The first encounter between Holly Short and Commander Root results in Root reprimanding Holly for being late and then going on to tell her .."You are the first girl in Recon ever. You are a test case. A beacon. There are a million fairies out there watching your every move. There are a lot of hopes riding on you. But there is a lot of prejudice against you too. The future of law enforcement is in your hands ..."

Do you think that human (mud people) girls and/or boys face similar situations today? Why or why not?

I think that humans still face a lot of that today. Not so much as they did before because many things have been "explored" or done now, but things are still being discovered and new challenges are being undertaken. I would say there is probably more pressure on a lot of the people who are undertaking the challenges now because many of the challenges of today are either dangerous or will cause a whole new breakthrough in something if they are successful. I think people are more determined to cause breakthrough's today because sometimes it means so much to certain people. People have faced similar situations throughout time, trying to do things that no one has done before and undertaking challenges to make life better or easier for some people.

I agree with 247reader in a sense that there are people trying to do new things, but not so much now as was in the past. In other words there are less new things to be done (probably) than there was, a hundred years ago. This is also shown in a book that the eigth graders read or are reading: "Flowers for Algernon", and it is about a guy who is a test subject for an experiment that has never been done before, but thats another story. Also, since there are many things that have already been done, people are trying to do things more quickly than done before. Like my rubik's cube...

I suppose it's not as common as it may have been a hundred or two hundred years ago, but there are often times when people are the first to do something. This reminds me of astronauts; the world is watching as their spaceship goes up, and nobody knows if they'll ever return but they are watching and hoping for it. There are always risks for these kind of things. Benjamin Franklin ( I think) took a big risk when he put his key on his kite and flew it up, getting himself electrocuted (and making a great discovery). There is a quote in Ms. Pavey's room that is something along the lines of, "Everything that can be discovered has been discovered," and it was said in 1899 by the US Patent Agency or something. Haha, as if. In 1899 they didn't have many of the luxuries we have today, not to mention the scientific breakthroughs, amazing discoveries, etc.

Holly was the first female Recon officer. That is why I believe Commander Root told her she had to be better than the best. The implication being that if she failed they would not allow other girls to become Recon officers.

In our society today - do you think that females in certain careers have to be better than the best in order to succeed in a predominantly male field? The same could be said for males trying to succeed in a predominantly female field. Why or why not?

Responding to Admin, I don't think if Holly failed they wouldn't let any other female officers into Recon. At some point they were talking about if she failed, they would replace her with the "ditzy" officer. (I can't remember her name) I think it depends on the career, but in certain ones, yes. In certain fields I think that men/women have to work harder if they are the only one of their gender to gain approval and acceptance as being able to do it and being able to fit in. I really think that it depends on the profession though, because in some professions, there is a mix of genders and you still have to work just as hard to gain approval from others working in that same field. So I think that yes, people have to try to be better than the best in order to succeed in a predominantely male/female field but it really depends on what field you are in.

I agree with 247reader that if a male/female is in a predominanely female/male field, they have to work harder to gain support and approval. They would have to do this because they are one of the first people in their gender to do something that has been said: can be done only be males or females (depending on the profession). They have to prove that can be better than anyone else. This is shown when Blanche Scott became the first woman to fly an airplane by herself (although they do not know if it was intentional or not.) At first people believed that only males could fly airplanes but she proved them wrong. She also flew planes in air shows and furthur proved that women can fly planes as well as men.

I've been thinking, and I think that it really does depend on what profession you're in. In the old days, I think it was harder overall, because there were more separated professions,(i.e. there were more professions in which only one gender worked) and so there were more areas in which appreciation had to be earned. I think it was much of male dominated professions and the female's had to gain respect, although the vice versa did happen, but I think that once professions started being "coed" then it was easier sometimes to accept. On the other hand, nowadays, there aren't very many professions that aren't co-ed so it could be harder to gain the respect if you are the first, because it seems more like a tradition since it has been that way for so long people aren't ready and willing to change.

