#jk rowling etymology | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ronweasleyisourking · 4 years

Text

Why I Don’t Find Jokes That Claim “Actually, X wrote Harry Potter” Funny

In the wake of Joanne Rowling yet again being openly transphobic on Twitter, a common joke is going around, and the layout of the joke is basically just “[Insert name] wrote Harry Potter,” and the names have varied from Nobody to Luna Lovegood to Daniel Radcliffe, etcetera, etcetera. But what a lot of people making these jokes don’t seem to understand is that this bigotry is not new, that Rowling’s bigotry is all throughout her books, and that saying someone else wrote these books means you believe they have these bigoted views too. And I don’t really find that funny.

I understand that you might be wondering, “What bigoted views played a part in the Harry Potter books? I don’t remember anything wrong.” That’s okay! I’ll be happy to outline some of the issues of the books. So, that’s what I’ll be talking about in this post:

Firstly, anti-semetism

English folklore has always been rooted in anti-semetism, their descriptions being based off Jewish stereotypes, and this does not stop with Harry Potter where the goblins are cast as the overprotective bankers of Gringotts, following the stereotype that Jewish people (and Goblins, being based off them) are greedy. This trend also does not stop in the books or original series. Ron Perlman (a Jewish actor) play a half-goblin in the Jewish mafia in the first Fantastic Beasts movie, continuing the questionable and problematic connection between Jewish people and goblins in Harry Potter.

“But the entire series is supposed to be a parallel to the Holocaust, and the muggleborns (who step into the role of Jewish people in this parallel) are the good guys, how can she be anti-semetic?” Let’s turn again to the Fantastic Beasts movies, that she wrote the screenplays of, specifically to the character of Queenie Goldstein. In December of 2014, Joanne revealed that Anthony Goldstein was a Jewish wizard at Hogwarts and from that we can can reasonably conclude that Tina and Queenie were also Jewish. Which wouldn’t have been a questionable decision if not for the fact that a canon Jewish women (Queenie) ended up joining the side of Gellert Grindelwald (who is supposed to be a parallel to Hitler). What the fuck is up with that?

There’s also an issue with house elves and racism but that is a much bigger issue that would require a lot more of my time and research before I would feel comfortable writing about it, plus it deserves a post of it’s own.

Secondly, “canon” gay characters

I don’t mind that there weren’t any gay characters in the books, I really don’t. What I do mind is JK Rowling going in after the fact to say that there were gay characters. It’s unnecesary and honestly, she chooses the worst rep. First of all, she revealed Albus Dumbledore as gay in 2007, a character that manipulates things and people to his own benefit throughout the series and leaves a child in an abusive home, despite undoubtingly having the power to protect him. The second character she reveals as gay though is Gellert Grindelwald, who, as I said before is supposed to parallel Hitler, who was the face of the Holocaust and led to the deaths of hundreds of gay and effeminate men during that time. And the fact that she continues to refuses to show it in canon, despite having a whole new movie series about the rivalry between the two only makes it worse.

Another thing that has gone around in the Harry Potter fandom is the fact (or rumor) that Joanne once said in an interview that she considered making Dean and Seamus gay but that it would “take attention” away from the trio but one, I cannot find this interview anywhere, and two, believing that a background gay couple would have taken attention away from the main characters is not great.

If she wanted gay characters, she should have included them in the texts. Otherwise, I think she needs to stop trying to get brownie points for representation that she didn’t write.

Thirdly, werewolves

Joanne Rowling released an ebook in September of 2016 where she wrote that werewolves in the books, like Remus, were a metaphor for illnesses that carry a stigma, listing HIV/Aids as an example. This again was a questionable choice, seeing as HIV/Aids is a common problem in the LGBTQ+ community and the other main werewolf in the books, Fenrir Greyback, targeted children which follows the stereotype that gay men are predators.

And finally, these characters

Nagini. While I know that many people believe that this wasn’t actually planned as Joanne said it was, the etymology of her name does trace back to the Naag or Naagin, semi-divine half-human, half-snake creatures from mythology in South Asian cultures, meaning it might have actually been planned. But the problem is not whether it was planned or not, the problem is that Nagini is a woman of color (who is Korean, meaning she is East Asian not South Asian) cursed to live as an animal who spends the last years of her life as the servant of a white man who is equated with Nazis and whose eventual fate is tied to his.

Rita Skeeter. Rita is described as having a heavy jaw, thick fingers, and large and masculine hands, and with Joanne being openly transphobic, it’s not hard to make the connection of where she might have gotten the inspiration for this character from, and the fact that she transforms her body to spy on children brings to mind a certain tweet that Rowling liked a while ago that described trans women as “foxes pretending to be hens to get in the hen house.” The idea that trans people are predators who spy on others is a harmful stereotype and this description and characterization of Rita Skeeter does not help.

Cho Chang. Cho Chang is a Chinese character who has two surnames for a name, meaning there was little thought put into her chracter’s name. Honestly, it’s not that hard to find out whether or not “Cho” is a first name, it’s just one quick search away from not being in the wrong. That and the fact that Cho, along with Sue Li and Padma Patil (some of the only Asian characters in the books), were all placed in Ravenclaw, or “the smart house” just shows how little thought that Rowling gave her canonically poc characters.

