Harry Potter

[Arlekino]

This old story, why flying brooms gained unbelievable enormous success. I did not read those books, I watched film in my opinion it just another story. Vow and writer Rowling is richer than queen.
Anybody got opinion on this?
Thanks

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I liked them, they were the first books I read that were more than 100 pages long. My third grade teacher would read us Harry Potter books for 15 minutes after lunch everyday.

[Eleutheromaniac]

The stories were enjoyable. It was almost like you were growing up with the characters. Everyone in the story had a foil, and you found out more about them every year. It was very interesting to see the rise and fall of Voldemort, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil. There is no shortage of symbolism in Rowling's writing. It's amazing how she planned out the interconnection of people, places, and events. Part of the allure was that every book was a cliff-hanger.

[Blake's Baby]

Or, it's a faux-English (or actually Scottish) private-school romance where the young orphan finds out he's secretly rich and special, and battles ugly baddies (and foreigners) to win the hand of the winsome ginger lass (and not his spirited female, but brainy and therefore unattractive, friend).

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's evil witchcraft. :D

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Or, it's a faux-English (or actually Scottish) private-school romance where the young orphan finds out he's secretly rich and special, and battles ugly baddies (and foreigners) to win the hand of the winsome ginger lass (and not his spirited female, but brainy and therefore unattractive, friend).

I'm pretty sure that's not the message the book is trying to convey, especially the foreigners part.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm pretty sure that's not the message the book is trying to convey, especially the foreigners part.

Not exactly but he's fairly spot on. In all honesty the way the Harry Potter series is written is fairly similar to the Twilight series (not that I read them, but I read a chapter or so of the one just to confirm my suspicions). Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the books growing up, quite alot. However now as an adult and an aspiring journalist and writer, its clear to me that the writing is in itself of low quality.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Not exactly but he's fairly spot on. In all honesty the way the Harry Potter series is written is fairly similar to the Twilight series (not that I read them, but I read a chapter or so of the one just to confirm my suspicions). Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the books growing up, quite alot. However now as an adult and an aspiring journalist and writer, its clear to me that the writing is in itself of low quality.
Well of course, it's written for children, I read them growing up(like La Pulga Atomica said, part of what was great was it seemed like you were growing up with the characters). And wasn't Harry Potter around before Twilight, Twilight would be the one fairly similar to Harry Potter.

And all of that stuff did happen. But, for example, Harry finding out he's rich has almost nothing to do with the story. Harry's wealth is a non-factor in the story, if you took it out it would basically look exactly the same. And the foreigner part, foreigners in the book aren't "baddies", they actually befriend some of them. The "baddies" in the book are mostly from Great Britain one presumes since most of the Death Eaters that are talked about and Voldemort went to school at Hogwarts. I don't even understand the criticism against Harry not to fall for Hermione. Yeah in the first couple books Hermione is described as being the unattractive nerdy girl, but by book 3 or 4(Presumably when they're all hitting puberty) she is described as becoming attractive and Harry still isn't falling for her, Ron does in the end. And it's a fantasy book, of course the main character is going to find out that he's special :rolleyes:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And it's a fantasy book, of course the main character is going to find out that he's special :rolleyes:

A hallmark, I'd say, of shit fantasy (which unfortunately happens to dominate the genre entirely, particularly with all the Tolkien-puke and the such-wannabes with their awful medieval borefests.)

[A Revolutionary Tool]

A hallmark, I'd say, of shit fantasy (which unfortunately happens to dominate the genre entirely, particularly with all the Tolkien-puke and the such-wannabes with their awful medieval borefests.)
Why?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Why?

Why not? I don't like "special" characters. Chosen Ones, so on, so forth, so generic, so uninteresting. Sometimes a useless perfunctory Mary-Sue, with special powers that make him/her the ultimate one to defeat all evil. Apropos of that, I hate when there is a clear distinction between some "evil" and "good" characters, too. Subtleties must be too much to ask for in some these cases. Although Harry Potter is not guilty of much of the Mary-Suing so common otherwise with useless plot-devices á la Frodo, the notion of a main character being superior and specially gifted does not appeal to me, and I feel it also reflects a cultural individualism.

A specially gifted main character is particularly common in bad fantasy (even beyond the subject of the Mediaeval fetishists that have almost taken over the entire genre). It's a simple point to start from and therefore will appeal to such hack writers. I prefer if things are a bit more... multifaceted.

[Rafiq]

A hallmark, I'd say, of shit fantasy (which unfortunately happens to dominate the genre entirely, particularly with all the Tolkien-puke and the such-wannabes with their awful medieval borefests.)

