my most peaceful thoughts and spreading a sickening fear through my heart. I know not whether I would be able to slay the Beast, as both my physical strength and intestinal fortitude would likely be insufficient for such an epic battle. Were I more like the great Odysseus, slaying monster and god alike, perhaps I would find the strength within and conquer that which scares me most. Given that I am far from Odysseus and his heroic brethren I must instead strive to survive the next few months with my body - and my sanity - intact. God help me.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Harry Potter 6: A Snippy Book-to-Film Review
**If you don't realize this will contain spoilers for everything about Harry Potter, you deserve to have the plot ruined for you.**
My first reaction upon seeing the credits appear at the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was, "Jesus, that was fast." Of course, not literally, given that the movie clocks in over two and a half hours (like its predecessors). But, for those who enjoy the most literal translations from text to film as I do, covering more than 650 pages in 153 minutes makes those minutes go by rather quickly. As has always been the case in these movies, excluding the first, the time Harry spends away from Hogwarts is trimmed down to the barest of minimums. Conversations between students, especially those who aren't of the main trifecta, are typically cut out or replaced with leaner, more to-the-point versions. Inner turmoil that spans dozens of pages of inner monologue is turned into a pensive look or heavy sigh.
While all of these changes make fanboys such as myself give our own pensive looks and heavy sighs, they typically do not harm the plot or overall feel of the movie. They detract from some of the depth of the original text, but that is to be expected with any adaptation, especially one with such lengthy and exposition-heavy source material. You can't just judge a movie based on how much is missing. There are, however, some cuts that are simply silly or unjustifiable.
The rushed beginning just sets a weird tone for the movie, at least for me. As has been the case for most of the films, the kids are back at Hogwarts within the first 15 or so minutes of the movie, while in the book Harry doesn't reach the steps of the castle until the bottom of page 161. 25% of the book becomes less than 10% of the movie. That's effed up. Without the exposition, asides, conversations, inner monologues, lengthy descriptions, and all that go with those, there is essentially no tone set for the story. Yes, we get it, London is grayer than usual. Diagon Alley is practically deserted. But why? I'm sure people can work out for themselves that "bad things are happening" in the world, but without the Ministry leaflets and shuffling parents and anxious families, it doesn't feel the same. Would it have been so hard to put a "U NO POO" sign on the Weasley storefront? And by the way, I still haven't forgotten that they never bothered to explain the founding of the shop and their start-up funding. Blergh.
When they get on the train, there are finally some things that go alright. Harry eavesdropping on Malfoy, while not as informative or incendiary as in the book, is an interesting scene and one of the only times Malfoy gets to say anything in the movie. For someone with such a key role in the climax of the film, you'd think they'd have bothered to give him more than 6 or 8 lines. And I'm not exaggerating either. He spends most of the movie frowning, looking withdrawn, or weeping like a little bitch. On the train, it's Luna that finds Harry instead of Tonks, which doesn't really change anything but leads to a personal problem I have with the cuts.
*deep breath*
WTF, movie makers?!? Are you so heartless that you seriously could not spend 20 seconds on the faltering romance between Tonks and Lupin? I know it wasn't addressed in the last movie, but Jesus, all of a sudden she's calling him "love" or something and we're just assuming they're together? Their turmoil is so interesting and so simple to throw into the story, and yet it went the way of the Marauder's Map in the third movie. Glossed over, morphed into something less complicated. Gah.
*exhalation*
That, of course, is just my personal preference. While their subplot is undoubtedly interesting, what with Tonks losing her transfigurative powers and changing her patronus, and Lupin going underground with the werewolves, it's not necessary to move the main story along. And boy did that story move. Once the students got to the school, the Fall-Winter-Spring progression was at a breakneck pace, as has been the case since at least movie #4. The Apparation training and tests, which helped to create a timeline and decent pacing in the book, are totally absent from the movie. Outside of the side-along version with Dumbledore towards the end, nobody under 25 Apparates anywhere. I don't know if, in the next movie, there will just be some throw-away line like Hermione says, "hey, it's really fortunate that we were able to learn how to Apparate over the summer, eh?" but we all know that would be bullshit. Or rather, it's going to be bullshit, since it's most certainly going to happen like that. Mark my words.
One thing I didn't particularly understand was an addition to the plot at the Burrow. Or rather, complete replacement of the scene at the Burrow. Over Christmas break, in the book, everyone enjoys a relaxing time at the Weasley residence and spends most of their time talking about the ominous events our in the world or otherwise complaining about Fleur Delacour. Except that apparently Bill and Charlie no longer matter, Fleur isn't with Bill or otherwise doesn't matter anymore, and Christmas wasn't exciting enough. In the movie, there are about two minutes of a calm evening before Bellatrix and Fenrir show up, trick Harry into chasing them, are forced to abort their unexplained mission, and then blow up the Weasley house. I'm not kidding. It's probably a total of three minutes long. They show up, lure Harry out into a random corn field, then leave and set fire to the Burrow on their way out. Why? WTF? What does David Yates have against the Weasley family? Worse still, this seems like a bit of mischief and not at all a planned assassination attempt. It wasn't exciting, and it wasn't necessary at all. For all of the cuts that appear to have been made in the name of expediting the plot or only keeping that which progresses the story, why does this addition matter?
Even more than this, I am annoyed by changes to the Malfoy Mission subplot. In the book, Harry suspects Malfoy of some misdeed, and we are left to wonder to what extent he is just obsessing. We know, for example, that Malfoy has been given a task by Lord Voldemort and that Snape has promised to aid him, but the nature and extent of this task are unknown to us until the plan comes to fruition at the end of the book. In the movie, however, we see Malfoy looking specifically at the vanishing cabinet at Borgin & Burkes right at the beginning, then at the vanishing cabinet in the Room of Requirement not long after that. We see what room he's using, for what purpose, and even those unfamiliar with the plot should be able to figure out how the cabinets work WAAAAY before the big reveal should have taken place.
Along with this change comes a shift in the way this plot connects to Harry throughout the year. Instead of being chastised (most often by Hermione) for obsessing over Malfoy and not focusing on his studies (which, btw, are entirely absent...it's like they're not even in school), Harry is made to seem only occasionally interested in Draco's actions. It seems like he cares what Malfoy is up to when there's not a lot else going on. Sadly, this also leaves no room for my absolute favorite line in the entire series of novels: "I need to know what Draco Malfoy is doing inside you." That's what she said.
When Malfoy's plan finally works and the Death Eaters enter the school, perhaps the foulest crime of all is commited. There is NO battle. None. No teachers, students, aurors, or ANYONE is involved in any kind of skirmish. If Harry hadn't been present for the Death Eaters' arrival, I would say no one would have even known anything had happened until morning. It was a stealth operation and it was REALLY FUCKING BORING. None of Harry's friends took the Felix Felicis potion to avoid being hit by spells, no Order members arrived to fight the Death Eaters, and Bill isn't mauled by Fenrir Greyback. Of course, since Bill and Fleur and Charlie are all apparently the lesser Weasleys, that isn't a huge loss to the movie, but it certainly matters to me. Bill's injury is the event that sets up the reveal of Tonks' refused affections for Lupin (which doesn't take place in the film, so needn't occur). Overall, this scene was cut so short and had so little an effect that it barely needed to have happened at all. If you're going to have Malfoy working on a plan for two hours of movie time, at least give the boy a chance to have a big finale with it.
