Harry Potter?

[MithLuin]

I've read all the books and seen all the movies, and really enjoyed them. I think there's a lot of fun stuff all wrapped up together - school stories, magic, mysteries, etc. She does cute/clever little things with developing a really quirky wizarding world.

Doesn't make the books well written or without flaws, of course.

The first few are mediocre, and the later ones (particularly Order of the Phoenix, book 5) needed an editor to trim them down. The writing improved after the first couple, but still contained very blatant character development (or lack thereof). Bad guys (aka Slytherins/Death Eaters) are ugly and racist. Good guys (aka Gryffindors/Order of the Phoenix) are brave and work towards inclusion and tolerance. While certainly I think that an obsession with blood purity is unhealthy and not a good view of the world...all of politics in Harry Potter dissolves into that one question. One can instantly identify what side a character is on based on their views of muggles, muggle-born wizards, or other magical beings (houselves, centaurs, goblins, etc) She works in a couple of instances of nuance - the Weasley twins are undoubtedly on the good guys side, but they are from a pureblooded family, and think that Hermione's 'free the house elves!' campaign is completely misguided. Some of their pranks are far from harmless, so they have a darker more dangerous side that is not really explored but certainly evident. The house elves themselves seem uninterested in freedom from slavery, which makes for an interesting dynamic - who decides what would be 'best' for them? And of course there's Sirius, who was a would-be murderer at age 16 and not terribly good or innocent (though on the 'right' side), and Snape, who is a (former?) Death Eater and thoroughly unpleasant human being...but willingly working for Dumbledore.

The character of Severus Snape was her best creation. Harry, Hermione and Ron are the heroes, sure, but their story moves in fairly straightforward ways. There are other books like that. A kid grows up in horrible conditions living under the stairs? Could be written by Roald Dahl. (etc) But Snape is a fairly unique character who has rather interesting motivations. He comes across as blatantly a bad guy from the very first book, and openly belittles Harry, abusing his role as teacher...and yet, also from the first book, he definitely saves Harry's life. Do you have to be kind to be a good person? Can a bitter misanthrope be a 'good guy'? As I said, he's quite intriguing...especially since he's openly betrayed the two most powerful wizards around (Voldemort and Dumbledore). Casting Alan Rickman may not have matched the age of the character...but his voice and characterization were great!

So, basically, if you want to complain about things in Harry Potter, there's plenty of fodder to do so, but she wrote some very exciting stories and I enjoyed reading them...nor do I feel it was a waste of my time nor dangerous to my soul.

[Basilisa Marie]

Don't forget Slughorn - someone who may be more neutral than good, probably needs a bit too much prodding to contribute to the good side and is a bit too surprised that a muggle-born student would be the best in her class. But he's ultimately a "good guy." And Snape is totally the best.

I think an important point to note about Hermione's "SPEW" house elf movement was that it completely failed on all fronts because she was trying to advocate for a group that she was neither a member of nor even [i]wanted [/i]her "help." She was inflicting her own standards of living and dignity on another group, which in a lot of ways isn't that different from pure bloods inflicting their ideas on those who come from non-magical families (including Hermione's muggle family, making it all quite ironic). What she needed to learn was that house elves derived their dignity from a life of service, and that the proper way to help them was to give them better conditions in which to work. Even when Dobby is freed from an abusive home, he still goes back to work, just at a place with better conditions (Hogwarts), which is something Hermione doesn't really understand.

I could be wrong here (after all, I'm just an American), but I always thought that one of the reasons why JKR had a theme of classism/racism in such a prominent place in her books was that Britain has a strong history of being a very class-based society. Which is interesting, because on one hand you've got all of the terrible oppression some wizards want to inflict on those of "impure blood," especially in the later books, but on the other you've got the House Elves, who want nothing better than to devote their lives to serving a wizarding family. It seems to me that one of the conclusions we can draw is that everyone has a place in a group, as long as that place is one of dignity.

[quote]So, basically, if you want to complain about things in Harry Potter, there's plenty of fodder to do so, but she wrote some very exciting stories and I enjoyed reading them...nor do I feel it was a waste of my time nor dangerous to my soul. [/quote]

I completely agree. The books are also an excellent starting point for lots of good discussions. That's one reason why the fandom is still going pretty strong.

[Pax_et bonum]

JKR created an amazing world alongside ours but invisible to Muggles where one's imagination can go wild, go beyond the books and movies. In the fan-based wizarding world, not all Slytherins are evil and Hufflepuffs (Go Badgers!) are particularly good finders. So even though Rowling has many underdeveloped characters, fans finish developing them for her and create new characters as well. This is why Harry Potter is so big, because people can easily make this fantastic world their own. One can get sorted into a House, many colleges have Quidditch teams and and there's a Quidditch World Cup, you can sing along with the Very Potter Musicals, playing pretend isn't just for little kids. Heaven forbid we use our imaginations

As for Dumbledore being homosexual, like a good writer, she has back stories for many characters that didn't fit into the series--it wasn't just something to get attention. Some of these are up on Pottermore; McGonagall's is amazing! It starts with her childhood and her being the child of a Presbyterian minister and a pure-blood witch, but her father didn't know about his wife being a witch until after Minerva was born. She was even married for a short time.
Snape is the best character. Of the whole series. nuff said
I like the first movie. It's cute, and they're all so innocent. It is directed at a younger audience, though.