Seamus Finnigan. I only recently realized the issues of this character, and it’s likely that most people wouldn’t know why this was a problem, but consider why an English women in the nineties (at the height of The Troubles and the English/Irish conflict) would write the one known Irish character in the books as untrusting of the English (of all of Harry’s friend, Seamus was the one who didn’t believe Harry in book five). Not only that, but in the films (which she was largely involved in) characterized Seamus as clumsy and explosive and a bit of a pyro, which are sterotypical Irish traits, and she didn’t question it at all?

Conclusion

These are just a few of the issues seen in the Harry Potter books and movies and I didn’t even talk about the issues that are less bigotry and more simply problematic, like Viktor Krum’s character, or the theme of forgiving abusive people in your life, or the constant issue of love potions and consent.

There is so much wrong in the books and we can’t just ignore them or transfer them to another person. Joanne Rowling wrote these books and her bigoted beliefs are abundantly clear in them and we all need to accept that. We can love the worldbuilding and the characters and yes, even the story, but we must recongnize the issues in them and we must realize that a bigoted person wrote it. There is no escaping that.

And yes, as everyone who I have expressed this two has brought up, the story does belong to the fans. And we can do whatever we wish with it, but we should never forget where the story began and we shouldn’t try and pretend that it had a different origin. Death of the author, or the idea that anybody's interpretation of the text is a valid interpretation, and that the author's interpretation is not the only one that counts, does not mean that the author is literally removed from the text. They still wrote it. And their bias (opinions) are still a huge part of the text. And we can try with all our might to remove their bias from our fanworks but it is still there in the original text. So, yes, the story belongs to fans. But the bias in it belongs to the author and will always be present.

The author of the Harry Potter series is JK Rowling, no matter how bigoted she and her beliefs are. We should never forget that.

#jk rowling critical

129 notes · View notes

piesandswords · 4 years

Text

Raising Werewolf Cubs Under His Bed

Posted on Archive of Our Own here.

Riddle laughed his high laugh again.

“It was my word against Hagrid’s, Harry. Well, you can imagine how it looked to old Armando Dippet. On the one hand, Tom Riddle, poor but brilliant, parentless but so brave, school prefect, model student… on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed, sneaking off to the Forbidden Forest to wrestle trolls… but I admit, even I was surprised how well the plan worked.”

Um… hey. Hey, Tom? Mr. Riddle? Dramatic ass “I am Lord Voldemort” person-sir? Do you mean human children???!!! Hey Joanne, do you mean human children cause werewolf cubs? Werewolf cubs have gotta be human children.

There are four explanations for this line that I can think of. One Doylist (explained out of text), three Watsonian (explained within canon).

The first explanation: JK Rowling did not come up with werewolf lore until after she had written the third book. That explains why she keeps writing about people being afraid of werewolves in the Forbidden Forest even when it wasn’t a full moon and shit like this. She just hadn’t come up with the facts yet.

This explanation, while probably correct, is boring as hell and we will be disregarding it.

Explanation number two barely warrants an entry. Riddle was trying to think of a magical creature and just said werewolves without considering what that would mean. This is somehow more boring than explanation one.

The third explanation is more fun. Wizards are, to put it kindly, mildly, and with some of the love in my heart, dumb as shit.

The Hogwarts education system is shaky at best. Thinking of how little math wizards know makes me want to cry. I would say something like “The class of History of Magic is so poorly taught that I doubt any of the students even know that ___” but like. The class of History of Magic is so poorly taught that I can’t come up with an obvious example of Wizarding history.

Due to the shaky Hogwarts education system, I can partially excuse Ron for being stupid in the area of “what are werewolves” when he talks about werewolves in the Forbidden Forest in book two, as of his two Defence teachers the more competent was Quirinus Quirrell.

(Lockhart’s teachings on lycanthropy involve him curing someone of it by sticking a wand down their throat and saying a spell, which… If it were that easy then Remus Lupin would have had a much better life. If he could fix his furry little problem by eating a wand, the man would have had unicorn hair and cypress soup every night for the rest of his life.)

(That being said, Ron should know more about werewolves. Molly or Arthur should have taught their kids things like that.)

Tom Riddle, in contrast to Ron, went to Hogwarts before the position was cursed. Given that he was the one who cursed it, this makes sense. Riddle had a stable education that, theoretically, involved a competent professor. He should know better.

But also, wizards are dumb as shit.

They seem to have no standardization to their education except for aiming for the OWLs and NEWTs. What educational standards has the Ministry released for teachers to follow? Probably none, that would be too competent. (Ignoring book five, ew.) Just because werewolves were covered in DADA during Harry’s time at Hogwarts doesn’t mean they were in Riddle’s. Maybe they were covered in Care of Magical Creatures, which Riddle would almost certainly not take. Or maybe they weren’t covered at all.

So maybe Tom Riddle hasn’t learned about werewolves in school. He knows about them when he’s older though, so what gives?

Here’s the thing. This Tom Riddle hasn’t had his dark magic field trip yet, the one he goes on after he graduates. What if he doesn’t know about werewolves, but he thinks he kinda gets the gist, and, being Voldemort, assumed he was correct.

Hagrid could have been raising puppies under his bed and Riddle could have been like. “Ah, yes. These are werewolf babies. I am correct on this and will not be corrected by anyone ever because I am the pinnacle of all things knowledge.”