An omission that only bothered me a little but still bears mentioning is the lack of mention of the Minister of Magic. Though the appointing of a new minister appears as a headline on the Daily Prophet, Rufus Scrimgeour as a character doesn't appear, Fudge and Scrimgeour don't meet with the "other Minister", and Scrimgeour doesn't meet with Harry to try to "convert" him to be on the Ministry's side. Without this conversation, Harry does not get to proclaim that he is "Dumbledore's man, through and through", which I always thought made the last 50 pages of the book matter a whole lot more (and give additional meaning to his turmoil throughout book 7).
The relationship between Harry and Dumbledore seems strange anyway. They are clearly closer than student and headmaster, but Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore has never tickled my fancy; specifically, I never got the sense that Dumbledore of Azkaban and on had the same churning history and goofy personality as that of the novels' and even of Richard Harris' Dumbledore. The Dumbledore of The Half-Blood Prince doesn't strike me as someone who might have "acid pops" as his office door's password. Of course it is a waste of space to lament to replacement of actors, given that both the original actor and the character are dead, but it still leaves something to be desired, at least for me.
Given this emotional void, I would have really liked to see Dumbledore's funeral. His notoriety/fame/reveredness in the magical community has been toned down to nonexistence in the movies, so it would have meant something to see wizards and witches from the world over paying their respects. But instead we got a wand-light vigil. Which was touching, but insufficient. I planned to cry at the end of this movie and didn't. I cry at both books five and six, and god help me I wail throughout half of book 7, and yet I have never shed a tear at one of these movies. This is from the person who will cry at almost any work of fiction. I've cried for episodes of CSI and ER for chrissakes, and this beloved tale of a wizard can't squeeze a single drop from my ducts? Shameful.
There is one subplot that I was glad to see go, however; the whole Gaunts thing was a great backstory with no bearing on anything. As academically interesting as I find Voldemort's family history, it really doesn't matter for any reason. Once Dumbledore can explain the origin of the black ring, the whole Gaunt family becomes moot. Sure, it would have been interesting to hear about Merope's love for a muggle who despised her and left her while she was pregnant, and it would have been interesting to hear about her death, and it would have been interesting to hear about the teenage Tom Riddle's journey to his hometown to kill his father's family and blame his crazy uncle, but these are anecdotes to me. If they had been included in the movie, I might have lobbied for their replacement with more substantial scenes.
Speaking of lobbying for more substantial scenes, how much of Lavender do we need to see before we get it? Yeah, okay, she loves Ron and Hermione's pissed. Check. I think we got that after about 15 seconds. Did we need to devote so much time and effort to pound that baby into the ground? As much as that stuff provided some desperately-needed comic relief, I found myself getting quickly annoyed with Lavender's frequent appearances in favor of missing plot points concerning Ginny, Quidditch (again underused and underrepresented compared to the book), Slughorn, Voldemort, Dumbledore, or even Hagrid. He's in the movie for like 10 seconds, and at the end we're led to believe he could be dead until he appears at the scene of Dumbledore's death. I think Yates has a grudge against Hagrid just like he does against the Weasleys.
There were other very minor things that I missed or disliked but can't take too much issue with. The Dursleys are absent from the movie, but I didn't really miss them...though I would have liked to see beverages gently assaulting them on their heads. Madam Rosmerta isn't really seen, nor has she been placed under the Imperius curse. Stan Shunpike hasn't been arrested nor has Mundungus Fletcher been stealing Sirius' things. Well, technically they're Harry's inherited possessions, but since the issue of Sirius' will is never addressed, we don't know that they belong to Harry. How they intend to square that with the threesome's use of 12 Grimmauld Place throughout the beginning of the next movie remains to be seen. Knowing this director, they'll skip directly to camping. Goddamned cuts.
Overall, I found this movie to be lacking in the same way that 4 and especially 5 were. Some cuts were brutal, others didn't make sense, and some additions were confusing and annoying. As films, they work fine and I'm sure will be more enjoyable to watch now that I've gotten this out of my system, but I still find them to be rushed and too focused on streamlining the plot down to the bare essentials. I find myself disagreeing on what those bare essentials are and I'm annoyed that half of the omissions from the movie dictate what cannot possibly work in the remaining two films. While I enjoyed book six, it is not my favorite; book seven, however, is tied for the top spot (with either book 3 or 5, depending on the day). If they fuck up these last movies, I'll lose it. I swear to god.
Questions:
☼ How will the next movie open, if the Burrow is destroyed and Bill & Fleur are not getting married?
☼ Will Harry sever ties with Ginny before leaving on his mission or will they just pine for each other the whole time?
☼ Will Lupin and Tonks have a baby?
☼ Will Mad-Eye Moody, Lupin, Tonks, Fred, Dobby, Hedwig, Crabbe, and Colin Creevey all die in the next movies?
Predictions:
☼ At least two or three of the deaths listed above will not occur. Dobby and Colin Creevey come to mind, and possibly Crabbe. Given Dobby's excision from the movies since book 2, the writers may be conjuring a different deus ex machina to get our folks out of the Malfoys' basement.
☼ The Dumbledore-Grindelwald story will be trimmed almost into nonexistence. Dumbledore's sexuality might be hinted at (more than in the books, anyway) but will not be overtly revealed.
☼ The scene at Bathilda Bagshot's house will be WAY less cool than it is in the book. It will seem like far less of a close call.
☼ The frequent issues of wands being broken, lost, replaced with inferior ones, and disobeying their owners will be pushed to the background or forgotten. Harry's wand might break but it will not be the heart-wrenching loss it is in the book.
☼ The exposition-heavy trip to the Lovegood residence will be replaced by a 2-minute conversation about the Hallows. There will be no explosion.
☼ The Kreacher subplot with Regulus' locket will be trimmed down significantly or cut. This is in line with the removal of house elves and SPEW from most of the movies.
☼ Scenes at 12 Grimmauld Place will total less than 20 minutes in the films.
If all the above predictions come true, the pair of movies could still be excellent, but I'm still hoping for a closer adaptation given the freedom to work within two lengthy movies. Imagine the shit that could have made it into The Half-Blood Prince if there were another 2+ hours.
On that note, I think I've said all I needed to say. I hope, after this, I can begin to enjoy the movie. It wasn't that bad, you know.
My first reaction upon seeing the credits appear at the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was, "Jesus, that was fast." Of course, not literally, given that the movie clocks in over two and a half hours (like its predecessors). But, for those who enjoy the most literal translations from text to film as I do, covering more than 650 pages in 153 minutes makes those minutes go by rather quickly. As has always been the case in these movies, excluding the first, the time Harry spends away from Hogwarts is trimmed down to the barest of minimums. Conversations between students, especially those who aren't of the main trifecta, are typically cut out or replaced with leaner, more to-the-point versions. Inner turmoil that spans dozens of pages of inner monologue is turned into a pensive look or heavy sigh.
While all of these changes make fanboys such as myself give our own pensive looks and heavy sighs, they typically do not harm the plot or overall feel of the movie. They detract from some of the depth of the original text, but that is to be expected with any adaptation, especially one with such lengthy and exposition-heavy source material. You can't just judge a movie based on how much is missing. There are, however, some cuts that are simply silly or unjustifiable.
