Are the Harry Potter books encourageing children to read ?
or are these books and films reprehensible for
popularizing witchcraft and the occult to very young
children.
Printable View
Are the Harry Potter books encourageing children to read ?
or are these books and films reprehensible for
popularizing witchcraft and the occult to very young
children.
What's so bad about that? "witchcraft" due to silly kids these days, dressing up and having freaky blood drinking, voodoo ritual parties has painted a completely incorrect image of "witchcraft" and what it truly is aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by goldenbee
No matter what you read or what you watch or what you do, you will be exposed to some kind of thought or idea that will influence you and impact you in different ways. That's just how our minds work.
Ugh, i'm sorry but questions like that just.. bother me. It's so typical of human nature to take something and study the negatives of it and draw some odd conclusion from it. Only nutters would think that Harry Potter is a demonic series intent on unleashing the inner "witch" inside children. Ridiculous.
Did Lord of the Rings ever receive such critique? has any fantasy, for that matter?
Books free the mind.
like the person above said, it's for kids, why do we have to find something wrong with everything? I remember a newsletter going home when i was like 13 or 14. It listed all the reasons Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z, and Harry Potter were evil and therefore my mom shouldn't let that influence me. My mom read it and laughed. Harry Potter is a harmless book/movie, there is nothing wrong with it. Some people don't like Fantasy or don't like stories about magic, and that is your opinion, but to say others who do like Fantasy shouldn't be able to enjoy it is just asinine.
Harry Potter turned me into a vampire.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenbee
Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?
Any books that hold thousands of children captivated and have them so excited about reading aren't evil - it doesn't take a genius to work that one out. In fact, books like Harry Potter should be applauded. In today's society, a society of video games and the internet, books like Harry Potter are needed because it's their 'magic' which introduces the beauty of reading to a young and influential audience.
I agree with Adagio it is great that kids are reading, and these books are very long considering how young the kids are that are reading them. but in my opinion I don't like them. I had to read the first book for an English class when I was 16 and have an introduction of a few chapters, I read as much as I had to and than gave up. the only book I haven't finished.
HELGA YOU'RE NUTS!
Harry Potter sets my world on fire ;)
AGREED!!! :brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
honestly if you want to see a discussion on Harry Potter go back in this section of the forum a while and you will find a couple long threads... be forewarned though, there is not a very high opinion of Harry Potter on this forum... :p
Yes they are encouraging children to read, which is the factual aspect of your question. You only need to look at the launches of the books to see the excitement they induced.
The second part of your question is a matter of opinion, though what a work has fiction has to do with some supposed occult beats me. What witchcraft/ occult are you referring to? The romantic notion of witchcraft, the dancing acolytes and dubious ceremonies which are certainly a modern construction, or the ignorent fear-driven witchcraft that preys upon the vulnerable in less well off societies? Or are you perhaps referring to the historical trials where vulnerable women - usually - fell victim to local prejudice and fear?
This is why one shouldn't continue an already discussed topic - I already proved, on the old thread, that reading rates were down in the Harry Potter age bracket since its publication, so in truth, though the Potter encourages perhaps a couple kids to read Harry Potter, the general population has been steadily reading less and less since even before its publication, and the effects seen on the industry in terms of kids reading are negligible.
The act of actually reading doesn't justify reading - the justification for reading is that there is something worth getting from what you are reading - that is what one aught to discuss - quite simply, I have issues with Harry Potter, mainly because of its content, but also because of its popularity, which, as expected, has ebbed quite significantly already, without even the new film getting as much exposure here as Twilight got.
Seriously, when can the market accept a young-adult series that features female characters in the forefront again? They had some in the 80s and early 90s, but since then, it seems there are 100 bored-youth-becomes-hero movies and books every year.
Though I don't think they are responsible for promotting the occult in children (and would that be any worse than, for instance, the Jonas Brothers promoting Evangelical Christianity in their music? The fact that the corruption question turns to witchcraft, but isn't turned on "Christian values" with the same pitchfork and torch wielding is beyond me) but I do think it is a) too traditionally English, and reinforces the British class system (How in Hell, in the wizarding world, are there families who are poor (to the point where they can't buy their children new clothes). You would think, with all these powers, there wouldn't be poor wizards!) and also creates harmful models in terms of characters.
