Harry Potter

[JCamilo]

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, I think what people misunderstand is that people like myself really don't even like Harry Potter all that much. It's a book I haven't read in years, that I enjoyed between the ages of like 9-12(among many other books). When I was younger I read anything I could get my hands on. A lot of Dostoevsky, a lot all sorts of literature passed by me. I read Harry Potter, I read all sorts of things, and most of them I grew old of. Harry Potter I surely grew old of, but none of that stuff was trash. It's just one of many books I read when I was little. I don't like it or hate it. And I didn't start out reading Harry Potter, and I didn't become obsessed with Harry Potter.

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

Heh. I did actually defend the merits of Harry Potter. The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.

[Mathor]

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

1.it DID say how many times she used it.
2. 1 extra hour per day might make a person slightly more tired, but it wouldn't be noticeable, as i have reiterated over and over again.

[Paulclem]

The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.
__________________

I read some King in the 80s and The Shining last year. They are good at what they do aren't they. Of course you move on if you want more from reading, but it's nice to go back for a change of pace. Horses for courses I say.

[JCamilo]

Questions: Do you kids read only Harry Potter? Do you think that reading the samebooks alongside them is a form of incentive? What else you did to help them to read before Harry Potter?

[Paulclem]

1) No - they have read many books at lots of different levels
2)Yes reading books alongside children is a incentive - it becomes a social thing, which is powerful
3) Lots of things. You have to invest time and books in children's reading. Bedtime stories, making up stories, reading together, reading school books together.

[Paulclem]

The most reading they do is on screen with a computer, though they are still reading some books. What I know is that they can read at a reasonable level. They read a lot of online manga.

[Drkshadow03]

They read a lot of online manga.

In the original Japanese because that would be impressive! :D

[joebob]

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

[Paulclem]

In the original Japanese because that would be impressive!

Not yet. My son wants to do Japanese at University, so it may be possible in the future. My daughter has also done business Japanese at her school - she's 13, and is also keen on doing it in future. I have to admit to absolutely no input into all that as I am, unfortunately, virtually monolingual. I'm glad they are forging their own interests. Luckily my wife is good with languages when we go abroad. :D

[Emil Miller]

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

One naturally expects kids to know little. However, when adults resort to the same level, then God help us all. Harry Potter my ***!

[Paulclem]

One naturally expects kids to know little. However, when adults resort to the same level, then God help us all. Harry Potter my ***!

Some of the arguments have been about the possible positive effects on kids reading.

[Drkshadow03]

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

The fact that kids read Twilight has what bearing on the quality or lack of quality of Harry Potter exactly? Many kids also like Alice in Wonderland, Goosebumps, The Phantom Toll Booth, and some even like Jane Austen. Ever hear of the Guilt by Association fallacy?


Kids like Twilight, and Twilight is a bad book series
Therefore kids must only like bad books.
Kids also enjoy reading Harry Potter,
Since kids only like bad books, Harry Potter must be a bad book series.

[JCamilo]

1) No - they have read many books at lots of different levels
2)Yes reading books alongside children is a incentive - it becomes a social thing, which is powerful
3) Lots of things. You have to invest time and books in children's reading. Bedtime stories, making up stories, reading together, reading school books together.


Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

[Mathor]

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

this is an overly-cycled point, and I do not believe it really holds any merit on the discussion. The point being "if a person read Harry Potter and went on to read Canonical books afterward, they probably would have gone onto read them regardless of reading Harry Potter" The truth is, anything that inspires one to read is a good thing, no matter what it is. Sure, the people who like Harry Potter and go onto read much better novels would've done so with or without Harry Potter, but the fact that it is a source of inspiration for a number of children gives it a slight bit of significance.

An anecdotal example:

I am a musician, and a lover of many types of music. I can play guitar, piano, drums, trumpet, trombone, marimba, etc etc. I like a vast array of different kinds of music, Beethoven and Mozart are two of my favorite composers. But I did not start to even take notice of music growing up, and it didn't really interest me until I was about 11 and I discovered punk rock music. A lot of it wasn't all that good, but I didn't know that then. But I thought it was the greatest thing in the world, punk rock. I blasted it in my room, and it inspired me musically. And it's because of these musicians with no musical merit that I grew to appreciate what 'real' music is, and grow up with a more artistic sense of what music is. Sure, I would've probably grown to like music eventually either way, but the fact that that music inspired me makes it important in some way. When a person is new to something, like reading, they just enjoy the first thing that connects to them, and go from there. If that is Harry Potter, so be it.

It wasn't for me, for me it was Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I can look back and see why that novel is VASTLY imperfect, but I didn't realize that growing up. I just knew that I liked the story. And from there I just wanted to keep reading. So whether or not I can ever bring myself down to the level to re-read it, Treasure Island will always be important to me.

That is what reading should be: emotional connection to the human condition, no matter what brings it about. I'd much rather my future kids read Jane Austen or Shakespeare to find such things, but chances are they won't listen to me. And to discourage any reading undertaking they should happen upon seems wrong to me.

[kasie]

.....That is what reading should be: emotional connection to the human condition, no matter what brings it about. I'd much rather my future kids read Jane Austen or Shakespeare to find such things, but chances are they won't listen to me. And to discourage any reading undertaking they should happen upon seems wrong to me.

Hear, hear.

[Zee.]

The most reading they do is on screen with a computer, though they are still reading some books.