The rushed beginning just sets a weird tone for the movie, at least for me. As has been the case for most of the films, the kids are back at Hogwarts within the first 15 or so minutes of the movie, while in the book Harry doesn't reach the steps of the castle until the bottom of page 161. 25% of the book becomes less than 10% of the movie. That's effed up. Without the exposition, asides, conversations, inner monologues, lengthy descriptions, and all that go with those, there is essentially no tone set for the story. Yes, we get it, London is grayer than usual. Diagon Alley is practically deserted. But why? I'm sure people can work out for themselves that "bad things are happening" in the world, but without the Ministry leaflets and shuffling parents and anxious families, it doesn't feel the same. Would it have been so hard to put a "U NO POO" sign on the Weasley storefront? And by the way, I still haven't forgotten that they never bothered to explain the founding of the shop and their start-up funding. Blergh.
When they get on the train, there are finally some things that go alright. Harry eavesdropping on Malfoy, while not as informative or incendiary as in the book, is an interesting scene and one of the only times Malfoy gets to say anything in the movie. For someone with such a key role in the climax of the film, you'd think they'd have bothered to give him more than 6 or 8 lines. And I'm not exaggerating either. He spends most of the movie frowning, looking withdrawn, or weeping like a little bitch. On the train, it's Luna that finds Harry instead of Tonks, which doesn't really change anything but leads to a personal problem I have with the cuts.
*deep breath*
WTF, movie makers?!? Are you so heartless that you seriously could not spend 20 seconds on the faltering romance between Tonks and Lupin? I know it wasn't addressed in the last movie, but Jesus, all of a sudden she's calling him "love" or something and we're just assuming they're together? Their turmoil is so interesting and so simple to throw into the story, and yet it went the way of the Marauder's Map in the third movie. Glossed over, morphed into something less complicated. Gah.
*exhalation*
That, of course, is just my personal preference. While their subplot is undoubtedly interesting, what with Tonks losing her transfigurative powers and changing her patronus, and Lupin going underground with the werewolves, it's not necessary to move the main story along. And boy did that story move. Once the students got to the school, the Fall-Winter-Spring progression was at a breakneck pace, as has been the case since at least movie #4. The Apparation training and tests, which helped to create a timeline and decent pacing in the book, are totally absent from the movie. Outside of the side-along version with Dumbledore towards the end, nobody under 25 Apparates anywhere. I don't know if, in the next movie, there will just be some throw-away line like Hermione says, "hey, it's really fortunate that we were able to learn how to Apparate over the summer, eh?" but we all know that would be bullshit. Or rather, it's going to be bullshit, since it's most certainly going to happen like that. Mark my words.
One thing I didn't particularly understand was an addition to the plot at the Burrow. Or rather, complete replacement of the scene at the Burrow. Over Christmas break, in the book, everyone enjoys a relaxing time at the Weasley residence and spends most of their time talking about the ominous events our in the world or otherwise complaining about Fleur Delacour. Except that apparently Bill and Charlie no longer matter, Fleur isn't with Bill or otherwise doesn't matter anymore, and Christmas wasn't exciting enough. In the movie, there are about two minutes of a calm evening before Bellatrix and Fenrir show up, trick Harry into chasing them, are forced to abort their unexplained mission, and then blow up the Weasley house. I'm not kidding. It's probably a total of three minutes long. They show up, lure Harry out into a random corn field, then leave and set fire to the Burrow on their way out. Why? WTF? What does David Yates have against the Weasley family? Worse still, this seems like a bit of mischief and not at all a planned assassination attempt. It wasn't exciting, and it wasn't necessary at all. For all of the cuts that appear to have been made in the name of expediting the plot or only keeping that which progresses the story, why does this addition matter?
Even more than this, I am annoyed by changes to the Malfoy Mission subplot. In the book, Harry suspects Malfoy of some misdeed, and we are left to wonder to what extent he is just obsessing. We know, for example, that Malfoy has been given a task by Lord Voldemort and that Snape has promised to aid him, but the nature and extent of this task are unknown to us until the plan comes to fruition at the end of the book. In the movie, however, we see Malfoy looking specifically at the vanishing cabinet at Borgin & Burkes right at the beginning, then at the vanishing cabinet in the Room of Requirement not long after that. We see what room he's using, for what purpose, and even those unfamiliar with the plot should be able to figure out how the cabinets work WAAAAY before the big reveal should have taken place.
Along with this change comes a shift in the way this plot connects to Harry throughout the year. Instead of being chastised (most often by Hermione) for obsessing over Malfoy and not focusing on his studies (which, btw, are entirely absent...it's like they're not even in school), Harry is made to seem only occasionally interested in Draco's actions. It seems like he cares what Malfoy is up to when there's not a lot else going on. Sadly, this also leaves no room for my absolute favorite line in the entire series of novels: "I need to know what Draco Malfoy is doing inside you." That's what she said.
When Malfoy's plan finally works and the Death Eaters enter the school, perhaps the foulest crime of all is commited. There is NO battle. None. No teachers, students, aurors, or ANYONE is involved in any kind of skirmish. If Harry hadn't been present for the Death Eaters' arrival, I would say no one would have even known anything had happened until morning. It was a stealth operation and it was REALLY FUCKING BORING. None of Harry's friends took the Felix Felicis potion to avoid being hit by spells, no Order members arrived to fight the Death Eaters, and Bill isn't mauled by Fenrir Greyback. Of course, since Bill and Fleur and Charlie are all apparently the lesser Weasleys, that isn't a huge loss to the movie, but it certainly matters to me. Bill's injury is the event that sets up the reveal of Tonks' refused affections for Lupin (which doesn't take place in the film, so needn't occur). Overall, this scene was cut so short and had so little an effect that it barely needed to have happened at all. If you're going to have Malfoy working on a plan for two hours of movie time, at least give the boy a chance to have a big finale with it.
An omission that only bothered me a little but still bears mentioning is the lack of mention of the Minister of Magic. Though the appointing of a new minister appears as a headline on the Daily Prophet, Rufus Scrimgeour as a character doesn't appear, Fudge and Scrimgeour don't meet with the "other Minister", and Scrimgeour doesn't meet with Harry to try to "convert" him to be on the Ministry's side. Without this conversation, Harry does not get to proclaim that he is "Dumbledore's man, through and through", which I always thought made the last 50 pages of the book matter a whole lot more (and give additional meaning to his turmoil throughout book 7).
The relationship between Harry and Dumbledore seems strange anyway. They are clearly closer than student and headmaster, but Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore has never tickled my fancy; specifically, I never got the sense that Dumbledore of Azkaban and on had the same churning history and goofy personality as that of the novels' and even of Richard Harris' Dumbledore. The Dumbledore of The Half-Blood Prince doesn't strike me as someone who might have "acid pops" as his office door's password. Of course it is a waste of space to lament to replacement of actors, given that both the original actor and the character are dead, but it still leaves something to be desired, at least for me.
Given this emotional void, I would have really liked to see Dumbledore's funeral. His notoriety/fame/reveredness in the magical community has been toned down to nonexistence in the movies, so it would have meant something to see wizards and witches from the world over paying their respects. But instead we got a wand-light vigil. Which was touching, but insufficient. I planned to cry at the end of this movie and didn't. I cry at both books five and six, and god help me I wail throughout half of book 7, and yet I have never shed a tear at one of these movies. This is from the person who will cry at almost any work of fiction. I've cried for episodes of CSI and ER for chrissakes, and this beloved tale of a wizard can't squeeze a single drop from my ducts? Shameful.