What do you think about Game of Thrones? I found it to be a viable alternative to the Tolkien-esque garbage. It's not perfect and it's still bourgeous literature but I'd say it's among the first bourgeois-medieval fantasy literature, the rest being simply reactionary.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What do you think about Game of Thrones? I found it to be a viable alternative to the Tolkien-esque garbage. It's not perfect and it's still bourgeous literature but I'd say it's among the first bourgeois-medieval fantasy literature, the rest being simply reactionary.

I have not read the books, but I thought the television series was quite all right (bit reluctant to read the books because R. R. Martin strikes me as something of an arsehole), and I liked how it avoided some of the worst clichés (otherwise I also like China Mieville's works.)

[Blake's Baby]

... Harry finding out he's rich has almost nothing to do with the story. Harry's wealth is a non-factor in the story, if you took it out it would basically look exactly the same...

Not true. The fact that Harry is loaded is both a source of some tension between him and Ron (Harry is embarrassed by being richer than Ron, Ron is somewhat resentful) and a source of a relatively easy life for Harry in many respects. It's Ron that gets the piss taken out of him for having second-hand robes etc, whereas Harry has the best of everything (and then has a rich and mysterious godfather to send him presents anyway). Harry's struggles are all spiritual, he never materially has to struggle for anything or face any real material hardship.


... And the foreigner part, foreigners in the book aren't "baddies", they actually befriend some of them. The "baddies" in the book are mostly from Great Britain one presumes since most of the Death Eaters that are talked about and Voldemort went to school at Hogwarts...

Some of them are from Britain, and most of them are ugly (because ugliness = evil as we all know), but yes, some are handsome and aristocratic and British and bad.

Few foreigners are 'good'. There is something sinister about the majority of the Durmstrang boys and their masters, though the Bauxbatons girls (probably because they're girls, and Rowling is nothing if not conventional) are good at causing boys to faint with desire and generally being pretty and whimsical.



... I don't even understand the criticism against Harry not to fall for Hermione. Yeah in the first couple books Hermione is described as being the unattractive nerdy girl, but by book 3 or 4(Presumably when they're all hitting puberty) she is described as becoming attractive and Harry still isn't falling for her, Ron does in the end...

No, she's not described as being 'an unattractive nerdy girl'. She is shown as being a nerdy girl, and the reader is invited to fill in 'unattractive' by themself. What possible attraction could there be in bookish, know-it-all Hermione (who don't let's forget is muggle-born, and therefore, like poor ginger Ron whose family live in a tumbledown house and breed like rabbits, is not one of us)?

Hermione is feisty and opinionated, and therefore not suitable wife material for our hero. Ginny is grateful and adoring and therefore perfect.



... And it's a fantasy book, of course the main character is going to find out that he's special :rolleyes:

Why? Tolkien may have been badmouthed in the last few posts but the worst that can be said for Frodo is he's a bit bourgeois. He may be rich (because his uncle had adventures) but the whole point of the Lord of the Rings is that Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are not special. They are both literally and figuratively 'little people in a big world'. Aragorn is 'special', but anyone who think the Lord of the Rings is about Aragorn is an idiot, or Peter Jackson, or both.

It is possible to write stories where the main characters don't have super-powers.

However, I haven't written a best-selling series of children's fantasy novels that pretty much re-invented the genre (ie, produced a bazillion imitations) while simultaneously re-introduced a generation of kids (especially boys) to reading; so maybe I should stop carping.

What I don't like about them - in brief - is that they are so very conventional.

[Rafiq]

I have not read the books, but I thought the television series was quite all right (bit reluctant to read the books because R. R. Martin strikes me as something of an arsehole), and I liked how it avoided some of the worst clichés (otherwise I also like China Mieville's works.)

Yeah I don't think I'll ever read the books either and Martin does kind of strike me as a dickhead

[Fourth Internationalist]

A hallmark, I'd say, of shit fantasy (which unfortunately happens to dominate the genre entirely, particularly with all the Tolkien-puke and the such-wannabes with their awful medieval borefests.)

Do not ever insult Tolkien.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Speaking of fantasy books, what'd you insufferable critics think of "The Golden Compass" (and subsequent books in that series)? I thought that book was amazing when I was a kid.

[Rafiq]

Do not ever insult Tolkien.

Tolkien was a talentless piece of shitscum who made his support for Franco even clearer than the reactionary garbage that resided in his literature.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Or, it's a faux-English (or actually Scottish) private-school romance where the young orphan finds out he's secretly rich and special, and battles ugly baddies (and foreigners) to win the hand of the winsome ginger lass (and not his spirited female, but brainy and therefore unattractive, friend).

And don't forget that the only significant Chinese charcther in the book is portrayed as a spineless traitor who Harry again dumb for the ginger lass, because she is Chinese and therefore unattractive.