... okay i don't know where you get this comment from but there is no evidence to back this claim up.

[Zee.]

OH MY LORD THIS CONVERSATION DRIVES ME MENTAL, IT IS A ROUND TABLE ARGUMENT.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PERIOD. BOOKS DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE.

A child's mind does not stay young forever..
let them enjoy books CRAFTED for their mind. When they are ready, and if they love reading, if they LOVE stories, they will seek out more books. As their mind grows so will their tastes in literature.

Give them a little bit of credit, maybe some of you could do with reading a bit of Harry Potter. Your imagination is clearly fried.

[Zee.]

And another thing - i'm pretty sure most of the people who have posted in this thread are of an "older" age and have never read Harry Potter in their life.

[wessexgirl]

I couldn't agree more with the last few posters. How can grown adults take so much perverse pleasure in belittling and sneering at a childrens/teen book? It wasn't written for you, and while I have nothing against any age group reading any book, (within reason of course), I do find it ridiculous that people are debating over the truth of the physics of a fiction book!!!!!! All I can say is you must have too much time on your hands, to take exception to a piece of work which brings enjoyment to many. Okay, you see it as flawed. What piece of work isn't? It's not great literature, but as far as I can see, no-one's claiming it is, but the detractors just sound like a load of soulless whingers. All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school, you would so obviously be in the wrong job. Are you expecting them to read War and Peace, or Proust perhaps, when the actual act of getting them to pick up a book as opposed to playing on a computer is a big achievement? And I expect the rebuttal to that will be but there are better children's books. Everyone knows that, but I think that even if they picked up the so-called "better" books, certain people would find fault with that, and would be expecting more. Well, if they can read x why aren't they reading y......it's infinitely better? I agree with Lima, it's a circular argument, and the detractors will never let it lie. If you don't like HP, as it's your right to do, fine, but to keep an argument going about petty, nit-picking flaws in a work of juvenile fiction, (I'll say it again in case certain people didn't get it), A WORK OF JUVENILE FICTION, NOT A NON-FICTION SCIENCE BOOK ABOUT PHYSICS, then that's just very sad.

[Paulclem]

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

[Paulclem]

... okay i don't know where you get this comment from but there is no evidence to back this claim up.

My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PERIOD. BOOKS DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE.

I agree.

And another thing - i'm pretty sure most of the people who have posted in this thread are of an "older" age and have never read Harry Potter in their life.

I have. I'm 45. I'm happy to admit to reading a mixture of classics, sci-fi, fantasy, crime, and children's books. I also read the odd modern literary novel.

[Paulclem]

All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school,

I agree with you Wessexgirl. I'm an ex-primary school teacher who now teaches adults basic English. My students last year ranged from 17 to 83. I find it very sad that the people we have in our classes are on the whole intelligent people who have not realised their life's potental. A big part of this is a lack of reading skills - and writing/ spelling etc I am absolutely certain that anything that encourages reading should be given credit the credit it deserves. That's why I have been banging on as a pro-HP.

[mollie]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

[Drkshadow03]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

Classics such as See Spot Run, of course. They then should go immediately to Chaucer and James Joyce. Doesn't everyone do that?

[Three Sparrows]

"My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time."

The environment that kids are raised in does have a large impact, I believe. If you are around people who chat online and go out instead of read, they will probably pick up a book with reluctance; I have been home schooled and exposed to classics all my life, and for me, reading is my passion. So, it might depend on the surroundings and definitely on the individual person.
I remember reading my first great classic, Anna Karenina, when I was eleven, but I also know people who would rather read computer manuals instead.

Harry Potter might be a good step for some, but for me, the witchcraft sorcery really turned me off.

All the best in getting kids to read Chaucer!;)

[JCamilo]

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

I think that is where I want to move this. HP is responsable for some individual devleopments, no doubt. Altough the reader must exist already to arrive to HP. But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.
Even if we see books strongly related to some inclusive momments, such as Don Quixote (I have seen once a study showing that the multiplication of the translations of Quixote was similar to the increase of book selling in europe), or the books responsable for the end of latim and the national idioms, they are all part of a socio-economic movement. I would say that saying that Don Quixote make people read is as wrong as saying HP do (and generally, it is just a defensive vague argument against more demanding criticism in the forum). Even because the books are often written in answer to the public demand. Harry Potter is, as you pointed, similar to other books that explored the same "public", he did not created then. But of course, it is necessary to explore this market. But as you said, it could have been other books, kids would be "transformed" in readers by any books used by the responsables for the education, even an Ecyclopedia (which is a book that many members of youth read), HP, Comic books, etc.
Claims that one specific work did have no vallue and no evidence at all. And it is a misunderstanding of anything that the so called old people who had only free time in life is saying. We are talking about the kind of the reader transfomed by HP, not that they do not exist.

[JCamilo]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery...
In fact, I do not mind that my sisters read Harry Potter, I bought for them one or another, but I am very happy they also read Byron, Guimares Rosa, Stevenson, Orwell, Machado de Assis, Emily Dickinson, Poe, Borges, Fernando Pessoa, Hugo, some of them before Potter and I know they have a more powerful effect than HP...

[Mathor]

But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.


Well. That's mostly true. But books do make readers. If you spend your whole life without finding a book you enjoy, you're not ever going to start reading. And a lot of books you would enjoy, but you do not have the inspiration yet to understand why. Something has to provide that initial inspiration.

