HARRY THOUGHTS: SNAPE??!!!*@#$??????

So what are we to make of Severus Snape in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?

Snape is clearly the "hinge" character of the entire series. His choices and his ultimate loyalties will determine the final denouement. And he is the key character of HBP as well.

That becomes at least intellectually clear, of course, as soon as we realize that Snape is the likeliest character to be the "Half-Blood Prince" -- for me, this came as a flash of revelation the moment Snape was suspicious about Harry's sudden show of genius in Potions class. Aha, I thought! Snape, the Potions Master (even if he doesn't hold the job at present) recognizes what Harry's doing! So the book is Snape's -- so Snape is the Half-Blood Prince!

Which means Snape is (along with Harry) the title character of the book -- putting him into the key crux-of-the-plot position that Sirius held in Prisoner of Azkaban (the only other book to have two title characters).

The real question of course is: Whose side is Snape on?

(It's amazing, actually, that J.K. Rowling (JKR) has so successfully maintained Snape's seeming ambiguity for six books. The fact that we can seriously debate his loyalties, that he could conceivably go in either direction, is a testimony to the remarkable quality of her writing.)

At the end of HBP, Snape appears to be firmly on the side of the Death Eaters. He has killed Dumbledore (what other proof do we need?!) He has disappeared with Draco, and has clearly abandoned the Order of the Phoenix (not to mention Harry).

Or has he? (Do I sound like The Quibbler here? Sorry.)

I believe -- as do many others -- that Snape will end up being "good," or at least, making choices on the side of good, by the end of book 7. Yes, I realize that Dumbledore, by his own admission, can make mistakes -- and as he says, "huger" mistakes than the ordinary man. I realize that Dumbledore has apparently never told anyone, not even McGonagall, why he trusts Snape. Snape shows every sign of having turned to the Dark side once more.

But...

We don't know what Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about when Hagrid overheard them (chapter 19), but think about it: What could Snape be talking about in saying he didn't want to do something anymore, with Dumbledore replying that he agreed to do it? It's certainly not the Defense Against the Dark Arts job; Snape's wanted it forever, and it appears to be going well.

So it's one of three things: (1) Snape's role in spying on Voldemort (finding out what Voldemort is saying to his Death Eaters, as Harry correctly pegs Snape's job in book 5); (2) Something to do with the Unbreakable Vow; or (3) something we know nothing about at this point. And since (3) would be a bit of a cheat on JKR's part, I believe it has to be one of the first two choices. (Anyone have other suggestions as to what they were arguing about?)

I think Dumbledore knew all about the Unbreakable Vow -- which means he knows, as becomes apparent by the end of the book, that Draco's mission was to kill him (Dumbledore) and that Snape has now vowed to carry out the mission if Draco is unable to do so.

Let's face it, Dumbledore is not afraid of death. This is the man who said, "To the organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." This is the man who insists that Voldemort's great weakness is that he has never learned that there are things worse than death. Would Dumbledore, of all people, be afraid or unwilling to die in the cause he has fought for his whole life? No way.

Would Dumbledore have died anyway, from drinking the potion that surrounded the Horcrux in the cave? Possibly. We don't know how Regulus Black (my guess as "R.A.B.") died, just that he died a very few days after turning against Voldemort. We have assumed (as Sirius did) that Voldemort killed Regulus, but did he? Could Regulus have turned, gone after the Horcrux, gotten it, drunk the potion, and died as a result? Maybe.

When Dumbledore returned with Harry from the cave, weak, possibly dying already, insisting he needed Severus Snape, did he want Snape, the best Potions master around, to do something to fight the potion he had drunk? Or did he want Snape to kill him, knowing he was the only one he could count on to do so? I believe the former, because I don't think Dumbledore would knowingly involve Harry in his own death -- and because earlier, Snape was seen (by McGonagall, for one) as the right person to deal with the curse laid on Katie Bell (a set-up, I think, for Dumbledore calling for Snape at the end -- Snape is the go-to guy for Dark curses).

So I believe that Snape kills Dumbledore, essentially, on Dumbledore's orders. That Dumbledore's begging "Please" just before Snape performs the Avada Kedavra is a plea for Snape to do what he has promised to do, to fulfill his vow (a vow to Dumbledore, I believe, as much as to Narcissa).

And I believe Harry should recognize this. Will he? With his deep hatred for Snape? Probably not. But he should. Why?