Japanese police have separated divisions for males and females. Generally, there are more males who do the chasing villains, arresting, etc, while the women do the so called 'easier' jobs such as taking care of lost children, etc. Even though other jobs don't discriminate very much, you still see males dominating certain areas of work. For example, in the English Parliament ( I think that's what it is), when they broadcast debates on television, it's generally the men who do the debating and the overall talking. But sometimes, it does matter whether you are male or female when talking about professions. Biologically, males are stronger then females so they are often found doing the heavy labor, etc.
Anyways, back to the original point. Nowadays, it doesn't seem so much that females have to be better then males, or males better then females, but I suppose I don't really know too much about it.

I'm not arguing with kuliogirl, I think what she says is (at least mostly) true, but as for the parliament debate "thing", I think you mostly see males because it is the males who have the jobs that put you in the position of debate. Many/most of the world's top politicians (mayors, presidents etc..) seem to be men (at least in many of the "more publicized" countries) so if there were more that were women, you would see more women debating. On that track, I wonder, would you consider leading a country a "male dominated" profession. ( i dunno what it's called) I mean, are there more male leaders that are leaders of countries or are there equal females. Do they seem to have an equal opportunity? Just wondering, seems interesting.

I don't think that males and females have equal opportunities for jobs, and in politics it's worse. Nothing's really equal, and although the US is trying to be equal and fair, it doesn't seem like it's happening.

As I've said before, it really depends on what profession you are talking about. In some, I think that the opportunities are equal, and if it doesn't seem so, it's just that not as many of one gender are applying. In others though, I agree, the opportunities are not equal. If you look at politics, you can see that as kuliogirl said. If you look at the amount of men in politics vs. women, I think you'd find that the men outnumber the women by quite a bit. In the US it's interesting. They have all these movements (or have had) for equal rights of races, then for women etc.. and yet, if you look closely, you won't find that equality to be true. It's interesting.

I have really enjoyed reading all the comments, especially the last few by Kuliogirl and 247reader. It made me ask the question: "How many women have been leaders of their country?" I know that in the UK Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister, other countries include: India, Pakistan,Phillipines, Israel, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Ireland etc. I wonder when we will see the first female President of the US

I think a female president of/for the US would be good. I have a friend who wants/wanted to be the first female president, I think that would be cool. I think the woman who would have the best chance if she ran right now would be Hillary Clinton. I was talking with my family a while back about that, and I think that would be cool. She is the governor of...what state is it? California or New York I think, I'm not sure of that, I'll have to check it out. That's one step forward at least.

I think that in the police/law enforcement areas in the world, often in order for women to be even noticed they must be better than the best. The same I think goes for men attemtping to succeed in the fine arts dancing field, such as ballet.

I think you have at least somewhat of a point with police/law enforcement thing, although I don't think it is necessarily true, but I don't think the arts such as ballet is true. I think that as long as you have worked at it, as must all the females, and are good enough to get a role, you can be noticed and considered good and of equal "status" just because you've worked hard. But that is true with all the female dancers as well. Actually, in terms of ballet, I think it is harder to be recognized as a woman because there are so many more women doing ballet than there are men. The women have to work harder to become one of the best because there is so much competition, whereas the men have to work about equally as hard, but they don't have as much competition because there are less of them.

Good point about male ballet dancers. On the one hand there may not be as much competition, but on the other hand they may have to deal with negative comments about their chosen field, even though ballet dancers are among the worlds strongest, fittest and most agile athletes.

In order for Holly to be restored to full magic or "running hot" she needs to perform the Ritual - "From the earth thine power flows, Given through courtesy, so thanks are owed. Pluck thou the magick seed, Where full moon, ancient oak and twisted water meet. And bury it far from where it was found, So return your gift into the ground."

If you were writing the book what would you have made the Ritual? Why do you think the author decided on this one? (eg. burying an acorn)

The author might have decided on this one because of his ancestry, but I don't really know where he's from or anything, so maybe not. It seems like the basic earthy-elven kind of ritual, and although it sounds magical and great, it seems like an easy thing to do once a month. In the book, Holly sticks the acorn in her boot and recharges her power while in the Fowl manor, showing that she could have been anywhere when doing this ritual.

