Printable View
Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?
You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.
The one I saw was from an article in the New York times. I could try and dig for it if you would like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
edit, it took 5 seconds, I unfortunately got the source wrong, it was from the San Fransisco Chronicle, Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGN7R0Q1N1.DTL
Note, the article enjoys a lot of bias, it featuring a different subject than this thread, and does not bring into question the quality of these works. All quotes referring as much can be taken to mean absolutely nothing, since I don't think a spokesperson from Scholastic has any right to comment on the books.
Also, stick this one in there using, I think, the same study. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/artic...s_only_so_far/
In other words, Harry Potter has lead to 325milion odd books being read, and perhaps a couple more, but nothing seriously important to the development of literacy and readership. This is also assuming that people who read Potter would not have read other books, another logical slip made by the Potter-Loving press. Who is to say that the readers who still read of the bunch would not have done so if they had not read Potter?
you like your maccy dees dont you! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I don't think children are capable of distinguishing between good and bad literature in the sense that you are implying, however they are capable of telling a good story from a bad story, and Harry Potter is clearly a good story, well written for children.
The fact that the 'original' readers of Potter are now 18 does not make a difference. Harry Potter is still a children's book, 10 year olds are still reading it. Some of those 'original' readers will have remained loyal to the series but with any luck they will be reading more challenging novels as well
Is it a children's book? Perhaps the first 3, but as I hear, they get "darker" as they go, and feature more "complex" relationships and themes. I find that the true indicator of periodpieceness, the fact that the book evolves with its original readers, meaning consecutive readers do not enjoy the same growth feeling. As it has been seen, from my above posts, They are not reading more challenging books, they are simply not reading. You imply that they go on to better stuff, or different stuff as you will put it, but the data gathered by researchers smacks you with a false in your face.
A nice little tid-bit here. I have seen a few of the movies, and I find it rather "bloody brilliant" to use her cliché, that you can literally here the male characters' voices drop an octave in between the films.
The point is THEY ARE CHILDREN'S BOOKS!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
This is all I am implying - to judge Harry Potter as anything other than a children's book is completely irrelevant
But you are right I do believe that there is no good and bad judge of art. It is all subjective. I am a philistine :D
ps thanks for the link :)
Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.
Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Right back at you. You self-distructed your argument in your last sentence. Rather than offer proof of anything, you have essentially said, yes they have matured with their readers (who if they were 8 are now 18, no longer children and now teenagers) and b)"But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise." right back at you son. You have given no proof beyond your word, whereas you acknowledge my statements as being true, and also acknowledge that these books are being marketed at older audiences. Are they still Children's literature, or is it you who are telling yourself a falseness to buff up your already declining argument. You essentially have said nothing beyond "I think children like these books." Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart (yummy intentional alliteration, just for emphasis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
I think it rather ignorant of you to deny that the books are no longer kids books, when, as I hear, the death toll in the last book is quite high, where main characters drop like flies. How many other books feature not only enemies that kill good guys, but also good guys who kill greyish baddies? I've also been told that the term ""bitch" is also used in the last volume. I trust that is within the children's literature bracket.
When half a book is donated to coming of age relationship conflict, and detailing about snogging in the bathroom and whatnot, I cannot see how you can argue for these being children's books.
If people think HP is a great series of books them good on them I say, I will declare my interest I love the books. Books that are termed literature are not for everyone and you should not be made to feel that you are less than for liking any sort of books. I am not sure how many people have read the series but surely we can not all be wrong. And for the record I love a great literary read also
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts resorting to inflammatory remarks will be deleted without any further notice.
You have read all seven Harry Potter novels then? Or are you just basing your argument on what other people have said?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I will concede I have not read the last two books and I will concede they have cross-over appeal, but I refuse to accept they are not primarily children's books. The fact that Harry matures is a condition of the series and therefore the content will change to reflect this - however, what you are implying is, that the readership of Harry Potter depends on the age of Harry Potter in each book. Whether the latest two books are teen novels - maybe. But they are not adult books (I'll have to borrow your trick and base this on what other people have told me) and therefore my argument (or 'silly sophism') still stands, to judge them as anything other than children's books is an exercise in irrelevance.