Though for the sake of combating liberalism. I admit that I was rooting for the girl since at the time I had a bit of yellow fever. So I guess It'd be hypocritical to call it racist without noting my own racism. I still admit that I have a certain preference but these day's I'm dating a Caucasian girl for the sake of combating my racism so I guess I'm better now

[GiantMonkeyMan]

And don't forget that the only significant Chinese charcther in the book is portrayed as a spineless traitor who Harry again dumb for the ginger lass, because she is Chinese and therefore unattractive.
Erm... in the books Cho, the chinese girl, doesn't betray Harry and sides with him. It's her friend who gives away the group's activities. In the films she's interrogated and fed a truth potion that could hardly be counted as 'betrayal'.


Few foreigners are 'good'. There is something sinister about the majority of the Durmstrang boys and their masters, though the Bauxbatons girls (probably because they're girls, and Rowling is nothing if not conventional) are good at causing boys to faint with desire and generally being pretty and whimsical.
In the books, the two other schools are composed of both male and female pupils. Similarly, the only girl who has any magical power over the opposite sex is Fluer who is a quarter Veela. I agree with a lot of your analysis of Ron's character and the dynamic between Harry and Ron. Interesting to note, however, is that JK Rowling based Hermione's character on herself, in some ways, so having her stand-in end up with the character without material wealth is interesting.

At the end of the day the series was created for children and developed for teenagers. The beginning is almost Cinderalla-like; young person lives with abusive relatives but suddenly finds out they are special and introduced to a magical world etc.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Not true. The fact that Harry is loaded is both a source of some tension between him and Ron (Harry is embarrassed by being richer than Ron, Ron is somewhat resentful) and a source of a relatively easy life for Harry in many respects. It's Ron that gets the piss taken out of him for having second-hand robes etc, whereas Harry has the best of everything (and then has a rich and mysterious godfather to send him presents anyway). Harry's struggles are all spiritual, he never materially has to struggle for anything or face any real material hardship.I think most of the tension between Harry and Ron resides in the fact that Harry is the famous chosen one which defeats Voldemort and is destined to to do it again. Harry is the center of attention, everything is always happening to Harry, while he doesn't get much recognition for doing anything. Always standing in Harry's shadow. Harry being rich is not an integral part of the story. Most of the items he gets throughout the story are not things that Harry buys, they're gifts or things he just stumbles upon. Ron does get shit for being poor, that's true. I don't see what would be wrong with that though in the book. Who's always giving him shit for being poor?


Some of them are from Britain, and most of them are ugly (because ugliness = evil as we all know), but yes, some are handsome and aristocratic and British and bad.

Few foreigners are 'good'. There is something sinister about the majority of the Durmstrang boys and their masters, though the Bauxbatons girls (probably because they're girls, and Rowling is nothing if not conventional) are good at causing boys to faint with desire and generally being pretty and whimsical.And there are good characters like one of the guys in the Order of Phoenix who is from some African country. Can't remember his name but he shows up numerous times to protect Harry. And Harry's first girlfriend is an Asian. She's not evil. And like GiantMonkeyMan noted, in the books both schools are co-ed schools and only in the movie do the girls from Bauxbatons make the guys faint at their sight when they arrive. I'll give you that in the series anybody that has a Russian sounding name is portrayed as evil.


No, she's not described as being 'an unattractive nerdy girl'. She is shown as being a nerdy girl, and the reader is invited to fill in 'unattractive' by themself.Okay well you just did that yourself, isn't that the fault of you, the reader then? And as the story goes on she's described as more and more attractive, so what is your beef again?


What possible attraction could there be in bookish, know-it-all Hermione (who don't let's forget is muggle-born, and therefore, like poor ginger Ron whose family live in a tumbledown house and breed like rabbits, is not one of us)?:confused:
These are main characters, characters that you're supposed to care and love for, all of which have their own struggles. Hermione is muggle-born therefore constantly discriminated against. By whom again? Oh yeah, the douches of the story, the "bad" guys, not by the "good" guys. The bad guys, the Death Eaters, are the ones killing Muggles and muggle-born, so wouldn't the message be not to discriminate against those that are different, those that are "not one of us"?


Why? Tolkien may have been badmouthed in the last few posts but the worst that can be said for Frodo is he's a bit bourgeois. He may be rich (because his uncle had adventures) but the whole point of the Lord of the Rings is that Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are not special. They are both literally and figuratively 'little people in a big world'. Aragorn is 'special', but anyone who think the Lord of the Rings is about Aragorn is an idiot, or Peter Jackson, or both.