I believe Harry should recognize Snape was operating under Dumbledore's orders because Harry's and Snape's reactions are exactly the same when following what amount to the same orders from Dumbledore. From chapter 26:

Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back toward Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it, so that Dumbledore drank the remainder of the potion inside.

And from chapter 27:

Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.

Hatred. Harry hates himself. The object of Snape's hatred is not so clear -- Dumbledore? Himself? We don't know.

But "revulsion." ("Repulse" is essentially the verb form of "revulsion.") To be repulsed, to feel revulsion, is literally to push away from something. Harry is pushing away from the task he has to perform: that of poisoning Dumbledore. And note that the remarks about hatred and repulsion fall as he feeds Dumbledore the last of the potion, possibly the killing dose.

What is Snape repulsed by? Not Dumbledore. That wouldn't make sense, to be repulsed by a man he has worked alongside for years, when we have never seen a hint of such emotion from Snape toward Dumbledore in the past. I think that, just like Harry, Snape feels revulsion for the task he must do.

JKR is a careful writer. On a point this crucial, do I think this repetition of words is accidental? No, I do not.

And let's look at his behavior toward Harry during the brief but crucial period between Dumbledore's death and Snape's disappearance. Forget how Harry feels about him, or the nasty verbiage and tone Snape uses toward him. What does Snape actually do?

Snape keeps Harry from using a Cruciatus Curse twice -- something which Harry (has to learn he) really shouldn't be doing! He warns Harry to keep his mouth shut and his mind closed -- advice which Harry needs to listen to. He stops another Death Eater who is using the Cruciatus Curse on Harry, which would eventually kill him or drive him insane. And he orders all the Death Eaters to leave Harry alone.... If someone else were performing these acts, we would say he had Harry's best interests in mind.

And let's look at what Snape does not do here: He has Harry in his clutches. Voldemort wants Harry, wants him dead. (No reason to keep him alive now that the prophecy is broken.) Snape is in the perfect position to haul Harry off and be rewarded beyond all dreams of avarice by his Dark master. But he doesn't.

I am actually really proud of Snape. Indeed, Dumbledore was right to trust him. Who else would have performed this most repulsive task? Who else could Dumbledore have counted on? Who would have shown the remarkable level of courage it would take to follow through on such a hateful, repulsive task, knowing it would put him on the "wrong" side with no way out?

"I AM NOT A COWARD," indeed! No, Snape, you are not a coward. And we know that. No wonder you were so angry when Harry called you one!

So, the big question now becomes why? Why did Snape abandon Voldemort to side with Dumbledore?

We have partial information in HBP, but clearly more will come in book 7. Snape, we learn, heard at least part of the prophecy about Voldemort and Harry, and carried this information to Voldemort, which resulted in James and Lily's deaths. He felt remorse about this, and sought absolution from Dumbledore.

Why, though, would Snape feel remorse about James's death, given how deeply he hated James? I think, with not all that much evidence, that Snape may have loved Lily, and felt remorse and pain over her death -- enough to drive him to, in essence, side with her cause in death even though he couldn't do so while she was alive.

As I say, very little evidence, most of it negative. But I was suspicious the second Slughorn started raving about how brilliant Lily was in Potions. Why, I wondered, had Snape never mentioned a word about Lily's mastery of Potions in five years? Why did he not discuss Lily when Slughorn was raving about her (and about Harry)? Could it be because it's too painful for him to do so?... I remembered, too, the way Lily came to Snape's defense in the memory Harry saw in the Pensieve. A weird, unloved boy like Snape could easily live emotionally on that kind of moment, revering Lily beyond all reason as a result.

And if Snape did love Lily, it would help explain why he hasn't been able to get over the hatred he had for James: Surely James's death should be enough to set that aside -- but maybe not if his hatred were compounded by James marrying the woman Snape loved. It would also explain the depth of Snape's hatred for Harry: the son of his beloved Lily, but not his own son, as should have been.

All conjecture, clearly. As Dumbledore explained to Harry, we have left the "firm foundation of fact" to journey into the "thickets of wildest guesswork." But these are guesses that ring true (I believe) to what we know of the characters.

Maybe you disagree with me. If so, jump in! (And isn't it wonderful to have a book so worthy of discussion like this?)

....Next post, I'll muse about Harry and the Horcruxes.

PROBABILITY, NECESSITY, AND PREDICTABILITY

John Granger didn't post my response to his 7/27 essay "C.S. Lewis as a Goth? C'mon!" on his website, as it turns out, but on a Barnes & Noble book chat forum where he is a moderator (and I am mostly a lurker). Some nice responses to it -- but one or two people taking issue with the concepts that (a) J.K. Rowling owes anything to her audience and by extension (b) that an audience member could possibly figure out, based on that, what to expect.

