GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by der Moench
IMO, what makes him our hero Harry Potter is not his name or even his magical abilities, but his actions. He's loyal, and brave, and hard-working, and kind.

I haven't read the books, or seen the films....but is this the way Harry is "hard working, loyal and kind"?


(Your not alone Fable. ) From my limited knowledge of the books ..(reading this thread), I can see where the separation of class could be a bad example to children. It would depend on how the Hero (Harry) acts. Is he humble? Does he show off his power? Would Harry correct one of his peers if this peer became a show off?

A hero to me, is a person who wouldn't stand out. A person who can blend in the crowd, but be willing to step up in a time of need.

I honestly don't think there is a class difference...I see your point though, fable, I just don't think it means anything.

I saw the movie yesterday, and I loved it. So much better then the first one (I really didn't like the first one, I thought it was really weak). I really enjoyed it.

Lord of the Rings is going to be so much better though.

I never really got into Harry Potter, always thought it was some silly kid's thing, but the prime sense of irritation I get at it is when I had to fight another person at another forum over which was better HP or LOTR, I won that fight but ever after I had a profound hatred of all things Harry Potter, that and all that sickenly cute dialogue, and well it would be really cool if there was some more violence in it, I know I know its a kids book, but without that atmosphere of fantasy realism, it just seems to to Disney.

So until they come up with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Bone, I'll continue to prefer LOTR, which will always kick Harry Potter's silly little boyish bum.

Everyone is special in one's own way...


...that is how the HP series seem to be telling me. Almost all characters would display a seeming flaw and yet they would have their time to blossom and come through in the story.

Are we really being too paranoid by putting too much hidden meanings in Rowling's HP series...

...or are we taking the kids for granted that they wouldn't notice these "alleged" hidden/subtle messages.

Re: Everyone is special in one's own way...

Originally posted by Maharlika

...that is how the HP series seem to be telling me. Almost all characters would display a seeming flaw and yet they would have their time to blossom and come through in the story.
Are we really being too paranoid by putting too much hidden meanings in Rowling's HP series...

If you read essays by children's authors or listen to interviews with them, you quickly find out that they've laid out all sorts of ideas both on the surface and beneath it, in an effort to carefully orchestrate the effects they have on kids. Don't take my word for it; go check out Seuss on Seuss, for instance, and that's written for a considerably younger age group, which means there's a lot less going on. I'm not suggesting that you'll find a history of postmodernist structuralism in Green Eggs and Ham, but it does mean that every plot, character, background theme, emotion and action is premeditated for a certain effect.

And if you don't believe this, try looking up the author's requirements of several leading children's publication houses for the extensive list of ideas they will and won't accept in book submissions.

The way I see it, though, Rowling didn't deliberately set up the idea of a two-tier society; it's just the culture in which she was raised. It was easier to picture a wish fulfillment of a deprived, powerless kid suddenly becoming part of the powerful elite instead of discovering that everybody, including himself, had power.

It is Harry's good qualities which are important.

I cannot imagine a situation in which a mean, nasty piece of work with no good socialist qualities would have been plucked from the cupboard under the stairs and taken to become the hero of the story.

Also, those who believe that pure breeding is the key to success and power and skill in the world of magic are the villains of the book.

Potter's skill in magic and access to knowledge etc is (in literary terms) a reward for his selflessness, kindness and bravery. He is a normal child (and has lived as such) but he deserved something more because he was an undeserving victim...

Will expand on what I mean later...

@fable

You said:

"If you read essays by children's authors or listen to interviews with them, you quickly find out that they've laid out all sorts of ideas both on the surface and beneath it, in an effort to carefully orchestrate the effects they have on kids. "

But I do agree that an author has a definite agenda and theme for every piece of literature that he creates.

What I'm trying to point out is that there is also a substantial possibility that there could be other meanings unintentionally created by the author himself. Perhaps such authors wouldn't even realize it till it is pointed out to them by their audiences and critics. This is seemingly echoed in your last statements of your previous post:


"The way I see it, though, Rowling didn't deliberately set up the idea of a two-tier society; it's just the culture in which she was raised. It was easier to picture a wish fulfillment of a deprived, powerless kid suddenly becoming part of the powerful elite instead of discovering that everybody, including himself, had power."

Re: @fable

Originally posted by Maharlika
You said:
What I'm trying to point out is that there is also a substantial possibility that there could be other meanings unintentionally created by the author himself. Perhaps such authors wouldn't even realize it till it is pointed out to them by their audiences and critics. This is seemingly echoed in your last statements of your previous post: [/color]

I agree 100%, @Mah. We are all products of our cultures and environments, to the extent that we tacitly accept ideas and reflect these back without being aware that they're biases. When you wondered whether we weren't being paranoid and reading too much into Rowling, however, I thought you meant the opposite.