I think my biggest problem has to do with the construction of Gender in the texts - women are clearly, if we examine all the characters, in the sidelines - the idealized woman, the nervy housewife Mrs. Bennet style Mrs. Weasley - smarter and more sensible than her husband, yet, stays at home in the kitchen worrying about what is happening to everyone. The next most central female character, Hermione - a girl who is a) made fun of for her studiousness and ability (by even her friends), her parvenu claims to fame, and ultimately, despite all that, is forced into the sidelines so that Harry can save the day. Harry, when he does something smart, is praised nonstop - Hermione is made fun of, which, ultimately, is a cultural gender problem which is quite thoroughly rooted in attitudes before the 70s, which still appear even today.
The next female characters all seem minor - we have the Ron kids sister whose name I cannot quite remember right now, who supposedly functions as the love interest of the Harry kid in the later books, before comfortably settling into her mother's role at the stories climax, despite her professed talent at magic (come on, he's Harry potter?).
In truth, I cannot come up with one fantastic, forefronted female character, whose shown to have a strong will, and yet be independent from reliance on males. The Malfoy kid even has his female admirer beside him (can't remember her name either) to cheer him on, and supposedly there is an evil female girl (played by in the movie by Helena Bonham Carter) who is a villainized Medusa type character, whose laughs are perhaps silenced by the noble forces of good, (restoring women to the kitchens where they belong!). Certainly not the most interesting of books.
Lets be honest - the male depressed teenager loser character is so freaking dated, why can't we have a strong female character in young adult literature that doesn't always yield to her male friends, or isn't completely ignored by the public, and dismissed as too girly for males to read about? The Bridge to Teribithia perhaps attempted that - though, alas, we all know how that one ended.
But who knows - for a text at least in part modeled on the New Testament, it makes sense - The Virgin can have the kid, the Magdalene can serve the son, and cry over him, but when it comes down to it, you get the all sacrificing hero type guy, and his gang of apostles all sitting around taking a stab at the action, fighting off evils and sins and whatnot while the women sit back and watch from the sidelines.
I completely disagree. The act of reading is certainly good for anybody, regardless of the book. Growing up, I read a whole slew of good, okay, and terrible books. Regardless of if they were good, or if they were mentally challenging reads, they increased my vocabulary, and made me a better reader. If any book causes more people to go out and read (even Twilight, which I refuse to read and hate to hear about), than that is certainly a great thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Watching movies, television, playing video games - those all have the potential to increase one's vocabulary. Staying on Facebook, reading forums - those all can increase vocabulary - I often frequent Italian and French chatrooms, for instance, to increase my vocabulary, and profficiency with the language - people have been speaking well enough with minimal literacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
The only advantage text gives, is it teaches how to control text - it teaches one how to better read texts, and how to write them better (spelling included). But if there is nothing to worth writing about, or reading about, why bother. Reading for the sake that it is productive in teaching people how to read is a self defeating argument. The only possible argument could be that reading trash inspires people to read good books, and in that case, I'd have to say that I disagree that Potter does that - I think those who start with trash and move on to good books happen to be those who would move on to reading good books regardless of what trash they started with, whereas the bulk of Potterites will probably not end up moving on to great works, as shown by the rapidly dropping reading rates (which can be found on the other thread).
I've never read that thread, could you send me a link to this research? I've always assumed that Harry Potter books have gone UP in popularity?
At least if kids are reading Harry Potter they're not watching Spongebob and turning gay. :brickwall Parents take things too seriously.
The things I posted on the other one show declining rates in reading in general - as for popularity in the Potter - that is my mere speculation, but I did do some test cases before - as far as I can see though, the books remain abandoned in libraries, and the fans grown older, and grown bored - lets be honest, the first one came out in what, 98? That means the original audience, if they were 8, is now 19 or so, and the new generation has just taken to a new text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Well i'm part of the generation that grew up with them. I'll be 18 in a month. And i can tell you that no, feelings for the series have not changed. I mean.. we grew up with them. They were exciting and just.. fun to read, and they are partly responsible for my love of reading. They have, excuse the pun, a kind of magic about them. I suppose you could compare it to watching and rewatching your favourite old movie again, and again. It may not be the most well directed movie, the script may not be groundbreaking, but something about it is just... magical to you. I think that is J.K Rowling's gift. Ask anyone who grew up with the series like i did, and you will find that on occasion, like I do, we all go back and re read them, just to feel like we did when we were younger reading them. That feeling has never changed.