There is one subplot that I was glad to see go, however; the whole Gaunts thing was a great backstory with no bearing on anything. As academically interesting as I find Voldemort's family history, it really doesn't matter for any reason. Once Dumbledore can explain the origin of the black ring, the whole Gaunt family becomes moot. Sure, it would have been interesting to hear about Merope's love for a muggle who despised her and left her while she was pregnant, and it would have been interesting to hear about her death, and it would have been interesting to hear about the teenage Tom Riddle's journey to his hometown to kill his father's family and blame his crazy uncle, but these are anecdotes to me. If they had been included in the movie, I might have lobbied for their replacement with more substantial scenes.
Speaking of lobbying for more substantial scenes, how much of Lavender do we need to see before we get it? Yeah, okay, she loves Ron and Hermione's pissed. Check. I think we got that after about 15 seconds. Did we need to devote so much time and effort to pound that baby into the ground? As much as that stuff provided some desperately-needed comic relief, I found myself getting quickly annoyed with Lavender's frequent appearances in favor of missing plot points concerning Ginny, Quidditch (again underused and underrepresented compared to the book), Slughorn, Voldemort, Dumbledore, or even Hagrid. He's in the movie for like 10 seconds, and at the end we're led to believe he could be dead until he appears at the scene of Dumbledore's death. I think Yates has a grudge against Hagrid just like he does against the Weasleys.
There were other very minor things that I missed or disliked but can't take too much issue with. The Dursleys are absent from the movie, but I didn't really miss them...though I would have liked to see beverages gently assaulting them on their heads. Madam Rosmerta isn't really seen, nor has she been placed under the Imperius curse. Stan Shunpike hasn't been arrested nor has Mundungus Fletcher been stealing Sirius' things. Well, technically they're Harry's inherited possessions, but since the issue of Sirius' will is never addressed, we don't know that they belong to Harry. How they intend to square that with the threesome's use of 12 Grimmauld Place throughout the beginning of the next movie remains to be seen. Knowing this director, they'll skip directly to camping. Goddamned cuts.
Overall, I found this movie to be lacking in the same way that 4 and especially 5 were. Some cuts were brutal, others didn't make sense, and some additions were confusing and annoying. As films, they work fine and I'm sure will be more enjoyable to watch now that I've gotten this out of my system, but I still find them to be rushed and too focused on streamlining the plot down to the bare essentials. I find myself disagreeing on what those bare essentials are and I'm annoyed that half of the omissions from the movie dictate what cannot possibly work in the remaining two films. While I enjoyed book six, it is not my favorite; book seven, however, is tied for the top spot (with either book 3 or 5, depending on the day). If they fuck up these last movies, I'll lose it. I swear to god.
Questions:
☼ How will the next movie open, if the Burrow is destroyed and Bill & Fleur are not getting married?
☼ Will Harry sever ties with Ginny before leaving on his mission or will they just pine for each other the whole time?
☼ Will Lupin and Tonks have a baby?
☼ Will Mad-Eye Moody, Lupin, Tonks, Fred, Dobby, Hedwig, Crabbe, and Colin Creevey all die in the next movies?
Predictions:
☼ At least two or three of the deaths listed above will not occur. Dobby and Colin Creevey come to mind, and possibly Crabbe. Given Dobby's excision from the movies since book 2, the writers may be conjuring a different deus ex machina to get our folks out of the Malfoys' basement.
☼ The Dumbledore-Grindelwald story will be trimmed almost into nonexistence. Dumbledore's sexuality might be hinted at (more than in the books, anyway) but will not be overtly revealed.
☼ The scene at Bathilda Bagshot's house will be WAY less cool than it is in the book. It will seem like far less of a close call.
☼ The frequent issues of wands being broken, lost, replaced with inferior ones, and disobeying their owners will be pushed to the background or forgotten. Harry's wand might break but it will not be the heart-wrenching loss it is in the book.
☼ The exposition-heavy trip to the Lovegood residence will be replaced by a 2-minute conversation about the Hallows. There will be no explosion.
☼ The Kreacher subplot with Regulus' locket will be trimmed down significantly or cut. This is in line with the removal of house elves and SPEW from most of the movies.
☼ Scenes at 12 Grimmauld Place will total less than 20 minutes in the films.
If all the above predictions come true, the pair of movies could still be excellent, but I'm still hoping for a closer adaptation given the freedom to work within two lengthy movies. Imagine the shit that could have made it into The Half-Blood Prince if there were another 2+ hours.
On that note, I think I've said all I needed to say. I hope, after this, I can begin to enjoy the movie. It wasn't that bad, you know.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Charactonyms in the Harry Potter series
Charactonyms, or character names that reveal the traits of their respective characters, are standard fare for children's fiction. The same is true for the Harry Potter series of books, which contains dozens of charactonyms, as well as objects and concepts with similar naming qualities. Beyond naming the main characters with such deliberate care, J.K. Rowling took the same measures with minor characters, artifacts, spells, and nicknames. Although some of the charactonyms are glaringly obvious, many provide further insight into how Rowling envisions her characters and their inner natures.
Perhaps the most obvious charactonym in the series is Malfoy, specifically Draco
. Draco is Latin for dragon, and Malfoy is derived from the French for "bad faith" or "unfaithful". As if being named Draco weren't clear enough, his last name begins with a word that means "bad" in half a dozen languages. Lucius, Draco's father, has a name that means "bright", but is also related to Lucifer. Lucius' wife, Narcissa (née Black), is clearly named after Narcissus or narcissism itself, implying the qualities of self-infatuation and egotism. According to the epilogue in Book Seven, Draco and his wife have a son named Scorpius, which settles in neatly to the family's typical name scheme. Given their surname, it is no surprise that the Malfoys come off as flawed, even evil, monsters.
Although less certain than the etymologies of the Malfoy family names, Voldemort's name carries with it intriguing possible interpretations. In several languages, parts or the whole of the name mean "dark wizard" or "evil", with "mort" meaning "death". In French, "volee de mort" means "flight of death". His given name, Tom Marvolo Riddle, has several potential meanings, many of them negative. Marvolo, his middle name (and the name of his grandfather), is likely based on the character from Twelfth Night named Malvolio, a servant who craves power and shuns others for being less "pure" than he is. Malvolio is teased and tortured throughout the play by the other servants in the household, and Malvolio swears at the end of the play that he will have his revenge. This vengeful nature, along with humble beginnings, may be the closest connection to the man who would later take the name Voldemort.
The negative names continue even into the muggle world, particularly with the Dursleys. Although their first names do not have necessarily bad connotations, the last name comes from a town in England that Rowling once visited and hated. (Knowing how universally hated the Dursleys are, Rowling suspects she is not popular in the real-life town of the same name.) Most of the other muggles in the books, which are surprisingly numerous, have generic or neutral names. This lackluster series of names could be due to the fact that most of the muggles play minor roles in the books, or just because one doesn't find many "Dedalus Diggle"s outside of the wizarding world.
Within the wizarding world, there are many younger wizards with carefully-chosen names. Hermione Granger, one of Harry's best friends and later Ron's wife, was given a unique first name that, according to Rowling, was chosen specifically to prevent many young girls from being teased (given the uncommon nature of the name). Hermione comes from several legends and texts, including Shakespeare, and typically refers to a strong female character with relationship issues; in one case, Hermione is believed to have cheated on her husband (like Ron believed she was cheating with Harry in Book Seven) and another Hermione was sought by two men simultaneously (like Hermione Granger was sought by both Viktor Krum and Ron). Granger is another word for farmer, which might be an allusion to Hermione's muggle origins.
