Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.fantasy > #581 > unrolled thread

International Harry Potter Day

Back to article view | Back to alt.fantasy

Contents

  International Harry Potter Day David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com> - 2026-05-02 01:42 -0230
    Re: International Harry Potter Day doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2026-05-02 04:14 +0000
    Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 11:10 -0400
      Re: International Harry Potter Day Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-02 19:28 -0700
      Re: International Harry Potter Day Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-05-03 15:09 +1200
        Re: International Harry Potter Day Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-03 10:37 +0100
          Re: International Harry Potter Day scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-03 14:28 +0000
      Re: International Harry Potter Day Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-03 19:59 +0200
        Re: International Harry Potter Day Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-05-04 09:26 -0700
          Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 13:51 -0400
            Re: International Harry Potter Day Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-05 06:36 +0200
              Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 07:30 -0400
                Re: International Harry Potter Day David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com> - 2026-05-05 10:27 -0230
                  Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 09:37 -0400
                    Re: International Harry Potter Day David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com> - 2026-05-05 18:09 -0230
                Re: International Harry Potter Day Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-05 15:03 +0200
                  Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 09:39 -0400
                  Re: International Harry Potter Day Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-05 09:30 -0700
                  Re: International Harry Potter Day BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2026-06-01 10:03 -0700
                    Re: International Harry Potter Day The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 13:11 -0400
                      Re: International Harry Potter Day BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2026-06-01 11:52 -0700
                      Re: International Harry Potter Day kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-06-01 17:38 -0400
                        Re: International Harry Potter Day BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2026-06-01 15:56 -0700
              Re: International Harry Potter Day Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-06-01 14:23 +0000
            Re: International Harry Potter Day BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2026-06-01 10:13 -0700
              Re: International Harry Potter Day Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-06-02 08:25 -0700
              Re: International Harry Potter Day Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-06-05 03:00 +0000
          Re: International Harry Potter Day Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 22:55 -0400
            Re: International Harry Potter Day ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-05-05 03:01 +0000
            Re: International Harry Potter Day Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-06-01 14:27 +0000
        Re: International Harry Potter Day "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 08:13 -0500
          Re: International Harry Potter Day Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-06 06:17 +0200
            Re: International Harry Potter Day "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 09:11 -0500
              Re: International Harry Potter Day Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-05-06 17:55 -0700
                Re: International Harry Potter Day "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 07:48 -0500
            Re: International Harry Potter Day Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-05-06 09:18 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#612

On 6/1/26 10:11, The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <10vke1m$1v8nq$1@dont-email.me>, did bcfd36
> @cruzio.com deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> "A bounder and a cad" is a gross understatement!
>>
>> "A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow,
>> beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave."
>> And a reprobate for good measure.
> 
> How does one break meat?
> 
According to google, it means someone who eats scraps and leftovers from 
some else's meal. It is quite old, and the meanings of some words have 
shifted or gone away entirely.

The quote is from King Lear, Act 2, Scene 2. And, yes, I had to look the 
actual source up. I thought it was from Hamlet.

-- 
----------------

Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Board of Directors - Boulder Creek Fire Protection District (What was I 
thinking?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#613

The True Melissa  <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Verily, in article <10vke1m$1v8nq$1@dont-email.me>, did bcfd36
>@cruzio.com deliver unto us this message:
>> 
>> "A bounder and a cad" is a gross understatement!
>> 
>> "A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, 
>> beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave." 
>> And a reprobate for good measure.
>
>How does one break meat? 

Is it like breaking bread with someone, except that is meat?
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614

On 6/1/26 14:38, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The True Melissa  <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Verily, in article <10vke1m$1v8nq$1@dont-email.me>, did bcfd36
>> @cruzio.com deliver unto us this message:
>>>
>>> "A bounder and a cad" is a gross understatement!
>>>
>>> "A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow,
>>> beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave."
>>> And a reprobate for good measure.
>>
>> How does one break meat?
> 
> Is it like breaking bread with someone, except that is meat?
> --scott
See my previous comment. Back in the Bard's time, it was a deep insult.