Also, the biggest numbers of libraries closed in englad happened in the last 10 years.
Reading is not special. Reading anything, even **** means litte. It does not develop the reader.
But Harry Potter does not represent just reading but marketing, and marketing often clouds other options, possible the worst problem. Harry should lead to Alice in the Wonderlands. If not, it is causing damage.
It's not just about marketing. Harry Potter is entertaining. I can see why it appeals to kids because it had the same appeal to me back when I read it, before the movies came out.
If people are so confused about why it appeals to people why don't they ask those who do enjoy it? instead of speculating.
but it is quite obvious why it appeals to people, as the books are entertaining to many young people... but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...
If we look at adults the romance genre is the bestselling in the world.. is reading Danielle Steele any more beneficial than watching TV? I would say no.. in fact, depending on what you are watching on TV, or the movie, I would say it is far less beneficial.. same with other uber-popular writers like Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, and so on...
what I'm trying to say here is that there is Literature out there that justifies reading... for children as well... there are many great children and youth writers, so why not read a Mark Twain instead, as it provides something inherently valuable to a young person... like JCamilo says you run into the problem that for the "Potter" generation the craze clouded over other options, as Harry Potterwas the only book worth reading, the only one people wanted.. and how is that beneficial, if instead of picking up Alice In WOnderland, Huckleberry Finn, Oliver Twist, etc, kids instead pick up Harry Potter...
the argument that Harry Potter is good because it gets people reading, and starts them into better works is silly, for as JBI said, those who progress into better Literature, most likely would have done so anyways, and for the rest it is just the popular book of the time.. just an anomaly as after Harry Potter the vast majority slip back into reading nothing at all, as shown by the fact that reading rates (even with JK Rowling around) are still dropping..
or just actually read it before they judge. The majority of the people who do not like harry in this forum admittedly have not read the books but see it as "beneath them"Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Okay see, I have a problem with this. I could say the exact same thing about a favourite book of yours. I could say that about any book that isn't a book I personally like. I could pick up any book and say that it isn't beneficial to your, to me, to anyone. It's a matter of opinion, and at, I dunno.. 12, a kid is going to find reading Harry Potter a lot more beneficial than what you or I are probably reading now.
What constitutes "beneficial" reading anyway? remember that we're talking about CHILDREN who read Harry Potter, the young ones at least, at their age what else can you expect them to get out of a book? If they find it entertaining, if it stimulates their imagination and if it makes them hungry for other books, then it is a job well done. I often read simply for entertainment, and I find it extremely beneficial because it eases my mind, helps me when I can't sleep and calms me down when I need to be calm.
"Beneficial reading" is up for interpretation. I find a lot of books that people read for language, structure, themes, whatever it may be, are extremely tedious, long, boring and great at giving people headaches.
What about His Dark Materials?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As for "beneficial" reading I'd say Harry Potter is very beneficial to a ten-year old child. It preaches good morals but without the silly religious allegory. Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't it cover prejudice too - you know with the muggles, pure bloods and what not? It is also very exciting for a young child. There need to be no more benefits than excitement really.
Not only kids Lim parents love reading these books with their kids I would have thought that was no mean feat. For the record to those that thought the Harry Potter train was not moving Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince isn killing it at the box office (here in Australia at least I am not sure about the rest of the world). I haven't seen the movie yet but I will be seeing it(after school holidays:lol:). I love the whole series and I think I always will.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Sorry for the double post but can you explain what damage Harry Potter is causing?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
And speaking the all-sacrificing hero guy -Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Lily Potter, though not always in the forefront, is - especially in later books - a character who always seems to be there, in the shadows, and who has a particularly strong will, and she is the first to be all-sacrificing, before her son. She fought alongside her husband, James, rather than behind him. Behind the whole story of Harry is Lily's story, and so I'd say she carries a pretty huge role. As for Hermione Granger, as a young girl I related to her. Not all girls can be strong and fiery - some of us can turn out to be a little socially inept when we're burying ourselves within the pages of a good book. Hermione overcame that, and hey, I took the journey with her.
