Views on: Meyer, Brown and Rowling

[AWritersWriter]

Hey,

I am not here to start any arguments or have a discourse why the following people which will be listed below are worthy of my time. I have my own preferences. But I did want to hear opinions from people who agree with me. Because all I keep hearing is how great these people are, and I personally think that's not the case.

Don't get me wrong I am not being one sided or biased, all are welcome to the table(admirers and critics alike), but having read nothing but good things whether its from amazon to simply reviews from a google search I would like to hear the other side. I am sure there is one otherwise I am alone in this.

Stephenie Meyer from a suburban housewife to a best selling author and all it took was a wet dream in which she reenacted the High School romance she never had. I am not trying to be blunt, but that's basically all that the Twilight Series represents to me. I haven't read the books but I had a chance to flip through all five. I believe the 5th wasn't even published because it leaked online in its incomplete form. Which is amusing considering it's a reinterpretation of the events in the first novel through the male lead characters eyes. Quite the hissy fit she pulled not releasing it considering it's a cash in novel.

Personally, I'd rather read Bram Stokers Dracula for the tenth time or read Anne Rice who until recently has been decent.

Dan Brown… what is there to say about this so called Author. He is like the Michael Bay of the writing world. Style over substance. All glitz and flash. He is like the current John Grisham without ever succeeding at having written a half decent novel. I mean his basic structure isn't much different from Michael Crichton. Thrillers centered around historical or current events blended with a lot of fiction. Michael Crichton isn't a great writer, but he is entertaining and can write a sentence longer than three words which I located on the first page of The Da Vinci Code. Much like Meyer I haven't read him outside of flipping through one or two of his books and watching the films. But really what is so new with Da Vinci Code that we didn't know before? Maybe if you aren't familiar with the bible and certain ascertains which haven't been proven. It's like me years ago asking my English teacher if she ever heard the proposed theory that Shakespeare hasn't written any of his Plays which she quickly and flatly denied. The Vatican dug their own grave when they gave this hack their time. The publicity that outrage generated surely helped with his sales. I keep hearing that he takes himself seriously. I would seriously consider retiring with the money he made and being thankful the literacy level is so down and the standards for literature are so low that he would be considered as actually being great.

And finally how can I not mention J.K. Rowling. I grew up reading Rudyard Kipling, Astrid Lindgren, Jules Verne, Jack London etc I haven't had a chance to read C.S. Lewis or Tolkien which I have read inspired her, though not from her own admissions. But I have a vague feeling I wouldn't like her anyways, but unlike the above two I mentioned I am willing to give her a try. The few sentences I read were simplistic which is fine considering it's target market were children until the fifth novel which took a darker turn. But killing and making your secondary character a homosexual for absolutely no reason than to appeal to the gay market I assume and sell more copies is immature. Sexuality shouldn't be present in novels aimed at children, and killing in my opinion shouldn't either especially when its cartoonish excess like Kill Bill or the final Dark Tower novel from King. You catch my drift I am certain, killing just for the sakes of killing. If bloodshed is spilled, it should be for a good reason. This is what's wrong with society today. Hitchcock predicted it back in the day. Violence has overtaken. It prevails and we hunger for more. I suppose some can say Philip Pullman or Lewis incorporated/forced their view on religion through their work. That too would be brainwashing of sorts but not having read their work I cannot say for sure how much religious context is present in their works. Even if there is some, I am sure it still beats kids getting murdered.

P.S The basic retort is of course the fact that I haven't read any of the books I mentioned above by writers whom I haven't given a fair chance to. But to be honest I hardly care with the first two. I read a few pages, I read the Summaries, I seen the Films for at least one of the aforementioned writers. That should count for something. Anyways, I am eager to hear opinions from others.

[kelby_lake]

The Twilight Series is basically bizarre melodrama for hormonal girls. Its literary merit is practically non-existant. They are quite amusing but you need to adopt the mindset of a hormonal teenage girl to fully enjoy them.

The Harry Potter series is actually very good, though I'd say it's aimed at about 10 and up. Lots of adults read the series- what's wrong with darker stuff anyway? Children know more than you think.

[JCamilo]

Quite frankly, this thread is not just old dated, but if you want to bash an author, at least read them. Housemaids may find nice to clean the dust and flip the pages, but that is not reading.

And really, you are not biased, you want people to agree with you, and you want no discussion? Nice.

[AWritersWriter]

I am not sure about the target audience being ten or older. If that's the case the books should have came with a warning like any toy with small parts. Children shouldn't know about certain thing until the right age. I am not a psychiatrist, I didn't go to school for ten or twelve years and my time isn't valued at 300 or more an hour, but nothing good comes from children growing up too quickly or knowing about something that can wait down the road for them.

To JCamilo: Thank You for your definition of Reading I appreciate it. I certainly will slow down my reading of Raymond Chandler and Dickens right now to follow your sound advice. Ah no harm intended. I mean come on. It's called intuition.

Agatha Christie was a housewife (I read her marvelous detective fiction years ago), very similar to Meyer except she was actually good.

And if anything, call me Particular, sure I read a lot of Summaries on the back of book jackets and flip through the pages to see evidence of language that isn't idiotic, poor or dim. I don't clean for a living and I am not a female as you have implied. But I do have greater expectations from my chosen selections, perhaps that's why I don’t own a single book by those authors and ended up reading their work from friends or online.

Also this topic isn't old, it was posted today. It's not cliché because while it seems one sided I did welcome all and everyone, which is clear as we have gotten your response denouncing the whole thing. You ever hear the expression some things are just not worth reading? So I have a different approach. I tend to read literature that has merit. I don't waste my time but honestly I have little to defend as I initially stated all this in the first post.

What I would like to do is further continue this discussion without being ostrecized with 2-3 sentence posts aimed at bashing me.

[Alexander III]

Quite frankly AWritersWriter, you are preaching to the converted. No one on this forum or in academia believs that Brown and Meyer's novels are of any literary value. With Harry Potter there is some debate, the main issue revolving around weather or not it is children's lit. Nonetheless, is all you are hearing is good reviewes about those three, you need to change what you read, watch and listen to.

Personally I quite enjoyed Harry Potter, is was the favorite book of my childhood, if anything it should be applauded for the wide world it creates which just appeals to a child's imagination.

So yes JCamilo is right, this is a very dated topic which has been discussed to death, I am sure if you use the search button you shall find various threads relating to this.

Also, irrelevant of the book, you have no right to judge it unless you have read it, or at least read a substantial amount of it.

[AWritersWriter]

Well that's the thing with media darlings. The trendsetters. I don't feel the need to seek out negative Reviews on Amazon going pages back when everything else is filled with favorable commentary. If anything it should be 50/50. But it isn't. I mean, once something has been this popularized and highly documented, people just take its fame as proof that it's indisputably great. That was the main reason for this post. I wanted to see if anyone felt any different on this Site, which seems to appreciate language and the written word.

And it may be a dated topic but isn't everything dated? Isn't everything from our user names or our opinions has been done before? He didn't exactly break new ground with saying something has been said before. It's true, it probably has been. But if we didn't post anything (and just used the Search button) than this Site would come to a halt. He chose to brush this topic aside and has said it has been done before. I am sure it has been. Just like everything from what you posted to my current reply. There's a fundamental lack of originally in this world. It's all duplication and repetition. Yet, we all continue to post. So who has the right to say what repetitiveness is allowed and what isn't. It's all been done before so give me a break.

“Also, irrelevant of the book, you have no right to judge it unless you have read it, or at least read a substantial amount of it.”

That's disputable. Who dictates how much of anything is needed to formulate an opinion. If I said I read twenty pages is that a substantial amount? What about people who don't finish a book from Start to Finish yet preach about its remarkable nature or worthless purpose on the shelf?

[Rores28]

I am not sure about the target audience being ten or older. If that's the case the books should have came with a warning like any toy with small parts. Children shouldn't know about certain thing until the right age. I am not a psychiatrist, I didn't go to school for ten or twelve years and my time isn't valued at 300 or more an hour, but nothing good comes from children growing up too quickly or knowing about something that can wait down the road for them.


<><><>

[Alexander III]

Let me re-define what I mean by dated. I mean that everyone on this site has already stated that those novels posses little literary merit. We have had this discussion before and there is essentially a unanimous consensus.


"That's disputable. Who dictates how much of anything is needed to formulate an opinion. If I said I read twenty pages is that a substantial amount? What about people who don't finish a book from Start to Finish yet preach about its remarkable nature or worthless purpose on the shelf?"

The people who believe that reading 20 pages of a book, is substantial to being able to form an accurate opinion about its nature, are usually very similar in nature to the type of people who who read the spark notes of War and Peace and go around saying they have read it to appear intellectual...


"I am not sure about the target audience being ten or older. If that's the case the books should have came with a warning like any toy with small parts."

Were you being sarcastic or serious? (sarcasm on the internet is not easy to communicate)

[AWritersWriter]

"...have had this discussion before and there is essentially a unanimous consensus."

As I stated before, I wasn't a member of this Site when this discussion transpired. It's the equivalent of having a right to vote and not having the right to vote. It's called dictatorship. Everything you have said and I have said has been said before. All it takes is countless hours of online research and slightly altered wording to find. So the elaboration isn't needed. I made my point. And as such it stands until it is actually disproven.

"The people who believe that reading 20 pages of a book, is substantial to being able to form an accurate opinion about its nature, are usually very similar in nature to the type of people who who read the spark notes of War and Peace and go around saying they have read it to appear intellectual..."

Well lucky for me I am not a Student who was forced to read something and now I consider myself a pseudo intellectual. I been raised and taught what good books are. Great works of literature were collected and kept for me since before the day I was born. The benefit of being born into a family of writers and painters is that art is always prevailing. So sadly I can't say I have any life experience with spark notes, or reading translated versions of Russian novels when I can read them in their native language.

As far as my wit well... “a good fisherman can see another fisherman from afar”. If you have wit, its usually easily spotted.

[Drkshadow03]

Let me re-define what I mean by dated. I mean that everyone on this site has already stated that those novels posses little literary merit. We have had this discussion before and there is essentially a unanimous consensus.



Oh, I don't know. It seemed to me last time we discussed HP there was at least a large minority dissenting in favor of HP's literary worth. So I wouldn't call that unanimous agreement. Not to mention most people on the other side of the argument didn't really have much of an argument; most of their "arguments" consisted of them insisting it was bad writing just because they said so with little reference to the actual text or reference to other contemporary YA/children's literature for any type of real comparison.

I wrote a whole mini-essay (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200) on the merits of Potter and what is happening in the text. Also to the original poster, the post was in one the original long-winded discussions about HP at least.