As for Rowling, all of us are dealing in opinions and there's simply no single, right view. I suspect that there are some opinions about her books however which all of us here in the forum would reject--like the supposedly "demonic" or "satanic" influence of her books. Yet there are at least tens of thousands of people out there who fervently accept this as fact. Maybe more. Pretty scary, IMO.

We need to keep in mind, too, that HP is very much a work-in-progress. She has many more books to the series which could easily change our perceptions about her and her intentions.

Re: Everyone is special in one's own way...

Originally posted by Maharlika

Are we really being too paranoid by putting too much hidden meanings in Rowling's HP series...

...or are we taking the kids for granted that they wouldn't notice these "alleged" hidden/subtle messages.

You don't like taking sides, do you?


And I suppose that the remaining three books that we are waiting for (in America. Number 5 has already been released in Europe, I've been told) could easily change my opinions and everything I've said so far in this thread. She could turn the tables a little bit and make the story seem a bit more like Fable is pointing out, or it could focus on Muggles as being more equal in thier own ways. Who knows.

Weasel - *pokes him* You should read the books...Harry actually wants to be one of the normal (relatively speaking) kids n the school, though his unknown history kind of interferes. It seems like he's getting pulled along by force, not by choice.

My addition to this thread...

Originally posted by Aqua-chan
And I suppose that the remaining three books that we are waiting for (in America. Number 5 has already been released in Europe, I've been told) could easily change my opinions and everything I've said so far in this thread. She could turn the tables a little bit and make the story seem a bit more like Fable is pointing out, or it could focus on Muggles as being more equal in thier own ways. Who knows.

Now, i own all the HP books and i know that number 5 is defenetaly no out yet. Not in europe either.... i wish it was!

Re: My addition to this thread...

Originally posted by Bloodmist
Now, i own all the HP books and i know that number 5 is defenetaly no out yet. Not in europe either.... i wish it was!

Are you sure? My "friend" must have been putting me on.

[/spam]

Oh, a question. Why do the American publishing companies "edit" the HP books? In Canada, we get the European versions...which are the original versions writen.

Do the companies think little children are too simple to see the word "philosopher"? (Philosopher's Stone was changed to the Sorceror's Stone).

Why is the 4th book 100 pages longer in the US then in Canada (and I assume Europe)?

I really don't care about the deeper matters and themes in the book. Its fantasy, I don't care. If I were younger her evil little plots won't get stuck in my head, I probably won't even notice them.

That being said, I've read a bit of the first book. I don't like HP. Its too childish (may just be the fact that my mind had already decided that before I opened the book) and just not fun.

I can't stand to read books about people around my age. They are the worst in the world! It was ok when I was 8 and read a book about some 10 year old's adventure, but being older now, they seem ridiculous. Thats why all books I read, and have read for the past few years deal with adults, like the different Fantasy series or science ficiton.

As far as I have heard, yes, they do think that kids in America are too simple to see 'philosopher' in the title of a book. However, this could well be because the book may be aimed at a younger target market in the US, for whatever reasons .

Dunno about GoF being longer in the US

Perhaps "Philoshopher" in Europe is America's "Sorcerer".

When I hear the word Philosopher, I don't think of a magic user, but more of a person who comes up with poety on life and optimism. They may have changed it because what one word means someplace can conjure an image of something else in another.

The word philosopher has a definite meaning, which is the same in the US and Europe AFAIK. It is someone who thinks, questions reality and seeks answers to fundamental questions of existance. You know, Aristotle, and all that crowd ( @Kam).
I would love to know where the 'Philosopher's Stone' myth comes from though if anyone knows

Originally posted by Aqua-chan
Perhaps "Philoshopher" in Europe is America's "Sorcerer".

It could possibly refer as well to the fact that European history includes the famous search for the Philosopher's Stone, a mythical artifact of the early Rennaisance that supposedly granted perfect health, immortality, complete knowledge of all things, and a few other little side benefits. American history starts later, and so lacks this. Where Philosopher's Stone would conjure images of alchemists crafting a magical stone to Europeans, Sorceror's Stone might be the best (though a pale) American equivalent.

Originally posted by frogus
Dunno about GoF being longer in the US

Well, my GoF is about 630 pages long...I've heard the american version is over 700.

For anyone interested in reallife quidditch, check the following link http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=125

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Well, my GoF is about 630 pages long...I've heard the american version is over 700.

My GoF is 685 pages... I'm from Europe (Denmark, to all the stalkers)