So I just want to share a brief personal "Harry Potter" moment. We began, all the way back to book 1, a tradition in our house of my reading the HP books aloud to Lee and Cory. We are currently up to chapter 6 in Half-Blood Prince, just boarding the Hogwarts Express.

And Lee (also a fiction writer), who has avoided all on- and offline discussions about HPB (and who knows nothing about alchemical progressions and the like), started surmising out loud about Snape's Unbreakable Vow.

Draco's task, he figured, can't be to kill Harry. It's true that, while only Harry can kill Voldemort, any number of people could kill Harry. However, Voldemort seems to be reserving Harry to himself. Certainly any of a number of Death Eaters could have killed Harry at any time, even after the discovery and smashing of the prophecy.

So, Lee mused, it must be that Draco's task is to kill Dumbledore. It's clearly a big task, and if we go with Harry's guess that Draco was hiding a brand new Dark Mark on his arm at Madam Malkin's, it seems likely that he would have to kill someone to earn membership in the club. As in the Mafia, he would have to "make his bones." Who else at Hogwarts would be a Death Eater target? Definitely Dumbledore.

But, Lee continued, he's not sure Draco is capable of killing Dumbledore -- either because he's not that good a wizard, or because he might not have it in him. And we've already seen that Draco's own mother doesn't think he can do whatever the task is (another indication that the task is way too big for Draco to accomplish).

However, Lee pointed out, Snape has now taken an Unbreakable Vow to follow through with Draco's task, whatever it is. And we have to assume that the word "Unbreakable" means what it says -- certainly everyone involved takes it extremely seriously.

So, he concluded, at the end of the book, Draco will be in a position to kill Dumbledore, but will be unable to do so. And Snape will have to do it for him. Which, Lee pointed out, certainly puts Snape in an unassailable position with the Death Eaters, even if it might shock the Order of the Phoenix beyond all measure.

"Well?" He turned to me and asked: "Am I right?"

Taking my cue from Harry's response to Professor McGonagall and Rufus Scrimgeour at the end of HBP, I of course replied, "I can't tell you that."

But I think it goes to show how far someone can get on storytelling instincts and knowledge of probability and necessity alone, when responding to a great storyteller who knows (and follows the rules of) how to tell a great story.

HARRY POTTER : WHO DIES NEXT?

SPOILER WARNING!

Okay, that's out of the way. I think enough time has passed to assume that most everyone serious enough about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to read about it online has read the book. So let's start talking about what happens next.

And that's the real question, isn't it? What happens next?

J.K. Rowling (JKR) is a storyteller par excellence, as evidenced by the fact that we should remotely care about what happens next in a 7-book-long story with at least a 2-year wait till the next book. Not only is she a great storyteller, she has amazing control over her set-ups and payoffs (e.g., Mrs. Figg is set up in Book 1, with no payoff till Book 5!).

So the question now becomes: Do we have enough confidence in her to trust her to finish the story in a satisfying way? That is, in a way which pays off all the set-ups, and answers all (or most of) the outstanding questions, without tricking us or making us feel cheated in any way.

I believe the answer is yes. As a great storyteller in the classical tradition, moreover, I believe JKR will adhere to the storytelling framework originally outlined by Aristotle, conforming to (as he puts it) the laws of probability and necessity. That is: What must happen (=necessity)? What is likely to happen (probability)?

The principles of probability and necessity apply to both plot and character: ...A person of a given character should speak or act in a given way, by the rule of either necessity or of probability; just as this event should follow that by necessary or probable sequence. It is therefore evident that the unraveling of the plot... must arise out of the plot itself.

We are now at the point of the "unraveling" of the plot. All the set-ups should be in place by now. Nothing should happen in book 7 that contradicts them (though we may be surprised at how some of the set-ups "unravel").

So many of the theories being proposed online violate the principles of probability and necessity, which I believe JKR never violates. They demand more set-up, or that she not pay off things already set up, or that she cheat the audience by tricking us in ways that will be unsatisfying, or that she will betray our trust in her to bring the story to a satisfying conclusion. I do not believe JKR will betray us and I do not believe that she will cheat us (surprise us, yes, but cheat us, no).

So, given my trust in JKR, what do I think about one of the biggest plot questions of book 7:

Who will die?