-- 
----------------

Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Board of Directors - Boulder Creek Fire Protection District (What was I 
thinking?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607

In alt.fan.harry-potter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2026 13:51:19 -0400, The True Melissa
> <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Verily, in article <2phhvkle801eaf55eqdkeiq9sb0vvi37fp@4ax.com>, did 
>>psperson@old.netcom.invalid deliver unto us this message:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> >I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> >Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer. 
>>> 
>>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>>> 
>>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>>> later books is quite clear.
>>
>>It's been said that the books grew up with the readers. The first one is 
>>readable by younger kids and uses simple strokes (the Dursleys might as 
>>well be cartoons). They get longer, more complex, and more nuanced as 
>>they go.
>>
>>If that's intentional, I suppose future readers should limit themselves 
>>to one per year (or start later). 
> 
> Yes, it's quite intentional -- unlike Enid Blyton characters like the
> Famous five or the Secret Seven, or Billy Bunter, who never got older,
> the characters we follow the characters in the Harry Potter books
> through their school careers, and they change as they grow older. 
> 
> And yes, you can see on the shelf how the books get longer with every
> school year they cover. But I'm not sure that the added length made
> them any better. 

For a while they were getting better,
and they did not linearly keep getting longer.
My favorite is the fourth.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611

On 5/4/26 10:51, The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <2phhvkle801eaf55eqdkeiq9sb0vvi37fp@4ax.com>, did
> psperson@old.netcom.invalid deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>
>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>>
>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>> later books is quite clear.
> 
> It's been said that the books grew up with the readers. The first one is
> readable by younger kids and uses simple strokes (the Dursleys might as
> well be cartoons). They get longer, more complex, and more nuanced as
> they go.
> 
> If that's intentional, I suppose future readers should limit themselves
> to one per year (or start later).
> 

I also think the Rowling grew as a writer and was able to write in a 
more complex manner. That said, there are so many plot holes in the 
later books...

I am currently listening to the books on Audible while I am driving or 
on my semi-daily walks (usually 4 miles+). They are "full cast" as 
opposed to one or sometimes two narrators, one male and one female. I am 
hearing things I didn't get on the first reading and there is a ton of 
stuff left out of the movies.

I think I need to out for a stroll and get off the damn confuser, er, 
computer.

-- 
----------------

Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Board of Directors - Boulder Creek Fire Protection District (What was I 
thinking?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615

On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 10:13:43 -0700, BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On 5/4/26 10:51, The True Melissa wrote:
>> Verily, in article <2phhvkle801eaf55eqdkeiq9sb0vvi37fp@4ax.com>, did
>> psperson@old.netcom.invalid deliver unto us this message:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>>
>>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>>>
>>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>>> later books is quite clear.
>> 
>> It's been said that the books grew up with the readers. The first one is
>> readable by younger kids and uses simple strokes (the Dursleys might as
>> well be cartoons). They get longer, more complex, and more nuanced as
>> they go.
>> 
>> If that's intentional, I suppose future readers should limit themselves
>> to one per year (or start later).
>> 
>
>I also think the Rowling grew as a writer and was able to write in a 
>more complex manner. That said, there are so many plot holes in the 
>later books...

If you say so.

Note that the later books are so long that is is easy to miss
something which, if remembered two books later, would fill a supposed
plot hole.

>I am currently listening to the books on Audible while I am driving or 
>on my semi-daily walks (usually 4 miles+). They are "full cast" as 
>opposed to one or sometimes two narrators, one male and one female. I am 
>hearing things I didn't get on the first reading and there is a ton of 
>stuff left out of the movies.

Yes, well having pages and pages and pages of stuff that is, at best,
tangential to the overall story (what, exactly, is the point of the
ELF material?) will do that to a film.

When they announced that book 7 would be split into two films, I
thought that it was because it would involve recreating in CGI
basically every beastie they had created before. But, as it turned
out, it took two films to cover the parts that really mattered. 

The early books were shorter and the films were very close to the
books.

