The Harry Potter Debate
#61
(11-21-2009, 12:42 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-21-2009, 12:18 AM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(11-20-2009, 07:02 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-20-2009, 07:00 PM)KylePalko Wrote: As is I see it just another piece of literature.

Bad literature, yes.

It's every bit as good a most classic children's literature, and one a heck of a lot cleaner than most of the stuff that's being produced for the middle-school/young adult age group.

Almost all literature written for kids and teenagers glorifies lying, disobedience, and cheating, and quite a bit of it includes magic of some sort.

The stories are bad. I thought so when I first read them. I was 10, at the time.
The stories are freakin AWESOME! at 24, Im still obsessed, like alotta you, I started reading them when I was pretty young. I have read every one at least 5 times. and YES! pregnant or not, Im the nut waiting in the line for 3 hours (4 hours even, one time) to watch the movie opening night. Those books encouraged so many kids to actually take an interest in literature.
Reply
#62
(11-21-2009, 01:20 AM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: The stories are freakin AWESOME! at 24,

I found the stories to be poorly written although the story's basic ideas were good for storytelling, the actual books were garbage.

It is more of a "how can the world hand ownage to Harry Potter while not requiring him to make any effort". The writer invented a stupid game, which someone used a team, but only actually relied on the skills (which were inborn, apparently) of a single team mate.
Reply
#63
(11-21-2009, 01:38 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-21-2009, 01:20 AM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: The stories are freakin AWESOME! at 24,

I found the stories to be poorly written although the story's basic ideas were good for storytelling, the actual books were garbage.

It is more of a "how can the world hand ownage to Harry Potter while not requiring him to make any effort". The writer invented a stupid game, which someone used a team, but only actually relied on the skills (which were inborn, apparently) of a single team mate.
:P your no fun
Reply
#64
(11-20-2009, 09:28 AM)lostcat496 Wrote: I am almost afraid to post on this topic, but I have grew up with the books (I was 11 when the first book came out so I as young enough to be seriously looking for owls flying during the day until I turned 12 and was quite disappointed that I wasn't going to Hogwarts).

My main argument with people who oppose the books is that they aren't giving young readers much credit. Yes, most of them look at the magic and go oh neat wouldn't it be awesome to do that and have no consequences. Most of them will also do the same thing for Superman, Spiderman, and My Little Pony. Yet, no one says that watching Spiderman cartoons leads children to go courting spider bites. Yes, he's and awful role model, so is Punch and Judy puppet shows and your neighbor down the street possibly. Everyday kids see bad role models and the occult. It's better to just let them read the books and if they have questions or are looking for owls sit them down and explain. Have them read the bible passages and talk to them. Book protest simply serve to make people curious.

Oh the note of Dumbuldore being gay, it was so not present in the book that she had to tell the movie director that he was gay.

Quote:Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

The man making the movies couldn't even tell from just reading the books! The chance of a little kid reading it and figuring it out mind numbingly low.

Whaaat! Where in the books are we supposed to get that at all? The closest it possibly comes is maybe in the final book in discussing his friendship with Grindelwald (sp?) in his youth, but it sounded to me like pretty straight-forward non-gay friendship tainted by evil plans.
Reply
#65
The initial concepts, settings and storylines had the potential to make really good books, but Rowling botched them beyond any hope of recovery, really. Very two dimensional.
Reply
#66
(11-21-2009, 06:53 AM)elizabee Wrote:
(11-20-2009, 09:28 AM)lostcat496 Wrote: I am almost afraid to post on this topic, but I have grew up with the books (I was 11 when the first book came out so I as young enough to be seriously looking for owls flying during the day until I turned 12 and was quite disappointed that I wasn't going to Hogwarts).

My main argument with people who oppose the books is that they aren't giving young readers much credit. Yes, most of them look at the magic and go oh neat wouldn't it be awesome to do that and have no consequences. Most of them will also do the same thing for Superman, Spiderman, and My Little Pony. Yet, no one says that watching Spiderman cartoons leads children to go courting spider bites. Yes, he's and awful role model, so is Punch and Judy puppet shows and your neighbor down the street possibly. Everyday kids see bad role models and the occult. It's better to just let them read the books and if they have questions or are looking for owls sit them down and explain. Have them read the bible passages and talk to them. Book protest simply serve to make people curious.

Oh the note of Dumbuldore being gay, it was so not present in the book that she had to tell the movie director that he was gay.

Quote:Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

The man making the movies couldn't even tell from just reading the books! The chance of a little kid reading it and figuring it out mind numbingly low.