[OrphanPip]

Um, I'm reasonably sure Rowling's making Dumbledore gay wasn't an attempt to appeal to the gay market. There isn't exactly a giant youth lit gay market that Rowling hadn't already reached with the best selling novels in the world... Hell there isn't a large gay book market period.

Moreover, it is entirely in line with the socially progressive values of tolerance that her books continually push. I also think the notion that sexuality shouldn't be present in books written for children is nonsense. Teenagers have sexual desires you can't just brush that under a rug and pretend it doesn't exist. The books are completely chaste anyway, and there's no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality in the novels. And no killing? Geez, why don't we just strap everyone's children in helmets and stick them in padded rooms.

[AWritersWriter]

So suddenly it's unanimous that her books were written for Teenagers? I didn't know this fact. Most people I know read it to their younger children. The tentative word being children. Twilight is aimed at teenagers who just possibly have hit puberty. Sex sells we all know that. So I have to disagree wholeheartedly there. A Children's Book shouldn't need sex.

As far as violence is concerned why would you need to bathe your children in bloodshed from a writer who strings poor sentences together for the sakes of being controversial? There is a fine line between what's in good taste and what isn't. I don't think introducing young kids to murder and mayhem is necessary for their development at that stage in life.

P.S The difference is. If she didn't include it in Novels why include it as an afterthought unless she was appealing to a greater Market? You'd be surprised, there is a market for anyone and just about anything nowadays. Unless you do the research its all hearsay. Homosexual/Lesbian writers surely aren't writing for just straight people are they now? It's called controversy. It sells. The right quote and you have magazines, newspapers, the internet and everything else buzzing. And Your sales continue to climb higher and higher.

[Drkshadow03]

Um, I'm reasonably sure Rowling's making Dumbledore gay wasn't an attempt to appeal to the gay market. There isn't exactly a giant youth lit gay market that Rowling hadn't already reached with the best selling novels in the world... Hell there isn't a large gay book market period.

Moreover, it is entirely in line with the socially progressive values of tolerance that her books continually push. I also think the notion that sexuality shouldn't be present in books written for children is nonsense. Teenagers have sexual desires you can't just brush that under a rug and pretend it doesn't exist. The books are completely chaste anyway, and there's no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality in the novels. And no killing? Geez, why don't we just strap everyone's children in helmets and stick them in padded rooms.

Didn't it also come after the release of the final book? After she was already rolling in cash? And having reading some GLBT reactions, most of them found it cowardly to out a character after the fact. So it didn't seem to appeal much to YA fantasy fans of the GLBT population. So it wasn't much of a marketing ploy or a progressive sentiment.

[OrphanPip]

Didn't it also come after the release of the final book? After she was already rolling in cash? And having reading some GLBT reactions, most of them found it cowardly to out a character after the fact. So it didn't seem to appeal much to YA fantasy fans of the GLBT population. So it wasn't much of a marketing ploy or a progressive sentiment.

Eh, it got more of an ambivalent response rather than a negative one. She meant it as a progressive sentiment, but it kinda came out of nowhere. So, Dumbledore was an absent gay, it seems kinda pointless to declare a character gay and then have no indication of that fact at all.

It got a rather harsh condemnation in Time magazine, but the reception in the popular gay press, like over at After Elton, seemed more positive.

http://www.afterelton.com//blog/lylemasaki/glaad-interview-harry-potter-dumbledore-jk-rowling





P.S The difference is. If she didn't include it in Novels why include it as an afterthought unless she was appealing to a greater Market? You'd be surprised, there is a market for anyone and just about anything nowadays. Unless you do the research its all hearsay. Homosexual/Lesbian writers surely aren't writing for just straight people are they now? It's called controversy. It sells. The right quote and you have magazines, newspapers, the internet and everything else buzzing. And Your sales continue to climb higher and higher.

Well it depends on the LGBT writer, Michael Cunningham publishes primarily for a mainstream market. Then you could have authors like Edmund White, Larry Kramer, or Leslie Feinberg who are widely read in the LGBT community, but otherwise fairly obscure.

[AWritersWriter]

"...progressive sentiment."

Hardly. When its out of the left field its not done for the right moral reasons. I am sure more publicity and more sales drove her to that statement. I hardly think she is a gay rights activist. But I can see her as being easily led by a Publishing House or a press agent. When you start making this kind of money you inadvertently become a Yes Man.

[OrphanPip]

"...progressive sentiment."

Hardly. When its out of the left field its not done for the right moral reasons. I am sure more publicity and more sales drove her to that statement. I hardly think she is a gay rights activist. But I can see her as being easily led by a Publishing House or a press agent. When you start making this kind of money you inadvertently become a Yes Man.

Except that intolerance, racism, and classism are pretty much central themes of the novels. The novels are about tolerance to a large extent, and a basic reissue of the archetypal battle between good and evil.

[AWritersWriter]

Unless it was Originally included or alluded to somehow, all it is whoredom. She wouldn't be the first or the last writer to stir up controversy and sell their soul for a quick buck.

You'd have to be blind not to see manipulative strings being worked as the Rowling puppet plays Court Jester to higher powers that pay her mortgage.

Head of Publishing: Children, Pre-teens, Teenagers, Adults, what's the one group we didn't target?

Press Agent: I got it! Gays.

Head of Publishing: But were any of the characters gay in the novels?

Press Agent: No. But we can just say they were. These schmucks will believe just about anything.

[Wilde woman]

Because all I keep hearing is how great these people are, and I personally think that's not the case.

Who are you talking to that espouse the literary merits of Stephanie Meyer or Dan Brown? I don't think anyone even vaguely associated with high culture or the academic world consider these authors intellectual juggernauts. Both authors are definitely riding popular trends, so people who praise them are probably talking about their entertainment value?

I would, however, put Rowling on a slightly higher plane than the others.


But killing and making your secondary character a homosexual for absolutely no reason than to appeal to the gay market I assume and sell more copies is immature. Sexuality shouldn't be present in novels aimed at children, and killing in my opinion shouldn't either especially when its cartoonish excess like Kill Bill or the final Dark Tower novel from King. You catch my drift I am certain, killing just for the sakes of killing. If bloodshed is spilled, it should be for a good reason. This is what's wrong with society today. Hitchcock predicted it back in the day. Violence has overtaken. It prevails and we hunger for more.

In regards to your first point about Dumbledore's homosexuality, I don't see it as a marketing ploy, though obviously some can interpret it as such. I simply think that - as a writer - she has invested herself so much in her characters that they've taken on a life outside of the slivers that are written in the books. And she released the information to satisfy the curiosity of her fans. What's so insidious about that?

Secondly, I would argue that Dumbledore's murder was not at all gratuitous. It made perfect sense in the plotting of the books, the character developments, and the larger arc of Harry's growth. Though there was a certain futility to it (i.e. he died for a false Horcrux), that only adds to its tragic irony. It ties together the various plot points of Snape's ambiguity (whose side is he really on?), the Horcrux storyline, Voldemort's infiltration of Hogwarts, and Harry's emotional development. In some sense, it's a Bildungsroman trope that the hero must always face his final, biggest fear alone - so Dumbledore had to go for Harry to prove his heroism. I think this is something you would've picked up on if you had read the books, before criticizing them.

Thirdly, do you really think the deaths in HP are gratuitous? There is so much more literature out there that kills off characters gratuitously. I think HP handles death quite sensitively for children's literature, which may or may not come across as well in the films. And in my personal opinion, I don't think literature should necessarily be a place we go to look for our moral values. It's fictional, it's art, and we should treat it as such. Readers, yes even children, can tell the difference between fiction and reality, so I don't buy the argument that reading about death and sex will truly traumatize children or make them want to imitate such behavior. Especially not in a series like HP which - let's face it - espouses pretty mainstream moral values. No surprises there.

[Alexander III]

Oh, I don't know. It seemed to me last time we discussed HP there was at least a large minority dissenting in favor of HP's literary worth. So I wouldn't call that unanimous agreement. Not to mention most people on the other side of the argument didn't really have much of an argument; most of their "arguments" consisted of them insisting it was bad writing just because they said so with little reference to the actual text or reference to other contemporary YA/children's literature for any type of real comparison.

I wrote a whole mini-essay (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200) on the merits of Potter and what is happening in the text. Also to the original poster, the post was in one the original long-winded discussions about HP at least.

Sorry should have been more clear, that statement I made was in reference to Brown and Meyer, previously I said that in regards to HP there was some debate. Thanks for the link to your essay, will definitely give it a read.

Ohh and call me stubborn but im going to stick to my guns, if you have not read a book, or at least a considerable portion of a book, you cannot provide any form of just criticism on it.

Could you judge a film without having seen it, judging it based on the opinions on others who have ?

[Silas Thorne]

Could you judge a film without having seen it, judging it based on the opinions on others who have ?

Um, yes..doesn't this happen all the time? :reddevil: We'd like to say it doesn't though.

I don't disagree with your opinion, I just think this is a pretty common occurrence. It happens with books too, doesn't it? There are so many books around, if someone didn't say something (through word of mouth), or I didn't read nice things (reviews etc) about one book or other, I probably wouldn't open its cover. Unless it was a nice shiny one with a pretty picture, of course. ;)

But I do agree that with you that someone who hasn't read a book, and says so, isn't really in a position to debate a book's merits.

[wat??]

The Twilight Series is basically bizarre melodrama for hormonal girls. Its literary merit is practically non-existant. They are quite amusing but you need to adopt the mindset of a hormonal teenage girl to fully enjoy them.

The Harry Potter series is actually very good, though I'd say it's aimed at about 10 and up. Lots of adults read the series- what's wrong with darker stuff anyway? Children know more than you think.

The first three books are good for children (and anyone else who cares to read them). After the third they become ridiculous young adult teenage drama "novels".

As for the authors themselves; people want to read the material they put out. It doesn't bother me any more than the mystery or western section of a used bookstore, but it's not my cup of tea.


I am not sure about the target audience being ten or older. If that's the case the books should have came with a warning like any toy with small parts. Children shouldn't know about certain thing until the right age. I am not a psychiatrist, I didn't go to school for ten or twelve years and my time isn't valued at 300 or more an hour, but nothing good comes from children growing up too quickly or knowing about something that can wait down the road for them.


Well you had me fooled.




Could you judge a film without having seen it, judging it based on the opinions on others who have ?

Even though you're obviously correct here I know that I certainly base my prejudiced opinion on movies by the trailers or director/plot. I wouldn't get into an argument about how 'Meet the Spartans' or 'Superhero Movie' are terrible aberrations of film. But at the same time I'm pretty sure that they are really bad, even though I haven't seen them.