[mollie]

You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery...
In fact, I do not mind that my sisters read Harry Potter, I bought for them one or another, but I am very happy they also read Byron, Guimares Rosa, Stevenson, Orwell, Machado de Assis, Emily Dickinson, Poe, Borges, Fernando Pessoa, Hugo, some of them before Potter and I know they have a more powerful effect than HP...

Yes, I am very aware of Alice in Wonderland and the influence it had on later literature. I loved it so much, and I knew a lot of it off by heart when I was a child, and its influence cropped up within a module of the final year of my degree. I am not under the impression that Harry Potter is the only book in the world, and I do not consider all other works to be the preserve of snobs.

I realise that my initial question was phrased in an unpleasantly sarcastic way, but it is frustrating to read this thread. The book is written for children to enjoy, and they enjoy it. They're children. They're learning. Of course Harry Potters are not the best books ever written. Nobody here seems to be arguing that. Later on, the children reading it now will find that out, in exactly the same way I found out that neither Little Women or Anne of Green Gables is the best book ever written. But until that happens, just let them enjoy it, and stop picking holes in a book that was never meant for adults to read. It's like going into an ice-cream parlour and complaining that the ice-cream doesn't have enough nutritional value.

I am delighted that your sisters are well read, and enjoying excellent literature. I think all children should be exposed to the best children's literature there is, Roald Dahl, E Nesbit, Louisa M Alcott, LM Montgomery, CS Lewis, and others. However, I don't think everything they read has to be an edifying work of great literary merit, unless the child's tastes naturally fall that way. I think that children should be permitted to read books that are just entertainment, Enid Blyton, Carolyn Keene and the like, in amongst the better books I talked about above. They should be allowed to read for sheer pleasure, in a relaxed way, without someone clucking over their shoulder that what they are reading is substandard.

I think they should be allowed an intermediate stage between fairy stories and and picking up really great adult literature like Orwell and Borges, an intermediate stage when they read, and it's not hard work, it's not a chore, when they're reading to just enjoy it. I believe that this is the key to keeping children reading into adulthood. If they don't need that stage, if they hop straight, aged seven, from Cinderella to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, then good on them, they're cleverer than I ever will be. But I think most children will follow the route I have described, and I really don't see what is so harmful about that that the people saying so are being accused of reverse literary snobbery, which I have seen on various threads around this topic.

[JCamilo]

I realise that my initial question was phrased in an unpleasantly sarcastic way, but it is frustrating to read this thread.

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."
So what? I can go to a store right now and point a hundred books that were for children and meant to please them and tell why they may be worst than HP. But if someone points flaws on HP in a internet forum, where the public is hardly the poor children then it is a dire crime. It is like someone placing critics on Shakespeare and other answering: It is for addults, they enjoy it!
That is very frustating, because it is false argumentantion: enjoyment is not measurable at all, someone may enjoy today and hate tomorrow (or vice-versa).



The book is written for children to enjoy, and they enjoy it. They're children. They're learning.

Alice in wonderlands was written for younger children (If children can be applied at all with Harry Potter) and they can sustain the same level of criticism applied to HP. And the question is always what they are learning is rather important.


Of course Harry Potters are not the best books ever written. Nobody here seems to be arguing that.

And nobody ever suggested that people do not enjoy HP.


Later on, the children reading it now will find that out, in exactly the same way I found out that neither Little Women or Anne of Green Gables is the best book ever written. But until that happens, just let them enjoy it, and stop picking holes in a book that was never meant for adults to read. It's like going into an ice-cream parlour and complaining that the ice-cream doesn't have enough nutritional value.

Well, for a high perfomance athlete this is a good thing to talk isnt? But what surprise me is the notion that addults should not analyse material meant for younglings. Just le be. It is funny since children hardly produce they own material? And more, why one book should be spared from criticism just for being written for children? I could list several "children books" that sustain the same level of criticism that Joyce or Proust would, is that special that they should be spared, specially when genre classifications are rather insignificant to criticism? Rather, is that surprising that we should not do it in a internet forum where the objective is talking about literature? Should anyone else be censored because they see negative things and do not come in how original,loving, special, life changing Harry Potter is?


I am delighted that your sisters are well read, and enjoying excellent literature. I think all children should be exposed to the best children's literature there is, Roald Dahl, E Nesbit, Louisa M Alcott, LM Montgomery, CS Lewis, and others. However, I don't think everything they read has to be an edifying work of great literary merit, unless the child's tastes naturally fall that way. I think that children should be permitted to read books that are just entertainment, Enid Blyton, Carolyn Keene and the like, in amongst the better books I talked about above. They should be allowed to read for sheer pleasure, in a relaxed way, without someone clucking over their shoulder that what they are reading is substandard.

Yet, they can read what is enterteiment and what is substancial. All by themselves.


I think they should be allowed an intermediate stage between fairy stories and and picking up really great adult literature like Orwell and Borges, an intermediate stage when they read, and it's not hard work, it's not a chore, when they're reading to just enjoy it. I believe that this is the key to keeping children reading into adulthood. If they don't need that stage, if they hop straight, aged seven, from Cinderella to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, then good on them, they're cleverer than I ever will be. But I think most children will follow the route I have described, and I really don't see what is so harmful about that that the people saying so are being accused of reverse literary snobbery, which I have seen on various threads around this topic.

