Last time I went to the supermarket I bought a block of Whittaker's Fruit and Nut chocolate, instead of the block of Cadbury's I normally buy.
Not an enormously significant act you might say, except that the Cadbury brand has been a very important part of my life ever since I was born, and as far as a person can be wedded to a particular brand, I've been wedded to Cadbury's. The Whittaker's chocolate in my shopping basket was the first I had ever bought, and the first time that I have ever chosen a chocolate brand other than Cadbury's.
Let me explain.
I was born and brought up in Bournville, Birmingham, England. The original home of Cadbury's. The factory is still there, and still makes chocolate. Until I was eleven and ventured outside Bournville to go to secondary school, Cadbury's was suffused into every aspect of my world.
I went to Bournville Infant and Junior Schools, which, we were often reminded, were originally established by George and Elizabeth Cadbury at the turn of the century to "provide education of the highest quality" for the children of his factory workers.
Every Saturday, the music of the 48 bells of the Carillon played by Mr Workman the carillonneur would drift across our garden from its home in the tower on top of the Junior School - and every fifteen minutes of every day we'd hear the bells chime the hour, the half and the quarters.
Mr Aldington, the scariest teacher in the school, had his classroom in the tower, directly beneath the carillon. He was Mr Workman's assistant, and one of the biggest treats of being a pupil at Bournville Juniors was the trip up into the tower during the summer term of our final year to meet Mr Workman and see him play the carillon.
The carillon was (and still is) the sound of Bournville, and as it was housed in George Cadbury's school, we always thought of it as being George Cadbury's very own music.
Our house was a 10-minute walk from the Cadbury factory, and when the wind was in the right direction you could smell the chocolate wafting through the parks and tree-lined lanes of Bournville. It was wonderful. Every afternoon when the hooter sounded to mark the shift change we'd pause and picture the workers streaming in and out of the factory, and we'd wish that we could somehow sneak in with them and be surrounded by that delicious, mystical, magical entity - chocolate.
Every spring for at least three months all the girls in the village would practise and practise to perfect the ancient English art of the maypole dance; and in the summer we'd perform at the Maypole festival which was held once a year at the Cadbury factory recreation ground.
The Queen's Basket, The Gypsy's Tent, The Barber's Pole and (trickiest of all) The Chain - I can still remember the steps to each of those dances, and can clearly recall the excitement of performing them in front of hundreds of people. We were all dressed in white, with garlands of flowers in our hair, and the beautiful turn-of-the-century architecture of the factory was itself a somehow fitting backdrop to the show.
Every Christmas the whole school would be invited to the Cadbury factory cinema to watch a hand-picked movie - and apart from the year when the staff unfortunately selected Old Yeller which had three-quarters of the school in hysterical tears by the end - the visit to the Cadbury cinema was another highlight of our year.
I have so many powerful memories of my childhood, much of it spent playing with my friends in the many parks of Bournville. My dad teaching me to ride my bike in a single day in the park at the end of our lane, and later teaching myself to ride it no-handed along the pathways that criss-crossed the yaching pool park. Watching the old men sail their little model boats in the yachting pool, and the great adventure we had the day of the torrential rain when the whole pool flooded and the entire park became a great brown sea of fast-moving water.
Catching stickle-backs in the stream that ran through the park alongside my friend Tania's house, and climbing the great willow tree next to her house. Falling out of another tree a few years later as I put my full weight on a rotten branch, and having to be rescued by my friend Leslie's mum as I clung upside down from a lower branch, too terrified to move.
Building dens and playing make-believe from dawn to dusk in the vast areas of woodland and fields near Leslie's house, watching the cows in the fields between her house and the yachting pool, and learning to ride horses there too.
Marvelling at the display of pink blossom that covered the dozens of ornamental cherry trees along Woodbrooke Road every spring, loving the mass of crocuses that appeared at the same time each year in the park next to our school; the song of the blackbird in the twilight trees that to me will always be the sound of summer; looking forward with great anticipation to the autumn when we could fossick through the fallen chestnut leaves all the way down Oak Tree Lane from our house to the Bournville Village Trust building, searching for the elusive and much-treasured conker; and loving the strange white-light muffled silence that would herald an overnight fall of snow in winter.
For a place that, by the time I lived there, was essentially a suburb of the big industrial city that was Birmingham, it sounds like an idyllic childhood stuck in a time-warp sometime earlier in the century, and in many ways it was. We knew that outside the confines of Bournville village the rest of the world was not like the place in which we lived, and fundamentally we all knew that our peaceful and tree-lined existence was entirely due to the generosity, character and far-sightedness of the Cadbury family.
The whole of Bournville was, and still is, a conservation area (of which we were very proud) because George Cadbury did such a bang-up job of creating a model village for his workers at the turn of the century.
George Cadbury himself, as we all learned at school, was a Good Guy. A Quaker who built a factory on the outskirts of the big city and determined that the houses he would build for his workers would be a hundred times better than the dwellings most working-class people lived in at the time. Indoor loo, plumbing, hot water, semi-detached (not terraced), and each house had a garden with 6 fruit trees planted in it. Parks throughout the village, a village green, recreation grounds adjoining the factory so that the men and women who worked for him could keep fit, no pubs allowed within the village boundaries (to this day!)... quite amazing really.
This wonderful environment in which I spent my childhood was inextricably linked with Cadbury's, and so it was inevitable that I would maintain my loyalty to that product and brand throughout my life. Until now.
I (and everyone else who has ever lived in Bournville) am more Cadbury's than the individuals who now own the international Cadbury brand will ever be - and it's why the other day in the supermarket I chose not to buy Cadbury's any more - and why I felt sure that George Cadbury must have been turning in his grave at the thought of how far from his original enlightened ideals his products have strayed.
Although New Zealand still makes its own Cadbury's assortments and box chocolates in the Dunedin factory, a restructure in 2008 meant that the manufacture of all our Cadbury chocolate bars was shifted to two Australian factories. For a while we had our own combination of ingredients, different from (and better than) the Australian version, but in order to save money, Cadbury's recently made what I think was a very stupid decision.
I'm sure you know that a couple of months ago Cadbury Australia made three very significant changes to their chocolate - each of which in its own way has had a very negative effect on the quality of the chocolate itself, and on the image of the brand in the eyes of me and many other Kiwis.
Firstly they reduced the size of all their chocolate blocks, with the family block going down from 250g to 200g - and disguised this fact by changing the traditional paper and foil packaging to a cardboard casing which mirrored the old size exactly, while containing 50g less chocolate. You can see it here:
Secondly they reduced the cocoa content from 26% down to 21% - which is only one percent more than the minimum required to still call the product "chocolate"; and thirdly, they replaced the traditional (and many would say essential) cocoa butter with vegetable fat including palm oil.