Diary!Tom Riddle is #ForeverSixteen. He is a teenager who insists on being called “Flight of Death” (or, incidentally, Flight from Death, which, yeah). He wears eyeliner, he listens to fascist!MCR, he wants to commit genocide, you know, just regular teenage boy things. Yikes.

(Can you imagine 72-year-old Voldemort having to interact with his 16-year-old self? This insolent boy who doesn’t even know what werewolves are? Harry wouldn’t have had to destroy the Horcrux, Voldemort would do it himself to get the kid to stop talking.

Tom Riddle, age 16: “Lord Voldemort is my past, present, and future.”

Tom Riddle, age 70ish: “You’re about to be past due if you don’t shut up.”)

Anyway, that’s our third explanation. Tom Riddle is dumb as shit. This is backed up by the fact that 1) he is sixteen, 2) wizarding education is a hot garbage fire, 3) grown Voldemort is dumb as shit. He refuses to do research into things he thinks he understands in his seventies, why would he be any smarter at age sixteen?

This explanation is less boring. This is the one that I consider to be the closest to canon one. This makes sense, and it involves making fun of Voldemort’s dramatic bullshit and narcissism, which I approve of.

I like this explanation.

But explanation number three? It doesn’t hold a candle to explanation four.

See, here’s the thing. I believe that Voldemort is dumb as shit and that his education could have been pretty spotty.

But I also think that the boy that has rediscovered Horcruxes by doing too much research would not be completely ignorant of what werewolves are and how they work. They’re considered to be Dark Creatures™ so he would have come across them at some point when learning of the Dark™ Mysterious® Arts©.

So what if.

What if he wasn’t talking out of his ass?

What if Hagrid WAS raising werewolf cubs under his bed? Or, not cubs. Cubs implies non-people.

What if Hagrid was keeping werewolf children under his bed while he was attending Hogwarts?

Picture this: 11-year-old Rubeus Hagrid gets his letter for Hogwarts. He’s overjoyed. His father is a bit surprised that Hagrid, a half-giant, received his letter, but he is also overjoyed.

(The fact that Hagrid got into Hogwarts at all with wizarding prejudices as they are is honestly remarkable. We know that the Wizarding World is awful about treating those who aren’t pure-blooded wizards like people and Hagrid being a half-giant isn’t exactly subtle.)

So Hagrid goes to Hogwarts. He learns. He makes friends. He probably gets in quite a bit of trouble with teachers because he’s never been someone with a ton of common sense or tendency to follow rules. Being in trouble doesn’t bother him too much, he’s young and usually, he doesn’t think about consequences for his actions. Besides, often the reward is worth the risk.

So Hagrid finishes his first year having loved the experience. And he goes home for the summer.

Let’s say that Hagrid and his dad live on the outskirts of a relatively small Muggle town. They’re not quite in the wilderness, but they’re not quite in the town proper either.

A new family, the Canids, has moved next door since Hagrid has gone off to Hogwarts. They have two children roughly Hagrid’s age, a daughter named Freki, age 12, and a son named Geri, age 10. Given Hagrid’s friendly nature and the general boredom that comes with a long summer, the three of them quickly make friends and begin to spend quite a bit of time together.

(Forgive my mixing of Norse and Latin etymology here, I refuse to spend more than three minutes googling names that mean “wolf wolf” or “moon moon” that haven’t already been used in canon.)

Then, one day when they’re hanging out, something weird happens. What exactly it is, I’m not sure. Maybe a branch breaks while they are climbing a tree and no one gets hurt, despite how high up they are. Maybe Hagrid says something unthinkingly cruel on accident, and Geri’s feelings get hurt, and Hagrid’s hair gets turned pink. Maybe Freki finds a magical creature that Muggles aren’t supposed to be able to see. Maybe their father is off fighting in World War II (it is 1941, after all), and there is some unsetting news from the front, and one of the kids causes a sunny day to become a rainstorm.

However it happens, Hagrid figures out that he’s got two underage wizards on his hands. And he knows Freki (age 12) hasn’t received her Hogwarts letter.

Hagrid has never been one to keep his mouth shut. The man at the age of 62 let slip to a group of eleven-year-olds that 1) he had a three-headed dog, 2) the name of the dog was Fluffy, 3) Fluffy was guarding something that was owned or created by Nicholas Flamel, and 4) you can put Fluffy to sleep by playing any kind of music ever. He is not one for subtlety, or for secrets. Honestly, he might have told these kids about magic on accident even if they hadn’t shown signs of being wizards.

So he confronts the kids about the strange things that have been happening. Freki goes dead pale the second he opens his mouth. She begs him not to tell anyone in the village that there is something unnatural about them, Rubeus, please, you don’t know what people will do if they find out.

Hagrid’s confused. If they find out what exactly? Having magic is wonderful, you get to go to school and learn and make friends and discover all sorts of interesting facts and creatures and-

There are two ways this could go.

Either Freki and Geri don’t know about magic and they are delighted to hear about this wonderful place where they could be themselves, and also maybe they could get some help for this weird thing that has been happening to them since they were little kids and there was a wolf attack. Hagrid has to figure out very quickly how to deal with the fact that 1) he has to explain magic to his two friends, 2) his two friends are werewolves, 3) his two friends will not be accepted into wizard society, and 4) he also has to explain that.