[THERE ARE HUGE SPOILERS HERESCROLLSCROLL]
Hermione, unlike the boys, does go back to Hogwarts and finish her seventh year. "Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws." - J.K. Rowling http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotte...ult.aspx?sec=3
[SPOILERS END]
And since you seem interested in the subject, JBI, look into Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials - Lyra Belacqua is a wonderfully strong-willed young heroine. In Dragon's Milk, a book meant for even younger audiences, Kaeldra. Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quartet series? Or how about Neil Gaiman's Coraline? Jill and Aravis from The Chronicles of Narnia? Moving away from fantasy, Catherine, Called Birdy, by Karen Cushman. Island of the Blue Dolphin? Anne from the Anne of Green Gables series of books gets married and has children, but never loses her spirit or wit. As for 'too girly for guys to read about' I know plenty men who have read some of these books, and enjoyed them. I think girls are guilty of not reading 'boyish' books too - I know I look at books in the young adult section like the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson - and pretty much ignore them completely.
I could also relate with Harry in the books. Sure, I don't have to worry about boy things - whatever those are - but in The Order of the Phoenix when he was angry and hurt, "depressed" some called it (and rightfully so, for time he was going through), what teenager, boy or girl, hasn't been through that?
JBIGrown older, but not bored. I went to the opening showing, and I'll you this much, the same friends I had when those book came out were just as wild for them. It's like seeing an old friend again - sure, you've both changed, but the love that was there remains there, with the memories. Since I've read Harry Potter, I certainly have read more classics (not as a result of, no), but it doesn't make me bored of Harry Potter. I can switch between Dostoevsky and Rowling in a breath and find meaningful things for myself in both. I'm just out for a nice, fulfilling read. Maybe Rowling isn't someones cup of tea (you never know 'til you try it)- that's alright. We all have different tastes.Quote:
The things I posted on the other one show declining rates in reading in general - as for popularity in the Potter - that is my mere speculation, but I did do some test cases before - as far as I can see though, the books remain abandoned in libraries, and the fans grown older, and grown bored - lets be honest, the first one came out in what, 98? That means the original audience, if they were 8, is now 19 or so, and the new generation has just taken to a new text.
Now, to the main point. Sorry it took so long to get here:
Like limajean, I believe "beneficial reading" is up to interpretation too.... Well, maybe not so much. For some people - children, I speak of, mainly - this is not mindless reading. The wheels in their brains are turning, and they're staring wide-eyed down at the pages or up at the reader in absolute awe (I've seen it, I used to work at a bookstore). They get excited, they bounce a little. They don't know what's beyond the next page! It's an adventure- an adventure beyond the concrete and iron world we live in now, and who are we to say that isn't beneficial to them? We could certainly argue that video games do the same thing. But in video games the world is laid out before us - a landscape the character being played must go through, stage by stage, game over after game over. With books, such as Harry Potter, our minds must do more of the work - the worlds become our own - the authors provide the words, the details, and we must translate and paint the picture ourselves. Limajean may picture Hogwarts entirely different than I did. There may be a certain part in the story that is THAT much more vivid to her because she attached with it an emotion of her own, found something she could relate it to. We're creating memories in our mind, that much more real and vivid because we didn't pull them out of a TV screen.
"But there are also other and more profound 'escapisms' that have always appeared in fairytale and legend. There are other things more grim and terrible to fly from than the noise, stench, ruthlessness, and extravagance of the internal-combustion engine. There are hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death. And even when men are not facing hard things
such as these, there are ancient limitations from which fairy-stories offer a sort of escape, and old ambitions and desires (touching the very roots of fantasy) to which they offer a kind of satisfaction and consolation. Some are pardonable weaknesses or curiosities: such as the desire to visit, free as a fish, the deep sea; or the longing for the noiseless, gracious, economical flight of a bird, that longing which the aeroplane cheats, except in rare moments, seen high and by wind and distance noiseless, turning in the sun: that is, precisely when imagined and not used."