Not a good look, especially when you find out that palm oil is a big big no-no if you care about the environment, global warming, or the threat to the world's few remaining habitats in Indonesia for endangered Sumatran tigers, Javan rhinoceroses and orang-utans.
In April 2008 Greenpeace launched a campaign in a number of countries to push companies at various points along the palm oil supply chain into supporting measures to protect rainforests from further plantation expansion.
From Greenpeace: Palm oil:Demand for palm oil is growing and fast. At the moment, most of it ends up in hundreds of food products - from margarine and chocolate to cream cheese and oven chips - although it's also used in cosmetics and increasingly, for use in biodiesel. But the cost to the environment and the global climate is devastating - to feed this demand, tropical rainforests and peatlands in South East Asia are being torn up to provide land for oil palm plantations.
When Cadbury's switched to palm oil in their chocolate they claimed that, being a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) meant that they were only using sustainable palm oil, but Greenpeace refutes that claim. They say:The RSPO was established in 2001 as a market-led initiative to reform the way palm oil is produced, processed and used, with clear standards on the production of sustainable palm oil. Members include companies all along the supply chain, from big name companies such as Unilever, Cadbury's, Nestlé and Tesco, to suppliers such as Cargill, ADM and Indonesian-based Duta Palma.
As it currently stands, even though member companies are paying lip-service to forest and peatland protection, the reality is very different. The existing standards developed by the RSPO will not prevent forest and peatland destruction, and a number of RSPO members are taking no steps to avoid the worst practices of the palm oil industry. Some like palm oil processor Duta Palma, an RSPO member, are directly involved in deforestation. Worse still, at present the RSPO itself is creating the illusion of sustainable palm oil, justifying the expansion of the industry.
The destruction of rainforests and peatlands to make way for palm oil plantations in Indonesia has a devastating effect on the already shrinking habitats of a number of endangered species, and also contributes to global warming. As Greenpeace explains:The manufacturers of these products - Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever - are sourcing their palm oil from suppliers who aren't picky about where they site their plantations. As the volunteers at the Forest Defenders Camp in Sumatra have seen, this includes tearing up areas of pristine forest then draining and burning the peatlands.
Indonesia's peatlands act as huge carbon stores so replacing them with plantations them not only threatens the amazing biodiversity, including the rare Sumatran tiger, it also releases huge volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They only cover 0.1 per cent of the land on Earth, but thanks in part to the activities of the palm oil industry they contribute 4 per cent to global emissions. If expansion of the palm oil industry continues unabated, that figure can only rise.
It was with great pleasure, therefore, that I read today that Cadbury's has decided to bow to consumer pressure and will stop using palm oil in its Dairy Milk chocolate. Hooray! Apparently they were inundated with emails and letters from disgruntled Kiwi customers, and if the 3,517-strong Facebook group Take Palm Oil out of Cadbury chocolate bars! is anything to go by, feelings were running pretty high out there in the world of chocolate lovers.
When even the sluggish old mainstream media gets in on the act and starts laying out the case against palm oil, you know you've lost the battle.
Whittaker's brilliantly-timed ad didn't help Cadbury's cause much either:
Especially once it was featured on Campbell Live:
I don't for one minute believe that Cadbury's suddenly went all "Greenpeace" on us (although I'm sure Quaker George would have been a quiet supporter if they'd been around back then). I'm quite sure they didn't suddenly develop a conscience about the fate of the orang-utan or climate change.
No, I think it's pretty clear what changed Cadbury's mind - you only have to read the comments on any of the Stuff articles or YouTube videos I've linked to, to see what's been the driving force behind their abrupt about-turn. It's economics, of course.
But is it all too little, too late? Has Cadbury's lost market share to Whittakers for ever? Here are a few examples from Stuff:patty
too late, i have become addicted to whitakers
Lizbeth
I may now consider purchasing Cadbury again - MAY consider! It has been 3 months since my last 'fruit and nut' thick and chunky! lol
Julie
That is great to hear - the chocolate just did not taste the same. I wonder if they will also address the fact the pack sizes shrank considerably, meaning we paid the same for not only an inferior product, but we also paid the same for a far smaller size. As soon as I noticed the changes Cadbury had made, I started buying the Kiwi brand Whittaker's... I think I will stay with them for now, as the product is amazing.
Michael
This will not change my mind on buying the product. I used to enjoy my block of Dairy Milk but since production moved to Australia it has not been the same in both texture and taste. Whether this was the palm oil I do not know. I now and only will ever buy Whittakers as firstly it is made in New Zealand, and secondly is a far superior product to what Cadbury's is now.
Rob
Their decision to use Palm Oil, which only became known via Fair Go so appeared underhanded, single-handedly bombed their position as NZ's most trusted brand. Good decision to now cease using Palm Oil but it will take a very long time to regain the TRUST they once had with the NZ public.
Only time will tell whether Cadbury's will regain the trust of yer average chocolate-loving Kiwi. But one thing's for sure. As Coca Cola also discovered when they changed their recipe - don't mess with a beloved brand. It'll only lead to tears.
As for me, well I have to say I really quite liked my bar of Whittakers Fruit & Nut. I think I might try their Dairy Milk next time - just to see. Cadbury's may have taken the palm oil back out of their Dairy Milk, but they don't say anything about any of their other products in today's press release - and when you compare Whittaker's 33% cocoa with Cadbury's pathetic 21% - well, there's not much competition really is there?
I may be a Cadbury's girl born and bred, but it doesn't mean that at some point I can't explore the world beyond the confines of the village of Bournville...
Technorati tags: Cadbury's, Cadbury, chocolate, Bournville, palm oil, Whittakers, orang-utan, global warming, habitat, rainforest destruction, ethical consumerism, consumer protest, New Zealand, YouTube, video, WebWeaver's World, webweaver
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cadbury's and me
Friday, June 26, 2009
Michael Jackson
His death brought the internet to its knees.
For half an hour this morning, Google responded to what it believed was a denial of service attack - as millions of fans around the world Googled to find out if the rumours of the death of the King of Pop were true.
Twitter ground to a halt and went down as the rumours flew, and the gossip websites TMZ and Perez Hilton crashed under the weight of requests.
I wandered over to Amazon while writing this blog post, thinking I should get a Michael Jackson DVD to add to my collection, and it's pretty clear that rather a lot of other people have had the same idea. His DVDs currently hold the positions 1 to 7 in the Bestsellers in Movies & TV rankings.
From Wikipedia:
In the hours following Jackson's death, his record sales increased dramatically. His seminal album Thriller climbed to number one on the American iTunes music chart, while another eight have made it into the top 40. In the UK, where Jackson would have performed less than three weeks after his death, his albums occupied 14 of the top 20 places on the Amazon.co.uk sales chart with Off The Wall topping the chart. In the UK iTunes store on June 26th, 25 of Jackson's songs were in the Top 100 best selling songs list.
I was never what you'd call a massive Michael Jackson fan (although I do confess to having a bunch of Jackson 5 tracks on my iPod), but I've spent this evening watching his top 15 music videos on MTV, and I've developed a new-found respect for the man and his art. Perhaps it's having the rare opportunity to watch so many of his videos together that brings home just what an incredible talent he was.
I remember how awed I was when I first saw the video for Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody on Top of the Pops in 1975, and how that one video defined the music video genre for an entire generation. It was clear to me this evening as I watched one MJ video after another, that Michael's work redefined the genre in a whole new - and extraordinarily creative - direction.
There are so many common themes and emotions running through his videos, and I felt an enormous level of pent-up tension in all of them - it was like watching a tightly-wound spring ready to explode.
Bad is a perfect example...
It's not just the subject matter, it's the choreography, the sound effects, the snappiness of the moves... everything. Amazing.
Michael at his most beautiful (IMHO) - if only he'd stayed at that point and not continued his journey into self-parody under the surgeon's knife.
Here's the very wonderful Billy Jean performed live at Motown 25 - including the moment when MJ unveiled the moonwalk for the first time (listen to the screams!):
...and here it is again re-created (to the uncontrollable delight of the audience) in 2001 for Michael's 30th anniversary special. This one made me weepy, for some reason:
I found myself thinking back to Fred Astaire at his perfectionist best, or Gene Kelly dancing round the lampposts in Singing in the Rain. Perhaps it isn't until you see all the videos together - and particularly right at this moment - that you realise what an incredible body of work Michael created, and what a genius he really was.
The choreography is stunning - and I can only imagine how long it took and how hard the dancers worked to get every move exactly spot-on. The massed dance section that characterises so many of his videos just blows me away, every time.
There's a level of intensity and aggression in many of his later videos which goes beyond the simple subject-matter. The sexual moves are more overt, and in some, The Way You Make Me Feel, for example, there's almost an underlying sense of anger within the sexuality.
But there's also an innocence too. At the end of TWYMMF, when Michael gets the girl, they don't dive into a passionate embrace, tongues akimbo - instead she walks into his arms and he simply holds her.
The street fighting themes of Bad, Beat It, The Way You Make Me Feel or even Thriller to some extent, are so reminiscent of the dance sequences in West Side Story, and the contrast with the sheer joy and exuberance of the earlier Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough is quite striking:
It's hard to reconcile the many different facets of Michael's life. The obsessive perfectionist blessed with a beautiful singing voice and stunning dance and choreographic abilities doesn't jibe with the Peter Pan "Wacko Jacko" that many in the media and beyond preferred to focus on, and yet they are found within the same man.
This is a man who has given away millions of dollars over the years - and was listed in the book of Guinness World Records in 2000 for his support of 39 charities, more than any other entertainer or personality. He's also a man who can blow $6 million in one shopping spree in Vegas on tacky oversized pots, gewgaws and sparkly tat that no-one would ever actually need (and which, by the look of them, only he could ever like).
How do you get your head around understanding someone whose relationships with children, and young boys in particular, certainly raised many eyebrows, and may well have been inappropriate on occasion; and how does that relate to a man so obsessed with his appearance and so lacking in understanding of how others perceive him that he spent 20 years having bits of his face lopped off and re-sculpted in an attempt to - what? - become someone else?
Knowing what we now know about Michael's early life, and his abusive relationship with his father, helps to put his childlike behaviour as a man into perspective, even if it does not excuse it. Perhaps he was attempting as a grown-up to recreate the childhood he never had - and as a re-created child, he related most easily to other children.
Perhaps, as at least one psychologist who testified at his trial believes, the man was so damaged by his father as a child (and by 40 years of living in the intense spotlight of superstardom) that as an adult he regressed back to being a 10-year-old boy, complete with the emotional and developmental limitations of a child of that age.
Here's Michael with the Jackson 5 when he really was a child in 1969, with I Want You Back. I find it delightful and sad at the same time:
Here's another couple of variations on a theme. The first is the official "Brazilian" video for They Don't Care About Us, which I absolutely ADORE because it was filmed in a favela in Rio and features the completely awesome Brazilian group Olodum front and centre, accompanying the song with a strong samba reggae groove. - and you'll know if you read my blog on a regular basis that Batucada is something that's very dear to my heart.
I also love this video because it's obvious that Michael is having the time of his life making it, and again I think it gives us another glimpse into two contradictory aspects of Michael's personality. Look at how strong and self-confident and aggressive he is in this video - and then think about his shy retiring breathy press conferences where he looks like he'd fall over if you sneezed on him. I find it fascinating to compare the two:
And here's another version which also kind of sums up the dichotomy of Michael Jackson. It's a (much faster) remix of They Don't Care About Us, with a remixed video to go with it. The video is a mashup of both the controversial and violent "Prison" video and the exuberant and joyful "Brazilian" video - and it's completely awesome.
Let's close with something that again epitomises the weirdness that was MJ - or perhaps the weirdness he inspired in others - the famous Cebu Prisoners version of Thriller - where 1,500 plus CPDRC inmates of the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu, Philippines, do the complete dance routine from the video. 23,633,154 views on YouTube - and counting...
I would absolutely hate to be famous. I wouldn't last 5 minutes in the spotlight, and I'd no doubt end up becoming an eccentric recluse somewhere. Imagine what Michael's life has been like the past 40+ years. No wonder he ended up so divorced from reality.
Rest in peace, Michael. I think you deserve it. Thank you for everything you gave us. You'll be sadly missed.
Technorati tags: Michael Jackson, death, dead, King of Pop, music videos, YouTube, dichotomy, Bad, Billy Jean, moonwalk, Motown 25, The Way You Make Me Feel, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Singing in the Rain, Beat It, Thriller, West Side Story, Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough, They Don't Care About Us, Olodum, Cebu Prisoners, music, pop, WebWeaver's World, webweaver
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
It's 4.44am. I finished reading the book at 3.19am. I'll go to bed soon.
Unbelievably, despite the attempts by (amongst others) The New York Times (shame on you, NYT!), Alice and I managed to obtain our copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows completely un-spoilered - basically by switching off most access to the outside world for the past week - no TV news, no radio, very little internet (no surfing!). Oh - and iPods on from 11.01am onwards inside Dymocks... I never thought we'd do it, but we did!
The book is - awesome. I cried. Rather a lot. Rather a lot of times.
Some of my predictions were right, some were wrong. I won't tell you which, though.
