Harry Potter

[JBI]

that's funny. Can you be resurrected if you didn't die?

Sorry, wrong word - reincarnated, resurrected - either way, the point is she couldn't even write a story on her own terms, she bent it toward a biblical ending, which undercuts the whole thing. Perhaps not a full Jesus, as he didn't ascent to heaven, but the reference is clear enough - Aslan meets Voldemort (Lilith/The Queen) gets beaten down on the ground, and rises again, stronger, with the power Voldemort does not know of, to save the day - the narrative is the exact freaking same, the only difference is this time it isn't from the focalization of Lucy, an observer, yet Jesus himself.

[Paulclem]

So in a sense, though the 8-9 year olds may not wish to read Dickens, they could very well read Le Guin, for instance, and the 11+ year olds could start reading something like Tamora Pierce, or Caitlin Sweet, or something entirely different - there is actually quite a bit of Young Adult Fiction available. Of course, I think 15 or so is the right age to start reading very challenging books - I personally broke late, and started at 16 (and did much of my classical reading in those years directly following that), but I see no problem, for instance, handing a 14 year old Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë.

I really wish it was like his JBI. No doubt there are kids who fit this analysis - I can only speak of my knowledge of the UK - I am ignorent of he situation in Canada an the USA - but I see HP as perhaps reaching pre-teens and getting them intersted in reading. Sadly, what I have seen of educaion in my city is plenty of poor literacy standards. I now teach adults who have the scars of a poor education system going back decades.(The oldest guy I taught is 86). A lot of them never read anything but the papers. In my GCSE group last year - with ages ranging from 17 to 55, very few had read any poems at all, and these people are the sucesses in terms of doing something about their lack of education. My own favourable opinion of HP is merely in the hope of it reaching kids - it is a kids book as far as I'm concerned. I found the stories entertaining, but I tend to agree with yours, and others textual analysis.

[TheFifthElement]

Sorry, wrong word - reincarnated, resurrected - either way, the point is she couldn't even write a story on her own terms, she bent it toward a biblical ending, which undercuts the whole thing. Perhaps not a full Jesus, as he didn't ascent to heaven, but the reference is clear enough - Aslan meets Voldemort (Lilith/The Queen) gets beaten down on the ground, and rises again, stronger, with the power Voldemort does not know of, to save the day - the narrative is the exact freaking same, the only difference is this time it isn't from the focalization of Lucy, an observer, yet Jesus himself.

I thought you didn't read the book

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

[Drkshadow03]

I thought you didn't read the book

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

Ha! You hit many of the points I raise in the essay I am working, and apparently understand Potter exactly as I do!

[JBI]

I thought you didn't read the book

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

Rowling said herself after the publication of an early volume, that if you understand her beliefs, it wouldn't be difficult to guess the ending of the series - this was before the whole Prophecy bit (and yes, I didn't read the 7th one). Whether it is a perfect match or not, the whole Chosen One bit and the rising up to defeat the evil is taken straight out of scripture, or perhaps mimics Lewis - just because of some magical technicalities doesn't mean he isn't meant to be Jesus.

As for him being an anti-hero, she does a pretty good job at making him out to be a character obsessed with himself as "Hero". No matter what moping he does about people not understanding him, and thinking him a freak or whatever, the truth is he is obsessed with it - he needs to spy on his teaches (1), spy on his classmates (2), go hunting his Godfather (3), save all the people underwater despite no having to, and then save everyone in the maze (4), go try and save the day in the fifth one, despite being no match at all (5), become the so called "Chosen One", and run off trying to save the day (6), and then go off hunting Voldemort to try and defeat him (7). Whether he is gifted or not is irrelevant, because he clearly has a desire to be a hero - I guess he likes the attention or something. Keep in mind, the only other thing he is particularly famous for, besides random bouts of hysteria in classes, is playing sports - being an athletic hero - and getting into mischief - being a sort of narcissist in that regard.

[The Comedian]

I've never read these books, are they popular?

[JBI]

I've never read these books, are they popular?

Only when new movies are released.

[wessexgirl]

Only when new movies are released.

Yeah right, that's why stores open up through the night and the queues go round the block when the books come out. Libraries open through the night too and have Harry Potter sleepovers. They order in tons of the books. But JBI thinks they're only read when the films come out.

[JBI]

Yeah right, that's why stores open up through the night and the queues go round the block when the books come out. Libraries open through the night too and have Harry Potter sleepovers. They order in tons of the books. But JBI thinks they're only read when the films come out.

I'm talking about now - if you look on Google trends, you will see spikes occur when the new movies are released - there was about a month of hype before the last 3 of the books, that is true, but those are in the past, and the general "Potter Mania" hype has since ebbed drastically, as is want with anything popular, even good works like Dickens' stuff, and Zola's works back in the 19th century. There seems to be a resurgence of the mania though every time a new film is released - the result of advertising and nostalgia by my reckoning. Check the Google trends for a general idea of the graphing if you don't believe me.