[AWritersWriter]

Rowling is a margin above the other two but that's as far as I am willing to go. You are obviously a fan, but I don't think you understand how the market works. Tolkien invested a lifetime into his characters yet he had time to describe every flaw and ambition they had. Yet, a writer with seemingly all the time in the world and the world anxiously awaiting her next novel forgets a crucial detail such as that. I don't buy that. It's like me saying, oh sorry I forgot. It served no purpose other than to market a book in a different direction.

You also seem to be missing the other point. Why would you purposely have kids reading something as gratuitous as that? I am not sure what your experiences with children are, but try to explain the bigger picture of a death of a character and the purpose it served without the child crying and kicking and screaming. Good Luck.

The Values are a far cry from what they used to be. This isn't Peter Pan. This isn't Pippi Longstocking and it surely isn't Enid Blyton. Perhaps it does teach the moral values of this century, but it's all a far cry from the past.

"And she released the information to satisfy the curiosity of her fans."

Really? There were people picketing outside with signs with slogans like Reveal The Gay Character? Is Harry also gay? Because I read a number of those claims. No one had any curiosity about this. I don't even need to debate that. I don't think anyone was asking that Question. But amusing.

"Ohh and call me stubborn but im going to stick to my guns, if you have not read a book, or at least a considerable portion of a book, you cannot provide any form of just criticism on it.

Could you judge a film without having seen it, judging it based on the opinions on others who have ?”

Stubbornness isn't always a sign of correctness. It's simply a sign of having lapse flexibility to look at the bigger picture. And if you paid more attention I explained that I read 10-20 pages. I made a going point about the prerequisite requirement to judge something. I suppose it was missed in your hurry to reply.

"The first three books are good for children (and anyone else who cares to read them). After the third they become ridiculous young adult teenage drama "novels".

"Well you had me fooled."

I agree(perhaps even including the 4th Novel) and no I am not a psychiatrist but I do have an interest in the human psyche.

[Lulim]

Didn't it also come after the release of the final book? After she was already rolling in cash? And having reading some GLBT reactions, most of them found it cowardly to out a character after the fact. So it didn't seem to appeal much to YA fantasy fans of the GLBT population. So it wasn't much of a marketing ploy or a progressive sentiment.
The fact that Dumbledore was gay appeared only as a side note when JKR read the screenplay (it was the one for HBP, I think), she jotted it down on the margin next to a line, a remark made by Dumbledore, that wasn't consistent with the notion of Dumbledores being gay. It wasn't even intended to reach the public.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory, personal or off-topic posts have been and will be removed without further notice.

~

[AWritersWriter]

"Dumbledore is gay," the author, 42, responded, prompting gasps and applause.

Rowling said Dumbledore was infatuated with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who was later offed in a battle between the good and bad wizards.

"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down" and that his love was a "great tragedy."

In my humble opinion it's a Publicity Stunt. And as such was intended to spark controversy.

"The fact that Dumbledore was gay appeared only as a side note when JKR read the screenplay (it was the one for HBP, I think), she jotted it down on the margin next to a line, a remark made by Dumbledore, that wasn't consistent with the notion of Dumbledores being gay. It wasn't even intended to reach the public."

First time hearing this.

[Lulim]

(...) First time hearing this.

I should have made myself clearer. What I meant to say is, it was the first time JKR ever mentioned that Dumbledore was gay. And it was intended as a hint to the writer of the screenplay. It transpired, however, and the media pounced upon it so she was confronted with questions on it, of course.

It is a principle that authors always know more about their characters than they let on. While there is not a single instance throughout the books where blatant sexuality is shoved under the readers' noses, Dumbledores gayness does explain, psychologically, about his motifs, as to how and why he set about dealing with Grindelwald, and that's why JKR didn't like the idea of readers / watchers of the film running away with false ideas of Dumbledore harboring sentimental recollections about "a girl he once knew" (which was the gist of said line in the screenplay I mentioned earlier).

As to the "unnecessary deaths" in the seventh book, I disagree. It was virtually the foundation Harry made his choice upon as to how and why he was going to face Voldemort in the forest which wasn't an easy choice for him at all. Without painful losses, his decision would have been difficult for the reader to comprehend.

And lastly, I don't believe children aren't able to cope with death and cruelty within the save realms of a book.

There are millions of children who are forced to deal with more cruelty and injustice than most of us can imagine. -- There are facts like child labor, child prostitution, child soldiers and child traffic, and the majority prefers to shut their eyes on it and pretend this is a nice, lovely world for children to be. That's just hypocrisy.

[AWritersWriter]

"There are millions of children who are forced to deal with more cruelty and injustice than most of us can imagine. -- There are facts like child labor, child prostitution, child soldiers and child traffic, and the majority prefers to shut their eyes on it and pretend this is a nice, lovely world for children to be. That's just hypocrisy."

I must have been living under a rock who knew all this was happening right under my nose. Note the sarcasm. I am well aware of the realities of the world and what's happening. Watching the news and reading the newspaper and staying attuned globally usually helps. But this has absolutely no reason for being used as an example to back up your statements. In fact it cheapest it. I'd honestly call it verbal exploitation.

These are issues that have no place or reason for being brought up in a discussion about a fantasy novel. They require a proper topic and not simply used as an example to cite something as non-important as Harry Potter were human rights are concerned.

Why do people read? To escape reality. So if all books depicted the fundamental reality humans face in their daily lives why even have a category of Fiction? Or Genres? Why not classify it all as Non Fiction and not put an age limit on it?

"And lastly, I don't believe children aren't able to cope with death and cruelty within the save realms of a book."

I am honestly taken back at peoples opinions on violence and death in Children Novels. I guess everyone is in a hurry to have their kids grow up and go slightly askew as I am sure it happens if you give them enough dark material to read.

It's amusing time after time that I keep hearing firm opinions from individuals who consider children being so far ahead of their time as to be able to distinguish what it is real and what isn't. I rather hear an opinion of a professional about this than trust bloggers online. Internet isn't a great Parental Guide by any means.

P.S And Lastly. I remember the media attention she was generating before the 7th Novel was Published. She could have written and exposed it all in that book. Why is that so hard for people to understand. She had 7 Books to come out with the truth. She was universally admired, and pretty much the whole world was at her heels awaiting the conclusion to Harry Potter. I do not buy for one second she couldn't chance it and take the bashing. What bashing? Even after she came out with this statement there was hardly any lash back. Thousands of pages, by a writer who was untouchable during her heightened fame could not express one idea with one line? Is that what I am being sold here? Because this is cheap liquor. It reeks of cheapness.

[JBI]

Meh, all these arguments over politics are useless - I made arguments in the past about Potter's politics, but in the end, the debate comes down to one thing - is the writing good, and fun to read, and is it actually what kid's want.

I would argue no, but at the same time, I have not read the complete series through and through - perhaps some would disagree, but that is irrelevant. Just loading politics into kids books is a tedious endeavor that has gotten boring already and been moved away from.

The time to ignore fantasy as insignificant literature has also long been passed - what that means is still not clear to me, but in the end I think it comes down to a question of metaphor being easier to absorb in many cases than direct dialog - it is easier for someone perhaps to learn a lesson from imagining themselves as a wizard, or reflect on certain themes than perhaps as a boy trapped in a realistic sphere of abuse, or other such hideous scenarios.

The question of fantasy as a way of creating a forum for discussion amongst themes that are able to transverse realism is not a new idea - and it has been popular with children, and now with adults, for a while already.

The question we really need to ask, rather than quibbling about the significance of certain characters being gay, is whether or not these books stand the test of being as imaginative, and well written, as to a) get the approval of young adult/children readers (lets say 8+ for the first 3, and 10-11+ for the last of the bunch) and whether this can extend to something interesting for all ages.

Personally, there are a few other authors who I feel write much stronger work in similar genres, and get no credit, whereas Potter is a great picture of the power or mass-communications (movies, cups, t-shirts, stickers, vibrating broomsticks, etc.) so perhaps it will be a while before a real answer emerges, but as it is, there already seems to be an ebb, and in China where I am now, Harry Potter is less cared about than the film 剑雨 (Reign of Assassins in English I think) seemed to have been, and the books are stopping to be shelved as much (the English section here actually has a much more literary focus than the general selection of many a bookstore in Canada, or the US, with the cheap pulp and best sellers pretty much ignored in favor of Chinese bestsellers anyway).

Threads like this I guess just pop up to make people emotional, but the whole idea is just a sort of pointless debate anyway.

[Alexander III]

"Stubbornness isn't always a sign of correctness"

I think you may just be on to something.


"And if you paid more attention I explained that I read 10-20 pages"

You are quite right, the only chapter in a novel which has any real merit and deserves to be read is the first one. All chapters after that are unnecessary and should be skipped.

[Lulim]

Why do people read? To escape reality. (...)

That might be true for some but not in every case, I'd venture, not in my case anyway. I don't read to escape reality.



(...) She had 7 Books to come out with the truth. (...) Thousands of pages, by a writer who was untouchable during her heightened fame could not express one idea with one line? (...)

Perhaps, she simply didn't want to put it so bluntly?


I don't like the way you are twisting my words.

[kelby_lake]

I am honestly taken back at peoples opinions on violence and death in Children Novels. I guess everyone is in a hurry to have their kids grow up and go slightly askew as I am sure it happens if you give them enough dark material to read.

That's rubbish. What about Disney films? The Lion King deals with themes like the death of a parent, usurping power, and the need to take your place in the 'circle of life'. Those are serious themes but important lessons for children. Would you rather raise them on Care Bears films and have them be entirely ignorant of what life is actually like?

What age do you think it's appropriate that violence and death should make an appearance?

As for the gay thing, if she'd said it in the novel it would have ended up overshadowing everything else. The bigots of the world would gang up together and pass their judgement. Besides, if you say that she ought to have said Dumbledore was gay, surely she ought to have been allowed to include the violence and deaths?

[AWritersWriter]

Great Reply JBI.

"You are quite right, the only chapter in a novel which has any real merit and deserves to be read is the first one. All chapters after that are unnecessary and should be skipped."

I read pages from different sections of the novel. I read most of the end parts of the 7th and some beginning parts of the 5th novel. I may or may not have looked at the first two books. I don't think I read many pages if I did, but the point is still the same as it as been for many posts. A person who has not read a single page has no merit is that correct? As a writer I don't need to read a thousand pages to sample an authors writing. 10-20 pages isn't here nor there. But I do believe that it warrants a right to an opinion.

"That might be true for some but not in every case, I'd venture, not in my case anyway. I don't read to escape reality."

Great. So I assume you never immerse yourself into your novels then? It's all cold reading from a distance? First time I ever heard this. You should coin this idea. Reading but never allowing yourself to fully experience something. Reading has always been used as a form of escape (mind you the word varies in definition). But it's always an escape in terms of you taking a voyage somewhere else, escaping your mundane chores and life.