I'm not going to spoiler anything for you. It's been a wild ride, and I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone else. I'll be re-reading it from tomorrow onwards. Once is simply not enough.
Thanks, Jo! You are a wonderful writer! Thank you SO MUCH for introducing a whole generation of children to the wonders of reading - and for reminding many adults of the absolute joy of disappearing into a beautifully-written story. As I read the final tale of Harry's journey I imagined millions of other people around the world doing exactly the same thing. In these dark times, a little bit of escapism, an opportunity to step into a fantastical world for a while, is never a bad thing.
Technorati tags: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry Potter, JK Rowling, spoilers, book 7, New York Times, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Friday, July 20, 2007
One more sleep till Harry!
So here we are - it's Friday night - the night before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is released in NZ.
Against ALL the odds (thus far at least) I have managed to avoid ALL spoilers. I have no idea what happens in the book. No idea at all. I have many theories, of course - that Snape will turn out to be a good guy after all; that although Harry may not be a Horcrux, his scar is (or was); that there are not only reflections of alchemy within the books, but Ancient Egyptian symbolism too.
I'm thinking we may lose Hagrid (*sob!*), possibly with Neville playing a vital role in the final moments of the destruction of Voldemort (in the same way as Gollum did for Frodo) - which means we may lose Neville too (*sob!*). I can't bear to think we might lose one of The Three - I just can't imagine losing Harry, Ron or Hermione - so I will choose to believe we won't until I find out any different. I think Snape might be a goner also. Nooooooooo! Not Snape! He's the most fascinating character of all! And I think we're going to lose a Weasley... maybe even Ginny (*sob!*).
Alice and I have tomorrow planned out - iPods at the ready, not too much eye contact with anyone or anything while we're at Dymocks (or on the way there and back) - and once I have my copy it's back home, close the door, phone off the hook, no internet, TV, papers or radio till I'm done.
I'm hoping I can read it in a day - I'm going to Otis's birthday party on Sunday and I really don't want to risk going out into the world without having finished it... but we shall see. At 600ish pages that's one page every 2 minutes - without any time for sleeping, eating, making coffee, going to the loo or watching the All Blacks thrash the Wallabies on Saturday night. Heh.
I realise I'm a bit of an... intense person. You'd think I'd have figured this out by now, but apparently not quite, until now. Seems I don't do anything unless it's at at least 125%. How funny. Well, what's the point of doing anything if you don't put your heart and soul into it? Apparently that's how I like to live my life, anyway.
See you tomorrow, Harry!
Technorati tags: Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, book 7, plot spoilers, end, last book, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville, Hagrid, Snape, Voldemort, Mugglenet editorials, theories, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Friday, June 15, 2007
File this under "too cute for words"
Ah Connie! You restore my faith in... I don't know, you just restore my faith.
This is 6 year old Connie, singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow on ITV's talent show, Britain's Got Talent. I don't know about the rest of Britain (it's been a while since I lived there), but Connie certainly has talent to burn. The best smile ever and the most amazing voice you'll ever hear from a 6 year old. Stunning.
I bet you can't watch it without getting a little teary - and if you can tear yourself away from Connie for a second, check out the audience while she's singing. I don't think a single one of them took a single breath throughout her whole song. She had them, as they say, in the palm of her hand.
Technorati tags: Connie, Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Britain's Got Talent, Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan, Amanda Holden, Ant, Dec, British television show, ITV, talent show, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Meeting Florence - and choosing not to have kids
This is Florence (Flo for short) with her new dad and mum, Kurt and Briget. She's the latest addition to my wonderful circle of friends. Isn't she gorgeous? 
I got to spend all afternoon with them yesterday, and we went through a whole "baby cycle". Hold baby, talk to baby, baby naptime, baby wakeup, baby feed, baby play, hold baby again, talk to baby again, baby bathtime, baby sleeptime. Grownup talking, grownup fish and chip eating, grownup rugby watching (go the All Blacks!), grownup beer drinking. It was lovely!
Unlike the majority of my friends, I decided a long time ago that I didn't particularly want children. I think there are a few reasons why...
Firstly, I don't think I have the "maternal gene" - whatever that is. Most women get that biological clock thing happening at some point - generally in their thirties I suppose - and the ticking of the clock becomes louder than anything else in their life. So they do something about it, which generally means finding someone to have kids with (assuming you don't have a someone already) and then getting down to it.
My ticking clock never eventuated. I never heard the tick - and, to be honest, I didn't really expect to. Because...
...reason number two - I never envisioned children in my future.
You know how throughout your life you have a mental picture of how it is now, and how it's going to be? Well, my mental picture of my future never had children in it. I never really had a positive picture of being a mum, or having kids.
Oh sure, as a child I stuffed a pillow up my jumper to see what it would look like (I thought I looked ridiculous). I do also remember imagining myself being a mum. I have an incredibly vivid picture in my mind of how I imagined life would be. It's a vision of a woman, alone, pushing a pram up a hill in a deserted, lonely street.
I have no idea where the vision came from - the suburb where we lived was beautiful, tree-lined, full of parks. Nothing like the dismal housing estate in my head. Still, I remember sensing the intensely lonely desperation of the woman in my mind, and I remember vowing that that would never be me.
Reason number three is that I have not met my soulmate, and therefore I have had no reason to want to set aside reasons #1 and #2. Kurt reckons that, had I met Mr Right, I would probably have had kids, and I think he's probably right. The love of a good man, and wanting to express that love through having children together, would have overridden any doubts I might have had.
But it didn't happen. There have been three men in my life with whom I could imagine having children, but they didn't feel the same way about me. As I said, rather sadly, to Kurt - there's actually no-one who's wanted to have children with me. Ah well.
I just feel incredibly lucky that I wasn't desperate to have children. Imagine how much worse that would be, if I ached to have kids, and I hadn't had them! Alice reckons if my clock had started ticking I would have made sure I found a man who wanted to procreate. She's probably right.
Or I suppose I could have got myself knocked up and had the baby on my own. I know the thought crossed my mind somewhere in my early 20s (before I knew any single parents and realised what an incredibly difficult job it is), but it didn't really go anywhere. I just remember thinking that if my clock did start ticking at some point, I'd be prepared to have a kid on my own if it came to it. Except the clock appears to be broken...
There was an interesting piece in The Guardian Comment is Free section recently. It was written by a woman who (thus far) had decided not to have children. She's not ruling it out in the future, but right now, she's not interested. She's happy with her life, and her career, she's not that into babies, and her clock isn't ticking, although she accepts it might start sometime. She wasn't very impressed with the women who have kids giving her a hard time about not having them.