Or Geri and Freki already know about magic. They didn’t know that Hagrid knew (they are in a Muggle town, after all), but they knew about magic. Maybe their mom was a witch and dad a Muggle. Maybe the other way around. Maybe both parents are wizards. Maybe they are the descendants of Squibs. Whatever their parental background, they have heard about Hogwarts. And they know the reason that neither of them had gotten Hogwarts letters, know the reason neither of them would ever get Hogwarts letters. And gently, sadly, they explain to Hagrid their situation.

And as Hagrid finds out that they’re werewolves and starts to process what that means for them and their future, Hagrid becomes indignant. And I mean Hermione-founding-misguided-but-well-meaning-organization-SPEW level indignant. I’m talking “thou shalt not insult Albus Dumbledore in front of me” level indignant. Indignant might not be the right word. He gets angry.

Remus Lupin will be the first werewolf to legally receive schooling at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. But if Hagrid has something to say about it? Freki and Geri will beat the record illegally by about thirty years.

(This is a man who has been alienated his whole life for his half-giant status. He knows the feeling of being discriminated against for something he can’t change about himself.)

(This is also a man who tried to raise a dragon egg in a wooden cabin. He doesn’t necessarily think things through.)

And so begins Operation Get-My-Friends-A-Wizard-Education.

Phase One: Preliminary Education.

Hagrid spends the rest of the summer teaching these two kids everything that he can remember from his first year of school. He’s got a month. He’s got his books. He’s got enough determination to intimidate God. He’s only got the one wand, but he’ll make do.

And as late August comes? He thinks they’re ready as they’re gonna get.

Phase Two: Smuggling Time.

Now, Hagrid is an oversized lad. And one of the things that comes with being an oversized lad is oversized clothes. And one of the things that comes with oversized clothes is an oversized trunk.

Hagrid also has an undersized father with an oversized heart and an undersized sense of what is a normal and sane thing to do. (The man had sex with a giantess for Pete’s sake!)

With a little convincing, said undersized father could make said oversided trunk be even more oversized on the inside.

Geri and Freki? Welcome to the Hogwarts Express, viewed from the luxury seats of “Inside Hagrid’s Trunk.” No complimentary beverages, I’m afraid, and the view’s not great, but all the oversized clothes end up being quite comfortable cushions.

So Hagrid smuggles two kid werewolves into Hogwarts.

Phase Three: Ah, Shit, Didn’t Think This Through… Er… Live Under My Bed I’ll Bring You Homework

So they live under his bed while he teaches them everything that he is learning in all of his classes, sometimes in the dorm room when no one else is there, sometimes in the Forbidden Forest when they can sneak out, sometimes in empty rooms around the castle. They spend each full moon as deep into the forest as they can go, hoping against hope that they won’t hurt anyone and they will be safe.

(In this universe, the rumors of werewolves in the forest came from somewhere. The stories of glimpses of wolves through the trees during this time were passed down through the generations. “My aunt’s cousin’s friend’s dad saw a werewolf in the forest” may not be the most credible of sources, but in this case, it holds a grain of truth.)

They are careful, and, for a while, they don’t get caught.

How long are they at Hogwarts? I don’t know. A while, certainly. A month? A semester? A full year? Maybe they make it through to when the Chamber of Secrets was opened and everyone became more suspicious and more alert before they were found out.

Once they are caught, the Canid children are promptly sent home. After all, you can’t have monsters in a school like Hogwarts, and what are werewolves if not monsters.

The staff lets Hagrid off with a warning, thinking maybe this was a one-off occurrence of idiocy. But they do view Hagrid with more suspicion after that. After all, he brought monsters into the school. Who’s to say what he’ll let in next?

That being said, Tom Riddle’s probably just dumb as shit.

Posted on Archive of Our Own here.

#harry potter #hp #hagrid #fanfiction #kat talks #look ma i over analyzed #my fic

84 notes · View notes

mrsbenesova · 7 years

Photo

#harry potter #jk rowling #sirius #sirius black #regulus #regulus black #my edit #stars #starsname #orion #etymology #mrsbenesova

1 note · View note

chicleeblair · 8 years

Text

Is the Crup based on a mythological creature or is the word derived from something? They're my favorite of the creatures that are barely mentioned outside of the Fantastic Beasts school book.* obviously plenty of the entries in that book were created for the original charity fundraising edition and not based on anything, but i wasn't sure if the Crup fell into that category

#hp #fbawtft #fantastic beasts and where to find them #newt scamander #crups #thinking too much about magical creatures #thinking too much about books #crup etymology #jk rowling #jkr #paging jk rowling

1 note · View note

panpunkgrandma · 5 years

Text

Hot take

There’s two Hogwarts houses for every Potterhead: the one you personally would be sorted into, and the house you would be if you were a hp character. The difference? One is based on personality and is based on in-universe lore; the other is based on what your name means and is based on how Harry Potter is written. A.K.A JK Rowling needs to chill with the etymology

For example:

My personality is more like a Slytherin but my given name means wise one and my last name equally and painfully screams Ravenclaw.

#harry Potter #houses #slytherin #Ravenclaw #hp #hot take #shitpost?

8 notes · View notes

ghostflowerdreams · 6 years

Note

I'm working on a HP fanfic and I'm wondering what would be Petunia and Lily parents names? I've looked it up and it's something that JK Rowling hasn't mentioned. What would you suggest for their names? Or what sources can help me figure it out?