It is possible to write stories where the main characters don't have super-powers.Yeah it's true that it's possible, but I don't see why it's necessarily bad for the main character to have something special about them like Harry does or Neo in the Matrix.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

And don't forget that the only significant Chinese charcther in the book is portrayed as a spineless traitor who Harry again dumb for the ginger lass, because she is Chinese and therefore unattractive.

Though for the sake of combating liberalism. I admit that I was rooting for the girl since at the time I had a bit of yellow fever. So I guess It'd be hypocritical to call it racist without noting my own racism. I still admit that I have a certain preference but these day's I'm dating a Caucasian girl for the sake of combating my racism so I guess I'm better now
Lol wut? You're dating a white girl to combat your racism?

In the books she's described as very attractive. I don't remember exactly how they meet or anything but I'm pretty sure it was one of those things where Harry looks across the room and sees this beautiful girl and gets a boner. And as GiantMonkeyMan explained, it was her (white) friend that snitched them out in the books, not Cho.

[Blake's Baby]

I think most of the tension between Harry and Ron resides in the fact that Harry is the famous chosen one which defeats Voldemort and is destined to to do it again. Harry is the center of attention, everything is always happening to Harry, while he doesn't get much recognition for doing anything. Always standing in Harry's shadow. Harry being rich is not an integral part of the story. Most of the items he gets throughout the story are not things that Harry buys, they're gifts or things he just stumbles upon. Ron does get shit for being poor, that's true. I don't see what would be wrong with that though in the book. Who's always giving him shit for being poor? ...

Is it a cop-out for me to go, 'well you're American and don't get all the references to the sociology of class'? Because really I think you're missing something here. Harry is distinctly, sociologically, 'middle class' (as is Frodo in LotR). Ron is distinctly working class (as is Sam in LotR). There is a class dynamic between them. I don't know how that can be denied.


...And there are good characters like one of the guys in the Order of Phoenix who is from some African country. Can't remember his name but he shows up numerous times to protect Harry. And Harry's first girlfriend is an Asian. She's not evil. And like GiantMonkeyMan noted, in the books both schools are co-ed schools and only in the movie do the girls from Bauxbatons make the guys faint at their sight when they arrive. I'll give you that in the series anybody that has a Russian sounding name is portrayed as evil...

Not sure it says in the books that Kingsley Shackbolt is black, it may do (if it did, I don't remember, as it's not really important and I may have just forgotten, that's how anti-racist I am). Cho's not 'foreign', nor are the Patel sisters, they're British; they're just British of immigrant families. We do have British Asians you know (and in a British context, Cho isn't 'Asian', the Patels are 'Asian' because 'Asian' in Britain means South Asian not East Asian).


Okay well you just did that yourself, isn't that the fault of you, the reader then? And as the story goes on she's described as more and more attractive, so what is your beef again? ...

1 - I didn't do it, you did; you described her as 'nerdy and unattractive'. Almost all of my best friends (male and female) are nerds, so I think Hermione is fabulous. By far the best of the kids (with the possible exception of Neville).
2 - we are invited to identify with Harry. It's his story after all. The fact that he isn't attracted to Hermione means that we are invited to not find her attractive. I'd posit that we're not supposed to find her attractive, because she is nerdy and bossy and a know-it-all. Not conventionally-desirable characteristics in a heroine.


:confused:
These are main characters, characters that you're supposed to care and love for, all of which have their own struggles. Hermione is muggle-born therefore constantly discriminated against. By whom again? Oh yeah, the douches of the story, the "bad" guys, not by the "good" guys. The bad guys, the Death Eaters, are the ones killing Muggles and muggle-born, so wouldn't the message be not to discriminate against those that are different, those that are "not one of us"? ...

Harry is 'in' because he is special - 'the Boy who Lived'. He is famous (though at the beginning he doesn't know it). He has a destiny. He is important (oh, and did I mention, rich?). Hermione is not important, not famous, not rich; Ron is not famous, not important, not rich. Neither is Ginny of course, but she is 'adoring and grateful' as I put in my previous post, unlike Hermione who is bossy and opinionated (and a far more rounded character).


...Yeah it's true that it's possible, but I don't see why it's necessarily bad for the main character to have something special about them like Harry does or Neo in the Matrix.

Because if fantasy is to have allegorical relevance it must relate to something. The story of 'Everyman' is one of a normal person in extra-ordinary circumstances. The story of 'Superman' is of an extra-ordinary person in normal circumstances. 'Harry Potter' however is the story of an extra-ordinary person in extra-ordinary circumstances. Where's the tension?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Potter. Not brilliant works of art, but certainly enjoyable enough stories, whether it be the books or the films.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Lol wut? You're dating a white girl to combat your racism?
I wonder how that works? :confused:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Tolkien was a talentless...
Rafiq, dear, if I could, I'd gulag your ass for that. :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not exactly but he's fairly spot on. In all honesty the way the Harry Potter series is written is fairly similar to the Twilight series (not that I read them, but I read a chapter or so of the one just to confirm my suspicions). Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the books growing up, quite alot. However now as an adult and an aspiring journalist and writer, its clear to me that the writing is in itself of low quality.