There are so many terrible books out there (see Martin Amis, Melvin Burgess, etc), which I would rather spend my time arguing about! Good debate though JBI :)
harry potter is not just a children's series, it's a damn good children's series! the last book in my opion was a huge anticlimax with many predicatabilites along the way but then again i was reading it as a 21 year old so it is unfair for my to slander a book that is aimed at those of a younger age bracket. the adult covers are only for those who feel ashamed to sit on the train reading a childrens book, i'd be more ashamed to be reading the daily mail or just sat there feeling bored!
I've read a couple of them, The first 2, about half of the third, half of the fourth, most of the 5th, and about 1/3 from each the last two volumes. I tend to skip pages that progress only plot, and not character. Of course, I was not reading with my usual pencil, but I feel I have grasped enough to make fair comments. And no, I did not read the books for enjoyment, or even because I really wanted to; The first two were read to my grade 6 class, out loud, by my teacher to the whole class, right about the time when the second book was published (yes, I know, 10 year olds if you can believe it, though I appreciate my teacher's enthusiasm for literature). The rest was read over the past couple of years, simply for the sake of conversation. I substituted the skipped pages with plot summaries, available in depth on-line.
My personal impression from the works, was that they weren't too bad compared to whats out there (with mediocre literature everywhere, they are better than most) however I will not say they are worthy of their status. I'll try to bring a few more viewpoints into the argument;
Marxist: The book features many complex Marxist components, many unintentional, but nonetheless brought in through the subconscious actions, or accidental actions of the author. The first is the struggle between rich and poor. I find it somewhat despicable how she handles the relationship between the Weasley family, and the Malfoy family. The Weasley family is always surrounded by symbols of lower-classness. For instance, at the beginning of every book, where Ron is announced, as if ceremonially, Rowling feels it is necessary to reinstate that they are poor. Another example of this is the red hair which is always described by them, perhaps alluding to a racial divide, being that many people of Celtic origin have read hair. The Weasley's are, I would argue, a representation of the middle class, siding with the "filthy" lower class. This is seen with their "leftist" politics towards the so called muggles (I would argue, representing the lower class) and their exile from aristocratic circles (I.E the Slytherin bunch). Malfoy's family is portrayed as being extremely aristocratic, enjoying all the luxuries of being wealthy. By default, all the rich people seem to be piled into that house, creating a marxist divide amongst the wizards. But wait, where are all the low class unmagical people placed? Oh, in the dump, for sure, it being clear that their deaths are insignificant in the book. The muggle family, the Dursleys are the worst sort of people. Everywhere they are portrayed as stupid, useless, and often cruel, to the point where the wizard must use magic to keep them in line. There are of course those that get away, the Mud-bloods (an essential synonym for parvenus) who are rejected from the magic world, for being mud-bloods, and must make do with being poor people in Hogwarts, with no friends. Even Hermione, the smartest in her year, is forced to be ridiculed, not for being poor mind you, but rather for being too smart, too over-achieving, too bright. It is as if they old money people (this even includes Harry and Ron by the way) for seeking to achieve more than them.
Now of course, there are more examples, but that is just a basic idea of how one can unwind these books, and find the most trivial situations in a society that is not only snotty and self-righteous, but also racist, featuring only (with the exception of 2 mud-blood black people) all white Christians.
That isn't all of it of course, but I must leave that for now, there are other angles.
Religious. It can be determined that Harry Potter is in many ways a religious allegory. The ending is the most definite clue, it being a direct biblical allusion. But why should a reader, who, not being a Christian, like many people aren't, be taught Christian morality at such a despicable level. Why should I get a biblical lesson, when all I want is to read a book? Why should one suffer another C.S. Lewis (nice use of biblical language there)? The answer is, these books are written for the simple, to act the same way Lewis's work does. To opiate the population. This again ties back in with the Marxist angle. If one is to be a true Harry fan, as is deemed "cool" by many, one must, therefore, be a believer in this sort of allegory, a sort of quasi bible by someone who doesn't understand a 10th part of the book. It is insufferable, it is cruel almost, and it is preaching a value system that should not be taught in this manner.
Part 2, Gender Studies.
The book features, in many ways, a conflict between boys and girls. It is clear, without even drawing many comparisons, that Mrs. Rowling's work is not what we may call Feminist literature. The work features women submitting to men everywhere. The ideal woman, Mrs. Weasley, is a stay at home mom, who is nervy, and frets over the most trivial things. She breaks down constantly. The fourth novel features a scene of direct anti-feminist, the ball, which forces the female characters to await the gratuitously accepted invitation from their male friends, in order to have the privilege to attend a ball, where they will be gocked at by their peers for being the most attractive, or ridiculed for not being attractive. The whole society of the wizards employs a pre-second-wave-feminism mentality, involving women, who are smarter than their peers mind you, giving over on the side lines, facilitating but gaining no credit, achieving, but being ridiculed for it, and basically being forced to become a Mrs. Weasley. The ugliness of a female character is always pointed out thoroughly. The ugliness of a male character is always made sympathetic, especially in the case of one Neville Longbottom (who by name is supposed to be laughed at) who is deemed a tragic hero by many definitions contrasted with Hermione, who until the ball-room scene in the fourth novel, is always surrounded with ugliness imagery with regard to her appearance (there are others, I use her out of necessity of memory). It is without a doubt clear, with characters like Professor McGonagall (sp?) who are imbued with the characteristics of Margret Thatcher, and characters like Fleur Delacour (sp?) who are failures though very pretty, that Mrs. Rowling's perception of females is not only way out of wack, but at times even offensive. It would appear that she is a product of a mentality driven by the class system in Britain, combined with personal experience as a single mother, and experience as a proletariat, and that these feelings create a sympathetic Mrs. Weasley as the alfa-female, an unjust bias in the scheme of social impact. These views are not only out-dated, but also harmful. They set the world in a time bubble back to around 1950 or so, where it was the womans "job" to have dinner waiting on the table, and a clean house for her husband to walk into. Why should females be subject from such a young age, as you, my critics argue, to such conditioning. Would it not be better to teach a child about achievement, about feminism, about the fact that there are more options than to dress up nicely and perhaps be asked to the ball? After all, we don't need any Ginny Weasleys walking around waiting for whatever will take them, despite the fact that they, as Rowling points out, have the potential to be even greater than their male counterparts. It is clear to me at least that the arch female-villain is one Bellatrix Lestrange, a basic sado-masochistic slave to one Lord Voldemort, who, like every female in the book, simply rides along in the shadows of men.
Another angle I would like to stab at is the femininity of male characters. To me at least, Harry, seems to be a girl trapped in a male body. It is obviously clear that Rowling doesn't know much about being an adolescent boy, her never having experienced such things, but unlike other authors (such as the Emily Bronte) she is unable to interpret or pretend. Her character is imbued with female stereotypical emotions, and experiences none of the male emotions associated with growing up. His romantic exploits are those of Rowling herself, transferred over to a melodramatic male character, who unlike other boys in that situation, acts the way a stereotypical female character would. I would love to see a psychoanalytical critic's take on this book, especially surrounding male characters.
Now, there are far more arguments, and a lot more points I can add. I am just going through my memory bank and digging up chapters in my head of the book, and trying to apply them. Had I re-read, or not skipped many parts of the series, I am sure I could name more. But the point remains, that these books, from these angles, all seem quite hurtful. I am not the only person who has thought of these things, so I know it isn't the fancy of my mind nitpicking, but rather valid observations picked through the phrases and chapters I remember.
JBI, That was a great example of the deficiencies of Marxist literary analysis; although your admitted lack of familiarity also came into play.
I wonder though, you mentioned in your mention of the religious reading that you thought that the values should not be presented not be presented in that manner? Why?
The gender analysis has the most potential, and I think that is what Rowling was thinking about most of the time. After reading whichever one Ginny was held prisoner in that she and Harry would end up together.
I think that the easiest way to regard the series is as a modern set of myths. I see a great deal of parallel between Potter and any of the ancient innitiation myths. Compare it with The Odessey for one.
No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I agree that it is a retelling, but it is far from modern, and it is not Christian, not that it is anti-Christian. It is a sort of turn-about on the way that the Christian missionaries converted Iceland; they said that Ragnarok had happened, but it wasn't exactly as the myth said. Rowling is saying, in effect, that the ancient faiths are still there, but we just don't notice them most of the time.
I think that the Christians who preach that Harry is anti-Christian are almost right.