I do not believe Harry will die. I know many many people have opined that this will happen. But I think for JKR to kill Harry would be a betrayal of the highest order. Neither can live while the other survives. That seems to me to say that one person -- Harry or Voldemort -- will die. And for Voldemort to win would be a betrayal of the audience.

But someone will die. That set-up is in place, with the increasing importance of the deaths beginning in book 4 (from Cedric to Sirius to Dumbledore). So who will it be? Let's look at what has been set up.

The Harry Potter series is driven by two interlocking themes: The importance of choices and the power of sacrificial love.

That means someone is likely to die out of love for Harry, probably sacrificially, to save him. Now, many people love Harry. But for Ron or Hermione or Ginny to die for Harry would, again, be a betrayal of the reader. We are too invested in these characters' futures beyond the books. We want to know what happens to them, and speculate as to their future careers and marriages.

So who else loves Harry enough to die for him? Let's take a look at Hagrid.

Hagrid has had way too much prominence in the HP books for the purposes he's served in the plot. We've spent hours down in his hut, talking things over. We've spent way too much time in Care of Magical Creatures class, all so Harry could defeat a Blast-Ended Skrewt and Harry and Hermione could be introduced to the centaur herd (speaking in terms of important plot points). The whole Hagrid-searches-for-the-giants storyline could be completely cut (so far) without hindering the plot development, serving as it does just to highlight the "half-breed" issue which is dealt with in so many other ways.

Why? I would say this focus on Hagrid is in large part an emotional set-up so that, when he sacrifices his life for Harry's spectacularly at the end of Book 7, we will care deeply. But while we will care, his death will not be a betrayal in the way that Harry/Ron/Hermione/Ginny's would be. After all, who has speculated about Hagrid's future at the end of the books?

Notice also that JKR has begun to distance us emotionally from Hagrid in book 6. Harry, Ron and Hermione still care for him, yes -- but not enough to take his class. We spend far less time with him. We start to see him (though our main characters' eyes) more and more in the way everyone else sees him. I believe we are, in essence, being prepared for his death.

I am also convinced (finally) by John Granger's outline of the alchemical progression. See his website to really understand it, but in a nutshell: The alchemical process goes from Black to White to Red -- and the HP books go through the "Black" books (HP3 through HP5, following the story of and ending with the death of Sirius Black), to the "White" book (HP6: "Albus" is Latin for "White," and HP6 is all about Albus Dumbledore), leading us, most likely to the "Red" book (HP7) -- and "Rubeus" comes from the Latin for "red." Note JKR's subtlety in this progression: We think of each of the characters by his other name, not by the "color" element of his name (i.e., We think of Sirius, not "Black"; Dumbledore, not "Albus"; Hagrid, not "Rubeus").

But I don't think one death will do it for HP7. I think we will see many deaths of minor characters (as we saw Madam Bones, for instance, in HP6). So who else will die?

I feel less definite here. Will a Weasley die? Well, I do think Percy is toast. He has had a chance to repent in Book 6 -- after all, even Fudge has repented (or "rethought") his beliefs about Voldemort. But he didn't take it. So I think he's a goner. Charley? Maybe -- it's not a death that would cost us that much. Bill? I don't think so -- he's had his payoff, I believe, with his striking good looks being taken from him.

So now we get to the characters we care about? Fred and George? Maybe. They are certainly revealed in book 6 as much more serious and skilled wizards than we ever believed them (though again, we had appropriate set-ups for this, with even Hermione not being able to figure out the Headless Hats, and with Flitwick leaving part of their swamp standing at the end of book 5). But I don't see any set-ups for their deaths.

I think the most likely Weasley to die is Arthur. He has come close (the snake) already. Molly's constant concern for the safety her family seems to say someone will die -- and Arthur is the one who would have the most emotional impact for her. And this is a story where father figures (James, Sirius, Dumbledore) are repeatedly killed... Scant evidence for a hard prediction, I realize -- but were I writing the story, Arthur is the one I, as a writer, would kill.

Who else?

Not Lupin: He has suffered enough, not only as a werewolf, but through the loss of his only friends, James and Sirius. He deserves some happiness, and the pairing of him with Tonks is too satisfying -- it would be mean of JKR to rip them apart through death.