-Tolkien, Essay On Fairy-Stories
In stories like Harry Potter, we are able to, in a sense, give words new meaning - our own meaning. How is this not to be treasured? We're all readers here. Isn't there a reason you return to the same book again and again, something that came to you before you knew what 'prose' even meant, or 'metaphor' or 'imagery'?
To the original poster:
The wizards and witches of Harry Potter are very different from the crowd you're thinking of. And even then, they're imitating Neo-Pagans, who are also commonly misjudged, thanks to that crowd. The characters of the Harry Potter-verse fight are some of the most wonderful characters you'll meet in a young adult fantasy novel - the good guys (your main characters) stand stoutly against the bad guys (your villains), and there's even a bit of gray (That One Guy). If you're asking because of your children - don't be afraid. They may run around waving sticks and pretending their wands, but they'll also learn some valuable lessons about friendship and never giving up.
Hell yeah! A Harry Potter throw down!
Yes, in the most literal sense the appeal of Harry Potter is entertainment, but so is the appeal of ALL literature and art. (see this post and this post). If you're not enjoying the literature you're reading then you're probably reading it for the wrong reasons (i.e. someone told you that you should).Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Looking at the work more specifically than just the ubiquitous quality of entertainment, the appeal of Harry Potter is the the world-building. You get an idealized British culture reimagined with magic that contrasts perfect a sense of strangeness and wonderment with familiar features. We follow them through school, commerce, banks, transportation, sporting events, dances, bathrooms, cafeterias, etc. These ordinary settings and experiences are transformed through the magic and mythology to be strange, unsettling, and unique so that we witness what we normally take for granted with fresh eyes. It is both familiar and strange at the same time.
The same could be said for its themes of race, love, family, and friendship. The obvious theme that embodies the qualities I described above is the racial one (the conflict between mudbloods and pure bloods). From the reader's viewpoint there is nothing different about them as they both can perform magic so the conflict seems arbitrary. The binary of Muggles who cannot perform magic and those who can, which is a real difference, only further emphasizes the arbitrariness of this form of racism within the Wizarding Community. It allows children and readers to see how little difference there really is between people with so-called imagined differences. It uses it world-building to force us to confront old themes and conflicts in new ways and see them with fresh eyes.
Basically the books explore the deeper issues that affect teens and function much like any other literary book. This isn't to say it lacks elements to complain about: no gay characters, a whitewashing and flattening of the characters of color (although in Rowling's defense she at least attempts to include characters of color), sometimes not featuring the women as prominently as they should in roles outside of domesticity (except for Hermione whose detractions critics greatly exaggerate). Still, I can think of lots of celebrated books that have these same problems so those certainly aren't grounds to dismiss the Harry Potter books.
This is an extremely privileged position. Tell that to someone who is illiterate and cannot even read a newspaper to find a job or a basic memo at work or an invitation to a family gathering or a bill or notice of eviction, that reading has no beneficial value in and of itself. You take the skills of reading for granted since you possess them and its probably second-hand to you.Quote:
but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...
It's not "adults" who read heavily into the romance genre; it's generally women. Also, you give no reasons to support your claim that reading Danielle Steele isn't as beneficial as watching TV. Take a writer like Paulo Coelho who you mention. He is extremely comforting and shares a basic theme of "You can live your dreams if you only try." Now you might not agree with the theme, but he is imparting something to his no doubt angsty bourgeoisie audience that is meaningful to them. It's a kind of fiction as self-help.Quote:
If we look at adults the romance genre is the bestselling in the world.. is reading Danielle Steele any more beneficial than watching TV? I would say no.. in fact, depending on what you are watching on TV, or the movie, I would say it is far less beneficial.. same with other uber-popular writers like Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, and so on...
Having actually worked in a library with young adults and children during the Twilight craze instead of just speculating with opinion like everyone else, it might blow your mind to learn that many of the Twilight people read other YA books and sometimes even "Great" literature. I know crazy!Quote:
what I'm trying to say here is that there is Literature out there that justifies reading... for children as well... there are many great children and youth writers, so why not read a Mark Twain instead, as it provides something inherently valuable to a young person... like JCamilo says you run into the problem that for the "Potter" generation the craze clouded over other options, as Harry Potterwas the only book worth reading, the only one people wanted.. and how is that beneficial, if instead of picking up Alice In WOnderland, Huckleberry Finn, Oliver Twist, etc, kids instead pick up Harry Potter...