I would just say that Fairy tales are rather meant to addults and that the only step is own experience. Reading is a skill developed with conflit that demands more than the previous experience. So, I really doubt that reading a work that is just enterteiment and nothing else will give anyone the skills to understand the deeper and multiple meanings behind better works. They may devleop stamina for long texts, but really that is just limited and they will have to find it somewhere else.

[Mathor]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."


No it is frustrating, because there are only two arguments that are being presented here.

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I also think the people here are judging this work differently then they would judge other works that are similar to it, for the simple fact that it is very popular. It's not a life-changing work, but it's not any worse than the majority of teen literature out there.

[Veho]

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I think it strange that those who are in the number 2 bracket, find it's not worth reading but worth the effort to have a 'heated' discussion about it on a forum.

[Hank Stamper]

im trying to find the emoticon that represents me doing a giant turd over this thread

wessexgirl has articulated it best - if you don't like it, fair dos, but the constant nit-picking is just tiresome

if you are so intellectual, surely you will see the futility of such persistent arguments that the novel is flawed because (insert infuriatingly banal reason here).. ie. the author forgot to make Hermione 1/3 older after she travelled back in time

PEDANTS!

really, find something better to do with your time

[JCamilo]

No it is frustrating, because there are only two arguments that are being presented here.

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I also think the people here are judging this work differently then they would judge other works that are similar to it, for the simple fact that it is very popular. It's not a life-changing work, but it's not any worse than the majority of teen literature out there.

Of course, it was only necessary two following posters to show what really happens here, right?

[Zee.]

God this argument is so boring...

I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?

[Mathor]

God this argument is so boring...

I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?

Yeah. I've decided to ditch this argument and jump of the nearest bridge..

:idea:

[Paulclem]

im trying to find the emoticon that represents me doing a giant turd over this thread

:lol:

Yeah. I've decided to ditch this argument and jump of the nearest bridge..

What shall we talk about now? Who's best? HP or Stephen King? No no....

:) I'm done too.

[Zee.]

I don't mean to be rude, and i' don't mean to attack certain posters or anything - i mean to "attack" this topic as a whole. There's no progression.

[Paulclem]

I don't mean to be rude, and i' don't mean to attack certain posters or anything - i mean to "attack" this topic as a whole. There's no progression.

I know what you mean. Some of the posts can seem a bit terse, and it's difficult to know how to respond. I'm afraid I've been a bit annoyed and sarcastic at times on this thread. I'm going to try to be more chilled in future.

I didn't think you were being rude though.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."

Funny, I remember writing an entire mini-essay at post #200 explaining why I think Harry Potter is good, or at least what I and other more skilled critics get out of the books that certainly transcends merely claiming, "it is for children."

Let’s review the entire thread from the essay at post # 200:

Most people seemed to like the essay. Then JCamillo makes some flyby comment at #203:


“’Urban Fantasy’ is something done by Robert Louis Stevenson and Kafka. Magic Realism is basically "urban fantasy". 1001 Nights is "urban fantasy". The problem of Harry Potter is not what it is as genre, but as literature (or the solution is). However quoted Chesterton did not understand the joke...”

I think this was meant as some sort of criticism of my post, I wasn’t really sure. I didn’t respond to it because it didn’t rebut anything in my essay since what I actually did was explain how Rowling takes advantage of the sub-genre to produce its themes in a new and fresh way-- not just identified the sub-genre and said it was good because it was that sub-genre, which is how JCamillo seemed to interpret it--and then went on to discuss other sophisticated elements within the text (characterization, structure, parallels within the text, other important themes), leading me to believe he misread the entire essay.

The problem he identifies in this post of course is the argument equivalent of simply saying, “But, but, Harry Potter is still bad.” Without any form of textual support for this claim it is ironically the intellectual equivalent of arguing, “but, it is for children.”

Then mortalterror gave an anecdotal response to one of the movies. JBI then went on to talk about the most recent film, adding that Alan Rickman would be an awesome Shakespearean actor (ignoring that he has in fact done Shakespeare and so has many other members within the cast who are also talented actors).

Paul then challenged Mortalterror’s personal response to the film, leading to the mention of the time-turner. JBI and JCamillo go into the reasons they dislike the time-turner stuff. I own JBI and show him why his argument about this is silly. He claims he was mostly joking. JCamillo and Paul go at it for awhile, Paul wrongly accuses JCamillo of not reading the books.

JCamillo then goes on to compare HP to Rambo IV in response to Paul’s argument that anything goes if it matches the author’s intention or will, and if it matches the writer’s vision it therefore cannot be bad. JCamillo is correct to criticize this point in and of itself. Paul scratches his head about the Rambo reference. Jcamillo in post # 229 continues to compare it to Rambo IV. Then he commits a slippery slope fallacy going on a tangent about how the logical conclusion of all these arguments is that we should replace Shakespeare in school with Hannah Barbera cartoons, even though in post #279 Jcamillo admits in sarcastic fashion that “You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery [sic]...”, thus contradicting his own slippery slope argument in post # 229. Just because there is no HP doesn’t mean people only have left the “Unread volumes of snobbery”; likewise, just because someone is arguing for the merits of Harry Potter doesn’t necessarily mean they want to remove Shakespeare and replace it with Hannah Barbera.