Not Neville: I think his death would confuse the meaning of the prophecy too much. JKR set it up that the prophecy might refer to Neville and not Harry -- but she goes out of her way to debunk that pretty firmly in book 5 (and in various interviews). So I think Neville, who already got his great payoff with his fighting alongside Harry in the Department of Mysteries, will live (and by the way, notice the personal payoffs Neville got out of that moment of sheer courage: His grandmother started respecting him, and he got a new wand -- and if "the wand chooses the wizard," it is highly possible that his poor showing at Hogwarts in books 1-5 was in part due to the fact that he didn't have his own wand!).

Luna? I'm not sure about her. I trust that the set-ups are in place for whatever happens to her, but I am not convinced yet that she is more than a sort of poignant comic relief.

The Dursleys? Very possibly. Why would it really matter for Dumbledore to make a point of telling them that the protection Harry enjoys at 4, Privet Drive will end when Harry turns 17? There's no indication that the Dursleys would have kicked him out after his sixth year at Hogwarts. After all, in the Muggle world, kids come of age at 18, so chances are, Vernon would have assumed he had Harry on his hands till his 18th birthday (which won't come till after the end of book 7). And there's no indication that they were ready to kick him out in book 6. So why the stress on the issue?

Could it be that the protection surrounding 4, Privet Drive also is protection for the Dursleys? Could it be that the moment Harry turns 17, they are also in danger? Harry has seen people he loves die -- but these are people he doesn't love. Will he learn he loves them after all? Will he have to save them (or try to)? I think these are strong possibilities.

Okay, now we get down to it: What about Draco? And, more importantly, what about Snape? Will they die?

I have thoughts. And I will come back to them in my next post.

HARRY RAMBLINGS

I am formulating my thoughts on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for full discussion here, including thinking through predictions for book 7 (Who will die? Will Harry live? Will Harry triumph? etc.).

In the meantime, John Granger will be posting at any minute my response to an essay he wrote regarding not only the books, but the interviews J.K. Rowling has given in the last couple of weeks. (In particular, the Time magazine interview in which she seems to contradict much of what she has said in the past regarding C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien -- and which I think is just a tribute to extremely bad interviewing and biased writing.)

Also on John's site will be similar remarks from Regina Doman, whom you will all recognize from her frequent comments on this blog. I love it that Regina and I came up with virtually identical takes on several aspects of HP6 without our having compared notes in the first place. (Great minds think alike?)

Click on over to John's site (hopefully everything's all posted by now), then come back here and comment... and I'll keep working through the other stuff I have to say as well.

COMMENT!

Yay! Squawkbox is back! Okay, everybody, start commenting! (I know the lack of Squawkbox was the only thing keeping you from it... right?)

...In a few days, I will assume everyone who cares about spoilers will have finished Half-Blood Prince and post my thoughts about book 7 -- and boy, do I have thoughts!....

A funny Harry Potter-related thought. A friend who has never been a fantasy-lit or kid-lit kind of person at all called me from the airport the other day -- He was stuck with a delayed flight and had just bought HBP. He called because chapter 2 confused him, and he had a couple of questions about Snape (excuse me, "Professor" Snape, I mean). He had only seen the 3 movies, and was therefore 3 books ahead of himself.

So I told him to go buy the other 2 books (Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix) and read them in order. And he did.

And the next day, I get a call from him, all about how much fun the Quidditch World Club is. A few short chapters, and the guy's hooked. "Now I know why so many adults are reading these things!" he declared.

And a fan is born.

BOOK THOUGHTS: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

I am conflicted about how much to say about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HBP), but since I know many people who are still mid-book, I will probably try to avoid any spoilers for this particular discussion...

Let me just say that I found the experience of reading HBP very different from that of reading the other HP books.
There was, comparatively, so much information and so little action. At first I found this a little frustrating. But then I began to think about it in terms of the entire series.

As I pointed out just the other day in my Act One class on screenplay structure (to a largely blank-faced room, as probably only 1/4 of the students have read the HP books), Harry, as the hero of the books, not only undergoes a complete hero's journey in each of the books, but also has an uber-hero story, as it were, consisting of his journey across all 7 books (someone will write a doctoral theis about this some day, I'm sure).

To put it in more traditional screenplay terms, we are entering Act 3 of the story. Act 1 was the first 2 books: really the set-up for all that follows (w/, as J.K. Rowling has pointed out, enormous amounts of crucial set-up occurring in Chamber of Secrets). Act 2 was in essence the Sirius Black story, ending with Sirius's death at the Ministry of Magic. And we now begin the final part of the story.

That explains, in part, why there is so much set-up here: We're starting something new and we have a lot of new things to understand. But on a first reading, I felt like nothing was happening after the first few chapters. I felt like we were spending way too much time on relationships and never getting to the point. (I don't feel that way now.)

