It's hard not to be livid. I am fuming. There's been a proliferation of charities and 'agencies' that have flourished in the spaces where things used to be. Over the past few decades, which is now long enough to destroy and blank the memories of a generation or two and all organisational memory. Outsourcing all knowledge for core parts of our society and civil society. Healthcare. Mental Healthcare. Social care. Housing. Education. The Arts. Publishing. Prisons. Probation. Our Institutions and Professions. The insidious rot is everywhere. I had not heard of these people but it's a crowded field in 'grassroots' and 'access' and 'community' and they cross all sectors. And dilute the quality of it all.
The lines between them are blurry, often they get 'contracts' to provide 'services' that used to be a core part of national or local government delivery but some bright spark decided to marketise something and 'provide more choice'. University education? Yeah, we'll bid for that! Bin collections? Yeah we'll bid for that! Literacy and early years? Yeah why not we'll bid for that! Bridge building? Of course! We'll make it up as we go along! Get a flashy website and we're on a roll. They are often under no performance regime, have no clear remit and are accountable to no one. Everyone is an 'expert' because genuine expertise is underfunded, underpaid, understaffed and reeling in shock at the bouncy know-nothings that have taken over.
We know the issues with contracting out to private sector providers, we know the issues of funding cuts, lack of investment and austerity. The short-termism and the concurrent growth of removing face to face provision and sticking everything online. No longer 'teachers' but 'educational delivery specialist consultants' and other meaningless pap. The pervasive gender ideology nonsense. We know this - it's just yet another example. The morons at the family sex show for children with obvious links to Stonewall - it's the same names, the same gravy train and no one seems capable of addressing how they have destroyed so much or how to rebuild. When they're challenged or questioned they collapse or deflect. Who picks up the pieces?
People who know enough and might be of retirement age have been warning about this for decades.
I've been looking through job listings recently. This might explain why I don't understand most of them. They all look like a string of buzzwords. 'Educational delivery specialist consultant' is pretty spot on. No explanation of what the intended postholder will actually do all day long. 'Ensure satisfactory outcomes' (don't ask of what).
Have written to them. If they have attempted to prevent children being introduced to characters which have ignited a lifelong passion for reading in so many youngsters, because they hold a grudge against JK Rowling, it represents a disgusting betrayal of their mission.
Two beloved authors, in another league of bestsellerdom, (don't forget Tolkien), whose brilliantly wrought magical worlds are stuffed with truth and joy, and non-didactic ethical lessons, are not on the BBC's Big Jubilee Read list. C'mon! Unaware, out-of-step, the publicly funded Reading Agency fails spectacularly. And so does the BBC who went along with the cancellation of both authors. Why are the people making these decisions repelled by these two titans of light? Of course, that's a rhetorical question, whose answer is: they live on the wrong side of the moral spectrum.
Actually I see that TLTWATW is too early (1950) but The Last Battle, last of the Narnia books, where Good finally triumphs over Evil, was published in 1956 so could definitely make the cut...
Exactly. And his other work. Probably too old and too white (I can't believe I wrote that). That this is sanctioned by the BBC is not a good look. I still am not renewing my licence and that may become permanent (no TV and not using iplayer). I'd say anyone reading anything is good but this is riling me as it's illustrative of the rot in literacy and the library sector (what remains of it).
The Establishment are still trying to hold onto the concept of 'The Commonwealth'. I wonder if Jimmy Savile were alive whether they'd be asking his advice on what books he'd suggest properly reflect the past 70 years of her reign. How about it Charles and William? What about Jimmy's ode? Voice of the people eh?
Many people's favourite books are from their childhoods. It took me years to embrace mine and put them out amongst my other serious grown up books. It's foolish that the Propaganda Agency can't grasp that.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has sold more than 120 million copies and the whole series has sold 500 million, so if they want "influential" there is no one else who comes close. Idiots.
I was lent the first 3 books ages ago. Even though I'm way too old for them, I loved the amount of imagination with the plots. I've just bought the Philosopher's Stone again, but in Bulgarian this time as I live in Bulgaria now. I struggle with the language but I'm hoping this will help a great deal.
What a disgrace. I'm reminded of the brilliant 'Rowling's Razor' by James Kirkup:
Which of these is more likely?
A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.
