Today, on the news and at work, there's a lot of talk about the new Harry Potter. And people are talking about how the whole series is just so great, well written, influential, and how it's going to be classic literature for sure. When I try to relate, the only thing I can think about is how the first movie (my introduction to the series) left me with such a bad impression that I never bothered to read/watch anything else that has to do with Harry Potter.
As I think back to the first movie, the thing that mostly stands out is the ending. Specifically, the intra-house competition. Potter's house places 2nd, but the headmaster (literally) conjures up new categories and places Potter's house at the top of those categories, and this conveniently gives them *just* enough points to place 1st and win.
To which I say: o.O -{WTF??}
I try to raise responsible, well-adjusted kids with a good sense of right and wrong, and strong ethics. I teach them that if they don't meet the requirements, they won't get the reward. You have to score the most points to win first prize -- that's just how the world works.
The author of the Harry Potter series says: "You don't have to work hard. As long as you're popular, you will be handed everything."
When people speak about this book, often they say that it's a classic story about "Good vs Evil". Hero vs Villian. Right vs Wrong. How good will always triumph over evil, and such. Well that's the opposite of the lesson that the first movie teaches!
I can see how this work would be well-received by children (especially my daughter, who hates doing her homework), fraternity pledges and the unemployed, but it's also loved by scholars and people with strong work ethics. Regular people approve of and celebrate these books.
So... what am I missing? Does the author ever tell us why it's OK to cheat in a situation like this? Does cheating-to-win-and-then-celebrating-it continue to be a trend throughout the series? If so, why should I give these works any more attention? How is this classic literature? Am I missing a key bit of info? Am I looking at this whole thing the wrong way? How can something so popular be so.... bad?
PS:
I know it's silly to get worked up over a competition between Superman and regular humans. Sure, Potter was going to win in the end. And from the get-go, I figured it'd be like watching the Flash run an olympic track event. The Kwizatz Haderach uses his special powers and places first in every event, scores the most points, wins, whatever. But no -- instead, the author decides to have him FAIL the competition and then have the headmaster CHEAT so that he wins anyway?
Again: o.O -{WTF??}|||Quote:
As I think back to the first movie, the thing that mostly stands out is the ending. Specifically, the intra-house competition. Potter's house places 2nd, but the headmaster (literally) conjures up new categories and places Potter's house at the top of those categories, and this conveniently gives them *just* enough points to place 1st and win.
To which I say: o.O -{WTF??}
I'm pretty sure that Potter's house was the last place, as the trio each got -50 points beforehand. I believe you owe me a bigger WTF
?Jokes aside, it's mainly because Dumbledore regards highly of Harry. The negative -150 points wasn't very fair to begin with, so I didn't think the +160 (or whatever) points was that big of a deal.|||Quote:
The author of the Harry Potter series says: "You don't have to work hard. As long as you're popular, you will be handed everything."
Uhh... what?
They got the points because of the challenges they accomplished. Surviving the chess game, beating up the thingy, doing that stuff, sleeping the dog (I forget exactly what happened, just remember there were like 4 trials). Dumbledore just phrased it differently.
That was a long rant, so I only skimmed it, but it seemed like you're only upset because they were rewarded points for not doing anything, while that's not true.|||Who really cares? Each of these movies (I didn't even read the books) is directed by a different person. Some of them are bad, like Goblet of Fire (it was rushed), some of them are really good, like Prisoner of Azkaban (the time traveling becomes quite complex). The stories in general are really good, mature, and intricate. This all is revealed fully in the Deathly Hallows, where we see how everything ties together. Basically if you like fantasy movies, you'll get a great kick out of watching the Harry Potter movies. Even if the first movie was a bit childish, you don't have to look far to notice the appeal of the world and the characters, and it soon enters mature territory with the later movies. Don't go looking for morals, that's not what the movies are about. It's just about telling a good story. If you want morals, watch the ending credits of a GI Joe episode.|||Prisoner of Azkaban is fan-taste-tic.
When I first started watching the movies, my thoughts were always criticizing the content. But after watching a few of them, it got to be too fun to stop watching the rest.|||Heh, harry potter, I read the first 4 or 5 books only because someone got them as a present for me without realizing I so wasn't interested. I tried reading them with an open mind and I did muddle through them.
Basically what I got from it was: Harry is awesome, anyone who doesn't like him are horrible people who should go die or something, and anyone who likes him will help him get away with "bending" (read: breaking) the rules, because the rules are as dumb as the people who don't like Harry.
There is no gray area in the books because each and every single individual either loathes him or loves him. This does not change in future books. First book it starts out with his caretakers who are evil, hate him, and love their evil spoiled kid who is evil because he hates Harry and is spoiled by his evil parents, but it's even funnier in the next books how far the writer goes to make Harry's life miserable so the kids can cheer when he gets away from the situation.
He's living with the same evil relatives, but now he has evil rules that prevent him from using magic on him (cause face it, they'd have no chance if he could turn them into toads). It's been a while so I can't remember what exactly happens, but he ends up using magic, can't remember if it's on accident or if the evil relatives forced him to do it but yeah he so totally does it and gets away with it cause the people who love Harry have enough influence to wave away his rule breaking.
Basically, all the books have at least one point where someone in authority winks at Harry and lets him get away with something.
Also, don't get me started on quidditch. It's a team based sport where one player on either team can win the game for one side at any moment... guess who plays that position on Harry's team? You guessed it, Harry. If I remember correctly, it's even set-up so that higher classmen are in his same team... but he gets to play the pivotal role even though he's never practiced the game beforehand (but he's a natural, who would'a known?). Oh yeah, and he gets the best broomstick with some name that made me wanna scream that it's over 9000! How so? As a gift from one of the "good people" who just love to hand the world to Harry on a silver platter.
TLDR: It's drivel intended for children who don't want to work for what they earn, I don't see why some people who normally strike me as intelligent human beings consider it so great. Mindless entertainment just cause they're bored? Sure. Something to laugh at, absolutely... but it isn't good in any way IMO. Definitely don't take kids to see this if you value their morals.|||Harry Potter was never intended be be a classic "coming of age novel" (like The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies etc.), so I didn't try to search for a lot of pedagogical or psychological depth when I read it.
I thought the first three books were the best ones in terms of mixing up the fantasy world with the "muggle world", introducing and showing magic and having iconic characters. The last three are just "normal fantasy novels" without the charm of the first three ones.|||Hmmm...my view:
The Potter books (and the resulting movies) are just well, fairy tales. Like the Hobbit etc. For enjoyment purposes only. You can enjoy them, or not, as you see fit. To actually regard them as teaching materials for children is possibly going too far.|||Thing is, when you're making a kid's novel, and it did seem to be targeting kids, some parents will want to know what lessons are being taught in the stories. ccrazool seems to be one of these parents, and I wanted to inform them that the morals in these books are not good ones, not at all.
Also, don't get me started on the whole teaching materials for kids thing, no matter what a kid is reading/watching/listening to, they are going to be learning something from that. Hence, when you give them a book/movie/cd, you are giving them "teaching materials".|||You don't need to change your mind about Harry Potter - I'm very anti-HP and don't get what all the fuss is about. The story is also very unoriginal; a loner kid who finds out he's "special" because he's a wizard. Then he also battles his feelings for some girl he meets at the special wizard school. The series is so overrated. I won't dare try to persuade you to think otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment