Harry Potter?

[Byzantine]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1325371937' post='2360843']
The first two movies (2001 and 2002) were rated G. The third (2004) was rated PG. The fourth (2005) was rated PG-13, as were the later ones. None of them are rated R. Harry and friends were 11 in the first movie, and aged one year each movie. So, it begs the question....why would you expect an adventure movie about 17 year olds to be appropriate for a 12 year old audience?

11 year old kids who saw the first HP movie in theaters back in 2001 were now 21 year old adults when the final movie came out this past summer. The actors and actresses are no longer considered child actors, but have moved on to college or careers at this point.

The argument has been all along that both the books and movies aged with the kids in the audience. If you read the first two books, they're rather juvenile school adventure stories. The third one introduces the adults as characters...and the fourth one has a much more mature writing style, and is much longer. The 5th, 6th and 7th books are all over 750 pages long...in the hardcover.
[/quote]

They also, in my opinion, peak at the third book, then decline after that...

[mysisterisalittlesister]

I just think they're a pretty good series, and I don't think they get worse farther into the series, in fact, i think they get better.

[MithLuin]

Though the 5th one, in particular, suffers from a lack of editing. I think that when authors become bestsellers, the editors aren't as willing to be ruthless with them...and it shows. You need heartless editors to make a book as good as it can be. Nice or gentle editors aren't much use.

[desrtflower23]

Harry Potter is a very interesting and fun to read series in my opinion. I think that these books are fine as long as kids are grounded in truth. Parents should explain to their young, impressionable children that true sorcery is deceptive and soul destroying. As long as this is clear, I do not see any reason why a kid shouldn't read these amusing books.

[Lil Red]

i was just reading this site tonight:
http://hpotterfacts.tumblr.com/

[Basilisa Marie]

LOTR created the modern fantasy genre. Harry Potter participates in the modern fantasy genre. It's like comparing a dinosaur with a gecko. Sure, you can see how they're related - but really, which one is more powerful?

One of the things the series stresses is that without proper training and discipline, all sorts of bad things can happen if one tries to use his or her magical ability. Just like any skill. You can't go drive a car without having been taught how to properly do it. Students aren't even allowed to use magic outside of school until they've graduated.

I definitely agree about the fifth book. But as annoying as Teenage-Angst-Harry was, I feel like that showed an important point in his character development. I mean, the kid was raised by hateful relatives who lied to him about pretty much everything that was important to his parents and later himself, forced him to live in a cupboard, then when he finally gets his reprieve from them to an amesome school where he can finally make friends and be normal for once, he learns that nope, the most evil bad wizard in the last century is plotting to kill him. Plus with all the crud that happens to him, I'm surprised he didn't fly into a rage sooner.

lol, I just saw the one about Tonks and Lupin - JKR also killed them so she could save Mr. Weasley, after she realized that she couldn't in good conscience kill the only remaining entirely positive father figure in the series. Plus it makes a nice parallel to Harry, seeing as they left behind a baby son.

[mysisterisalittlesister]

I wish people would stop comparing the books, I think they are both very good books and they both have strongpoints and they both lack .

[mysisterisalittlesister]

[quote name='desrtflower23' timestamp='1325480046' post='2361538']
Harry Potter is a very interesting and fun to read series in my opinion. I think that these books are fine as long as kids are grounded in truth. Parents should explain to their young, impressionable children that true sorcery is deceptive and soul destroying. As long as this is clear, I do not see any reason why a kid shouldn't read these amusing books.
[/quote]
I ran out of props, but wow, that just explained what I feel! Props!

[quote name='mysisterisalittlesister' timestamp='1325510617' post='2361603']
I wish people would stop comparing the books, I think they are both very good books and they both have strongpoints and they both lack .
[/quote] [Harry Potter and LOTR]

[Papist]

I thought these were very interesting.

[url="http://www.instituteoftheholyspirit.com/Article-HARRY%20POTTER%20AND%20THE%20DEATH%20THAT%20FOLLOWS.pdf"]http://www.institute...T%20FOLLOWS.pdf[/url]

[url="http://www.courageouspriest.com/video-father-calloway-speaking-harry-potter"]http://www.courageou...ng-harry-potter[/url]

Edited January 6, 2012 by Papist

[Katiebobatie94]

[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]

lol

[Katiebobatie94]

[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]

DUMBLDORE!!

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1325279201' post='2360102']
Yep, basically. In the Harry Potter world, magic is an innate ability (you're either born with it or you aren't). Genetically, it works out to probably be at least two genes, one of which is dominant, one recessive, controlling magical ability. [No, the author didn't say that; I did.] So, it's what you do with it that determines whether you are using your abilities for good or evil. One branch of magic is called Dark Arts, and these are recognized to have nefarious uses. Of course, this subject is not taught at Hogwarts; they have only a class called 'Defense Against the Dark Arts.'