[tinytherese]

There's also the issue of the dementors torturing prisoners in Azkaban that's problematic, "the foulest creatures that walk this earth… they glory in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them… If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself… soulless and evil. You will be left with nothing but the worst experiences of your life."

I read part of the first book and didn't like it enough to finish it. I've seen the movies though. Some of them I like, but some of them I don't. The films could have been better, especially for those of us who hadn't read the books. I kept asking questions during the final film since I hadn't read the book that weren't properly answered.

As far as Snape goes...

[spoiler]Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

I have some beef with your review of Deathly Hallows Part 1. As to the first criticism of the double agent scenario, I didn’t find his action bothersome. It seemed reasonable to keep up appearances. To stay quiet would’ve appeared suspicious given that both sides know he is a double agent, Voldemort expected information. Not to give Voldemort anything would’ve damaged his credibility. Perhaps this is made more clear in the books, but it didn’t strike me as odd in the movie.

The other criticism, on the defensive spells of the house, I thought was actually a bit surprising considering it is addressed in the very scene. Who put these defensive spells on the property? The Ministry. Just before the attack on the wedding reception, they hear a voice that tells them that the Ministry has been infiltrated, which means the protective spells are gone, allowing an attack on the property.

I’ve heard the latter explanation given — but only from people who already knew the explanation from the books. It may be that there’s enough information in the film to figure it out, but it wasn’t clear to me on first viewing, anyway.
On the prior point, is the agent’s cover — and the damage done if he doesn’t produce the information — really so crucial that the lives of Harry’s associates can readily be sacrificed for it?

For that matter, isn’t the double agent’s “declared” status at this point now with the villains? What bona fides does he still have, or is he known by Voldemort to have, with Harry’s inner circle of defenders, by virtue of which he would necessarily have the secret information in question — and so certainly that the failure to produce it would blow his cover?

What exactly does the double agent ultimately accomplish by preserving his cover? After sacrificing Mad-eye Moody and potentially others in the battle over Little Whinging, does he ultimately serve any greater purpose on the good side? Or does his double agentry ultimately serve only Voldemort? Did Moody die for nothing?

Source http://www.decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-21

Re: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

I saw Harry Potter today, and thought your review was accurate. But there is a moral problem with the movie (and the underlying book) that’s not evident until you’ve read the final book.

Dumbledore says to Snape, “Severus, please,” right before Snape kills him. It’s ambiguous at the time, but I’ll spoil the last book for you by telling you that [spoiler warning] Dumbledore is asking Snape to kill him so that Draco will survive. And I don’t see any way at all to justify that action on the part of either one. Any way I slice it, Dumbledore is asking Snape to kill him — an innocent party in the dispute. Even to save a third party, one may not choose the death of an innocent person as the means.

Perhaps I’m making too much of this, but the other lesser moral violations (telling of untruths, etc.) in the series don’t bother me nearly as much as this one.

A priest


Your analysis exactly coincides with my own, Father. I haven’t read the latter books, but I have read the plot summaries at Wikipedia.)

If I understand correctly [spoiler warning], Rowling tries to mitigate the moral issue by (a) revealing that Dumbledore was dying anyway and (b) having Snape’s act insinuate Snape further into Voldemort’s confidence. However, (a) from a Catholic perspective Dumbledore’s impending death doesn’t make Snape’s act other than murder, and (b) dramatically Snape’s moral self-sacrifice is wasted anyway since, I understand, he doesn’t accomplish anything and is eventually discovered and killed by Voldemort.
Because of this, I contemplated giving The Half-Blood Prince a minus-2 moral rating rather than a minus-1, but ultimately decided that the explanation belongs to the next film(s) and so the moral weight falls there rather than here.

So, yes, it is a significant moral problem in the story.
Source http://www.decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-15
[/spoiler]

[homeschoolmom]

This is the story about the kid with the little round glasses, right?

[MithLuin]

*double post* sorry

Edited December 1, 2011 by MithLuin

[MithLuin]

I know that Slughorn was intended as an example of a 'good Slytherin', but really, he's merely manipulated by Dumbledore into doing the right thing - his characterization is thoroughly selfish.

And speaking of Dumbledore...he's a master manipulator, and that raises all sorts of flags as to his own guilt/culpability in what happens. Harry goes through a lot of unnecessary angst because Dumbledore is so busy not telling him things.