Harry's other best friend, Ron Weasley, has a more direct purpose behind his first name. Ronald comes from root words meaning "advisor to the leader", which is often Ron's role in the books. He supports Harry in nearly every case, and though his advice is not always cool-headed, he tries his best to stand by Harry and help him through the various challenges they meet in and out of school. According to Rowling, the last name Weasley, a clear reference to a weasel, was chosen specifically because Rowling had always had a fascination with the creatures and felt they were maligned. She connects this misperception with the assumption that redheads are somehow unlucky or bad in some way, a sentiment with which she also disagrees.
Rowling's choices for other members of the Weasley family often include Arthurian legend; indeed, Arthur, the head of the family, is named after King Arthur. Ginny, whose full name is Ginevra, is named after Guinevere and Percy, full name Percival, is named after a knight of the round table. Fred, George, Bill, Charlie, and Molly (a Weasley by marriage) have common English names with less glamorous histories, though many famous figures from the past share these names.
As generic as some of the Weasley names are, they are bizarre compared to Rowling's plain choice for her protagonist. Harry James Potter, the titular character of the series, has very little history attached to his name (at least, specifically). Harry comes from the name Henry, whose root means "ruler of the home". James comes from the name Jacob, a character in the Bible who is the second born of twins and whose name means "holds the heel". Potter, a common English surname, was likely chosen because of its generic nature and possibly as an homage to Beatrix Potter, the famed author. Compared to Harry's friends' names, which are steeped in history, Harry's is simply plain.
The names of Harry's teachers at Hogwarts tend to be far more interesting than Harry's own. Minerva McGonagall, for example, is named after the Roman goddess of wisdom (many of Rowling's choices for names are inspired by or directly taken from Greek and Roman legends, as well as constellations). Alastor Moody, in addition to being often moody, displays the qualities noted by the history of his given name: Alastor means "defender of mankind" or "avenger". Aurora Sinastra, the astronomy teacher, has both a first and last name dealing with stars and their movement. Septima Vector, Hermione's arithmancy teacher, is defined by his subject as well; arithmancy is essentially numerology, and Septima contains the prefix meaning "seven", while Vector is a mathematical term. Charity Burbage, the muggle studies teacher, is constantly advocating for equality and fair treatment of muggles (which, some would argue, is quite charitable of her).
Professor Albus Dumbledore (full name Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore) has an origin story for each of his names. It is believed that his names taken together may represent the British Isles. Albus could be the male version of Alba, an ancient name for Scotland. Percival, as we know from the Weasley family, is the name of an Arthurian knight. Wulfric, meaning "wolf power", may trace its origins to the same roots as those of Beowulf, the legendary British warrior in the epic of the same name. Brian is the name of an Irish high king, though many believe that this name was chosen to function as a humorous "straight" name compared to Dumbledore's other more ridiculous names. Finally, his last name is an old English word for bumblebee, chosen because Rowling can see him "flitting about the castle humming to himself." Although the individual names do not necessarily reveal a great deal about Dumbledore, his lengthy and grand-sounding name certainly lends itself to his incredible reputation and larger-than-life character.
Possibly the most obvious teacher name is that of Remus Lupin, Harry's third year Defense Against the Dark Arts professor. Remus is the name of one of the two wolf brothers that founded Rome. Lupin comes from the root word meaning moon. Even though the plain meaning of the name is never addressed in the books, Hermione eventually discovered Lupin's identity as a werewolf; one can only hope she at least got an inkling of an idea from his name. The only other prominent werewolf in the series, Fenrir Greyback, likely gets his first name from Fenrisulfr, a large wolf in Norse mythology.
Like Fenrir, several "bad guys" in the books have pointed charactonyms. Dolores Umbridge, for example, is hit twice with negative connotations: "dolor" means "pain" and the English word "umbrage" means "insult". Severus Snape, who is one of Harry's worst enemies for the bulk of the series, gets his first name from the Latin word for "stern" or "severe". "Snape", a verb in English, means "to rebuke or be hard upon". Given Snape's frequently harsh and overly-strict treatment of Harry throughout Harry's time at Hogwarts, these names seem appropriate.
There is one bumbling teacher, however, who also deserves mentioning. Gilderoy Lockhart, Harry;s second year Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, gets his first name from the word for "gilded", or covered in gold. This term is often used to refer to a worthless item that has been covered in a layer of gold to make it appear more valuable; considering Lockhart's sole skill, that of bewitching wizards to steal their memories and claim their adventures, he does seem to be "gilded" in a manner of speaking.
In addition to this vast list of characters, several objects or concepts were clearly named in a deliberate fashion. The term horcrux, meaning an object into which a wizard has placed a piece of his soul, seems to have its origins in two French words meaning "outside" and "essence". Hogwarts, the name of Harry's school, is said to come from a plant called "hogwart" that Rowling saw, though it is also possibly from the movie The Labyrinth, when David Bowie's character mistakenly calls his goblin servant Hoggle by the name of "Hogwart". The four houses in Hogwarts are obviously named, with the snake-related house being called Slytherin and the raven-related house being called Ravenclaw. Perhaps even less creatively named, Diagon Alley just simply a split of the word "diagonally", though pronounced differently.
In addition to houses and objects, many spells in the series are permutations of Latin or obscure English words. Spells like "obliviate" for memory removal, "aguamenti" for producing water, and "expelliarmus" for disarming an opponent all come from clear English or romance language
origins (oblivion, agua, and expel arms). Others, like "wingardium leviosa", are dolled-up versions of English words, in this case "wing" and "levitate". The summoning charm "accio" is from the Latin for "I summon". More than half of all the known spells in the series come from Latin roots. The most-feared killing curse, "avada kedavra", gets its origins as the original pronunciation of the "real world" spell abracadabra. Rowling says that her research noted it meant "let the thing be destroyed", which, for the killing curse, means the casting wizard's opponent.
Like the bulk of the of spells, many of these terms get their names from English and Latin origins, although there are a considerable number with different histories. Several constellations and celestial bodies are turned into names (Sirius, the dog star, for one), and Roman and Greek figures are transmuted into teachers and parents. Though some names take their origins from mundane sources (Granger), others have more obscure and interesting histories (Voldemort). Despite the wide range in backgrounds and etymologies for the names and terms used in the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling clearly took a great deal of time to add depth and dimension to the characters that she (and we) have loved so well.
~
[Many thanks to harrypotter.wikia.com for being so incredibly nerdy and exacting.]
Perhaps the most obvious charactonym in the series is Malfoy, specifically Draco
. Draco is Latin for dragon, and Malfoy is derived from the French for "bad faith" or "unfaithful". As if being named Draco weren't clear enough, his last name begins with a word that means "bad" in half a dozen languages. Lucius, Draco's father, has a name that means "bright", but is also related to Lucifer. Lucius' wife, Narcissa (née Black), is clearly named after Narcissus or narcissism itself, implying the qualities of self-infatuation and egotism. According to the epilogue in Book Seven, Draco and his wife have a son named Scorpius, which settles in neatly to the family's typical name scheme. Given their surname, it is no surprise that the Malfoys come off as flawed, even evil, monsters.Although less certain than the etymologies of the Malfoy family names, Voldemort's name carries with it intriguing possible interpretations. In several languages, parts or the whole of the name mean "dark wizard" or "evil", with "mort" meaning "death". In French, "volee de mort" means "flight of death". His given name, Tom Marvolo Riddle, has several potential meanings, many of them negative. Marvolo, his middle name (and the name of his grandfather), is likely based on the character from Twelfth Night named Malvolio, a servant who craves power and shuns others for being less "pure" than he is. Malvolio is teased and tortured throughout the play by the other servants in the household, and Malvolio swears at the end of the play that he will have his revenge. This vengeful nature, along with humble beginnings, may be the closest connection to the man who would later take the name Voldemort.