I would probably have it to do with something about the full moon, because it has such a tradition of magical things and all. I'd also have it be about water, earth, air, and fire, because those were the 4 elements everyone believed made up all things way back when. Its interesting actually, the Greeks believed that there were those 4 elements and 4 states of being or something, those being hot, cold, wet, and dry. so water was cold and wet, earth was cold and dry, air was hot and wet (well they lived by the mediterranean, so i guess thats where the wet came from) , and fire was hot and dry. and then fire and water were opposites and all that. interesting how it works out. so anyway, i'd have it do something with those 4 "elements." other than that, and the full moon, i dunno.

I think the way the ritual is in the book makes sense in some ways but it's bad in others. I like the earth theme and the basic idea of it I like. I wouldn't have it go with the full moon though because you could "run out" of magic or get low on it at any time. If you have just had a particularly exhausting job or something like that, it could happen at any time. If you had the full moon worked into the ritual, then if you missed the ritual, you would be in a spot of trouble, and if your magic "ran out" at the beginning/midway through the month, you'd be a at a slight disadvantage throughout the rest of the time 'till the next full moon. I think the idea of being able to bury it anywhere is good because if you were captured, as Holly was or you had to urgently go somewhere, as long as you had the seed, you would be able to "regenerate" your magic. I like the ritual in this book, except I would change the full moon bit, and they throw a nice kinda "twist" into it in the next book.

In the 'business' world of the LepRecons and and elves, perhaps the ritual is not a good idea. However, if you look at it in a traditional way, it makes sense; the lives of the elves were dependent on the earth, and when the Mud Men took over they wre forced to go underground. Yet, the rituals from the past remain.

I agree. In the world that they live in now, or rather if you are part of something like the LepRecon, then you find it hard to do the ritual sometimes. In the old days it did make sense, but I think they should have thought it out so that if they were forced to go underground, as they are now, it should have been easier to complete the ritual. Although, the fairies are so high tech that it is still relatively easy to complete the ritual. Still, if the humans cut down or destroy all of the sacred places where the ritual can be done, then the fairies would face some trouble and would have to abandon their lifestyle as it is now.

I agree!! It would be a problem if the mud people cut down all the ancient oak trees. I think the author mentions a number of times in the book how humans are destroying the environment. Using an ancient oak tree not only envokes the right kind of setting, but also one thinks about how many trees are left. In addition, the idea of burying a seed implies that the fairies are so much more in tune with nature and how 'magical' nature is: from a tiny seed a magestic oak tree may grow.

What are some of the things that make the fairies in this book different from the way fairies are typically portrayed? How do you feel about being asked to accept a radically different version? Why?

I think that the way fairies were portrayed, at least when I was small, was as small dainty things i.e. the tooth fairy, tinkerbell, fairies like that. I absoloutely LOVE the way they are portrayed in this book. I think it's great that you start out thinking fairies-toothfairy/tinkerbell, and they turn out to be this whole complex system with LepRecons and magic and a whole system of advanced technology and such. They are totally defying the image of a "typical fairy" that was implanted in my mind as a child. I think it's like humans. There are many different "types" of humans, varying with race, religion, etc... and I think that Holly is defying the stereotype of dainty and feminine and I think it's awesome and original when people do that.

Faeries, in my opinion, are usually beautiful, gentle, magical beings, helping out mortals in need. Yet, In Artemis Fowl, Faeries are just like humans; with a variety of personalities, characteristics, just like in our world.

I use to think faires were only 5 inches tall, wore fun little alfets, were very peace ful, and carried around pixie dust, but in Artemis Fowl its very different. For instance they have technology which is very advance than humans technology, they have a lot of stuff like faire swat, so bascicaly they are not that peaceful as I thought they were. They act like humans these days.

I don't mind how faires act in Artmeis Fowl, actually I think its quite cool.

I think it would be really interesting, if in books to come and such, they changed around all the "stereotypes" of mythical/fantasy creatures. Such as faeries were changed around in Artemis Fowl, so that they were much like humans with advanced technology, I think it would be interesting to see if an author could change around the image of trolls and such so that it was quite believable. I think it would be interesting how far you could change trolls, goblins, dwarves, etc.. without it becoming too unbelievable. I think that would be fun.

Oh yes, I completely agree. For example, it would be fantastic if an author could take the image of the idiotic, boneheaded troll/goblin and mold it into an image of wisdom, intelligence, and friendliness. Yet, I wouldn't want dragons to be viewed as stupid and uncoordinated, or unicorns as jesters, if you know what I mean. There are some images and views of mythical creatures that are so embedded into my mind as acting a certain way that it would be disturbing to see them in a different view.