>I think I need to out for a stroll and get off the damn confuser, er, 
>computer.
-- 
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616

In alt.fan.harry-potter BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/26 10:51, The True Melissa wrote:
>> Verily, in article <2phhvkle801eaf55eqdkeiq9sb0vvi37fp@4ax.com>, did
>> psperson@old.netcom.invalid deliver unto us this message:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>>
>>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>>>
>>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>>> later books is quite clear.
>> 
>> It's been said that the books grew up with the readers. The first one is
>> readable by younger kids and uses simple strokes (the Dursleys might as
>> well be cartoons). They get longer, more complex, and more nuanced as
>> they go.
>> 
>> If that's intentional, I suppose future readers should limit themselves
>> to one per year (or start later).
>> 
> 
> I also think the Rowling grew as a writer and was able to write in a 
> more complex manner. That said, there are so many plot holes in the 
> later books...

Indeed.
 
> I am currently listening to the books on Audible while I am driving or 
> on my semi-daily walks (usually 4 miles+). They are "full cast" as 
> opposed to one or sometimes two narrators, one male and one female. I am 
> hearing things I didn't get on the first reading and there is a ton of 
> stuff left out of the movies.

What happened to the versions where Jim Dale did ALL the voices?
 
> I think I need to out for a stroll and get off the damn confuser, er, 
> computer.
> 

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591

On 5/4/2026 12:26 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> 
> <snippo>
> 
>> They appeared at a time when there was a dearth of good kids' books.
>>
>> There had been a lot of good children's boosk in the 1960s and 1970s,
>> but in the 1980s and 1990s the best and publishers could come up with
>> was Goosebumps. The Harry Potter books came like a breath of fresh
>> air.
>>
>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
> 
> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
> 
> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
> later books is quite clear.

Part of the charm of the series was that the characters aged one  year
per book, and the books came out once per year (more or less).

The initial child readership grew up along with the characters.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592

In article <10tbm7n$4l0i$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer  <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/4/2026 12:26 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> 
>> <snippo>
>> 
>>> They appeared at a time when there was a dearth of good kids' books.
>>>
>>> There had been a lot of good children's boosk in the 1960s and 1970s,
>>> but in the 1980s and 1990s the best and publishers could come up with
>>> was Goosebumps. The Harry Potter books came like a breath of fresh
>>> air.
>>>
>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>> 
>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>> 
>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>> later books is quite clear.
>
>Part of the charm of the series was that the characters aged one  year
>per book, and the books came out once per year (more or less).
>
>The initial child readership grew up along with the characters.
>
>pt

This was an aspect of the series that Rowling did very well in a number of
different ways.
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608

In alt.fan.harry-potter Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2026 12:26 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 May 2026 19:59:57 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> 
>> <snippo>
>> 
>>> They appeared at a time when there was a dearth of good kids' books.
>>>
>>> There had been a lot of good children's boosk in the 1960s and 1970s,
>>> but in the 1980s and 1990s the best and publishers could come up with
>>> was Goosebumps. The Harry Potter books came like a breath of fresh
>>> air.
>>>
>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>> 
>> Rowling herself warned parents that the books would get darker as time
>> went on. And that characters -- prominent characters -- would die.
>> 
>> Looking at my Scholistic Inc. paperbacks, the ginormousness of the
>> later books is quite clear.
> 
> Part of the charm of the series was that the characters aged one  year
> per book, and the books came out once per year (more or less).

When the books got longer so did the waits between.
 
> The initial child readership grew up along with the characters.
> 
> pt

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597

On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:

> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.

For a while, then their lengths dipped.

Per the ISFDB, the first British publications of the Harry Potter
books had the following page counts:
1  223
2  251
3  317
4  636
5  766
6  607
7  607

They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
increase.

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602

On Tue, 5 May 2026 08:13:40 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>
>For a while, then their lengths dipped.
>
>Per the ISFDB, the first British publications of the Harry Potter
>books had the following page counts:
>1  223
>2  251
>3  317
>4  636
>5  766
>6  607
>7  607
>
>They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
>increase.

Do they give word counts?

Mine are the Bloomsbury editions, but I suspect different editions
might give different page counts. 