Unlike the Potter family J.K. Rowling hasn’t given us much on the Evans family. What we do know of them is that Mrs. Evans and her husband lived in Cokeworth, England. The couple had two daughters: Petunia, born in the late 1950s, and Lily, born on January 30 in 1960. And that they also died from natural causes before Harry and Dudley were born. It’s quite plot-convenient for both grandparents to be out of the picture.

Anyway, we can guessed that Mr. and Mrs. Evans were born around the 1930s (possibly 1935)? As that would put them somewhere in their early to late 20s when they had Petunia and then a few years later (possibly 2-3 years) they had Lily. So now we have a year range, but we need an location to narrow things down.

Unfortunately Cokeworth is a fictional town in the midlands of England, Great Britain. You won’t be able to get an accurate list of names that were popular during that time period without an actual location. If it was a real place you could have looked for specific sources such as birth certificates, census statistics, yearbooks, etc. Keep in mind that not every information is easy to find or available online for everyone to access. However, that does not matter as you’re not writing a research paper or a nonfiction novel. So all you need is a general idea of what were the popular names during 1930s.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) is a good place to look for names given to babies by local authority within England and Wales. If you were looking for popular baby names in America, Social Security Administration (SSA) would be helpful as they allow you to select the decade and state. What I did come across is…

British Baby Names - Top 100 names from England and Wales in 1934

Aboard in the Yard - Popular English baby names by decade: 1840s-1990s

Capgemini - The most popular UK baby names – analysing 100 years of data

BOYS - John, Peter, William, Brian, David, James, Michael, Ronald, Kenneth, George, Robert, Thomas, Alan, Derek, Raymond, Anthony, Roy, Donald, Dennis, Edward, Gordon, Terence, Joseph, Frederick, Arthur, Colin, Eric, Richard, Charles, Norman, Leslie, Patrick, Geoffrey, Frank, Albert, Keith, Leonard, Bernard, Stanley, Gerald, etc.

GIRLS - Margaret, Jean, Mary, Joan, Patricia, Sheila, Barbara, Doreen, June, Shirley, Dorothy, Joyce, Maureen, Elizabeth, Audrey, Brenda, Kathleen, Sylvia, Eileen, Pamela, Betty, Beryl, Ann, Irene, Janet, Anne, Rita, Pauline, Mavis, Iris, Marjorie, Valerie, Doris, Marion, Marina, Catherine, Vera, Josephine, Edna, Lilian, Norma, Rosemary, Phyllis, Hazel, Evelyn, Edith, Olive, Winifred, Florence, etc.

Just like J.K. Rowling you might want to carefully select the name that hints or represents the character that you’re going to give them to. These are some of the examples as to why Rowling pick the names that she did for her characters.

Pottermore - What’s in a name: the fascinating etymology behind Harry Potter character names

INSIDER - The real meanings behind 46 different names in the ‘Harry Potter’ universe — and what they say about the characters

Radio Times - Did you spot all these hidden references in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter names?

There’s also a theory or fanon that you might want to consider. It’s that on Mrs. Evans side of the family they have a tradition of naming their children (possibly just the girls) after plants, specifically flowers. Which is why most people believe Mrs. Evans would have had a flower name. And if she had any other children besides Petunia and Lily they too would have been given a flower name.

It’s also possible that if Petunia or Lily had any daughters they would’ve continued on with the flower name tradition. Such as Harry Potter might’ve been known as Heather Potter instead? Or Holly Potter? Don’t want a flower name starting with the letter ‘H’? Maybe something like Rose Potter? Or if Harry Potter had a sister then she would’ve had a flower name.

It isn’t too far fetch to believe because J.K. Rowling did give the pure-blood Black family a penchant for astronomical names. Besides, in the late 19th century, floral names were extremely popular in the UK. That may be where the flower name tradition began for Mrs. Evan’s side of the family (if you choose to go with this theory). And from what I can see of popular baby names during 1934 in the list above, some flower names are included. So it would be quite possible for Mrs. Evans to have one of them for her name. Something like…

Iris Evans? Rosemary Evans? Phyllis Evans? Hazel Evans? Olive Evans? Violet Evans? Rose Evans? Ivy Evans? Heather Evans?

Other possibilities could be…

Camellia Evans? Primrose Evans? Poppy Evans? Dahlia Evans? Flora Evans? Jasmine Evans? Magnolia Evans? Marigold Evans? Peony Evans?

British Baby Names: Nature and Plant Names

Some flower names would be rare, such as Willow, which only established itself properly as a given name in the 1970s – this time, exclusively for girls. [x] The name Holly gained popularity after 1960s (which may have been influenced by the film Breakfast at Tiffany’s in 1961, staring Audrey Hepburn as iconic character Holly Golightly). The name Daisy was ranked #88 in 1924 and then dropped out of the Top 100 by 1934. It came back in fashion again by the 1990s.

So a little bit of research would be required to know which name would be more believable during that time period, but it’s not really necessary. After all, this is your story and as long as it makes sense, you can decide which names you think would fit best for Mr. and Mrs. Evans. As for the last name Evans in case you’re curious about it…

Evans is a patronymic surname of Welsh, and possibly Cornish, origin. In its anglicized form the name means “son of Evan”. Regarding its Welsh roots, it is a derivative of the name Ifan, a cognate of John (meaning ”Yahweh has been gracious” or “gracious gift of Jehovah”). In the Welsh language, the f produces the v sound; Ifan (Ivan) became Evan.