It's not an either/or proposition. There is nothing stopping someone from reading Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter.
JBI has no evidence to back up this assertion, unless he has magically gained the power to view all of the possible alternative futures of every single individual on the planet. As for a counter argument, I'll use anecdotal. I didn't start reading "Great" literature until college; at least, not of my own volition. Before that I read Goosebumps, Fear Street, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, and some other fantasies. I eventually went on to read "Great" literature. Nevertheless, I am not entirely sure I would've had I not read those other books.Quote:
the argument that Harry Potter is good because it gets people reading, and starts them into better works is silly, for as JBI said, those who progress into better Literature, most likely would have done so anyways, and for the rest it is just the popular book of the time..
The "damage" is not caused by Harry Potter per si, but for the industry that explores HP. There will be always a popular book, a fashionable book in every generation. But there wont be always books (Potter, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, etc) who are central for the industry, however the marketing aspect is dominating the first option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I do not deny that someone who reads HP can read anything else. My twin sisters do read HP. They also Guimaraes Rosa, Homero, Poe, Stevenson, Lewis Carroll, Lord Byron, Emily Dickinson, etc. Meaning basically they are free and like to assault my own library. But they have the privilegie of having me close by. They did not became a reader because of HP.
To claim that Harry Potter helps to build up new readers we must show evidences that readers of Harry Potter are turning into readers of other books. I do not see such evidence. As JBI said there is really evidences that the number of readers, specially after the university, decreases. Not really in the USA, but a few months Guardian posted a research showing that the number of libraries closed in the last ten years was the greatest number of the history. A research showed in Brazil that the generation born under conforting Paulo Coelho (I am being sarcastic, he just lies) stop reading after 25 years, the average number of books read by a brazilian is 2/year, only 6% of the population read the same book twice, and only 45% can locate a public bibliotheca (and according to the governament, only about 600 brazilians cities have not a single bibliotheca). Obviously, Paulo Coelho did not helped to create a nation of readers.
Ok, I give J.K.Rowling some credit. Paulo Coelho is a unethical individual, hoping to live with his own ego. I have no evidence that Rowling do such things and she writes better than Paulo Coelho. Maybe now that she is rich, she can be free and put some extra effort on writing and create something anew (Harry Potter is not new, even his design is too similar to Neil Gaiman Tim Hunter) and effort while writing is not writting more words but better words. Because here lies the difference: there is levels of readers. Basic readers that can deal with the vocabulary. Readers who can manipulated not just the words but their combinations. Readers who can think with the analogy and the references from other works. All of them enjoy reading, of course. But the third level of reader wont be "thrilled" with the first level. And of course, nobody needs to be a super-reader or something. But obviously this means there is this level of text and writing. I would say that when the focus is on books which enterteimeint is the great excuse, the text is simple, the formation of other levels of reading is damaged and those writers who deal with those upper levels abandoned. And those writers sometimes can appeal to a first level reader. Obviously, I am a snobby elitist.
A final note, I would never say that Harry Potter would create new writers. What create new writers is education (family and school). There is enough books in the marketing to appeal to anyone. If wasnt Potter, it would be some other book. It is giving freedom and showing the different options, paths, etc. It is creating a familiarity with the book and its surroundings (I hate when I enter in a library and I had to bypass the walls of best-sellers who are placed in the first place to the unaware can fall for the first and most famous new books), it is telling that putting a book back is not a dire crime, it is showing other forms have also some vallue, etc.
In a sense it does, but look at the nature of the so called magical world - people are born magical - what could be more racist than a culture built on a system of "I'm special and you are not." There may be "muggle loving" wizards, like the red headed guy's dad, but ultimately, from my understanding, the relationship seems little better than master to his dog - the inferior muggles who have all sorts of quirks just don't cut it - they are made to be ridiculous. Lets be honest - the bulk of the Potter books are about schooling - achieving grades, becoming the best Wizard/Witch (though it should be Warlock/Witch, but someone cannot read properly) possible. Where is there room for a muggle there - achievement is gained through competence with magical abilities - whether it be flying brooms, casting spells, growing magical plants, or using magical charms - there is no room for an unmagical person within that diegesis - even the "less gifted" wizards are ridiculed within the book - so perhaps there are those who take an interest in the muggle, but the muggle is always seen as something to take an interest in, the same way a bourgeois English gent takes interests in horses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adagio
I've read the first from His Dark Materials, and though it is interesting, it fits more with the first two Potter books, as being for around 9 year olds (whereas book 3 I would place around 12 year olds in terms of marketing, and book 4 and up around 14-15 in terms of marketing), and also, I found it a bit lacking in terms of character development, but perhaps I didn't read far enough, as, truth be told, children's literature is a little bit too young for me - I'm far too cynical.