The comments section was very interesting. I don't think I've ever seen such vitriol in The Guardian (unless it's aimed at George Bush). She was called "selfish", "self-centered", "barren", and told her life was meaningless and pointless. It was amazing. Women who felt the same way as she did were laying into the "smug marrieds", and those who they feel are selfish for having children and for wanting to create a little "mini-me".
Both sides felt they were continually being lectured by the other side. Mothers were tired of having the job of childrearing undervalued by career women. Women without children were tired of being told that they led selfish, meaningless lives. It got very heated, very polarised and really vicious.
I guess I was surprised because, really, what does it matter what other people choose to do? I'm happy with my life, but I see no need to either justify my choices or judge other people for having made different ones. I know I've made the less usual choice, but that's fine by me. I never was entirely conventional anyway. But it doesn't mean I think any less of people who do make the more conventional choice. We each make the choices that are right for us.
I like kids. I like them quite a lot - and they like me. I also like giving them back after a while. They tire me out (as I'm sure they tire their parents out, too!). I've never felt grown-up enough to have kids, and I'm always slightly surprised when my friends go ahead and have them anyway, because I see my friends as being at the same level of grownupness as me. I guess they're not.
I can't imagine being totally responsible for the health and wellbeing of another human being. It frightens the life out of me. I'm completely inconsistent in my level of care of myself, let alone another person. Kurt and Alice both think I think about things like that more deeply than some other people do, and maybe that's what's held me back. Maybe it's also because I'm such a perfectionist and I don't know whether I'd be able to do a good enough job of parenting... and perhaps I'm afraid to try in case I don't reach my own standards, whatever they are.
Kurt and Briget are much more laid-back about the whole parenting thing than I could ever be, and they're doing a great job - without, it seems, too much angsting about it all. I admire all my friends for the way they just get on and do it - they are all such wonderful parents.
I've wondered if I'm completely selfish for choosing not to have children (Alice says no - and thinks that some parents are pretty selfish - the ones who want to create a little mirror image of themselves, anyway). I've wondered if my life is meaningless and unfulfilled, as some of those parents on the Guardian comments thread would judge it to be. I don't think it is, and so I guess that's OK, seeing as it's my life, and my choice.
Anyway, I'm thrilled to have so many little friends in my life. I'm thrilled to be an honorary member of another family (as Zef and Sarah's daughter Eesha has described me, much to my delight). I adore having two nieces and a nephew, and although I'm sad they live on the other side of the world, I'm in awe of the fact that apparently the spare room at their house is now permanently named "webweaver's room" even though I've only stayed there once. I'm honoured every time I get invited to one of my little friends' birthday parties (and find it funny that parents I don't know invariably ask me "which one is yours, then?")
So welcome to our beautiful world, baby Florence. You're going to have a wonderful life with your awesome mummy and daddy. I hope I can share in a little bit of it, just as I do with all the other children and babies in my my inner circle of friends. I'd like that.
Technorati tags: parenting, babies, family, children, kids, childless, choice, not having children, career women, mother, father, parent, WebWeaver's World, webweaver
Friday, May 18, 2007
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - the last sentence
Continuing with the Harry Potter theme... let's see how the last sentence (or two or three) might pan out... :)
We know the last word of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is "scar" (probably!) so how about:
"Hurry up Harry, finish your toast or you'll be late for your first day as Minister for Magic," scolded Ginny playfully, as she kissed him lovingly on the top of his forehead, brushing her lips across his scar."
OR
"Harry!!!" screamed Luna, "Quick! Over here before Voldemort comes back! I can see a way out!" Harry grabbed his wand and raced across the cave towards her, but he was only halfway across the stone-covered floor when he felt a sharp pain sear through his brain. The last thing Harry ever saw was an intense flash of green light, and the last thing he ever felt was blazing green fire pulsing across his scar.
OR
"Oh crikey Hermione! Don't die now! We've just beaten Voldemort in the final apocalyptic battle - and I love you!!" cried Ron. But it was to no avail. Hermione, mortally wounded, expired in his arms. "Bummer!" thought Harry, "at least the worst I have to show for my battles with Voldemort is this stupid scar."
OR
As Voldemort kicked aside the pile of ashes that was all that remained of Harry Potter, he felt a strange prickling sensation on his forehead. He reached up with a clawlike hand and felt something that he'd never felt before - the raised edges of a lightning-shaped scar.
OR
"Come here Potter!" hissed Snape venomously. "You're mine now - and this time you won't get away. I have your wand, and all your silly little friends are dead. They can't help you now!" And with evil in his eye, Snape aimed his wand directly at the centre of Harry's scar.
OR
"Blimey, Neville," said Harry. "I can't believe it! Not only did you kill Voldemort and 113 Death Eaters single-handed - and brought Sirius back to life - but you also scored the wonderous Ginny in the process! I thought I was supposed to do all that!" "Oh Harry you idiot" sighed Neville. "Don't you understand we had to convince everyone that you were The One, leaving the way clear for me to fulfil the prophesy? That's why we marked you as a baby with that totally fake scar!"
Heh. Go on - you do one!
Technorati tags: Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, book 7, last sentence, plot spoilers, end, final page, last paragraph, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville, Luna, Snape, Voldemort, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Making plans for Harry
No - I'm not talking about Harry Wales (that's 3rd in line to the British throne to you!) - although I note with interest that he's not going to Iraq after all. What a surprise! Ah well, guess Cornet Wales will have to sit on his arse at home while his men go off and do their thing instead. Wonder how they feel about that?
But anyway, I digress. I'm talking of course about making plans for Harry Potter - or more specifically, the release of Book 7 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We all need a plan for momentous occasions such as this :)
I was at Dymocks the other day, ordering 2 Harry Potters - one for me, one for Alice (hey Alice! What's up with the NOT blogging, dude?) - and I was thinking, as you do, about getting the book in my hot little hands and settling down to read it.
I plan to read it in as short a time as possible (the first time!), so I get to the end without knowing in advance what happens. I neeeed to read it without knowing!
This involves some pretty tricky planning:
I'm serious! (well ok, maybe I'm exaggerating just a little) - but really - can't you picture it? The ending'll be on the 6 o'clock news! It'll be across the front page of all the papers! If I'm not careful - if I don't turn my iPod up really loud - some 8-year old in Dymocks will yell "Mummy!!! Harry DIES at the end!" or "Mummy!!!!! Snape's a Death DEATH EATER!!!" and I'll hear them - and it will be all over.
Because I really, really don't want to know the ending before I get there...
Maybe I should take the day off on the Monday, just in case I haven't finished it by the end of the weekend...
So tell me - when you get hold of your copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - are you going to turn to the last page and find out what happens?