The negative names continue even into the muggle world, particularly with the Dursleys. Although their first names do not have necessarily bad connotations, the last name comes from a town in England that Rowling once visited and hated. (Knowing how universally hated the Dursleys are, Rowling suspects she is not popular in the real-life town of the same name.) Most of the other muggles in the books, which are surprisingly numerous, have generic or neutral names. This lackluster series of names could be due to the fact that most of the muggles play minor roles in the books, or just because one doesn't find many "Dedalus Diggle"s outside of the wizarding world.
Within the wizarding world, there are many younger wizards with carefully-chosen names. Hermione Granger, one of Harry's best friends and later Ron's wife, was given a unique first name that, according to Rowling, was chosen specifically to prevent many young girls from being teased (given the uncommon nature of the name). Hermione comes from several legends and texts, including Shakespeare, and typically refers to a strong female character with relationship issues; in one case, Hermione is believed to have cheated on her husband (like Ron believed she was cheating with Harry in Book Seven) and another Hermione was sought by two men simultaneously (like Hermione Granger was sought by both Viktor Krum and Ron). Granger is another word for farmer, which might be an allusion to Hermione's muggle origins.
Harry's other best friend, Ron Weasley, has a more direct purpose behind his first name. Ronald comes from root words meaning "advisor to the leader", which is often Ron's role in the books. He supports Harry in nearly every case, and though his advice is not always cool-headed, he tries his best to stand by Harry and help him through the various challenges they meet in and out of school. According to Rowling, the last name Weasley, a clear reference to a weasel, was chosen specifically because Rowling had always had a fascination with the creatures and felt they were maligned. She connects this misperception with the assumption that redheads are somehow unlucky or bad in some way, a sentiment with which she also disagrees.
Rowling's choices for other members of the Weasley family often include Arthurian legend; indeed, Arthur, the head of the family, is named after King Arthur. Ginny, whose full name is Ginevra, is named after Guinevere and Percy, full name Percival, is named after a knight of the round table. Fred, George, Bill, Charlie, and Molly (a Weasley by marriage) have common English names with less glamorous histories, though many famous figures from the past share these names.
As generic as some of the Weasley names are, they are bizarre compared to Rowling's plain choice for her protagonist. Harry James Potter, the titular character of the series, has very little history attached to his name (at least, specifically). Harry comes from the name Henry, whose root means "ruler of the home". James comes from the name Jacob, a character in the Bible who is the second born of twins and whose name means "holds the heel". Potter, a common English surname, was likely chosen because of its generic nature and possibly as an homage to Beatrix Potter, the famed author. Compared to Harry's friends' names, which are steeped in history, Harry's is simply plain.
The names of Harry's teachers at Hogwarts tend to be far more interesting than Harry's own. Minerva McGonagall, for example, is named after the Roman goddess of wisdom (many of Rowling's choices for names are inspired by or directly taken from Greek and Roman legends, as well as constellations). Alastor Moody, in addition to being often moody, displays the qualities noted by the history of his given name: Alastor means "defender of mankind" or "avenger". Aurora Sinastra, the astronomy teacher, has both a first and last name dealing with stars and their movement. Septima Vector, Hermione's arithmancy teacher, is defined by his subject as well; arithmancy is essentially numerology, and Septima contains the prefix meaning "seven", while Vector is a mathematical term. Charity Burbage, the muggle studies teacher, is constantly advocating for equality and fair treatment of muggles (which, some would argue, is quite charitable of her).
Professor Albus Dumbledore (full name Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore) has an origin story for each of his names. It is believed that his names taken together may represent the British Isles. Albus could be the male version of Alba, an ancient name for Scotland. Percival, as we know from the Weasley family, is the name of an Arthurian knight. Wulfric, meaning "wolf power", may trace its origins to the same roots as those of Beowulf, the legendary British warrior in the epic of the same name. Brian is the name of an Irish high king, though many believe that this name was chosen to function as a humorous "straight" name compared to Dumbledore's other more ridiculous names. Finally, his last name is an old English word for bumblebee, chosen because Rowling can see him "flitting about the castle humming to himself." Although the individual names do not necessarily reveal a great deal about Dumbledore, his lengthy and grand-sounding name certainly lends itself to his incredible reputation and larger-than-life character.Possibly the most obvious teacher name is that of Remus Lupin, Harry's third year Defense Against the Dark Arts professor. Remus is the name of one of the two wolf brothers that founded Rome. Lupin comes from the root word meaning moon. Even though the plain meaning of the name is never addressed in the books, Hermione eventually discovered Lupin's identity as a werewolf; one can only hope she at least got an inkling of an idea from his name. The only other prominent werewolf in the series, Fenrir Greyback, likely gets his first name from Fenrisulfr, a large wolf in Norse mythology.
Like Fenrir, several "bad guys" in the books have pointed charactonyms. Dolores Umbridge, for example, is hit twice with negative connotations: "dolor" means "pain" and the English word "umbrage" means "insult". Severus Snape, who is one of Harry's worst enemies for the bulk of the series, gets his first name from the Latin word for "stern" or "severe". "Snape", a verb in English, means "to rebuke or be hard upon". Given Snape's frequently harsh and overly-strict treatment of Harry throughout Harry's time at Hogwarts, these names seem appropriate.
There is one bumbling teacher, however, who also deserves mentioning. Gilderoy Lockhart, Harry;s second year Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, gets his first name from the word for "gilded", or covered in gold. This term is often used to refer to a worthless item that has been covered in a layer of gold to make it appear more valuable; considering Lockhart's sole skill, that of bewitching wizards to steal their memories and claim their adventures, he does seem to be "gilded" in a manner of speaking.
In addition to this vast list of characters, several objects or concepts were clearly named in a deliberate fashion. The term horcrux, meaning an object into which a wizard has placed a piece of his soul, seems to have its origins in two French words meaning "outside" and "essence". Hogwarts, the name of Harry's school, is said to come from a plant called "hogwart" that Rowling saw, though it is also possibly from the movie The Labyrinth, when David Bowie's character mistakenly calls his goblin servant Hoggle by the name of "Hogwart". The four houses in Hogwarts are obviously named, with the snake-related house being called Slytherin and the raven-related house being called Ravenclaw. Perhaps even less creatively named, Diagon Alley just simply a split of the word "diagonally", though pronounced differently.
In addition to houses and objects, many spells in the series are permutations of Latin or obscure English words. Spells like "obliviate" for memory removal, "aguamenti" for producing water, and "expelliarmus" for disarming an opponent all come from clear English or romance language
origins (oblivion, agua, and expel arms). Others, like "wingardium leviosa", are dolled-up versions of English words, in this case "wing" and "levitate". The summoning charm "accio" is from the Latin for "I summon". More than half of all the known spells in the series come from Latin roots. The most-feared killing curse, "avada kedavra", gets its origins as the original pronunciation of the "real world" spell abracadabra. Rowling says that her research noted it meant "let the thing be destroyed", which, for the killing curse, means the casting wizard's opponent.Like the bulk of the of spells, many of these terms get their names from English and Latin origins, although there are a considerable number with different histories. Several constellations and celestial bodies are turned into names (Sirius, the dog star, for one), and Roman and Greek figures are transmuted into teachers and parents. Though some names take their origins from mundane sources (Granger), others have more obscure and interesting histories (Voldemort). Despite the wide range in backgrounds and etymologies for the names and terms used in the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling clearly took a great deal of time to add depth and dimension to the characters that she (and we) have loved so well.