I do want to say, by the way, that I predicted the relationship shakedown in HBP all the way back in book 4. I feel just a tad smug. Just a tad.

I think it was actually smart of Rowling to deal with all the relationship issues (well, not all, but significant amounts) here. I don' t think book 7 will give us time to care about who's snogging whom, so good to get all that out of the way while we do have time to care.

I was shocked by the ending. Truly shocked. Not at who died -- again, as a writer, I've thought that was absolutely predictable for some time now. But by who did the killing. Wow. I did not see that coming. And I cried like a baby through the final chapter or two -- again, not something I expected from a Harry Potter book.

I do not see how anyone can read the books at this point and not recognize the Christianity seeping throughout. What a truly profound series this has turned into. I will probably still be pondering certain characters and their choices years from now.

Okay, I have probably said all I can without massive spoiler warnings everywhere. I do respect the need for people to read a book without having it spoiled -- I think spoiling is a very, very rude thing to do. So everyone, finish reading (keep your kleenex handy), and we can start making predictions about what must happen in book 7.

COMMENTS

I do not know what has happened to my comment boxes. Anyone have any ideas, well-- I guess you can't post them. But e-mail me and let me know what you think...

Maybe they'll reappear on their own?

TRUST AND DISTRUST

My mother's been slipping for a while. Her mind is going. She doesn't remember what year it is, how old her grandkids are, or what she said five minutes ago. The other day she forgot we'd moved (after obsessing about it in every conversation for two months).

But the problem isn't really her abysmal memory. The problem is that when she forgets, she insists that she remembers.

"I haven't talked to you in weeks," she'll insist. No, I'll respond. I talked to you four times yesterday. "No you didn't," she insists. Yes. Actually I did, I answer. And back and forth we go.

And finally, my frustration level barely remaining in check, I asked her if she thought I was lying to her. What reason would I have to lie to her, I asked. Well, no, she admitted, she wouldn't expect me to lie to her. Why, then, I asked, was she in essence accusing me of lying when I said we had talked the day before?

And somehow that broke the "No-you-didn't, yes-I-did" cycle, and we were able to have more normal conversation, as normal as it gets when you're repeating the entire conversation every 60 seconds. I've asked that a couple of times now, when her memory loss starts to slip toward a rather frightening irrationality: Do you think I'm lying to you?
And it always seems to break the cycle.

And then I realized: That's exactly what I do with God.

He tells me something rather straightforward and reliable: "I will never leave you and forsake you," say. And I respond, "Nuh-uh. You never said that." "Yes, I did," He responds. "No you didn't," says me. And back and forth we go -- until I can feel Him saying, "Do you think I'm lying to you?"

And that's really what it boils down to. Do I think God is lying to me? And if He's not, then it's quite simple: It's my turn to work very very hard on my slipping memory.

A NEW PARADIGM

When I was a kid, I read all the great British children's books. Winnie-the-Pooh. Five Children and It and the Bastable Children stories and the Treasure Seekers stories. Mary Poppins. The Narnia books. All those books with authors identified only by their initials.

And I automatically assumed that behind those initials were men. I was positively shocked to learn, much later in life, that E. Nesbit was Edith, that P.L. Travers was Pamela.

So I howled with laughter this weekend when I (finally) took steps toward unpacking my boxes of fiction books (waiting for the final coat on the bookcase to dry!). I was pulling out all my J.R.R. Tolkien, and Cory was helping, because he's started reading Fellowship of the Ring.

I mentioned something about Tolkien, referring to him as "him." And Cory was stunned. Absolutely stunned.

"Him?" he asked in shock. "I always thought Tolkien was a woman. Because of the initials."

Apparently, based on the model of J.K. Rowling (who, I assume, just followed the practice of all those great British children's authors of the past), Cory assumed that authors using initials were likely to be female.

And I was thrilled that he would even make that assumption. One I could never have made when I was growing up, when I was told in grade school (after writing a series of plays for fun), that girls really don't grow up to be writers.

Thus does a paradigm shift.

TOWARD A BETTER FAILURE

I had the great great pleasure this weekend of hearing Dallas Willard, at whose feet I will sit at any opportunity, speaking at my church. He was covering material primarily from his brilliant book The Divine Conspiracy, which I recommend without qualification.

One little point that he made stuck with me. He commented that, while God's charge to mankind in Genesis 1 was essentially to take care of the earth, we must realize that all our efforts to make things better through, for instance, political means will always necessarily end in failure. All we can hope for, he said, is a "better failure."