The writing isn't really all that different from other similar books and having read the first half of the first Twilight books I'd also have to say that there is no comparison. Potter is sometimes akwardly written, often repetative and slow to develop steam: but the language is fine and the images are decent for children's books and the plots (IMO) are fun and tend to be clever but the strong part is in the world and character creation. Twilight is much more poorly written on all counts: plots are boring and tensionless (unless the tension of trying to figure out if anything meaningful is actually going to happen counts), the characters are flat and often rutterless in motivation, while Harry is realitivly self-absorbed the books are aware of this and will knock Harry down a peg but the central character in Twilight is an infantalized teenage woman who likes to be carried by rich men and has no sense of the larger world and the book is oblivious to this.

I didn't like the Harry Potter books after I read the first one because of a lot of the things people brought up. The first book really is: isolated boy finds out he's rich and special and everyone pretty much adores him and his main problem is that this causes resentment in some and others resent him for not joining their house. Nothing too different than many other similar books. I think as the books develop and enter the world of the parents and the hidden magical community, they become much more interesting; Harry often feels that he's a pawn in a much bigger game rather than being the "chosen one" and the problems become issues of realizing that not only are there good adults and bad adults but that institutions and a whole society can be corrupt and then how do you figure out who's right and who to trust.

On a side note there are also a lot of just little awsome things for a magical children's book to take up: Dumbeldore's Army, liberating the house-elves; and developing alliances of sometimes competative magical beings in order to stand up to an ineffectual or repressive beurocracy that is doing nothing to arm the population against magical-fascism.

At any rate I think it's this growing awareness of the larger world and trying to figure out how and why adults sometimes accept strange assumptions and practices that makes the book series stand out a bit.

For the most part, I think the aspects of the book that people have been complaining about are by and large conventions of the genre. There are 10,000 english language books (just a guess :D) for children about a lonely kid that finds out that there is some kind of role in an adventure for him to play. Complaining that Harry is identified as middle class in background (by the way, isn't Ron's dad some ministry beurocrat - so wouldn't they just be middle class too - I think the elite wizzards don't like them because they are a non-money old wizzarding family, not because they are working class - it's more like Rich conservatives and community level Labor party functionaries IMO) when almost every character in pop-fiction is a journalist, archetiect, doctor, detective, fiction-writer, again is sort of a wierd criticism to make of a non-marxist writer. It's where the Potter books move outside of that, that they become more interesting and will (maybe the movies and not the books, but the characters and stories in some form) probably stick around after people have forgotten about Twilight.

[Invader Zim]

Is it a cop-out for me to go, 'well you're American and don't get all the references to the sociology of class'? Because really I think you're missing something here. Harry is distinctly, sociologically, 'middle class' (as is Frodo in LotR). Ron is distinctly working class (as is Sam in LotR). There is a class dynamic between them. I don't know how that can be denied.

Actually, I don't see it either. The comparison between Frodo and Harry is incredibly misleading. Frodo, and more particularly Bilbo, begin the LOTR and the Hobbit, as wholly sheltered archetype members of the rural middle-class. And the entire parable of those books is of the decline of the rural middle class and the rise of the industrial working class (ever noticed that the nemesis characters, Souron and Saruman, both rule over expanding proto-industrial urban wastelands? Frodo is dragged from his happy, calm life to defend Middle Earth, and the Shire, from the threat posed by these industrializing agents to this lifestyle. That is the underlying function of LOTR, to hark back to a 'better' mold, at least in the authors mind, of English existence. It is, in many ways, a rehashing of the same ideas expressed by William Blake.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, has no such theme - and the character has no such prior existence before he begins his adventures. He is an unloved child living as a pariah with his abusive white, middle class, suburban relatives, who enjoy a relatively affluent existence which they deny to Harry. Harry is reduced to a pauper status, without adequate accommodation, or even clothing - his origins are a mystery to him and the truth is jealously guarded by his relatives. Eventually he is rescued from this existence by the intervention of outside forces who whisk him to freedom in the form of a private boarding school. In this respect Harry actually has far more in common with Jane Eyre. Jane, like Harry, lives in a relatively affluent household. However, she, like Harry, exists in that world as an unwanted social pariah of secondary value and status. She, like Harry is the subject of both torment and abuse from her affluent relatives. And she, like Harry, has little conception of her origins, which are withheld from her. And, again, like Harry is the benefactor of kindly intervention by outside forces who enable her escape to boarding school - in this instance not the school itself (as in the case of Harry Potter), but the family apothecary Mr. Lloyd, who noting Jane's plight, sympathetically facilitates her escape to boarding school, by manufacturing the excuse that it would improve her behavior. This is done with the explicit, and sympathetic, intention of removing Jane from her plight.