That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.
You can be guaranteed that no-one involved in that Reading Agency decision will be answering that question - not because they don't know the answer but because they do, and they're scared to admit it. I still find it hard to believe that in 2022 such an 'angry mob'/'witch-hunt' mentality dominates popular culture, yet here we are.
They have been asked why JK was left out. I heard a spokeswoman reply on radio 4 that it was "largely" because bla bla. She was not challenged as to what any other issue may have been. Agree it's outrageous and needs more challenging and complaints
Having had a quick look there are a lot of books that look good on shelves. I have plenty of them and have struggled through thinking 'I should read this'. They languish on many shelves. Tried a few times, sometimes finished and thought I'm glad that's over. Back on the shelf they go, only to stare down at me making me feel guilty for not loving them. Or to be gifted away or to charity. Others have become cultural icons and I can see why they're on there.
There's a snobbishness to the Publishing industry that's still there, only now heavy dollops of ignorance, stupidity, narrow-mindedness and wokery have thrived. They sap the joy out of everything.
I just looked at the list. To be fair: “The books on The Big Jubilee Read list have been chosen for adults, therefore some may not be suitable for younger readers.” Looking at the list, I did not see any children’s lit or even YA literature.
I was pleased that they chose a book by Kazuo Ishiguro, I like his comments on free speech and how young writers are being impacted by this environment.
Don’t get me wrong, my children and I love J. K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books and I am disgusted by how she has been treated. However, I do not think her exclusion from this list is another example of anti-Rowling animus.
They also seem to have chosen books from all over the commonwealth.
Professor of modern literature at Queen Mary University, Susheila Nasta, said of the decision: “There was some discussion about Harry Potter, but I think the feeling, in the end, was it was primarily a children’s book. It was decided to make space for a book that was good and equally well received.”
Looking at the list I think it is a reasonable justification and Potter would have stuck out like a sore thumb. (On the other hand, what a dull looking set of book titles they're left with!)
I've read or tried reading a lot of these books, many of them typically appear on 'best book' or 'must read' lists. Sadly these lists all seem to suffer from the pervasive idea that greatness is only found in serious, heavy and depressing content. No, a 'hopeful' ending after 300 pages of death and suffering doesn't count.
I remember a pupil in my Primary 7 class had one of the Harry Potter books hidden on his knee and he was attempting to read it during a Maths lesson. We compromised and he was able to continue during the class English language time. An 11/12 year old boy so engrossed in a book he was willing to risk getting into trouble. I dare anyone to say that JK Rowling and her books weren’t massively influential in encouraging young people to read.
They said it was left off as it was primarily a children's book which says a lot about how they view children.It had kids and parents queuing up all night to buy it.I wasn't a kid and I queued up to buy it.Haha!
The Potter books were not just one book,they were the experience of a generation.
They then said that they wanted to lead people to discover and read books that might not have had a high profile but they also said they intended the list to be reader led but ,again,don't children count as readers?
It's more a celebration of books across the Commonwealth from the past 70 years, with 10 per decade from various Commonwealth countries. It looks more like a Booker Prize long list (with some past winners). There's no way JK Rowling would have been considered by the "experts" even if she was on the public long list. From the same year as "Philosopher's Stone" they instead chose "A Suitable Boy". You could call it snobbishness but I don't see it as anything more than that.
I can’t think of anyone whose writing for children has encouraged reading more than JKR.
What does JKR"s books encouraging children to read have to do with gender politics?
It's hard not to be livid. I am fuming. There's been a proliferation of charities and 'agencies' that have flourished in the spaces where things used to be. Over the past few decades, which is now long enough to destroy and blank the memories of a generation or two and all organisational memory. Outsourcing all knowledge for core parts of our society and civil society. Healthcare. Mental Healthcare. Social care. Housing. Education. The Arts. Publishing. Prisons. Probation. Our Institutions and Professions. The insidious rot is everywhere. I had not heard of these people but it's a crowded field in 'grassroots' and 'access' and 'community' and they cross all sectors. And dilute the quality of it all.