Evan also comes from the Gaelic word “Eóghan” meaning “youth” or “young warrior” and Scots for “right-handed”. In Hebrew, the actual non-proper noun, “evan/even/eban/eben”, literally means “rock”. It can also be the shortened version of the Greek name “Evangelos” (meaning messenger, or “Evander” (meaning good man).

Within the United Kingdom, Evans is the 8th most common surname, being most common in the city of Swansea, Wales. It is ranked as the 48th most common surname in the United States.

8 notes · View notes

undemalvm · 4 years

Text

ariana in welsh means “silver” and aurelius in latin means “gold”. we know so well jk rowling loves etymology and stuff like that. credence has ariana’s obscurial, that’s what grindelwald meant when he said to him he is a dumbledore. there’s no other explanation.

#fantastic beasts #fantastic beasts 3 #aurelius dumbledore

0 notes

noxwithoutstars · 2 years

Text

Aurimellan

Aurimellan is a term for when one’s orientation is both fluid and not fluid. Some examples of this are:

being abro, but one’s orientation only changes over long periods of time

being abro, but one’s attraction to a certain gender, genders, presentation, etc. never changes

the intensity of one’s attraction changing, but not the gender(s)

more not mentioned!

Etymology and Inspiration:

Aurimellan refers to golden honey. Honey is a very viscous substance, which means it doesn’t pour well or run quickly. It can look solid sometimes, but it still is a liquid. The nature of honey fit the this term very well, so I took that inspiration in naming Aurimellan.

For anon :>

[ ID: A digital watercolor wash of pale purples and peaches that loosely resemble jellyfish. Words are in dark indigo: “DNI IF: fit basic DNI criteria, gatekeeper/REG/exclus, anti-mogai, anti-lesboy/turigirl, trumpie, anti-aspec, anti-mspec gay/lesbian, anti-endo, proship/anti-anti, JK Rowling apologist, prolife/anti-abortion, anti-decolonization, TERF/radfem, anti-kin/anti-alterhuman, anti PNC & GNC.” End ID. ]

#Aurimellan #lgbtqia+#mogai haven #mogai coining #coined by me #nox's terms #nox's flags #nox's hoard #new flag #new term #new orientation #requests #fluid orientation #non-fluid orientation #abro #faves

54 notes · View notes

theattainer · 4 years

Text

6 famous publishing errors: Susie Dent, 'Harry Potter' and the dictionary

https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.1088260:1601829948/ac05-OCT-books-1st-ed-harry-potter.jpg?f=default&q=1.0&w=1024&$p$f$q$w=192a427

https://theattainer.com/6-famous-publishing-errors-susie-dent-harry-potter-and-the-dictionary/

6 famous publishing errors: Susie Dent, 'Harry Potter' and the dictionary

British lexicographer Susie Dent has been left red-faced after discovering the first batch of her new book, Word Perfect, is strewn with errors.

This must be especially galling for Dent, whose work is being marketed as a “brilliant linguistic almanac”. As a lexicographer, her craft is to compile dictionaries.

Publisher John Murray is now in the process of reprinting new versions, while recalling existing copies for replacement. A “gutted” Dent revealed the news on Twitter on October 1, stating that Word Perfect was published using an older version of the text.

“I’m so sorry about this,” she said. “I’ll be in touch as soon as I can with details on how we’re going to fix it.”

In an interview with The Times, she said she knew something was wrong almost immediately. “I just opened it up and saw there was something wrong in the acknowledgments,” she said. “And then I had to close it because I felt a bit sick. There are quite a few errors. I haven’t counted them and I don’t really want to.”

While Dent has every right to feel aggrieved, she can take some comfort in the fact she’s in good company.

Besides, isn’t any publicity good publicity? The publishing world is full of examples of the incorrect version of books being released that are full of typos and grammatical errors. In some cases, such works have gone on to become a lucrative collector’s item.

Here are five examples of books that could have used an extra pair of eyes:

1. ‘Webster’s New International Dictionary’ (1934)

If the revered Webster’s dictionary can’t get it right, what chance do the rest of us have? As a result of an editor mix-up, the non-word “dord” was printed as a word in 1934. This happened because an editor had sent in a note saying, “d or D”, referring to the fact that density is a word that can be abbreviated to d or D.

The non-word wasn’t corrected until 1939, when an editor noticed the entry didn’t have any etymology and so investigated.

2. ‘Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone’ by JK Rowling (1997)

‘Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone’ by JK Rowling. Courtesy Bloomsbury

The first print run of the 1997 debut novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, which consisted of only a few hundred copies, had an error on page 53 which meant “1st wand” was printed twice under the list of Potter’s school supplies. And, on an uncorrected proof of the novel (normally sent to early readers for review), they spelt her name as JA Rowling. But even these are now lauded: both versions are highly sought after by Potter fans, with the latter sold for £10,000 ($12,900) in 2017.

3. ‘The Corrections’ by Jonathan Franzen (2001)

‘The Corrections’ by Jonathan Franzen. Courtesy Farrar Straus & Giroux

Billed as “the book of the century”, the US author’s blockbuster novel received acclaim but also some notoriety. The latter was due to publishing giants HarperCollins recalling 8,000 copies over what a spokeswoman described as “typesetting errors”.

“They are minor corrections, things like typos and punctuation errors,” she told the BBC, “But, obviously, if you’re Jonathan and you have spent 10 years working on a novel, you want the finished product to go out.”

4. ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ by Mark Twain (1856)

‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ by Mark Twain.

The first edition of Mark Twain’s classic is full of errors: from a typo on page 57 (“with the was” should have been “with the saw”) to a confusing order of content due to a mix-up at the binders, copies of both versions are extremely valuable and can now reportedly fetch the owner more than $18,000.

5. ‘An American Tragedy’ by Theodore Dreiser (1925)

Theodore Dreiser’s ‘An American Tragedy.’ Courtesy New York Public Library Digital Collection

Do potatoes have rhythm? This is what a printing error suggests in the first edition of Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy. Describing a gleeful scene featuring two characters, the passage described them “harmoniously abandoning themselves to the rhythm of the music – like two small chips being tossed about on a rough but friendly sea”. While it’s obviously supposed to be “ships”, the idea of chips surrendering to music is oddly pleasing.

What do you think?

#All #Books

0 notes

blogwritetheworld · 7 years

Text

The Write Place: The Everywriter’s Desk

by Lisa Hiton

Looking for the right advice on pursuing the writer’s life? You’ve come to the write place!

The summer before my junior year in high school, my soon-to-be teacher, Ms. Tanimoto, assigned two books to incoming AP students: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne and The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. The Scarlet Letter was forgotten as soon as it was finished; I instantly detested Hawthorne’s penchant for moral allegories surrounding evil and sin, finding it all a bit too on-the-nose and heavy-handed. The Elements of Style, however, became an instant mainstay to my writerly temperament.

It seemed strange to be assigned a reference book to read cover to cover. I’d only ever used reference books like dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias as touchstones during reading and writing assignments—brief interruptions to expand my knowledge and/or revise my work.Upon reading Strunk and White’s masterpiece, however, my understanding of reference books changed entirely. Though the book is a mere 87 pages, my peers seemed to begrudge the assignment or blow it off entirely. I, on the other hand, found my attention rapt.

The Elements of Style is a reference book on the rules of English rhetoric, yes, but the attitude and dogma of its writers, Strunk and White, make it as much a manifesto as a convincing collection of laws governing the way we (ought to) speak and (must) write. The seriousness of tone and voice in these pages presents us with far more than a reference for grammar and usage, but rather, a true understanding of style in and of itself—that rhetoric is more than grammar and syntax, but a true translation of our consciousness into clear, material words. Such gravitas became most apparent to me when I arrived to page 52. Amid the section on misused words and expression, Strunk and White lay out the difference between nauseous and nauseated as follows:

Nauseous. Nauseated. The first means “sickening to contemplate”; the second means “sick to the stomach.” Do not, therefore, say, “I feel nauseous,” unless you are sure you have that effect on others.

Besides thinking of the many times I had misused “nauseous”, I actually laughed out loud. Amidst the seriousness in the rule there was a deep sense of snark. From the seriousness came a great deal of humor.

Since that first reading encounter with The Elements of Style, my well worn copy has remained with me. Whether I’m writing an academic paper, a cover letter, an author’s bio, a poem, a book review, or anything else, Strunk and White are there reminding me to be as clear as possible.

MY ELEMENTS OF STYLE

As I continued to grow in my writing life, I found that other books became constant sources of aid and knowledge, so much so that my desk had its own section of books at the ready, for whatever obstacles befell a given blank page. And over the years, the kinds of references have grown to fit my own writerly needs. And as I visit my friends who are writers, I notice some trends from desk to desk.

Here’s my working writing desk, fit with all I need! I’ve got my laptop, notebooks, pens, reference books, books to review, and some of my favorite books that I keep near me for inspiration. In the drawer of my desk, I keep mailing materials for my stack of chapbooks to sign and send to those who request it.

Regarding reference books, every writer’s desk seems to contain The Elements of Style by Strunk and White, a dictionary, and a well-worn thesaurus. My desk currently has my hardcover copy of The Elements of Style, The New Roget’s Thesaurus in Dictionary Form, and Soule’s Dictionary of English Synonyms. Especially for those of you dreaming up holiday wish-lists, Maira Kalman’s illustrated version of The Elements of Style may be just the special book to add to the collection for you.

While I used to keep a desk-sized Merriam-Webster Dictionary on hand, I find the synonyms and thesaurus more useful these days, perhaps especially as I revise my first book of poems. When I find myself overusing the same verbs and adjectives, I can quickly reach for one of these books and get some inspiration. I’ve converted, these days, to using apps for dictionary and etymology. I especially like the free dictionary.com app, which allows you to click on a word three times and open up its dictionary page. The app also offers audio pronunciation.

Dictionaries are important resources, ones which can’t quite be replicated online. Each nation has its favorite, from the Oxford English Dictionary, to Merriam-Webster’s, to the Macquarie. While I don’t keep Merriam-Webster on my desk at this moment, I do keep it at my fingertips, using their online resources when I’m in need. Further, I’ve found the Merriam-Webster twitter to be a source of great comfort and comedy amidst America’s dire political landscape. While it is easy to look up a word online, the physical books—dictionaries, thesauruses, etc.—encourage more meandering through the worlds of words. Without the instant gratification that comes from looking up a word, you may stumble upon an etymological note that takes you to another page, and so on, until you’ve learned new things about words and perhaps found an even better way to say whatever it is you set out to put on the page.

These are my three most used reference books right now. I’m really excited about this new, hardcover copy of The Elements of Style, especially!