Another, slightly lesser fitting, though still viable, comparison is that of Great Expectations - which again explores a related theme. Aside from the fact that Harry Potter is a tale of good and Evil, and a fantasy book involving magic, I can see little serious comparison to be made between LOTR and Harry Potter. At least, not in the matter in which you are attempting, anyway. LOTR is about perceived social decline, while Harry Potter is a re-imagining of a well trodden variant of the 'School Story' as it typically appeared in English literature prior to the 1950s. it has far more in common with Bronté, Dickens, Hughes, etc., than it does to Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Actually, I don't see it either. The comparison between Frodo and Harry is incredibly misleading. Frodo, and more particularly Bilbo, begin the LOTR and the Hobbit, as wholly sheltered archetype members of the rural middle-class. And the entire parable of those books is of the decline of the rural middle class and the rise of the industrial working class (ever noticed that the nemesis characters, Souron and Saruman, both rule over expanding proto-industrial urban wastelands? Frodo is dragged from his happy, calm life to defend Middle Earth, and the Shire, from the threat posed by these industrializing agents to this lifestyle. That is the underlying function of LOTR, to hark back to a 'better' mold, at least in the authors mind, of English existence. It is, in many ways, a rehashing of the same ideas expressed by William Blake.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, has no such theme - and the character has no such prior existence before he begins his adventures. He is an unloved child living as a pariah with his abusive white, middle class, suburban relatives, who enjoy a relatively affluent existence which they deny to Harry....

I know. It's as if Frodo has been brought up by the Sackville-Bagginses.

Seriously though, I'm only comparing Harry to Frodo because they're both representatives of the 'middle class'. And yes, I am well aware of the connection between Tolkien and Blake. Who do you think 'Blake's Baby' is? A creative revolutionary spirit called 'Orc', I'd wager... who for Tolkien (who was a hopeless Catholic reactionary), becomes an entire hideous and frightning demon-race (who speak with lower-class accents).


... Aside from the fact that Harry Potter is a tale of good and Evil, and a fantasy book involving magic, I can see little serious comparison to be made between LOTR and Harry Potter. At least, not in the matter in which you are attempting, anyway. LOTR is about perceived social decline, while Harry Potter is a re-imagining of a well trodden variant of the 'School Story' as it typically appeared in English literature prior to the 1950s. it has far more in common with Bronté, Dickens, Hughes, etc., than it does to Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, etc.

I agree. That's why I started saying it was a English private-school adventure story. It reminds me of the stories I used to read about Greyfriars, Billy Bunter and whatnot. And, obviously, it's kinda similar to 'the Worst Witch' and such like stories.

The point of comparison I was making between Potter and LotR was only about the class dynamics between some of the main characters.

[Art Vandelay]

And don't forget that the only significant Chinese charcther in the book is portrayed as a spineless traitor who Harry again dumb for the ginger lass, because she is Chinese and therefore unattractive.

Though for the sake of combating liberalism. I admit that I was rooting for the girl since at the time I had a bit of yellow fever. So I guess It'd be hypocritical to call it racist without noting my own racism. I still admit that I have a certain preference but these day's I'm dating a Caucasian girl for the sake of combating my racism so I guess I'm better now

Finding a particular race particularly attractive is not racism.

[Blake's Baby]

Calling one's attraction to Chinese girls 'yellow fever' might be considered a sign of it though.

[Narcissus]

What do you guys think of the way muggles are portrayed. They are the mass who do not attend this exclusive private boarding school, because they are not born with an innate talent for magic that is often passed down through a family (as is wealth).

[Igor]

What do you guys think of the way muggles are portrayed. They are the mass who do not attend this exclusive private boarding school, because they are not born with an innate talent for magic that is often passed down through a family (as is wealth).

Why the hell would they attend this exclusive private boarding school that teaches the one thing that they have no potential of doing? The books have lots of questionable shit going that has been discussed already, but I don't think the way muggles are portrayed is one of those. Also the past persecution of wizards by muggles is mentioned in the book, isolation makes sense for the wizards.

Muggles are overall on the sidelines of the story, the one tying the high fantasy world of the wizards to the real world. I wouldn't really say they're described in any particular way, they're just people doing their thing and very few of them are really described in detail. You have good muggles, you have shit muggles, but none of them are really focal characters.