The lines between them are blurry, often they get 'contracts' to provide 'services' that used to be a core part of national or local government delivery but some bright spark decided to marketise something and 'provide more choice'. University education? Yeah, we'll bid for that! Bin collections? Yeah we'll bid for that! Literacy and early years? Yeah why not we'll bid for that! Bridge building? Of course! We'll make it up as we go along! Get a flashy website and we're on a roll. They are often under no performance regime, have no clear remit and are accountable to no one. Everyone is an 'expert' because genuine expertise is underfunded, underpaid, understaffed and reeling in shock at the bouncy know-nothings that have taken over.
We know the issues with contracting out to private sector providers, we know the issues of funding cuts, lack of investment and austerity. The short-termism and the concurrent growth of removing face to face provision and sticking everything online. No longer 'teachers' but 'educational delivery specialist consultants' and other meaningless pap. The pervasive gender ideology nonsense. We know this - it's just yet another example. The morons at the family sex show for children with obvious links to Stonewall - it's the same names, the same gravy train and no one seems capable of addressing how they have destroyed so much or how to rebuild. When they're challenged or questioned they collapse or deflect. Who picks up the pieces?
People who know enough and might be of retirement age have been warning about this for decades.
I've been looking through job listings recently. This might explain why I don't understand most of them. They all look like a string of buzzwords. 'Educational delivery specialist consultant' is pretty spot on. No explanation of what the intended postholder will actually do all day long. 'Ensure satisfactory outcomes' (don't ask of what).
Have written to them. If they have attempted to prevent children being introduced to characters which have ignited a lifelong passion for reading in so many youngsters, because they hold a grudge against JK Rowling, it represents a disgusting betrayal of their mission.
Well done and thank you
Two beloved authors, in another league of bestsellerdom, (don't forget Tolkien), whose brilliantly wrought magical worlds are stuffed with truth and joy, and non-didactic ethical lessons, are not on the BBC's Big Jubilee Read list. C'mon! Unaware, out-of-step, the publicly funded Reading Agency fails spectacularly. And so does the BBC who went along with the cancellation of both authors. Why are the people making these decisions repelled by these two titans of light? Of course, that's a rhetorical question, whose answer is: they live on the wrong side of the moral spectrum.
Titans of light! Love it!
Is The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on the list?
No C.S. Lewis from what I can see. It's not an easily searchable site and splits the books into seven groups by decade.
Actually I see that TLTWATW is too early (1950) but The Last Battle, last of the Narnia books, where Good finally triumphs over Evil, was published in 1956 so could definitely make the cut...
Exactly. And his other work. Probably too old and too white (I can't believe I wrote that). That this is sanctioned by the BBC is not a good look. I still am not renewing my licence and that may become permanent (no TV and not using iplayer). I'd say anyone reading anything is good but this is riling me as it's illustrative of the rot in literacy and the library sector (what remains of it).
The Establishment are still trying to hold onto the concept of 'The Commonwealth'. I wonder if Jimmy Savile were alive whether they'd be asking his advice on what books he'd suggest properly reflect the past 70 years of her reign. How about it Charles and William? What about Jimmy's ode? Voice of the people eh?
Many people's favourite books are from their childhoods. It took me years to embrace mine and put them out amongst my other serious grown up books. It's foolish that the Propaganda Agency can't grasp that.
Here's a link, not much fantasy literature at all, good books yes, but no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings? C'mon. And no C.S. Lewis? That's a big failure in judgement, imho. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Ynpj933DJ2YG5nsMS6fn8k/a-literary-celebration-of-queen-elizabeth-iis-record-breaking-reign
Didn't spot Graham Greene George Orwell or Ian McEwain on this list. Ann Tyler is not there either.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has sold more than 120 million copies and the whole series has sold 500 million, so if they want "influential" there is no one else who comes close. Idiots.
I was lent the first 3 books ages ago. Even though I'm way too old for them, I loved the amount of imagination with the plots. I've just bought the Philosopher's Stone again, but in Bulgarian this time as I live in Bulgaria now. I struggle with the language but I'm hoping this will help a great deal.
You're proving the point. Best of luck!
(Saying "Wingardium Leviosa" with a Bulgarian accent counts as a superpower.)
Their mission is what ! Jk was the only way I got my sprogs to read , we queued outside a store in vegas ( on holiday ) for the latest hp
What a disgrace. I'm reminded of the brilliant 'Rowling's Razor' by James Kirkup:
Which of these is more likely?
A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.