Technorati tags: Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, release date, New Zealand, release time, book, chidren's book, literature, ending, Snape, Death Eater, Dymocks, July 21, Prince Harry, Iraq, war, Harry Wales, Cornet Wales, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Smack no more!
Hooray! The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill was tonight given its third reading and was passed by Parliament by a vote of 113 to seven. Fantastic! I'm very, VERY happy about that - and so pleased that MPs on all sides decided to be grownups about the whole thing, and found a way to compromise, and were able to come to an agreement on the issue.
Here's Sue Bradford's speech that she gave in Parliament tonight, in support of the bill. It's so good I think it deserves quoting in its entirety. Thanks to the Green Party for making it available. And thanks SO much to Sue and all the Greens for having the balls to make this legislation happen. I'm so proud of you all. And I'm a little bit prouder of New Zealand tonight than I was a few weeks ago.
Sue Bradford MP, Green Party Children's Issues Spokesperson
Third Reading, Parliament, 16th May 2007Madam Speaker,
I move that the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Nearly two years ago my private member's Bill to repeal s59 of the Crimes Act was drawn from the parliamentary ballot. While I was certainly well aware of the controversial nature of this issue after facing hostile audiences on various election platforms around the country, little did I realise back then the full extent of the difficulties that were yet to come.
I came to Parliament after many years of working for the rights of unemployed people and beneficiaries and was very used to our groups and ourselves being seen as outcasts, korotake, blamed and despised. I was used to being physically assaulted on street protests and often enough arrested as well.
However, none of that quite prepared me for the level of vitriol and the ugly lies and threats cast at myself and others simply for standing up for the right of our babies and children to live free from violence.
I thought in a country that prides itself on being a great place to bring up kids and where people from all parts of society talk constantly of their love for children that it would be like motherhood and apple pie to work for a law change that benefits children.
Instead, the debate over whether or not to get rid of the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction has shown quite starkly that some people believe the right of parents to legally beat their children is so important that some of them have stooped to threats of violence and other abhorrent tactics.
However, it has, in the end, been a wonderful thing that despite the ugliness of some aspects of the public discourse, so many members of Parliament from almost every party have chosen to support my Bill in its amended form.
I acknowledge and thank all involved from all sides of the house for your support within this outbreak of consensus politics, and I regret on behalf of Peter Dunne and Judy Turner that this Bill has seen their party break apart because someone is so dedicated to fighting for the right to beat children that they've abandoned their allegiance.
The Bill in front of us tonight fulfils my original goal of removing the reasonable force defence while at the same time dealing with some of the fears expressed at different times by both the Labour and National caucuses and by some members of the public.
The Labour-led amendment which came out of our select committee consideration of the Bill is aimed at reassuring parents that they won't be prosecuted if they use reasonable force to do things like putting a child in a room for time out, forcibly removing a child from danger, or restraining a child from causing damage to people or property.
I am aware that some lawyers believe that this new clause may be misused as a legal defence for having hit a child as part of control and because of this I believe that its use as a defence in future must be monitored to ensure that it is not used this way in practice.
The second significant amendment to the Bill has been the one put forward just two weeks ago by Peter Dunne and agreed to by both Labour and National through John Key's leadership, encapsulating within the Bill the long-established police discretion regarding the action they take when deciding whether or not to prosecute in very minor cases where there is no public interest in proceeding.
This new clause simply affirms in law what is standard police practice under their prosecution guidelines but I think it is useful in helping to calm some of the unnecessary fears driven up by the Bill's opponents.
Neither the Select Committee, myself or anyone else supporting the Bill has ever intended that all parents who ever lightly or occasionally hit their child should be subject automatically to investigation and prosecution.
What we have been simply seeking to do is to remove a defence which has allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children, and most significantly, has stopped police taking action in many situations of violence against children.
Some of the most powerful submissions during the Select Committee process came from paediatricians who talked about the injuries they see constantly, and of how most of them are inflicted in the name of child discipline.
Only last week we were made all too aware of the case of the three year old Otara boy who was killed as a result of beatings inflicted in the name of toilet training. The police officer who led the investigation, Detective Senior Sergeant Richard Middleton said, among other things, "What I will say is keep your hands off your kids. Don't hit them. It's not on. There's no need for it."
I think it's a red letter day when a senior police officer feels able to make such an unequivocal statement in the national media. Police, like paediatricians, see the daily consequences of what happens when people assault their kids just to teach them a lesson.
Some people say that smacking or spanking isn't violence. I say to them - what else is it? If a burly gang member much larger than you smacked you in the pub tonight, what would you call that?
Some people say that the deaths of children like James Whakaruru or the Otara boy have nothing to do with this Bill - well I say they have everything to do with it.
There is a spectrum of violence used against our babies and children and one person's light occasional tap is another person's beating or shaking to death, all in the name of so-called correction.
I've been much criticised by the Bill's opponents for my unwillingness to support the earlier amendment put up by National MP Chester Borrows, which attempted to define the nature and level of force that parents could legitimately use on their kids.
I will simply reiterate once again that to support any such definition would make things even worse for kids by having the state define acceptable violence, and by entrenching the legal and social concept that it's OK to beat children but not OK to beat adults.
It is important that as we finally vote this Bill into law we also look forward to what else needs doing. Law change alone is not enough.
To be really effective, the Bill we are passing tonight needs to be accompanied by a well planned public information campaign telling people the intentions and implications of the law in a way that doesn't make people feel frightened or guilty.
The Government also needs to make a commitment to maintain and extend the SKIP programme so that strong, clear messages about alternatives to physical discipline are available to all parents around the country.
Funding for community groups that support children, parents and families needs to be increased.
We need research and monitoring of the attitudinal change that I feel sure will result from this new law, as it has already during the two years of the public debate.
The interpretations of the new law and its implementation by courts, police and CYFS all need to be monitored as well, and I welcome the two year review instigated by the Minister.
I also strongly recommend that the Government work closely with the relevant NGOs following the Bill's passage on an action plan to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved for children and families.
In conclusion, I would like to take just a moment to thank some of those who have played such a critical role in championing and supporting this Bill to the stage we're at tonight.
There are an enormous number of organisations who have worked tirelessly for reform over the last two years including Plunket, Barnardos, Unicef, Save the Children, the Families Commission, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, EPOCH, Every Child Counts, the Body Shop, Child Poverty Action Group, Parents Centres and many others. I am sorry I can't name you all.
There are also many individuals who have played a key role - people like Beth Wood, Mike Coleman, Deborah Morris-Travers, Megan Payne, Ian Hassall, Cindy Kiro, Jane and James Ritchie, Kaye Crowther, Robert Ludbrook, Sonya Hogan, Rhonda Pritchard and David Kenkel - and again I apologise for only being able to mention so few of you.