"I don't like the way you are twisting my words."

Well then you aren't cut out for debating. I also don't particularly agree with the notion you rather have children watching CNN than Arthur or Blues Clues but I am not complaining. You are entitled to your opinion.

"That's rubbish. What about Disney films? The Lion King deals with themes like the death of a parent, usurping power, and the need to take your place in the 'circle of life'. Those are serious themes but important lessons for children. Would you rather raise them on Care Bears films and have them be entirely ignorant of what life is actually like?"

"What age do you think it's appropriate that violence and death should make an appearance?"

"As for the gay thing, if she'd said it in the novel it would have ended up overshadowing everything else. The bigots of the world would gang up together and pass their judgement. Besides, if you say that she ought to have said Dumbledore was gay, surely she ought to have been allowed to include the violence and deaths?"

I don't think Lion King or Bambi were as violent as anything in Harry Potter. And those films did their damage as well. Death is an important subject but what age children should learn about it depends on the parent. And what their values are like. Children should be children. Being a child is perhaps the only time in your life when you can be carefree and indulge. Why would anyone destroy that with violence, sexual content, death etc Nice example but once again it only amuses me. Kids wouldn't understand what life is about at 6/7. Just like someone who is 19 probably wouldn't have a clue. Maturity is a late bloomer for most people.

I don't have children but when I do that will be for me to decide as a thoughtful parent. It will be my decision based on research and discussions with other parents. It won't come from a debate on a forum.

The 7th Novel has the poorest writing of the entire series. This revelation wouldn't have spoiled anything. I think the book was rushed enough. I said previously I think Children's Literature isn't a place for certain subjects. Kids don't need to know any of it until the appropriate time.

And it doesn't really matter at this point since we are discussing when she should have said it. If she said it from the beginning I probably wouldn't care for it then either (But at least she would get credit not that it matters much to her what people think). Simply as I don't care for murder or death or suicide in children's novels. All of these are Adult Themes. But if she had included it right from the start so be it. What she did on the other hand was include it as an afterthought. And that was the most ludicrous and pathetic marketing ploy I have ever seen.

[JCamilo]

This political correctness is hilarious. Children should be children and this means denying them the very oportunity of experience? Sorry, but when I was 9 years old I had t deal with death and surprise, I got a beard quite quick. Dumbdude is gay? So what? It was meant to get market? So was all characters of Charles Dickens and Shakespeare, all of them profitable creators.

There wasnt even a clear distinction of children and children literature before the development of pedagogy to see what would be in the faery tales, but with Grimns the line is there and there is quite gruesome scenes, constant references to death, sexual allusions: because a children does not live in a bubble and trully, literature is not scapism at all. You have Hans Christian Andersen, some of his most famous stories deal with death (The tiny soldier or the nightingale), You have Stevenson and a book with pirates for kids, Hawthorne that wrote children versions of classical myths, a house falling on someone in Frank L.Braum, you have all comics and cartoons who showed violence, etc. And even some works that werent directed to kids when created, but today are accepted such as Perrault (with Blue Beard of his Red Ridding hood) or 1001 Nights (a tale of everything, but mostly, a foreplay sexual nightly exchange between a King and two sisters) shows it.

And that bias is even worst, because the morality of wherever you live is not the same everywhere. In Japan there is mangas and anime directed to young teens that have clear erotic themes or violence. Implying they would be doing something wrong with their poor children is simpe cultural prejudice.

Anyways, a side note: the fuction quote is quite helpful. You can click on it to quote the post you are answering without needing to place them between "", which can be rather confusing. If you are multi-quoting, you may identify the poster than copy and paste the part you are quoting, placing a command [quote] before and a [/qute] after. It will help to make your posts more clear.

[JBI]

The second edition Grimm that most people now read is essentially that JC, modified to suit the sensibilities of children. The originals are far more gruesome - what are we to make of that? censorship and suitability have been here longer than you suggest.

[kasie]

....The 7th Novel has the poorest writing of the entire series.....

I'm wondering how you know this - by your own admission you haven't read the books.

I'm also wondering how old a child has to be to have to deal with death - I was coming up to my sixth birthday when my grandfather died: I had to deal with that Fact of Life. Of course, I had loving adults around me to help me through this event. Those same loving adults helped me through some of the fictional events I encountered too, the Wicked Queen in Snow White, Beth's death in Little Women over which I sobbed at the age of seven. Many children have such loving support, even today: they don't live in isolation, traumatised by everything they read or see on tv. In time, you may yourself find yourself helping children through difficult concepts and you may not be able to control the age at which they confront such issues.

By the way - welcome to the Forum.

[Drkshadow03]

You also seem to be missing the other point. Why would you purposely have kids reading something as gratuitous as that? I am not sure what your experiences with children are, but try to explain the bigger picture of a death of a character and the purpose it served without the child crying and kicking and screaming. Good Luck.


I wouldn't really call HP gratuitous in violence. I'm not sure what your experiences with children are. I'm a school librarian. I've worked in a couple of districts now, and I've seen no evidence that the books they're reading are forcing them to grow up faster.

I've seen kids with horrible home lives, with deceased siblings, with all other sorts of issues, who spent most of their time playing gratuitous video games, who had to "grow up" faster, but nope never once saw anyone read Harry Potter and transform into a maladjusted individual.

Your argument is silly. Harry Potter has plenty of good morals for kids to learn. Kids are a lot more grown up than you think. By the time I was in 4th grade I had already lost my great grandfather and grandfather in my lifetime. My guess is that describes a lot of 4th-5th graders; many at that age have experienced a death of someone close to them. So I don't see what you think you're protecting them from.

[JCamilo]

The second edition Grimm that most people now read is essentially that JC, modified to suit the sensibilities of children. The originals are far more gruesome - what are we to make of that? censorship and suitability have been here longer than you suggest.

Of course, the very natural of oral folktale is the re-working for suitable audiences, but even the grimns final version were in a way gruesome, most of the cutting was not for elimination of "death or violence", more to be suitable for moral virtues and the formantion of germanic nationality. Red Ridding Hood still about the danger of being devoured, it may be absent the smirking sexual reference of Perrault, but death is the danger of the story. They do not turn the wolf in a puppy, they rather add authority and addults to save her.

I have no idea what Rowling did in the last book, I had no interest to read it, so I cannt say, but suggesting she or anyone is wrong to add violence and this made it unsuitable for kids or teens is just a moral judgment, and such as those, they are bound to fail. You know as well as I am, moral vallues of different society, be it european, south american, chinese, arabian are not even the same and those societies obviously can educate their children. You have even to take on the highly moralist north-american society, where the vast bulk of children and teenager production is filled with violence or sexual references (super-heroes like X-men or Wonder Woman, the woman represenation is obviously sexual, cartoons like Bugsy bunny, Roleplaying Game universes or videogames, etc) and the discussion should not be what is in there, but the quality of those products. It is no wonder that children literature was born with great gothic influence (Grimns, Andersen, Hawthorne, Stevenson or Hoffman) and would be rather empty without it.

[JBI]

Great Reply JBI. maybe you should read it then, as it is, this thread has gone downhill anyway.

As a tip, I would suggest keeping this to the text, so as to question something worthwhile. From a literary perspective, the question at hand should be, "is the book interesting and worth reading, and does it provide an experience that is worth the opportunity cost?" If children, and other older readers deem it so (after the hype evaporates that is), then the quibbles about good or bad are irrelevant.

As for content, from my experience, there are darker books, and the violence wasn't even bad - the line between good and bad is very obvious in those books.


I wouldn't really call HP gratuitous in violence. I'm not sure what your experiences with children are. I'm a school librarian. I've worked in a couple of districts now, and I've seen no evidence that the books they're reading are forcing them to grow up faster.

I've seen kids with horrible home lives, with deceased siblings, with all other sorts of issues, who spent most of their time playing gratuitous video games, who had to "grow up" faster, but nope never once saw anyone read Harry Potter and transform into a maladjusted individual.

Your argument is silly. Harry Potter has plenty of good morals for kids to learn. Kids are a lot more grown up than you think. By the time I was in 4th grade I had already lost my great grandfather and grandfather in my lifetime. My guess is that describes a lot of 4th-5th graders; many at that age have experienced a death of someone close to them. So I don't see what you think you're protecting them from.

Meh, it is just keeping in Western's double-edged preoccupation with Children - one as little angels that need to be protected, and on the other hand as corrupted kids who are not like generations past. The whole idea is ridiculous - children are not as weak and blind and innocent as they seem, neither are they as decadent as past generations.

To be honest, Harry Potter is tamer than virtually all the stuff seen on the news anyway - perhaps it is a good text in that it encourages a sort of metaphorical introduction to the questions the real world faces, in that its ending, from what I understand, encourages reevaluation of some of the antagonists from black-and-white cut outs to more grey characters - truth be told, it is not great at that, as something like MacDonalds' goblin books are (The Princess and the Goblin is an excellent example of very interesting children's literature) but they are not particularly bad either.

It is perhaps these questions that enable children to grow - I mean, lets face it, we do not want kids getting into cars with strangers, so wouldn't it be better to teach them that there are people who want to hurt them?

At age 16 people were shipped off to the Trenches of World War I, many lied about their age and went at a younger age - are we shortening childhood, or has it always been this short? Perhaps it is much healthier to use fantasy as a didactic framework in order to introduce the question of nuanced morality and the basic fact that there is cruelty and are bad things in the world.

Of course, one must question of Rowling does a good job at that or not - but then again, having not read the whole series, I will let others argue that point.

[AWritersWriter]

{edit}

Denying them the opportunity of existence... Yes, let's force our children to watch CNN and teach them about wrongs of society at the tender age of 7 and let them decipher it all since children know it all right? The brain doesn't even stop growing until 20 and you are expecting Children with the attention span that's questionable at times to sit there patiently and understand everything you tell them. Good Luck. You seem to have the ambition to prove me wrong. Maybe this Christmas your dreams will come true. We can all wish, right?

And yes, the standard is different but what I am representing is Europe and America/Canada currently. And since I haven't mentioned my opinion about any other countries I doubt you could comment on my behalf although you welcomed yourself to try. There's obviously different standards which go from the individual to the country of origin he/she is from. Implying I am culturally insensitive is defamation and character assassination unless you can back your opinions up. But that just proves your intentions again.

My posts are clear enough. I doubt I could learn anything from you. If you have issues with reading it, I suggest you don't. Everyone else seems to be just fine.

Kasie

Thanks Kasie. I always did want to make a Grand Entrance. Just joking, but thanks I am enjoying posting on this Site.