. . . Except a Muggle would never be invited to go to Hogwarts because in the story the Muggles exist separately from the Wizarding World for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
For the most part the two societies are separate entities (with their own elite hierarchies and governments) and leave each other alone. It has more the qualities of two separate countries who rarely interact than a relation of master to dog. I find your analogy completely inaccurate.
It's true in the books that occasionally the magic world interacts with the Muggle world (such as erasing memories and the Minister of Magic discussing the situation with the Prime Minister of Britain), but the former is less about controlling the Muggle population and more about protecting the secret existence of the Wizarding Community, while the latter was only during an act of war that affected the Muggle world. For the most part the two societies seem to ignore each other. The interest of Mr. Weasley in Muggles seems more the fascination of someone looking at a different and exotic culture than a horse breeder (it is true that one could see a racial component in this given European imperial history); nevertheless, it never really comes off that way in tone and his interest always seems more comical than elitist or domineering or mocking.
just flipping by the website, some of the fans of the book even came to similar conclusions as I did:Quote:
Hermione, unlike the boys, does go back to Hogwarts and finish her seventh year. "Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws." - J.K. Rowling http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotte...ult.aspx?sec=3
but who knows, her words do, in a sort of idealized way, paint the same picture I was trying to uncover:Quote:
Ryan Love: From your fans at http://www.thesnitch.co.uk/. Weren’t we supposed to see Ginny display powerful magical abilities in Deathly Hallows and find out why it’s significant that she’s the seventh child? Was her main role in the books only to be Harry’s love interest?
As promised, Ginny, despite as Ms. Rowling professes, despite all her talent, ends up first the love interest, than becomes her mother, while Harry is off fighting the evil doers, she stays at home and, like her mother, tends the house and worries, and discusses trivial things like sports, when quite clearly, she is perhaps just as talented, or more talented than her male counterparts - what is Rowling suggesting then? That this is the ideal form of family - the woman tries the career for a few years, before ultimately settling back into domesticity.Quote:
J.K. Rowling: Thank you! I’ve already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department. Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn’t mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years). Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner... After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!
This is the wizarding world keep in mind, she could have done whatever she wanted to the characters' futures - yet there are still poor people, and people whose job it is to stay at home and cook dinner, and people bound to pointless jobs - it seems that everything the magic can do, which is everything, amounts to nothing, as they never seem to have the ability to break free from the shackles of British Class-based society - though, they do have those little elf guys for the rich people.
I think you are far too critical JBI. Why can't you keep in mind that Harry Potter wasn't written for you? You are over-analysing far too much. If a child reads HP and enjoys it, who are you to undermine that? It may not be my chosen reading material, but I'm an adult, as I think you are. I'm not going to sneer at someone's choice. You are fond of quoting suppositions about the decline of reading and claiming they are facts. I am speaking as a School Librarian, and if a book grabs the attention of my students, I will not knock it, and them, by declaiming what rubbish it is. For a child who doesn't read, the fact that they want to come in and get the books is brilliant. Okay, there's hype surrounding the books, but no-one is forcing them with their arm up their backs to read it. It's engaging their interest. Lighten up.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As for your input on His Dark Materials, there is no equation with the Potter books, other than that they are written for Children/Young Adults. Pullman is a better writer than Rowling, but that's not the point. Pullman is dealing with all sorts of metaphysical/philosophical/religious questions, which a 9 year old probably wouldn't get. He writes a great story though, which engages. As for lacking character development, well, you may think so, but the first of the trilogy won the Carnegie of Carnegie's not long ago, basically voted the best book in the last 70 years of the award, but what do Children's Librarians know about children's books? No wonder you are so hard on Potter if you think HDM is for 9 year olds. You obviously don't read much children's literature as you state in your last sentence, so give the kids a break, and stop belittling any attempts to get them reading.
But why he can not over-analyse it. To me it seems like he deals with all books this way, why he can not be free to do as he please? Just because the results he produces are negative?
I am actually in the demographic of the original audience - I was not even functionally literate in English when these books started coming out - in 98 I was right in the targeted market - Schoolastic, the Publisher that handles the North American English sales, even came to my school one day with books to sell, and had nice fresh copies of Harry Potter that they were promoting - if anything, I'd say the books were written for me, even more so than for many of the fans on these forums, who were born a couple years after me - hell, my elementary school teacher even read one of the books out loud to the class.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Because sometimes people just want to read and enjoy a book, without having every comma, full-stop and sentence ripped to shreds, particularly when the book which is getting said treatment is supposed to be an enjoyable adventure entertainment for children. We don't have to have a lecture on literary criticism for every book ever mentioned. I know this is a literature forum, but to take apart a book aimed at children, and try to demolish it, and those who enjoy it, is tedious in the extreme, not to mention patronising.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I don't really understand why there is such a great attempt to prove that Harry Potter is a trite piece of trash. A lot of people hate Jane Austen. I hate Twilight. Most people hate Charles Dickens. For all of those there is a group of people that consider it some sort of high art. Art is completely subjective, and there is no way to prove that Harry Potter is not a good book, so why the discussion?
Let the people who like it continue their obsession, and others can continue their own obsession with their own tastes. Just because one likes something, does not make it good.
Wait, so people want to enjoy reading in a way and because that other person is not free to read in her own way?
And I may be wrong, this is not a place where people read books, but discuss about books. I do not imagine anyone not reading a book because of JBI (well, maybe, since he is telling about his dark past, he did killed some boys and girls who dared to read Harry potter) even because he does not advocate it, rather a change in the way of reading?
Being a book aimed to kids must increase the responsability of the criticism, after all the kids are the future readers. Alice survives the most crytical analyses, why not harry potter ?
Sorry, but if someone do not want to live with JBI criticism they just need to move on. But telling he should not do as he likes, it is as wrong as if he was telling people to not post or write about the books he dislikes.
He doesn't like Harry Potter because he has never read Harry Potter. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Actually, the marketing by the last one was intended for adults and children - they even printed with more "mature" covers on the first run specifically targeted for older readers. The last three books, are written, if such "levels exist", at a 13-14 year old level, but are geared toward 16-17 year olds and up, and marketed as such - the big hype on the release of the last one was "who will die" keep in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Even so though, I even quoted a child reader (supposedly, though he very well could be 40 years old in his parent's basement or whatever) who came to the same conclusions I did - it's just that when I do it, I don't assume the text to be scripture before I start cutting.
Of course, perhaps I have drifted off topic, in the sense that my opinions moved away from discussing how these books may or may not promote reading and or witchcraft and the occult, to examining what other things they seem to promote, which was perhaps a personal digression - but I don't think that warrants a comment that "if you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all". Perhaps someone might get something out of the dialectics between me and DrkShadow or whomever.
And I don't think I tried to destroy Pullman, but ultimately his texts are children's literature, that is why I tried to say that they weren't exactly what I was talking about, when I said I was looking for a good forefronted popular strong female heroine to stand in culturally and be accepted by both males and females in the young adult bracket - His Dark Materials are in a different age bracket - the closest thing I can come up with, from searching my mind constantly, for one that was generally well absorbed into the popular culture, was Sailor Moon, who lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about, strangely enough, but who, to me, seems to have been the last one that absorbed a generation (though I am told her appeal didn't really take in the US as it did in Canada).
My real questions were geared at this concept - we are able to begin asking whether these books promote witchcraft in children, and that is able to form itself into a sort of debate over "Christian values" and whatnot, but no one seems to be discussing the opposite, whether these "Christian", or "conservative" values that I argue are in the book have a negative affect on children - it seems somewhat ridiculous actually, all things considered, that people are able to, for instance, criticize Judy Bloom for her "moral conscience", but won't turn the knife on conservative children's literature, which I argue this text clearly falls into - the same vein from Lewis downward.