Whaaat! Where in the books are we supposed to get that at all? The closest it possibly comes is maybe in the final book in discussing his friendship with Grindelwald (sp?) in his youth, but it sounded to me like pretty straight-forward non-gay friendship tainted by evil plans.

She said after the last book had already been published. Apparently what she created was a character that was gay, but it was impossible to tell due to the fact he was elderly, not in that kind of relationship with the main character, it effected the plot in no way what so ever, and he was not actively or even passively making comments or acting in such a way to suggest that he might be looking for that kind of relationship with anybody. In plainer English he was gay only after the series ended.

Good literature is in the eye of the beholder. I hate Steven King with a mildly fiery passion. Wouldn't read his books and think he's trash. I know lots of people who think otherwise. I love Stephen Meyer (Twilight!) I've read her whole series and I know folks that think she is a pile of trash. Kids find different levels of literature amusing than some adults. I mean hey look at the Captain Underpants books or The Day My Butt Went Psycho. Harry Potter is not bad for children, people overeacting is. If you want to see really scary young adult literature read Cut, Burn, Glass, Identical, Impulse, The Pigman, and Crank. There are some really super duper role models in those!

I'm against book burning for any reason. First they burn the books, then they burn the authors.
Reply
#67
(11-21-2009, 07:45 AM)lostcat496 Wrote:
(11-21-2009, 06:53 AM)elizabee Wrote:
(11-20-2009, 09:28 AM)lostcat496 Wrote: I am almost afraid to post on this topic, but I have grew up with the books (I was 11 when the first book came out so I as young enough to be seriously looking for owls flying during the day until I turned 12 and was quite disappointed that I wasn't going to Hogwarts).

My main argument with people who oppose the books is that they aren't giving young readers much credit. Yes, most of them look at the magic and go oh neat wouldn't it be awesome to do that and have no consequences. Most of them will also do the same thing for Superman, Spiderman, and My Little Pony. Yet, no one says that watching Spiderman cartoons leads children to go courting spider bites. Yes, he's and awful role model, so is Punch and Judy puppet shows and your neighbor down the street possibly. Everyday kids see bad role models and the occult. It's better to just let them read the books and if they have questions or are looking for owls sit them down and explain. Have them read the bible passages and talk to them. Book protest simply serve to make people curious.

Oh the note of Dumbuldore being gay, it was so not present in the book that she had to tell the movie director that he was gay.

Quote:Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

The man making the movies couldn't even tell from just reading the books! The chance of a little kid reading it and figuring it out mind numbingly low.

Whaaat! Where in the books are we supposed to get that at all? The closest it possibly comes is maybe in the final book in discussing his friendship with Grindelwald (sp?) in his youth, but it sounded to me like pretty straight-forward non-gay friendship tainted by evil plans.

She said after the last book had already been published. Apparently what she created was a character that was gay, but it was impossible to tell due to the fact he was elderly, not in that kind of relationship with the main character, it effected the plot in no way what so ever, and he was not actively or even passively making comments or acting in such a way to suggest that he might be looking for that kind of relationship with anybody. In plainer English he was gay only after the series ended.

Good literature is in the eye of the beholder. I hate Steven King with a mildly fiery passion. Wouldn't read his books and think he's trash. I know lots of people who think otherwise. I love Stephen Meyer (Twilight!) I've read her whole series and I know folks that think she is a pile of trash. Kids find different levels of literature amusing than some adults. I mean hey look at the Captain Underpants books or The Day My Butt Went Psycho. Harry Potter is not bad for children, people overeacting is. If you want to see really scary young adult literature read Cut, Burn, Glass, Identical, Impulse, The Pigman, and Crank. There are some really super duper role models in those!

I'm against book burning for any reason. First they burn the books, then they burn the authors.
YAY lostcat! Stood in line 2 hours last night to watch the movie....
Reply
#68
Whatever ever happened to reading about Narnia, or the Lord of the Rings?

Reply
#69
(11-21-2009, 11:53 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Whatever ever happened to reading about Narnia, or the Lord of the Rings?
Read those too, and loved them :) Especially Narnia!!
Reply
#70
Books promoting whichcraft like this trash potter nonsense are evilm these books promote evil. The devil is very cunning. I have personaly witnessed this with these books. As a one time friend of mine who now is pagan is bringing his son up with these things and hoping and teaching his son to be a warlock.
Innocent fantasy is one thing. Such as young Irish lads playing kill the brit or pretending to pull of bank hiest and escape with the loot. That's innocent fun.sip
But these potter things are evil. They should be burned. As for the author well
Sip
She can go too
BURN these books!!!!!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)