-- 
Stephen Hayes, Author of The Year of the Dragon
Sample or purchase The Year of the Dragon: 
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/907935
Web site: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail: shayes@dunelm.org.uk or if you use Gmail hayesstw@telkomsa.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603

On 05/05/2026 23.17, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2026 08:13:40 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>
>> For a while, then their lengths dipped.
>>
>> Per the ISFDB, the first British publications of the Harry Potter
>> books had the following page counts:
>> 1  223
>> 2  251
>> 3  317
>> 4  636
>> 5  766
>> 6  607
>> 7  607
>>
>> They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
>> increase.
> 
> Do they give word counts?

No, they don't.

> Mine are the Bloomsbury editions, but I suspect different editions
> might give different page counts.

I suspect that as well. That is why I specifically used the first
British publication (Bloomsbury) for all seven. Apples to apples.

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
Economists have correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605

On 5/6/2026 7:11 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 05/05/2026 23.17, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 May 2026 08:13:40 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
>> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>>
>>> For a while, then their lengths dipped.
>>>
>>> Per the ISFDB, the first British publications of the Harry Potter
>>> books had the following page counts:
>>> 1  223
>>> 2  251
>>> 3  317
>>> 4  636
>>> 5  766
>>> 6  607
>>> 7  607
>>>
>>> They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
>>> increase.
>>
>> Do they give word counts?
> 
> No, they don't.
> 
>> Mine are the Bloomsbury editions, but I suspect different editions
>> might give different page counts.
> 
> I suspect that as well. That is why I specifically used the first
> British publication (Bloomsbury) for all seven. Apples to apples.
> 
But!  But!  That's actually the correct way to do it!!!  No one on the 
internet is allowed do things correctly!!!

:P

-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606

On 06/05/2026 19.55, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/6/2026 7:11 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 05/05/2026 23.17, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 May 2026 08:13:40 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
>>> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:

[Harry Potter books]

>>>> They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
>>>> increase.
>>>
>>> Do they give word counts?
>>
>> No, they don't.
>>
>>> Mine are the Bloomsbury editions, but I suspect different editions
>>> might give different page counts.
>>
>> I suspect that as well. That is why I specifically used the first
>> British publication (Bloomsbury) for all seven. Apples to apples.
>>
> But!  But!  That's actually the correct way to do it!!!  No one on the internet is allowed do things correctly!!!
Sorry; I'll consider myself suitably admonished.

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604

On Wed, 06 May 2026 06:17:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 May 2026 08:13:40 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 03/05/2026 12.59, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> I must say I also liked the earlier ones better than the later ones.
>>> Apart from anything else they kept getting longer and longer.
>>
>>For a while, then their lengths dipped.
>>
>>Per the ISFDB, the first British publications of the Harry Potter
>>books had the following page counts:
>>1  223
>>2  251
>>3  317
>>4  636
>>5  766
>>6  607
>>7  607
>>
>>They didn't get as short as the first three, but it wasn't a monotonic
>>increase.
>
>Do they give word counts?
>
>Mine are the Bloomsbury editions, but I suspect different editions
>might give different page counts. 

You literally asked for this:
1  309
2  341
3  435
4  734
5  870
6  652
7  759
This is the USA Scholastic paperback set.

Those are the page numbers of the actual text.
The last page number in the books are the same except for:
1  312
which numbers the pages up to the "About the Author" page at the very
end. Something no other book does.

Presumably, the difference lies in such factors as:
-- paper size (USA vs GB)
-- possible differences based on age of reader (USA vs GB)
	-- font size
	-- margin size
	-- line spacing
Word changes (in addition to "Sorceror" for "Philosopher", the first
two or so had "sweater" instead of "jumper", among [IIRC] a few
others) may also have affected this by shifting line and page
boundaries a bit.

The pattern is the same: two smaller volumes, third noticeably larger,
fourth much larger, fifth still larger, then a drop for sixth and
seventh. Why sixth is smaller than seventh in the USA I have no idea.
-- 
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.fantasy

csiph-web