And, degenerate time-waster that I am, I immediately thought of the little computer games I'm addicted to. My kids hang over my shoulder watching me play Bookworm, or Big Money, or Alchemy, and ask "Did you win? Are you going to win?" And I tell them, "No, I'm always going to lose. Always. All I can do is lose at a higher level than before."

... But now at least, am I allowed to see my stupid computer game addiction as a spiritual lesson?

WILL "CHRISTIAN" EVER = "PROFESSIONAL"?

I was approached recently by a large Christian ministry wanting to make a movie, and looking for a writer. Let's leave who the ministry is out of the discussion, because they've done a lot of good work over the years.

But they're sure not filmmakers.

Here's what they want to do: They want to make a biblically-based movie aimed at a specific people group. Okay, fine. I have no qualms with that.

But they're choosing to do it as unprofessionally as possible. Any film student would howl with laughter at their plans. (Heck, a lot of high schoolers would howl as well.)

Here's the plan: They're going to take 25-year-old footage from a previous piece of work and intercut it with the new footage, so as to not have to spend money on reshoots. I asked how the footage had been stored. They didn't know. I asked if anyone had seen all these outtakes, seen if they're even useable. No. They're just assuming.

But wait, there's more. They want to use the same actor, in fact, from the 25-year-old footage. "He looks pretty much like he did 25 years ago," they told me. Um... no. He doesn't. No one looks like they did 25 years ago, unless they have a portrait of themselves hiding on a closet somewhere. Unless they want to photoshop the hell out of the footage (which I would guess would cost more than they would want to spend), they've got problems. Well, they said, they'll just shoot the actor from behind a lot. Um... this is the main character of the movie. Won't people want to see him?

Well, maybe they'll just have him voice lines (for us to hear when we're looking at his back, presumably). When I pointed out that people's voices change over time as well (a problem for revoicing), they shrugged it off.

The plan is, frankly, embarrassing. Unprofessional in every way.

I'm not taking the job. But it's not because I turned it down. It's because, when I pointed out that I'm a Writers Guild member, they suddenly blanched. Uh-oh. They don't want to hire any union members (in other words, any professionals). And they made a couple of calls and called me back and said, oops, no, they can't work with me in any case, because if they hired a WGA writer, they'd have to hire SAG actors, and they certainly don't want to spend the money for that.

So they're going to hire amateur actors, an amateur writer, probably an amateur director (because they certainly won't want to spend the money on a DGA member), and certainly they won't want to pay for pros on the crew. (This is not an ultra-low-budget project, either. They're spending $1 million, which isn't chicken feed, even for a movie.)

What we see here is a deliberate commitment to unprofessionalism.

And yet they'll expect to show the final product to millions and millions of people. An audience who, frankly, deserves better.

Not only that, I'm sure they are (or will be) raising money hand over fist for this project. Probably well in excess of $1 million, given the proficiency in fundraising that this particular organization hs demonstrated in the past.

Bottom line: They're disrespecting their audience. They're disrespecting the Christian film professionals who could give them a wonderful product. They're disrespecting the story they say they want to tell. All while they bristle at the perceived disrespect they feel when anyone mentions that their plan is really, really bad.

...Sigh. I'm just grateful that one of the watchwords of Act One is Professionalism (along with Artistry, Content and Prayer). Now if the rest of the Christian filmmaker-wannabe community could just get that message.

THE BLOG OFFICE SLUMP

Much has been made of Hollywood's 19-week box office slump, broken this weekend by Fantastic Four -- probably not the movie most pundits would have picked to break the slump.

I haven't seen it yet (I will). But I have an uninformed guess as to why this was the movie that broke the slump, rather than the previous sluggers who already had their summertime at-bats -- namely, Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins and War of the Worlds

The other three movies are all pretty dark. Sith is, as its name suggests, about revenge, and is the dark end to a three-part tragedy. Batman is the story of a rather warped guy diving deeply into his warpedness. WOTW is (from many reports) dark, dysfunctional, and depressing.

Fantastic Four may not have as much to offer as the others in terms of depth of story, beautiful shots, or amazing special effects. But it's light, frothy and fun. And in the summertime, sometimes fun takes priority over everything else.

...On an unrelated note, I hadn't quite realized how my own blogging had slumped, right along with the box office. I took a quick look this weekend (after a couple of months of not checking) and realized that my readership has dropped -- not surprising, given how little I've been blogging.