I think the fairies in Artemis Fowl are very bold, obnoxious (dwarfs and goblins), and exceedingly smart. The fairies have a unique mental power makes the fairies totally different than humans. I especially enjoyed the fairies cheekyness and wit throughout Artemis Fowl, (Folly the centaur). Before Artemis Fowl, I imagined fairies to be weak, timid fantasy creatures with no point to their lives except to be placed in a pretty scenery with a smiley sun in the background. Artemis Fowl portrays fairies in an rough and ready attitude witch I enjoy so much. The new kind of farie suprised me at the start but I immediatly feel right for it.

I agree with kuliogirl in that I wouldn't want dragons, unicorns and such to be portrayed as stupid etc... I think that there's a limit as to how far you can change a creature that has a portrayal molded into the minds of many people completely. For example, having an absentminded, forgetful unicorn is completely different than having the entire race of unicorns portrayed as idiotic and stupid. I think that would be going a bit far. There is definately a limit as to how far you can switch around rolls of characters without going overboard and into the realm of complete�@disbelief. (at least for me). Oh and also, as to theunifiers comment, maybe it's just me, but it seems as if you categorized the entire artemis fowl population (other than the human's) as faeries. I don't know, but i've always thought of each different character as different. For example, I would categorize Opal Koboi (book 2 I think) and Holly and their species as a type of faerie, but I wouldn't categorize goblins and dwarves as faeires. I don't know, maybe that's just me. I definitely don't intend to argue or anything.

This is kind of adding on to what 247reader mentioned, but I dislike how some of the faerie people categorize all humans as Mud people (MudMan), which is stereotyping, just because they happened to meet a human that wasn't very, well, nice, (like Artemis Fowl). Humans aren't all that bad, once you get to know them . Yet Holly Short seems like she despises humans, regardless of their nature, because she knows that some can be slightly demonic.

Is Holly the hero of this book? If so, why? Are you drawn to Artemis as hero, despite his behavior? Why or why not?

I think it depends on how you define hero. I would say that Holly and Artemis Fowl are the main characters in this book, but without everyone else helping each of them, you wouldn't call them heroes at all. If you define a hero as someone who saves the day, then I suppose I would name Holly as the hero in this book. On the other hand, the backbone of this book are commander root, butler and everyone under their command who get Holly and Artemis to their main character and "hero" status. I would call Artemis into a different hero category than Holly, as he isn't exactly working for an entirely admirable cause. I think that there is definitely something in Artemis's character that draws you into his motives though. As you read the second Artemis Fowl book, you get to know much more about Artemis and his motives, and I think you get a much different view and perspective of him than you do in the first. (Personally, not as a hero or anything-just as a character, I like Foaly and Root. )

I agreee with 247reader that if you define hero as someone who saves the day, Holly is the hero. She tried saving the people at the town (in Italy, was it?) by taking care of the troll, she gave power to Butler when he was almost killed by the troll, and through those actions, she saved everyone. If Butler hadn't taken care of the troll, I don't think the the LEP could have taken care of it either. I wouldn't call Artemis a hero because he doesn't really do anything that helps anyone other than himself and his family. He had started all these troubles, but as 247reader says, there is something in his character that draws you into his motives.

The hero in a story doesn't necesarily have to be the good guy. Take, for example, Robin Hood. He steals from the rich, and gives to the poor, yet is still portrayed as a hero. How does that work?? If someone is rich, they probably worked for it, and if someone is poor, it probably means they haven't worked or isn't working hard enough. Anywas, the hero of the book is Artemis Fowl. He's the one you follow, the one you fall in love with, and the one you root for. Holly Short, although she is the "good guy", often makes you hope she will trip on her feet or mess something up. Yet, because as you read on, you also fall in love with Holly's character, making the plot ever-so-interesting when they come together. Butler was a great supporting character, seeing as how you imagine him as a juggernaut, this great force, and whenever Artemis and Butler come acros 'roadblocks' Butler can always deal with them.

