User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6

Warner Bros

AleatoryPonderings not sure here, as I haven’t followed films closely, but p. 210 says “towards the end of 1999 the film deal was completed”. Just to double check … Is that the same deal ? It seemed to take them a long time to complete … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's weird. ProQuest 326708687, published 9 Oct 1998, says "Joanne Rowling's negotiations with Warner Brothers have resulted in the film rights for the two hugely popular Harry Potter books, written in a coffee shop, being bought for a seven-figure sum." Anelli clarifies that what was actually bought was not "rights", per se—or, rather, it was a specific kind of right, namely an 18-month option to produce the films. I'm thinking that what happened was that there were actually two agreements: (1) the option agreement, which gave WB the 18-month option; and, once WB decided to exercise the option (well within the 18-month period); (2) another agreement to actually make the movies. But that's a guess. I'll check Anelli again/see if I can figure out how films like this are usually made so at least we have some sense that this kind of arrangement would not be unusual. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following closely enough, but yes, it is worrisome … I have signed out if you want to access the book to check … I’ll start again tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It was reported that she had enjoyed an unprecedented power" - does he say who reported that? I've had a devil of a time finding reports about this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the book isn't footnoted ... just a general bibliography at the end which is alphabetical and you can't tie back to individual chapters ... so that's the end of that story. And archive.org is a mess today .. some sort of outage ... can't get back in ... but I'm sure that's all that was said on that topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the archive is updating their servers or something? And proquest is also down now or soon, I think. Re: veto power—if it's this hard to find good references to it, that's probably a good sign it didn't actually happen ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I shall go do a jigsaw puzzle, since it's snowing out and I can't go throw my computer off the back hill ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errington, Amazon, 1.95

AleatoryPonderings re this query ... Yep, checks out with Errington. Victoriaearle in a case like this one, where readers can't access the 700+ page Errington, would you support keeping the BBC link along with Errington? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that edit introduces a new name (Children's Voice) when we have Children's High Level Group ... so did they change names more than once? Now we have to sort that as well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC just kicked me out after viewing a single article yesterday, so I'm not seeing a lot of value. If readers can click and read the article, yes, maybe. But if readers need to click and create an account, I don't see much value. Victoria (tk) 22:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm dealing with, too, which is utterly exasperating. Am I too old for this (don't answer that ... ) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems to tie them together ... so now we have to fix that ... which will require better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pugh, page 6, says "Children's High Level Group", now "Lumos". I'm wondering about the age thing too. It's depressing. Victoria (tk) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is ... an old archive version of CHLG which ties them to Children's Voice ... archive.org is awful today, I need to go for a walk, most frustrating day ever: https://web.archive.org/web/20070718153934/http://www.chlg.org/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can piece together, on Lumos (charity) the name change. Errington def says "Children's Voice", as does this report. Why they would have changed names thrice is beyond me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at that archive.org thing, and the jkrowling library, it appears that Children's Voice was one campaign of CHLG ... although they also leave the impression it may be their newsletter ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

archivelink timed out on me, will check when they're done ... turning their servers off and on again. Jigsaw puzzle sounds nice. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Not a productive day. I'm going to go do something fun like ... pay my bills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the not very interesting saga of Children's High Level Group -> The Children's Voice -> Children's High Level Group -> Lumos. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never would have thought to look for that in Errington ... interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing direct quotes

VE, your friend SV was the original stickler for insisting that all direct quotes had to be inline cited where they occurred, not later, in heated discussions as far back as 2007.[1] I disagreed with her then, and paid the price, but I still honor her by doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's two quotes in a row from the same source. But, ok. Victoria (tk) 00:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was the stickler :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, maybe you can re-cast the whole thing to get them in the same sentence. I hope to start writing tomorrow, but got distracted by issues at multiple sclerosis (former FA) which is interesting considering the role in Rohling's life ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got interrupted by a phone call. Oddly it was Brian who always found my sloppy errors re citing directly after the quotation marks. You'd think I'd remember given that I spent so many years hammering it into students, but there you go. It's sad to think that Brian and Sarah are both gone. Yes, I think it can be recast into a single sentence, but I hadn't intended to start in that section yet. Was simply trying to sort out the refs. Victoria (tk) 02:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a pound of flesh, and gained a permanent negative impression of Wikipedia admin cabals, because I took a stance of disagreement with that strict need for attribution of quotes in the days when One Bowed Down, so it’s not something I can forget :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know. Sorry to hear. Victoria (tk) 03:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk

Sandy, reading the bios is a lot of heavy lifting and since archives.org only allows on person to view at a time, it's even more difficult. I might see what's in my local library, but not hopeful. But I can start reading Kirk online. It might be helpful to have both. Victoria (tk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle I have now read all of Smith, so feel comfortable there. I dipped in to Kirk and saw that a) mostly duplicative, but b) not a bad bio at all. Ealdgyth had recommended against using it, but I agree with AP that it is fine (or at least as good as the others, and that includes Pugh; it's all the same stuff, ditto for The Scottsman and The New Yorker).