They say it is because of a line from Exodus;
Exodus 22, King James Version
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
That is the reason why. Of course, that is a mistranslation, but what can you do. There is enough commentary on the meaning of מכשפה to render this interpretation of the text idiotic by most Jewish commentators. Many commentators actually dispute the true meaning of the word. The definition given by Christians for the term "witch" is actually derived from other pagan traditions. The meaning in the Tanakh stems from more of a witch-doctor tradition or a false medium. In short, someone who professes that they have powers from other places than the one god. The allegorical characters in Harry Potter hardly fit this category. The prophet Isaiah is believed to have had even more power than that. Elijah is believed to have have flown in a chariot to heaven, I see that as no less grand than flying in one to a school. The Witch definition that seems to be formed from the Jewish tradition is often also linked to a follower of Lilith, the first wife of Adam who went against god and the angels. Either way, Harry Potter has nothing to do with this.
It is a very Christian text in many ways. The ending is the most obvious, but also the nature of the conflict. All of these good verses bad novels seem to be rooted in Christianity, since according to most traditions, they don't exist in that form.
Rowling is saying nothing about ancient myths. She is pushing Christianity, which has very dated. She, a firm follower of Lewis, is to some degree even pushing Lewis. Her works are too firmly rooted in her personal beliefs to be read as anything than a justification on her way of life verses another.
You have clearly given Harry Potter a lot more critical thought than me! I'm not going to argue that any of your analysis is wrong, I'm merely saying it is irrelevant. I agree with you that Harry Potter is - compared to the Great Works of Literature - completely insignificant BUT it is a children's book and therefore (in my opinion) should only be judged as such
Your critical analysis was an interesting read though :)
Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis.
Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."
Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
And on the note of let it go because it is a children's book, children's literature has as established a canon as non-children's literature. I can't see giving Potter to a kid as better than giving Kipling, or giving Roald Dahl, or giving Burnett, or even Shel Silverstein, or Dr. Seuss, or any of the children's greats.
First, there is nothing wrong with contradicting the author.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
That's why there is a long history of literary theory that has challenged the author's authority as final interpretation or even important for interpretation at all, the two seminal essays in this area being William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley's intentional fallacy and Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author, but there are many others besides who have dealt with this issue on different theoritical grounds.
I agree with the problems that these theorists raise as far author intentionality, but also disagree that the author should be entirely excluded from the picture.
Basically my position is that the author should be a guide-post, not chains and fetters. However, the real point being there is nothing actually wrong with contradicting or disagreeing with an author; they may not be aware of elements within their story for a number of reasons.
Second, I don't disagree that Harry Potter can be read in a religious light and has spiritual/religious elements. So I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with anything Rowling ever said. If you can find where Rowling explicitly states that she meant her novels to be a Christian allegory than by all means share it with us.
Allusions to the Bible do not automatically equal allegory. Certainly the scene in the last book where Potter dies and comes back to life is allegorical and Christ-like, but that doesn't make the entire set of novels a Christian allegory. Potter is more than just a stand-in for Jesus. Not to mention the other characters aren't personifications of some political message or religious symbolism either.
They are "real" characters that are more than just symbolic mouth-pieces. Harry goes through a variety of teenager type transitions as major parts of the story that have nothing to do with Christian allegory; he has real concerns about his life, about his fame, about his friendship, about his love life, about his past that often have nothing to do directly with him saving the world or preaching or doing something Jesus-like.
Allegory is the wrong genre.
Perhaps it is only part allegory, as you say, though the World War allegorical elements are present again. I personally think the book is world war 2, with a Christ like savior coming to liberate the people. The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/561a/
To quote,
Quote:
John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, believes Rowling has been misunderstood and misrepresented. He describes first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as “a tale of the soul’s purification, illumination, and perfection in Christ (written in the medieval language of spiritual alchemy).”
Quote:
“That the blood of the unicorn will curse those who drink it unworthily, and that it has life-giving power, echoes St Paul’s discourse on the unworthy reception of Communion, which is the blood of Christ.”
I am unable to find the article I read about her talking after the release of the 5th book, but I'll dig around later (I had read it upon its publication, so it is a little difficult to find).Quote:
At the centre of the morality play was an allegorical spiritual journey undertaken by ‘Everyman’. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress is written in this style.
John Granger sees the climax of Book II, where Harry descends to the chamber of secrets to rescue Ginny Weasley as “the clearest Christian allegory of salvation history since Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. ... Using only traditional symbols, from the ‘Ancient of Days’ figure as God the Father to the satanic serpent and Christ-like phoenix (‘the Resurrection Bird’), the drama takes us from the fall to eternal life without a hitch.”
Granger provides a compelling argument for seeing the divine in the ‘demonic’ Harry Potter books. Describing the scene in detail, he explains what happens in terms of allegory. The following is Granger’s key to unlocking the climactic scene.
• Harry is ‘Every Man’
• Ginny is ‘Innocence, Purity’
• Riddle/Voldemort is ‘Satan, the Deceiver’
• The Basilisk is ‘Sin’
• Dumbledore is ‘God the Father’
• Fawkes the Phoenix is ‘Christ’
• Phoenix Song is ‘Holy Spirit’
• Gryffyndor’s Sword is ‘the Sword of Faith/Spirit’ (Eph 6:17)
• The Chamber is ‘the World’ and
• Hogwarts is ‘Heaven’
Most fantasies use the "chosen one" of prophesy trope to save them from the Dark evil Lord. Certainly this is inspired by Christian ideas (really it is the influence of Tolkien), but that doesn't mean these stories are necessarily allegorical.Quote:
The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;
John Granger sounds like he has some interesting points, but I still think it is a mistake to read Potter as a Christian allegory. For me allegory has specific connotations as a literary type, one that utilizes symbolic personification, that pretty much has a one-to-one metaphoric correlation. The characters shouldn't feel like people with their own human concerns, but rather should be "types." Nor should it require us to read a John Granger to figure out a story is allegory; it should pretty much be that obvious the moment we read the book.
I think Granger is partially right as far as the symols go because there is no denying that Rowling turns to Christian symbols throughout her story, but there are many works of literature with allusions to Christian themes, symbols, and motifs that are NOT allegories.
This is what separates Tolkien from Lewis. Tolkien wanted to write a Christian story, a fantasy mythology for England with a Christian theological perspective, but unlike Lewis he didn't want to write allegory. He talks about how his story is applicable. Gandalf and Aragorn are certainly Christ-like at certain points embodying Christian morals of bravery, faith in providence in the face of despair, sacrifice for the good of others, etc., but that doesn't mean any of them are literally supposed to be read as a stand-in for Christ. Not to mention making it applicable allows for the story to be read in many non-Christian ways: neo-fascists in Italy for example have a fascist reading for the story, there are elements libertarians like about the story (particularly the hobbit community), there is an environmental theme, etc.
I see the Potter novels following more in the footsteps of Tolkien. The themes are applicable, not allegorical.
Another critic who has some thoughts:
"In fact, although there is loaded language and imagery attached to Harry within the narrative just as there is to Voldemort, the links between character and symbolism are always relatively distant and tenuous--a device which both discourages simple allegorical reading, and allows Harry to remain a character rather than a symbolic figure and thus function as a point of reader identification, allowing readers to engage fully with the narrative" (emphasis mine; from Wizard and Wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series)
P.S. I also would point out that I don't mean to be antagonistic as I know I tend to disagree with you a lot. I apologize in advance if my tone comes off that way. I argue mostly in the spirit of worthwhile intellectual discussion.
The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.
I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.
There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.
It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.
I personally think the books resemble Lewis' Narnia far more than Tolkien's world. The plot too feels far more Lewisian than Tolkinian, but I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, however wrong and childish.
Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.
And on another note, I am not deliberately attacking who I disagree with, I just like to argue with an ice pick tone (a trait developed in childhood). I mean nothing against the individual, I only wish to discredit some arguments. I am sure you are all lovely people.
The same themes and tropes have appeared in literature from every age and every part of the Earth; that is way Harry Potter and similar stories have been successful, and that is why religions have used that same kinds of stories. You may be more familiar with such stories from Christianity, but people from other places see parallels to their culture heroes.
That is an unwarranted assumption.Quote:
I am sure you are all lovely people
Yeah, JBI! Please stop spreading unfounded rumours about us! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Rowling has a background in Classics I believe. The Persia Epic that PeterL alludes to might be far-fetched, but I don't think inspiration from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Aeneid is far-fetched considering her background.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quote:
Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.