I have read some of the 7th and 5th Novels. And I keep noticing Posters citing their own experiences with Death which is credible but can be as easily challenged as me asking you to give me a percentage of kids who deal with Death. And of course then we would have a debate about which country we should sample these Statistics from. But not for one second do I believe that a small percentage of kids requires everyone else to be taught Death as mathematics. That's not to say that we shouldn't talk to or kids about dangers or lurking strangers and so on but to sit there and try to explain anything ranging from Heaven and Hell and Religion if you are a believer to such things are sin, moral values, birth, death... Since when did kids develop such amazing capacity for quick learning of heavy matters and non-biased understanding?

Drkshadow03

If anything, I am defending their right to be Children. Because from most of these replies it sounds like that's exactly what you are trying to suppress.

As far as Harry Potter having great morals... we have been debating this. We know the 7th Novel has senseless death.

[JCamilo]

{edit}


Denying them the opportunity of existence... Yes, let's force our children to watch CNN and teach them about wrongs of society at the tender age of 7 and let them decipher it all since children know it all right?

That argument would be lovely. Lets close them in a crystal place where nothing of this happens, then release them in the world where CNN is true. I am sure that is the solution. I am also sure addults know all too, right? Lord of Flies is an allegory, addults are those who usually cause all the problems.


The brain doesn't even stop growing until 20 and you are expecting Children with the attention span that's questionable at times to sit there patiently and understand everything you tell them.

I am sorry, but the capacity of focus is not a problem related to brain growing. Children have an imense capacity of focus, as we have olympic champions with 14 years old who are training even before.
Addults attention span are questionable quite as well and this argument is even worst: What is presented to them in tv, be it "Rudolph, the red nose deer" or "15 minutes", will affect their capacity of attention equallly. A kid that can watch 1:30 hour movies, will watch both end to end if she wants, if not, she will stop watching both. The content of a work does not change if a person is able to focus or not.

And I do not expect them to understand a thing. Most addults do not understand a thing either, how do you think you can teach them.


Good Luck. You seem to have the ambition to prove me wrong. Maybe this Christmas your dreams will come true. We can all wish, right?

If this is not pure trolling, what is?


And yes, the standard is different but what I am representing is Europe and America/Canada currently.

No, you are not. Canada, America and Europe are very different nations. You do not represent them. United Nations do not. And amazing, all authors I mentioned came from them.


And since I haven't mentioned my opinion about any other countries I doubt you could comment on my behalf although you welcomed yourself to try. There's obviously different standards which go from the individual to the country of origin he/she is from. Implying I am culturally insensitive is defamation and character assassination unless you can back your opinions up. But that just proves your intentions again.

Pffft... :out:
I killed someone!


My posts are clear enough. I doubt I could learn anything from you. If you have issues with reading it, I suggest you don't. Everyone else seems to be just fine.

Do you notice everyone else uses the quoting option when doing so? It something named etiquete, but You are free to use it as you want. It is your option.

[Drkshadow03]

Death is an important subject but what age children should learn about it depends on the parent. And what their values are like. [. . .]
I don't have children but when I do that will be for me to decide as a thoughtful parent. It will be my decision based on research and discussions with other parents. It won't come from a debate on a forum.

So it's okay for you to decide what is appropriate for your hypothetical kids and apparently everyone else's kids, but not okay for us to decide what is appropriate for our own real or hypothetical kids?




Drkshadow03


As far as Harry Potter having great morals... we have been debating this. We know the 7th Novel has senseless death.

Who is this "we"? Only you seem to know that the 7th novel has all this senseless death. I haven't seen one person really agree with you yet.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l___W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

If you find yourselves unable to argue your point(s) without resorting to name-calling,

please feel free not to take part in discussions.

[AWritersWriter]

P.S I dont know if the Moderator was correct in Deleting my Entire Post so I took the Liberty of Editing it myself.

The learning process doesn't end around twenty when the brain seizes to grow. Learning just becomes harder. And unless you can present data backing your statement up, I call it simply an opinion. You used two examples on which you based your opinion. This is amusing. Do some research and come back with statistical facts not stories about weight lifting kids and some other nonesense the media points a finger to. The literacy rate is phenomenally low. Children aren't becoming smarter with each new century. In fact it's all been a downhill slide in comparison to how things were. If children as so smart why don't they differentiate and make better decisions when it comes to diet, and bullying and so on. If you are claiming they are these amazingly capable independent subjects, a whole race of intellectuals; then why is the expression and morality going out the window?

I haven't read some of the Authors you have mentioned. As far as me representing anything, I represent myself. But I could easily cite and argue about what morals Canada, United States and Europe have had and have currently.


"So it's okay for you to decide what is appropriate for your hypothetical kids and apparently everyone else's kids, but not okay for us to decide what is appropriate for our own real or hypothetical kids?"

I prefer to make my own conscious decision with path I travel on. It's called agreeing to disagree. Whether its one person versus twenty or vice versa.

[Scheherazade]

P.S I dont know if the Moderator was correct in Deleting my Entire Post so I took the Liberty of Editing it myself. Rule #1 of LitNet Club: The Moderator is always correct!

Writer> It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow your posts because you are not using the quoting function and I have neither the patience nor the time to hand-pick parts that do not have personal comments.

You can quote someone by clicking on the http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9546/quotel.gif that appears at the right bottom hand corner of each post.

Or you can quote more than one post within the same post by clicking on the http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif. It will turn red http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_on.gif

Then, when you click on the reply button, all the posts you have selected will appear in your reply.

If you have any more questions on the Forum, please PM me.

[JCamilo]

P.S I dont know if the Moderator was correct in Deleting my Entire Post so I took the Liberty of Editing it myself.

The learning process doesn't end around twenty when the brain seizes to grow. Learning just becomes harder.

You could edit this? A process that become harder, does not end, it continues, right? And has nothing to do with brain growth of focus of the children.



And unless you can present data backing your statement up, I call it simply an opinion. You used two examples on which you based your opinion.

Ok, let me see. You claim children has less focus capacity. I point to you examples of Children which focus capacity is enormous (focus is a matter of training, not brain development) and you claim it is an opinion. Yet, your out of blue claim is a scientific fact?
Could you just look to the fact that children and teenagers spend hours studying, which also reveal the capacity of focus? That pedagogy implies that learning is easier at younger age, and yet you claim to protect "Our children" from watever experience you consider nocive. Lets just do it, teach people after they are older. Coherence is something you should build arguments.



This is amusing. Do some research and come back with statistical facts not stories about weight lifting kids and some other nonesense the media points a finger to. The literacy rate is phenomenally low.

Can you back it up? By they way, capacity of focus is not only used for literacy and the majority of readers is younger.


Children aren't becoming smarter with each new century. In fact it's all been a downhill slide in comparison to how things were.

Really? Basead on which fact again?



If children as so smart why don't they differentiate and make better decisions when it comes to diet, and bullying and so on.

Who will make the decisions for them? I mean when they get 30 and have no responsability upon them, because some righteous preacher did it for them? And by the way, when I argued children are that smart?


If you are claiming they are these amazingly capable independent subjects, a whole race of intellectuals; then why is the expression and morality going out the window?

Who said Morality is going out the window? Who even can define morality to say what is right or wrong? The morality of Brazil is different from Canadian which is different from Egyptian which is different from indian and there goes. But I do not think it is going down or up. I may think your morality is a complete nutcase, JBI may think DrkShadow is.
And expression is going out the window? What United Nation research showed that the age with at least 3 different media forms is throwing out expression?


I haven't read some of the Authors you have mentioned. As far as me representing anything, I represent myself. But I could easily cite and argue about what morals Canada, United States and Europe have had and have currently.

Anyone can. It is easy. But you better back up, because USA is the country of Rihanna and Sarah Palin, where they show canadians Simpsons and South Park while the elect a black man president and just went out of a war for oil in the orient. I doubt a discussion of morality of USA is remotelly similar to Canada or the entire europe (does not bug you that you put in the same bag, Bosnians, Russians, italians, portuguese...)... And you have not read Hans Christian Andersen, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Brothers Grimm, T.A.Hoffman and Robert Louis Stevenson?

[Drkshadow03]

I prefer to make my own conscious decision with path I travel on. It's called agreeing to disagree. Whether its one person versus twenty or vice versa.

Which is fine. But it would be nice to extend the courtesy to others. No one is forcing anyone to read Harry Potter against their will.

All the evidence I've ever seen about how kids handle "adult" ideas and themes has been positive, as long as it
s not just gratuitous violence for the sake of it, which it's not in Potter. No one is saying 5th grader are adults who don't need guidance, but that's precisely it . . . they need guidance, not censorship of material.

There is the well-known award-winning teacher Rafe Esquith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafe_Esquith) who performs Shakespeare with his 5th graders and reads books like To Kill a Mockingbird with them. He uses To Kill a Mockingbird as a way of teaching them about developing their own personal code of ethics. This is a fairly adult book to say the least. Many of his former students have said their experiences in his classroom brought new opportunities before them that they never considered and they probably would've ended up dead selling drugs somewhere if they hadn't had him for a teacher and seen where else their life could go.

We could say Shakespeare is too adult for kids in 5th grade. One such former students who wouldn't have likely even gone to college did so in part because he developed a passion for acting after they did the annual Shakespeare play.

Like I said earlier, I think there is a certain naivete in believing kids are innocent little cherubs that must at all times be protected from the big bad world. For better or worse, kids face real adult situations all the time regardless of what literature they're reading. Literature hopefully can help steer them in the right direction and provide a moral compass or an escape or a direct confrontation with those issues. Not to mention kids are generally good at shutting off material that bothers them. I know of at least one twelve year old who left Jurassic Park the film because it was too scary for him, and one fifth grader who decided not to turn off the most recent Harry Potter film because it scared them.

[AWritersWriter]

You could edit this? A process that become harder, does not end, it continues, right? And has nothing to do with brain growth of focus of the children.

Yes. Your post is in need of Editing however small this time, since time after time you keep personalizing the issues at hand.


Ok, let me see. You claim children has less focus capacity. I point to you examples of Children which focus capacity is enormous (focus is a matter of training, not brain development) and you claim it is an opinion. Yet, your out of blue claim is a scientific fact?
Could you just look to the fact that children and teenagers spend hours studying, which also reveal the capacity of focus? That pedagogy implies that learning is easier at younger age, and yet you claim to protect "Our children" from watever experience you consider nocive. Lets just do it, teach people after they are older. Coherence is something you should build arguments.