I have sort of an idea in my head of what I want to do with Early life and the next section. Bring in more of the relationship between the three girls (mother daughters, which is so relevant later); completely redo the early parents' life because need to work in middle class, hard-working, how that affected Jo's choices; need to completely re-do the rift with her father; give more of her personality; lots of stuff like that already organized and written in my head. And more. It's there, but the slowdown is that I am proceeding very methodically, and keep getting waylaid by little stuff like the college degree. If you have more to do still on literary stuff, that's where (frankly) my eyes gloss over in boredom, and you know you'll have to smooth prose once I do write this stuff, so there will be plenty of heavy lifting ahead :) I would be surprised if you find any differences in Kirk ... I sure would like to see some literary analysis on how profoundly her life story affected her writing ... the El Pais interview is strong, and Smith has lots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I want a few more sentences on her marriage, and to reinforce how little money she had ... perhaps an intro to the Marriage and wealth section (which we have backwards, she met him, they found the house together ... like I said, it's all in my head but not on paper yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you are uncomfortable reading El Pais, just pop it in to a translator and you'll get close enough .. A C Santacruz and I can fine tune. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A character sketch ... little bits like valuing her privacy, Jessica is everything, takes pride independence, quiet and shy ... wanted to gather all of that into two sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty reading on archive.org so ordered Kirk from ILL. Who knows when it'll arrive, but it's helpful to have another source for looking stuff up. In the meantime I'm more than happy reading the criticism. Enjoy going out tonight. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing a book via archive.org is a nightmare.

@Victoriaearle and AleatoryPonderings: I dropped in the first section yesterday, and heard no response; is it that bad? Or should I continue with same for the second section today? I realize my work will need heavy editing, but am I on the right track, ala, we did not yet have a basic biographical background to provide context for themes, influences, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad (in my view)! My no response was "I don't want to edit-conflict SG and also I want to go to sleep" not "I think SG's work is bad". I will give it a read today and give any more detailed thoughts I have. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Whew; had me worried :) I would say not to do too much work on it, though, until Victoria gets Kirk and continues … we can chop and refine later, as long as it’s not dreadful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all dreadful. I think some of the details (Brownies, family meals) can be trimmed but overall this is excellent and I don't know why you kept warning us about BAD PROSE TO COME because it reads well to me. If we're going to check the details against Kirk it'll probably be easier to see which are Smith-specific bits and which have seemed more broadly significant. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The food bit … remember I have not read Potter at all … is to use food themes. Smith seems to be making the case that there are elaborate food themes in the books, and ties that to her mother’s cooking. I’ll fix the Brownies … but recognize it could still be chopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there is food, like Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans (and yes, you can buy them in multiple varieties, and yes, I have eaten them) but I wouldn't call it a theme so much as a ... thing. I have not come across any food references when looking through the scholarship, but there is admittedly a ton of it and I'm sure someone has written a piece like "Harry Potter and Food for Thought: Nutrition as Death in the Harry Potter Universe" but if it's out there it hasn't been picked up. Brownies, jelly beans ... on this cold snowy day I could do for some warm chocolate ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a box of European chocolate-covered cookies someone gave me for Christmas! Not to worry for now; if nothing surfaces, that bit can easily be deleted later on. My idea for now is to add everything, let others delete if it turns out to be irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support a "more is more" approach when doing a first draft. Cutting down is easier than building up. Enjoy your cookies :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sandy, I've fallen way behind. I'm out for a few days. Had my covid booster yesterday (and Benadryl). On Sunday I got stuck in the themes section, which I'm not happy with and I might roll back all my edits and restart - though not yet - and haven't had time to follow edits. Again. Sorry. Will try to catch up later in the week. Victoria (tk) 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry; thanks for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Tomorrow, to do: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done in rewrite (it was always attributed, to Smith, but hopefully now more clear). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=prev&diff=1066357261

AleatoryPonderings I believe the one referred to in Philanthropy is Magic. Pugh (p. 6) says: "She has written a variety of short stories and essays directed to charitable endeavors, including the foreword to the anthology Magic (2002), with proceeds directed to the National Council for One Parent Families" ... I will work that in. Both Smith and Pugh have quite a bit of coverage of her philanthropy, so I don't anticipate any issue with secondary sources in that dept (just need to find the time to tie up the loose bits). The Reynolds entry in Errington is on pages 669–70; your entry is correct, but I can find no other useful info on this book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, so I guess there were two anthologies that benefited One Parent Families (now Gingerbread): Families Just Like Us and Magic? Yes, Just Like Us is very obscure (not even a cover preview on Amazon). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, there is a ton of philanthropy that isn't even in the article. Gotta take a break for a few hours; will return to fix To Do List when I am re-energized! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]