Another particularity of a writer’s desk seems to be a given writer’s tools. Do you do most of your writing on a computer? In a notebook? With an old refurbished typewriter? I personally use multiple tools to get my writing done. Certain parts of my writing process involve pen and paper, while others are done on my laptop. Many writers have a kind of obsession with their objects. For example, I only write with fine point uniball pens in black or purple ink. I use fine point, black sharpie markers for my writing to-do lists. And, as you'll see from a glimpse at my desk, I'm as particular about notebooks as I am about pens!

I keep a few different notebooks with different purposes going at a time. Here you’ll see two Shinola notebooks, which I love because they engrave your name for free—a great holiday gift, indeed!—my Moleskine planner, my to-do list pad, and a grey notebook where I keep notes on books as I read them.

Another important element of a writer’s desk is its proximity to field guides. In my dream writing room, this might include specific maps, atlases, and encyclopedias. Currently, I’m working on poems and essays about my time spent in Greece on the island of Thassos and in the city of Thessaloniki. To that end, I have acquired field guides that can help me re-orient myself to that location. Names of trees, fish, flora, fauna, and foods are different in other places. I’ve also become a collector of field guides, including one that has images and names of specific kinds of lighthouses. What field guides might help you with a particular piece you’re working on right now?

As a field guide collector, these are some of my favorite possessions, found in random parts of the world, flea markets, and antique stores. Right now, I’m revising poems about my time in Greece on the island of Thassos. These field guides help inspire precision in describing water, fish, beaches, shells, and the like.

Besides reference books and field guides, it seems that craft books or books about writing and reading are a mainstay on my desk too. Some of my absolute favorites are:

Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott

The Writing Life by Annie Dillard

Reading Like a Writer by Francine Prose

Blue Pastures by Mary Oliver

Having these books on my desk is a reminder of my own intellectual inheritance as a writer, as well as a great source of guidance and inspiration to me.

EXPANSIVE FIELDS

There are of course many other must-have books, tools, and resources that writers need to have at the ready. A comparative study of writers’ desks would be ideal. In the absence of access to the likes of desks by Dr. Seuss, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Stephen King, JK Rowling, and the rest, here are some starter ideas by genre that you might consider as you expand your own writer’s desk. And of course, send us picture of your own desks and favorite desk necessities on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter by tagging us or using the hashtags: #everywritersdesk.

A Poet’s Guide to Poetry

Poetry has its own rules and vernacular that may give writers pause. From reference books, to prompting books, there are many craft resources for poets looking to understand lines, stanzas, and the soul of poetry as they grow their own volumes of poetry. Here’s a wishlist of some of my most beloved/ragged/well-loved books on poetry:

A Poetry Handbook by Mary Oliver

The Triggering Town by Richard Hugo

Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke

A Poet’s Guide to Poetry by Mary Kinzie

A Poet’s Glossary by Edward Hirsch

The Art of the Poetic Line by James Longenbach

A Little Book on Form: An Exploration Into the Formal Imagination of Poetry by Robert Hass

Rules for the Dance by Mary Oliver

The Sounds of Poetry: A Brief Guide by Robert Pinsky

ABC of Reading by Ezra Pound

Keeping Things Novel

For all you novelists, there are also a whole host of books to guide you in the writing of fiction.. Here are a few additions you might want to make to your #everywritersdesk:

How Fiction Works by James Wood

Brevity: A Flash Fiction Handbook by David Galef

The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers by John Gardener

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

Reading Like a Writer by Francine Prose

Mastering Suspense, Structure, and Plot: How to Write Gripping Stories that Keep Readers on the Edge of Their Seat by Jane K. Cleland

Nonfiction

If creative nonfiction is where your writing practice is focused, there are all kinds of books available for your #everywritersdesk too! Nonfiction is a huge category, which could include journalism, biography, autobiography, and more. This list is focused on the literary spirit of creative nonfiction:

Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg

To Show and to Tell by Phillip Lopate

On Writing Well by William Zinsser

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: The Complete Guide to Writing Creative Nonfiction by Lee Gutkind

Writing True: The Art and Craft of Creative Nonfiction by Sondra Perl and Mimi Schwartz

Inside Story: Everyone’s Guide to Reporting and Writing Creative Nonfiction by Julia Goldberg

Crafting the Personal Essay: A Guide for Writing and Publishing Creative Nonfiction by Dinty W. Moore

As these books serve the writing life, there are also those books that are so well-loved that they seem to live on our desks. Right now, the collected works of Sylvia Plath and Frank Bidart have been near me at all times, just like a security blanket for my authorial heart. What books do you find stay off the shelf? Tag them in your #everywritersdesk photos.

Of course, there are many other books that may guide you on your journey. Many craft books and writers’ resources can also be found on my series blog, “Reading Like a Writer” where I recommend specific craft books in conjunction with the genre of Write the World’s monthly writing contests. We can’t wait to see your additions to #everywritersdesk by tagging us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook!

About Lisa

Lisa Hiton is an editorial associate at Write the World. She writes two series on our blog: The Write Place where she comments on life as a writer, and Reading like a Writer where she recommends books about writing in different genres. She’s also the interviews editor of Cosmonauts Avenue and the poetry editor of the Adroit Journal.

#the write place #everywritersdesk #the elements of style #lisa hiton #amwriting #writing tips

3 notes · View notes