I found this site by accident, looking up the spelling of Andre Gromeko's name---what a pleasure! My two cents are: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter? Not if you 've read the books, I say. I don't think Daniel gets even close to the character that Rowling conceived. Nor does the child who plays Hermione. The Ron Weasley actor, though, I think is the best of the three. Someone from England asked if we Americans notice the accent issues in movies. Remember Meryl Streep and Robert Redford in Out of Africa? Streep, as usual with her wonderful ear for accents, maintained her British personna throughout. Redford, on the other hand, started out with a semblance of an accent, but this deteriorated quickly until he just seemed to sort of give up, and just spoke pure American. If you want to hear an amazing accent, watch Tommorow, a movie starring Robert Duvall. He takes on a backwoods accent and voice that are just astonishing. I agree with those who say that watching the movie after reading the book can be disappointing. Now and then, there are some movie makers who captured the real nature and tone and voice of the book, and even if they have to cut a lot, it doesn't lose the feel of the book. One such, I think, was Prince of Tides. The movie left out probably 2/3s of the book, and Barbra Streisand, with her self-beloved long fingernails, wasn't the ideal psychiatrist. But nevertheless, the movie, i thought, captured the tone of the book very well. I agree that Glenda JAckson was one of the best Queen Elizabehts, and that Maggie Smith absolutely is Miss Brodie. Also that Richard Harris was a wonderful Professor Dumbledore, while Michael Gambon--who is a terrific actor; see The Singing Detective and The Butcher, the Thief, His Wife and her Lover--is just not the kindly, deep, thoughtful Dumbledore at all. Another case of one wondering What the Director Was Thinking.

Oh! Cassandra is one of my all-time favorite characters, and I Capture the Castle is in my Top 5 of all-time favorite novels. Long-timers here at RP have repeatedly read my paeans to ICTC, but I can't help myself for singing this refrain. I first read it almost fifty years ago; then I read it over and over for about ten years. But in the early 1970s I lost track of it and spent the next quarter of a century trying to find it again. In the mid 1990s a now-defunct bookseller with a glorious catalogue ran a question to its subscribers asking what out-of-print books they would most like to see back in print. My choice, of course, was I Capture the Castle and I wrote up a piece about why I liked it so much and why I thought it should be reissued. The bookseller printed my piece and the response was tremendous. All this was turned over to the publisher and voila! within a couple of years (1998, if I remember correctly) I Capture the Castle was back for new generations of readers to enjoy. I like to think I was instrumental in its return, but I figure it was bound to happen, with or without me...I Capture the Castle was fondly remembered by so many other readers. Well, as much as I like Cassandra, I do see how she could be a tad annoying sometimes. Just a couple of examples: 1) Stephen, the son of the Mortmains' deceased housekeeper, was sweet on Cassandra, but she was uncomfortable with his devotion to her. I still have the impression that she thought he was beneath her in social status, although she and her family were dependent on him, as he was the only one who knew how to work and make money. I have never liked this aspect of Cassandra. 2) Stephen worked and saved to buy Cassandra a wireless. She appreciated the gift, somewhat, until Simon gave her a fancier model that included a gramophone (no hardship for Simon). Now whose was the greater gift? It's so poignant and realistic, I'm afraid, and I'm not proud of Cassandra's reaction. Mortmain irked me, too, for being so lazy and languishing with his writer's block. But I think Cassandra's sister, Rose, annoyed me even more: she was so self-conscious, pretentious, and "willing to sacrifice" herself -- for the good of her family -- by marrying Simon. But in the end she was too self-centered, which I suppose was a good thing, in a way.

I have a doubly literary one for you: My brother named his cockatiel Quasimodo - Quasi for short - after a pigeon of the same name in Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals. That pigeon in turn had been named after the bell-ringer from Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, because it was so ugly when he got it. It was moulting from its baby down and had pin feathers sticking in every direction, just like Quasi when brother got him. My own tiel has a sort of literary name as well: Ljúflingur, which is a metaphor used in poetry to refer to an elf or a lover. It literally means "sweet one".

Annpan, I've been wondering where you've been. I think you're right -- that there can be a blending of literary and genre writing; e.g., literary mystery, literary sci-fi, literary fantasy, literary historical fiction, etc. (There's even literary nonfiction.) Sheri, above, made an astute observation: Many book club selections often are of the 'semi-literary' type. They are popular but they are taken to be 'serious' and perhaps make readers feel virtuous and more cultured for having read them. The writers of such books are bridging the gap between stories that entertain and 'studies' that enlighten. I don't know if those writers consciously set out with that purpose (I suspect that some have that intent because, as Sheri said, they are wannabes and the style can be lucrative). The semi-literary type of book can be a boon for writers if they can attract the notice of enough book clubs, reviewers, and readers who are susceptible to suggestion. Oprah parlayed her influence to great effect in this way. And why not? Many readers enjoy belonging to groups and reading the same books everyone else is.