Children spend hours studying? Perhaps they used to, since the school system had greater aspirations for them and therefore the requirement level was higher. In today's day Reading, Literacy and Education are all down. And we aren't talking about poverty stricken nations which are considered Third World by some. We are talking about so called world leaders who seemingly have the tools to have everyone meet the right criteria. But standard for Higher Education has changed.

And children should be protected. There are many reasons for that. You want healthy psychological development. You want them to grow up to be productive members of society not have them be introduced to ideas of murder, political instability, war, health issues, Global Warming. They wouldn't understand they would interpret it all the wrong way. It's true some children are born into circumstances when they have to grow up before they have to. And most say the same thing, how they wish they had a childhood to reminisce about.



Can you back it up? By they way, capacity of focus is not only used for literacy and the majority of readers is younger.



Really? Basead on which fact again?


You keep asking for facts when I told you much the same. Dig me up some facts and I will gladly return the favor.


Who will make the decisions for them? I mean when they get 30 and have no responsability upon them, because some righteous preacher did it for them? And by the way, when I argued children are that smart?



Who said Morality is going out the window? Who even can define morality to say what is right or wrong? The morality of Brazil is different from Canadian which is different from Egyptian which is different from indian and there goes. But I do not think it is going down or up. I may think your morality is a complete nutcase, JBI may think DrkShadow is.
And expression is going out the window? What United Nation research showed that the age with at least 3 different media forms is throwing out expression?


Morality and Aspects of what is Right and what is Wrong as well as Righteousness and a moral codex all go back to the Bible. Even if you are an atheist someone in your hereditary line wasn't. That's where most of human kind has gotten the Idea about morality.



Anyone can. It is easy. But you better back up, because USA is the country of Rihanna and Sarah Palin, where they show canadians Simpsons and South Park while the elect a black man president and just went out of a war for oil in the orient. I doubt a discussion of morality of USA is remotelly similar to Canada or the entire europe (does not bug you that you put in the same bag, Bosnians, Russians, italians, portuguese...)... And you have not read Hans Christian Andersen, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Brothers Grimm, T.A.Hoffman and Robert Louis Stevenson?

I am an European living in Canada. United States has a black President, does that bother you? It doesn't bother me, he did great things for Health Care and put an end to a War. Sarah Palin is not worth mentioning without laugher. As far as violent cartoons I am sure your Country has plenty as well. All it does is once again reflect the desperate state of learning. Television is suppose to be a teaching tool. If I discussed a countries morality I would do so individualistically and draw certain parallel comparisons since everyone has a few.

And I am very sure you have not read everything I have read as a child. In the end some translations weren't available. So the argument is futile. What was rare to my education is readily available to the current children around the world in the form of Harry Potter.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I really think the attitude AWritersWriter presents here is a perfect example of what is keeping children back within our (America's) educational. The more I am exposed to the educational system (from a teacher's perspective) the more I am convinced that children are overly protected from pretty much everything. It's ridiculous. If we could actually expose them to ideas such as sex and the violence that is inherent in human nature, they would most likely better understand the hardcore porn and snuff films they will watch on the internet anyways.

I think this attitude also shows how we have lowered expectations for our youth, thinking that they can't "handle" something. BS. They can, and if they can't, it isn't their fault, it's ours.

I don't know, I haven't read everything in this thread, so maybe I have misinterpreted things, but that's how I feel.

[JCamilo]

Yes. Your post is in need of Editing however small this time, since time after time you keep personalizing the issues at hand.

No, your post need editing because you claimed learning process was over than that it was harder. It is contraditory.



Children spend hours studying? Perhaps they used to, since the school system had greater aspirations for them and therefore the requirement level was higher.

Nope, Children remain hours studying. 4-5 hour a day at classes minimal in the world. This not counting what they do outside.
And could you find any source in the world proving that in the past children had greater aspirations and the requeriment was higher?


In today's day Reading, Literacy and Education are all down.

Show me data. You are just claiming it.


And we aren't talking about poverty stricken nations which are considered Third World by some. We are talking about so called world leaders who seemingly have the tools to have everyone meet the right criteria. But standard for Higher Education has changed.

If it changed, who said it was lowered? Fact is, most people today has more degrees than in the past, not less. And World leaders changed quite a bit.


And children should be protected. There are many reasons for that. You want healthy psychological development. You want them to grow up to be productive members of society not have them be introduced to ideas of murder, political instability, war, health issues, Global Warming.

Let me understand this: they must be protected from what? From knowledge? They will be productive members without knowing the echological dangers? They are not going to be able to discern anything or made a judgment on their own unless you teach them.


They wouldn't understand they would interpret it all the wrong way. It's true some children are born into circumstances when they have to grow up before they have to. And most say the same thing, how they wish they had a childhood to reminisce about.

Those children have to work as addults, not to read or study or watch movies or anything else. And again, they will understand as well as they can, it is their prerrogative, their childhood to form their own conceptions, not our own misjudged (again, Addults are responsable for the majority of the world problems, they should know better right?) conceptions.


You keep asking for facts when I told you much the same. Dig me up some facts and I will gladly return the favor.

The burden of proof is on the claimer. You claimed the attention spamn of children is smaller and related it to brain development. Please, show it.



Morality and Aspects of what is Right and what is Wrong as well as Righteousness and a moral codex all go back to the Bible. Even if you are an atheist someone in your hereditary line wasn't. That's where most of human kind has gotten the Idea about morality.

In the bible girls were married with 11-13 years. Apparently, kids concern are not for them. They also stone homossexual there. This kind of morality is not welcome anymore, we improved a lot.
And no, moral codes predate even the writing word, imagine the bible which is not even the oldest book in the world. But preaching is not nice.



I am an European living in Canada. United States has a black President, does that bother you? It doesn't bother me, he did great things for Health Care and put an end to a War. Sarah Palin is not worth mentioning without laugher. As far as violent cartoons I am sure your Country has plenty as well. All it does is once again reflect the desperate state of learning. Television is suppose to be a teaching tool. If I discussed a countries morality I would do so individualistically and draw certain parallel comparisons since everyone has a few.

No, you put in the same bag Europe (which means 50 or so countries), Canada and Unite States, You did nothing individually.


And I am very sure you have not read everything I have read as a child. In the end some translations weren't available. So the argument is futile. What was rare to my education is readily available to the current children around the world in the form of Harry Potter.

Yes, I am amazed with someone discussing 3 books not read and children literature without knowing those 5 unknow gentleman. I will talk about greek mythology without Homer now.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You want them to grow up to be productive members of society not have them be introduced to ideas of murder, political instability, war, health issues, Global Warming.

Wait, what? How is that one analogous? lol.

[AWritersWriter]

No, your post need editing because you claimed learning process was over than that it was harder. It is contraditory.


I don't understand your irrational thinking. Let's leave it at that. Reconstruct that sentence and make it more coherent then I will gladly reply to it.



Nope, Children remain hours studying. 4-5 hour a day at classes minimal in the world. This not counting what they do outside.
And could you find any source in the world proving that in the past children had greater aspirations and the requeriment was higher?



Show me data. You are just claiming it.



If it changed, who said it was lowered? Fact is, most people today has more degrees than in the past, not less. And World leaders changed quite a bit.



Let me understand this: they must be protected from what? From knowledge? They will be productive members without knowing the echological dangers? They are not going to be able to discern anything or made a judgment on their own unless you teach them.



Those children have to work as addults, not to read or study or watch movies or anything else. And again, they will understand as well as they can, it is their prerrogative, their childhood to form their own conceptions, not our own misjudged (again, Addults are responsable for the majority of the world problems, they should know better right?) conceptions.



The burden of proof is on the claimer. You claimed the attention spamn of children is smaller and related it to brain development. Please, show it.

Honestly, I am not here to exchange links and turn you into a believer. I don't have time for things of no importance. Below are a few links. I can go on but why? Thing with pomposity and opium dreams of grandeur is that in the end they are like the helium inside the balloon which after deflating looses all its appeal. I will reply indepth when I am given something worthy to reply to.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/literacy.shtml

http://www.helium.com/items/1414021-drop-in-canadas-literacy-rate



In the bible girls were married with 11-13 years. Apparently, kids concern are not for them. They also stone homossexual there. This kind of morality is not welcome anymore, we improved a lot.
And no, moral codes predate even the writing word, imagine the bible which is not even the oldest book in the world. But preaching is not nice.

Let's have some exact passages. Id love to have a religious discussion with you. I can cite some of my own about tolorence and being humble.


No, you put in the same bag Europe (which means 50 or so countries), Canada and Unite States, You did nothing individually.

Yes, I went into a make belief discussion with statistical proof and blueprints right? Did I even do as much as Generalize? I been to all three countries, I been to more but not for a length of time where I can comment on their Educational System. I shared my opinion and if you actually take a look at the articles the Literacy Rate has been plummeting downward. Harry Potter isn't rescuing any children from ignorance.



Yes, I am amazed with someone discussing 3 books not read and children literature without knowing those 5 unknow gentleman. I will talk about greek mythology without Homer now.

Someone doesn't share your reading list. Its the end of the world. :out: Whats next you are going to compare the amount of toys you have? I read J. M. Barrie, Astrid Lindgren, A. A. Milne, Rudyard Kipling, Jules Verne, Jack London, Enid Blyton. But I am not listing these names for your benefit. I mean this is hilarious. This is what it has come down to? Someone gloating in the fact he has read something I haven't. Wow. What's next genital comparisons? What cars we own and how much land? My independent film collection verses yours if you have one. The amount of books I have? Spare me this nonsense. Statement like this show a persons age real well.

{edit}


I really think the attitude AWritersWriter presents here is a perfect example of what is keeping children back within our (America's) educational. The more I am exposed to the educational system (from a teacher's perspective) the more I am convinced that children are overly protected from pretty much everything. It's ridiculous. If we could actually expose them to ideas such as sex and the violence that is inherent in human nature, they would most likely better understand the hardcore porn and snuff films they will watch on the internet anyways.

I think this attitude also shows how we have lowered expectations for our youth, thinking that they can't "handle" something. BS. They can, and if they can't, it isn't their fault, it's ours.

I don't know, I haven't read everything in this thread, so maybe I have misinterpreted things, but that's how I feel.

There's so much that is wrong with this Post that I dont know where to begin. Exposing children to porn is what you are basically instigating? I wasn't aware the rates of children watching pornography plummeted skywards. Show me data and have better taste next time about the subject matter. I wouldnt want my kids anywhere near your class. Enough said. Bad taste.

[JBI]

Rule #1 of LitNet Club: The Moderator is always correct!

Writer> It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow your posts because you are not using the quoting function and I have neither the patience nor the time to hand-pick parts that do not have personal comments.

You can quote someone by clicking on the http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9546/quotel.gif that appears at the right bottom hand corner of each post.