~
[Many thanks to harrypotter.wikia.com for being so incredibly nerdy and exacting.]
Friday, May 01, 2009
Yes, I can take care of a dog, so get off my shit
I produce excellent ideas. I am an excellent-idea machine. People know this. My apartment smells of rich mahogany.
This is why I was surprised and dismayed at the mixed reactions I received upon announcing that I was seriously considering getting a dog. I have always been a dog person, despite having a cat and enjoying her company most of the time. When I was 12, we got a Beagle named Buckley. I don't really know how we ended up with this dog, but we couldn't really afford one and we didn't have a very good system for the family taking care of him together. I can only speak for my efforts, but I know that when it was 9 at night and my mom told me to take him for a walk, I dragged his ass around the block once and didn't care whether he went to the bathroom or got any exercise. The Dog Whisperer didn't exist yet, and I was a pre-teen bitch who cared more about herself than the dog. Unsurprisingly, Buckley didn't fare well in our house. He shit on the carpet sometimes and was generally miserable because we treated him poorly. Don't get me wrong, we gave that dog a ton of affection and hung out with him a lot, but we didn't make the connection between "dog chores" and his happiness, so he suffered. After probably a year we had to give him away because we sucked. Despite the myriad of other animals (dogs, cats, reptiles, fish) we owned while I was a kid, this is the one that sticks out to me because we failed so miserably. I knew that I was being selfish at the time, but I was 12, and a dick, so I just didn't care that much.
Cut to more than a decade later and I've decided, after years of lusting after dog ownership like some women crave motherhood, that I'm ready for a dog. Not everything is ideal: I don't have my own house, I'm gone 7:30-5pm Monday through Friday, and I already have a cat that will probably beat the shit out of any dog foolish enough to try to smell her or go near her in any way. These are all reasons to reconsider getting a dog, but to me, none of them are deal breakers. Not all dogs need big spaces, not all dogs freak out when left alone for 9 hours, and not all dogs have problems with or care about cats. As far as I'm concerned, my task is to find the dog that best matches my life and personality rather than just picking a random animal and expecting it to conform.
The couple of people I know with dogs seem to be doing quite well. My mom leaves her super-high-energy dog alone in the house all day, uncrated, and nothing bad happens. Will and Presh are gone for like an hour or two longer than I am, and Fidget doesn't give a shit. Dan's friends Rick and Melissa have a frenchie that stays home alone all day in a small apartment and he's doing great. Though it's only a few dogs we're talking about here, they are all totally fine being left alone while their owners go to work. While that might not work for all dogs or all breeds, it's not necessary to quit your job or hire a dog nanny just to own a pet.
As for the apartment thing, I'm looking at Pugs and Frenchies. We're talking low-energy, small couch potatoes here. Upon checking multiple websites (http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/french-bulldog/care http://www.pugvillage.com/dont_get_a_pug.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1607294/the_pug_a_breed_owners_manual.html?cat=53 http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/apartment.htm http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/frenchbulldogs.html http://www.barkbytes.com/profile/pug.htm), there should be NO problem getting a pug or frenchie to enjoy life in a two bedroom apartment, based on the apartment's size anyway. Besides needing doggy steps to get onto my bed, I don't really see any roadblocks here.
I can't really plan for having my cat get along with a potential dog, besides making sure that I still pet her after the dog's arrival and give her space to get away from it (which shouldn't be too hard with any dog that can't jump more than a foot in the air). My cat's MO with all the other animals I have ever seen her around is "I'm all set, see you later". She only has problems if a pet won't leave her alone. Luckily, unlike cats (Optimus Prime, I'm looking at you), dogs can be trained to do something. Like stay the hell away from the cat. As much as I would love for my cat and dog to cuddle all day and be bestest friends, I don't really need or expect that, and just don't want them to fight a lot. That is probably the only thing I can't plan ahead for or avoid with total certainty. I can, at least, choose only from dogs who have a history of no aggression and have been good with cats in the past.
I have done the research. I have looked at breed descriptions, listings for dozens of rescue animals, fosters, bred puppies, and even craigslist dogs. I have looked at what to expect for each gender, breed, size, age, and intelligence level. I know that pugs and frenchies will DIE if you leave them in the heat or don't give them breaks on walks if it's warm out. I know to clean their little adorable face folds. I know that they, especially pure breeds, will get problems like hip dysplasia and sometimes liver problems, in addition to all the respiratory stuff because of their cute little smooshed faces. I have carefully studied Fidget's behavior in multiple settings and with different people/dogs to see what he is like. I have spent two nights with a frenchie to see if I can stand the constant snorting and wheezing (I can, but Jackie and everyone else probably can't, so pugs are looking like the more likely candidates). I have lost entire afternoons of work to adoption websites and dog-specific wikis.
So when I say to a friend that I want to get a dog and their response is "yeesh, I dunno, do you think you're ready for one?" I want to go beserker and start windmilling everyone in the immediate vicinity. Am I ready? What am I, fucking seven years old? Are you my mother? I'm not the same selfish douchebag I was when poor Buckley needed to take a dump but I wanted to get back in time to catch the rest of SNICK. Yeah, I want a dog because I like the companionship of animals and it will make me happy. Maybe that's selfish. But I'm not such an asshole that I would take an animal (mind you, likely a rescue animal who has been through lots of bullshit) into my house only to let it crap all over the place because I'm too lazy to take it out. What kind of person do these people think I am? Do I come off as so irresponsible and so incapable of caring for animals that I would leave them to rot? It's true that I frequently leave for one or two days of the weekend to go to Dan's and ask Matt and Jackie to feed Prometheus. But she's a cat. She barely needs humans at all. If she weren't on a diet, I could honestly just leave double food and water for her and she would barely notice my absence. Thankfully, I am not a fucking idiot, so I know the difference between the needs of cats and dogs.
For those who have grave concerns about how I would treat a dog, yes, I would have to keep a full time job and leave the dog at home. My goal would be to acquire the dog in early summer (end of June, early July, depending on when Jackie and I move...that's a whole 'nother thing) and spend all day, everyday with the dog to train and get him situated. I plan to crate train the dog if he is of the personality that would benefit from or require that sort of thing. If he is not housebroken by September, that would be necessary. I plan to feed him food and provide him with water. I plan to train him to be nice to people, not jump on anyone, not beg for food (I'm looking at you, Will...watch yourself), and sit/stay. I plan to be good to this dog. Depending on where things are at with me and the dog after he gets settled, I might bring him to Dan's for one or two days of the weekend as I normally do by myself. Dan's building allows dogs and Dan already said he'd be cool with it. I would take the dog out in the morning (yes, even when I am tired), when I get home from work, after dinner, and right before bed. We would take weekend walks to the local park and entertain the local children with our family band. Okay, maybe that last part is unlikely.