That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.
You can be guaranteed that no-one involved in that Reading Agency decision will be answering that question - not because they don't know the answer but because they do, and they're scared to admit it. I still find it hard to believe that in 2022 such an 'angry mob'/'witch-hunt' mentality dominates popular culture, yet here we are.
Yes, thanks for the James Kirkup reminder. A most perfect thing to say.
Ask them the question anyway - they get alot of public funding so they should answer to err.. - the public.
Are they Stonewalled? What's the bet..
They have been asked why JK was left out. I heard a spokeswoman reply on radio 4 that it was "largely" because bla bla. She was not challenged as to what any other issue may have been. Agree it's outrageous and needs more challenging and complaints
Having had a quick look there are a lot of books that look good on shelves. I have plenty of them and have struggled through thinking 'I should read this'. They languish on many shelves. Tried a few times, sometimes finished and thought I'm glad that's over. Back on the shelf they go, only to stare down at me making me feel guilty for not loving them. Or to be gifted away or to charity. Others have become cultural icons and I can see why they're on there.
There's a snobbishness to the Publishing industry that's still there, only now heavy dollops of ignorance, stupidity, narrow-mindedness and wokery have thrived. They sap the joy out of everything.
I just looked at the list. To be fair: “The books on The Big Jubilee Read list have been chosen for adults, therefore some may not be suitable for younger readers.” Looking at the list, I did not see any children’s lit or even YA literature.
I was pleased that they chose a book by Kazuo Ishiguro, I like his comments on free speech and how young writers are being impacted by this environment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56208347.amp
Don’t get me wrong, my children and I love J. K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books and I am disgusted by how she has been treated. However, I do not think her exclusion from this list is another example of anti-Rowling animus.
They also seem to have chosen books from all over the commonwealth.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/platinum-jubilee-the-big-jubilee-read-is-revealed-but-misses-one-major-author-175312/
Professor of modern literature at Queen Mary University, Susheila Nasta, said of the decision: “There was some discussion about Harry Potter, but I think the feeling, in the end, was it was primarily a children’s book. It was decided to make space for a book that was good and equally well received.”
Looking at the list I think it is a reasonable justification and Potter would have stuck out like a sore thumb. (On the other hand, what a dull looking set of book titles they're left with!)
I've read or tried reading a lot of these books, many of them typically appear on 'best book' or 'must read' lists. Sadly these lists all seem to suffer from the pervasive idea that greatness is only found in serious, heavy and depressing content. No, a 'hopeful' ending after 300 pages of death and suffering doesn't count.
Here's what people - probably not just kids - are actually reading: https://www.amazon.co.uk/charts
Yes, she's still on top. Must rankle with those activist nobodies
I remember a pupil in my Primary 7 class had one of the Harry Potter books hidden on his knee and he was attempting to read it during a Maths lesson. We compromised and he was able to continue during the class English language time. An 11/12 year old boy so engrossed in a book he was willing to risk getting into trouble. I dare anyone to say that JK Rowling and her books weren’t massively influential in encouraging young people to read.
But that is what they are saying...
They said it was left off as it was primarily a children's book which says a lot about how they view children.It had kids and parents queuing up all night to buy it.I wasn't a kid and I queued up to buy it.Haha!
The Potter books were not just one book,they were the experience of a generation.
They then said that they wanted to lead people to discover and read books that might not have had a high profile but they also said they intended the list to be reader led but ,again,don't children count as readers?
To miss Potter out seems silly.
Unfortunately, I don't think their remit was "influential" books. You can find the list here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Ynpj933DJ2YG5nsMS6fn8k/a-literary-celebration-of-queen-elizabeth-iis-record-breaking-reign See how many you've heard of!
It's more a celebration of books across the Commonwealth from the past 70 years, with 10 per decade from various Commonwealth countries. It looks more like a Booker Prize long list (with some past winners). There's no way JK Rowling would have been considered by the "experts" even if she was on the public long list. From the same year as "Philosopher's Stone" they instead chose "A Suitable Boy". You could call it snobbishness but I don't see it as anything more than that.
They are all books aimed at adults, though, and some of the intention seems to be to recover less well-known books.
They could have pitched this very differently with no issue. Their PR has been poor.
It has.
Way to get headlines, I guess.