I agree with kuliogirl that the hero in a book doesn't always have to be the "good guy". I disagree with your Robin Hood example though because although nowadays a robin hood-like figure would indeed be robbing mostly harder working people who earned it, and vice versa, in Robin Hood's days, the rich were all kings and nobles who were born into wealth and hardly worked at all in their lives whereas the poor people, no matter how hard they worked and toiled throughout the year and their lives, they would always stay the same status and never be considered wealthy. The poor people always worked harder than the wealthy so Robin Hood was rightly giving back to the poor what they earned and had to unfairly pay in taxes to keep the rich people wealthy. So I don't think that Robin Hood was a good example to use as a "bad" hero, because circumstances were much different back then.

What do you think about Butler? He goes around hurting people and being ruthless, but you may find that you don't want him to die. Why is this, do you think?

I personally didn't want him to die for two reasons: 1) he was going to be killed by a troll, and if it wasnt for Artemis, he wouldnt have died and 2) he was cool. He knew all the martial arts tricks and he was always calm and he knew what to do. He could be such a nice person to have as a friend, and I think that when you think of that, you don't want him to die.

I think Butler is a realy cool guy and I like reading about his cool martial arts tricks. He is really brave and risks his life many times to save artemis Fowl. I think that he has to kill people and be ruthless for his master (fowl). I think he can be honoured for his undying courage and his brave acts for artemis.

Butler.. you know, when I first imagined him, he was a teenager. A really big teenager. And then I found out that he's twenty or thirty, but it's the way he puts up with Artemis and takes care of him, treats him like the "younger brother he never had", that makes me root for him even though he kills people. The way I see it, the only way you begin to dislike a character in a book is if he/she is portrayed as evil/ruthless, etc., but if the author portrays the character as funny and having the characteristics that you would want in a friend, then you begin to like him/her.

I didn't see Butler portrayed as ruthless in the beginning. When you go back and think about it, you realize that he is, but the way the author wrote his character, I at least wasn't given enough reasons for why he was not to be liked in the beginning. I find myself drawn to the fact that he is willing to do almost whatever Artemis wants for him and he still gives Artemis his full trust and is willing to go through with Artemis's plans even while still full of doubt if he will live through it or not. Most/many bodyguards and people like butler will do what their master's want, but wouldn't be willing to go through with a plan concocted by them that could put their life on the line. (Without a bribe/money that is) I don't see butler as a brutal/ruthless man, I see him more as an older brother who will do anything to protect his family (Butler's and Fowl's).

i think that if the author wants to portray a person like butler they have to make some decisions. they act like he is always very calm but he is rather active in other times. he doesn't try to harm people but he does get the sailors angry at him when he insults them this seems like just picking a fight. he does however protect the main charecter of the book so that if butler died you might feel as though artemis was now in great peril. he also (near the end) goes along with artemisis plan to put himself to sleep with the tranquilizers. but butler trusts artemis and artemis trusts butler so they are both the ones we are rooting for.

What part do you think Artemis' mother plays in this book? The main practical effect of her madness is that it leaves Artemis free to do as he pleases without supervision. What other purpose does she serve?

I think that Artemis's mother serves as the basis for what he's doing. If it weren't for her, Artemis would never have started out doing what he did, or at least not in the same way. He did everything carefully and planned everything in ordre for his mother to get better. I think that is what makes his actions more acceptable. If he had just been greedy and wanted to disturb the faerie's world, then I would have felt much more distant from him I suppoes, but he did it all for his mother. He cared about his mother a lot, especially since his father died and he really wanted her to be well so he planned everything so she would be all right again. It think that is her other purpose, to be the basis and reason for his activities.

Artemis Fowl is a book all about action, domination, technology, and a little bit of humor thrown in here and there. It seems like Artemis' mom is the love part of this story. Artemis is cold, cruel, and calculating, but when he talks about his mom, especially near the end, it's like that's the love in the book. a book that's all about action isn't too interesting. a book all about humor isn't too interesting. a book all about love insn't too interesting. a book all about mysteries and problems to solve isn't to very interesting either. you need to combine a few of all the genres to make a good story.

On a different topic, regarding the last question, which i didn't remember to answer, I actually found myself wanting Butler to die. well not really thinking "DIE, BUTLER, DIIIIIIEEEEEEE!" but just "He's not very nice. I hope something bad happens to him." in the second book it was different though.