I just don't know what else to say to people who give me the stink-eye when I say I'm getting a dog. There are millions of idiots, douchebags, and dickheads who do perfectly well with owning dogs. I'm not saying that having a dog automatically means you're doing a good job but, seriously, this shit is not rocket science. Dedicated, patient, consistent. I can be those things. I have been and I will be. It will be a lot of work, but so is everything else that's worthwhile. I am not afraid of hard work. I'm a goddamned high school teacher who has another part time job, half-time grad school, and a summer job that doesn't even wait for the summer to get started. I work hard all the goddamned time. I am capable of taking care of a dog. So get off my shit.
This is why I was surprised and dismayed at the mixed reactions I received upon announcing that I was seriously considering getting a dog. I have always been a dog person, despite having a cat and enjoying her company most of the time. When I was 12, we got a Beagle named Buckley. I don't really know how we ended up with this dog, but we couldn't really afford one and we didn't have a very good system for the family taking care of him together. I can only speak for my efforts, but I know that when it was 9 at night and my mom told me to take him for a walk, I dragged his ass around the block once and didn't care whether he went to the bathroom or got any exercise. The Dog Whisperer didn't exist yet, and I was a pre-teen bitch who cared more about herself than the dog. Unsurprisingly, Buckley didn't fare well in our house. He shit on the carpet sometimes and was generally miserable because we treated him poorly. Don't get me wrong, we gave that dog a ton of affection and hung out with him a lot, but we didn't make the connection between "dog chores" and his happiness, so he suffered. After probably a year we had to give him away because we sucked. Despite the myriad of other animals (dogs, cats, reptiles, fish) we owned while I was a kid, this is the one that sticks out to me because we failed so miserably. I knew that I was being selfish at the time, but I was 12, and a dick, so I just didn't care that much.
Cut to more than a decade later and I've decided, after years of lusting after dog ownership like some women crave motherhood, that I'm ready for a dog. Not everything is ideal: I don't have my own house, I'm gone 7:30-5pm Monday through Friday, and I already have a cat that will probably beat the shit out of any dog foolish enough to try to smell her or go near her in any way. These are all reasons to reconsider getting a dog, but to me, none of them are deal breakers. Not all dogs need big spaces, not all dogs freak out when left alone for 9 hours, and not all dogs have problems with or care about cats. As far as I'm concerned, my task is to find the dog that best matches my life and personality rather than just picking a random animal and expecting it to conform.The couple of people I know with dogs seem to be doing quite well. My mom leaves her super-high-energy dog alone in the house all day, uncrated, and nothing bad happens. Will and Presh are gone for like an hour or two longer than I am, and Fidget doesn't give a shit. Dan's friends Rick and Melissa have a frenchie that stays home alone all day in a small apartment and he's doing great. Though it's only a few dogs we're talking about here, they are all totally fine being left alone while their owners go to work. While that might not work for all dogs or all breeds, it's not necessary to quit your job or hire a dog nanny just to own a pet.
As for the apartment thing, I'm looking at Pugs and Frenchies. We're talking low-energy, small couch potatoes here. Upon checking multiple websites (http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/french-bulldog/care http://www.pugvillage.com/dont_get_a_pug.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1607294/the_pug_a_breed_owners_manual.html?cat=53 http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/apartment.htm http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/frenchbulldogs.html http://www.barkbytes.com/profile/pug.htm), there should be NO problem getting a pug or frenchie to enjoy life in a two bedroom apartment, based on the apartment's size anyway. Besides needing doggy steps to get onto my bed, I don't really see any roadblocks here.
I can't really plan for having my cat get along with a potential dog, besides making sure that I still pet her after the dog's arrival and give her space to get away from it (which shouldn't be too hard with any dog that can't jump more than a foot in the air). My cat's MO with all the other animals I have ever seen her around is "I'm all set, see you later". She only has problems if a pet won't leave her alone. Luckily, unlike cats (Optimus Prime, I'm looking at you), dogs can be trained to do something. Like stay the hell away from the cat. As much as I would love for my cat and dog to cuddle all day and be bestest friends, I don't really need or expect that, and just don't want them to fight a lot. That is probably the only thing I can't plan ahead for or avoid with total certainty. I can, at least, choose only from dogs who have a history of no aggression and have been good with cats in the past.
I have done the research. I have looked at breed descriptions, listings for dozens of rescue animals, fosters, bred puppies, and even craigslist dogs. I have looked at what to expect for each gender, breed, size, age, and intelligence level. I know that pugs and frenchies will DIE if you leave them in the heat or don't give them breaks on walks if it's warm out. I know to clean their little adorable face folds. I know that they, especially pure breeds, will get problems like hip dysplasia and sometimes liver problems, in addition to all the respiratory stuff because of their cute little smooshed faces. I have carefully studied Fidget's behavior in multiple settings and with different people/dogs to see what he is like. I have spent two nights with a frenchie to see if I can stand the constant snorting and wheezing (I can, but Jackie and everyone else probably can't, so pugs are looking like the more likely candidates). I have lost entire afternoons of work to adoption websites and dog-specific wikis.
So when I say to a friend that I want to get a dog and their response is "yeesh, I dunno, do you think you're ready for one?" I want to go beserker and start windmilling everyone in the immediate vicinity. Am I ready? What am I, fucking seven years old? Are you my mother? I'm not the same selfish douchebag I was when poor Buckley needed to take a dump but I wanted to get back in time to catch the rest of SNICK. Yeah, I want a dog because I like the companionship of animals and it will make me happy. Maybe that's selfish. But I'm not such an asshole that I would take an animal (mind you, likely a rescue animal who has been through lots of bullshit) into my house only to let it crap all over the place because I'm too lazy to take it out. What kind of person do these people think I am? Do I come off as so irresponsible and so incapable of caring for animals that I would leave them to rot? It's true that I frequently leave for one or two days of the weekend to go to Dan's and ask Matt and Jackie to feed Prometheus. But she's a cat. She barely needs humans at all. If she weren't on a diet, I could honestly just leave double food and water for her and she would barely notice my absence. Thankfully, I am not a fucking idiot, so I know the difference between the needs of cats and dogs.
For those who have grave concerns about how I would treat a dog, yes, I would have to keep a full time job and leave the dog at home. My goal would be to acquire the dog in early summer (end of June, early July, depending on when Jackie and I move...that's a whole 'nother thing) and spend all day, everyday with the dog to train and get him situated. I plan to crate train the dog if he is of the personality that would benefit from or require that sort of thing. If he is not housebroken by September, that would be necessary. I plan to feed him food and provide him with water. I plan to train him to be nice to people, not jump on anyone, not beg for food (I'm looking at you, Will...watch yourself), and sit/stay. I plan to be good to this dog. Depending on where things are at with me and the dog after he gets settled, I might bring him to Dan's for one or two days of the weekend as I normally do by myself. Dan's building allows dogs and Dan already said he'd be cool with it. I would take the dog out in the morning (yes, even when I am tired), when I get home from work, after dinner, and right before bed. We would take weekend walks to the local park and entertain the local children with our family band. Okay, maybe that last part is unlikely.
I just don't know what else to say to people who give me the stink-eye when I say I'm getting a dog. There are millions of idiots, douchebags, and dickheads who do perfectly well with owning dogs. I'm not saying that having a dog automatically means you're doing a good job but, seriously, this shit is not rocket science. Dedicated, patient, consistent. I can be those things. I have been and I will be. It will be a lot of work, but so is everything else that's worthwhile. I am not afraid of hard work. I'm a goddamned high school teacher who has another part time job, half-time grad school, and a summer job that doesn't even wait for the summer to get started. I work hard all the goddamned time. I am capable of taking care of a dog. So get off my shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