Dark Arts allow you to hurt and manipulate people, or rip your soul and place part of it in an object. That sort of thing.
Transfiguration allows you to transform one object into another. In and of itself, that is neither good nor bad. Certain transfiguration spells would fall under Dark Arts. Others would not.

If that helps.
[/quote]

That does help. So basically, magic can be good or bad depending on 2 things - the nature of the act that the magic performs, and the intention of the magician.

So, if a spell always kills somebody, then it's black magic. What about using that spell to protect somebody? Is that "black magic for a good cause"? In the Harry Potter world, is that good or bad?

If it's good, then what does that say about black magic? That black magic can be good, right? And if it's bad, then basically that's saying that black magic is always bad. Am I right so far?

Edited January 6, 2012 by fides' Jack

[Papist]

This is what stuck out to me in Father Jim Costigan's article.




[quote]

“Lighten up,” we're told. “It's just fantasy, make-believe, like Grimm's Fairy Tales. You let your kids read Tolkien and Lewis, right? What's the harm?

Here's the harm: [b]Our heroes are sorcerers[/b]. The characters we admire spend seven years studying and a lifetime becoming proficient in something that is intrinsically and gravely evil – sorcery. No room for doubt here. [b]Magic is good, Dark Magic is bad[/b]. This is a false dichotomy. In the real world, in God's Eyes, all sorcery, the manipulation of the preternatural powers –which means, yes, demons – is dark, is evil. [b]The end justifies the means[/b]. This should be a bright red flag for American Christians. As we contracept for the good of our marriages and kill babies and old people for wonderful long-range goals, so Harry, Ron, and Hermoine lie, cheat, steal, and harm others so that someday Voldemort will be defeated. [b]Muggles are pathetic and/or despicable fools.[/b] “Perfectly normal,” “boring,” “law-abiding,” “square owners” of “square houses” --Muggles (non-magical people), as exemplified by the narrow-minded, hideous Dursleys and the timid, inept Prime Minster, are nuisances or burdens to Harry and company, pawns or targets to Voldemort. As a Christian is by definition a Muggle, the message to our children is: “Magic is fun, hip, exciting, and powerful; your old religion is dull, dumb, dorky, and dead.” [b]Break the rules and be rewarded; disobey and win[/b]. Instead of being expelled from Hogwarts for disobeying Madam Hooch's order not to fly on his broom, Harry is made Seeker for the Gryffindor Quidditch team. This sets a pattern for the whole series –repeated reinforcement of the principle [b]The end justifies the means[/b]. Our heroes constantly gain victories, and even the approbation of authority, by bending rules and breaking laws. [b]“Babies” may be chopped up and stewed –or just left to suffer. [/b]Check the treatment a Mandrake (a magical plant described as a “small, muddy, extremely ugly baby . . .”) receives from young witches and wizards in Professors Sprout's herbology class (Yr 2, 91-94, 234); then take a look at how Harry, safe and secure in the limbo of King's Cross, responds first with a desire to comfort, then with revulsion, then, finally, with cold indifference to the sufferings of (what is apparently all that is left of Voldmort after the final duel) “. . . a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, . . . shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath (Yr 7, ch 35).” This is horrific stuff, even in the Culture of Death. Especially in the Culture of Death. [b]Harry sites link to Satanism sites on the Net[/b]. Is that scary enough?


[/quote]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1325876463' post='2364014']
This is what stuck out to me in Father Jim Costigan's article.
[/quote]

This is a disgustingly ignorant article. Obviously the author has never cracked the spine of any of the books.

Actually, as we've said many times in this thread, the "magic" in the books may be called "magic," but it's vastly different from real life magic. The "magic" in the books is an innate skill that can be used for good or evil, the emphasis is always placed on making sure you use all talents for good, and that love is more powerful than any "magic." One of the most important lessons Harry and his friends learn is that whether or not one is magical or comes from a magical background has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is a moral person. Mandrakes are a mythical creature popular in English lore - not substitutes for actual babies. As for the one "left to suffer" - that was the final remnant of the most evil wizard's soul. If anything it's an illustration of our own souls if in a state of mortal sin, and completely obstinate in our rejection of God's forgiveness. Harry can't do anything to help it because Voldemort has made his own choices in his life, and must face the supernatural consequences.

However, yes, it is entirely possible that kids reading the series might become interested in real-world magic, which is why parents need to know their kids and actually have an active involvement in the lives of their children. You know...be parents.