Or you can quote more than one post within the same post by clicking on the http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif. It will turn red http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_on.gif

Then, when you click on the reply button, all the posts you have selected will appear in your reply.

If you have any more questions on the Forum, please PM me.

So that's how it's done.


There's so much that is wrong with this Post that I dont know where to begin. Exposing children to porn is what you are basically instigating? I wasn't aware the rates of children watching pornography plummeted skywards. Show me data and have better taste next time about the subject matter. I wouldnt want my kids anywhere near your class. Enough said. Bad taste.

Meh, I see your point - but historically women were married around the age of 13, and having kids soon after - that was the trend until the turn of the century, or close to then anyway, and is still practiced in many places in the world.

You are working on a fallacy that suggests a prolonged innocence on the part of children which has no real historical president besides generations who, more or less, were raised with images of war and violence in every aspect of their culture (5 year olds kids and whomever else getting toy guns and things for Christmas, and wartime propaganda and what not playing on the few stations that did exist back then).

Where is this idea of poor innocent children founded upon?

This is coming from a Canadian perspective, by the way, so do not try to brush me off as an outsider anyway (by the way, please don't group Canada like that in the future).

[AWritersWriter]

So that's how it's done.



Meh, I see your point - but historically women were married around the age of 13, and having kids soon after - that was the trend until the turn of the century, or close to then anyway, and is still practiced in many places in the world.

You are working on a fallacy that suggests a prolonged innocence on the part of children which has no real historical president besides generations who, more or less, were raised with images of war and violence in every aspect of their culture (5 year olds kids and whomever else getting toy guns and things for Christmas, and wartime propaganda and what not playing on the few stations that did exist back then).

Where is this idea of poor innocent children founded upon?

This is coming from a Canadian perspective, by the way, so do not try to brush me off as an outsider anyway (by the way, please don't group Canada like that in the future).

Yes, that's nothing new. Kids were more or less seen as future investments. The more you had the more helping hands you had to cultivate the land if you were a farmer. That's one example.

We aren't living in times of War. We have a Threat of war. US had a war for oil but it wasn't a world war. We are living through tough economic times but I don't understand why holding a country oppressed and always reminding children that their life can be taken at any point is right. How is it? Why do children need to feel hurt, pain, depression etc just so they learn quicker? They wouldn't. In this economy hardly anyone is living richly. So no one is spoiling anyone. If keeping children away from harmful information is spoiling them then call those people guilty of being good parents. I don't see why a 7 year old needs to know what a gun is or how bullets enter a person's body and what they do to the organs. You catch my drift? 10-13 is a different age, where certain things can start to come out. But honestly who are we kidding here. Should we start teaching toddlers about possible abandonment by never breastfeeding them because their mother might run off? This discussion is really morose.

I've lived in Canada more than half of my current age. So I think I have a right to speak about it. I don't need any patriotic quips or laughable threats. But thanks. It wasn't grouped in anything. Canada and United States have many things in common. I never said they shared everything down to the bathrobe and the slippers. They are obviously very different in their own right.

[JBI]

Yes, that's nothing new. Kids were more or less seen as future investments. The more you had the more helping hands you had to cultivate the land if you were a farmer. That's one example.

We aren't living in times of War. We have a Threat of war. US had a war for oil but it wasn't a world war. We are living through tough economic times but I don't understand why holding a country oppressed and always reminding children that their life can be taken at any point is right. How is it? Why do children need to feel hurt, pain, depression etc just so they learn quicker? They wouldn't. In this economy hardly anyone is living richly. So no one is spoiling anyone. If keeping children away from harmful information is spoiling them then call those people guilty of being good parents. I don't see why a 7 year old needs to know what a gun is or how bullets enter a person's body and what they do to the organs. You catch my drift? 10-13 is a different age, where certain things can start to come out. But honestly who are we kidding here. Should we start teaching toddlers about possible abandonment by never breastfeeding them because their mother might run off? This discussion is really morose.

I've lived in Canada more than half of my current age. So I think I have a right to speak about it. I don't need any patriotic quips or laughable threats. But thanks. It wasn't grouped in anything. Canada and United States have many things in common. I never said they shared everything down to the bathrobe and the slippers. They are obviously very different in their own right.

Honestly, spare me the history lesson. I am not American, nor was I raised in those situations.

However, Gert and Bert videos teaching me about not getting into a car with strangers perhaps could have saved my life, videos shown to me teaching me not to drink and drive, similarly, could have had a positive affect on me being a responsible driver. In order to reach maturity, is it a requirement that crisis must exist in one form or another, and that one side of a struggle must prevail - one must go through a loss of innocence, as it is, in order to understand oneself.


Now, let us take this one step further - what does this monologue about childhood and parenting have to do with literature. A Librarian has even voiced his observation of the positive effect these books have on kids, and lets face it, it is time to open one's eyes to the fact that children actually have brains, and can understand complex ideas. Humanity is programmed to have sexual urges at 12-13, by suggesting one doesn't expose people to that idea, it is suggesting that we deny biology and our bodies.

Your argument of maintaining this fake sort of innocent illusion children have is falsely rooted, and nonsensical - biology itself is arguing that is not the case. What Rowling does, is offer a discussion of morality, and a set of heroes whose journeys metaphorically relate to their own. She teaches about the themes of maturity (not well in my opinion) and functions to help young people deal with the issues surrounding their bodies, and their complex relations with the world around them. Her work, in that regard, is perhaps exactly what people need.

[AWritersWriter]

Honestly, spare me the history lesson. I am not American, nor was I raised in those situations.

However, Gert and Bert videos teaching me about not getting into a car with strangers perhaps could have saved my life, videos shown to me teaching me not to drink and drive, similarly, could have had a positive affect on me being a responsible driver. In order to reach maturity, is it a requirement that crisis must exist in one form or another, and that one side of a struggle must prevail - one must go through a loss of innocence, as it is, in order to understand oneself.


Now, let us take this one step further - what does this monologue about childhood and parenting have to do with literature. A Librarian has even voiced his observation of the positive effect these books have on kids, and lets face it, it is time to open one's eyes to the fact that children actually have brains, and can understand complex ideas. Humanity is programmed to have sexual urges at 12-13, by suggesting one doesn't expose people to that idea, it is suggesting that we deny biology and our bodies.

Your argument of maintaining this fake sort of innocent illusion children have is falsely rooted, and nonsensical - biology itself is arguing that is not the case. What Rowling does, is offer a discussion of morality, and a set of heroes whose journeys metaphorically relate to their own. She teaches about the themes of maturity (not well in my opinion) and functions to help young people deal with the issues surrounding their bodies, and their complex relations with the world around them. Her work, in that regard, is perhaps exactly what people need.

What age were you when you watched the Stranger Danger videos? What about Beware of Drunk Driving video? You know many 7 or 8 year old Alcoholics? Are they to be found in the pub after school ends? :santasmil You do understand you are talking about Pre-Teens and Teenagers then right? At least where the second video referenced is concerned. Since when do children drive? 16 and up here with a designated driver with a G2 or higher.

A Librarian is the unanimous voice of reason for everyone else to follow? :goof: I'd rather hear a Child Psychologist or even someone in Early Childhood Education voice their opinion. So slightly irrelevant from where I am standing. Another librarian can voice another opinion and so on. We don't do polls based on single peoples opinions. Amusing especially when I see it in bold print yearly in the papers that the literacy rate is at an all time low.

And once again Pre-Teens are different from children. So use the appropriate label when you discuss this. This is Generalizing where you are trying to prove a fact. Slightly hard to do don't you think with everyone grouped together? You have to distinguish the difference.

And I never argued that they don't have the capacity for learning I just don't think at 7 and 8 they are as Adult as you perceive them to be. I'd love to see you in front of a class discussing philosophy and chemistry and renaissance art. I mean come on. To some extent yes, fine. But not at full capacity which is what I am arguing about. They have limitations at that stage and age.

P.S Her work isn't what anyone needs. Especially not the later novels. Some argue about the merit of the first few books but I doubt trashy writing and senseless death as it was depicted in the 7th Novel is really what anyone at any age needs. Her books didnt popularize reading. Show me proof. Charts. Diagrams. Articles. Statistics. It's funny though Harry Potter took 10 years to complete, so by that age they can move onto Twilight and then Dan Brown?

Three great writers with one stone :party:

[JBI]

Well, how many 7-8 year old people are reading Harry Potter? Last I checked, only the first one was marketed anywhere around that age (I would place it at around 8-9 myself) and the rest were noticeably progressively darker and more mature (Rowling herself stated somewhere she wished her books to mature with her readers so as to remain relevant in that regard).

As for the Danger videos, maybe grade 2 or 3. As for drunk driving, since maybe grade 4 - we had sex ed first in grade 6 (when the question of puberty was beginning to become important) and by high school (grade 9) it was expected that people generally have some awareness of the world, such as history.

By grade 7 we are supposed to learn about the conquering of Quebec by English soldiers, and the casualties on both sides - we are taught about the violence and dishonesty committed against Aboriginals even before that.

As for your comments on either of these writers' writing - if you wish to take the conversation there (as you seem to have been antagonizing most posters already about a rather personal interpretation of the text keep in mind), I would welcome it - but the point is, that is what should be debated if anything - if the books are no good, then we should criticize them on those grounds. As it is, neither you, or I have read the last one - you said yourself you hadn't read it, and I admit it - therefore, the question of its merits must be decided by those who have read it. From what I can tell, they weren't well written, but then again, taste is personal, so perhaps I am wrong.


What the point is though, is that if people are reading them, we should dismiss it - we should jump perhaps when people start praising that as saving the world, or saving reading, or whatever nonsense people dig up, but truth be told, children reading these books doesn't really affect either of us - if kids are enjoying them, and if adults are enjoying them too, it is best to let them.

That being said, that does not mean we need to take them seriously, and discuss them so often - what it means essentially is that we will let the public evaluate the texts according to their criteria.

Valuing literature in terms of a star system or discussing which book is better than which is a rather low form of literary discussion - simply put, it's far better to agree on texts both people like, and then read them and discuss what is good, or special about them.

[Drkshadow03]

And I never argued that they don't have the capacity for learning I just don't think at 7 and 8 they are as Adult as you perceive them to be. I'd love to see you in front of a class discussing philosophy and chemistry and renaissance art. I mean come on. To some extent yes, fine. But not at full capacity which is what I am arguing about. They have limitations at that stage and age.


And no one ever argued 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders should not have some limits. There is a huge difference between exposing those kids to a work like Harry Potter where some characters die with spells like Avada Kadavra versus them watching SAW IV with graphic scenes of torture.

There is a huge difference between them reading Twilight at that age and Harry Potter. Yes, I've had a kid or two come in with Twilight from home (not in my library because that would be inappropriate to my audience).