But I hereby declare the end to my own not-quite-19-week slump, and promise to keep this blog updated on a more regular basis. So you can all come back now! And read! (And comment!)... I'll be here!

THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW

I have been thinking about a metaphor that Sarah Beach proposed some weeks back, and the events in London yesterday brought it to mind.

(I will probably get some details wrong. Sarah, I trust you will correct if needed.)

Sarah pointed out that people often think of the spectrum from good to evil as running along a horizontal line, with someone like Hitler way on the negative side (usually the left side, like a number line running from negative to positive) and someone like Mother Teresa, say, way on the positive side. (Jesus, is, of course, in His own category, with a gap between the far righthand side of the line, and Him.)

Sarah instead proposes that this spectrum of good to evil be imagined as a vertical line instead. We progress (hopefully) upward toward the good.

But we do not merely progress by walking along the straight and narrow path toward the good. Instead, we should think of ourselves as hanging from a pendulum suspended from the ultimate good point at the top of the imaginary line.

Now imagine the pendulum swinging. The closer you are toward the good end of the line, the less you will deviate from the path that leads you there. The farther away you are from it, the more leeway you have to swing wildly from side to side, barely touching the path toward good at all.

This image has stayed with me for quite some time now. I think it has a lot of spiritual and dramatic truth. I find it valuable for both my prayer life and for character creation.

And as I think about the evil events in London yesterday, I can easily imagine the terrorists swinging so far afield that they can't even recognize the path to good when they see it.

HERE'S TO LONDON, NOW AND IN 2012

I am so sorrowed by what I see on TV in London. I know London has dealt with IRA terrorists for years in the past, but this is different. This isn't something homegrown, with roots in British/Irish history. This is pure evil.

Shortly after 9/11, I had the good fortune to hear Dallas Willard discuss the enormity of what happened. "Evil is a choice," he said. "It doesn't need a cause." I thought of that this morning, watching BBC America (so much a better news channel than anything we offer).

London is my favorite city in the world. It is the only city, other than L.A., that I would choose to live in. I haven't been there in years, but I carry its map in my head.

Was this evil attack timed to coincide with (and ruin) London's great joy in being awarded the 2012 Olympics? I think that was just a "happy" coincidence for the terrorists. But it made us determined. We will start saving now, aiming to head to London in 2012 for the Olympics. We will not be scared off by a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

Hang in there, London. Our prayers are with you.

ON STUPIDITY WATCH

Two items side by side in the local section of the L.A. Times last week made me shake my head in disbelief.

One was an article that actually made me a bit sad. A high school in (I think) Palmdale was rejoicing because they were going to have more 10th graders than 9th graders for the first time in recent memory -- this was because enough 9th graders were actually graduating (rather than being held back or just dropping out).

That part was happy/sad (sad because of the level of extreme rejoicing over something we should be able to expect as a matter of course). Here's the part that was stupid. The reporter explained quite seriously that studies show that students who graduate 9th grade have a much better chance of graduating high school.

Um... duh. And here's something I can figure out without a formal study: Students who graduate 10th grade have an even better chance of graduating high school! And those who graduate 11th have an even better chance. And, amazingly, for those who graduate 12th grade, high school graduation is practically guaranteed!

Oy.

Okay, on to the neighboring article, which again left me shaking my head anddropping my jaw in disbelief. This article announced that the Fish Empathy Project of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had requested the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach to stop serving fish on its restaurant menu because it showed inappropriate concern for the fish in the aquarium, whom, the Fish Empathy Project insists, have a native intelligence approaching that of higher primates.

Let's leave aside the thought that the "Fish Empathy Project" sounds like the basis for a Saturday Night Live sketch. Instead, here's the question I have for PETA: What do you want to feed the sharks in the aquarium? Tofu?

I thought of this bizarre article this weekend when we were at the San Diego Zoo. We were lucky enough to actually see some of the big cats do something other than sleep... in part, because we arrived at feeding time. A handler set out a rabbit (already dead) on a high perch, then unlocked the tigers... And sure enough, out came the tiger to stalk and eat the rabbit. It was fascinating to watch.

After seeing the tiger, we went to have lunch. And I formed the Tiger Empathy Project right there on the spot. They didn't have rabbit on the menu, so I had seafood. I feel, with my newly formed empathy, that the tiger would have loved it.

This Stupidity Watch has been brought to you as a public service. I look forward to being able to report a Brilliance Watch in the future.