Originally JCamillo was using his comparison with Rambo IV simply to point out that no text is so sacred that it automatically gets a pass on the grounds of author’s intentions. This is a good argument and valid point. Then in post # 232 he screws that all up. He tells us actually he was comparing HP III to Rambo IV because it was a crap movie. Rambo IV is full of clichés, rubbish characterization, as is Harry Potter, according to him. He presents them in a non-falsifiable way without delving into the text at all to back-up these claims (at best he has his one example with Hermione from earlier posts that makes up one character of one small section of one of the books, therefore all the characters must be bad). This is an example of “flow” logic where broad conclusions apparently flows from only slightly relevant points and hasty generalizations (another logical fallacy!) can be drawn about all characters based off the debate about one character in one minor scene. Also apparently the books suffer from this “flow” logic too. He then demonstrates the method of this “flow” logic by going on a tangent about Dungeon and Dragons. He demands that books need to do something more than simply work as a story. He demands that defenses of HP needs to do more than that, completely ignoring the essay I wrote at # 200 which did just that.

Mathor claims he is not speaking of the book, but the movie. More debate about how the events actually occurred in the film and whether this is a character flaw or narrative flaw, and people trying to figure out what actually happened in the film and books in the first place.

JCamillo confuses himself for an aging Jewish literary critic, and talks about those halcyon days when literature and films were good before the Dark Times, before the Empire of Mediocrity.

A lot more debating about the Hermione scene. People still cannot agree on the facts or how to interpret them. Mathor notes that nothing Jcamillo says makes any sense, but that’s because he simply doesn’t understand the fine intricacies of “flow” logic. People still aren’t sure whether they are debating the film or the book.

Paul claims that the only thing people have said is that HP wrote good teen/children’s book. I contradict him in post # 253 and say, actually I did defend the merits of HP, not just as a fun little children’s book. I then note the irony of Bloom’s whining about King since it was through King that I first heard of and read Wallace Stevens when I was younger. Paul then talks briefly about King and Horses for some reason.

The time-travel argument seems to finally have come to an end by post # 256. Jcamillo wants to know if anyone’s kids only read Harry Potter? This is a loaded and trick question. Answer, yes, they only read HP and it proves that HP only leads kids to read HP and nothing else. Answer, no, they read other books, too, and it proves that HP doesn’t encourage kids to read anymore than any other book. Paul answers.

Joebob at #260 compares HP to the Twilight series in a flyby comment with little substance and no textual analysis to support this contention. Brian Bean makes a snobbish flyby comment belittling children and adults who read Harry Potter, again no real substance to his point other than to be nasty and condescending. I call Joebob on his post and note that it is a casebook example of Guilt by Association.

The argument slips back into the “Does Harry Potter get kids to read?” Limajean who has been absent from this conversation decides to drop-by and note how the conversation that she has not been participating in is driving her nuts! She assumes everyone posting in the thread must be older and has never read HP, imitating Mathor’s claims earlier about JCamillo.

Wessexgirl drops by to yell at the HP detractors for picking on small children (mostly absent from this conversation), adds that she doesn’t think HP is good literature and nobody is defending it as such (completely ignoring my post at # 200, which is what resurrected this dead thread in the first place).

Mollie asks, what should children be reading then? I recommend classics such as “See Spot Run” to be immediately followed up with Chaucer and James Joyce. Three Sparrows talks about his homeschooling experiences and how he learned Harry Potter is really the spawn of the devil. He doubts that I could get kids reading Chaucer (oh ye of such little faith . . .)

JCamillo wants to explore this idea further of Harry Potter getting people reading because apparently it hasn’t been explored enough over 278 posts. He explains that any book could get kids to enjoy reading, even the Encyclopedia, because you know, obviously librarians and teachers only bother to shove HP into the hands of reluctant readers. All the other YA and children’s books in the library are apparently for show. Jcamillo then goes on to talk about his sisters reading HP and other good books.

Mollie comes in and name drops other Children’s authors, also doesn’t think HP is that good as literature, but just a fun read, and claims nobody is arguing that (completely ignoring my essay at post # 200.) I scratch my head and think she might be British looking at the particular names she is dropping. I move on.

JCamillo in post # 282 argues that he finds the thread frustrating because nobody understands his “flow” logic. This prompts me to write this post (how meta of me). If we look back from post # 200, most the arguments have not been, “it’s for the children” and it was only when JCamillo himself turned the argument in that direction with his loaded question about children reading HP that we saw people responding in this way, not before. So this is once again extremely deceptive because the topic has changed slightly from the merits and flaws of HP to reading HP in relation to other books.

He then notes there are many Children’s books that can sustain the same level of criticism as Joyce and Proust would, implying that Harry Potter could not, even though if one were to look objectively at the amount of HP criticism that exists one would find hundreds upon hundreds of critical arguments about HP all from genuine Literary Critics. So there is a large body of critical work written about HP, most of it positive. JCamillo adds that entertainment will not teach kids the skills they need to read Great Literature, completely ignoring that some here disagree that HP is simply entertainment and nothing more, and ignoring my essay at # 200 which shows exactly some of the literary structures and themes of Harry Potter, and by extension shows how one could teach the skills of reading literature through Harry Potter if they actually know what they are doing.

Mathor in post # 283 notes that the argument is frustrating because both sides of the debate are pretty much repeating themselves.

Limajean claims the argument is still boring, but instead of leaving, she continues to post about it. She doesn’t understand the arguments people are making. That’s because she doesn’t understand “flow” logic obviously!
Mathor informs us he is going to commit suicide. Paul bows out. And I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me! :angel:

[Hank Stamper]

:lol excellent summary!