[kashkin]

On the topic of fantasy in general, Michael Moorcock's criticisms are interesting, especially his look at Tolkien.
This is the essay, 'Epic Pooh'. (http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953)

[Oswy]

It has already been said but Harry Potter is, at bottom, middle/upper-class fantasy in which children who have 'special gifts' (a substitute for wealth) have ripping adventures together in an environment of privilege.

The Americans have Batman; super-wealthy vigilante gets to play with cool super-toys while dispatching the bad guys and ignoring the underlying social and economic realities which generate and sustain glaring inequalities. The British have Harry Potter, lol

[Invader Zim]

It has already been said but Harry Potter is, at bottom, middle/upper-class fantasy in which children who have 'special gifts' (a substitute for wealth) have ripping adventures together in an environment of privilege.

And as also noted, that is a load of crap. Trying to read some form of political or economic message from Harry Potter is like looking for signs of the future in sodden tea-leaves - you are attributing meaning to purely random patterns.

The fact is that magic is not a metaphor for wealth. In fact magic has nothing to do with either wealth, economic status or background, in the books. Moreover, Rowling paints a relatively complex economic picture, involving discussion not only of the economics and currency of the 'wizarding' world, but also of the 'muggle' world, through the process of comparison and contextualization. The fact that Harry, or any of the other wizard children from non-magical backgrounds, has no impact on their status outside of the 'wizarding' community. And their wealth in the 'real' world has no impact on their status in the wizard community.

Have you actually bothered to read any of the books, or seen any of the films? Because even a perfunctory glance at source material should disabuse you of these notions. The fact is that these are children's books with a simple narrative, plot and conceptual foundation in a purely fantastical world. It is not Lord of the Rings (a discussion of English rural decline), The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (a fable encouraging Christian values and belief), Animal Farm (a fable about the betrayal of the Russian Revolution by the Stalinist regime), etc, which all deploy various literary devices to seriously discuss issues relevant to the author's contemporary society, while masking that discussion in fantasy and fable.

Harry Potter, if it has any message, is one of simple tolerance. The only serious metaphor, directed at socially educating the reader, is that of 'muggle-born' vs 'pureborn' which is a clear critique of racism. And it is, obviously, very crudely done.

[Sasha]

i though the dumbeldore character being gay and having had a difficult but important same sex relationship in the past was a nice novelty and often overlooked.

[Luís Henrique]

The Americans have Batman; super-wealthy vigilante gets to play with cool super-toys while dispatching the bad guys and ignoring the underlying social and economic realities which generate and sustain glaring inequalities. The British have Harry Potter, lol

If so... then UK 473 vs US 0.

As in a soccer game, of course; multiply by 20 and add 6 if you are thinking in terms of basketball.

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

lotr and harry potter are boring

[GiantMonkeyMan]

lotr and harry potter are boring
It's all subjective, really. I remember reading both series as a kid and loving them but now I couldn't be bothered with either. The films aren't exactly brilliant in both cases as well.

[Luís Henrique]

No, she's not described as being 'an unattractive nerdy girl'. She is shown as being a nerdy girl, and the reader is invited to fill in 'unattractive' by themself. What possible attraction could there be in bookish, know-it-all Hermione (who don't let's forget is muggle-born, and therefore, like poor ginger Ron whose family live in a tumbledown house and breed like rabbits, is not one of us)?

It might come as a shock, but perhaps Ms Granger has a mind of her own, and in such mind there is no place for fantasies about Mr. Potter?

She fancies Ron Weasley, and it is funny, because Ron fancies her, too, but is so unaware of his own feelinigs that he doesn't realise it.

(If Harry and Hermione fancied each other, much of the interest of the other characters would wane; they are both so overwhelming that if they formed a couple there would be little to write about anything else than their relationship, and the books would have to change into something much more romantic - and conventional - than they actually are.)


Hermione is feisty and opinionated, and therefore not suitable wife material for our hero. Ginny is grateful and adoring and therefore perfect.
Indeed: Hermione is suitable wife material for Ron Weasley, who is not feisty or opinionated, nor particularly clever or talented, and certainly not very adept of hard work into the mysteries of knowledge.

Or perhaps we should say that Master Weasley is suitable husband material for Ms Granger? (Perhaps, even, because he is grateful and adoring?)


Aragorn is 'special', but anyone who think the Lord of the Rings is about Aragorn is an idiot, or Peter Jackson, or both.Or simply hasn't read the books, or any reasonable review on them.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Harry Potter, if it has any message, is one of simple tolerance. The only serious metaphor, directed at socially educating the reader, is that of 'muggle-born' vs 'pureborn' which is a clear critique of racism. And it is, obviously, very crudely done.

