Ok this is the main problem I have with Harry Potter: The morality is wrong.
I was thinking about my discussion with Kenric and John and I realized I did not explain something the correct way. The problem with Harry Potter's law-breaking is that he is not usually breaking unjust laws. There is a difference between breaking a law because it is unjust, or just plain wrong, and breaking a law because you 'feel' like you should break it in order to remedy a situation. Many of the laws Harry breaks are not unjust, in fact they are quite good laws, such as the laws reguarding underage magic. There are other times when Dumbledore ( or some other person on the 'good' side) will tell Harry, "stay here for your own safety and the safety of others" and Harry will disregaurd them and, by some fluke, save the day. I don't have examples right now but I will find them...not exactly excited about going back into the books, but I'll let Kenric have his say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
About the underaged magic laws, what was Harry to do when he was approached by the Dementors in the fifth book? Not do magic to protect himself? He probably wasn't thinking, oh, let's do magic to break the law. He was trying to protect himself and his cousin.
Tom he wasn't breaking the law in that case because the law allowed for the use of magic in emergencys. ( gahhhh i knew someone would try to use that logic)
gah? sarah, like i said last night, and what you continually refuse to listen to me about, he breaks the rules usually for good reasons. its usually not some fluke. he knows what he has to do to save the day, and if he has to break the rules to save a life, so be it. if that is a reason to dislike the series, its a dumb reason.
because my opinion doesn't have n e weight... i will give u all permission to ignore it, but...
i think harry is supposed to be a sort of chosen person and thats why he is drawn to places where he can help. he might not mean to be there to help, he might not even really do the helping... but his presence is drawn there and required because of who he is. i can accept that sarah doesn't think he was punished correctly, that may be valid. but i dont think the things he did, breaking rules and so forth, are enough to conemn the book. but i dont think this siscussion really matters any ways, John and i are the only ones who are openly changing between sides here. i'm pretty sure u 2 rn't going to change your opinions. but pleasae, go on debating, i know its fun. (so not to pick sides... i will be on john's side, lol)
Kenric what part of 'the ends don't justify the means' do you not understand? that is the point...if the crusicus or whatever curse that causes unbearable pain is wrong and therefore rightfully banned, why does harry think that he has the right to use it in the room of mysteries just because one of the death eaters uses it. If it is wrong than it is wrong. The problem I have with the books is that there is no established measure of right and wrong. there are laws, but apparently those laws don't apply to harry, because harry is the "choosen one". Laws are laws reguardless of what you think that you can accomplish by breaking them.
and thus far i have refrained from telling you what i think of the book's writing style because you would get all defensive...if you want to see how other children's books are written...i mean if i had to read harry potter you should read at least one of my favorite children's books
you have already told me how you think the books are written. you called them juvenile. also, i suppose you could have written better and you could have made a few more millions than rowling already has on the highly successful sales of books people dont read for the writing styles but for the story and to be entertained. this isn't a scholarly work that has to be analyzed for errors. why can't you just enjoy it. that probably isn't possible, though, for you reading these books. also, i would have to agree with you; harry shouldn't have used the cruciatus curse, even if it was a death eater, because i think it puts him somewhat more on the level of the death eaters instead of being on the good side. also, it is dumb if harry breaks the rules when he doesn't need to. i would have to agree with myself, though, in that harry should break the rules if he is saving a life. what do you want him to do? "hmm, well, i guess i could save ron who is dying just outside the portrait hole, but since its past curfew, i probably shouldn't." really. i know that wasn't in any of the books, but i was making a point. there are other things that i disagree with in the books, but i dont feel like listing them. besides, its pointless to argue, anyway. like jennifer said, we aren't going to change each other's minds anyway.