[mollie]

Drkshadow, I mentioned other authors, not name dropped them, as part of the point that a balance may be struck between acknowledged classics and Harry Potter books.

I said that Harry Potters were not the best books in the world. I read over the thread quite briefly and the impression I got overall was that nobody was making the claim that Harry Potters were the best books in the world. If you feel I have been disrespectful to you and your essay, then I am sorry for that.

And I am not British.

[Drkshadow03]

Drkshadow, I mentioned other authors, not name dropped them, as part of the point that a balance may be struck between acknowledged classics and Harry Potter books, whose literary merit was still being debated.

I originally intended to say that Harry Potters were not the best and only books in the world, and edited my post incorrectly. I read over the thread quite briefly and the impression I got overall was that nobody was making the claim that Harry Potters were the only books in the world.

If you feel I have been disrespectful to you and your essay, then I am sorry for that.

And I am not British.

Only a British person would say that!

Heh. I'm just kidding. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was just trying to summarize the thread in an amusing way so we could have slightly more objective look at how the thread actually progressed.

[Veho]

I scratch my head and think she might be British looking at the particular names she is dropping. I move on..

What's wrong with being British? :p

This thread reminds me of this:

How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light
bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to
condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb"
is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this
discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy
the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique
and what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected
URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this
group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all
headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light
bulbs"
1 to hijack the thread and ask how to change the horn
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start
it all over again.

[mollie]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."
So what? I can go to a store right now and point a hundred books that were for children and meant to please them and tell why they may be worst than HP. But if someone points flaws on HP in a internet forum, where the public is hardly the poor children then it is a dire crime. It is like someone placing critics on Shakespeare and other answering: It is for addults, they enjoy it!
That is very frustating, because it is false argumentantion: enjoyment is not measurable at all, someone may enjoy today and hate tomorrow (or vice-versa).




Alice in wonderlands was written for younger children (If children can be applied at all with Harry Potter) and they can sustain the same level of criticism applied to HP. And the question is always what they are learning is rather important.



And nobody ever suggested that people do not enjoy HP.



Well, for a high perfomance athlete this is a good thing to talk isnt? But what surprise me is the notion that addults should not analyse material meant for younglings. Just le be. It is funny since children hardly produce they own material? And more, why one book should be spared from criticism just for being written for children? I could list several "children books" that sustain the same level of criticism that Joyce or Proust would, is that special that they should be spared, specially when genre classifications are rather insignificant to criticism? Rather, is that surprising that we should not do it in a internet forum where the objective is talking about literature? Should anyone else be censored because they see negative things and do not come in how original,loving, special, life changing Harry Potter is?



Yet, they can read what is enterteiment and what is substancial. All by themselves.



I would just say that Fairy tales are rather meant to addults and that the only step is own experience. Reading is a skill developed with conflit that demands more than the previous experience. So, I really doubt that reading a work that is just enterteiment and nothing else will give anyone the skills to understand the deeper and multiple meanings behind better works. They may devleop stamina for long texts, but really that is just limited and they will have to find it somewhere else.

I just don't see the point in nitpicking so strenuously.

And I don't see the point in saying that children should not be reading something they enjoy, on the grounds that they're not learning enough from it. Aside from the fact that they may be getting a good deal more from it than you realise, it is still enjoyable, and that is a good thing.

[mal4mac]

When a person is new to something, like reading, they just enjoy the first thing that connects to them, and go from there. If that is Harry Potter, so be it.

It wasn't for me, for me it was Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I can look back and see why that novel is VASTLY imperfect, but I didn't realize that growing up. I just knew that I liked the story. And from there I just wanted to keep reading. So whether or not I can ever bring myself down to the level to re-read it, Treasure Island will always be important to me.


I didn't read this in childhood, in fact I read it last month as light relief between "Don Quixote" and "The Tempest". It was a good read, definitely not "VASTLY imperfect". I didn't feel I was "bringing myself down". I'd recommend it to a kid of any age. (Harold Bloom includes it in his "Canon"!)

[Paulclem]

I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me!

A funny summary Drkshadow. Part of the problem is time - dropping in and out. Still learning stuff though. I'm not re-engaging, I just thought I'd appreciate your posts.

:nod:

[JCamilo]

Would be a waste to quote your resume. Nicely done, I notice that you still see and use only what is suited for you argument. I love how I am guilty from bringing the "It is for kids" for asking about kids when the very first line of this thread already asks this and Mathor is, the third post already saying that it is for kids... Of course, It was before your essay, but sorry, it is not that important, not a gospel for us to reset the calendar.
I really bother very little to discuss the literary merit of HP and rather the effects of HP (And other works) on readers (since it seems rather unlikely that you or anyone seems able to counter the argument I made) and really, listing fallacies is really amateurish, a bad writing habit. It does not help you to deal with irony. Hannah Barbara and shakespeare is irony. Not an argument, but saying something obviously oustrageous to apply the theory presented (In this case, that if the kids enjoy it is good and helping in the formation of readers)... It is obviously wrong. It is intended to be wrong. Not even subtle to mention another book,but something is not even written. Really my advice, a text grows stronger when you do not fail pray to listing debating champion tourney rules. It is for kids.

[Zee.]

Limajean claims the argument is still boring, but instead of leaving, she continues to post about it. She doesn’t understand the arguments people are making. That’s because she doesn’t understand “flow” logic obviously!
Mathor informs us he is going to commit suicide. Paul bows out. And I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me! :angel:


I understand everything perfectly, please don't insult my intelligence by making a comment like that. I'm just saying that this argument is ridiculous. I believe at the core of those who argue against Harry Potter, is the belief that kids don't really like reading it or are somehow.. restricted by reading it, or "dulled" by reading it.

I mean, what really is the POINT of this discussion? What are those who are against Harry Potter trying to prove?

One person will argue that it is crafted for the mind of a child, and if they enjoy it, who cares - in response someone will argue that the books are terrible and that kids should be reading other higher forms of literature. Oh, a few people have thrown in the idea that kids won't go on to reading other books because of reading Harry Potter. .. because, you know, they're mind readers..
But.. hang on,

didn't person A, argue that the books are crafted for children? and if they enjoy the books, how are they bad for them? and where is the proof that they aren't turning them on to other books? Harry Potter did that for me. I'm evidence against your argument.


If you take out all the statistics and all the fluff of this discussion, it comes down to points made by people that are some how, taking it upon themselves, to look down on a series of books made for CHILDREN, because in their minds, all children should be off reading tales of Alice falling down the rabbit hole.


They like the books, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So... lets move on shall we?


Oh and p.s
you missed out a whole lot of my posts earlier on in the thread, meaning you clearly haven't read the whole thing, meaning your summary is a tad wrong.

[Zee.]

I just don't see the point in nitpicking so strenuously.

And I don't see the point in saying that children should not be reading something they enjoy, on the grounds that they're not learning enough from it. Aside from the fact that they may be getting a good deal more from it than you realise, it is still enjoyable, and that is a good thing.


^ Exactly.

And what really irks me is that people have the nerve to assume it doesn't do something for children, or help them in some way.

[Drkshadow03]

Nicely done, I notice that you still see and use only what is suited for you argument. I love how I am guilty from bringing the "It is for kids" for asking about kids when the very first line of this thread already asks this and Mathor is, the third post already saying that it is for kids... Of course, It was before your essay, but sorry, it is not that important, not a gospel for us to reset the calendar.


p.s you missed out a whole lot of my posts earlier on in the thread, meaning you clearly haven't read the whole thing, meaning your summary is a tad wrong.

I love how people don’t read, and then brag about the fact that they didn’t read carefully. I have read the whole thread, Limajean. If you read the summary I wrote up I specifically said:

“Let’s review the entire thread FROM the essay at post # 200:” (emphasis added).

As for you JCamillo, I didn’t address the first line of this thread because I was only reading from post # 200 onward as I clearly stated. The fact that you brought up earlier posts is irrelevant as you clearly turned the conversation back to the topic when nobody was really talking about that topic anymore.


I understand everything perfectly, please don't insult my intelligence by making a comment like that.
This is what you wrote:

You wrote at post # 287: “I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?”

I admit the way I worded my summary in this section is ambiguous. I meant it to be read as you didn’t understand the point of people’s arguments, not that you didn’t understand the arguments themselves, not pointing it out. Poorly worded on my part.

So I apologize, and am sorry. I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence.




. . . listing fallacies is really amateurish, a bad writing habit. It does not help you to deal with irony. . . . a text grows stronger when you do not fail pray to listing debating champion tourney rules. It is for kids.

You mean the rules of logic that Aristotle helped invent, that are taught as college courses, and that scholars spend whole careers writing about is the equivalent of reading silly children's literature like Harry Potter, and those scholars are really just wasting their time!

See, because I'm pretty sure the rules of a logical ALWAYS apply in an argument. I think you're confused. Consistently committing fallacious reasoning is the bad writing habit! The fact that you get called out for committing a lot of fallacies speaks mostly to the quality of your arguments.


It does not help you to deal with irony. Hannah Barbara and shakespeare is irony. Not an argument, but saying something obviously oustrageous to apply the theory presented (In this case, that if the kids enjoy it is good and helping in the formation of readers)... It is obviously wrong. It is intended to be wrong.

Fine, I'm willing to take your own interpretation of your own words and what you meant. However, the problem with your irony is the way your post reads:

"So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred? I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt? If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character. Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools..."

Nobody was making the argument at that point in the conversation and at least for forty+ posts before it that we should read HP simply because kids enjoy it (and only for that reason) and it makes kids better readers (oh sure, arguments along those lines were made much much earlier in the thread before it was resurrected, but unless you make specific reference to those much much earlier posts nobody is going to know what heck you’re talking about). In context, Mathor was talking about your comparison to Rambo and whether the story itself makes logical sense with the Hermione scene. You were directly comparing HP to Rambo as a comparison of quality. Hell, the line you wrote right before your irony talks about narrative flaws. So the logical interpretation of your ironic statement would be as a slippery slope, ala, “if the opponent wants kids reading HP and thinks it's good, we might as well replace Shakespeare with Hannah Barbera Cartoons because HP is the intellectual equivalent of watching Hannah Barbera Cartoons” Which is also a bit of a Strawman too now that I think of it, even if meant ironically, since no one is actually saying we should replace Shakespeare with Hannah Barbera (even if the statement is meant ironically).