There is also the message that rules are important, and should usually be followed - but that they also should be broken when necessary.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

It might come as a shock, but perhaps Ms Granger has a mind of her own, and in such mind there is no place for fantasies about Mr. Potter?...

If the books were called 'Hermione Grainger and the Philosopher's Stone' etc, I think that argument would be worth pursuing.


...

She fancies Ron Weasley, and it is funny, because Ron fancies her, too, but is so unaware of his own feelinigs that he doesn't realise it.

(If Harry and Hermione fancied each other, much of the interest of the other characters would wane; they are both so overwhelming that if they formed a couple there would be little to write about anything else than their relationship, and the books would have to change into something much more romantic - and conventional - than they actually are.)...

I think they are conventional. But you're right that if a central theme of the books was the complicated love affair between harry and Hermione, it would be a different type of convention.


...Indeed: Hermione is suitable wife material for Ron Weasley, who is not feisty or opinionated, nor particularly clever or talented, and certainly not very adept of hard work into the mysteries of knowledge.

Or perhaps we should say that Master Weasley is suitable husband material for Ms Granger? (Perhaps, even, because he is grateful and adoring?)...

Gravity works both ways. Ron is indeed grateful and adoring. And Hermione is unsuitable as a conventional wife for a hero, as she's too clever. And, as A Revolutionary Tool has pointed out, that characteristic means that by default she is unnattractive (to Harry, who is the main focus of the books).


...Or simply hasn't read the books, or any reasonable review on them.

Luís Henrique

You think Jackson wrote the screenplays and directed the films without reading the books?

[Luís Henrique]

If the books were called 'Hermione Grainger and the Philosopher's Stone' etc, I think that argument would be worth pursuing.

Well, yes, the books are about a boy called Harry Potter, not about a girl called Hermione Granger. It doesn't mean the lives ("lives"?) of all other characters must revolve around Harry Potter. Hermione's clearly doesn't, and this is probably part of her being clever.


I think they are conventional. But you're right that if a central theme of the books was the complicated love affair between harry and Hermione, it would be a different type of convention.

Yup. They would probably suck as much as Twilight.


Gravity works both ways. Ron is indeed grateful and adoring. And Hermione is unsuitable as a conventional wife for a hero, as she's too clever. And, as A Revolutionary Tool has pointed out, that characteristic means that by default she is unnattractive (to Harry, who is the main focus of the books).

Not many girls are attractive to Harry (if I am not missing anything, it boils down to Cho Chang and Ginny Weasley - he certainly finds Fleur attractive, of course, just like everybody else, but it doesn't seem to be the same kind of thing he feels about Cho or Ginny).

I don't think a clever woman is by default unnattractive, or needs to be construed as unnattractive. Hermione is unnattractive to Harry because he sees her as a friend, not as a potential lover, and because he, just like everybody else except Ronald Weasley, understands that Ron is fond of her, and so it is a no-no (if he was attracted to Hermione, it would mean that he wasn't aware of Ron's crush on her, and so would harm the elaborate joke about Ron being the only person who doesn't realise he is in love).


You think Jackson wrote the screenplays and directed the films without reading the books?

No, but I suppose that this is what the conjunction "or" is used for, isn't it? An idiot, or Peter Jackson, or someone who didn't read the books. Meaning you could have read the books if you are Peter Jackson, or that you haven't, if you are not.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Americans have Batman; super-wealthy vigilante gets to play with cool super-toys while dispatching the bad guys and ignoring the underlying social and economic realities which generate and sustain glaring inequalities. The British have Harry Potter, lol
Batman would take Harry Potter down, no problem. :laugh:

It's interesting that Superman in his early days was a liberal crusader with superpowers, even called the Champion of the Oppressed in some material, but quickly became another character ignoring social and economic injustice.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's all subjective, really. I remember reading both series as a kid and loving them but now I couldn't be bothered with either. The films aren't exactly brilliant in both cases as well.
You read Harry Potter as a kid. Way to make me feel old. :lol:

I would give each of the LOTR films a full 5 out of 5 stars. Potter films would vary from 3.5 to 4.5 stars depending on the film.

[Oswy]

And as also noted, that is a load of crap. Trying to read some form of political or economic message from Harry Potter is like looking for signs of the future in sodden tea-leaves - you are attributing meaning to purely random patterns...

The medium is the message as they say. The fact that the hero of the books is normatively situated in what is a glaringly obvious substitute for an elite private school where the children are encouraged to believe they are 'special', have 'good breeding' and 'inherited authority' etc, speaks volumes. I don't deny that at other levels of analysis there are messages about doing good deeds, sacrifice, loyalty, etc, etc, but overarching it all is a normativising of the privileged and a promotion of their virtue. Making reference to the odd token working-class inmate won't cut it either.