well kenric seeing as you know everything about me and...just give it a rest...ok I have read a ton of fantasy books written for both children and adults. I really hate it when you put words in my mouth when we are arguing...i can't write fiction cause i don't have a good imagination...i told you already that the author has a good imagination....but her style needs a lot of polishing...that aside, i agree that harry should break curfew to rescue Ron or whom ever. There are exceptions to the law that are written in the law or implied by the law. If you have to rush someone to the hospital you can go over the speed limit a little. The problem I have with Harry Potter is that the cases were the author puts Harry in a situation that Harry has to break the law in order to save someone are unbalanced. There are probably a few times in the book that Harry follows the law to the letter and ends up saving the day...but those times are very few. If you are going to write children's books you have to be careful of the message you are sending them...even tho i doubt the author is christian, it is basic logic that you don't want to be sending the message to children that breaking the law is fine as long as you 'think' you have an excuse. I have a hard time respecting an author or her work when she can't keep that in mind...there is more to writing than having an imagination.
like i said, you think you could have written better. i never said that imagination was the only important thing to writing. as i was reading the books, i didn't let things like thinking about whether harry was breaking the rules or not ruin my reading experience. that said, the author could have done a better job writing for children and could have set a better example in the books. im not really sure if they are childrens books so much, though.
i said i can't write, but i can be a critic... I mean if you think that your school experiences allow you to tell me that i am sheltered, than i think that my reading experiences allow me to judge harry potter...at least i'm not being an elitist about someone else's life...just a book they have happened to read...i have happened to have read books that have much better: plots, conversation, and mechanics. Reading harry potter, in some parts was like nails on a chalk board....and i don't have your ability to separate and enjoy one aspect of a book from another...
hey, since i feel like talking... i have a similar style to enjoyment as kenric. like if i watch a movie, say a romantic comedy, i am going to have certain expectations and if they r met then i will be saticfied. but if i go into a romantic comedy with the expectations of a drama i will think the movie is terribly moronic, underdeveloped, and shallow. i agree, lik ei think kenric is saying, that perhaps they rn't great books of moral exaple for children, but, that they are full of entertaining and amusing stories with the emotional complexness that kenric was looking for(perhaps not the level that sarah was looking for). i think sarah didn't find what she was looking for and therefore doesnt like the books. i'm not saying one of u is wrong, since it is clearly a matter of opinion. sorry, i know i butt in, but u know i can't avoid a debate. and i think i can be a little bit objective... since i'm just going from what u say int he arguments and not my own opinion of the books.
yeah like i said before it's not like i think that no one should ever read or like the books...i just don't like them myself...kenric was making it sound like i MADE myself not like them...well actually he said that. so i was putting forth the reasons why i don't like them to prove that i really don't.
no1 has read " the picture of dorian gray" b4 have they? because it surely should be the read-off book. beautifully written, altho slow at times (i must admit). but in a book that is far under 300 pages slow writing should be too much of a bother. what do u all think? since i was put in charge of the book selection... and i have read very few books... i think it would be a good choice of the best of my repatoir(sp?).
yeah that sounds like a good book...i haven't read it.
great, i wonder if john has, i dont think so... i think he said something about wanting to read it. he wants in on the read-off too doesnt he? i dont know if kenric will like it... but i suppose i don't know if n e of u will. oscar, to me, writes like poetry, so since u like chesterton's writing like poetry, maybe u will like oscar's.
I think what sarah means by she doesn't like the morals of the book is, it might give children the wrong message. They might start thinking that it's okay to break the rules. He might have very good reasons for breaking the rules, but children might not catch on to that part of the book. They could get the wrong idea. Kenric said that "also, i suppose you could have written better and you could have made a few more millions than rowling already has on the highly successful sales of books". I don't think you should consider something good because of how much money someone made. Money doesn't make something good. Good things make things good (you probably didn't understand that). My friends were fighting over whether rap music is actually good music. The one against rap said that rap music is just people talking. The one for rap said that people can make millions of dollars off of it. Making millions of dollars can mean somethings popular but it doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
A good book I would recommend is Treasure in Clay by Fulton J. Sheen. It's an autobiography and he may not have the greatest writing skill, but it's a very good book and funny at times. You guys should read it.
fulton sheen is my friend.
your friend sarcastically?
your friend jokingly?
your friend imaginatively? or
your friend as in a guy with the name fulton sheen, but isn't Bishop Fulton Sheen
she is serious lol she told me how she sees his show and is like YES!!! a catholic guy sho is smart or something like that.
oh yeah that is what i meant..
Post a Comment