For instance, I went a few years without seeing people reading them Potters on the subway, now, all of a sudden, this month I start to see some people reading them again - mostly 20 year olds, and females, though that is probably coincidental, given my limited exposure. I reckon there are die hard fans out there, as there are die hard fans for many things, and this is merely them - the original audience, who were between the ages of 8-12 when the first text was released, merely trying to regain that sort of hype. The bombardment of Potter advertisements for the movie certainly would help such a feeling, though I think this is the dead cat bounce, in terms of popularity - the books will never again reach the heights they did, and will continue on a downward slope, no matter what happens to the books in the future, as I don't think even the most fond critical minds can possibly consider these books as replacing something like Faulkner or Shakespeare, who have constant popularity as they have ingrained themselves so thoroughly on literature. Either the books are forgotten, or they remain an obscure children's classic like George MacDonald's works (which are still incredibly readable and insightful, and essentially created the trends of the genre even before many other classic authors) and remain read by kids with parents who are want to give them older texts, or strange academics with preoccupations with children's literature, or 200- culture.

No one talks about the Celestine Prophecy anymore, keep in mind, though I have of late seen a few copies float around while browsing used book stores. I'm willing to wager that there are now far more copies of Potter in circulation than the market can support, and, as a result, publishers aren't even going to try and promote them within the literary realm anymore - they will either find a new hero, or promote secondary items, like action figures, movies, candies, and video games.


No one is running out to buy an early copy of a 50$ children's book anymore - I think everyone should acknowledge that the general popularity of the text has ebbed, and though perhaps there is still some hype, it is not even a sliver of what it used to be.

[LMK]

Oh puh-lease! How absurd...so many posts asking to let a thread and a topic die...too funny! If you truly wanted it to die you would not even have peeaked let alone posted here in this thread.

I liked the series (of books), thought the ending of the last was a cop-out with the epilogue, but for the most part I did enjoy them all. I didn't start reading them until I was 40-ish. I read them to myself and aloud to my children.

Should we stop reading Cinderella, too, because of wand-toting-fairy-godmothers?

I think you can imagine my response.

~L

[JBI]

Oh puh-lease! How absurd...so many posts asking to let a thread and a topic die...too funny! If you truly wanted it to die you would not even have peeaked let alone posted here in this thread.

I liked the series (of books), thought the ending of the last was a cop-out with the epilogue, but for the most part I did enjoy them all. I didn't start reading them until I was 40-ish. I read them to myself and aloud to my children.

Should we stop reading Cinderella, too, because of wand-toting-fairy-godmothers?

I think you can imagine my response.

~L

Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

[Joreads]

Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

I have to agree with this it would make for a boring discussion and a very quick one if everyone liked the same books, in fact this whole site would not be needed. There is nothing quite like a reasoned debate about a book and quite often I find things pointed out to me that I missed or over looked.

[LMK]

Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

Please re-read my post. It is not to the persons who did not like the series, style, characters, message, etc. It was to the persons who specifically posted about letting the thread and the topic die. There is nothing I like better than a good debate. Well, maybe a good book.

May I repeat your words back to you then, Perhaps it would be better to properly read the material (my word to replace 'thread') before passing judgement...

Thanks,
~L

[TheFifthElement]

Rowling said herself after the publication of an early volume, that if you understand her beliefs, it wouldn't be difficult to guess the ending of the series - this was before the whole Prophecy bit (and yes, I didn't read the 7th one). Whether it is a perfect match or not, the whole Chosen One bit and the rising up to defeat the evil is taken straight out of scripture, or perhaps mimics Lewis - just because of some magical technicalities doesn't mean he isn't meant to be Jesus.

Well those technicalities may well be the difference between a theory fitting and not Somehow I get the feeling you're stretching the text to fit the theory and, perhaps, taking Rowlings comments slightly out of context. There are a number of discrepancies between the Harry is Aslan, Harry is Jesus theory which just don't fit. Harry doesn't die, Harry isn't resurrected, Harry doesn't save the day, Harry isn't and doesn't purport to be the son of God, Harry doesn't perform miracles, Harry seems to have no thought to saving others, only himself in fact it is only at the point where he realises he has to die that he takes steps to prevent any other people being killed on his behalf but that point comes after an awful lot of bloodshed. If there's a connection, and to be fair I acknowledge a vague connection, it's a rather loose one.

I don't dispute your comments re Harry as 'hero' or rather Harry presented as a character with a hero complex. I'd also say he's a character with a victim complex. On the whole I wouldn't say he was a laudable character, prone to irrationality verging on totally stupidity, getting other people into danger and trouble as well as himself. But maybe this is part of the message: you're only as strong as the people around you who are prepared to stick their neck out for you. Though sometimes quite how Harry manages to keep hold of his friends is a little beyond me, he doesn't seem to do a great deal to earn people's friendship except, perhaps, the occasional act of heroism But my point was more that the conclusion of the series took away that heroism from Harry, no matter how hard he tried his success was more to do with other people than it was to do with himself. Or that was my reading of it anyway.

[LMK]

I'm not sure I agree with the "chosen one" because Harry wasn't the chosen one it could have been Harry or Neville.

Perhaps, because Voldemort chose Harry, not having heard the fully prophecy, it could be considered that he was chosen, but that message didn't sink as deeply with me.

Yes it was a battle between good and evil, did Harry possess more good? I don't think so, but he was thrust into greatness to survive. In the end it is Neville who makes it possible for Harry to conquer Voldemort, so back to the either Harry or Neville and not a case of clear cut chosen one.