Culture of Death...how about this: the wizard prison has guards called "Dementors" that will smell of elderberries out the soul of someone convicted of a crime - it's basically the same as capital punishment. But the positive characters in the books make a point of showing their distaste for such a practice. And as for Potter sites linking to satanism sites...show me one. I dare you to show me just one that does so. I've spent ten years on various Harry Potter sites and have never seen a single one that does so.

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1325875120' post='2364007']
That does help. So basically, magic can be good or bad depending on 2 things - the nature of the act that the magic performs, and the intention of the magician.

So, if a spell always kills somebody, then it's black magic. What about using that spell to protect somebody? Is that "black magic for a good cause"? In the Harry Potter world, is that good or bad?

If it's good, then what does that say about black magic? That black magic can be good, right? And if it's bad, then basically that's saying that black magic is always bad. Am I right so far?
[/quote]

You can't use the killing spell to protect somebody...you've got too many other options of spells to throw at them to disable them otherwise (you can lock their legs, "petrify" them, create a magic shield between yourself and the attacker, etc), which is why the Killing Curse is illegal outright with no exceptions. One of the most important points of the books is that Harry [i]always [/i]chooses to use a disarming spell against his attackers, even if they are chasing him, throwing the killing curse at him. There's even a conversation where one of Harry's friends tells him that the bad guys consider it a "trademark" of Harry's to always disarm instead of kill.

The only ambiguity between light/dark magic that I can remember is when Harry and his friends use one of the illegal mind control curses on someone, but no negative consequences are shown. But we've discussed that in this (or another?) thread on here.

[MithLuin]

Yes. J. K. Rowling establishes three curses that are called Unforgiveable; the penalty for using one on a human being [i]and getting caught[/i] is a life-sentence in Azkaban (the prison).

The Unforgivable Curses are:

[list]The Cruciatus Curse: The effect is to torture the victim; people subjected to this curse tend to writhe on the ground in pain screaming; if forced to endure it for too long, it has permanent mental side effects.

The Imperius Curse: The effect is to put another person under your control, so that they obey your commands (effectively removing their free will). A person could remain under this curse for an extremely long time, though their odd behavior may give it away.

The Killing Curse: The effect is to separate the soul from the body, instantly and irrevocably killing the victim. [/list]

Here they are demonstrated in one of the movies:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4XLZUAot4[/media]
Now, there are all sorts of things going on in this scene that are not immediately apparent. You are meant to have your doubts about the teacher and what he's up to teaching a class like this.


Now...there are a few issues with JKR's scheme. One, we see wizards (even students) use these left and right with impunity; no one ever gets caught. Yes, yes, Death Eaters do occasionally go to jail, but clearly the Ministry isn't really capable of (or interested in) enforcing this rule. So, they are illegal, but the consequences don't always follow. Which leads....to even the 'good guys' using two of these before the end of the series. In one case it's 'for a good cause', but really....it's because there's a war on. Not quite as 'Unforgivable' as they were originally presented! Similar to the Animagus registry; officially, no wizard is supposed to become an Animagus (person who can transform themselves into an animal and back) without registering with the Ministry. One of the Hogwarts professors is an official Animagus. But....a lot of people met throughout the books are also Animagi, even though there's no Ministry record of them.

And there's an obvious loophole to the whole Unforgivable Curse business. What should be illegal? These curses? Or torturing, killing and taking over someone's mind? Because a resourceful wizard can achieve the same effect while using a different curse. The love potion Amortentia effectively destroys a person's free will, too, even though it's not (strictly speaking) the Imperius curse.

Harry finds this out when he tries out the spell 'Sectumsempra' without first knowing what it does.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH-7IPqJPXk[/media]

He didn't know what he was doing, so it was a mistake. And, in the book, it's clear that Draco was in the midst of casting a lethal spell; not child's play. But....magic is definitely presented as dangerous. Luna's mother was killed when she tried out a new spell that went horribly wrong. Dumbledore used to have a younger sister, but he and his friend Grindelwald were not entirely careful and....she died. A witch or wizard could choose not to learn how to wield magic, but that's dangerous, too - then you have no control and it can 'act up' on its own by accident. So, magic is not presented as fun and harmless (by any means), but as a normal part of life that witches and wizards have to deal with because they were born that way. It has a light and fun side, sure, but also a much darker and more dangerous side.

As the kids grow up (they're 11 in the first book; 17 in the final one), they are exposed to more and more serious effects. People (including students) die along the way. Harry, Ron and Hermione are attacked by a troll in the school during their first year. Moaning Myrtle is a ghost in book 2; you learn that she was killed while she was a student at Hogwarts. A current student is murdered in book 4. Etc.

For someone who is very concerned about kids being exposed to the idea of magic, I guess I can see why they would want to keep their kids away from it. I read them as an adult, so really don't see the harm. But then...I'm used to magic being a part of fantasy works.

Edited January 7, 2012 by MithLuin