I don't really feel the need to hide spoilers - but if you're interested in avoiding them...skip to the end and don't read this post.

Dumbledore's 'Severus...please' is a request that Snape kill him. Snape vows to do so at the beginning of the book having already agreed to the murder at the beginning of the year. Why was Dumbledore so intent on being killed by Snape rather than dying peacefully in his sleep or being taken out by a random Deatheater or Draco? Why did Dumbledore make Snape agree to this murder-in-cold-blood? It's not assisted suicide. Dumbledore is very concerned about the fate of his...wand. The wizard who kills him will get ownership of it, and it's teh!most!powerful!wand!ever. He wants to keep it out of the hands of the Deatheaters (and particularly Voldemort). Of course, by asking Snape to do this...as soon as Voldemort figures out the wand-loyalty business, Snape is a dead man.

Snape's role as a double agent (from Dumbledore's pov) is this: by remaining close to Voldemort, he will be able to identify when all the Horcruxes are used up and the game is up. Thus, he will be able to deliver the crucial 'final message' to Harry at the right time. Snape's job is to stay alive long enough to do this, and to figure out a way to convince Harry that he's worth listening to. Dumbledore didn't trust Harry with this information up front because....well, he's concerned about Harry's ability to follow through with that knowledge hanging over his head the whole time.

Fandom is a lot of fun. I've written a little Harry Potter fanfiction myself, and 'A Very Potter Musical' is certainly worth the time to watch it. Another take on Slytherin House is provided by Rebecca Webb in her trilogy of novel-length fanfics: [url=http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SmallestSlytherin/]The Smallest Slytherin[/url]. But I guess there's stuff to be critical about in this fandom, and that's why I'm happy with some of the commentary from fans about how Rowling maybe dropped the ball in some places. Like the discussion of Unforgiveable Curses above - a great concept, and a perfect opportunity to show that some actions have inevitable consequences. But...that's not what happens in the story. You get the, 'It's a war, we have to,' approach and that's it. Murder is supposed to tear your soul, but we only see the effects of this in Voldemort.

[i<3franciscans]

Wow y'all are getting really serious about harry potter. . . just relax. They are just books.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1322767106' post='2343245']
Wow y'all are getting really serious about harry potter. . . just relax. They are just books.
[/quote]
As the significant cultural phenomenon they are, they offer a snapshot of where we might be as a society, and where we might be going.

[mysisterisalittlesister]

[quote name='i&lt;3franciscans' timestamp='1322767106' post='2343245']Wow y'all are getting really serious about harry potter. . . just relax. They are just books.[/quote]
I know, right? I'm sort of regretting starting this thread...

Snape, Snape. Severus Snape. Snape, Snape. Severus Snape...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mysisterisalittlesister' timestamp='1322778949' post='2343352']
I know, right? I'm sort of regretting starting this thread...

Snape, Snape. Severus Snape. Snape, Snape. Severus Snape...
[/quote]
You haven't been here long, have you?

[Luigi]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1322767106' post='2343245']
Wow y'all are getting really serious about harry potter. . . just relax. They are just books.
[/quote]

Clearly, you haven't taken any college-level literature courses. This is tame stuff comapred to what they (critics and/or college students) do to, say, [u]Hamlet [/u]or [u]Pride and Prejudice[/u].

Edited December 1, 2011 by Luigi

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1322781784' post='2343383']

Clearly, you haven't taken any college-level literature courses. This is tame stuff comapred to what they (critics and/or college students) do to, say, [u]Hamlet [/u]or [u]Pride and Prejudice[/u].
[/quote]

Oh, people definitely take Potter to the level of Hamlet and Pride and Prejudice. Those other books just have been around longer. There are plenty of "convention" style gatherings around the world every year that include college-level round table discussions about a lot of the same things we've touched on in this thread.



[quote name='mysisterisalittlesister' timestamp='1322778949' post='2343352']
I know, right? I'm sort of regretting starting this thread...
[/quote]

Why? It's not like we're actually arguing. This is pretty tame for the Debate Table.

[Nihil Obstat]

As a side note, it's a bit of a hobby of mine to analyze pop culture shows and books and movies and whatnot. My friend and I both put a pretty decent amount of effort into analyzing anime. So yeah, I know a lot of people will say that anime is dumb and a waste of time, but we have some pretty interesting discussions about what goes on, what it means, and subjects like that.
Talking about Harry Potter is the same. There's a lot to be found if you look deeper. They're kids' books originally and maybe primarily, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot in there for other audiences to find.

[BG45]

[quote name='mysisterisalittlesister' timestamp='1322778949' post='2343352']
I know, right? I'm sort of regretting starting this thread...

Snape, Snape. Severus Snape. Snape, Snape. Severus Snape...
[/quote]
Mysterious ticking noise?

My officemates and I at my last job did a rendition of that with our faculty members instead of characters...