I'd also like to say a special thanks to the Reverends Anthony Dancer and Margaret Mayman and all the other clergy involved in hosting the moving ecumenical service two weeks ago, and in mobilising Christian support for the Bill.
I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the MPs and officials involved in the very long Select Committee process, including the sterling efforts of our PCO counsel, Elizabeth Grant.
And finally I'd like to say a huge thanks to all the MPs who stood firm in support of this Bill during some fairly dark days, including Helen Clark and the Labour caucus, the Maori Party caucus, all my own Green Party colleagues, Peter Dunne, Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton and Katherine Rich - you are all heroes in your commitment to a vision of a country where children will finally receive the same legal protection as adults.
And I also acknowledge the lead John Key took in working to find a way through a seeming impasse so that his party too can lend its full weight to the mana of this Bill.
But in the end this Bill isn't about us here in Parliament or indeed about adults at all.
It is about our children and what I believe is their God-given right to grow up secure in the love of their family, valued as equal citizens to the rest of us and without the constant threat of legalised violence being used against them.
Technorati tags: Sue Bradford, speech, Green Party, section 59, Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, anti-smacking bill, smacking, child abuse, children's rights, human rights, smack, violence, legislation, New Zealand, law, repeal s59, Crimes Act, politics, WebWeaver's World, webweaver.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
I'm ashamed of you, New Zealand!
We've been together a good few years now, New Zealand. 1992 was when we first met - and I moved in with you a year later. Over 14 years together, with never an angry word between us. Okay, I admit I might be a little obsessive about our relationship - I think my love for you sometimes borders on hero-worship, but still.
I have always been so proud to be seen with you, proud to introduce you to my friends, filled with pride by everything about you - and filled with an equal pride by the fact that you wanted me.
But today I'm ashamed of you - and I never imagined this day would ever come. What happened to you, New Zealand, why is it that part of you thinks it's OK to hit a child?
Why is it that parts of you are fighting tooth and nail to keep the right to "use reasonable force" on your children enshrined in law? Why have I heard people laughing this week as they relate tales of what I would call abuse from their parents - and as they argue forcefully for the right to do the same to their kids if they feel like it - "without The State interfering".
My God. No wonder we have such an appalling record of child abuse in this country - third worst among 27 developed countries for child deaths; a child killed every five weeks by caregivers. Being allowed in law to "use reasonable force" on your children is the pointy end of the stick that eventually leads to the violent deaths of children such as the Kahui twins, in my opinion.
Let me ask you a question, New Zealand. If you were, say, a manager in a company, and one of your staff failed to get an important project in on time, do you think it would be reasonable for you to whack them over the head with the phone book as a punishment? What if you caught one of your employees stealing money from a colleague's purse? Would it be okay for you to grab the hot-water jug and beat them with the electrical cord to "teach them a lesson"? How about if you worked in a stressful environment and in a heated debate one of your colleagues swore at you? What would happen to you if you pulled their pants down and smacked their bare bottom?
You know the answers to those questions, New Zealand. If you did any of those things you'd be had up for assault and you'd be hard-pressed to find any jury willing to let you off. And rightly so.
In a civilised society you can't go around hitting, whacking, beating or smacking people! So how THE HELL can you argue that it's okay for you to do that TO YOUR OWN CHILDREN?????
Frankly, New Zealand, I'm pretty disgusted with parts of you right now.
Technorati tags: smacking, anti-smacking bill, section 59, s59, Crimes Act, Sue Bradford, corporal punishment, repeal of section 59, family, parent, child, child abuse, New Zealand.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - cover art released
Bloomsbury has released the cover art for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!
The publication date for the final book in JK Rowling's series draws nearer and nearer. I've started re-reading the first 6 books in preparation for book 7. The speculation mounts - who's going to die? Will Harry defeat Voldemort? Will Harry survive? And what of Snape? Is he a baddie through and through, or a super-secret double agent?
Without further ado, let me provide you with yet more source material to ponder over. Here's the complete set of covers for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - both the US and UK covers are here. Click on any image to get a larger version.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US full cover art (front and back)
Hmmm. OK - I see in the background what at first glance appears to be the Coliseum in Rome - except it looks remarkably undamaged - and there are people (depicted only as shadowy figures) seated or standing all around the first level. Is it the Quidditch stadium?
Voldemort and Harry are in the foreground - both reaching for something? Trying to catch something? Or maybe they're both acting - each with an arm raised in dramatic declaration - because at the edges of the book are curtains. Maybe they're stage curtains? Maybe the Coliseum is actually a painted backdrop? The curtains are worn, damaged at the bottom, and there's torn up wooden beams and rocks in the very front of the picture. Will Harry and Voldermort's final showdown be in the ruins of some old theatre somewhere? Or in the middle of the Quidditch stadium? Interesting...
Harry seems to be wearing muggle clothing - a big brown coat and a green jumper, He's also got a leather pouch around his neck - an amulet? Or perhaps a Horcrux - could it be Slytherin's locket maybe?
Note that Harry is alone with Voldemort. Hermione and Ron are nowhere to be seen - and neither are any of their other friends. No Ginny, no Neville, no Luna Lovegood. And no wands. Neither Harry nor Voldemort are holding their wands. Is that what they are both reaching for, or what they have just let go of? Maybe they're both doing Accio spells to get their wands back...
Mind you, as their wands are "brothers", and we know they aren't much use against each other, maybe they're both reaching for something else. I would hope that by the final showdown Harry will have become far more skilled at wandless magic (and especially magic where he doesn't have to speak) - because I think he's going to need it.
UPDATE 30/03/07: After another look, I think Voldemort is trying to magically force something away from himself (look at the position of his hand - it's almost in a classic "STOP!" pose), while Harry is trying to bring something towards himself (again, look at the position of his hand - it's positioned as though he's waiting to catch something). Could be they're aiming at the same thing - Voldemort doesn't want Harry to have it (and doesn't want it himself either), and Harry wants it... Or it could be two different things. We shall see.
Whichever it is, it seems as though the final conflict may be between Harry and Voldemort - solo. I can't wait!
But wait! There's more, much much more...
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US front cover art
Ther's no text shown on the US cover apart from the title and author.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows UK full cover art (front and back)
Harry, Ron and Hermione are falling into a pile of treasure - coins, precious gems, golden cups and bowls - and a silver suit of armour in separate pieces - the most interesting of which is a helmet with a griffon/gryphon on it (or maybe a dragon?). Hmmm. Although Gryffindor's emblem is a lion, the door knocker on Dumbledore's office is a griffon. Wonder whose armour it is? They look pretty freaked-out to be there...
Behind Harry, Ron and Hermione, is a stone entrance through which they have fallen. At first glance it looks a bit similar to the archways shown in the Coliseum on the American cover, but if you look closely you can see it's actually circular, rather than an arch. A circle of stones marking the entrance to something. Are they falling forwards through it, or are they falling down into it, with the viewer looking up at them falling towards us? Like falling down a well? Or - are they being sucked back into it?
UPDATE 30/03/07: Having looked even more closely, I am now convinced that they are being sucked into the round entrance hole. Look at the direction in which their hair (particularly Ron and Hermione's hair) is blowing. It's being blown forwards - and that would only happen if they were moving backwards. Your hair is blown in the opposite direction to that in which you are moving (unless you're in a very strong wind). Try it! I rest my case.
The pile of treasure looks very shiny and well-kept, not like it's been mouldering at the bottom of a well of hundreds of years. Magically polished maybe? Could they have fallen into a vault at Gringott's? Through the entranceway you can see what looks like a sunset behind them - which is very similar to the sunset sky depicted on the US cover.
Hermione and especially Harry look very bruised and battered. Harry's robes are torn in places and he has scrapes on his arms - as does Hermione. It's obviously not been an easy journey thus far. Hermione and Ron appear to be wearing their dress robes. Ron's are green, Hermione's purple. Harry seems to be wearing ordinary black robes. Are they at Hogwart's? Were they at a ball or their graduation ceremony or something?
The most interesting thing of all is that there's something or someone on Harry's back - holding Godric Gryffindor's sword raised in its hand. There are rubies on the pommel, so I know it's his sword. As for who is on Harry's back - I can see a bald head and long pointy ears, so I'm guessing it might be Dobby or another house elf - or maybe it's a new character we haven't met yet. Or perhaps it's Kreacher! As Voldemort is now back to (nearly) full strength I don't think it's him - plus I think they would all be looking far more freaked out if it were Voldemort - whereas Harry looks like he's giving the creature a piggy-back.
On the back cover is the outside of Hogwart's at night, with a full moon. On the inside front cover we see Harry's patronus - a stag - in all its glory.
On the inside back cover is an interesting illustration - a snake inside a crystal ball. Is it Voldemort's snake, Nagini? Or a representation of the fact that Harry (the possible Heir of Gryffindor) must battle against Voldemort, the Heir of Slytherin (whose symbol is a snake)? Maybe it's a reference to Harry's ability to speak parseltongue, or perhaps it's a hint that once again Professor Trelawney will see the future in her crystal ball. Is Nagini a Horcrux - or is Harry the final Horcrux? Who can tell?
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows UK front cover art
Here's what it says on the inside front flap:Harry has been burdened with a dark, dangerous and seemingly impossible task; that of locating and destroying Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes. Never has Harry felt so alone, or faced a future so full of shadows. But Harry must somehow find within himself the strength to complete the task he has been given. He must leave the warmth, safety and companionship of The Burrow and follow without fear or hesitation the inexorable path laid out for him...
In this final, seventh installment of the Harry Potter series, JK Rowling unveils in spectacular fashion the answers to the many questions that have been so eagerly awaited. The spellbinding, richly woven narrative, which plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace, confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose books will be read, re-read and read again.
And on the back cover:Harry is waiting in Privet Drive. The Order of the Phoenix is comingf to escort him safely away without Voldemort and his supporters knowing - if they can. But what will Harry do then? How can he fulfil the momentous and seemingly impossible task that Professor Dumbledore has left him with?
And on the back cover flap:JK (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling has written fiction since she was a child, and always wanted to be an author. Her parents loved reading, and their house in Chepstow was full of books. In fact, JK Rowling wrote her first 'book' at the age of six - a story about a rabbit called Rabbit!
The idea for Harry Potter occurred to JK Rowling on the train from Manchester to London, where she says Harry Potter 'just strolled into my head fully-formed', and by the time she had arrived at King's Cross, many of the characters had taken shape. During the next five years she outlined the plots for each book and began writing the first in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was first published by Bloomsbury in 1997. The other Harry Potter titles: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, followed. JK Rowling has also written two other companion books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, in aid of Comic Relief.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows UK adult full cover art (front and back)
The only image on the adult UK cover version (apart from a rather nice photo of JK) is Slytherin's locket - in gold, on a thick gold chain. It's one of those lockets that opens to reveal something - usually a lock of hair or a picture - inside. Wonder what will be inside this locket. It's engraved with a richly-decorated "S", encrusted with emeralds.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows UK adult front cover art
The text on the inside front flap is exactly the same as on the UK (kids) version.
Nothing's written on the back cover - it's filled with the photo of JK. She has some interesting books on her bookshelves - James Joyce, Jane Austen, Adrian Mole, Freud, The Metropolitan Museum, an atlas...
And on the back cover flap:JK (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling has written fiction since she was a child. Born in 1965, she grew up in Chepstow and wrote her first 'book' at the age of six - a story about a rabbit called Rabbit. She studied French and Classics at Exeter University, then moved to London to work at Amnesty International, and then to Portugal to teach English as a foreign language, before settling in Edinburgh.
The idea for Harry Potter occurred to her on the train from Manchester to London, where she says Harry Potter 'just strolled into my head fully-formed', and by the time she had arrived at King's Cross, many of the characters had taken shape. During the next five years she outlined the plots for each book and began writing the first in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was first published by Bloomsbury in 1997. The other Harry Potter titles: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, followed. JK Rowling has also written two other companion books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, in aid of Comic Relief.
As befits the release of more info about possibly the most eagerly anticipated book of all time, there's lots of coverage and speculation already. As well as having some truly massive cover images - which is where I got these ones from (thanks for the email, guys!) - the Leaky Cauldron's Leaky Lounge has some pretty interesting dicussions going on. Check them out!
Only 112 days and 23 hours to go! Woohoo! Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows countdown clock courtesy of The Leaky Cauldron - get your Harry Potter countdown clock here!
MTV has an impressively thoughtful article on the covers - there's obviously at least one Harry Potter fan working at MTV. Wikipedia has a very detailed summary of what we know about the book so far.
MuggleNet does by far the best editorials - I'm sure there will be a very in-depth one about the cover very soon. In the meantime, here's the MuggleNet Editorial index page - browse away! And here's an interesting take from Beyond Hogwart's - Judging a book by its cover - check out the comments, too. And here's a good piece from the TimesOnline: Final Harry Potter cover unveiled and one from the St Petersburg Times: Spell in the binding. Enjoy!
Technorati tags: Harry Potter, JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, cover, book cover, cover art, illustration, UK cover, UK adult cover, US cover, July 21, release date, publication date, kids' books, children's literature, Snape, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Gryffindor, Slytherin, Horcrux, Book 7, countdown clock.