Rowling overturns that reading when Dumbledore absolutely refuses to become Prime Minister multiple times. Not to mention Rufus Scrimgeour who replaces Fudge as Minister of Magic has a lot of Churchill qualities to him. However, I do agree that Fudge equals Chamberlain or better to say is similar to Chamberlain. Voldemort and his government certainly is fascist and has similarity to the Nazis, but I think we are supposed to read them as Neo-fascists.Quote:
There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.
Mostly because of the time period of the story: Grindelwald, the famous dark Wizard with very similar views to Voldemart whose story is important in the final book, was defeated in 1945, when the Nazis were defeated.
The dates and the fact that we have a dark wizard before Voldemort during the Fascist period overturns the allegorical political reading and disrupts the one-for-one symbolic correlation needed for allegory. Voldemort comes later as a kind of Neo-Fascist defeated not once, but twice (which has overtones of Napoleon). It seems that Rowling is mixing and matching history as she chooses to construct her story.
All of this feeds into one of the major themes of Harry Potter: history is linked together. The events of the past affect the events of the present, while the events of the present shed light on the events of the past. The Wizarding world history reflects human world history.
Dumbledore is certainly NOT depicted as all good; this becomes more apparent in the last two novels when a darker more remorseful and secretive side of Dumbledore is revealed.
Similarity does not equal allegory, though. I think one of the most important parallels in the entire novel is Voldemort and Harry's backgrounds as orphans. They have very similar background histories, but they both end up as very different people. The narrative, however, repeats again and again that Harry could've gone the way of Tom Riddle. Vice-versa it hints that Voldemart could've gone the direction Harry went.Quote:
It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.
The stories in a general sense are anti-Racist, anti-Fascist, Pro-Open Society Democracy, Pro-Friendship, Pro-Love, Pro-Het Marriage. They might be said to be Pro-Faith (in a general way), but this always seems to be subordinate to Friendship or Love (faith in your friends, faith in the power of love).Quote:
Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.
The Christian morality isn't any stronger in these books than more typical Greek virtues. The Christian elements are more in how they are incorporated into the symbolism rather than the explicit themes themselves.
A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_P..._and_mythology
Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.
You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.
Psssh, are you trying to say that everyone doesn't know how to read Akkadian and Sumerian?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Anyway, that's probably true enough. Thanks for the Wiki link by the way. That's really very useful.
"...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
"yay!"
(from the simpsons)
OK, I think that taken as a whole we have demonstrated that Potter is an open work.
It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.Quote:
Originally Posted by jikan myshkin
Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.
haha how long does it take you to watch one episode of the simpsons? that's if you even do!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
JK Rowling has written a short prequel to her popular Harry Potter books.
But the 800-word tale will not be published - instead it will go under the hammer at a charity auction in London next month.
She is one of 13 authors - including Nick Hornby and Doris Lessing - asked to write storycards by Waterstone's for their What's Your Story? auction.
Rowling's story finishes with the handwritten words: "From the prequel I am not working on - but that was fun!"
All 13 cards will be sold without a reserve price. The other authors include Margaret Atwood, Lauren Child, Sebastian Faulks, Tom Stoppard and Irvine Welsh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7425041.stm
Honestly, the whole idea of such events is silly to me. Stories should be for the public, not the high paying elite. I don't care what charity it goes to, if she merely wrote more, she would make even more millions. Let her cut a piece of her pie, and hand it to the charity, rather than selling a story to some obnoxiously rich person. She already did something similar with a set of self-illuminated story books.
Note, my disapproval is transfered to the other authors as well.
I have to agree with JBI on this one. Everyone should have the chance to read what has been written by all of these authors. It is a shame that even something like reading is in this case being reduced to something that only the rich can afford. Maybe the buyer will allow it to be published - maybe that is just a vain hope on my part.
No, I don't like Harry Potter. Not just because it has little literary value (and it does have very little value), but because I just don't like any of the characters, or any of the themes, which are really too simplistic (good vs evil = good wins, and we'll do it all over again next year). It's also so, so . . . pretentious, in that annoyingly upper-class British way.
You can't do this, it's all matter of opinions.