Am I not supposed to read Charlotte's Web because Charlotte eventually dies and it opens with the threat of killing Wilbur the pig?


A Librarian is the unanimous voice of reason for everyone else to follow? I'd rather hear a Child Psychologist or even someone in Early Childhood Education voice their opinion. So slightly irrelevant from where I am standing. Another librarian can voice another opinion and so on. We don't do polls based on single peoples opinions. Amusing especially when I see it in bold print yearly in the papers that the literacy rate is at an all time low.

Of course, if I wanted the opinion of an Early Childhood Education major all I would have to do is walk over to my bedroom and wake up my significant other. She likes Harry Potter. Also, what does her expertise have to do with anything? Generally Early Childhood education covers babies to 2nd grade. Not the age group we've been discussing.

Amazingly, too, the school psychologist has never once come into my library demanding I remove the Harry Potter books.

[kelby_lake]

As for your comments on either of these writers' writing - if you wish to take the conversation there (as you seem to have been antagonizing most posters already about a rather personal interpretation of the text keep in mind), I would welcome it - but the point is, that is what should be debated if anything - if the books are no good, then we should criticize them on those grounds. As it is, neither you, or I have read the last one - you said yourself you hadn't read it, and I admit it - therefore, the question of its merits must be decided by those who have read it. From what I can tell, they weren't well written, but then again, taste is personal, so perhaps I am wrong.

I'd say that for YA, they are actually written quite well. Whilst they are not brilliant examples of literature, they're much better than most of the dross that seems to pass for YA lit these days.

The last novel is admittedly flawed- it's predominantly of interest to those who have read the other books. But they're fun novels and they're hardly going to corrupt young minds. Disney films have some dark subject matter. Most people I know watched Disney films as a child and they haven't had their 'innocence' stolen.

[mortalterror]

Disney? Dark? I was watching The Terminator when I was four. Please, don't raise our kids to be sissies.

[kelby_lake]

Disney? Dark? I was watching The Terminator when I was four. Please, don't raise our kids to be sissies.

I think it's good that the Disney films are dark. It means you can appreciate them as an adult as well as a child.

You should read the one-star reviews for Disney films on Amazon.com. They're hilarious- particularly those for Hunchback of Notre Dame:

http://www.amazon.com/Hunchback-Notre-Dame-Demi-Moore/product-reviews/B00005TN8K/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

None of the reviewers on Amazon.co.uk got stressed about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There's so much that is wrong with this Post that I dont know where to begin. Exposing children to porn is what you are basically instigating? I wasn't aware the rates of children watching pornography plummeted skywards. Show me data and have better taste next time about the subject matter. I wouldnt want my kids anywhere near your class. Enough said. Bad taste.

You misunderstood my post. I don't want to show kids porn (nor did I say I wanted to). There is a difference between sex education and porn. I'm saying that if kids are educated about sex, they will better understand porn when the inevitable occurs and they see it on the internet. They will be less likely to try and emulate what they see if they understand that porn isn't the norm. Without sex education, kids see porn and think "I should be doing this, I guess." This is not good.

And quit asking for data on everything. Are you really suggesting that with easy access to the internet in almost every household that kids watching porn hasn't risen? Are you serious? "Naked women" is probably the first search every 10-year-old-and-older boy makes at the first chance.

[AWritersWriter]

You misunderstood my post. I don't want to show kids porn (nor did I say I wanted to). There is a difference between sex education and porn. I'm saying that if kids are educated about sex, they will better understand porn when the inevitable occurs and they see it on the internet. They will be less likely to try and emulate what they see if they understand that porn isn't the norm. Without sex education, kids see porn and think "I should be doing this, I guess." This is not good.

And quit asking for data on everything. Are you really suggesting that with easy access to the internet in almost every household that kids watching porn hasn't risen? Are you serious? "Naked women" is probably the first search every 10-year-old-and-older boy makes at the first chance.

The Philosopher's Stone (Book 1)

Quirinus Quirrell
Unicorns

Chamber of Secrets (Book 2)

Nicolas and Perenelle Flamel
Basilisk

Prisoner of Azkaban (Book 3)

Buckbeak the hippogriff was executed, but then saved when Harry and Hermione went back in time.

Goblet of Fire (Book 4)

Bertha Jorkins
Frank Byce
Barty Crouch Sr.
Cedric Diggory

Order of the Phoenix (Book 5)

Sirius Black
Amelia Bones
Igor Karkaroff

Half-Blood Prince (Book 6)

Aragog
Albus Dumbledore
Hannah Abbott's Mother
Broderick Bode

Deathly Hallows (Book 7)

Hedwig
Mad-Eye Moody
Rufus Scrimgeour
Gregovitch
Dobby
Fred Weasley
Gellert Grindewald
Peter Pettygrew
Vincent Crabbe
Remus and Nymphadora Lupin
Little Colin Creevey
Severus Snape
Nagini the Snake
Bellatrix
Voldemort
Ted Tonks
Dirk Cresswell
Bathilda Bagshot
Charity Burbage

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_deaths Has more Descriptions and Final Lines

"They moved Voldemort’s body and laid it in a chamber off the Hall, away form the bodies of Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Colin Creevey, and fifty others who had died fighting him." - Page 391

"And Harry, with the unerring skill of the Seeker, caught the wand in his free hand as Voldemort fell backward, arms splayed, the slit pupils of the scarlet eyes rolling upward. Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snakelike face vacant and unknowing. Voldemort was dead, killed by his own rebounding curse, and Harry stood with two wands in his hand, staring down at his enemy’s shell." - 391

"Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's constreched arm and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart.
Bellatrix's glounting smile froze, her eyes seemd to bulge: For the tiniest space of time she knew what had happened, and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and Voldemord screamed." - 387

"He changed course, running at Bellatrix rather than Voldemort, but before he had gone a few steps he was knocked sideways.
"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU *****!" - GREAT LANGUAGE :goof:

"Fight! Fight! Fight for my Master, defender of house-elves! Fight the Dark Lord, in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!"

KILL KILL KILL IN THE NAME OF SALES :goof:

P.S Since I am The only one who is taking this discussion seriously, as you can see from the examples provided I won't waste my time responding more than one or twice a day from now on.

I read all the Replies and didn't see anything worth Replying to. I have provided sufficient proof which backs up my statements that seem to be so shocking. Best Quote Ever was, "I'd say that for YA, they are actually written quite well." I laughed and then read a few pages of Harry Potter and laughed again. Thanks for brightening up my day.

P.S Drunk Driving Awareness in Grade 4? Interesting...

And also, Mutatis please stop talking about Children and Pornography. I am really sickened by even reading posts that have those two things in the same post. Bad Taste :toetap05: Drop the issue and move on because no one here wants to hear about porn, children, snuff and whatever else you keep posting about. Thanks. Harry Potter is the current topic. Try talking about that.

"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU *****!" :party: Inspire The Youth Rowling :santasmil Haaaaaaaa

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And also, Mutatis please stop talking about Children and Pornography. I am really sickened by even reading posts that have those two things in the same post. Bad Taste Drop the issue and move on because no one here wants to hear about porn, children, snuff and whatever else you keep posting about. Thanks.

Wow, someone back me up here. I mean, this guy is dictating what you want to read. Some guy who has 22 posts on these forums thinks he knows the population better than anyone.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING CHILDREN WATCH PORN. The very idea that the two should never correspond, your total willing blindness to the FACT that children will encounter immoral subjects like death and sex in explicit and inappropriate ways just shows your complete disconnect from reality. Children will ENCOUNTER porn. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change it. I will not stop discussing these relevant issues because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

Plus, I find it extremely pompous to say you're the only one taking this conversation seriously, when it is becoming clearer and clearer that you are just a troll. You've insulted everyone who has posted in your little thread, congrats.

[AWritersWriter]

Wow, someone back me up here. I mean, this guy is dictating what you want to read. Some guy who has 22 posts on these forums thinks he knows the population better than anyone.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING CHILDREN WATCH PORN. The very idea that the two should never correspond, your total willing blindness to the FACT that children will encounter immoral subjects like death and sex in explicit and inappropriate ways just shows your complete disconnect from reality. Children will ENCOUNTER porn. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change it. I will not stop discussing these relevant issues because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

Plus, I find it extremely pompous to say you're the only one taking this conversation seriously, when it is becoming clearer and clearer that you are just a troll. You've insulted everyone who has posted in your little thread, congrats.

I am not dictating anything. I am sharing my opinion. Websters might help to distinguish the two.

Secondly, I posted proof which works in my favor with what I have been discussing. You sir, have not give me anything at all. Thats why my reply is curt.

And thirdly, advocating or promoting, who can say. But have better taste and drop the issue. You seem very stuck on the fact you perhaps shouldnt have discussed child pornography on a literature forum or for that matter anywhere. I hope the moderator cleans up your posts. I am tired of looking at the two words next to each other. Which seems to be the only recurring problem with your replies. Thanks.

P.S 22... I guess I haven't met the quota for the privilege to join this secretive society. Posting Hierarchy Haaa Reminds me of the posts from the other member. I read these books, you haven't "na-na-na-na-na-naaa!" Haaaa 23 now haa

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

because no one here wants to hear about porn, children, snuff and whatever else you keep posting about.

This is a statement of fact, not opinion.


Harry Potter is the current topic. Try talking about that.

Nice edit, adding that in later.


I read these books, you haven't "na-na-na-na-na-naaa!" Haaaa 23 now haa

One, you've stated several times that you haven't read these books, and I have never said whether I have or not. So, haaaaaa.

A moderator won't clean up my posts because there is nothing to clean up. If anyone should be reporting anyone, it's me who should be reporting you for writing libelous statements about me. I have not once said children should watch porn (oh no! those two words again! I hope I didn't offend you!). Show me a quote where I have.

Plus, you want some proof? Here. This is from http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php. Oh, but watch out! Those two words are next to each other again (from this nefarious "Safe Families" website, no less)! Note the bolded part, which backs up my comment on the consequences of children viewing pornography.


9 out of 10 children aged between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet, in most cases unintentionally (London School of Economics January 2002).

Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography: 11 years old (Internet Filter Review).

Largest consumer of Internet pornography: 12 - 17 year-old age group (various sources, as of 2007).

Adult industry says traffic is 20-30% children (NRC Report 2002, 3.3).

Youth with significant exposure to sexuality in the media were shown to be significantly more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 (Report in Pediatrics, April, 2006).

"Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions."
- U.S. Department of Justice, Post Hearing Memorandum of Points and Authorities, at l, ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (1996).

Also, learn proper grammar. You're on a literature forum, for God's sake.