If you had made some sort of direct reference to somebody arguing, “Harry Potter is just children’s literature. It is good for helping kids read.” And then made your ironical comments, then yes, it might not have been fallacious. But I don’t think anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills would interpret your words in its context that way. Simple way to figure this out of course. Did anyone who is NOT JCamillo read post # 229 the way he apparently meant it? Or did you mostly everyone read it the way I interpreted his words?

[JCamilo]

As you see, the post that I answered mentions about kids enjoying it. It is Paul, not Mathor. Obviously, you missed it.
http://174.133.97.227/forums/showpost.php?p=761303&postcount=226
You know, the problem is not the rules of logic that Aristotles "invented", the problem is how it is applied. In the end, they are just a limited form of textual interpretation, rather limited if used for nitpicks and you see nothing else.


You were directly comparing HP to Rambo as a comparison of quality.

I was not comparing in terms of quality. You quoted me saying otherwise. I pointed Rambo IV because even Rambo IV have logical flow but we analyse it there will be those nitpicking momments of logic flaw. We can do it in romance toos (some famous) because sequence of actions is the imperative of the plot.
I could do it wiht Red Hiding Hood (Why the wolf needs to get a detour? Wolves are already faster than a little girl. Why he, since he is hungry, does not eat the girl and go later after the old crone? Why would an old crone lives apart from the rest of the health addults in a lonely house in the middle of a wood with wolves? Why is a little girl and not an addult who goes to take the food to her) but the story goes (with perfection, it is one of most simple and perfect plots of all time) in a way we believe and not ask about any other option. A little about suspension of disbelief, or how it should be applied. Narratives are a bit like this, dictadorships of providence. Those little flaws can be found for example in Gone with the Wind... Why the hell Scarlet knee down? Gable just closed the door, he is a few steps from there. But after Frankly Darling, I give a damn, that was the option that would suit the closing. Etc. It not about quality (since building a plot is basic) at all. You even mention the use of Rambo IV in your resume, I have no idea why you bring the quality problem again. (See, Rambo IV is a logical flaw. Nobody was arguing Rambo is good at all, it was flawed analogy, but hey, since the irony and absurd was the aim, it works as you got it first. As you can see, Paul did not and used sarcasm to answer me how much Rambo IV is one of his favorites. Much better without debate tourney 101 techniques).

[Zee.]

you all need to free your mind. it must suck having it chained up all the time.

[Emil Miller]

At the risk of starting the whole nonsensical discussion off again, it is now four days since anyone has mentioned Harry Potter. :argue:

[Drkshadow03]

At the risk of starting the whole nonsensical discussion off again, it is now four days since anyone has mentioned Harry Potter. :argue:

Harry Potter!

[mal4mac]

Harry Potter!

Harold Bloom! :nod:

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please refrain from personalising your arguments.

Off-topic posts or post containing inflammatory/deregatory remarks will be removed without further notice and such posters will receive infraction points.

[JCamilo]

Harry Potter!

Only works if you do it before a mirror and you must do it 5 times :D

[prendrelemick]

Shall we do Lord of the Rings Now?

[Emil Miller]

Shall we do Lord of the Rings Now?

Why not 'Noddy in Toytown'?

[Scheherazade]

Only works if you do it before a mirror and you must do it 5 times :DDon't forget to jump on your right foot meanwhile either!

[Drkshadow03]

Don't forget to jump on your right foot meanwhile either!

Huh? I don't get it. JCamillo's reference was to Candyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candyman_(film)). You're comments reminded me more of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exurEED-J68).

[Scheherazade]

Huh? I don't get it. JCamillo's reference was to Candyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candyman_(film)). You're comments reminded me more of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exurEED-J68).Not really.

Mine does not involve facial make overs (though having a KitKat Dark before standing in front of the mirror might help speed up the process).

[JCamilo]

Drk, no rules in silly jokes except more silly jokes ;)

[dizzydoll]

When I was a young child the most frightening stories were about. :yikes: Harry Potter tales are tame. :lurk5:

[Aravona]

I think that the Harry Potter series is a very interesting read. But I wouldnt say much more than that. I do prefer the books to the films but the films are quite well done, but it is by no means the best book to film I've ever seen.

On the OP... I think most people can read these books and understand that they are little more than a story. When I was a kid I was more terrified by reading a Goosebumps book than I was Harry Potter, which is worse - a wizard who trys and defeats an evil wizard, or a camera that will kill you if you take a picture of yourself! :)

[MagicalSoul]

I would definately encourage children to read Harry Potter with some lectures about what's real and what's not. What's right and what's wrong. The things that get in the way of my culture and believes would be hard to explain though.

Harry Potter is one of my fav series. I don't find it in any way a "threat" to our children.

[jet.thursday]

I don't think it popularizes witchcraft 'cause there's no need for it,
i've read my first HP book when i was 12, as far as i remember,
and i've enjoyed the world i travel through as i read it, not just
the imagery it creates but the events and the stories about friendship,
love, etc., so i think the story is wholesome, and it really is intended for
kids. :conehead: do you think real witches(if there is) read HP? maybe..haha:ihih:

[exodus238]

It's so typical of human nature to take something and study the negatives of it and draw some odd conclusion from it. Only nutters would think that Harry Potter is a demonic series intent on unleashing the inner "witch" inside children. Ridiculous.

Just to say, I COMPLETELY agree! Like how critics are now saying the Twilight series is all about demonic sex and the masochistic side of us. Ridiculous, exactly!